And everything you said "asooms" he is tellling the truth. But, then, why would anybody ly, especially an anonymouse online poison with nothing whatsewever to loose? Surly, no one wood fantasize or fabrikate sumthing just to make themselfs feel bettter or to have a litttle fun. Surly, no one would sturetch the truth jus to indullge their frajile egos. I must say, this individual has simpley got to be one of the luckiest persons on the planet. It's posssible so it must be true. Yay for lucky plopee...er... peeplo ...er...people! :celebrateSorrry, but spellling is snot my fortay.
Best & safe way to be +10 hands ?
- Thread starter mikeinjersey
- Start date
Caramel6 has a good point, but it needs to be put into context. It's entirely possible that everything Mike is saying is true, but whether or not is irrelevant because the long-term success of his system is provably nil. It's all well and good if a poster comes in bragging that they put $10K on one hand of blackjack at a CSM 6:5 game and ends up winning: their "system" is obviously worth nothing.
The problem that I have with Mike's post is not his belief in his own flawed system; my problem is that some readers are intrigued enough to ask the specific details of some of the system's nuances. I really hope that Mike's post doesn't inspire anyone to follow his strategy, which is easily shattered by even the most rudimentary application of probability and statistical knowledge.
The problem that I have with Mike's post is not his belief in his own flawed system; my problem is that some readers are intrigued enough to ask the specific details of some of the system's nuances. I really hope that Mike's post doesn't inspire anyone to follow his strategy, which is easily shattered by even the most rudimentary application of probability and statistical knowledge.
Caramel: no one is saying that no one can "win a hand" unless they're counting. Of course, anyone can win, and people do win—that's why casinos are popular. That's why the lottery makes so much money. There are plenty of rumors about homeless people racking up huge wins in Vegas. Do they have a strategy worth studying? A British man sold all of his possessions and bet his entire net worth on one hand of roulette. He won, but is that strategy worth applying yourself? If you and I were to flip a coin with the agreement that I would pay you $100 if it landed heads and you would pay me $150 if it landed tails, would you take the bet? There's a 50/50 chance that you'd win $100 for doing almost nothing, but I think it would be unwise to do so. Just because you're at a disadvantage in the long run doesn't mean anything, right?
Mike: You asked is 5 years isn't enough of a "long run." Well, what does "5 years mean?" If you played 50 hours of blackjack in 5 years, you'd probably have different results than you'd have if you played 5000 hours. The long run is not based in length of time, it's how many trials have been repeated. If you and I were to play the same coin game I mentioned a few times a year, you could very well be a winner over 5 years of playing, even at an incredible disadvantage. If we played every week, you can be sure that I would have a lot of your money.
In a good blackjack game, you can expect to have your N0 somewhere around 15,000 hands. That's one way to look at the long run—it's the amount of hands that you must play before you can expect to be within one standard deviation of your expected results. If you play 100 hands per hour, you'll need to be at a blackjack table playing for 150 hours before you can expect to even be making a profit. That's with an edge of around 1%. If you're playing with an edge of -0.5%, you can see how your results can vary wildly (both positively and negatively), even over what most people would consider to be an inordinate amount of time sitting at blackjack tables.
You're playing a game with a disadvantage, and you'll eventually lose money if you play long enough. The "short run" doesn't matter to anyone, advantage player or civilian, because you are statistically more likely to lose money on every wager placed, period. I have no problem with gambling for recreation, and I wouldn't suggest trying to learn AP techniques, but don't try to fool yourself (and as a result, others) that you have a strategy that will make you money. You've been lucky, and I'm happy for you, but you've experienced nothing more than what a lottery winner has experienced: complete and total luck.
Mike: You asked is 5 years isn't enough of a "long run." Well, what does "5 years mean?" If you played 50 hours of blackjack in 5 years, you'd probably have different results than you'd have if you played 5000 hours. The long run is not based in length of time, it's how many trials have been repeated. If you and I were to play the same coin game I mentioned a few times a year, you could very well be a winner over 5 years of playing, even at an incredible disadvantage. If we played every week, you can be sure that I would have a lot of your money.
In a good blackjack game, you can expect to have your N0 somewhere around 15,000 hands. That's one way to look at the long run—it's the amount of hands that you must play before you can expect to be within one standard deviation of your expected results. If you play 100 hands per hour, you'll need to be at a blackjack table playing for 150 hours before you can expect to even be making a profit. That's with an edge of around 1%. If you're playing with an edge of -0.5%, you can see how your results can vary wildly (both positively and negatively), even over what most people would consider to be an inordinate amount of time sitting at blackjack tables.
You're playing a game with a disadvantage, and you'll eventually lose money if you play long enough. The "short run" doesn't matter to anyone, advantage player or civilian, because you are statistically more likely to lose money on every wager placed, period. I have no problem with gambling for recreation, and I wouldn't suggest trying to learn AP techniques, but don't try to fool yourself (and as a result, others) that you have a strategy that will make you money. You've been lucky, and I'm happy for you, but you've experienced nothing more than what a lottery winner has experienced: complete and total luck.
And lest you think that I would advise everyone to learn to count cards and look to the long run, consider this: If a friend approached me and said that they had $100 to gamble with on a Saturday night and they wanted to know the best way to make a couple of bucks with it, I'd certainly recommend some sort of progression system, like Oscar's Grind. These people don't gamble regularly, and when they do, they expect to lose money anyway. If they win a bit, they're ecstatic. You'd have a much better chance of showing a session win on any one, isolated session by using progression betting than you would be counting cards. But if you intend on playing for any real money, or for more than the occasional recreational frequency, you'd be making a grave mistake by thinking that progression systems have any value to offer you.
I start off with $5000 in black chips every single game.
Everytime I go to the casino, I ONLY have $5000 grand with me every time. This also prevents me from desperately doing something stupid incase something very rare happened, and I lost 10 hands in a row within the first 5 minutes. (boom....loss of 5 grand)
Considering over the last 5 years, this has only happened about 15% of the time...before i've reached my daily net goal... I know that the next time it will not happen... or the chances of it happening are very small compared to my many years experience with blackjack.
heck, i'm even starting to think some of the people here that disagree with me...may be casino employees themselves. Surely the casinos wouldn't want additional people winning as much as me.
Everytime I go to the casino, I ONLY have $5000 grand with me every time. This also prevents me from desperately doing something stupid incase something very rare happened, and I lost 10 hands in a row within the first 5 minutes. (boom....loss of 5 grand)
Considering over the last 5 years, this has only happened about 15% of the time...before i've reached my daily net goal... I know that the next time it will not happen... or the chances of it happening are very small compared to my many years experience with blackjack.
heck, i'm even starting to think some of the people here that disagree with me...may be casino employees themselves. Surely the casinos wouldn't want additional people winning as much as me.
Not to be disrespectful, but coming into a casino with $5000 and no plan other than "win money" is the something stupid that you're trying to avoid. Call any casino in the world and speak to the highest-up person you can find. Maybe you'll get a pit boss, maybe a shift manager, maybe even a GM. Explain your strategy to them, tell them that you have $5K in your pocket, and ask if you can come in and use the strategy. That should answer your suspicions about casino shills on this board.
And honestly, what happens when you lose some money, but not the full $5K? Say you lose $2.5K right off the bat and can't get back to the breakeven point before leaving? You didn't lose your $5K, but you also didn't win. So you go to your next session with $5K and win $1K. You're still in the hole for $1.5K. If you think this happen a hell of a lot, you're playing a pretty special game of blackjack over there.
And honestly, what happens when you lose some money, but not the full $5K? Say you lose $2.5K right off the bat and can't get back to the breakeven point before leaving? You didn't lose your $5K, but you also didn't win. So you go to your next session with $5K and win $1K. You're still in the hole for $1.5K. If you think this happen a hell of a lot, you're playing a pretty special game of blackjack over there.
Of course their going to say that..Once they sense Martingale, their brain automatically turns into "thats the stupidest thing to do" mode.
What they don't know is my Martingale system has many additional precautions / safeguards set in place & has been successful for 5 years.
Saying & Doing are 2 completely different things.
What they don't know is my Martingale system has many additional precautions / safeguards set in place & has been successful for 5 years.
Saying & Doing are 2 completely different things.
Because you did it does not fill me with the confidence that I can do it, too. Nor should it.
The fact that a man survives a jump from an airplane with a parachute that does not open does not make me feel confident that I can reproduce the same feat.
If anything, you should be warning people NOT to do what you claim you have done, for fear that your experience is atypical and those following in your footsteps might actually be in danger of serious financial calamity.
You claim the impetus of your postings is to help people, so you should back off and consider what I have said seriously. Do you want to be responsible for the financial ruin of someone in your audience? If you are a reasonably prudent person, I would think you would listen to the advice offered by experts in the field who have studied the game of blackjack from every possible angle over many years and arrived at a consensus that differs dramatically from your own. Your confidence in your strategy, even if your experience happened exactly as narrated, is unwarranted.
What you should be doing is searching for a mathematical proof of your alleged successful approach to blackjack. Your experience comes no where near the scientific proof that is needed to establish a new and relatively safe way to approach the game. Five years, ten years, that is not proof. Running a billion simulations of your methodology, well, that would be another thing. Have you done that? I hope you don't respond that you can't put it into mathematically precise terms. If not, you can't teach others how to do it either. Perhaps, you need a better grounding in mathematics and scientific method before presenting your revelation to the world. As it is, without mathematical basis, your claim appears identical to a long list of card playing scams.
The fact that a man survives a jump from an airplane with a parachute that does not open does not make me feel confident that I can reproduce the same feat.
If anything, you should be warning people NOT to do what you claim you have done, for fear that your experience is atypical and those following in your footsteps might actually be in danger of serious financial calamity.
You claim the impetus of your postings is to help people, so you should back off and consider what I have said seriously. Do you want to be responsible for the financial ruin of someone in your audience? If you are a reasonably prudent person, I would think you would listen to the advice offered by experts in the field who have studied the game of blackjack from every possible angle over many years and arrived at a consensus that differs dramatically from your own. Your confidence in your strategy, even if your experience happened exactly as narrated, is unwarranted.
What you should be doing is searching for a mathematical proof of your alleged successful approach to blackjack. Your experience comes no where near the scientific proof that is needed to establish a new and relatively safe way to approach the game. Five years, ten years, that is not proof. Running a billion simulations of your methodology, well, that would be another thing. Have you done that? I hope you don't respond that you can't put it into mathematically precise terms. If not, you can't teach others how to do it either. Perhaps, you need a better grounding in mathematics and scientific method before presenting your revelation to the world. As it is, without mathematical basis, your claim appears identical to a long list of card playing scams.
to double your money after loss or never get money back? But why? Casino has only 0,5 with a correct BS,so why double? Just increase your bet! The main question when to do it.Basically, if, for example, lose a few bets, and then tp put a bet which willbe more than previous bets and win it-no need to double after time after loss...
Only problem is that there is a likelihood to lose too many hands in a row...
Only problem is that there is a likelihood to lose too many hands in a row...