Good Idea?

N

nck111488

New Member
#1
#1
Hey, I was wondering, why don't we use the gambler's fallacy method with card counting. Gambler's fallacy: We are bound to win a hand every once in a while.
Why not bet for example $5 on hand 1 while counting cards. Then if you lose, just bet $10 on your next hand, then $20, $40, and so on.

By the way, think about it, if you were to get up to the 160 mark, and hit a blackjack. The blackjack would increase winnings a lot.

Has anyone tried this. What's the math.
 
SD Padres

SD Padres

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
That's called progressive betting and it doesn't work. Do a search in this forum and you will find tons of posts why it won't work. Some common progressive betting systems are "Martingale", "Fibonacci", and "D'Alembert".
 
R

rollem411

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
If max bets weren't a factor than roulette would be beatable with a proper BR. They make the min. so they get your money and it's worth while and they make the max so you can't progressively bet and win.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#5
#5
There was actually a group of counters in the late 60s and early 70s who broke from the Revere et'al counting orthodoxy - they kept counting, but only to play their hands - their bets were various progressions and patterns.

One who was published was Charles Einstein who's credited with first suggesting the HO-1 card values and using it years before Humble and Braun legitimized it.

But Einstein ultimately gave up on betting by count, opting for pattern-type betting. ('Basic Blackjack Betting' 1972 C. Einstein). zg
 
EasyRhino

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
#6
#6
nck111488 said:
Gambler's fallacy: We are bound to win a hand every once in a while.
Click to expand...
That's true.

But your odds of winning the next hand are no better than they were on the previous hand. That's the hard part.

(something like card counting will let you discern some slight differences)
 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
rollem411 said:
If max bets weren't a factor than roulette would be beatable with a proper BR. They make the min. so they get your money and it's worth while and they make the max so you can't progressively bet and win.
Click to expand...
Sorry, even that's not true. There are many reasons for a limit on the spread at a BJ table:

1. It's more difficult to pay off players when the bets are very different since the dealer must grab lots of different sized chips.
2. Small bettors tend to be uncomfortable with large and vice-versa.
3. To make the best use of casino real estate, large bet tables generally have fewer players.
4. It's difficult to supply a table with a large range of chips.
5. The casino is affected by variance also.
6. More experienced dealers are put at higher min tables.
7. The pit keeps a closer eye on high min tables.
8. Spread limitations can limit counters.

Some of these apply to Roulette and some don't. But, progression systems don't work with or without table limits.
 
U

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#9
#9
nck111488 said:
Hey, I was wondering, why don't we use the gambler's fallacy method with card counting. Gambler's fallacy
Has anyone tried this. What's the math.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure if you knew that the word FALLACY is defined as - a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.

So why wouldn't somebody use a deceptive, misleading, false notion? Because it is just that, misleading and deceptive. Like other posters said yes, you are bound to win a hand eventually, but just because you lost the 20 hands you aren't any more likely to win the next.
 
la_dee_daa

la_dee_daa

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
nck111488 said:
Hey, I was wondering, why don't we use the gambler's fallacy method with card counting.
Click to expand...
maybe he was saying you use the progression when you have the advantage and not when the count is negative.:confused:
this would still probably mess up your ror and br by doing this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top