.5% House Edge My Back Hair!!

[Deathangl13]

Here is the theoretical game...

(Do sim for 12 hours of play, however many hands that would be) 6-deck, H17, No cut card (CSM), DD after split and on any two cards, BJ pays 3:2, playing Wizard's basic strategy... Two different ways to bet....

1.) $10 minimum bet, flat betting, or the following progression raising after a win, and resorting to flat bets after a loss.

2.) $10(w), $15(w), $20(w), $30(w), $10 ---- > OR $10 (L), $10---------> Until you win....


What kind of pocket stake would you need?
What would you ROR be with the required stake?
What would your ROR be with $400?
Based on the house edge, where would you be after 12 hours of play, with each betting method? Up, down, or breaking even?

If I left anything out let me know....

 

[creeping panther]

Death

Here is the theoretical game...

(Do sim for 12 hours of play, however many hands that would be) 6-deck, H17, No cut card (CSM), DD after split and on any two cards, BJ pays 3:2, playing Wizard's basic strategy... Two different ways to bet....

1.) $10 minimum bet, flat betting, or the following progression raising after a win, and resorting to flat bets after a loss.

2.) $10(w), $15(w), $20(w), $30(w), $10 ---- > OR $10 (L), $10---------> Until you win....


What kind of pocket stake would you need?
What would you ROR be with the required stake?
What would your ROR be with $400?
Based on the house edge, where would you be after 12 hours of play, with each betting method? Up, down, or breaking even?

If I left anything out let me know....

Why bother, you wouild play this sh**?

CP

 

[Deathangl13]

Why bother, you wouild play this sh**?

CP

I'm making a point to someone....

 

[shadroch]

I'm making a point to someone....

With almost every post.

 

[Sonny]

What kind of pocket stake would you need?

The long-term ROR for both strategies is 100% so both players should expect to go broke if they play long enough. If they are only concerned with the short-term risk of a 12-hour trip, as you suggest, then their stake will depend on what kind or RoR they are willing to accept. Here are a few examples:

              [B]ROR CHART
STAKE     BS PLAYER    PROG PLAYER[/B]
$100         100%         100%
$500         38%          55%
$1000        3.8%         13%

The progression player's average bet is around $13.06 compared to the flat betting $10 player. Arnold Snyder has a good article on bankroll management for BS players on his website:

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

What would your ROR be with $400?

For the BS player, about 52%. For the progression player, about 67% (assuming his results are normally distributed).

Based on the house edge, where would you be after 12 hours of play, with each betting method? Up, down, or breaking even?

The BS player should expect to lose $60, but his final results could be anywhere in the range of -$1259 to $1139 (3 SDs). The progression player should expect to lose $78.37, but the range is -$1625 to $1505.

-Sonny-

 

[Renzey]

Great Post Sonny!

Sonny, this was a most articulate and informative answer to Deathang's questions.

The thing for Deathang to keep in mind is that all progressions thru their own mathematical mechanics cancel themselves out. What you're left with is the house edge x your total action over the test period.

 

[Deathangl13]

With almost every post.

You'll get over it....

 

[Deathangl13]

Sonny, this was a most articulate and informative answer to Deathang's questions.

The thing for Deathang to keep in mind is that all progressions thru their own mathematical mechanics cancel themselves out. What you're left with is the house edge x your total action over the test period.

Right Renzey, that is the point I was trying to make. This guy doesn't believe you can lose $400-$500 over a 12 hour play period while flat betting, and using the betting progression he uses (the one I listed above). He thinks the dealer busts on average 2-3 times every ten hands, He says the odds are against a dealer, or anyone, pulling three Blackjacks or 21's in a row, etc.... I'm trying to explain that if he believes that, he's never played in a real casino. In fact, the odds are probably against a dealer NOT pulling multiple 21's or blackjacks....

 

[Deathangl13]

The long-term ROR for both strategies is 100% so both players should expect to go broke if they play long enough. If they are only concerned with the short-term risk of a 12-hour trip, as you suggest, then their stake will depend on what kind or RoR they are willing to accept. Here are a few examples:

              [B]ROR CHART
STAKE     BS PLAYER    PROG PLAYER[/B]
$100         100%         100%
$500         38%          55%
$1000        3.8%         13%

The progression player's average bet is around $13.06 compared to the flat betting $10 player. Arnold Snyder has a good article on bankroll management for BS players on his website:

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



For the BS player, about 52%. For the progression player, about 67% (assuming his results are normally distributed).



The BS player should expect to lose $60, but his final results could be anywhere in the range of -$1259 to $1139 (3 SDs). The progression player should expect to lose $78.37, but the range is -$1625 to $1505.

-Sonny-

Thank you, that is much appreciated...

 

[Deathangl13]

              [B]ROR CHART
STAKE     BS PLAYER    PROG PLAYER[/B]
$100         100%         100%
$500         38%          55%
$1000        3.8%         13%

Then $400 is not enough which was exactly my point, and even with $1,000 he's still has a 3.8% chance of losing every dime.... A 96.2% ROR

 

[StandardDeviant]

Here is the theoretical game...

(Do sim for 12 hours of play, however many hands that would be) 6-deck, H17, No cut card (CSM), DD after split and on any two cards, BJ pays 3:2, playing Wizard's basic strategy

Yuck. Play video poker instead. The odds are as good. It's more entertaining. The comps are better.

 

[Deathangl13]

Yuck. Play video poker instead. The odds are as good. It's more entertaining. The comps are better.

I know, tell my boy that.... He's already lost $900 playing at a $10 table over the last 4 months. That's almost half of what my brother lost betting 10x as much. If I was going to lose a $1,000, I'd much rather do it betting $100 a hand.... At $10 a hand, losing $900 seems impossible, and he still thinks it's not gonna happen.... He just doesn't KNOW!!!! They ought to call a blackjack a "Supernatural", cause these games defy reality....

 

[Nynefingers]

Then $400 is not enough which was exactly my point, and even with $1,000 he's still has a 3.8% chance of losing every dime.... A 96.2% ROR

Umm....no. 3.8% chance of losing it all = 3.8% RoR...

 

[Thunder]

Sonny

I think your chart for ROR is a bit off if he's flat betting $10 with BS with a $500 roll for 12 hours. My guess is that it would be about 6% not 38%

 

[Deathangl13]

I think your chart for ROR is a bit off if he's flat betting $10 with BS with a $500 roll for 12 hours. My guess is that it would be about 6% not 38%

I've had it hit 100% on a $10 table with $500, well no... I left with about $18 remaining.... It can be done, and I try to tell him. Players don't get winning streaks the way dealers do, if you did you'd be tossed out, and they'd probably use counting as the excuse. If you're in there winning consistently, counting or not, they don't need your business....

 

[Deathangl13]

Umm....no. 3.8% chance of losing it all = 3.8% RoR...

Yeah.... I'm glad you caught that just in case anyone didn't know what ROR was. I could've confused them... :grin:

 

[IcedTea23]

"I've had it hit 100% on a $10 table with $500, well no... I left with about $18 remaining...."

Just for the record on this, you wouldn't have "hit 100% risk of ruin". You would be playing with a built in RoR. For example, lets say the 3.8%. Now, if you lose all 500$, you wouldn't of had a case of 100% RoR, just bad variance, and you fell in that 3.8%.

The term of Risk of Ruin is used to describe, how often you will lose your entire bank roll before hitting a pre-determined goal. The sense that you are referring to it as, is that it is the amount of money you have lost.

 

[Deathangl13]

just bad variance, and you fell in that 3.8%.

I fell in and couldn't get out... :laugh:

The term of Risk of Ruin is used to describe, how often you will lose your entire bank roll before hitting a pre-determined goal.

It was still close to 100%... I had two losing sessions back to back, about $500 each. The only two sessions I had at that time. In other words, if you'd have asked me how often I had lost my entire bankroll back then, I would have to say 100% of the time....

 

[IcedTea23]

But the fact is, you weren't guaranteed to lose it statistically, as long as you were playing with a sufficient enough BR. You may have been in the small % that lost it all, but for a set time of play you probably were just a victim of variance.

Lets say I start counting today, figure my RoR to be, 13.7%. Now, I go and, in one session, lose the entire BR. In what you are saying, the RoR would have been 100%, when in fact it is still only 13.7, and variance reared its ugly head.

 

[Deathangl13]

Lets say I start counting today, figure my RoR to be, 13.7%. Now, I go and, in one session, lose the entire BR. In what you are saying, the RoR would have been 100%, when in fact it is still only 13.7, and variance reared its ugly head.

Oh, I know what you mean. I'm being facetious...