Blackjack and Game theory

Based on playing our cards perfectly we would win 1 hand an hour, why shouldn't I play at a high enough level that one win would satisfy me for the day, such as 100 a hand 200 a hand and so on. Win one hand being one unit up and quit. I've achieved my average win rate for the hour in one or two hands, why continue to play?

Quote: goodh2o1

Based on playing our cards perfectly we would win 1 hand an hour, why shouldn't I play at a high enough level that one win would satisfy me for the day, such as 100 a hand 200 a hand and so on. Win one hand being one unit up and quit. I've achieved my average win rate for the hour in one or two hands, why continue to play?

I'm assuming you meant to say you expect your total hands won to be one greater than those lost. That is not a reasonable expectation. Overall, you will lose more hands than you win even if you "play your cards perfectly." Yesterday I was playing solo with a theoretical +3% advantage and betting high. I lost 8 hands in a row. Luck trumps probability.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The player never has the expectation to win more often than they lose. Even card counting won't allow you to win more hands than you lose. Hole carding might let you get more wins than losses, but you still never hit 50% win.

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

I'm assuming you meant to say you expect your total hands won to be one greater than those lost. That is not a reasonable expectation. Overall, you will lose more hands than you win even if you "play your cards perfectly." Yesterday I was playing solo with a theoretical +3% advantage and betting high. I lost 8 hands in a row. Luck trumps probability.

I won nine hands in a row this morning flat betting. Paging Martin Gale. :-)

The count hovered between zero and minus 1.