Playing the short game -- Strategy
My roommate and I were discussing strategies for making money at blackjack... a contradiction, I know.
Anyways, we came up with this strategy:
Start with a bankroll of 8 chips and bet 1 chip at a time while playing the basic strategy. Only play on 2 card decks and when you get to +4 chips, leave.
My roommate has done this 5 times and has made about $1000. I understand that in the long run, the house always wins but...
The real question
There will be fluctuations. Your bankroll will fluctuate up and down several times over the course of one playing session.
Could you not consider getting +1 chip above your starting amount almost guaranteed on any given day? I realize how many chips you start with affect your chances of getting to +1 but suppose you start with 10, what is the chance you get to +1 chip any given time you play?
Quote: LuckyDuckyOnly play on 2 card decks and when you get to +4 chips, leave.
What do you do when you don't reach +4 and your BR busts out? What do you do when this happens 3 times in a row?
Quote: EvenBobWhat do you do when you don't reach +4 and your BR busts out? What do you do when this happens 3 times in a row?
You lose your money. That's why I was asking what the chance of getting +1 chip is. In other words, if I start with 10 chips, what is the chance that at some point, I will have 11 before I end up running out of money? Getting +1 should be pretty easy right?
On the side: It requires a lot of self control to stop just one unit up and obviously you'll win 70-80% of the time.
But... since the idea of a session is just an illusion, and your gambling career is really just one big session, it doesn't matter what you do. If you want to win $one unit 88% of the time and lose 8 units 12% of the time, go for it. If your friend wants to win 4 units 66% of the time and lose 8 units 34% of time, let him have his fun.
The only good thing that can be said about this strategy is that you don't play for long. That's good gambling
Quote: dwheatleyIf BJ was a coin flip, the odds of going +1 before losing 8 is 8/9. Since it's not, the odds are a little less than 89%.
But... since the idea of a session is just an illusion, and your gambling career is really just one big session, it doesn't matter what you do. If you want to win $one unit 88% of the time and lose 8 units 12% of the time, go for it. If your friend wants to win 4 units 66% of the time and lose 8 units 34% of time, let him have his fun.
The only good thing that can be said about this strategy is that you don't play for long. That's good gambling
One thing about "resetting" so often by quitting after you get +1 is that the game is more in your favor since the next time you get back in, the deck will be reshuffled. Right?
Quote: LuckyDuckyOne thing about "resetting" so often by quitting after you get +1 is that the game is more in your favor since the next time you get back in, the deck will be reshuffled. Right?
I don't even know where to start with this. Short answer: No, it changes nothing. There are much longer answers that say the same thing.
Quote: dwheatleyIf BJ was a coin flip, the odds of going +1 before losing 8 is 8/9. Since it's not, the odds are a little less than 89%.
But... since the idea of a session is just an illusion,
Funny, I keep saying that, and NO ONE, not even the true experts on this board, seems to believe me.
I mean, so you're ahead +1 unit for this "session". So what?
Quote: ahiromuIn other words, when given a single hand you have a somewhat significantly less than 50% chance to win - but there are a handful of situations where you might end up +2/+3 after a single hand.
You could also end up down 2 or 3 units after a single hand. In order to get back to "+1", you would then have to win 3 or 4 flat bet hands more than you lose for the remainder of the session. The "strategy" is hard to win with if you have an early set back and a relatively small bankroll compared to your bet size.
Quote: mkl654321Funny, I keep saying that, and NO ONE, not even the true experts on this board, seems to believe me.
I mean, so you're ahead +1 unit for this "session". So what?
I believe you,mkl and I mention it often when discussing blackjack. I have at least one post on this board saying that I'm still playing my First session.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard the utterly meaningless "quit while you're ahead."
Quote: LuckyDuckyNew poster here! I signed up because the Wizard of Odds site said to sign up here if I have a question.
My roommate and I were discussing strategies for making money at blackjack... a contradiction, I know.
Anyways, we came up with this strategy:
Start with a bankroll of 8 chips and bet 1 chip at a time while playing the basic strategy. Only play on 2 card decks and when you get to +4 chips, leave.
My roommate has done this 5 times and has made about $1000. I understand that in the long run, the house always wins but...
The real question
There will be fluctuations. Your bankroll will fluctuate up and down several times over the course of one playing session.
Could you not consider getting +1 chip above your starting amount almost guaranteed on any given day? I realize how many chips you start with affect your chances of getting to +1 but suppose you start with 10, what is the chance you get to +1 chip any given time you play?
Betting 10% of ones bankroll is seriously over betting. Your roommate has been extremely lucky but unfortunately it won't last. Those doubles and splits can show up at any time and they won't always go your way.
Quote: benbakdoffI believe you,mkl and I mention it often when discussing blackjack. I have at least one post on this board saying that I'm still playing my First session.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard the utterly meaningless "quit while you're ahead."
According to the wizard of odds site on his house edge calculator, the optimal strategy (for the player) is obtained by reshuffling the deck every hand. I figure that if you only play to +1 and leave, you will be closer to optimal strategy since you obviously cannot stand up and sit down every hand to force the dealer to shuffle.
Quote: LuckyDuckyAccording to the wizard of odds site on his house edge calculator, the optimal strategy (for the player) is obtained by reshuffling the deck every hand. I figure that if you only play to +1 and leave, you will be closer to optimal strategy since you obviously cannot stand up and sit down every hand to force the dealer to shuffle.
You could get the same effect by leaving if more hands than average are being dealt before the cut card (and not just after the first one). The effect described is from the cut card, which means that when "additional" hands are dealt those extra ones are more likely to be in a low-card-rich shoe (and thus more disadvantageous to the player).
Quote: KellynbnfYou could get the same effect by leaving if more hands than average are being dealt before the cut card (and not just after the first one). The effect described is from the cut card, which means that when "additional" hands are dealt those extra ones are more likely to be in a low-card-rich shoe (and thus more disadvantageous to the player).
It would not be the same effect because by the time you notice that more hands than average are dealt, you have already played all those hands with a low-card-rich shoe, thus realizing the disadvantage. Leaving at this point is pointless, because the rest of the shoe is actually likely to happen to be high-card-rich, giving you a slight advantage, that you'd give up by leaving.
Therefore isn't it possible for our topic starter's roommate to be in a winning wave every time he plays?
Quote: IbeatyouracesProblem is you dont know when it will start or end.
That is correct and I didn't even imply it - what I asked was - is it possible for an individual to sit down at a table in the middle of a winning wave enough times (just through blind luck being implied) that at the end of the lifetime the person is ahead of the game?
Quote: IbeatyouracesHighly doubtful. Unless he/she quits if he/she gets ahead and never plays again.
OK - if as I contend that a winning wave is as equally prevalent as a losing wave is as equally prevalent as chop why is it "highly doubtful."
If the person gets chop they more or less break even, if they get a losing wave they lose and if they get a winning wave they win. Therefore it seems to me that a person has two chances not to be on a losing wave, i.e. either break even or be on a winning wave.
Quote: IbeatyouracesOk so you jump into a "winning wave" and you lose 5 bets in a row. Was it a "winning wave?"
You don't "jump" into a "winning wave," you join a game - maybe you open a table. From that point on you are either on a winning wave or a losing wave or a break even wave. What went before has no bearing on what came after. Remember this is a short game strategy and as many others have pointed out there is no such thing as a "session."
My question remains - if you only play short (which I will define as one of the following four states: lose 2, win 2, lose 1 win 1, or, win 1 lose 1 and then quit), you only open tables, and you do that 500 times in a lifetime - since in three of the four scenarios you will not lose - what is the possibility that at the end of the "session" (i.e. a lifetime) you will be ahead?
Then the probability of being up can be estimated with 1-binomdist(501,1000,.498,true) = 41.2%
Quote: MartinOK - if as I contend that a winning wave is as equally prevalent as a losing wave is as equally prevalent as chop why is it "highly doubtful."
It is not as prevalent, because of the house edge. The probability of a single win is lower then that of a single loss, and consequently, winning streaks will happen less often (and/or will be less long) than the losing streaks.
Quote: MartinI find this topic to be excessively interesting. I have often thought of various games of chance (especially baccarat, craps and blackjack) to consist of waves of wins and waves of losses interspersed with chop. I consider it to be equally possible for a player to be in any state of the game (win wave, lose wave or chop) at any given time.
Therefore isn't it possible for our topic starter's roommate to be in a winning wave every time he plays?
It is possible. If the universe of, "lifetime" winners, losers and choppers were placed on a curve, there would certainly be a very small tail that would have folks who have only wins.
Now in order to determine that we have to find out what percentage of each scenario should logically exist based on the normal probability of the game. I.E. out of all hands ever played what percentage would be win win, win lose, lose win, lose lose. Once that is determined then we can probably extrapolate a population on top of that and then we would find out how many of our fellow citizens are always walking around lucky and how many are always just walking around.
Gotta run - hope someone takes this on.
With a bankroll of $500 and a session goal of $50 and a session max of 5 rounds, using the Hi-lo count with I18 and Fab 4 indexes, betting table minimum of $10 at negative and neutral counts, $15 at TC'S +1, $20 at TC'S+2, $25 at TC'S+3, $30 at TC'S+4, and $35 at TC'S+5 and higher your win rate is 100% of the time. Although if you don't have a session goal you win rate is only pennies an hour. So if you are counting and playing all variances since it is a double deck game the only intelligent thing to do is have a session goal. I am not going to say how much I have won using this system but the profits are substantial. I do have a bit more info on the system that would make it more profitable but I think I will keep this to myself for the time being. What I love about this session goal system is that it can be played with any rules and is still 100% profitable if you play it to the tee. Cheers, hope you and your roommate can make a living at the game as I have. Good luck
