As I just explained very clearly it is nothing like trying to count in a physical casino location. To reiterate:
1. It is 2x5 times slower per table.
2. No distractuons
3. No heat.
4. Vastly fewer complex decisions.
5. Counting aids can be used.
6. Simplified chip inventory management.
7 Playing departures are not required.
9.Skipping hands is much more practical.
Not sure why this is so difficult for b&m counters to understand. Spend an hour doing it then it becomes very obvious how much simpler it is than counting in rl.
Last edited by Archvaldor; 04-29-2024 at 01:04 PM.
If it's way slower than regular games, then it's not a good game. Your whole premise was that you were getting lots of hands an hour, so a single digit SCORE could still be viable. If you're only getting 200 hands an hour (10 games at 20 hands an hour), the winrate probably isn't minimum wage. The SCORE on those kinds of games is seriously awful.
The Cash Cow.
No that was not the whole premise. In fact it was not a premise at all. I never said any such thing.If it's way slower than regular games, then it's not a good game. Your whole premise was that you were getting lots of hands an hour
Your simulation indicated a play-all approach. There's no reason not to skip hands outside of being timed out. That's a major advantage of online play. So your numbers are way off.If you're only getting 200 hands an hour (10 games at 20 hands an hour), the winrate probably isn't minimum wage.
Game speed: I said that online games are 2 to 5x slower. That is true of online blackjack generally.
Now there are games which equal or exceed 50 hands per hour and obviously all things being equal a counter seeks those out. As you do with speed, better penetration and rule sets in real casinos.
You don't seem to know that many online games deal a single hand to all players which is generally a much faster game. But still very easy to count comparative to real world games. Obviously that is a type of online blackjack a counter would focus on.
Generally speaking counting online is more profitable than in the real world. Especially when you factor in the horrendous cost of downtime travelling to casino locations and the cost of expenses.The SCORE on those kinds of games is seriously awful.
I won't even get into the physical risks involved with offline play such as having your money stolen by policemen, being thrown out of your hotel at 3 am, back-roomed, or even physically assaulted / wrongly arrested. That stuff is very expensive and time-consuming to deal with.
Last edited by Archvaldor; 04-30-2024 at 01:37 AM.
Losing 20 hands in row online appears to be more common than admitted. But no winning 20 hands in row has been honestly reported. Talking here about playing with real money. Playing for fun is a totally different game. You get plenty of 10+ winning streaks. Plus lots of money you cant cash out because it’s not real. Say nothing of real money.
“payout problems”? No, they are nightmares! The best expectation – you threaten with public exposure.; they close your account and refund your deposit. No win, no loss.
This might as well be advertising in disguise for online casinos. No offence, just my honest exposure.
I have experienced both not only online but in brick and mortar casinos as well.
One thing about perception and online play is that, while the frequency of rare events remains the same, it feels like these things happen more often online because, in terms of elapsed time, they do. On some online (but not live) blackjack apps, I can play between 600 and 700 rounds per hour. It's like experiencing an hour of fast real-life play every 10 minutes or an hour of slow play every 6 minutes. You will see a lot of "rare" stuff happening during a 2 or 3 hour online session. If you play online regularly you'll see a decade's worth of "rare" occurrences every year.
The probability for a 20-streak in 700 rounds is extremely low. Even in 7000 hands (10 hours). Worse, only the negative streak hits the player. How many 20-hands win streaks did you have in any, say 7000 rounds? Zero, reality or perception. The long streaks are lobsided in favor of the house. It is not “the memory is selective” as casinos explain. No offence, just my honest exposure.
That's not how you back-count an online game.You aren't just watching the game, you close down any negative count and open another game. It is as if you are getting the dealer to shuffle away negative or neutral counts.
Saying "you can't even get an edge" makes no sense. You get an edge in any game where a positive expectation occurs by playing only when the positive expectation occurs.
Id add that no one should do this on a 10k fixed bankroll. A major advantage of online play is that dynamic resizing can be done much more quickly which translates into faster bankroll growth than a flat win rate implies.
Last edited by Archvaldor; 04-30-2024 at 01:43 PM.
It is. However the problem is that you aren't measuring the probability of a losing streak you are measuring the probability of a losing streak in a dishonest game.
Even with quite a lot of cheating the probability of experiencing such a streak is quite low.
It really is better to focus on a large sample size rather than something weird which happened within it.
To make this clear: I fucking hate the gambling industry. Online is every bit as bad as offline.This might as well be advertising in disguise for online casinos
That said I made a ton of money online, mainly from bonuses. Cheating is no worse than offline: I have a huge sample of play to justify that.
Card counting offline and online is a very weak form of advantage play with extreme fluctuations. Most people who try it will give up. I don't recommend it to anybody.
Last edited by Archvaldor; 04-30-2024 at 11:46 AM.
I agree. I didn't say I was seeing this kind of streak once every 700 or 7000 rounds. I said that I have seen them during my career, both online and in real casinos. These are once in a lifetime events in a real casino but possibly several times in a lifetime playing fast online apps.
Not in my experience. I have seen them both ways.
This question has no meaning. I have seen such a streak, meaning it is not impossible. During which particular 7000 rounds it happened is irrelevant.
Bookmarks