Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 24 of 24

Thread: disadvantage stories

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by RollingStoned View Post
    What kind of betting system [similar to a BJ system] would you use for a 'the price is right' game? If you want to change around the edge, the factor of the payouts, the % of edge change, etc etc., by all means.
    thanks RollingStoned. you and i know blackjack well so lets stick with it. we are both VERY confident of a counter's prospects in a million hands. the reason he will almost surely win is he will vary his bet size upward when his prospects are better. they are just BARELY better and as a consequence, sometimes he experiences some of the BREATHTAKING losses documented elsewhere in Blackjack: The Forum----he will, correctly, bet straight into what ultimately will sometimes pan out to be a buzz saw of destruction. in time, not to worry, as he will almost surely, ultimately, LUCK into more large bet wins. (really skill, not luck, except he does have to enjoy the positive variance which he does not always get when the count is good enough to increase bet size. also, make a mental note that in a million hands, he does not increase his bet size so many, many times compared, say, to the contingency bettor)

    a contingency bettor is seeking what i need to go ahead and call a spade----he IS seeking to join the ranks of "advantage" players----lets see if he can: first, look slightly broadly while focusing on just one day: our contingency-guy takes his hundred units and bets modestly, with no idea whether he has a tiny advantage at that moment, like the counter might, (you dont have to be counting to be accidentally betting in a high count) or a tiny disadvantage which is more likely most of the time. when he tosses out larger bets, for whatever reason, he may win due to the count being good at the moment (SHEER luck) or he might win in spite of a bad count. if he wins, he might keep going, with no rational expectation to win more and with the reasonable expectation he will more likely lose. he is just "gambling." we both know that, whether lucky, good-count or lucky variance, sometimes he will win these larger bet sizes.

    in pursuit of his advantage we know he is pursuing the same thing as the counter, more wins at higher bet sizes that outweigh all losses. in a day and in a million hands, his actions will be different than the counter in ways worth looking at. FIRST, HE WILL ENDEAVOR TO POST A WIN EACH DAY--we all know such happens all the time---my first seventeen trips as a basic strategy guy were all winners--it would be a bit silly to suggest that was all "luck" but not silly at all to observe it involved some luck and to wonder just how ugly the price might be when the inevitable losses begin to come due. my 200 or so trips are not a GIANT sample but the pattern of many wins and far fewer losses has held and, more like teams in a basketball season, there is no real basis for figuring my experience at this point is "luck" or the sample size too small-----winning one, single day or trip is a skill set and, played the way i describe, we should be able to come up with a math model that expresses likelihood of win/ break-even vs 100 unit ruin.

    some will want to force the contingency bettor into the same box as the counter and that is nonsense. focusing on winning a single day, by preserving his capital (no buzz saws, NEVER), while cautiously giving lady-sheer-luck MANY chances in a day to kiss his cheek (again, not better than the counter but DIFFERENT than the counter who may not enjoy a high count so much in a day and therefore is not betting higher as many times a day as our rather-more-hapless, contingency-buddy).

    so, in this first difference between him and the counter we see this guy playing all day, or maybe only briefer, not grinding the same prescribed path but rather always with an eye to balancing preserving his bankroll while tossing out enough higher-bet opportunities that he eventually "lucks" into the win column EVERY, SINGLE, DAY and, depending on how that is going, he may knock a home run, bag a modest win, be lucky to come from behind and break even or, count on it, he will sometimes drop his entire 100 units. somehow, i think, when he infrequently runs to his counter-pal, whining about dropping 100 units, i doubt he will get a lot of boo-hoo, sympathy.

    lets do some math without doing the math because i cannot--if you can, help me out. such an approach very frequently gives our clueless luckster MANY days of posting a win. (if he skips basic strategy or doesn't take care to not needlessly risk his bankroll or is TOO cautious with only flat bets while losing too deeply to likely recover, THESE frequent casino guests are, indeed, NOT gaining an advantage.) remember, the reason our contingency bettor wins MOST days is because he provided so many opportunities for sheer luck to get him into the win column at some point, any point, and he valued posting a win so much that, depending on the clock, he "guaranteed" he would not risk going into the lose column THAT ONE DAY. as luck would have it, a few of these wins easily match his inevitable hundred unit losses and lesser wins are more frequent than that, with "lucky to break even" more frequent still. given the house edge and fair expectation, most of these MANY, MANY posted, win/break-even days represent our contingency-guy OVERCOMING the fact he actually lost more hands than he won--same as the counter's win, just arrived at an entirely different way.

    now, how about those hundred unit loss days? turns out, besides being somewhat rare, they also came via rather modest bet sizes AND they came from "couldn't-catch-a-break" variance that is to be expected in his 2000-separate-days-to-play-a-million-hands.

    so, as i said before, we have this weaselly, contingency bettor, refusing to post data till he has lucked-out and overcome more hands lost with a win on most days or he will post his 100 unit losing day on days he just couldnt buy any luck.

    platitudes about one long-run game are entirely tone-deaf. the data posted was "rigged" by being selected to be posted only when a favorable post could be made or, less often, when our slippery contingency-yapper was forced to admit he lost 100 units, albeit along a modest path. when you run the long-run tape on such "tainted" data, you find that, indeed our contingency-hero has, also, gained an advantage--- he used the advantage granted him by the casino of allowing him to choose the bet size depending on his needs and they did this for a measly 1/2% "advantage" for themselves. he used the advantage they gave HIM to powerfully, carefully, overcome their pittance.

    my hope is talented math guys will take a second look at: if one approaches blackjack without counting, what would be the optimal approach for giving a high probability of a one day win and low probability of 100 unit loss BUT also optimizing win amount? this has enough variables that it does not lend itself to figuring out as easily as a million hands of basic strategy nor counting but everything can be figured, i figure--just not by me.

    lemme know.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The reason I mentioned the "wheel game" is because I can actually do the math on that. BJ, I cannot. Without an actual betting system, the math can't be done, either. The other reason I being up this game is because it's easy to calculate the edge, it's easy to simulate, easy to figure out total bet, and most importantly: it's easy to show that the player's result will be (quite close to) the edge * total amount wagered. If some sort of system is created to BEAT blackjack, then a similar system should be able to beat "the wheel".


    You aren't really "manufacturing" the data - when you say the weasel doesn't log his results until he bags at least a small win (or forced on a 100unit loss).

    As I explained earlier, previous and future hands have no correlation. Being at -40 on the day.....then Winning $80 between 7:40pm and 8:00pm is no different (and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT) than stopping at 7:40pm, booking a -40 for that day -- then waking up the next day and winning $80 between 9:00am and 9:20am.
    "Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by RollingStoned View Post
    previous and future hands have no correlation. Being at -40 on the day.....then Winning $80 between 7:40pm and 8:00pm is no different (and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT) than stopping at 7:40pm, booking a -40 for that day -- then waking up the next day and winning $80 between 9:00am and 9:20am.
    of course you are entirely correct. so, at 9:20 am, lets be sure to "pocket" the 40$ win and shift gears back to a very conservative effort, maybe flat betting. gain a little and increase just in case luck will deliver a home run or lose a little and resume the very careful flat bet, just a little up. time goes on and the flat bet luck is so bad you are down far enough you wanna give lady luck another small chance to favor you with 2 unit bets.......sometimes it works for you and at even you go back to trying to build your kingdom off flat bets till ahead.....OR, you slowly keep getting your brains beat out playing catch up and find yourself 100 units down so you artificially "reset" your way of keeping track to zero and flat bets----of course this does not reset the math.

    the issue really seems to be whether you can "construct" enough "luck opportunities" at a cheap enough price to overcome the house edge, without losing so badly that, unlike the counter who is getting murdered but has a mathematical basis for optimism, the luck better cannot afford wild losses--he will not succeed in making them up.

    dont look at the following as a "system" but just to give a vision that "could" work: say a guy flat bets and every time he wins 4 or loses four, he makes one double chip bet and, as long as that is a "net" winner, he keeps playing it and as he wins more, is willing to give back less... so, he will often lose his 2 units right off the bat--very little loss. some times he may hit a streak that wins more than it loses for HOURS and he may pull off a giant win though "risk of losing" bets are "only" 1.2 units each (4 x 1 unit and 1 x2 units = 6 units divided by 5 hands = 1.2 units per hand). i am not proposing a system but illustrating how an approach that explores luck cheap enough might well pay off plenty at a cheap enough price. for the player to "keep track" and have a basis for NOT taking on big losses, i think a clock and a hundred unit downside is wise--i also think he does well to regard a 100 unit upside win with respect to not easily give it back by asking blackjack and bet-size variation to deliver positive variance that is improbable.---a math purist might claim if i just double every bet i make till it loses and start over, my long run expectation would be the same as if i try to conform to getting from blackjack what it can reasonably be expected to deliver-- enjoying profit when reasonable variance helps me net money, though losing more hands than expected and then returning to a new lifetime expectation. i do not believe the 2 approaches will yield same percentage win/loss.

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I have patiently stayed out of this thread, because, frankly, I NEVER participate in such discussions. The person initiating rarely, if ever, actually wants to LEARN anything; rather he wants to pontificate, and try to make rational players "see the light" that they've been missing -- namely, the invention of the Holy Grail: wine to water, lead to gold, and turning negative e.v. to positive, uniquely by employing some (hare-brained) betting system.

    So, when someone titles his thread: "I have invented the perpetual-motion machine," I just laugh and move on. There will come some point in this thread where you will realize that you are wrong and everyone else is right, but that isn't why you came here, is it? You came here to "enlighten" us.

    Sorry to disappoint you. Isn't going to happen. At least, not here.

    When people persist as you do, my usual response is NOT to try to convince them that they're wrong; rather, my advice is: Go ahead and play it your way. Write back when you win your first million! But, funny thing: I NEVER hear back from any of those folks! :-)

    Good luck to you. My advice: Go ahead and play it your way! :-)

    Don

    Don

  5. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    The great white north
    Posts
    208


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Probably way past time to trot this out, but why not:

    No betting scheme based on money management will change this dire fact. This can be proven mathematically, but I will not. This myth is so repulsive to me that I have no desire to save anyone who believes it, even if I could.

    -- James Grosjean
    (I am not James Grosjean)

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    I have patiently stayed out of this thread, because, frankly, I NEVER participate in such discussions. The person initiating rarely, if ever, actually wants to LEARN anything; rather he wants to pontificate, and try to make rational players "see the light" that they've been missing -- namely, the invention of the Holy Grail: wine to water, lead to gold, and turning negative e.v. to positive, uniquely by employing some (hare-brained) betting system.

    So, when someone titles his thread: "I have invented the perpetual-motion machine," I just laugh and move on. There will come some point in this thread where you will realize that you are wrong and everyone else is right, but that isn't why you came here, is it? You came here to "enlighten" us.

    Sorry to disappoint you. Isn't going to happen. At least, not here.

    When people persist as you do, my usual response is NOT to try to convince them that they're wrong; rather, my advice is: Go ahead and play it your way. Write back when you win your first million! But, funny thing: I NEVER hear back from any of those folks! :-)

    Good luck to you. My advice: Go ahead and play it your way! :-)

    Don

    Don
    DON, thanks very much for your wisdom. i came to discuss and learn and am very skeptical i have some holy grail that smart, experienced guys like so many of you have not "discovered". as some of my more recent posts have hinted at, i am slowly facing what ya'll are teaching/preaching.

    i don't think it is a disease nor arrogance or anything holding me back as much as not being able to see something on a common-sense basis. i dont want to put words in your mouths but it seems ya'll are all saying that except in a somewhat short-run, there is zero added advantage to the casino allowing me to bet as large or small as i prefer. i have no trouble with the common sense notion that ever-higher bets to get even will meet with table limits and/or large loss.

    the remaining thing my "common-sense" (right or wrong, it IS common) cant let go of is the notion that if i bet up a little to "make up" for smaller previous losses and meet with success then return to smaller bets..... it is not clear to my common sense that this must, of certainty, give the long term results of math that yields the perfectly expected 1/2% loss of the basic strategy player. you guys have been both patient and impatient, kindly and not but i am not especially stupid yet have not heard an explanation that makes it clear that low risk efforts to catch-good-luck-or-back-down MUST pay the perfect tax of 1/2% if played long enough--i have heard the ASSERTION, but not the explanation.

    anyone got any patience left?

    a last way of asking: if a non-advantage friend showed you his 200 trips of usually winning, sometimes not and he had netted 1600 units, would you conclude he has most likely figured out how to win a little or that he just has not encountered the long run yet? (he never loses more than 100 units a trip and his trips average 800 hands)

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "anyone got any patience left?"

    It isn't "common" to most of us that, faced with a disadvantage, just fooling around with bet size could possibly alter that disadvantage. You're playing the same game for every bet! The cards don't know how much money is in the circle, but, somehow, magically, you're going to add or subtract chips to every bet and, in the end, it won't be a negative-e.v. game anymore? Does that REALLY make any sense to you at all??

    "a last way of asking: if a non-advantage friend showed you his 200 trips of usually winning, sometimes not and he had netted 1600 units, would you conclude he has most likely figured out how to win a little"

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally NO!!!

    "or that he just has not encountered the long run yet? (he never loses more than 100 units a trip and his trips average 800 hands)"

    I would calculate e.v. and s.d. for the experience, and I would quantify how likely the outcome was. If it was in the realm of reasonable probability, I would conclude that the individual had experienced some positive fluctuations, sometimes referred to as "good luck." If it were not within the realm of such possibility, I would conclude that the individual was lying. But, there is nothing on the face of God's earth that would ever make me conclude that he was "on to something." :-)

    Don

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    And this, while we're at it:

    http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm

    Respectfully, I'm done with my brief appearance in this thread. Hope to have helped.

    Don

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I lied! :-) Here's the absolute last word on the subject:

    http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

    NOW, I'm really done!

    Don

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    I lied! :-) Here's the absolute last word on the subject:

    http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

    NOW, I'm really done!

    Don
    thanks, don.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Advantage/Disadvantage of Heads up Play: Preferences of APs
    By greg16394 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-21-2012, 06:02 PM
  2. Wonging out stories
    By Baberuth in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-2012, 07:56 PM
  3. drogus: k.o. success stories?
    By drogus in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-03-2004, 11:22 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.