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?

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.Quote:WellbushThis 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?

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

Quote:WellbushDo 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.

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

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

Quote:OnceDearAnd 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.

Quote:ThatDonGuyYes, 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.

"That's why breaks are good!!!!!"Quote:WellbushYour 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.

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?