say table min is 5. every time you lose you double your bet. And everytime you win you bet the minimum. this would mean that everytime you win a hand you will end up with 5 bucks profit. Assuming you have the bankroll to cover for the long streaks of losing hands and repetitive need to continue doubling your bet. You will always come out ahead if you leave after a win. You cant lose every blackjack hand you play for the rest of your life. Or even the rest of the night. The only thing that I can see getting in the way of this is the max bet at the table.
How would this betting strategy not work
- Thread starter I split tens every time
- Start date
I've lost 17 hand in a row before... twice. I would need over a few million dollars to sustain that run and even then there is the possibility that I may lose 18, 19, 20 or more hands in a row. Or I might be faced with a pair of aces with $655,360 on the line and want to split. Also if I had a few million dollars I probably would not want to sit at some crappy $5 game and make $50 an hour even if I wasn't worried about potentially going broke with a stupid Martingale.
Oh my ... !! To quote someone else on the site (can't seem to find your post), "Where do you progression people keep coming from?" Has there been like a martingale-movement recently? I imagine that somewhere there must be a rally of progressionists storming the streets with signs saying "DOUBLE UP TO CATCH UP!"
And no offense to you, I split tens every time, I'm sure you know no better. The gambler's fallacy is a powerful one. In a logic class, I once learned that the tu quoque, semantic and straw-man fallacies were by and large the most deceptive ones. Au contraire!
But seriously, just go read practically any thread in the voodoo section and you'll get the idea. I particularly recommend this one: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=20191
SP
And no offense to you, I split tens every time, I'm sure you know no better. The gambler's fallacy is a powerful one. In a logic class, I once learned that the tu quoque, semantic and straw-man fallacies were by and large the most deceptive ones. Au contraire!
But seriously, just go read practically any thread in the voodoo section and you'll get the idea. I particularly recommend this one: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=20191
SP
gamblingghost said:
Just say something bad about Dillon and you'll be losing over 20 in a row!
As for me, I hit a new high and intend to hit another new one today!! No curse here!1
uh..... knock on wood.
As for me, I hit a new high and intend to hit another new one today!! No curse here!1
uh..... knock on wood.
If Dillon thought you might cause him trouble he would just immediately throw you out of town. He was the most no nonsense, no mencing words, and if you pointed a gun at him (or started to) he wouldn't think, he would just shoot you down. However, my girlfriend and I have concluded we liked Chester better than Festus.