Blackjack Basic Strategy Potential?
I am wondering about what the profit potential using Blackjack Basic Strategy is (?)
Say I had 100units and played for an hour- What would be an approximate profit in units? (Average)
why would you ask something like that?
Quote: warpzonesHello all
I am wondering about what the profit potential using Blackjack Basic Strategy is (?)
Say I had 100units and played for an hour- What would be an approximate profit in units? (Average)
If you don't count or use other advantage plays you will lose. If you use basic strategy you will lose less. If you use perfect basic strategy you will lose a little less but you will still lose.
That's not to say you won't get lucky after that one hour because you can and will. Ask yourself if that's really how you want to approach blackjack. I wish I could give you a shortcut to learning the game from the ground up but we both know there isn't one. Good luck in your endeavors.
Quote: odiousgambitI posted something but never mind, I just checked out how many threads you have started
why would you ask something like that?
Just trying to gain an understanding of the potential of this
Quote: warpzonesJust trying to gain an understanding of the potential of this
it seems remarkable to me that you would be apparently studying all this and not know that BS does not make the game profitable by itself
do you really study or just snatch at tidbits and run with them?
anyway, here the Wizard compares some other strategies with basic strat.
Quote: linkBad Strategies
Three popular bad strategies encountered at the blackjack table are: never bust, mimic the dealer, and always assume the dealer has a ten in the hole. All three are very bad strategies. Following are my specific comments on each of them, including the house edge under Atlantic City rules (dealer stands on soft 17, split up to 4 hands, double after split, double any two cards) of 0.43%.
Never bust: For my analysis of this strategy I assumed the player would never hit a hard 12 or more. All other decisions were according to correct basic strategy. This "never bust" strategy results in a house edge of 3.91%.
Mimic the dealer: For my analysis of this strategy I assumed the player would always hit 16 or less and stand on17 or more, including a soft 17. The player never doubled or split, since the dealer is not allowed to do so. This "mimic the dealer" strategy results in a house edge of 5.48%.
Assume a ten in the hole: For this strategy I first figured out the optimal basic strategy under this assumption. If the dealer had an ace up, then I reverted to proper basic strategy, because the dealer would have peeked for blackjack, making a 10 impossible. This "assume a ten" strategy results in a house edge of 10.03%.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/basics/#toc-BasicStrategy
Quote: warpzonesJust trying to gain an understanding of the potential of this
Using perfect basic strategy means that over the long run, you should lose only a little bit.
You might get lucky in the short run and win a bit. Don't count on it.
You might get unlucky in the short run and lose a lot. Be prepared for it.
the thing I do not understand is how would a negative progression NOT help you win over the long run when using perfect basic strategy
i use the wizards basic simple strategy, very easy to learn
fairs well for me
Quote: richbailey86any house edge means over the long run you lose even if basic strategy brings it down to .5%
the thing I do not understand is how would a negative progression NOT help you win over the long run when using perfect basic strategy
i use the wizards basic simple strategy, very easy to learn
fairs well for me
How would it help. You're basically riskinng more money to get smaller wins at a higher probability. Yeah say I only lose 1 out of 950 times sounds great until you realize your only being paid 5000 to win 5 numbers are for illustration only.
Quote: TwirdmanHow would it help. You're basically riskinng more money to get smaller wins at a higher probability. Yeah say I only lose 1 out of 950 times sounds great until you realize your only being paid 5000 to win 5 numbers are for illustration only.
I know, but at such a small house edge using basic strategy you "lose less". so after some losses if you increase the stakes how does that not help to recoup losses
Quote: richbailey86I know, but at such a small house edge using basic strategy you "lose less". so after some losses if you increase the stakes how does that not help to recoup losses
You still lose. Putting variance aside for a moment, you will lose the house edge times total money wagered. Double your bet and double your losses.
Quote: richbailey86if you increase the stakes how does that not help to recoup losses
Are your wager increases correlated with some change in your chances of winning?
If not, you're just betting more when the house still has an advantage.
Quote: richbailey86I know, but at such a small house edge using basic strategy you "lose less". so after some losses if you increase the stakes how does that not help to recoup losses
Gamblers Fallacy. If you're not counting then there's no "state" in the game for you. You are then subject to the actual math of the game, where you tie 9% of the time, win 42% of the time, and lose 49% of the time. The fact that you just lost a few hands means nothing on a small scale / non-long run basis. Now if you lost 100,000 hands in a row, perhaps you'd have a 'little' evidence for the long run mathematics of the game. In the short run every hand you play has the individual win/loss rates above. Pretending to ignore the Gamblers Fallacy, essentially I'm saying if you lose 10 in a row then perhaps you're 42.00001% to win the next hand and only 48.99999 to lose. You're overestimating the value of the hands you're seeing in any one particular session; they're not statistically relevant enough to warrant changing your bet, which is why it's pointless. At that small scale the previous hands have no effect on the hands to come. That's like saying "I lost 10 in a row to black on the roulette wheel... Well now I'll up my bet and go to red!" Your losses are not an indicator that you're going to win your next hand(s). RE: See Gamblers Fallacy.
Same thing... Show me a roulette wheel with 1,000,000 red spins in a row and I'll show you a broken roulette wheel, not bet on black. Now show me a FAIR roulette wheel that is a couple deviations away from the mean after 1,000,000 spins. Assuming it is in fact a fair/balanced wheel, then you would have an argument for betting the opposite. This of course gets in to a whole new bag of biased roulette wheels and how if you saw a 'fair' wheel with that much of an offset then you'd want to in fact bet those offset numbers, but that's some research I'll leave you to do =p.
