Best odds of doubling bankroll (no cardcounting)
Thread Rating:
Quote: Billy1337bobWith 8 decks and 0.71%, what is the best tactic and what % is it to succeed? I would assume it would be to just go All-in but if i wagered half on the other hand i risk less and am able to capitalize on double down or splitting if the opportunity arises.
The very best probability of doubling your bankroll before losing it (ignoring house edge) can be calculated from
Probability =(Initial bankroll/(target profit+Initial bankroll) = 1/(1+1) = 50%
Think of it as a single wager on a zero edge coin toss or maybe betting a selected bunch of of the numbers on an imaginary roulette wheel with no zeros.
But that is your absolute best probability under zero house edge conditions.
That is on the assumption that you never allow the possibility of exceeding your target profit. If you've allowed that possibility, you have over bet.
If you go in with one big bet, there is a significant chance of getting a blackjack and so probability has to be lower. Going all in on one bet is also pretty dumb because you may get a hand where doubling is a no brainer or where splitting is damned near essential e.g. 88v7.
On the other hand, if you make lots of small bets, you expose more action to the house edge, which then wipes you out steadily.
So, large average bets are what you need, but not massive.
For a mix of fun and longevity without forfeiting too much probability, something like a marty progression with up to 2% of your bankroll might fit the bill. It's a 'lose all' proposition far more than half the time though. see my blog here for examples of where I messed with marty. See previous posts and spreadsheets from Sally and Romes, and to a lesser extent, myself
I play for fun, not profit though I have made profits through luck.
Far far from recomended for financial purposes, but fun and excitement: Hell yeah.
Whatever you bring to the table has to be put fully at risk to get the best probability of coming out ahead even a little bit.
Quote: Billy1337bobWith 8 decks and 0.71%, .
With that game description are you describing on-line live dealer play?
If there is no resplitting and no double after split and if your objective is to double your bankroll, then I reckon that each bet should be based on a calculation of what's needed to potentially just reach your target capped at 50% of whatever you are currently holding. That cap always leaves enough for one split or double.
So, for example if you start with 1000
Kick of by betting ((2xInitial Bankroll)-Current Bankroll)/2
I.e. For first bet, you only NEED to wager 500 to potentially immediately reach target of 2000 on this round and we cap at 500 anyway so stake 500 ( Remember if you have a double or split at this point, then you might reach target with this round.)
If it wins without Blackjack you have current bankroll of 1500 and so only need to wager enough to have the potential to reach no more than 500 more profit. So you'd stake 250 (that's not over half your current bankroll so stake it). Maybe you will find yourself with a winning double up, which would bring you to target. Job done!
Maybe you get a BJ, which brings you to 1875 In which case then you are just going to stake $62 next. Win a straight bet on that and you could be just $63 from target, and so on and so on. When you get to within $10 of target, then quit while so well ahead or maybe marty with $5 base bet.
Playing as described keeps your bets almost as high and as infrequent as possible to minimise the impact of house edge. You would be leaving the table within a matter of minutes in any case with money damn near doubled, or damn near gone. Remember you are capping bet to 50% of rolling bankroll, so when down to min bet, throw it all in. You are screwed then anyway.
It will be quite a story to report back here with.
You would, of course, have an excellent chance of being broke within seconds. ( Maybe first hand )
PM me for details.
Yes, so naturally the best should be either all in one or 50% of the unit. But what is the actual % of succeeding by either one of the methods? If i go all in is 49.29% to make it really applicable considering that this edge factors in BJ's, splits and double downs?
Quote: Billy1337bob"On the other hand, if you make lots of small bets, you expose more action to the house edge, which then wipes you out steadily."
Yes, so naturally the best should be either all in one or 50% of the unit. But what is the actual % of succeeding by either one of the methods? If i go all in is 49.29% to make it really applicable considering that this edge factors in BJ's, splits and double downs?
No!!!!!!.
All in and leaving no head room for doubling and taking the risk of more than doubling bankroll means the probability of success is MUCH MUCH worse than 49%
With the mass betting approach that I envisioned, the house edge is unchanged. The probability of lose all or double bankroll in just 1 or very few hands makes the house edge rather a moot point. There is no chance of losing only 0.71% of your total action. You are going to be VASTLY more likely to either lose 100% of your bankroll or win 100% of your bankroll.
The house edge calculators themselves make certain assumptions and estimations. they may be out by 0.01% in any case.
:o)
House edge under these circumstances is not worth losing sleep over. Probability of success is very much in the ball park of 49.29% Someone might care to estimate it more accurately based on my suggested dangerous betting pattern. I'm happy to estimate it at 49% In any case it's going to be less than 50%
Quote: Billy1337bobIf i have a 100 and want to reach 200, what exactly am i sacrificing by flatbetting say 5 or 10 per hand as opposed to half of my bankroll every time?
if you bet $100 once, your expected loss is $0.71, or 0.71% of your wager. If you bet $5 100 times in an attempt to get to a $100 win, your expected loss is $3.55, because you are wagering a total of $500 at the 0.71% house edge.
You will take more time, which might mean you are sacrificing something of value, or you might consider it as getting more entertainment value for your money.Quote: Billy1337bobIf i have a 100 and want to reach 200, what exactly am i sacrificing by flatbetting say 5 or 10 per hand as opposed to half of my bankroll every time?
Flat-betting tiny, such as $1 ( impossible, I know) would mean that you would be likely to get the result as dictated by the house edge. You'd probably see a steady-ish decline in your bank balance. With the big bet approach, you'd expose your cash to the house edge far FAR less often. At $10 per hand, you would not be sacrificing much cash value. I can't be bothered to calculate it now, but look out workbooks posted by Mustang Sally or Romes. Risk of ruin calculator might be what you need.
If I go in to a bricks and mortar casino, I would often buy in with £100 and the intent of walking out with £0 or £200. Playing £5 or £10 per hand gives me good entertainment value and I walk out with my £200 about 40 - 45% of the time. Admittedly low sample on that empirical evidence.
But it's all about fun, never about money.
Quote: rdw4potusif you bet $100 once, your expected loss is $0.71, or 0.71% of your wager. If you bet $5 100 times in an attempt to get to a $100 win, your expected loss is $3.55, because you are wagering a total of $500 at the 0.71% house edge.
Good example. It's possible, but tricky to say how many $5 wagers you'd expect to place before you are up £100, but 100 x sounds like the right order of numbers. So, on average and rather approximately, you spend about $3, get lots more play time and you still get a good chance of success.
That $3 cost would be equivalent to another 3% of house edge expense compared to the big bet way.
Still >50% chance of failure, of course.
Not the one I use. Which is why I advised the OP to cap his bet at half bankroll on a game which has NDAS and no resplitting, which is the game he refers to.Quote: RomesI would find it quite interesting if you had a "total" of say $1,000... and you bet it all, and then you got a split or a double... Do online live sites pause for you to reload your account? lol
yesQuote: Billy1337bobYes, so naturally the best should be either all in one
noQuote: Billy1337bobor 50% of the unit.
less than betting all on PLAYER in Baccarat or the PASS LINE at craps or even BANKER at Baccarat if you B happy with a win of 95% (most are)Quote: Billy1337bobBut what is the actual % of succeeding by either one of the methods?
why the interest in the actual %?
for that, one needs to know all the rules of the game, more than 8 deck and a %.
BJ has the lowest win rate of all the casino games in this listQuote: Billy1337bobIf i go all in is 49.29% to make it really applicable considering that this edge factors in BJ's, splits and double downs?
Craps (line bets)
Baccarat (player, banker)
Single Zero Roulette (even money bets)
Blackjack (at the bottom)
yet,
an interesting question that can be solved by many
Sally
Quote: OnceDearYou will take more time, which might mean you are sacrificing something of value, or you might consider it as getting more entertainment value for your money.
That's the thing man. Ofcoure i'd like to win but i'd also like to have some fun aswell and not be done in 2-3 bets like a robot.
Quote: OnceDearFlat-betting tiny, such as $1 ( impossible, I know) would mean that you would be likely to get the result as dictated by the house edge. You'd probably see a steady-ish decline in your bank balance. With the big bet approach, you'd expose your cash to the house edge far FAR less often. At $10 per hand, you would not be sacrificing much cash value. I can't be bothered to calculate it now, but look out workbooks posted by Mustang Sally or Romes. Risk of ruin calculator might be what you need.
Yeah i expose the house edge far less but what to make out of it in terms of actual number, the percentage. If you say that flatbetting 1$ puts my success-rate at the dictated 49.29$ then it appears that i'm not sacrificing anything at all by letting the house see more action with their edge. I understand if you're not upto calculating but personally i have no clue how it should be done.
Quote: OnceDearIf I go in to a bricks and mortar casino, I would often buy in with £100 and the intent of walking out with £0 or £200. Playing £5 or £10 per hand gives me good entertainment value and I walk out with my £200 about 40 - 45% of the time. Admittedly low sample on that empirical evidence.
But it's all about fun, never about money.
Well i'm betting pretty hefty so more than fun to me. It's not a question about winning or losing but i want to guarantee that i maximize my odds and if a betting pattern can do that i want to factor it in. Cardcounting is not an option in this case.
Quote: Billy1337bobWell i'm betting pretty hefty so more than fun to me. It's not a question about winning or losing but i want to guarantee that i maximize my odds and if a betting pattern can do that i want to factor it in. Cardcounting is not an option in this case.
If by "maximize my odds" you just mean maximizing your odds of doubling your bankroll, then blackjack is probably not your best choice.
It seems like you have different objectives which conflict with each other somewhat.
Quote: Billy1337bobWell i'm betting pretty hefty so more than fun to me. It's not a question about winning or losing but i want to guarantee that i maximize my odds and if a betting pattern can do that i want to factor it in. Cardcounting is not an option in this case.
If by "maximize my odds" you just mean maximizing your odds of doubling your bankroll, then blackjack is probably not your best choice.
It seems like you have different objectives which conflict with each other somewhat.
Quote: mustangsallyyes
no
less than betting all on PLAYER in Baccarat or the PASS LINE at craps or even BANKER at Baccarat if you B happy with a win of 95% (most are)
why the interest in the actual %?
for that, one needs to know all the rules of the game, more than 8 deck and a %.
BJ has the lowest win rate of all the casino games in this list
Craps (line bets)
Baccarat (player, banker)
Single Zero Roulette (even money bets)
Blackjack (at the bottom)
yet,
an interesting question that can be solved by many
Sally
If i go all-in i give up the chance to double down or split wich could help me reach the goal with just 50% of my bankroll. But then again if i had bet it all i'd have the chance to take additional cards as opposed to being stuck with a failed double down so i don't know. Also there's things like splitting 8's against 9 and Ace (not 10 apparently in my case since the dealer only peeks for BJ on an Ace upcard) wich by the book are correct moves to make but is it still viable when playing such a small sample of hands? If i put all of my bankroll in on such a split then i won't be benefitting from the long term decreased loss/damage control wich is the reasoning behind them.
The rules:
No DAS
3:2 for BJ
Double on any 2 cards
No resplitting (Aces or otherwise)
Dealer peeks on Ace only
No surrender
S17
BJ has the lowest win-rate you say but still the lowest house edge in total so what to make out of this?
Quote: MrGoldenSunIf by "maximize my odds" you just mean maximizing your odds of doubling your bankroll, then blackjack is probably not your best choice.
It seems like you have different objectives which conflict with each other somewhat.
How can this be the case when BJ has the lowest house edge?
Quote: Billy1337bobHow can this be the case when BJ has the lowest house edge?
House edge doesn't equate to chance of winning on a one time bet.
House Edge != Win RateQuote: Billy1337bobHow can this be the case when BJ has the lowest house edge?
A good game of blackjack has a house edge of let's say .18%... However, blackjack in general, you'll win about 42% of your hands, lose 49% of your hands, and push about 9%. This is due to the dealer acting after you so if you bust and the dealer busts you still lose, along with other rules. So while it has a low house edge, your win rate on your hands is about 42%. The game's HE is lower than 8% because you're allowed to double, split, and get paid 150% on BJ's, which makes up for the monetary difference.
Quote: IbeatyouracesHouse edge doesn't equate to chance of winning.
Sort of. With a betting system such as Marty, he can eliminate the possibility of ever winning more than the target amount and can bring the chance of meeting his 100% profit goal to very close to 49%: Far higher than the possibility of him winning with one all-in hand which is more like 45%. (Mostly because All in, he may get a winning natural, nothing to do with house edge)
I'm actually at odds with Sally on this, but more of that later.
One all-in hand would add about 2% to the house edge against him.
If he wants to play BlackJack, then let's discuss BlackJack and not what might be better.
Billy, flat betting low values such as $1 would eliminate most of the probability of ever doubling your money. Your bets need to be much more substantial if you are to increase the variance and increase the probability of that 100% profit. I'd suggest 5, 10 or 20 a hand as a fair middle ground. Maybe mix it up a bit.
But ffs. don't anticipate playing for monetary profit.
Absolutely maximising probability of doubling needs those very few massive bets. There is a curve you can plot where average bet size decreasing goes hand in hand with probability of success also decreasing. So you cannot say that you want to maximise that probability while having longer sessions, the two objectives go against each-other. You just need to settle to a comfy compromise.
Quote: RomesHouse Edge != Win Rate
A good game of blackjack has a house edge of let's say .18%... However, blackjack in general, you'll win about 42% of your hands, lose 49% of your hands, and push about 9%. This is due to the dealer acting after you so if you bust and the dealer busts you still lose, along with other rules. So while it has a low house edge, your win rate on your hands is about 42%. The game's HE is lower than 8% because you're allowed to double, split, and get paid 150% on BJ', which makes up for the monetary difference.
Yeah but if that is the case then why aren't the BJ's, doubles and splits factored in to my advantage? Then BJ should still come out as the best game and it shouldn't matter.
Quote: IbeatyouracesHouse edge doesn't equate to chance of winning on a one time bet.
Better?
The BJ's, doubles, and splits are factored in to your "advantage" which is the House Edge. From hand to hand though from the math off the top you're set up to only win 42% of the hands, push 9% and lose 49%.Quote: Billy1337bobYeah but if that is the case then why aren't the BJ's, doubles and splits factored in to my advantage? Then BJ should still come out as the best game and it shouldn't matter.
Quote: IbeatyouracesBetter?
Eggsackerly :o)
On a one time bet his probability of a win is in the region of 45%, but he has the potential to win too much with a natural.
With sharp money management and wagering as much as possible as infrequently as possible, and eliminating the possibility of over winning, he can improve on that possibility ( Or so I contend) only a bit, mind.
Quote: RomesThe BJ's, doubles, and splits are factored in to your "advantage" which is the House Edge. From hand to hand though from the math off the top you're set up to only win 42% of the hands, push 9% and lose 49%.
What i'm trying to say is that if there is an edge that gives a certain % then one way or the other there must be a style of play to reach it aswell.
Quite right... Basic Strategy will help you achieve the house edge (.18% in my previous example), and also win 42% of the hands.Quote: Billy1337bobWhat i'm trying to say is that if there is an edge that gives a certain % then one way or the other there must be a style of play to reach it aswell.
I may flag you all if you continue to discuss secretive issues !Quote: RomesQuite right... Basic Strategy will help you achieve the house edge (.18% in my previous example), and also win 42% of the hands.
Just fair warning ;-)
Quote: Billy1337bobWhat i'm trying to say is that if there is an edge that gives a certain % then one way or the other there must be a style of play to reach it aswell.
Yes, with basic strategy you will be expected to lose 0.71% of the amount you bet (according to your original post saying a house edge of 0.71%). But you would want to take a chance by making some big bets if your only goal is to double your bankroll.
You're expected to lose, so if you want to double your roll, the way to do that is to get lucky a time or two and then quit. For every hand you play, the expectation is that you will get farther away from your target.
OnceDear's point is correct. If you bet small, you will likely get to play longer, but you have very little chance of making money. If you bet big, you may go bust immediately, but you also might double up quickly. "Playing a long time" and "having a good chance to double up" are working against each other.
Hah. No need! My posts will disappear =P.Quote: TwoFeathersATLI may flag you all if you continue to discuss secretive issues !
Just fair warning ;-)
Quote: RomesQuite right... Basic Strategy will help you achieve the house edge (.18% in my previous example), and also win 42% of the hands.
I still don't get how i can have such a small edge against and still be better off playing Baccarat or Roulette...
Quote: Billy1337bobI still don't get how i can have such a small edge against and still be better off playing Baccarat or Roulette...
Because the probability of winning a single bet is greater.
We could flip a quarter for $1. But if I only pay you 50¢ when you win, I'd have a HUGE edge even though you'll win half the time.
nothing importantQuote: Billy1337bobBJ has the lowest win-rate you say but still the lowest house edge in total so what to make out of this?
you asked about turning $100 into $200 at BJ and how much to bet.
now you backing away from that original thought?
ok if so
<< >>
the edge is meaningless when trying to double bankrolls
winning probability is far more important i know so
here is one case and I think the majority is like this too
you bet $100 trying to double to at least $200 (you vs dealer)
(A natural would be nice but can't bank on it every hand)
you have 6,5 and the Dealer has a 7
the probability of winning that hand by
NOT doubling and taking just 1 card
and hitting your win goal looks to about 0.5734814447
by doubling you now only have a 0.5487250552 probability of winning and hitting (going over)
your $200 target
way way less chance
I wood think that no splits and no double would double a $100 bankroll more often
than splitting and doubling at BJ
but what fun is that??
now i have your info if i want to use it
still
have fun!
Sally
Quote: RomesQuite right... Basic Strategy will help you achieve the house edge (.18% in my previous example), and also win 42% of the hands.
So then i should play multiple hands. There couldn't really be any other answer because if neither one nor multiple bets decrease the house edge to 0.71% then there's no other alternatives left. An edge that isn't reachable can't exist by very definition of the words meaning.
Blackjack can't offers less chance to double the bankroll than single 0 Roulette and have a lower edge at the same time regardless of how the edge is calculated. I'm not a mathematician but even if i can make out that this is an impossible equation.
yes it sure can and does with most rulesQuote: Billy1337bobBlackjack can't offers less chance to double the bankroll than single 0 Roulette
it would be a good race between doubling bankrolls
at BJ against 00 Roulette (at 18/38)
it is actually very simple once all the math is doneQuote: Billy1337boband have a lower edge at the same time regardless of how the edge is calculated.
I'm not a mathematician but
even if i can make out that this is an impossible equation.
that is the challenge (lots of possible starting hands to consider)
Roulette is super-super easy
wins 18/37 (or 18/38)
I do not recall ever seeing any math person calculate the probability of winning any BJ hand right out of the shoe, they mostly include those values in the calculations of expected value, so it could be done.
Sally
Quote: Billy1337bobSo what does the 0.71% edge in BJ mean exactly if there's no way to reach it?
There is a way to reach it, as people have said. Play basic strategy. You'll slowly lose money over time at the rate of -0.71%.
You seem to be assuming the lowest house edge gives you the best odds of doubling up, which is not the case, and you also seem to have a goal to play for a long time, which is a different goal entirely.
Here's an example that may help understand why you need to precisely clarify what you actually want.
Let's say instead of doubling, I want to get to 35x my current bankroll. This is my ONLY concern. If I play roulette, I can bet my whole roll on a single number and I have a 1 in 38 chance of hitting my goal. Let's say instead I play small stakes blackjack and hope to overcome the house edge and somehow climb up to 35x my roll. The chance of this is close to zero. It's much less than 1 in 38, so even though roulette has a much bigger house edge, and my expected value is worse, I'm more likely to actually achieve my specific target "objective."
If you bet bigger and you bet on more longshots, you have a better chance to win big and a better chance to lose big.
Last I looked souls were generally undervalued by the bookies ;-)
Must be that the resale market for souls is tough for the bookies.....
Quote: MrGoldenSunThere is a way to reach it, as people have said. Play basic strategy. You'll slowly lose money over time at the rate of -0.71%.
You seem to be assuming the lowest house edge gives you the best odds of doubling up, which is not the case, and you also seem to have a goal to play for a long time, which is a different goal entirely.
If the odds are not the best for doubling up then what exactly *are* they best for? My theoretical loss is one thing but how should the odds be translated in terms of actually winning X amount?
