If I had 100 units and had 12 hours to win as much as I can without being able to use "advantage play" techniques, I'm not entirely sure what I would actually do, to be honest.
I would probably play some martingale-type system, where I'd bet 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89 etc. Upon a win, I would start back to the very first number (1) and play that many units. One reason, because it has an interesting spread/jumping-up scale, and secondly, I've always been a fan of the Fibonacci sequence.
You cannot insert these "extra variables" into the game as you speak of, because they do not exist and cannot exist [at least, the way I'm interpreting what you're saying]. First, I'll explain what I think you're saying, that way we're at least on the same page about these 'extra variables'.
I believe you are saying that we can structure the game in such a way that we can always be in the "short run", because we, the player(s), choose when to play, when/how to bet, etc. If we win, we can just as easily get up and walk away, so that in a way, this quick session we just played and won 8 units isn't really part of the 'long run', because it was only 15 or maybe 20 minutes -- maybe even just 20 or 40 hands at that.
The problem with this system, is that it is based on the short-run and the desire [or illusion] that the player will never reach the long run. Now that's all fine and dandy IF the player ONLY plays a few sessions and will never play again the rest of his life. But of course, we're not sitting here talking about creating systems or ways to win just so we can play a mere 1 hour, 12 hours, or 60 hours then call it quits [for the rest of our life]. We're here to "create" (or learn about an existing) system that will be reliable for the rest of our lives, or as long as we want to play this game, where we'll be logging hundreds or thousands of hours at the table. I really really doubt that any system you are creating or talking about -- that you're planning on only playing a few hours and calling it quits for forever. The goal is to make a (reliable?) income, or at least money on the side -- the goal is not to make a quick 10 or 50 units then never play again -- who would want to do that?
Now, in order for this game to be played "always in the short run", there would have to be some distinct difference between each session. Let's take NASCAR for example and compare it to an every-day street car. NASCAR cars are built in such a way that they are always in the "short run", because they only need to race 300 or 500 miles. Those engines do not need to last 100,000 miles, just a quick burst of 300-500 miles. That engine will not be in a race again. A new engine will be used for the next race. For the next race, it doesn't matter if Tony Hawk came in first the previous race, or if Tom Brady came in last the previous race, or if OJ Simpson came in third the previous race -- each race is different and new.
Let's take a look at what makes a BJ session different from one another. Well, in all reality, there really isn't a difference. I'm assuming that we can both agree that when we enter into a new shoe, we have absolutely no idea what the order of the cards are, how we're going to do in that shoe, or any other knowledge of the shoe. We can treat every single shoe as if it is entirely random. We know absolutely nothing about the shoe (other than it is random), correct?
We also know that there is no "intelligence" within the cards, within the shoe, etc. By intelligence, I mean there is absolutely no correlation between one shoe to another, no correlation between the cards (except for 'when one card is removed, it cannot be played again in that same shoe').
That being said, the most previous shoe we played through has no correlation to the future shoe, and the shoe we played an hour ago, or the one ten sessions ago, has no bearing on the next shoe we are going to play -- because every shoe is random AND there is no correlation between one shoe and another [hence, random]. The same goes for hands -- the hand we just played has no bearing on a future hand, the hand we played 3 rounds ago has no bearing on a future hand, and the hand we played 15 hours ago has no bearing on my next hand [excluding "effect of removal" ie: "when a card is played, it cannot be played in that same shoe"].
So -- let's say we are 2 hours into our session and we've reached the shuffle-card. We have no idea what the next shoe is going to be like. We also don't know what kind of shoe we're going to be playing in tomorrow morning when I return. In this way, with this lack of future-knowledge, we CANNOT say that one shoe will be any different than the other. We can't say, "I'm going to increase my bets for this shoe, because I'm more likely to win in this shoe -- and the shoe I play tomorrow morning, I have no idea about it, so I will play my minimum bet then." On the other hand, what we can say, is, "I do not know how this next shoe will play out, nor do I know how the shoe will turn out that I play tomorrow morning -- with that being said, I know that they are both as likely to be the opposite." Actually, I worded that in a weird way. What I mean is, I don't know if "The Golden Shoe" is going to be my very next shoe, or if it's going to be "The Shoe From Hell". This shoe I'm about to jump into, might be a golden shoe and the one tomorrow morning might be a shoe from hell. OR, the shoe I'm about to jump into might be the shoe from hell, and the one I play tomorrow morning might be the golden shoe.
Because we have no knowledge of which shoe will be the golden shoe, which will be the shoe from hell, or if either will be a golden shoe or a hellish shoe {maybe they'll be just average}, OR MAYBE my next 10 shoes will be average. That being said, this shoe is just as equally likely to be the next shoe.
Let me make a simple example. The dealer has a 6 up and for some reason, we know the dealer has a ten underneath -- let's say the dealer flashed the bottom card. So, the dealer has a 16. Everyone makes their appropriate play, except for the third baseman. He has a 12 and he wants to hit! You think to yourself, "He's going to take the bust card, don't hit!!!" But when you examine what's actually going on, you do not know if he will be "taking" the dealer's bust card or if he's taking a dealer's A-5.
In this situation, we are concerned about the next 2 cards. We don't care about if the third baseman busts or makes a hand, we only care if the dealer busts so we can win our hand. Let's say the player hits and he gets a 6. The dealer draws a card to himself and gets a 4, totalling 20 for the dealer. Had the player stayed, the dealer would have gotten the 6, totalling 22 for a bust. But we have no knowledge about the next card. Cards #1 and #2 are equally as likely to be switched around. The first card could have been a 4 and the second card could have been a 6. They are both just as likely to happen. CARD #1 IS EQUALLY AS LIKELY TO BE CARD #2. We have no knowledge of which card is "the bust card" (#1 or #2), but what we do know is that they are as likely to be in the position that they are currently in, as they are to be swip-swapped around.
In the same way that we do not know the order of the cards, we do not know which shoe is going to be a "winner" or which will be a "loser". Likewise, we do not know which hand is going to be a "winner" or which a "loser" (before you are given your cards, that is).
So, I ask, what is the difference between one session to another. Surely, the shoe that you are about to play is equally as likely to be the first shoe you play tomorrow morning (given they are random, and no relation between one shoe to another). Why leave "right now" ? If you play 10 shoes today, that is the same as playing 5 shoes today and 5 shoes tomorrow...which is the same as playing 1 shoe every day for 10 days.
By "bagging small wins" every session [or attempting to], the player is playing in such a way that he is almost always winning, but on rare occasions, he will have a huge loss. The player does not know if he will continue losing that session, or if he'll make it up and win the losses back, as planned. So, in hindsight, you cannot say, "Well, when you're on a losing streak, you should just get up and walk away". I've had plenty of times when I'm on a "losing streak", only to play one more shoe and win it all back. On the other hand, plenty of times I've been on a winning streak over multiple sessions then one day I'll sit down at a freshly shuffled shoe and get my sh*t pushed. I keep playing and losing, losing, losing. I do NOT know when I will win or when I will lose -- but one thing I do know, if I continue playing [with an advantage] in the long run, I will win. Just like you, I don't know if the next shoe will be a winning shoe or a losing shoe, but overall -- for me, it will average out to be a winning shoe [because I am playing with an advantage], and for you, unfortunately, it will average out to be a losing shoe [because the casino has the advantage over you].
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by hitthat16
Bookmarks