losing streak odds using no bust strategy?

[lurppis]

I'm not sure, but I assume "no bust strategy" is a playing strategy for regular blackjack where you don't take a card on a hard 12 or above? If so, be aware that the results of two consecutive hands of blackjack are very close to being statistically independent (barring some minor effects related to the count). Therefore, if you play a strategy that gives you a smaller chance of winning each individual hand, your losing streaks will be slightly longer, on average.

Using proper basic strategy generally gives you the highest chance of winning a given hand, assuming no extra information is available. The only exceptions I can think of are: some doubles, where you decrease your odds of winning slightly, in order to increase the amount you might win (for a higher overall expectation); and some (maybe most) splits, where you greatly increase your chance of a push.

[cheaptrix]

your losing streaks will be slightly longer, on average.

i agree that it seems logical that longer loss streaks would occur given the 3.91% disadvantage but the fact that we are guaranteed a win every time the dealer busts (about 28%) makes me think the streaks actually might be less than basic strategy. manually running about 2000 hands has shown zero streaks of 6 loses in a row. i know small sample which is why i would like to find a program or someone that can figure the math.

[cheaptrix]

manually running about 2000 hands has shown zero streaks of 6 loses in a row.

was running a few more hands and of course i hit a 7 loss streak finally. lol, ugh! still up overall (play chips) but doubling an 8th time isn't possible.