What wagering amount do you prefer?
For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?
1. A one time wager of $100.00.
2. A wager of $50.00, one additional chance if you lose on wager 1. And if you won either wager 1 or wager 2, would you parlay the win money at all?
3. A wager of $25.00 each time? Again, if you won would you continue flat betting $25.00 or would you parlay or increase your wager once you won?
Please don’t respond about the size of the buy in versus the goal. This is a simple example for comparison what people do.
I never play that way as I gamble for fun; winning is part of it but not the only goal.
Quote: MrVSeems to me that if your goal is to win you should do what the math suggests, which in your example I believe would be to bet it all at once.
I never play that way as I gamble for fun; winning is part of it but not the only goal.
link to original post
Generally agree here. If you are a casual gambler (like me!) I am never at a casino for a specific win goal. Rather, it is a combination of hoping to win but not wanting to lose over a certain vaguely defined amount.
If you have found a game that for whatever reason you have an advantage, then Kelly Criterion will help you define your bet size. If you are just playing a negative game like baccarat or craps or roulette, and have a win amount hope, then exposing your money to the fewest bets gives you the best chance of luckily hitting your goal.
Different situations, different criteria.Quote: Marcusclark66In your opinion and experience is it better to have more chances or do you feel it’s to your advantage to do it in fewer chances to reach your goal?
For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?
1. A one time wager of $100.00.
2. A wager of $50.00, one additional chance if you lose on wager 1. And if you won either wager 1 or wager 2, would you parlay the win money at all?
3. A wager of $25.00 each time? Again, if you won would you continue flat betting $25.00 or would you parlay or increase your wager once you won?
Please don’t respond about the size of the buy in versus the goal. This is a simple example for comparison what people do.
link to original post
When I play in Bricks and mortar, i want my session to last about an hour with maybe a 20 minute break for a bar meal. I've found almost min betting about £200 buy in will usually culminate in final bankroll between 0 and £400. I seldom run out of chips too quickly and I get enough amusement.
Online, I similarly gear towards a session time between 30 mins and an hour. I'm happy to buy in $100 to $400 and would get zero pleasure wagering big. I find a wager of ten percent of standing bankroll can usually sustain a nice session. First time I did it, I played many hours and turned £100 into £6k.
As MrV says, if you have an edge and are being pragmatic, use Kelly. Anything else is just recreational gambling. Nothing wrong with that.
$100.00 buy in and mind made up for a $100.00 goal wagering in $25.00 increments.
If you bet $10 a hand, the chances of being up $100 after any time period are pretty slim.
Over time, the house edge grinds you down so if your goal is when $100 or die trying, I think it's best to make one big wager.
I wouldn't make such a goal, but if I did, that's how I'd do it.
Isn't it closer to 46% because of pushes and also you couldn't follow basic strategy as you have no more money to double or split.Quote: billryanIn BJ, if you bet $100, you have pretty close to a fifty percent chance of being up $100 after one decision.
If you bet $10 a hand, the chances of being up $100 after any time period are pretty slim.
Over time, the house edge grinds you down so if your goal is when $100 or die trying, I think it's best to make one big wager.
I wouldn't make such a goal, but if I did, that's how I'd do it.
link to original post
Of course, but I think only about 46% of the time you will be up $100 after one decision.Quote: billryanPushs aren't a decision. You will either win $100, or lose $100 but about 4% of the time you will get a BJ for $150.
link to original post
Quote: DRichOf course, but I think only about 46% of the time you will be up $100 after one decision.Quote: billryanPushs aren't a decision. You will either win $100, or lose $100 but about 4% of the time you will get a BJ for $150.
link to original post
link to original post
That means you would lose 54% of the decisions. I don't believe that is correct.
At that level of play, I think you’d be pretty safe buying in for $500Quote: ChumpChangeIf I was betting PL + 1 Come Bet with triple odds at a $10 table, my buy-in would be $1200, so that might last me an hour, idk.
link to original post
One big wager would be exposed to the house edge less than lots of $10 wagers, but in a low edge game it doesn't slim your chance of hitting session goal as much as you seem to think. And if you 'shape the curve' with some progressive wagering, your average bet size increases anyway, thus reducing total action.Quote: billryanIn BJ, if you bet $100, you have pretty close to a fifty percent chance of being up $100 after one decision.
If you bet $10 a hand, the chances of being up $100 after any time period are pretty slim.
Over time, the house edge grinds you down so if your goal is when $100 or die trying, I think it's best to make one big wager.
I wouldn't make such a goal, but if I did, that's how I'd do it.
link to original post
Anyways, Works for me.
DRich is right, surely?Quote: billryanQuote: DRichOf course, but I think only about 46% of the time you will be up $100 after one decision.Quote: billryanPushs aren't a decision. You will either win $100, or lose $100 but about 4% of the time you will get a BJ for $150.
link to original post
link to original post
That means you would lose 54% of the decisions. I don't believe that is correct.
link to original post
The probability of an overall win in blackjack is 42.22%, a tie is 8.48%, and a loss is 49.10%. Take out the ties (Don't call them decisions) and you have 46% for the win and 54% decisions for the lose. Of course, if you win, you might win with a BlackJack, thus overshooting the win goal.
By taking smaller wagers, just small enough to eliminate the possibility of splits, doubles and blackjacks overshooting win goal, one slightly increases the probability of achieving goal, something like 46% edges up towards 49% or so.. Bet too small and probability drops down again as we get attrition to the house edge as we ebb and flow.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/7/#post1370
2.3% of the time you get a blackjack for your $150 and some of those are going to be pushed.Quote: billryanPushs aren't a decision. You will either win $100, or lose $100 but about 4% of the time you will get a BJ for $150.
link to original post
We are nit picking over a principle, which we fundamentally agree on: One big wager is exposed to the house edge just once, while a LOT of smaller wagers would expose more total action to the house edge, thus lowering probability of hitting win goal. BUT the pesky 3:2 payout of Blackjack, and the potential for splits and doubles means that the one big wager actually has only 46% probability of success, where some successes overshoot win goal. Structuring smaller bets to eliminate that possibility, actually increases probability of reaching win goal. Until you make bets that are too small.
E.g. One might wager $67 and if that wins without a blackjack (giving $134 and 66 left to win), wager $44 and if that wins without a blackjack(giving $178 and $22 more to win), wager $11 and if that gets a blackjack you only overshoot slightly.
I agree that if you flat bet small, say $5 - 10, then the constant exposure to the house edge will likely grind you down.
I'm not following your "blackack 2.3% of the time. In multideck games, you get BJ roughly every 21 hands. Isn't that closer to almost 5%?
Using DRich' numbers, a $100 bet gets you to your goal 46% of the time. I'm not sure what the formula is for figuring how often a $10 bettor will end up 10 units ahead at any point are, but I'm sure it isn't as high as 46%.
If your goal is to win $100 or bust, which I understand his question to be, it seems one big bet is the better choice.
My math skills suck, compared to many on this board, so I may well be mistaken.
Quote: billryanWe seem to be in agreement, in principle
I'm not following your "blackack 2.3% of the time. In multideck games, you get BJ roughly every 21 hands. Isn't that closer to almost 5%?
Using DRich' numbers, a $100 bet gets you to your goal 46% of the time. I'm not sure what the formula is for figuring how often a $10 bettor will end up 10 units ahead at any point are, but I'm sure it isn't as high as 46%.
If your goal is to win $100 or bust, which I understand his question to be, it seems one big bet is the better choice.
My math skills suck, compared to many on this board, so I may well be mistaken.
link to original post
I was wrong on probability of Blackjack. I'd done 4/13 x 1/13 and forgot to add 1/13 x 4/13 So it should be 4.73% indeed 1 in 21. and of those 1 in 21 will be pushed.
I suck at maths too, but eliminating the possibility of BlackJacks, splits or doubles wildly overshooting target really does significantly improve the probability of success up from 46% towards 49%
An ideal is probably something like wagering 66% of the gap between current bankroll and target bankroll.
I'll come back with experimental simulation of that scheme to estimate probability..
I do these double or lose goals quite often and do OK. I find it an amusingly slow way to lose my pocket money. No amusement for me in a one wager session. Since we are all talking about recreational play, it seems a shame to eliminate fun.
https://wizardofvegas.com/blog/member/oncedear
https://wizardofvegas.com/blog/member/oncedear
I really wanted to know how gamblers think if they had a $100.00 and say it was a $25. Min table, with a $100.00 goal, double profit to walk, etc.
“For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?”
I see it all the time at casinos, just wanted to know the way some reason/think.
Quote: Marcusclark66Love all the math!
I really wanted to know how gamblers think if they had a $100.00 and say it was a $25. Min table, with a $100.00 goal, double profit to walk, etc.
“For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?”
I see it all the time at casinos, just wanted to know the way some reason/think.
link to original post
Betting 25% of your bankroll per hand is a recipe for disaster, especially in blackjack where you frequently double or split, and occasionally will need to do both in the same round. I don't imagine many intelligent people traveling to a casino with four bets as their bankroll. My instincts tell me you'd want close to a $500 payroll to bet $25 a hand, and a person with a $100 needs to find a $5 to have a decent chance of not going broke. That's my rough guesstimation.
Gamblers thinking of wagering 25% of bankroll per round are destined to have short sessions. And sometimes the casino hits and runs too. Your nominal copycat player needs to explain how he will accommodate doubles and splits.Quote: Marcusclark66Love all the math!
I really wanted to know how gamblers think if they had a $100.00 and say it was a $25. Min table, with a $100.00 goal, double profit to walk, etc.
“For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?”
I see it all the time at casinos, just wanted to know the way some reason/think.
link to original post
These are 'Gamblers' we're talking about: Gamblers like MarcusClark and OnceDear. Not advantage players, not savvy investors. Generally tending to be losers. Like you say, YOU see it all the time.
And this is not intended to insult MarcusClark. He does post to the effect that he dumps some 25% of his session bankroll on his wagers. Maybe he can tell us what he's thinking? I'll suggest he's thinking 'It's house money anyway and this always works for me'?
Quote: OnceDearGamblers thinking of wagering 25% of bankroll per round are destined to have short sessions. And sometimes the casino hits and runs too. Your nominal copycat player needs to explain how he will accommodate doubles and splits.Quote: Marcusclark66Love all the math!
I really wanted to know how gamblers think if they had a $100.00 and say it was a $25. Min table, with a $100.00 goal, double profit to walk, etc.
“For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?”
I see it all the time at casinos, just wanted to know the way some reason/think.
link to original post
These are 'Gamblers' we're talking about: Gamblers like MarcusClark and OnceDear. Not advantage players, not savvy investors. Generally tending to be losers. Like you say, YOU see it all the time.
link to original post
BJ is the WORST game out of the lot (baccarat, craps, roulette, Pai Gow poker, Pai Gow tiles) to try this due to the need to split and double, and the occasional BJ payout exceeding even money. It is above my pay grade, but to answer your question in blackjack is a VERY complicated question as to how much to bet to most likely double your starting bankroll. Not being able to split 8’s against a dealer 5 as an example…. Not being able to double an 11 against a dealer 6…. All subtract from what you thought the EV of the game was….
The Blackjack player must ALWAYS have funds ready to use on whatever doubles and splits may arise. A secondary bankroll, if you like, or just wager low to reduce the potential. Secondary bankroll is the way of degenerates, IMHO. 'Just nip off to the ATM' or 'Get a cash advance', he thinks to himself.Quote: SOOPOOQuote: OnceDearGamblers thinking of wagering 25% of bankroll per round are destined to have short sessions. And sometimes the casino hits and runs too. Your nominal copycat player needs to explain how he will accommodate doubles and splits.Quote: Marcusclark66Love all the math!
I really wanted to know how gamblers think if they had a $100.00 and say it was a $25. Min table, with a $100.00 goal, double profit to walk, etc.
“For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?”
I see it all the time at casinos, just wanted to know the way some reason/think.
link to original post
These are 'Gamblers' we're talking about: Gamblers like MarcusClark and OnceDear. Not advantage players, not savvy investors. Generally tending to be losers. Like you say, YOU see it all the time.
link to original post
BJ is the WORST game out of the lot (baccarat, craps, roulette, Pai Gow poker, Pai Gow tiles) to try this due to the need to split and double, and the occasional BJ payout exceeding even money. It is above my pay grade, but to answer your question in blackjack is a VERY complicated question as to how much to bet to most likely double your starting bankroll. Not being able to split 8’s against a dealer 5 as an example…. Not being able to double an 11 against a dealer 6…. All subtract from what you thought the EV of the game was….
link to original post
One of the best games for this exercise is Euro roulette with La Partage rule. Or Baccarat. Since the player is invincible (or believes he is), he can bet player or banker with gay abandon.
Quote: Marcusclark66For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?link to original post
If he is going to wager in $25 increments, he is obviously going to wager in $25 increments.
Right? What am I missing?
His ACTUAL question is in the original postQuote: mwalz9Quote: Marcusclark66For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?link to original post
If he is going to wager in $25 increments, he is obviously going to wager in $25 increments.
Right? What am I missing?
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/36661-what-wagering-amount-do-you-prefer/#post831239
And in any case, although I have special limits at blackjack even my limit isn't 40K a hand, so getting it all back in one hand (absent a double down or split that might come up) wasn't an option.
I did win it all back, but it took hours. And losing it took some time too.
At the level I was playing at that day plus or minus twenty or thirty thousand was within variance for sure.
And it does depend on your bankroll. Mine is massive but still, it just is easier said than done to bet very big in one hand versus pretty big in more than one.
Also your lead opening post refers to GAMBLERS. Unscientific as it is, it's often easier to win big when you have to, versus when you don't.
Quote: OnceDearHis ACTUAL question is in the original postQuote: mwalz9Quote: Marcusclark66For example let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do?link to original post
If he is going to wager in $25 increments, he is obviously going to wager in $25 increments.
Right? What am I missing?
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/36661-what-wagering-amount-do-you-prefer/#post831239
link to original post
His original question also states the player is going to wager in $25 increments. I'm guessing that is a sentence that should be omitted from the original question?
Whatever that means, can you provide some explanation of why that should be so?Quote: MDawgUnscientific as it is, it's often easier to win big when you have to, versus when you don't.
link to original post
Quote: MDawgIt should be obvious to anyone who gambles. When you're down, you want it back, and might have a certain goal (getting even). When you're just playing fresh, you might not care what amount you win. Even if you're counting and spreading you might spread larger if you have a higher goal.
link to original post
And there you have it. Fortunes Formula. If only we could bottle it. In all my years of playing BJ, I've never incorporated my goal into my bets. Now I know what I was doing wrong.
So if I'm using an unbalanced count, do I adjust my bets depending if I want to win $300 that night or $3,000? I get the concept, it's the execution I'm having difficulty with.
Actually your post doesn't even seem to make sense. Why would I use an unbalanced count?
Quote: OnceDearWhatever that means, can you provide some explanation of why that should be so?Quote: MDawgUnscientific as it is, it's often easier to win big when you have to, versus when you don't.
link to original post
link to original post
Quote: MDawgIt should be obvious to anyone who gambles. When you're down, you want it back, and might have a certain goal (getting even). When you're just playing fresh, you might not care what amount you win. Even if you're counting and spreading you might spread larger if you have a higher goal.
link to original post
Sorry MDawg,
I didn't understand the first part. But worse than that, I can't understand the second part, nor even what it has to link it to with the first part. All I see are two three unrelated assertions, each without any evidence or explanation.
Quote: MDawgWell, if a hypothetical gambler has the uncool goal of winning fifty bucks she does't need to spread to 10000, no. And she won't win forty thousand spreading to green chip levels only, either. Unless you're winning most every hand, you gotta bet big to win big.
Actually your post doesn't even seem to make sense. Why would I use an unbalanced count?
link to original post
Why do people use unbalanced counts? To get to the other side of the road? I can't speak for others but I use them because they are simpler and more efficient. I use a version of KISS, with a couple of twists.
Why is fifty bucks an uncool goal? We peasants scale our wagering to match our own entertainment budgets.Quote: MDawgWell, if a hypothetical gambler has the uncool goal of winning fifty bucks she doesn't need to spread to 10000, no. And she won't win forty thousand spreading to green chip levels only, either. Unless you're winning most every hand, you gotta bet big to win big.
link to original post
Should we pawn all our worldly goods to take on our next trip, so we can rub shoulders with proper cool gamblers?
Then we could all come to these forums and spread the word, like my hero MarcusClark66.
Thank you MDawg for showing me the error of my ways. I'm going to scale up my next buy-in by a factor of 100 so that session 29 of my current trip report will have a more cool win goal of £10,000. It's a humble start. If I lose the £10k buy in, I can just about afford to chase that loss with a £25k top-up. Then at a pinch, Buy in #3 could be £50k. But I never need to make a buy in #3.
When I do hit my £10k win goal, I'll feel more confident about ramping up by another factor of 10 for session 30.
Session 29 completedQuote: OnceDearWhy is fifty bucks an uncool goal? We peasants scale our wagering to match our own entertainment budgets.Quote: MDawgWell, if a hypothetical gambler has the uncool goal of winning fifty bucks she doesn't need to spread to 10000, no. And she won't win forty thousand spreading to green chip levels only, either. Unless you're winning most every hand, you gotta bet big to win big.
link to original post
Should we pawn all our worldly goods to take on our next trip, so we can rub shoulders with proper cool gamblers?
Then we could all come to these forums and spread the word, like my hero MarcusClark66.
Thank you MDawg for showing me the error of my ways. I'm going to scale up my next buy-in by a factor of 100 so that session 29 of my current trip report will have a more cool win goal of £10,000. It's a humble start. If I lose the £10k buy in, I can just about afford to chase that loss with a £25k top-up. Then at a pinch, Buy in #3 could be £50k. But I never need to make a buy in #3.
When I do hit my £10k win goal, I'll feel more confident about ramping up by another factor of 10 for session 30.
link to original post
Single buy in 10,000
Cashed out 20,200
Took less than ten minutes.
Quote: OnceDearSession 29 completedQuote: OnceDearWhy is fifty bucks an uncool goal? We peasants scale our wagering to match our own entertainment budgets.Quote: MDawgWell, if a hypothetical gambler has the uncool goal of winning fifty bucks she doesn't need to spread to 10000, no. And she won't win forty thousand spreading to green chip levels only, either. Unless you're winning most every hand, you gotta bet big to win big.
link to original post
Should we pawn all our worldly goods to take on our next trip, so we can rub shoulders with proper cool gamblers?
Then we could all come to these forums and spread the word, like my hero MarcusClark66.
Thank you MDawg for showing me the error of my ways. I'm going to scale up my next buy-in by a factor of 100 so that session 29 of my current trip report will have a more cool win goal of £10,000. It's a humble start. If I lose the £10k buy in, I can just about afford to chase that loss with a £25k top-up. Then at a pinch, Buy in #3 could be £50k. But I never need to make a buy in #3.
When I do hit my £10k win goal, I'll feel more confident about ramping up by another factor of 10 for session 30.
link to original post
Single buy in 10,000
Cashed out 20,200
Took less than ten minutes.
link to original post
Outstanding. Looking forward to many more such reports. Be sure to give credit to all those who made it all possible.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong game.
I'd like to extend sincerest thanks to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who's face featured on every penny I wagered. I'd also like to extend an honorary mention to the Whole of Atlantic City for having such excellent Blackjack rules.Quote: billryanQuote: OnceDearSession 29 completedQuote: OnceDearWhy is fifty bucks an uncool goal? We peasants scale our wagering to match our own entertainment budgets.Quote: MDawgWell, if a hypothetical gambler has the uncool goal of winning fifty bucks she doesn't need to spread to 10000, no. And she won't win forty thousand spreading to green chip levels only, either. Unless you're winning most every hand, you gotta bet big to win big.
link to original post
Should we pawn all our worldly goods to take on our next trip, so we can rub shoulders with proper cool gamblers?
Then we could all come to these forums and spread the word, like my hero MarcusClark66.
Thank you MDawg for showing me the error of my ways. I'm going to scale up my next buy-in by a factor of 100 so that session 29 of my current trip report will have a more cool win goal of £10,000. It's a humble start. If I lose the £10k buy in, I can just about afford to chase that loss with a £25k top-up. Then at a pinch, Buy in #3 could be £50k. But I never need to make a buy in #3.
When I do hit my £10k win goal, I'll feel more confident about ramping up by another factor of 10 for session 30.
link to original post
Single buy in 10,000
Cashed out 20,200
Took less than ten minutes.
link to original post
Outstanding. Looking forward to many more such reports. Be sure to give credit to all those who made it all possible.
link to original post
I extend sincere apologies to All members here EXCEPT for MarcusClark66 and MDawg, for establishing that progressive wagering can be fun, that Hit and run can be fun and that sessions mean everything.
Well, money management and progressive wagering CAN be fun! They do nothing either way to change the house edge. Hit and run and sessions just mean an enhanced ability to brag and to selectively report.
Oh, and for the record, I cordially invite Wizard to examine my Online casino account or [redacted source] account to verify the buy-ins and cash-outs I reported. No need for anyone who doubts me to pay any £10,000 bounty, but if anyone does challenge my reports, and Wizard proves me truthful, then the challenger can fly over to blighty and buy me a beer of my choosing.
Chumpchange:-Quote: ChumpChangeI just tried something like that strategy on the Passline over about 500+ rolls. I lost 6 in a row 3 times. Most of my wins were just winning on the semi-Marty bets which didn't get me ahead. Only outright wins at the minimum bet pushed me ahead. So I bought in for $1,000 and bet $20, $40, $60, $100, $150, $200 (it should have been $300, I wasn't looking closely enough), and lost $1,000 in ~360 rolls (2 losses). Then I bought in for $2,500 and bet $50, $100, $150, $250, $375, $500 (it should have been $750, I wasn't looking closely enough), and lost one round fairly quickly. I made it back to even of the 2nd buy-in but I'm still short $1,000 of my first buy-in. It will take 20 more wins at $50 bets that have nothing to do with coming from behind to pull ahead before I fall back.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong game.
link to original post
1: I know nothing of craps
2: My session reports ARE TRUE, though the 29th was in pennies $:o) I really am up about £1500 real money over the week.
3: I do not advocate trying to replicate my style of play. it is a fun way to probably lose money. I hope you were playing pretend money.
4: ChumpChange, Please engage me by PM with any questions. or if you seek evidence.
5:
Quote: ChumpChangeI was playing WinCraps, which is not real money. Craps is different than Roulette or BJ in that there's not a W/L decision on every roll for the Pass Line. But I thought if I wanted to spend hours and hours on a $100 buy-in with a $2 minimum bet, it'd be worth checking out. I just played 10X those values on WinCraps. There's a Roulette machine nearby with a $3 minimum, so I'd have to have a $4 minimum bet to try it out there ($200 buy-in for the 1st session). It has double 0's, so the HA is prohibitive if spending more than a few hundred spins on the wheel.
link to original post
I do believe most of you are missing my entire point and question.
I will not challenge any of your mathematics, statistics or readers thoughts here into ‘better chances and play’, etc. Most, if not all of you are correct!
I merely turned to you all to gather what you guys would do with the original amount, situation and criteria of play. Which was:
Let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do? In other words, he has $100.00, has to play in $25.00 increments and only wants $100.00 profit ASAP.
1. A one time wager of $100.00.
2. A wager of $50.00, one additional chance if you lose on wager 1. And if you won either wager 1 or wager 2, would you parlay the win money at all?
3. A wager of $25.00 each time? Again, if you won would you continue flat betting $25.00 or would you parlay or increase your wager once you won?
Without adding all of the side views and super smarts about win to loss, play ratios and best chances in and above the criteria, can you all answer the original question within the criteria given, please?
Thank you, sincerely!
I'd likely try to throw 3X 7-11 winners on the come-out at a craps table for this stunt.
I'll add this to my "last 4 bets in a session strategy."
For Baccarat: One wager of entire bankroll on Player. Two possible outcomes.
For Blackjack...
And a few questions have been asked of you and ignored! Makes us less inclined to help.Quote: Marcusclark66I do believe most of you are missing my entire point and question.
To bet entire session bankroll on a Blackjack wager is insane. What if he gets a pair of aces against a sevenQuote:Let’s just take a simple figure of a players goal being $100. He brings a total of $100.00 for his attempt. He’s going to wager in $25 increments. Which would you do? In other words, he has $100.00, has to play in $25.00 increments and only wants $100.00 profit ASAP.
1. A one time wager of $100.00.
Also stupid!. He loses wager #1. wagers his remaining $50 and gets dealt those two aces again.Quote:2. A wager of $50.00, one additional chance if you lose on wager 1. And if you won either wager 1 or wager 2, would you parlay the win money at all?
Almost as dumb.Quote:
3. A wager of $25.00 each time? Again, if you won would you continue flat betting $25.00 or would you parlay or increase your wager once you won?
He must always wager a half of his standing bankroll or justy less. He must also never wager so much that a split or a double might overshoot his $100 profit goal.
With your fingers as calculators, you have now been given the tools to work out the answer. To not do so would be to be ungrateful.Quote:
Without adding all of the side views and super smarts about win to loss, play ratios and best chances in and above the criteria, can you all answer the original question within the criteria given, please?
Quote:
Re read the question. You overshot his win goal.Quote: ChumpChangeHere's one way: bet $25, if you win, double the next bet to $50, if that wins, bet $75, if that wins, you'll be up $150. If you lose the 1st bet, you'll have 3 more chances, or you can quit and rethink your life. If you win $150, you'll have $250, then you could flat bet $25 x 10 for a session.
link to original post
