ShoelessD: Win/Lose

[ShoelessD]

Why is there no mathematical basis possible for making betting decisions on previous hands won or lost?

[Sonny]

> Why is there no mathematical basis possible for making
> betting decisions on previous hands won or lost?

Because the correlation between previous wins/losses and current advantage is so weak that is does not indicate any strong advantage. There will be plenty of times where you lose several hands in a row and your advantage increases. There will be just as many times that you lose several hands in a row while your advantage decreases. It is simply not a reliable indicator.

-Sonny-

[ToAnyOne]

From what I understand, if you raise your bet after a lost, and decrease it after a win or even more importantly a push, you can reduce the house edge by .1%. The logic behind this is that if you won, you more likely just had some of the good cards, therefore the remaining cards are more likely bad ... but not by much.

TAO

[Sun Runner]

.. but it sounds pretty esoteric to me.

> The logic behind this is that if you won, you
> more likely just had some of the good cards, therefore
> the remaining cards are more likely bad

I've won plenty enough hands with a 5-6-7 and lost plenty enough hands with 10-10 that my selective memory wants to disagree.

But if it is infact a .1% edge over the house .. it certainly is learnable in the car on the way to the casio, and I could find a way to advertise a huge percentage increase over BS. Hmmm. Maybe I could sell weekend seminars for $500 a pop !?

All in good fun!

[Trapper]

> But if it is infact a .1% edge over the house ..

He actually wrote it might reduce the house edge by .1%. That would only give you a .1% edge in a game with no house edge off the top. Not many of those around. I guess you could still claim it as a huge percentage improvement over BS (just not worth much).

[Sun Runner]

[Magician]

> .. but it sounds pretty esoteric to me.

In Get the Edge at Blackjack, John May outlines a progression strategy based on this principal that actually gives the player a (very weak) advantage. Of course he starts with the best single deck game you can find and uses (I think) a 1-20 spread.

> I've won plenty enough hands with a 5-6-7 and lost
> plenty enough hands with 10-10 that my selective
> memory wants to disagree.

But you've lost plenty of hands with a +4 TC too, right?