Well, I must say I am overwhelmed with all the awesomeness in this here thred! Please give me some time to post and respond to specific persons. It will be a large time investment, with so many topics/concepts to respond to. For now, just a sincere thanks to everyone who posted; I read your post, appreciate it and have learned from it (especially the part about how the house always wins! :P).
Everything Norm writes is accurate! :-)
The question was about STREAKS: winning or losing x number of hands in a row. That has nothing at all to do with the HE of roulette or BJ, or any other game. It has only to do with the probability of, say, losing a hand or a coup, and I've already discussed that, above. The HE at BJ is a lot lower than at roulette, because, despite losing more hands than we win, we also get 3:2 payoffs for naturals, and other multiple payoffs for splits, doubles, and doubles after splits.
But, the part of this thread I want to make sure dies a quick and painful death is the one where I extracted a quote from a new poster, who analyzed some data and then claimed he was "on to something." REALLY dangerous words! Can only lead to a world of aggravation for all of us.
Don
Well sirs, I consider knowledge of statistics to be very helpful in analyzing the current state of my play and also in properly preparing for my play in the future; people in all fields of endeavor do it all the time, betting on blackjack is no different.
@Jack: Thank you very much for this published chart. I especially like how the winning probability is compared to the losing. Of course as Don said, its rule set specific, so do you mind if I ask what rule set was used to create that (what is CVBJ)?
I don't want to buck any conventional wisdom or ruffle any respected feathers but as far as stop loss goes, I consider it an essential part of winning and I personally think that statistics have a lot to say about how to create effective stop losses. However, a stop loss does not exist in a vacuum, just as every other part of our winning methods and there are many ways of possibly applying them.
Anyway, I just wanted to thank you very much for the post.
And there is a list of people in this thread that have mentioned very important software and web-sourced materials that I also am deeply appreciative of. Thanks you guys!
Last edited by Reyth; 04-11-2020 at 08:54 PM.
Swing and a miss strikkkkke two. First, it was about streaks when you wrote the following in post #1
"So, I am a programmer and I can create a blackjack session simulator to analyze the worst streaks of losses and their probability and I guess that's what I need to do if I want to learn this information?"Now with the first above quote you could easily be interpreted as saying that players should quit playing in the middle of a negative session to have effective stop losses and that you think statistics will prove it? Once again you are barking up the wrong tree. Smart blackjack players adhere to strong money management principals as well as the risk of ruin formulas and will resize accordingly. Some professionals play to an almost zero risk. Please clarify where you are going with all of this.
Last edited by BoSox; 04-13-2020 at 09:22 AM.
And you would be incorrect. Nothing to do with conventional wisdom. Just math and statistics.
For some stats. you might want to look at:
https://www.blackjackincolor.com/
http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/res...p?do=statspage
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/re...hp?do=calcpage
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/re...?do=bjtfcharts
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/re...p?do=chartpage
Last edited by Norm; 04-12-2020 at 07:18 AM.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
You need to stop offering this up every time someone comes along with a MATHEMATICAL argument for invoking a (stupid) stop loss. Yes, we all understand that, if you fall asleep at the table, that might be a good sign that you should stop. That ISN'T what the poster is discussing.
So stop sending messages as to how (mathematical) stop losses, based on STATISTICS might be valid. You're sending a wrong and dangerous message to someone who obviously doesn't know any better.
Don
Bookmarks