Player's bet variation offset .05 House Adv?

[micbravo]

I read that perfect basic strategy (BS) reduces the House Adv to .05%. I assume that this was based on flat betting.

Now, if I dont count but use BS; but since I have the ability - to raise and lower the bet and to walk away from the table - which the house doesnt have, wouldnt this offset the .05%.

Side question: As a BS player, and for argument's sake, lets say the House Adv is 0%, if I have a bank of $1,000 and want to double it - can I assume that my chance would be be 50%? That is 50% chance of doubling and 50% chance of loosing it all. And thus, if I want to go for a profit of 10% of my bank, I would have 90% probability? Tx much.

 

[EasyRhino]

The house edge is usually around half of one percent. Or 0.50%, depending on rules.

You can change your bets and stop whenever you want. But that only redistributes[/i] your winning and losing sessions. You can have more, smaller, wins, but that's countereacted by fewer, larger, losses.

The house maintains its small advantage all the time, so it's still a losing game.

And thus, if I want to go for a profit of 10% of my bank, I would have 90% probability? Tx much.

Roughly true. However, the other 10% of the time, you'll LOSE 100% of your bankroll. If that fits your risk profile, have fun!

 

[micbravo]

house maintains its small advantage all the time,

Thanks for the corrections. ;-)

I assume you are correct, but what is the logic that house maintains its small adv at all times?

I still feel that there is a net statistical gain for the player because he can raise bet and enter/leave a game - when the trends are with him or against him. One cannot predict when a trend will top or bottom but you can ride the up and walk from a down trend.

Thanks in advance.

 

[EasyRhino]

In general, I want to warn VERY STRONGLY against embarking on any losing strategies, which you may be considering right now. Even if the math doesn't make sense at an intuitive level, it's still right.

I assume you are correct, but what is the logic that house maintains its small adv at all times?

Ok, you got me, technically, something like card counting is about ferreting out times when the advantage fluctuates. Sometimes the house advantage is even larger than .5%, and a minority of the time, there is a player advantage.

However, without counting, you don't know in advance which times you will have the advantage, and which you will not (based on composition of cards in the deck). Even worse, winning or losing an indivdual hand is still mostly a toss up, regardless of advantage (this is how gamblers sometimes win).

Since you don't know what the momentary advantage is, you must assume that you are playing each hand against the average house advantage. And if you play enough hands (the "long run", which might be a few thousand hands), then your results will pretty much average out anyway, so this is a perfectly legitimate assumption. You can literally think of each $100 blackjack hand you play as costing you 50 cents.

So, if you were to play, on, 1,000 hands of $100 avg blackjack, you'd expect it to cost you $500. You can mess around with betting strategies, session timing, and win/loss limits... but it's still going to cost you $500, it's just a matter of how it's distributed. Think of rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Oh wait, this has been done better, I especially like the graph:
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

 

[Sonny]

I assume you are correct, but what is the logic that house maintains its small adv at all times?

Because you have to play your hand before the dealer does. If you bust, you lose even if the dealer busts too. That is where the house gets the advantage. Unless the house changes that rule they have the advantage on every single hand you play.

It doesn’t matter what imaginary trends you follow. It doesn’t matter when you enter or leave the game. It doesn’t matter how many hands you’ve just won or lost. The dealer always plays last and always has the advantage over you before the cards are even dealt.

-Sonny-

 

[GeorgeD]

Thanks for the corrections. ;-)

I assume you are correct, but what is the logic that house maintains its small adv at all times?

I still feel that there is a net statistical gain for the player because he can raise bet and enter/leave a game - when the trends are with him or against him. One cannot predict when a trend will top or bottom but you can ride the up and walk from a down trend.

Thanks in advance.

You say exactly why this won't work: "One cannot predict when a trend will top or bottom". Is an up/down trend going to be 2 hands or 50 hands? One shoe or 10 shoes?

You can't predict top/bottom/start/finish of any trend until after it's over so how can you you know when to get on/off the trend? If you always "quit when you're ahead" the day will come when you'll sit down and lose the first 5 or 10 hands, and that's not a predictor that you will start winning more hands. How much longer do you play to "quit when you're ahead" when you have lost 10 hands? Maybe 5 more hours or 10 or 20 and still be down 10 hands .... or maybe down 100 hands by then .... or maybe broke and can't play any more.

If there is a house advantage, the long run odds will always eventually get you at a net loss. It's the opposite of the fact that someone playing at an advantage (counter) can have a gain in the long run.

 

[Mr. T]

Because you have to play your hand before the dealer does. If you bust, you lose even if the dealer busts too. That is where the house gets the advantage. Unless the house changes that rule they have the advantage on every single hand you play.

It doesn’t matter what imaginary trends you follow. It doesn’t matter when you enter or leave the game. It doesn’t matter how many hands you’ve just won or lost. The dealer always plays last and always has the advantage over you before the cards are even dealt.

-Sonny-

TO the OP I would play according to your sentiment. Mathematically it doesn"t make any difference how you want to play as the house always have the approximate 0.50% advantage.

I myself suscribe to the notion that the player can gain on HA since he has the choice of when he wants to start and stop playing and which table to play on. Also he can flat bet and increase his bet if he sense he is on a winning streak. The house do not have this same option.

I myself would stop playing if I sense the dealer is on a very strong winning streak. Having said that I have seen the dealer cave in after some winning streak.
I rarely raise my bet on a winning streak as I am too chicken a player.

You could perhaps use the trainer on this website for a couple of hours at a time to get a better of feel of the streaks.

 

[Covered_in_Bees!]

None of that, Mr. T. gives you any of kind edge still though. Leaving or betting more on a winning/losing streak doesn't gain you an edge over the game.

The game of blackjack, played with perfect basic strategy, will be a losing proposition no matter how you slice it. Leaving while the dealer is "hot" will still see you at a disadvantage the next time you play.

What you have control over is how much you win or lose on any given session. In the long run, the inherent disadvantage the player is at, will catch up to him or her.

 

[SleightOfHand]

TO the OP I would play according to your sentiment. Mathematically it doesn"t make any difference how you want to play as the house always have the approximate 0.50% advantage.

The house doesn't always have a .5% advantage. It fluctuates, but unless you are counting, you cannot know what the advantage is at any given time.

I myself suscribe to the notion that the player can gain on HA since he has the choice of when he wants to start and stop playing and which table to play on. Also he can flat bet and increase his bet if he sense he is on a winning streak. The house do not have this same option.

I myself would stop playing if I sense the dealer is on a very strong winning streak. Having said that I have seen the dealer cave in after some winning streak.
I rarely raise my bet on a winning streak as I am too chicken a player.

It doesn't matter what table to play on (unless difference rules). And your "sensing" ability? Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn't exist. Why would you be a chicken if you know if you are going to win? If you can sense a win, why not just bet your entire life savings and double up?