Wie hoch sind die Chancen, 6 Hände hintereinander zu verlieren?
GeschriebenAmong emails I receive, a fairly common question is something like this:
Can you tell me the odds of losing six hands in a row at blackjack?
Sometimes it is 5 hands, sometimes 8, sometimes more. No matter, I cringe whenever I get this question.
To me, it’s like an airship designer asking a chemist: “Does hydrogen weigh only half as much as helium?” We all know how THAT turned out.
In either case, there is nothing wrong with the matter-of-fact question being asked, but it is apparent to the recipient that the question is likely a clue to dangerous thinking, whether it be the Hindenburg or the Martingale progression.
I’ll get back to that in a moment. But first, let me respond to the question, very carefully…
You probably mean “probability”
The first thing I want to do is change the wording of the question from “What are the odds” to “What is the probability“. Most people asking this question want an answer that is a single number or percentage, representing how likely the event is to occur. “Odds” means something slightly different, although the two are often used interchangeably. If you want to understand the difference, Google it.
Your question is incomplete
There is a crucial piece of information missing from your question. How do you plan to play?
Let’s say you sit down next to me at a blackjack table, and I look over and tell you: “This is unbelievable! I’m on the most horrible losing streak. My luck is so bad, I bet you $100 that I lose the next six hands in a row.” If you were foolish enough to bet me, I would quickly demonstrate how the probability of losing six in a row can be 100%!
But for the sake of your question, let’s assume the player will use accurate basic strategy on the game. I cannot resist the temptation of pointing out that virtually no player who asks this question will know a completely accurate basic strategy! But I’ll play along anyway.
Still not clear yet
There is another picky detail to consider. I assume you are not asking for the probability of losing exactly six hands in a row, which implies that the seventh hand cannot be a loss. Instead, you want to know the probability of losing six or more hands in a row. We can easily sidestep that complication, if we simply say that you want to know the probability of losing the next six hands of blackjack.
Finally, an answer?
For a typical shoe game, a basic strategy player will win 43.3% of hands, lose 48.0%, and push the other 8.7%.
If I answer the revised and improved question…
What is the probability of losing the next six hands at blackjack, using basic strategy?
Since each hand has a 48.0% chance of being a loss, the answer is 0.48 ^ 6 = 0.012 = 1.2%.
But wait a minute…
That still wasn’t the right question!
That probably isn’t what you meant either. What if you lose the first hand, push the second hand, and lose the next five hands in a row? You would probably want to call that losing six in a row. We should just ignore pushes altogether, and only count hands that end in a win or a loss. Of non-push hands, players win 47.4% and lose 52.6%.
Finally an answer that may satisfy you:
What is the probability of losing the next six hands at blackjack, using basic strategy, ignoring pushes?
The answer is 0.526 ^ 6 = 0.021 = 2.1%.
That is roughly 1 in 47 attempts.
What about other length losing streaks?
Just because this is a convenient place to do so, I’ll publish the numbers for other lengths of losing streaks.
| Probability of losing n hands in a row, ignoring pushes. | ||
|---|---|---|
| n | Probability | One in |
| 1 loss | 52.6% | 1.9 |
| 2 losses | 27.7% | 3.6 |
| 3 losses | 14.6% | 6.9 |
| 4 losses | 7.7% | 13 |
| 5 losses | 4.0% | 25 |
| 6 losses | 2.1% | 47 |
| 7 losses | 1.1% | 90 |
| 8 losses | 0.59% | 170 |
| 9 losses | 0.31% | 323 |
| 10 losses | 0.16% | 614 |
| 11 losses | 0.08% | 1168 |
| 12 losses | 0.04% | 2219 |
| 13 losses | 0.02% | 4217 |
Why I hate answering this question
When players ask questions about how likely it is to lose hands in a streak, it usually means that they are considering a negative progression betting system that would fail if they encounter a certain number of losing hands in a row. Most commonly, they have rediscovered the infamous Martingale system, where you double up after any losing hands to catch up.
The Martingale is the simplest of the negative progression betting systems. The idea is simple. If you lose one hand, just double your bet on the next hand. Eventually, you will win a hand, and make back all of your losses plus a profit of the initial bet. Indeed, this seems to work very reliably, until it doesn’t. The problem is that most people underestimate how likely those “unlikely” streaks of losses really are. Check the table above. The probabilities get small, but not nearly small enough.
Why you should NOT bet the Martingale
If you think the Martingale is a good idea, you are badly mistaken. Yes, it gives you a high percentage chance of winning a small amount, but it does not take long to run out of luck. For a $10 bettor who wants to be able to handle up to 7 losses in a row, he needs to have a bankroll of $2550, and be willing to bet $1280 on the eighth hand. All this, for a $10 win each time.
And he will run into that fatal eighth loss once every 170 trials on average. You can think of that as making $1700 in profit before you eventually lose $2550. (Yes, I am oversimplifying because doubles and splits make the math very messy. The real numbers still make this a very bad idea.)
On top of that, blackjack is a terrible choice for the Martingale system. With the necessary doubles and splits, sometimes both on the same hand, you will actually need a far larger bankroll to play correct basic strategy. If you choose to ignore basic strategy doubles and splits, you can get by with “just” the $2550, but at a substantially increased loss rate on all your bets.
It’s not only the Martingale
Any progressive betting system is doomed to fail. Any series of negative expectation bets is guaranteed to create a negative expectation overall. If you are just playing for fun, you will lose less money by flat-betting. If you are playing for profit, you need to find a true way to get an edge, such as counting cards.
Hopefully you are reading this before you learn the hard way. After all, we don’t fly airships full of hydrogen any more either.
The chance you loose 6 in a row is 2.1%. The article then states this will occur 1/47 times. The 1 occurrence is a loss of 6 hands, meaning the other 46 times 6 hands were also played and you won at least 1 time those 6 hands. Meaning a total of 282 total hands of blackjack were played here and six losses in a row occurred 1 time. Giving you the odds 1/47. Now if you use a modified martingale and cap your self at 6 losses in a row with an original bet of 10 your 6th bet will be 320. Your min bank roll would have to be 710. Based on these odds you plan on loosing 710 dollars per ever 282 hands of blackjack you play. However In that 282 you will also win a lot. The min amount of times you can win in 282 is 46. 46×10=$410 $410-710=Net of -300 dollars. However the theoretical amount of times you win in 282 hands based off having 43.3% chance of winning each hand is $1,221. Net profit of 1,221-710= $511. In theory you should alway net more money in 282 hands even when you loose 6 in a row one time.
I always wanted to ask this question. I have been playing at home with a 2 deck shoe. I have been playing for several years at home. I use a negative betting strategy. I play on a 100 table with 10k max stand on soft 17. I bet 100 100 300 600. After I lose 4 hands in a row I bet 100 100 1k 2k when I win either the 1k or 2k I go back and bet my original strategy of 100 100 300 600 until I lose and start it all over again. I used to start with 10k then switched to 7k start because I noticed starting with 10k did get me more wins in the long run. After 2 years I’m up at home 1 million bucks of fake money. I started with 50k and never went broke. I never lost more than 5 times in a row making the lose 35k. How was I able to do this and why won’t it work at the casino. I realize I’m playing at a table with just me. What are the odds of replicating this at the casino ?
Hi. Actually … this would work. It’s just your belief system that is holding you back not the numbers.
Thanks for the reply. What is the blackjack software you use to figure out things like that. Thanks
You have a 51% chance of losing the 5th bet in a row. That’s why your strategy doesn’t work in real life.
It looks like the house edge for these calculations is 5.2%. What are the odds of losing 10 in a row with a blackjack game with rtp of 99.91%, or 0.09% house edge? I played a game with 99.91% rtp and lost 8 in a row after only playing 7 hands. I made $2 and lost $256. Is that statistically uncommon?
Furthermore, is the probability impacted if a player plays to win $1 on 100 different blackjack games, rather then playing to win $100 on one blackjack game.
I’m not a mathematician here; help me out: When you say the probability of the 6-consecutive losing streak is 1 in 47, you don’t mean every 47 hands you get a 6-hand losing streak. You mean each segment of six is multiplied by 47, right? That’s a 6-hand losing streak per 282 hands of play. And the 7-hand losing streak is 1 in 90, or a 7-consecutive loss per 630 hands of play. Is that correct?
I mostly play poker 1/2 Texas holdem I asked a dealer about the automatic shuffler; does it know if there 51 or 53 cards in the deck? He said yes it counts to make sure there are 52, and it can even put them back in order
A123…JQK.
If it can put them in starting order, it can put them in any order, for blackjack all the 10’s together in the front or in the back
Taking into account a player will cut the cards in the middle somewhere, the high cards would still be all together
is this really true? How would a dealer know this information? maybe a pit boss, but a dealer? Where did this happen? (just curious). I will not be playing there. Also, was it a continuous shuffler or automatic shuffler?
Listen i been study bj awhile and basic strategy just seem to conservative so i design combined positive and neg progression system on the computer playing 200 dollar bank roll and a modified playing strategy where i used the marginegale and 1-2-3 unit betting count on a win and on 7of10 100 hand 5 doller betting system i profit over 500 dollars before ive played a tota of 40 hands
Hey William, I’d love to connect with you and talk about your strategy. I myself have been trying different strategies and would love to share them with you. Send me an email to [email protected] or request me on IG: gaintheadvantage21
Okay, ich riskiere, hier wie ein Idiot zu klingen, nur um einen Punkt zu machen. Das Martingale-System verliert, weil dem Spieler der Platz ausgeht, und der Grund für diese Frage ist offensichtlich - aber notwendig. Wie oft werden Sie X Hände verlieren, bevor Sie Y Hände gewinnen. Ich habe Tausende von Simulationen mit der Basisstrategie durchgeführt, und ich erhalte NICHT das gleiche Verhältnis von Verlusten zu Gewinnen wie in der obigen Tabelle - wahre Quoten hin oder her. Nehmen Sie es als das, was es wert ist, aber die kurzfristige (Martingale) - und das ist der SCHLÜSSEL - kurzfristige, produziert konstante Gewinne für mich. Ich nähere mich dem Prozentsatz von 6 Verlusten, wenn ich nur auf fünf Wetten setze. Ich muss etwa alle 47 Hände einen Stop/Verlust (Limit) einlegen, was mich im Gewinn hält. Nun, bevor Sie mich ein A**loch nennen - versuchen Sie es selbst und sehen Sie, ob es funktioniert.
Ich habe heute dreißig Hände hintereinander verloren - aber das war online. Ist das 0,526 hoch 30? 447 Millionen zu 1?
Nur so aus Neugier, bei welcher Seite war das? Geht es nur mir so, oder haben Sie das Gefühl, dass einige Versionen von Blackjack nicht richtig geprüft werden? Zum Beispiel habe ich das Gefühl, dass Versionen wie Virgin Games/Monopoly Casino/Gamesys Marke sind wirklich wahr zu rtp%, während es einige Sport Buchmacher Casinos fühlen sich sehr aus manchmal.
Ich stimme zu. Irgendwie finden sie einen Weg, um 30 Hände in einer Reihe zu gewinnen. Sein bs
How the hell did you lose 30 in a row are you not playing by the book perfect strategy. I made over 1500 in 6 hrs doing 5-15-35-70-140-280-560-1120 . I basically do 10 games per set and 5 sets which would be 50 games it got scary I got to hand 6 a few times $280 . I guess sooner or later you will lose 8 in a row . I just wonder if it is better to use maybe 5-6 hand losing streaks for martingale . Then start over because if you lost 8 in a row all your profits are gone. I guess if you were rich you would never lose double forever lol
Woah. I woulda went and grabbed a padded suit and locked myself in a completely accident free zone for at least a week of that happened to me. LOL couldn’t imagine losing 30 hands in a row. I’d be fighting somebody.
Switch to a new online provider… 😂 Lol
this guy is crazy with the money you need to progress. If I played at a $25 dollar table, I would need $800 to be able to lose 6 times. On the 6th loss I would be broke. If you do this martingale, and only have a goal of $150 profit, you can fairly easy get up 6 hands and leave. And the system I am talking about is the exact same, except lose $25 and then bet $25 again to break even. Every double win you get your $25 profit and $25 profit for every consecutive win after that. $2550 for a $10 bet starting? How many damn hands do you plan on losing in a row????? And if i get up $150 a day and end up losing my bankroll on one visit every 47 times like the losing 6 hands says, then I will lose 800 compared to the 46×150 which is $6900, still coming out $6100 profit. Now I know you can lose more than 1 in 47 attempts and I know shit happens. But getting up only 6 hands with this system is not that staggering of a goal. Stick to your limit/goal and it could be way better than this guy makes it out to be. When minimum wage is $8.00/hr, bringing home $750.00 a week isn’t bad for getting up 6 hands, 5 days a week.
Du fühlst dich DUMB, wenn du dich gegen alle Widrigkeiten wehrst. Aber manchmal ist es NICHT so verrückt. Ich habe ähnliche Ergebnisse bei Tausenden von echten Spielhänden (ohne Computer) erzielt. Mein Verlustprozentsatz ist geringer, als es die wahren Quoten vermuten lassen würden - was Raum für beständige Gewinne lässt. Haben Sie die richtigen Banken und einen soliden Wettplan. Kennen Sie die grundlegende Strategie. Seien Sie geduldig und spielen Sie wie eine Maschine. Legen Sie Ihr Stop/Loss-Limit fest. Am Ende sollten Sie unbedingt gewinnen.
I suspect that you are a good bankroll manager and that is why you win. With standard deviation, there is a GREAT chance you will get of 5, 6, 7 units in a shoe or two. Quit and come back later. Bankroll mgmt is how most people “beat” the casino. It’s like selling high. If you have a 200 bankroll per session with basic unit of 5, 9 out of 10 times I will be up by this number of units at least once a session. That’s when you leave.
Get over yourself, someone else can answer the question then
I realize this post is old, but the most common thing that happens to me Is if I draw a 12. I almost always, no exaggeration, I hit, and 8 out of 10 times I draw a face card. Dealers make hands on 12 like it their job…wait, it is.
Beim Online-Blackjack habe ich 10.000 Hände gespielt und von allen 12ern, die ich getroffen habe, haben 83,8% eine Zehn ergeben. Ich fragte das Casino, warum das so war, und sie sagten mir, ich hätte Pech gehabt
Auch hier ist es Quatsch
Wow. First of all, this article addressed the losing nature of reverse progression as related to BlackJack (almost). It was simplified to large degree. However, the author is corrects in two major points. First being that in and of itself, Martingale will fail at BlackJack over the long run. Second is that a vast majority of players will not make the optimum decisions each and every time to increase their odds given ANY particular strategy. If someone does not understand the math, have the discipline and bankroll to try any system to it’s strictest mathematical constraints, and have a willingness to lose, he has no business experimenting. Most people searching this sot of thing (As the author suggests) are looking for a simple, quick way to beat the house. And thy will fail.
Most striking among the replies are the liberal doses of perceptual bias. ANYONE who makes a claim based on observed results is suspect. The human mind is not capable of correctly interpreting complex statistics from it’s observations. This is a fact. Make no mistake, your 9 or 38 or 21342345 trips to the blackjack table to try a system, and your recollection of results is skewed. Humans remember the extreme examples better than the more average examples. This has been proven time and time again. It is why math, specifically linear progression, is necessary to bear out the validity of any given system. One then has to have a mature and reasonable viewpoint to assess any practical application.
As far as playing any BJ game with reduced odds, or where you cannot see the shuffle, don’t. 6/5 is for tourists who don’t know better or care if they lose. Casinos who cannot or will not show a shuffle simply deserve to lose your business. This is a moral, not a mathematical response. As far as a mathematical response, it is ridiculous. There is no possible stack of a deck that can ensure victory over an unknown number of players. The deck could be juiced, meaning that the ratio of small cards to 10’s and/or aces is illegally modified. But any casino trying this is risking their license. You might see that in the Caribbean or some such place, but not in Vegas.
The article failed to mention caveats to overall strategy, and objective.
I’ll run a negative progression at times. Never by itself of course. That’s stupid. There are ways to MAKE the Casino THINK you’re running negative progression, and actually hide it in something else (No, I’m not giving away everything here).
Regardless, as with any mathematical game, you have to take into account strategy, and objective. Of course, this is taking into account that the individual is not a degen, and is actually going to “work” when they walk into the casino.
You run counting cards, and the rest of your strategy, and you’re up your target amount, plus a little spill over your target. Here … I’ll give you one for free.
Take that SPILL ONLY (and sometimes, if you want every dealer to be in love with you until the end of time, the tip amount) and run your strategy on a strict Martingale. You’ve already made your money. So just run the spill, down to a predetermined kill arena, but run strict negative progression until you hit the new target, or your kill spot is hit.
You __ MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STRATEGY SPECIFICS __ before throwing around “never’s” and “Dont event think about” ‘s
Blackjack is actually a simple game to beat, with even a rudimentary understanding of differential mathematics; which in my opinion, they should be teaching to 9 year olds.
Just got back from Ceasers Palance. Tested my suspicions again.
1) New Deck
2) Deck Spread out
3) Deck placed in shoe and never shuffled in front of me
4) EMPTY TABLE – I was the only player at the table
IMMEDIATLY LOST 7 HANDS IN A ROW STRAIGHT !!!! Per this website – odds of this are 1.1% or 1 in 90 !!!!!
My suspicion has again been confirmed. However I have NO EVIDENCE other than circumstance. So I need to know if anyone else has experienced this.
I’m wondering if the casinos are setting up the new decks in a mathmatically predetermined way which give the dealer an edge if they are not shuffled good enough.
Anyone comment on this? I don’t want to hear oh your an idiot. ALLOT of math research goes into Casinos and they have BILLIONS at thier disposal – basically infinate money to see if there is a way to get a new deck in a preset way that mathmatically give them a huge edge.
IF you have the time and money to test this – give it a try on 5 sessions and see if 3-4 lose money. AGAIN this is how you do it:
1) Empty Table – Table must be EMPTY
2) Cards spread out on table
3) New Deck (if the cards are spread out on the table it means IT IS A NEW DECK)
4) YOU NEVER SEE DEALER SHUFFLE THE CARDS. THEY SIMPLY PUT THE CARDS IN THE SHOE AND START DEALING.
Follow these steps as an experiment (if you have the time, money and are interested) and record your results. Most of you probably won’t do this but if I’m wrong – you have no reason not to.
I am suspicious because the odds of this happening WITH the same environmental variables I just listed must be very, very low.
I am wondering, if the casinos are engaged in a legal conspiracy to “legally defruad” players based on the above.
If I’m the only one – fine. However I’ve been talking to other people and they have noticed the same thing.
Again – I’m not willing to say anything for sure – at this point is an ongoing experiment. I’m going to go to other casinos and try this AGAIN and record my results under the same conditions.
I agree, their shuffling machine reads the card, so I am suspicious if that in between lines in laws there is a loop hole that they can some how shuffle, that bunch of smalll numbers comes out, so it ruins all your doubles and splits!
Also, Golden nugget that hand shuffle, they change their cards every two hours, I think the way the shuffle, there is a same math to it, and as soon as cards gets shuffle we’ll, two hours cards change comes!
I think they do. I have witnessed 10 small cards come out in a row and dealers don’t bust. I have also witnessed every player having 20 including the dealer. I think this is due to lack of shuffling. No wonder they allow basic strategy charts. Cards are not coming out random as they should to make the game fair.
No. It’s the basic gamblers fallacy in hitting a losing streak (for any number of reasons, which could be they simply did not play basic strategy correctly; Hitting at 15 when the dealer stands at 6 for example. Or it could be a simple mathematical deviation). Regardless … your theory falls apart on your own premise. NO ONE ELSE MUST BE AT THE TABLE, per your own words.
That’s not something the Casino controls, or can control. It’s what we refer to in Mathematics, as Non-Linear Complexity variables.
Per your own statement, if anyone else walks up to the table during the above statement, the entire necessity of the Casino “arranging the cards” (which in actuality, they’d be allowed to do) falls apart.
Regardless, Blackjack is so stupidly simple to beat if you have the correct math … even using negative progression as part of your overall strategy (and where the above article falls apart … is the author doesn’t account for other strategy specifics … see the comment below)
Yes! I know dealer and confirms shufflers stack deck against card counters, but I have ran into the problems you have mentioned. Once they realize what you are doing you will lose.
I have played live online blackjack and after 4 days I kept losing, so to confirm my theory I joined with another name and same thing after 4 days I kept losing.
Their cheating isn’t limited to the circumstances you describe. And yes, it’s ostensibly idiocy for them to risk their licenses but they get away with it so apparently that is an insufficient deterrent or the gaming commission is such that the casinos aren’t actually taking a risk… and you’re seven consecutive losses at Blackjack is nothing compared to my 22 consecutive losses at Baccarat… 3 am… I was alone staring down about four pit people
Ich habe dasselbe festgestellt wie Benjamin. Die Karten kommen "vorverpackt". Ich kann nicht umhin, mich zu fragen, ob es eine bestimmte mathematisch bewiesene Methode gibt, die Karten zu stapeln. Wenn man in Vegas an den Tischen ankommt, sind die Karten in einer Art "Auslage" ausgebreitet.
Passen Sie jetzt auf: SIE SEHEN NIE, DASS SIE VOR IHNEN AUF EINEM NEUEN DECK GEMISCHT WERDEN.
Ich ging zu einem leeren Tisch im MANDALAY BAY, kassierte 2 Riesen in Chips, bat den Dealer oder die Karten vor mir zu mischen. Die böse kleine vietnamesische Schlampe weigerte sich, wurde sehr unhöflich und schrie, dass die Karten bereits gemischt wurden, warum wollen Sie noch einmal mischen, ich kann es nicht ertragen, dass niemand fragt, warum Sie sagen, mischen .... Und so weiter und so fort ... Ich rief den Pitboss an und sagte ihm, dass mein Spiel nicht beginnt, bevor ich nicht sehe, dass die Karten gemischt sind.
Der Boxenchef schlug sich auf die Seite des Dealers und sagte, sie habe die Karten bereits gemischt und müsse Ihnen nicht zeigen, dass sie gemischt habe.
Ich sagte NEIN und ging. Sie verlangten, dass ich meine Chips umfärbe (grüne 25er in schwarze 100er) Ich sagte, ich MUSS nicht umfärben und stürmte hinaus.
Ich spiele jetzt nur noch große Sportwetten oder kleine Beträge beim Roulette - oder Video-Blackjack. Ich spiele kein Blackjack auf dem Strip, es sei denn, es geht nur um einen kleinen Stop-Loss oder es sitzt ein heißes, allein stehendes Mädchen dort. Ich habe den starken Verdacht, dass die Casinos die Karten vormischen oder etwas Ruchloses tun - denn der Unterschied bei den Verlusten zwischen dem Strip und Downtown ist wie Tag und Nacht.
Es ist GEMEINSAM, dass ich 4, 5, 10 Hände hintereinander bei MGM und Ceasers verliere - GEMEINSAM ... Ich setze mich buchstäblich hin und verliere Geld UND ich suche mir immer Tische, an denen niemand ist, damit es immer ein neues Deck gibt und ich immer verliere ..... Das ist unwahrscheinlich und andere Leute sagen das Gleiche. Ich bin kein Kartenzähler, ich hasse es einfach nur, mit anderen Leuten (Fremden) zu spielen, denn ich bin nicht wegen der gefälschten Sozialstunden da, sondern um Geld zu gewinnen. Nochmal:
1) Nur Streifeneigenschaften
2) Nur MGM und Caesars
3) Nur brandneues Deck
Ich merkte nicht, dass sie nicht vor mir mischten, bis ich bemerkte, dass die Karten auf den Tischen ausgebreitet waren.
Das ist in der Stadt selten passiert. Wann immer ich Cortez spiele, ist es immer ein Auf und Ab und Cortez mischt IMMER vor Ihnen von Hand mit den ursprünglichen Blackjack-Regeln.
Ich 100% stimme mit Benjamin überein, dass etwas mit Black Jack auf dem Streifen nicht stimmt
Und noch etwas ... Scheiß auf diese Händler. Die meisten von ihnen sind "nett" genug, aber können nicht einmal richtig Englisch sprechen! Vegas importiert billige Arbeitskräfte, um den Arbeitsmarkt auszuschalten und auf dem Rücken der armen 3. Welt und der sich entwickelnden H1B1s zu profitieren, die in einem neuen Land weit weg von zu Hause sind und Angst haben, ihre Meinung zu sagen.
So wünschen sich diese Leute - wie Sheldon Alsdale und Wynn - die Welt. Erinnern Sie sich an den Song der berühmten Gothic-Band Nine Inch Nails:
"gott geld ich werde alles für dich tun ... gott geld sag mir einfach was du willst ..... gott geld tanzt auf dem rücken der geprellten ... gott geld ist nicht wählbar"
KEINER der alten Hasen kann mir sagen, dass er diese riesigen und offensichtlichen Veränderungen in den letzten 50 Jahren nicht bemerkt hat, die das gesamte Vegas-Erlebnis ruiniert haben. alles von der Klasse der Angestellten, importierten Händlern, unhöflichen Boxenchefs, Arschloch-Sicherheitspersonal, himmelhohe Preise und das Schlimmste - eine Non-Stop-Achterbahn von Nickel und Diming.
.. Ich würde Vegas vor 50 Jahren dem heutigen Vegas jederzeit vorziehen.
Sagen Sie mir, dass ich mir das ausdenke.
I know this is an old post. Ive read some of these and am curious. Through observation and the probability somehow favoring the dealer. And I don’t mean by percent alone as in the amount of decks and the hitting or standing on soft 17. I mean it’s like those casinos have a special witch doctor looming behind the scenes. The spread of cards sometimes seems astronomically improbable, such as last night where the dealer gets 4 aces in a row with kings. Now this is a reputable casino of course. I digress. So my question is. I’ve read the charts and such for increasing win percentages by using accurate basic strategy. But wait. What planet did those stats come from? If I stand on a dealers up card of 2-6 with a 14, 15, 16 for example, I almost always lose and dealer won’t bust. And he beats me with some ridiculous number either just one more or by far. So when sometimes I hit on a 13 and a 5 or 6 up card I’m of course much heckled and chastised by the players who think they know how to really play (but they all bet like random bobbleheads). And FYI off topic I despise not many things but hindsight strategists I call them.
“shoulda hit 3 rounds ago… ” I say.. “Shoulda told me what card I had then coming next and what card I have coming now.” lol But for the most part. Not trusting the dealers cards. I’ve won. My problem is too my lack of patience and maintaining and ultimately betting more than I think not commanding my brain to think of the next dealer streak. But I also play two hands as it seems more safe , until a loss streak. I’m new mostly and don’t mean to discount anything of this or any post and or anyone’s skill, knowledge and professionalism of the game. I simply just can’t get down counting because it’s just too fast (even though I play piano lightning fast) and with the HiLo numbers and running and true count, I’ll just say I couldn’t add dived and solve for X like that. Especially quick dealers. Maybe I’ll find a slow one. Lol Any additional advice at this point would be helpful. Mostly just want to bet more safely and practically. I understand your post above about the 2500. I did read it lol I’m just more asking for anyones advice on what they might use personally and what works and hasn’t worked. . Forgive the long post. Thank you all.
Benjamin CA
You have a 1/20 prob. of being dealt a blackjack w only a 1/25 chance (assuming 8-deck shoe) of having your blackjack pushed. Suppose you are playing a 13 loss Martingale, then that means you will have 200 strings that end with you getting a blackjack and making $10 plus your bet on the string. Simply counting $10 profit on every string ending in a loss and multiplying by the number of times you can expect to win and then subtracting by the total lost win you do run through the string is incorrect. Perhaps, you can figure the math using martingale relative to expected losses while figuring in the mathematics of a 3/2 payoff on the probability of each length string ended by a blackjack?
You’re right. I ignored blackjacks in this simplified comparison, just like I ignored doubles and splits. The math gets quite a bit messier, although I suppose it would fairly easy to account for only the blackjacks. The conclusion is however unavoidable. In blackjack, your expected loss is the total of your bets times the house edge, unless you vary your bets based on the deck composition instead of some scheme based on a string of wins or losses. No progression can change that fact. Feel free to work it out in laborious detail if that interests you. It doesn’t interest me.
You also didn’t factor in the 3/2 payoff on a blackjack that can be the streak ender. If you bet, say $640 after your 6th loss in a row and hit a blackjack, you make $330, not $10. Also, since double-downs and most splits are in your favor, while you certainly need a much bigger bankroll for the possibility that you’ll get deal an 11 when the dealer has a 6, those hands also put the odds in your favor when you have the most money on the table.
Question and Observation regarding raising your bet when the count is a negative 7 to 13 true negative of 4′ Has anyone run simulations on this.
So far , 100 hands only, it works almost as well as a true positive count of 4′. If Simulation agree, Why?
And when bets are only the true count 1 or greater than 1?
Positive true counts don’t affect the win percentage as much as you probably think and hope. See this: https://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount5.htm