Doubling bet per lost hand for an eventual win? (5/10/20/40/80$)

[AussiePlayer]

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

I'd be using basic blackjack rules (hit against 5,6 if im < 12. hit against 2,3,4 if im < 13. hit against 10,A if im < 16. hit against 7,8,9 if im < 17).

Not sure what to do about doubling/splitting, either (if I'm using the above proposed strategy). Thoughts, ideas, tweaks, or anything I should know before doing this, or if this is even a good/legit strategy? I figured I'd come here n ask first before I do it.

I stand corrected. The above playing strategy is similar to basic strategy if you never doubled, split or surrendered; it's just written in a rather complicated fashion.

[21gunsalute]

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

At this point I realize it's not a good theory...just wondering if my math is on or off.

Ah, thanks for the info guys. I did some math for it, and was wondering if this is correct:

I assumed you can have enough money for 8 hands, starting at $5 at first hand and $640 on the 8th hand.

So for this, I assumed that you have a 50% chance of winning any given hand, even though it's a bit lower than that...

So I did 0.5^8 which is ~~ 0.0039... or about 0.4%, meaning there's a 0.4% chance you'll get 8 losses in a row.

I then figured that the total amount of money you'd need for this would be $1275. 5+10+20+40+80+160+320+640=1275.

100/0.4 = 250, so you will lose 8 hands in a row 1 out of 250 "rounds". (1 round = 8 hands, or 8 lost hands in a row.)

So from there I assumed that you'd win 249 rounds and lose 1 round. Each won round gives you +$5, and a loss round gives you -$1275. So I'm going to assume (at your best luck), you'll win your first 249 rounds and lose your 250'th round.

249 * 5 = 1245 winnings, plus what you started with (1275), so you'll be at 2520$ after your 249th round. Your 250th round you'll lose $1275. So you do 2520-1275 = 1245, the amount of money you'll have after your 250th round.

So basically after 250 rounds, you'll have a net loss of $30.


Is my math right, or is it way off? (This is of course with the assumption that you have 50% chance to lose a hand, instead of the 53 or 54%..or whatever the house's edge is....and also assuming that at your best luck you'll win 249 "rounds" and THEN lose the 250th round.)

Yes? No? Close? Or way off?

Haven't actually checked the math, but right off the top of my head it appears that you're assuning a losing streak of 8 to be all or nothing. In other words, you're ignoring all losing streaks between 2-7, which will happen much, much more frequently.

[RollingStoned]

Haven't actually checked the math, but right off the top of my head it appears that you're assuning a losing streak of 8 to be all or nothing. In other words, you're ignoring all losing streaks between 2-7, which will happen much, much more frequently.

A losing streak of 2-7 is fine...as long as one of the 8 hands you win. If you lose 7 in a row, then win the 8th hand, you just won $5 over those 8 hands. Yes it is all or nothing. Either you lose all of them (8 hands) or you win one of them, then restart the round to hand#1.

Martingale betting aside, this is one of the worst playing strategies I have ever heard of! It's essentially the opposite of basic strategy!

So what's wrong with my basic strategy? According to http://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackja...-lesson-01.php , the only differences between my strategy and the one here is hitting a 4 against a 12 (which I do), and hitting a 16 against a 10,A which I don't do.

[21gunsalute]

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

A losing streak of 2-7 is fine...as long as one of the 8 hands you win. If you lose 7 in a row, then win the 8th hand, you just won $5 over those 8 hands. Yes it is all or nothing. Either you lose all of them (8 hands) or you win one of them, then restart the round to hand#1.

I don't know how you're going to endure such a streak based on your previous post:

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

Obviously it gets a little sketchy down the road where you're betting 80 or 160 bucks on a hand....and if you go to the casino with 155 or 315 (which is probably the amount I'd be going with).....if you get unlucky in 5 or 6 hands in a row, you're ****ed. But then again, what are the chances you'll lose 5 or 6 hands in a row?

At 7 losses in a row you're already past your $315 threshold. Why you'd want to overbet your bankroll based on some stupid streakiness is beyond me, but hey, you've obviously got your mind set to it, so you have my blessing to go out and blow your entire bankroll in short order.
Enjoy it while it lasts, but it probably won't last very long. Once again, what part of risking hundreds or thousands of dollars for a possible $5 win appeals to you? Would you buy a stock that could only make you $5 on the upside but could cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars on the downside?

[RollingStoned]

Originally Posted by 21gunsalute

I don't know how you're going to endure such a streak based on your previous post:

At 7 losses in a row you're already past your $315 threshold. Why you'd want to overbet your bankroll based on some stupid streakiness is beyond me, but hey, you've obviously got your mind set to it, so you have my blessing to go out and blow your entire bankroll in short order.
Enjoy it while it lasts, but it probably won't last very long. Once again, what part of risking hundreds or thousands of dollars for a possible $5 win appeals to you? Would you buy a stock that could only make you $5 on the upside but could cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars on the downside?

...and I'm not going to do it? I first came here 'asking if it was a viable strategy', not 'check out this awesome strategy it works 100%!!!!'.

After a few posts and some math (still not sure if it's right or not..), I figured out it wouldn't be good in the long run.

Obviously betting hundreds or thousands of dollars to make up and win $5 isn't appealing..


My first (few) posts were about actually doing it...bringing ~300 to the casino. My later posts with the math was more about probability and why it wouldn't work. (It's easier to check probability on something in the long run if you are using rounds of 8 hands, instead of rounds of 4 hands...it's more accurate, no?)

[tthree]

Originally Posted by AussiePlayer

I stand corrected. The above playing strategy is similar to basic strategy if you never doubled, split or surrendered; it's just written in a rather complicated fashion.

If you run the math on a game with 50% win rate that pays even money you should come up with zero no matter how you bet. I didn't look closely at your assumptions etc to be sure this was what you built off off of.

Looking closer you lose 1 in 256 progressions not 1 in 250.
That's 255*5 - 1275 = 0

Your rounding of the lose rate caused a significant error.

[Ferretnparrot]

Originally Posted by RollingStoned

But then again, what are the chances you'll lose 5 or 6 hands in a row?
[/b]

Its much higher than you think it is because you are playing waayyyyyy more than just 6 hands.

It will happen about once every two hours on Average, so every in about two hours you will go broke.

No, you will not make more thazn you will lose when you do lose 6 hands prior to losing the 6 hands, the same applies to 5 hands, or any number of hands which is why this doesnt work and the casino will give you free rooms for doing it.

[FLASH1296]

Way Way Way OFF is what it is.

Your chances of winning your next bet is only 43%.
You will lose 57% of your resolved bets.

All progressive betting schemes are doomed to failure.

[phantom62]

Not to mention table limits.....