Long term Winning

Hello everyone. I'm a blackjack player from Holland. In Holland we play with 6 decks, and the cards are shuffled after each round in the shuffle machine so counting is not possible. We use normal European rules, dealer stands on S17. BJ pays 3:2. No Hole Card. Double down only on 9, 10 or 11 with first 2 cards.
DAS is also possible. You can re-split is many times as you want (also for aces). Hitting splitted aces is not possible. No surrenders. 777 pays 2:1.

So technically, in the long term.. you will lose around 0,6% because 0,6% is the house edge.
I wonder why some players... in the long term (a period of 1 or 2 years, playing 4 or 5 times a month.. flat betting) that I know still win. The do not have the edge but overall they can almost make a living of playing blackjack. Is it because of the standard deviaton? Is it pure luck that they are in front after a long period?
Is there an explanation?

There is also 1 player that plays Punto Banco (Dutch Barracat, no tax on banker but Banker win with 5 pays 1:2) and still have winnings after a long period.
Is this because house edges like 0,6% (BJ) and Punto Banco (0,9% on Banker bet) are so low you almost not notice it after a long period?

I just wonder why some (not all!!!) people can make a living of it.. because the technically fight against a small disadvantage.

Ramond. I've got the answer here for you and it ain't that hard: People are winning because there is no such thing as the long term for the player....it only applies to the house. It is one of the biggest, most sold fallacies about gambling. And just who is supposedly making a living at BJ, and how exactly do you know? Do you spend 24/7 with them and are you allowed access to their bank accounts? Otherwise, anyone who tells you that is lying through their teeth, and then they're lying through yours if they expect you to be gullible enough to believe it.

But...a house edge of < 1% makes for more winners, and less "table hold."
For some casinos, the BJ action is a problem with that small of an edge: when the table hold (the amount of the buy-ins kept by the casino) falls to less than 10% or so, making a profit over expenses is troublesome. 90% goes back to the players, some in a lopsided fashion, making for some winners.
As a result, You'll see more side bets with a high house edge, to try to make up for the smaller profit on the base BJ game.

Quote: Ramond

So technically, in the long term.. you will lose around 0,6% because 0,6% is the house edge.
I wonder why some players... in the long term (a period of 1 or 2 years, playing 4 or 5 times a month.. flat betting) that I know still win. The do not have the edge but overall they can almost make a living of playing blackjack. Is it because of the standard deviaton? Is it pure luck that they are in front after a long period?
Is there an explanation?
I just wonder why some (not all!!!) people can make a living of it.. because the technically fight against a small disadvantage.

Fighting that small of a house advantage, quite a few people will be ahead after a series of sessions like you describe. It is, as you say, "pure luck" whether a person is ahead or behind, but the house edge means that there will always be more people behind than ahead. As the number of hands played grows, the number of people who are ahead shrinks.

No one could possibly "make a living" playing the game you describe, but they could easily get out in front and stay there for quite some time.

Quote: Ramond

Hello everyone. I'm a blackjack player from Holland. In Holland we play with 6 decks, and the cards are shuffled after each round in the shuffle machine so counting is not possible. We use normal European rules, dealer stands on S17. BJ pays 3:2. No Hole Card. Double down only on 9, 10 or 11 with first 2 cards.
DAS is also possible. You can re-split is many times as you want (also for aces). Hitting splitted aces is not possible. No surrenders. 777 pays 2:1.

So technically, in the long term.. you will lose around 0,6% because 0,6% is the house edge.
I wonder why some players... in the long term (a period of 1 or 2 years, playing 4 or 5 times a month.. flat betting) that I know still win. The do not have the edge but overall they can almost make a living of playing blackjack. Is it because of the standard deviaton? Is it pure luck that they are in front after a long period?
Is there an explanation?

There is also 1 player that plays Punto Banco (Dutch Barracat, no tax on banker but Banker win with 5 pays 1:2) and still have winnings after a long period.
Is this because house edges like 0,6% (BJ) and Punto Banco (0,9% on Banker bet) are so low you almost not notice it after a long period?

I just wonder why some (not all!!!) people can make a living of it.. because the technically fight against a small disadvantage.

You have an uncountable game with restricted doubling and no surrender. While it is possible to be ahead at times, the house edge will inevitably rear its ugly head. I'd be very skeptical if someone told me they are beating this game over time. Can someone make a living at this game? Absolutely not. A skilled card counter can make between 1% and 2% of all money wagered, but keep in mind that most counters fall below this and many lose.

Let's see what it would take to make a modest living of $ 30,000 using some of the information you provided. Fifty visits a year at 6 hours per visit is 300 hours per year. Keeping the numbers round and considering the CSM, let's say 100 hands per hour for a total of 30,000 hands.Flat- betting $100 a hand gives us a total of $3 million wagered for the year. To keep the numbers round, I didn't factor in doubles or splits which would add to the $3 million.

Remember the counter's edge? One percent of $3 million is $30,000 and that's before expenses, insurance ,etc. In this example the player would have to have an average win of $600 on each of those 50 visits. Some wouldn't consider 30K as making a living, so double or triple the numbers to fit your own definition.

Once or twice a month I hear people making outlandish claims of winning. When they say it to me, I simply smile and wish them continued good luck. When they say it over and over, I politely tell them to stop embarrassing themselves.

You can handle these "winners" any way you chose, but you have something they don't-knowledge of the game. Don't let them insult your intelligence.

"Once or twice a month I hear people making outlandish claims of winning. When they say it to me, I simply smile and wish them continued good luck. When they say it over and over, I politely tell them to stop embarrassing themselves."

You wouldn't last 20 minutes on vpFREE, where EVERYBODY wins, including MKL!

Quote: benbakdoff

Once or twice a month I hear people making outlandish claims of winning. When they say it to me, I simply smile and wish them continued good luck. When they say it over and over, I politely tell them to stop embarrassing themselves.

You can handle these "winners" any way you chose, but you have something they don't-knowledge of the game. Don't let them insult your intelligence.

Let's say that I win 3 out of every 10 times when I play blackjack. When I say win I mean at least 3x my buy-in (it could be more). When I lose I lose half my buy-in (it is never more - I am very disciplined).

Let's say my buy-in is $100. If three times I win 3x my buy-in then I win 900. If 7 times I lose half my buy-in I lose 350. That gives me a net 550 each 10 times I play or 55 on average (except that "average in this context is meaningless). If I play 50 times a year I will win $2750 for every $100 increment of buy-in I care to risk. If that were $1000 then I would make $27500 a year and so on. Small amounts - nothing outrageous.

Let's continue to say that I'm an expert at blackjack and I neither flat bet nor do I count cards - I consider the former an amateur's way of making their money "last" while they continue to lose and the the latter to be a waste of time (even though I find it easy to do). I increase my buy-in over time commensurate with my "good luck."

Would you say that it is impossible to win 3x your buy-in three out of every 10 attempts?

Quote: Martin

Would you say that it is impossible to win 3x your buy-in three out of every 10 attempts?

Why would it be impossible? Improbable perhaps.

Not to hijack this thread, but to the study of probability, do the terms "likely" and "probable" have specific meanings? Once long ago I was looking into something that indicated that if something had a 1 in 5 chance of happening it meant that event was "likely", and better than 1 in 2 meant it was "probable". I never found out if this was standard evaluation, or this one study just had it that way.

Quote: Martin

Let's say that I win 3 out of every 10 times when I play blackjack. When I say win I mean at least 3x my buy-in (it could be more). When I lose I lose half my buy-in (it is never more - I am very disciplined).

Let's say my buy-in is $100. If three times I win 3x my buy-in then I win 900. If 7 times I lose half my buy-in I lose 350. That gives me a net 550 each 10 times I play or 55 on average (except that "average in this context is meaningless). If I play 50 times a year I will win $2750 for every $100 increment of buy-in I care to risk. If that were $1000 then I would make $27500 a year and so on. Small amounts - nothing outrageous.

Let's continue to say that I'm an expert at blackjack and I neither flat bet nor do I count cards - I consider the former an amateur's way of making their money "last" while they continue to lose and the the latter to be a waste of time (even though I find it easy to do). I increase my buy-in over time commensurate with my "good luck."

Would you say that it is impossible to win 3x your buy-in three out of every 10 attempts?

With the method of play that you describe, yes it is impossible to win 3X your buy-in three out of EVERY 10 attempts.

Quote: benbakdoff

With the method of play that you describe, yes it is impossible to win 3X your buy-in three out of EVERY 10 attempts.

I don't recall describing any method - I simply said I don't flat bet and I don't count cards and I gave my reasons. Why do you say it is impossible?

Quote: odiousgambit

Why would it be impossible? Improbable perhaps.

Not to hijack this thread, but to the study of probability, do the terms "likely" and "probable" have specific meanings? Once long ago I was looking into something that indicated that if something had a 1 in 5 chance of happening it meant that event was "likely", and better than 1 in 2 meant it was "probable". I never found out if this was standard evaluation, or this one study just had it that way.

The meanings of the two words are interchangeable, though common usage often draws a distinction: something that simply has a greater chance of occuring than not is often called "likely", while something that is a heavy favorite to occur is "probable". Weather forecasters, for example, often refer to a 50-70% chance of rain as "likely", and a 70-99% chance as "probable".

In the science of probability, the two terms aren't used to quantify anything precisely because they ARE so vague; you'll see "X% chance of occurence" instead. However, both terms do mean "has a greater than 50% chance of occuring".

Quote: Martin

I don't recall describing any method - I simply said I don't flat bet and I don't count cards and I gave my reasons. Why do you say it is impossible?

It's that pesky house edge, Martin. I don't doubt that you can do it three out of ten attempts but not three out of EVERY ten attempts.

Your friends are lying to you, they are colluding with the dealer or they are getting a hole card advantage. I'd take lying for 100, Alex.

Quote: boymimbo

Your friends are lying to you, they are colluding with the dealer or they are getting a hole card advantage. I'd take lying for 100, Alex.

Hilarious