What is the best thing to do in this scenario

T

Thunder

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
If you had a $300 bankroll, could only play an 8 deck s17 $15 minimum table game, and absolutely had to make $150 in under an hour playing at a full table, which of these would give you the best odds of doing so.

a. Betting $150/hand when the TC reached +1 or better.
b. Using a martingale system with a $15,$20, $40, $80, $160 progression
c. Card counting with a 1-10 spread
d. Flat betting
e. other (please list)
 
J

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
Doesn't really matter

Wait for a high count, place a few big bets and hope for the best. 60-80 hands or so is too small to be statistically significant, and you have an extreme RoR.
 
EasyRhino

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
a) Get a second job

failing that:

b) martingale in a positive count. (which, with an 8d game in under an hour, I might NEVER FIND a positive count).
 
J

jaredmt

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
my guess is wait till u get TC of +4 or higher and bet $75. maybe u'll get lucky and win twice or win a double/split. but who knows how long it would take to get a TC of +4 and that only gives you 1.5% advantage so theres no guaruntee
 
G

GeorgeD

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
Anyone who "absolutely had to make $150" in an hour of blackjack sounds to me like someone gambling with money they shouldn't or who is a compulsive gambler.
 
Warlord

Warlord

Well-Known Member
#6
#6
Thunder said:
If you had a $300 bankroll, could only play an 8 deck s17 $15 minimum table game, and absolutely had to make $150 in under an hour playing at a full table, which of these would give you the best odds of doing so.

a. Betting $150/hand when the TC reached +1 or better.
b. Using a martingale system with a $15,$20, $40, $80, $160 progression
c. Card counting with a 1-10 spread
d. Flat betting
e. other (please list)
Click to expand...
Bet it all on the first hand and then go do something with your time (like work)
 
HarryKuntz

HarryKuntz

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
Easy Solution

Thunder said:
If you had a $300 bankroll, could only play an 8 deck s17 $15 minimum table game, and absolutely had to make $150 in under an hour playing at a full table, which of these would give you the best odds of doing so.

a. Betting $150/hand when the TC reached +1 or better.
b. Using a martingale system with a $15,$20, $40, $80, $160 progression
c. Card counting with a 1-10 spread
d. Flat betting
e. other (please list)
Click to expand...
e. Pocket the $300, leave the casino, go to the closest red light district, stand on a street corner and then sell your ass. you might make more than $150 in an hour if your lucky.
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
Thunder said:
If you had a $300 bankroll, could only play an 8 deck s17 $15 minimum table game, and absolutely had to make $150 in under an hour playing at a full table, which of these would give you the best odds of doing so.

a. Betting $150/hand when the TC reached +1 or better.
b. Using a martingale system with a $15,$20, $40, $80, $160 progression
c. Card counting with a 1-10 spread
d. Flat betting
e. other (please list)
Click to expand...
Nothings absolute in BJ. However I would do 1of3 things.

1)+3>150$
2)+5>150$
3)+2>25$+3>50$(safest)
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
#9
#9
GeorgeD said:
Anyone who "absolutely had to make $150" in an hour of blackjack sounds to me like someone gambling with money they shouldn't or who is a compulsive gambler.
Click to expand...
Yeah what's up with that?

If I absolutely had to make $150 playing blackjack, I would cheat.
 
T

Thunder

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
ROTFLMAO. You guys are too funny. I was just asking cause someone at the table on my last trip said to me they were down $150 and wanted to make it back before their bus left in an hour to go back to NY. I was just tempted to tell them, "That ain't gonna happen buddy," but instead said, "Good luck!"

In an 8 deck game though with 75% penetration, I would forget about waiting until the count got above +3 because that almost certainly isnt going to happen in an hour.
 
Last edited:
G

GeorgeD

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
That's usually called "chasing your losses". Could he win back $150 ... maybe, but it's more likely he'll lose the rest of his BR.

Thunder said:
ROTFLMAO. You guys are too funny. I was just asking cause someone at the table on my last trip said to me they were down $150 and wanted to make it back before their bus left in an hour to go back to NY. I was just tempted to tell them, "That ain't gonna happen buddy," but instead said, "Good luck!"

In an 8 deck game though with 75% penetration, I would forget about waiting until the count got above +3 because that almost certainly isnt going to happen in an hour.
Click to expand...
 
S

standard toaster

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
is this in the northeast? not ac? if so couting there isnt to favorable and you may as well make your way back 6 tables turn to the left and go two more until you hit the $% casino war table. And just martingale that at $15 you would bust that $300 way to quick but back in the day before i knew better a $150 pull at that table with a martingale was really easy
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
GeorgeD said:
That's usually called "chasing your losses". Could he win back $150 ... maybe, but it's more likely he'll lose the rest of his BR.
Click to expand...
Well, I know the first guy specified a BJ game, but, like blackchipjim suggested, you could always play double-zero roulette and have at least a 65% or more chance of winning your $150 with $300 roll.

Probably there's ways of even increasing that chance given an hour to play and certainly if a different game may be available.
 
T

Thunder

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
How do you figure a 65% chance? I'm guessing your odds of winning on any spin in that scenario is 48%. IF you lose the first spin, your odds of winning the next spin is still 48% Your odds of losing 2 in a row would be 27%
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#17
#17
Thunder said:
How do you figure a 65% chance? I'm guessing your odds of winning on any spin in that scenario is 48%. IF you lose the first spin, your odds of winning the next spin is still 48% Your odds of losing 2 in a row would be 27%
Click to expand...

Oh it's kindof like I could bet $150 on any 2 of the 3 columns with a 2-1 payoff.

I'll just switch to a single-zero game now lol.

If I do that I have a 24/37 chance of winning. (64.9% chance). Or I could bet $75 on any 1 dozen. If I win, I won my $150. If I lose, I bet $112.50 on any one dozen. If I win, I win $225 and am $150 ahead and quit. If I lose again, I still have $112.50 left and could bet $12.50 on any 9 numbers and still win my $150.

So, if you multiply it out, I have increased my chances of winning from originally 64.9% to 65.5% chance.

The point is, that with identical orig $roll, I have increased my chances of winning the same amount, of achieving my goal, only by changing how I choose to bet it. The house edge of the game hasn't changed, only how long my avg bet has been exposed to it.

Obviously, the given 1 hr time constraint enters into it too. It allows me to play 3 spins, at most, in this case rather than being limited to only 1 spin.

With an entire hour to play with, it wouldn't surprise me that this could be improved upon further.

But, hey, there you go, if you have time for 3 spins at single-zero roulette, and want to win 50% of starting roll 65.5% of the time, why not do it if that risk is acceptable to you lol?

If 3 spins takes 10 minutes, and you only have 10 minutes, if you can figure out a higher chance of achieving 50% of starting roll in 10 minutes, then definitely do that lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top