you counters be nice and join the conversation

**hardin county boy** · 08-27-2013, 02:51 PM

Nyne and bigplayer,

i agree, 100%, you know, sorta. i think a guy could easily lose the 750$ 40 times before EVER getting the 30,000$. further agree he could easily diminish wins that might have been, say, 20 flat bets up, to less than 20, by increasing his bets and losing. what is interesting about this, however, is that by not simply "flat betting the very long run", he is establishing "opportunities" in which, by sheer luck, he may experience a very substantial outlier gain. he was not ONLY the beneficiary of a good-luck run of variance, he was ALSO beneficiary of what you and i know to be an idiot willingness to greatly increase his bet because he constructed what you and i know was mere illusion--something to the effect of the false idea he was "playing with house money." (we all know it was HIS hard-earned, risked money).

now, should he play the same game and bet up when he is LOSING, it shouldnt take very long for him to be breaking even, minus the house advantage. BUT, when he refuses to bet up when losing, he creates the opportunity that he well MIGHT get outlier winners that require very little "lucky variance" to net him gains and it is not a slam dunk that he will, along the way, pay in losses what he gets in gains.

one "certain" advantage to such an approach is it does keep this guy betting modestly when losing--he is "defending zero" quite well and, at worst, will be hard to kill as he "deludes"? himself into believing his betting up is "creating opportunities" as i am trying to sell but you may not be buying. you and i both know that if you take out the hocus pocus, his whole experience was really only one of a string of bets with an average bet-size and house advantage BUT, the hocus pocus, self-delusion away from that thought has this 25$ better, betting FAR MORE THAN IS PRUDENT and he is doing it while living "close enough" to even and "with house money", such that, eventually, probably not very far from even, he will probably get his outlier win (the 30,000$ was chosen for an absurd example that could happen and would, if managed well, surely last a 25$ guy a long time---think of more modest but impressive outlier wins to make the proposition more realistic). i DO get why this has a voodoo sound to it. maybe i can sell THIS notion: playing this way, a guy might hit his outlier win faster than he accumulates equal losses (has to do with the nature of ebb and flow of blackjack that is, of course, ultimately just math). should he hit his outlier early, the clock resets to zero and he again faces the NEW prospect of hoping his decent prospects of more outlier than loss will again happen----remember, this guy is playing in a way that makes him pretty hard to kill and pretty close to even as he keeps raising bets outrageously but "safely", hoping his outlier ship will come in.

**laserjet** · 08-27-2013, 04:35 PM

I knew that "no child left behind" policy would come back to bite us in the ass.

**MidniteToker** · 08-28-2013, 03:28 AM

Actually, it's keeping casinos in business, and that's fine by me.

**Pacman** · 08-28-2013, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by hardin county boy

a guy plays 25$ as described, has his share of "losses", then gets his lady-variance, 30,000$ win---i bet you are right, he will probably lose $30,000, 25 bucks at a time,--probably in no time at all.....

Actually.
Dude at a local casino of mine cashed in for 5k at bacarrat (spelling?) and walked away with $250,000 by simply parlaying to the the max and then playing multple hands of $2500. He sure was smug and very proud of himself.
Well...over the next week he gave it ALL back. Not some. All of it.
Let me give you some advice, the only way for a GAMBLER to win in the long run, is to stay away from it. Meaning, your best chance is win big early and NEVER PLAY AGAIN!!
If in your example said dude won $30,000 within his first few casino trips, congrats. But ima guess it will take the typical person a Loooooong time to turn $750 into $30,000. And by long time i mean MANNNY lossing sessions.
That is why gamblers fail. They could be up one day, and thus should stop playing. The house edge is ever looming and all powerful. Theres no way around the math. Your loses will devour your wins. Why do you think casinos dont tell you how much you've won playing there? Cause your a loser. And they want you to think your a winner when you walk out up $2,000. But have a life time lose of $50,000.

~Pac

RS · 08-28-2013, 08:52 PM

The ONLY way, that I can think of, to play a "winning" game (without knowing "extra info" in a game), is if there were 2 conditions: 1) There is no table max and 2) you had an infinite BR.

Given those two conditions (neither of which are possible, though), you could theoretically martingale your way up until you win, then start again at a 1 unit bet -- so that every "round" you end up with +1 unit after a win.

**Mr. White** · 08-28-2013, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by First Normal Form

APwn'd!

Wildly amusing, FnF

**Math Demon** · 08-28-2013, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

The ONLY way, that I can think of, to play a "winning" game (without knowing "extra info" in a game), is if there were 2 conditions: 1) There is no table max and 2) you had an infinite BR.

Given those two conditions (neither of which are possible, though), you could theoretically martingale your way up until you win, then start again at a 1 unit bet -- so that every "round" you end up with +1 unit after a win.

NJRich520 once posted that he has an "infinite bankroll" for sale. He says it's cheap too!

With an infinite bankroll and infinite casino patience (no table max, no max wins, no max losses, and no heat), I would attack a game with the "Grand Martingale" or "double up plus 1", guaranteeing 1 unit won every round.

* Imagine this: On the 40th bet in roulette, one with an infinite BR using the GM will be betting 1,099,511,627,775 units, and if he wins he gets 38,482,906,972,125 units. Unfortunately, 38,482,906,972,125 x $1000 units will probably not make him happy. It is but a miniscule addition to an already infinite bankroll.

**njrich** · 08-29-2013, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Math Demon

NJRich520 once posted that he has an "infinite bankroll" for sale. He says it's cheap too!

That was traded for "Infinite Wisdom" now I'm sorry I traded the bankroll.

**hardin county boy** · 08-29-2013, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Pacman

Actually.
Dude at a local casino of mine cashed in for 5k at bacarrat (spelling?) and walked away with $250,000 by simply parlaying to the the max and then playing multple hands of $2500. He sure was smug and very proud of himself.
Well...over the next week he gave it ALL back. Not some. All of it.
Let me give you some advice, the only way for a GAMBLER to win in the long run, is to stay away from it. Meaning, your best chance is win big early and NEVER PLAY AGAIN!!
If in your example said dude won $30,000 within his first few casino trips, congrats. But ima guess it will take the typical person a Loooooong time to turn $750 into $30,000. And by long time i mean MANNNY lossing sessions.
That is why gamblers fail. They could be up one day, and thus should stop playing. The house edge is ever looming and all powerful. Theres no way around the math. Your loses will devour your wins. Why do you think casinos dont tell you how much you've won playing there? Cause your a loser. And they want you to think your a winner when you walk out up $2,000. But have a life time lose of $50,000.

~Pac

pacman------you are MAKING my point. recall i stipulated that our ploppy, progress-up-when-winning gambler REFUSES to bet up when losing but, in the case of your baccarat guy, his OUTLIER WIN came to pass and if he sat down to disciplined, 5000$ future sessions, it would take him FIFTY straight losing sessions, ZERO wins, in a row to give it all back---now THAT would be an outlier, indeed. no hocus pocus, no voodoo, the guy simply took an APPROACH that made the outlier possible and it "luckily" happened---his downside discipline all but guarantees a lifetime win. we all know he paid with some loses till his outlier came in and that he may degrade his win over time, even with future, disciplined play BUT, to not acknowledge this as a potentially POWERFUL approach, invoking the TRUE statements about long term math to this guy's well-crafted effort to set up for a POSSIBLE outlier that came true and then protecting it, is just not accurate.

i believe a hybrid of counting PLUS upside parlay with downside refusal to over-extend, even with great count, refusal to take the monster loss when losing, is an idea that has NOT enjoyed the brainy conversation that only great counters could bring to it---THIS is why i opened the conversation and blanket insistence it is nonsense has not yet persuaded me----your baccarat guy is a COMPELLING challenge to those who would dismiss such out of hand.

**Norm** · 08-29-2013, 03:54 AM

Utter nonsense.

**Kat** · 08-29-2013, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Norm

Utter nonsense.

There could be only one better, straight-to-the-point summation than your cutting, 2-word sentence... which would be a one-word sentence. Now what one word aptly sums up utter nonsense?

**Norm** · 08-29-2013, 04:29 AM

x = y.

Then x² = xy.

Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x² - y² = xy - y².

Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y.

Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.

Thus 2 = 1

**hardin county boy** · 08-29-2013, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by Kat

There could be only one better, straight-to-the-point summation than your cutting, 2-word sentence... which would be a one-word sentence. Now what one word aptly sums up utter nonsense?

appreciate the conversation, kat and norm. in your opinion, is there any virtue in advantage players, who find themselves in a recent losing streak, not increasing their bets so much in a good count---hope to enjoy a win with a slight spread with the good count but, to decrease risk of deeper hole, not spread as aggressively as might if recent/lifetime variation was more positive?