I stopped reading at that point. Basic logic. If the proposition is false, all answers are correct.Originally Posted by Martin Gale
This is wrong. There is no guarantee that you will ever win a hand ever again. The amount lost on the one time this happens when considering all possible outcomes will wipe out your profit and a much much much more. It is the basic math of the situation. Your if assumes you will win at some point which is not statistically valid. You are never likely to win your next hand and the number of losses you have had prior to that never changes that fact. That is the progression math. Eventually you will lose a million or billion or googaplex hands in a row in the infinite trial. Nothing ever changes that possibility.
Once again please I am not an idiot and I know "progressions can't win" but that is not what I am asking in this post.
If you know that a "progressions can't win" why did you ask a question referring to negative progression???? Here is your question below.
Is there some theoretical mathematical equivalent to a card counting strategy with some fairly low risk-of-ruin, to playing it by negative progression Martingale method? Post #1.
Now you said you are not asking about that.
Assuming an infinite bankroll (yeah, never mind) and no table max limit, it's a fact that a bet progression will win.
Yes, as I already mention in the hypothetical world (post #8) your EXTREME progression will work. The truth of the fact is that you don't have infinite bankroll. If you bet using Martingale there will be some negative variance that will come along and will put you out of business even used with a card counting strategy. Have you looked the link below??
http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/ent...ngale-as-Cover
Why are you asking about an "extreme progression" combined with card counting when you can beat the game that has NO MAXIMUM BET LIMIT AT ALL with a 1-1000000????? With that high of a bet spread you can use the worst card counting system and still preform well.
Also, obviously, even if a single human could only play this game for a penny a minute, some software robots could be set up to play it hundreds or thousands of times simultaneously. So it's not a worthless game even for 'low stakes', if it is beatable (or even simply just playable) with some known risk tolerance.
Better yet you can just write a computer program that could count cards with PE = 100%, BC = 100% and IC= 100% with a better SCORE and win rate. Why use your extreme progression????
Maybe it was a mistake for me to post this in the disadvantage area since it is really not a voodoo question, I hope. Moderators please move the thread elsewhere if it would be better.
No it is not a mistake for you to post in the disadvantage area since you mention negative Martingale progression that alone shows that it is a voodoo question. The evidence is there that shows your question involves voodoo. Period. I think the discuss should end right there.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-11-2014 at 05:41 PM.
Card counting hardly affects the number of hands you win. You just do better on your big bets due to having better double and split opportunities with big bets out. being able to surrender properly more often with big bets out. Getting more BJs and using insurance when it is plus EV with big bets out. Progression betting your big bets are more likely to be when you are not at an advantage. Doubles and splits usually don't fit well into a negative progression betting model.
It is a voodoo question. You are making bets at random to the fluctuating advantage. You are just increasing your disadvantage by chasing your losses. The reason the casinos have limits is to deal with progression bettors but not because giving you more room gives you an advantage. They want you to end your winning streak in their casino so you lose all your winnings and then some to them. The rarer that inevitable day becomes the more likely you will be somewhere else when you lose everything.
Allright you guys, I get it. I guess anyway.
I said I know this is not an advantage-play per-se as I know mathematically a neg progression won't overcome house edge.
But still what I am asking very simple is whether or not this online game I found is worth playing at least a little due to the no-maximum limit and teeny-tiny starting bet of a fraction of a cent.
Seems to me, that putting a few bucks in to it even just short term might pay off.
So, let me try again with a simple question.
How often in a large sample of blackjack hands would you statistically-speaking expect to see a single long losing streak (disregarding pushes) of 20 hands in a row?
If that numbers lower than, approx, some risk percent of a 4 sigma event for losing all your bankroll using card counting with ROR of like 5% or 2% or something, then maybe to me it is a fair gamble.
Thats all I am asking, really.
Anyone have the math for that? Or explain for me clearly why it's not a valid question?
Even if this was a viable method (it isn't), with a starting value of one cent, and assuming you never ran into the limit (which you will), you would spend more in electricity than you would profit -- not counting the cost of the carpal tunnel syndrome splint. Collecting discarded soda bottles from the trash would be more profitable.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks