Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 286
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 4:08:16 PM permalink
What also applies to the original question, is this:

The mathematical models that apply to the game of BJ, state that (excluding ties), on average, the player will win approx 46% of the time. And if that's true, and the casinos use shuffled decks, do you think it's possible for the whale to experience sufficient losses more than 54%, on a one-off betting spree, to bankrupt him?
Don't poke the bear!
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 5009
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 4:15:14 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

This is getting a little interesting, OD.

So, for example, a whale goes to the casino, and uses a slower negative progression strategy, such as an even slower one than Fibonacci. Even though he's a whale, he starts betting on the lowest bet table he can find, say $5. Not only that, but the whale takes breaks away from the table each time he experiences 5 losses in a row. But when the whale returns to the table, he continues along the negative progression strategy from where he left off, before he took the break.

Do you think the whale could still experience enough losses in a row, to bankrupt himself, if he has say $100 billion to bet with?

This is absolutely the whole point of my blog post to Oncedear's rule of thumb. He can win, He's likely to win. But it's pointless in the context of his relative increase in wealth. If there is a house edge, He doesn't dent it or change it.
It's not much different than if he were to play ONCE on a 20 billion and one slot roulette wheel and put $5 on all but two numbers for one spin. He's almost certain to win... just $5
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy 
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
  • Threads: 98
  • Posts: 4675
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 4:15:24 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Do you think the whale could still experience enough losses in a row, to bankrupt himself, if he has say $100 billion to bet with?


Yes, and they don't have to be "in a row" unless it's a Martingale. About seven years ago, I ran some simulations on a 50/50 game using D'Alembert, and there were cases where it took over 300 billion bets for the player to get back to zero.

Of course, you also have to take into account how long it would take to make enough bets to be $100 billion behind.
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 5009
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 4:17:23 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

This is getting a little interesting, OD.

So, for example, a whale goes to the casino, and uses a slower negative progression strategy, such as an even slower one than Fibonacci. Even though he's a whale, he starts betting on the lowest bet table he can find, say $5. Not only that, but the whale takes breaks away from the table each time he experiences 5 losses in a row. But when the whale returns to the table, he continues along the negative progression strategy from where he left off, before he took the break.

Do you think the whale could still experience enough losses in a row, to bankrupt himself, if he has say $100 billion to bet with?

And you really must get your head around the FACT that taking breaks does nothing to break up streaks. Nothing, Nill, Nada

In this sequence of coin flips, where you martingale, but rest out until you see Tails, if you encounter 5 Heads in a row, how long is the streak?

HHHHHHTHH
LLLLL--LL

You CREATE and wager into a streak of 7 Heads where none existed in the real world
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 286
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 4:29:42 PM permalink
No problem. Just asking questions. Is that allowed?
Don't poke the bear!
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 286
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 4:39:33 PM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

And you really must get your head around the FACT that taking breaks does nothing to break up streaks. Nothing, Nill, Nada

In this sequence of coin flips, where you martingale, but rest out until you see Tails, if you encounter 5 Heads in a row, how long is the streak?

HHHHHHTHH
LLLLL--LL

You CREATE and wager into a streak of 7 Heads where none existed in the real world



Your underlying philosophy is mathematical. In the real world the game evens out. That's why breaks are good in BJ. I understand your philosophy, but you understand mine.
Don't poke the bear!
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 286
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 4:40:55 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Yes, and they don't have to be "in a row" unless it's a Martingale. About seven years ago, I ran some simulations on a 50/50 game using D'Alembert, and there were cases where it took over 300 billion bets for the player to get back to zero.

Of course, you also have to take into account how long it would take to make enough bets to be $100 billion behind.



Interesting.
Don't poke the bear!
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 5009
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 4:53:23 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Your underlying philosophy is mathematical. In the real world the game evens out. That's why breaks are good in BJ. I understand your philosophy, but you understand mine.

"That's why breaks are good!!!!!"
What the hell sort of corollary is that? It makes zero sense and does not follow any kind of logic.

In the real world, the game absolutely does not even out. That's another fallacy you seem to adhere to. Taking the simple coin flip example. As time and number of coin tosses push forwards and upwards, the ratio of heads to tails approaches 50%, but the average difference between number of heads and number of tails actually increases.

You have so many fallacies to expunge, it's almost like we cannot know where to begin.... Or why the hell should we bother, since word soup is your only retort. Get your Bankroll together and hit the tables. Do it online if location is an issue.

Serious questions.... How much lifetime action have you ACTUALLY given to casinos? How many wagers of say >AUD$10 or more?
How often have you progressive wagered and found yourself staking AUD$200? Whatever, why are you short on bankroll right now?
Last edited by: OnceDear on Apr 24, 2021
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..
DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2684
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 6:22:21 PM permalink
When you have an advantage, say at dice, you can use a negative progression as great cover,
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2419
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 24th, 2021 at 8:06:31 PM permalink
The real issue with taking a break after losing five hands of BJ is that on average the count is positive.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.

  • Jump to: