Online Blackjack cheater

[ScottH]

Hey, thanks a lot guys, I remember first coming on this site really excited about counting cards 6 months ago. Once i discovered bonuses, I quickly realized it was a MUCH more efficient and safer way to bring in the $$ considering my bankroll (virtually nothing ). well now i'm gonna give counting a go during my christmas break, managed to rack up an estimated 8 grand so i think doing a 1-10 spread on a 5 dollar table shld be pretty safe.
WISH ME LUCK.

oooo I actually have a trip lined up to a local casino during the hols.... i already have the buffet comped

8k should be plenty to get you started counting. You can maybe even spread green chips if you wanted to, but you're right that spreading on a 5 dollar table will be a safe way to start out. Good luck!

 

[mickpk]

Actually, there are plenty of good bonuses. Search the lists. A good bonus is anything that you can make +EV. And if you have the bankroll and betting strategy (note: not system) then you can make a bonus with WR of 100xB worthwhile. How? Bet big. Bet 1/2 your bankroll. Bet 1/4 if you like but the chances of hitting your target quickly enough are reduced and you just end up giving more EV to the house because you have to play more. The idea is to reduce the amount of wagering you need to do either by hitting a large target or by busting.

The 100/100/5000 bonus you mentioned is not that bad. Many play those bonuses all the time. I play them. I lap them up. I play them like a sticky. If you chose to grind the above bonus at $1 per hand your expected profit/outcome is 75% of the bonus, $75. Betting big you will either bust it (and have completed your WR) or hit your target (whatever you set it at, eg 2xBD or 3xBD or higher). After you hit your target you can either continue betting big or grind it out at lower bets.

Back to grinding; you could bore yourself to death and grind it at $1 per hand for no appreciable benefit. Believe me, believe all the pro's out there; there is NO appreciable benefit. You could bet $10 per hand for some appreciable benefit. If you were going to grind and not play sticky then $10 is a nice betting size. Your +EV is going to hover at about $75 (on a house edge of 0.5%). However, bet $100 per hand and go for a target of at least 2xBD, ie $400. Factoring in the average expected wagering of the bonuses you will bust versus the bonuses you will hit your target with, the +EV jumps to $87 (and, most importantly, your hourly earnings rate jumps immeasurably). Set a target of 4xBD and your +EV jumps to $92. That's a 92% profit margin. Sure, there's variance, but if you are bankrolled it is not a concern. If you aren't, then go back to grinding and, like most players, not even doing these bonuses and missing out on more profits. The pro's don't miss out on these.

The simple philosophy behind the above strategy is that because blackjack is almost a 50/50 game (in terms of payout), that you will bust about 50% and hit or exceed your target about 50% of the time. Thus, you will turn a 100/100 bonus to $0 but you will also turn it into $400. $400-$100-$100= $200- the remainder of the WR for the successful bonus = net expected profit of $174, or $87 per bonus. The times you have turned it to zero, you no longer have to complete the WR thus you have saved EV because you don't have to give the house any more edge. The times you make it to $400 (or higher) you complete the WR. So, you don't complete $10000 worth of wagering as if you had to grind the bonus twice, you complete about $5200 (assuming the bust is fairly instant). The +EV of the bonus does change (your friend is wrong). The +EV is related to the WR and the amount of wagering required to earn that bonus and you have reduced the WR from $10000 to $5200 thus you have made more profit per bonus. Note: per bonus. The EV of playing blackjack does not change but you can impact on the EV of the bonus by employing the correct playing strategy.

This play is not for those with insufficient bankroll or a weak stomach or anyone who is going to complain about busting 10 or more bonuses in a row. Such things will happen. But the more you play the more you will make. Of course, if you are American then your opportunities have been markedly reduced but if you are not then there are plenty of bonuses (especially sticky's) out there to play in the above manner. My cousin just started playing halfway through this month and has made over $3000 already. Only 15 good bonuses? I'd better not tell him otherwise he might stop at the 30 or so he's done already.

 

[supercoolmancool]

A good bonus is anything that you can make +EV.

I would not go that far. Remember +EV does not directly translate into +money. Otherwise working fast food would be +EV.

For instance take this example: a bonus with WR of 100xB

a bonus with WR of 100xB worthwhile. How? Bet big. Bet 1/2 your bankroll. Bet 1/4 if you like but the chances of hitting your target quickly enough are reduced and you just end up giving more EV to the house because you have to play more. The idea is to reduce the amount of wagering you need to do either by hitting a large target or by busting.

Please reassure me that you are not trying to say that a whole bunch of small bets have a greater -EV than a few big bets.

Back to grinding; you could bore yourself to death and grind it at $1 per hand for no appreciable benefit. Believe me, believe all the pro's out there; there is NO appreciable benefit.

I always try to set my unit to a dollar amount that will allow me to complete the WR after 400 hands. If it takes over 400 hands then it is generally not worth it to me.

You could bet $10 per hand for some appreciable benefit.

Hold the phone, $10 per hand is WAY too much. One's risk of ruin would be unreasonalbe for a measly $100 bonus.

If you were going to grind and not play sticky then $10 is a nice betting size. Your +EV is going to hover at about $75 (on a house edge of 0.5%).

You are wrong. Your EV will be exactly $75.

However, bet $100 per hand and go for a target of at least 2xBD, ie $400. Factoring in the average expected wagering of the bonuses you will bust versus the bonuses you will hit your target with, the +EV jumps to $87

You are wrong. Your EV will be exactly $75.

(and, most importantly, your hourly earnings rate jumps immeasurably). Set a target of 4xBD and your +EV jumps to $92. That's a 92% profit margin. Sure, there's variance, but if you are bankrolled it is not a concern. If you aren't, then go back to grinding and, like most players, not even doing these bonuses and missing out on more profits. The pro's don't miss out on these.

What do you mean the pro's don't miss these?? How do you know what the pros do and don't miss? Are you the Bojack of bonus hunting?? For starters there are no professional bonus hunters and if there are then I doubt a pro would waste his time on such rediculously low stakes. A true Pro would not play that bonus. Waste-o-time!!

But then again, it has been so long since I last bonus hunted that things may have changed dramatically in such a way that that may be one of the better bonuses. Just it was not good when I played. I mean if that is the best you can get and you really want to then play it. In fact I actually once played one that was 20X for a $100 bonus but that was the worst ever. I mean I guess it is better than nothing but close.

The simple philosophy behind the above strategy is that because blackjack is almost a 50/50 game (in terms of payout), that you will bust about 50% and hit or exceed your target about 50% of the time. Thus, you will turn a 100/100 bonus to $0 but you will also turn it into $400. $400-$100-$100= $200- the remainder of the WR for the successful bonus = net expected profit of $174, or $87 per bonus.

Is this a secret of the pros??:laugh:

 

[mickpk]

Perhaps you know better than Arnold Snyder:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/stickybonuses.htm


Perhaps you also know better than Michael Shackleford

http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/online-bonuses.html


Perhaps you think you know better than me. But I doubt it.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Gee as much as I hate to say it, it looks as though I know more than Arnold Snyder, but I would be hesitent to say that until we get at least a 2nd opinion.

You see with the 100 deposit 100 sticky example that Snyder was saying, if you bet 200 on your first hand then you are expected to have 199 left in your account and if you do Snyders extra play that he said gives the player $25 more dollars than you will end up wagering $600 for and expectation of 600 * .005 = $197 left in your account. This is no different that betting $1 per hand.

Sonny, I am interested in your brain.

 

[mickpk]

You are kidding, right? You are quite capable of doing the math on this so why don't you do it? The math is solid and accurate. Arnold Snyder knows what he's talking about, The Wizard does, too. And so do those of us that do this professionally. I guess that's how I know what the Pro's do and don't do. The only thing you got right was that we don't waste our time on ridiculously low stakes; we bet $100, $200 and higher. The rest, unfortunately, you didn't take time to consider before analysing and typing.

 

[mickpk]

Ok, we crossed replies so let's start again.

You see with the 100 deposit 100 sticky example that Snyder was saying, if you bet 200 on your first hand then you are expected to have 199 left in your account and if you do Snyders extra play that he said gives the player $25 more dollars than you will end up wagering $600 for and expectation of 600 * .005 = $197 left in your account. This is no different that betting $1 per hand.

Where you're going wrong is you are calculating the EV of blackjack, not the EV of the bonus. Sticky play is like this: (this example is for a fully cashable bonus but the math works the same for a sticky bonus).

imagine a roulette wheel with a house edge of 0.5% (eg 100 reds, 100 blacks and zero). I have two bonuses of 100/100/5000. I put $200 on red, and $200 on black. Let's say Red comes up, that acct now has $400. The other acct now has $0 and for all intents and purposes has completed the WR for that bonus in $200 of wagers instead of the full requirement of $5000. The winner on Red now completes their bonus WR balance of $4800. The two bonuses will wager a cumulative $400 (first bet) + $4800 = $5200. Expected loss on $5200 is $26 (at 0.5%). Red winner had $400 - $100 (deposit) - $100 (loser on Black) - $26 = $174 total profit = $87 per bonus. This is the +EV of the bonus.

 

[supercoolmancool]

You think playing with a .5% disadvantage is a 50/50 game?

First of all, you can't wager 2 accounts at the same time on the same wheel unless you were playing a live game with a friends account.

secondly,

If you wager 200 on red and 200 on black then you are expected to have 199 in each account. And then from there you would complete the WR of 4800 for each account and your EV would be the exact same no matter how you bet.

Where are all the experts!!! I admit I am not one.

We have both presented our arguments. Now we need a arbitrator.

 

[bluewhale]

online bonuses

okay guys,
I started this topic with the hopes of finding oiut what the optimum way to play a sticky bonus is, and what the effect increased bets on cashable bonuses is. I'm not entirely sure what you two are discussing here, but if you want this resolved please state exactly what your differences of opinion are.

Secondly, supercoolman, I just wanted to state that maybe you have been out of the bonus thing for a while or don't value small money enough.... but as a 19 year old university student who has been working 7.50 an hour jobs over the last couple summers (recently 11 bucks an hour ), bonus hunting is STILL AN EXCELLENT way to make money. I'm sure i'm not the only person who is in my position. When i started out whoring it was about 20 bucks an hour (betting $2 a hand) and now i'm probably doing over $40 an hour, sometimes even 100 bucks an hour depending on the bonus). Also i would suggest bonus hunting to anyone looking to build a bankroll for counting as with a limited bankroll it is a MUCH more effective way to make money

Finally @ mick, I'm not really sure how you came up with the fact that betting higher on cashables give you a higher EV, but i'd really like to hear about this (although i seriously doubt that this is true). I realize that it does increase your hourly rate and your variance, but i can't see how it changes your expected profit on each bonus.

 

[supercoolmancool]

My position clearly stated is: If you always play basic strategy, then you can't change your EV no matter what on online casinos that shuffle after every hand.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Hmmmm..
After thinking about it I am starting to think that mickpk may be onto something, but I am not quite sure what it is...

 

[mickpk]

If you wager 200 on red and 200 on black then you are expected to have 199 in each account. And then from there you would complete the WR of 4800 for each account and your EV would be the exact same no matter how you bet.

Yes, but you have that $398 (I kept the example at $400 and deducted the expected house edge at the end) in one acct, not two. The casino can not (and does not) impose the completion of the WR on the acct with a zero balance. Thus, you have only one acct for which you must complete the WR, not two. Thus you have saved further expected losses to the casino in terms of the value of the house edge. Thus you have increased the expected value of the bonuses and therefore each bonus on average.

bluewhale; this information is not secret. It has been used by bonus hunters (of all stripes) for years. The math is rock solid and accurate, allow me to assure you of that. It increases your +EV on the bonuses (I have to stress that part) as that is what you are playing for and that is the restriction imposed on your play. You will still lose 0.5% over the course of your blackjack play but the value of the bonuses you play over that course determines the value of those bonuses. You can wager $500,000 and complete bonuses worth $1000 or you can wager the same amount and complete bonuses worth twice as much. Do the math; which one is expected to be more profitable? The latter is and with aggressive betting (aka, sticky bonus play) you can have that impact. Variance works for you in these cases. It doesn't beat the house edge; NEVER (this is not a system; this is rock solid math), but it does reduce the amount of expected losses in the course of completing the bonuses and that is where the positive impact lies.

I guess the only other major point to consider is that if you are in the US your position has been severely curtailed in recent weeks but there are still some decent bonuses out there. If you are in the UK or Europe, the doors are wide open.

 

[ScottH]

I havn't read all the posts but betting many small bets or one large bet is the same EV. Your EV is the EXACT same if you bet 1000 hands at 1 dollar each, or 5 hands of 200 dollars each. EV is a function of the house edge not the bet amount.

So basically making bigger bets will NOT increase your EV, it will only increase your variance.

 

[mickpk]

You think playing with a .5% disadvantage is a 50/50 game?

First of all, you can't wager 2 accounts at the same time on the same wheel unless you were playing a live game with a friends account.

I know you, and the other math guys, are quite capable of understanding the concept. Use http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-calculator-c6.htm to work out the chances of reaching your goal of +2 units (that is what your target is when betting $100 per hand with a $200 balance and a target of $400 balance). It will tell you that the answer is near 50%. This takes into account the payouts of 3:2 blackjack and the value of doubles and splits.

We are not in disagreement as to the EV of playing blackjack. On that we most wholeheartedly agree. You will lose 0.5% of the total amount you wager. But that is not the most important function in our calculation. The value of the bonuses is. That is the point that everyone is missing. I can't believe we are having this discussion here? This is blackjackinfo.com with some excellent math brains and it surprises me that no-one has ever come across this or that no-one can even comprehend the strategy. I find it quite amazing, really. I read all your posts on card counting etc and they are mathematically brilliant but this rather simple concept which has been in wide use and commented on and recommended by many (eg Arnold Snyder, Mike Shackleford, just to mention two) should not be beyond the grasp of many of the members here. If I am not making my point clearly or using bad examples, I apologise, but I don't believe that is the case. As I am also at the risk of sounding like a parrot (Polly want a cracker? Gotta take the piss out of myself as this has gone further and taken longer than I originally thought), I'm also not going to repeat it all again so please read and re-read my comments and examples and do the math on them. Believe me, they are accurate.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Oh well...I guess it's a mystery!

 

[ScottH]

However, bet $100 per hand and go for a target of at least 2xBD, ie $400. Factoring in the average expected wagering of the bonuses you will bust versus the bonuses you will hit your target with, the +EV jumps to $87 (and, most importantly, your hourly earnings rate jumps immeasurably).

How do you figure the EV "jumps" to 87 dollars? Setting a win goal may change the amount wagered, but that can't increase your EV. Let's say the WR is 1000 and your target is 200. You have wagered 1000 and you are only at 150. Do you keep playing to hit your target? Why would you since you are playing a negative expectation game. The maximum possible EV is to bet until you have reached the WR EXACTLY, because you expect to lose the least by betting only to the WR and no farther. And as you mentioned in your post, it doesn't matter how you wager, the EV is the same. So how would setting a target goal change that fact? Setting a win goal can only decrease your EV, since if you aren't at it when you complete the WR, you will just have to wager more to get to your goal.

You say we are having trouble understanding the math. Here is how the math of a non-sticky bonus works. EV=bonus amount - ($wagered)x(house edge). The maximum EV is to bet exactly the amount of the WR and no more. The ONLY way to increase the EV is to bet LESS than the WR, but then you won't get your bonus, so it really won't increase your EV.

You must be talking about sticky bonuses only, because at least for non-sticky bonuses, it doesn't matter how much you bet, your EV does not change.

imagine a roulette wheel with a house edge of 0.5% (eg 100 reds, 100 blacks and zero). I have two bonuses of 100/100/5000. I put $200 on red, and $200 on black. Let's say Red comes up, that acct now has $400. The other acct now has $0 and for all intents and purposes has completed the WR for that bonus in $200 of wagers instead of the full requirement of $5000. The winner on Red now completes their bonus WR balance of $4800. The two bonuses will wager a cumulative $400 (first bet) + $4800 = $5200. Expected loss on $5200 is $26 (at 0.5%). Red winner had $400 - $100 (deposit) - $100 (loser on Black) - $26 = $174 total profit = $87 per bonus. This is the +EV of the bonus.

Here is where you went wrong, you ASSUMED that one of the bets won. You can't do that. What you EXPECT to happen is you lose 1 dollar in each account. You can't say that you expect one account's bet to win and one to lose. You expect BOTH bets to lose 1 dollar each. And thus, you will still have TWO WR's to fulfill, not one like you mentioned in your example.

You never can EXPECT to win on any of your bets playing at a disadvantage. In order to make your "math work", you had to ASSUME that one of the bets won, but that is not correct thinking.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Whew. Thanks for clearing that up Scott. Supercoolmancool 1 Mickpk 0. Just kidding Mickpk. lol

 

[mickpk]

You must be talking about sticky bonuses only, because at least for non-sticky bonuses, it doesn't matter how much you bet, your EV does not change.

You play sticky bonuses so why you don't understand this is baffling. How do you get +EV out of the sticky bonuses you play? If you grind a sticky bonus and never hit sufficient variance to take you above your deposited amount, you will never make a profit from them. Yet you do, I assume. This same principle applies to any bonus, sticky or not, but doing it for fully cashable bonuses is more profitable.

say the WR is 1000 and your target is 200. You have wagered 1000 and you are only at 150. Do you keep playing to hit your target? Why would you since you are playing a negative expectation game. The maximum possible EV is to bet until you have reached the WR EXACTLY, because you expect to lose the least by betting only to the WR and no farther.

Correct. I was giving a simplified example to illustrate the point of targetting. If you have completed the WR and you are at an amount below your target, you have now completed that bonus and you should withdraw. However, betting at $100 per hand with only $200 in your bank it is going to be extremely unlikely, though not impossible.

Here is where you went wrong, you ASSUMED that one of the bets won. You can't do that. What you EXPECT to happen is you lose 1 dollar in each account. You can't say that you expect one account's bet to win and one to lose. You expect BOTH bets to lose 1 dollar each. And thus, you will still have TWO WR's to fulfill, not one like you mentioned in your example.

Surely you would know that if you did 200 of the above bonuses that you would be expected to 'win' 199 of them and the +EV is then as I described it. Just like you could lose the first hand of your card counting play but you know that after 20,000 hands you will be within your expected profit range.

However, if I must (and I would), I would have each player contribute $1 to the zero bet and then when they've won their $199 back each, they go at it again. If zero falls again, they repeat. All of this wagering contributes to the WR, by the way, so it's not all bad. Eventually, one of them will 'win'. And only one of them will have the $0 balance and the other will have the rest. Only one of them will have to complete the WR. Adjustments to the +EV of the bonus can be made to recalculate it but it is still a much higher +EV than grinding out both bonuses.

You never can EXPECT to win on any of your bets playing at a disadvantage. In order to make your "math work", you had to ASSUME that one of the bets won, but that is not correct thinking.

Only if I am going to lose 1000 bets in a row. I am going to win some hands somewhere along the way, surely even you would concede that. And, as QFIT's calculator and the math proves, I will achieve a +2 units target about 50% of the time.

This is getting ridiculous. Ken, zg, Norm? Any contributions or do we leave the potential bonus hunters visiting this forum to search elsewhere for this information? I've explained this to lesser brains than some here and they've grasped this simple concept. 1000's have been doing it for years and making $1000's per month. I tried to share this information with someone that asked how to go about playing such bonuses and I can't believe that card counting math guys can't grasp this.

On this I am so right that I will offer to donate $1000 to our fave guy of the moment (NOT), Rep. Bill Frist if you can prove my math is wrong (it isn't!). And I have no desire to donate even a single dollar to that jerk so believe me (again), this is a safe wager. As safe as any of the math I have produced here.

 

[ScottH]

Whew. Thanks for clearing that up Scott. Supercoolmancool 1 Mickpk 0. Just kidding Mickpk. lol

It still is better strategy to bet larger on sticky bonuses, but since he accused everyone here of not understanding math, I had to show him that he had several misunderstanding in his posts.

I don't know how much math mickpk really knows, but a roullette game with 100 reds, 100 blacks, and 1 zero does not yield a house edge of exactly .5%. The house edge is really 1/201, or .4975%.

 

[ScottH]

You play sticky bonuses so why you don't understand this is baffling. How do you get +EV out of the sticky bonuses you play? If you grind a sticky bonus and never hit sufficient variance to take you above your deposited amount, you will never make a profit from them. Yet you do, I assume. This same principle applies to any bonus, sticky or not, but doing it for fully cashable bonuses is more profitable.




Correct. I was giving a simplified example to illustrate the point of targetting. If you have completed the WR and you are at an amount below your target, you have now completed that bonus and you should withdraw. However, betting at $100 per hand with only $200 in your bank it is going to be extremely unlikely, though not impossible.




Surely you would know that if you did 200 of the above bonuses that you would be expected to 'win' 199 of them and the +EV is then as I described it. Just like you could lose the first hand of your card counting play but you know that after 20,000 hands you will be within your expected profit range.

However, if I must (and I would), I would have each player contribute $1 to the zero bet and then when they've won their $199 back each, they go at it again. If zero falls again, they repeat. All of this wagering contributes to the WR, by the way, so it's not all bad. Eventually, one of them will 'win'. And only one of them will have the $0 balance and the other will have the rest. Only one of them will have to complete the WR. Adjustments to the +EV of the bonus can be made to recalculate it but it is still a much higher +EV than grinding out both bonuses.




Only if I am going to lose 1000 bets in a row. I am going to win some hands somewhere along the way, surely even you would concede that. And, as QFIT's calculator and the math proves, I will achieve a +2 units target about 50% of the time.

This is getting ridiculous. Ken, zg, Norm? Any contributions or do we leave the potential bonus hunters visiting this forum to search elsewhere for this information? I've explained this to lesser brains than some here and they've grasped this simple concept. 1000's have been doing it for years and making $1000's per month. I tried to share this information with someone that asked how to go about playing such bonuses and I can't believe that card counting math guys can't grasp this.

On this I am so right that I will offer to donate $1000 to our fave guy of the moment (NOT), Rep. Bill Frist if you can prove my math is wrong (it isn't!). And I have no desire to donate even a single dollar to that jerk so believe me (again), this is a safe wager. As safe as any of the math I have produced here.

You are incorrect in assuming that I play sticky bonuses. I was describing only non-sticky bonuses.

Only if I am going to lose 1000 bets in a row. I am going to win some hands somewhere along the way, surely even you would concede that.

I agree that you PROBABLY will, but you never EXPECT to win any of your bets. You expect to lose at the house edge every bet you place. So your example is flawed since you made an incorrect assumption. Feel free to show me the math without making any assumptions about winning your bets.