I realise it's mathematically impossible

I've got a $16K bankroll, how hard could it be to win a $100 a day, using a little method instead of counting. I tend to jump in after the dealer hasn't busted 2 or 3 times in a row, depending on the feel of the game. I tend to go for games with 2-3 players. With a small bankroll, I've come out even over a year of doing this. Over the last 4 years, I've used various methods like this, with a small bankroll, and I'm slightly ahead in 4 years. 5 years back I got hit hard counting. Counting is the only method that's ever hurt me. It's possible that I'm not a great counter, though it's undeniable that my methods have served me well.

it is mathematically impossible. Your system simply will not work...it's called TARGET. Looking for tables that are busting or other biases have been proven to be ineffective.

It is easy to use a $100 stop win and wind up winning $100 most days, but on other days you will start to lose right from the start and in the attempt to get your $100 you'll lose several months worth of $100 payoffs. Net result...the house still gets its theoretical expectation.

The ways to get the money at blackjack have been proven. Counting cards and exploiting casino procedures are the only ways that I know of to get an edge at blackjack. Then you have to have the bankroll to make the bets you want to make and the patience to put in the hours requried to get into the long run.

I played a VP promo in Vegas recently where I had a 1.6% edge. I lost over $10,000 in about 15 hours of play. If I could have played it for 500 hours I'd have made a ton of money. You cannot look at short term results and then decide that your edge doesn't exist. You simply had bad luck.

You will come ahead in the end if you play a 5 million hands.

I play often and I'm slightly ahead over the last 4 years. That's from screwing around playing for fun too. I don't aim for $100, but typically I don't bother with anything less unless it's taken a lot of work to get there and I've simply had enough. I play with $25 chips and stop when I'm down $300. That's the end of the session. I refresh myself and take another shot if I feel like it.

I don't deny counting doesn't work. It does, but it's a lot of trouble. Counting is fairly easy to learn and takes some work to become an expert at it, but it is tiring to play the role of a robot at the table.

It's probably not possible to change the views of a counter and vice versa. However, in my experience, it is possible to come out ahead using a method, coupled with patience and the ability to keep greed under control. They're things that ruin 99% of players.

It's people like you, who account for well over 99% of players, that keep the casinos in business.

My results prove otherwise.

My results prove otherwise.

Your results probably fall within the expected range.

Suppose your expectation is -0.5% and your standard deviation is 1.13 per bet (approximately number for bj). If you've made 10,000 bets, 99% of time (3 standard deviations) your result will be between -389 and +289. Note that there is a relatively high probability of being ahead at this time. So, it is quite possible that your outcome so far has been the result of fortuitous luck.

However, as you play longer, the percentage of the range that's in the negative will increase. Eventually, the upper limit of the range will be negative. Here are some numbers*:

10,000: -389 - +289
40,000: -879 - +478
160,000: -2,156 - +556
459,684: -4,597 - 0
640,000: -5,912 - -488

Note that 459,684 bets is equivalent to about 4,600 hours of blackjack.

If you have the advantage in your favor, as with card counting, the opposite happens, i.e., as you play longer, the percentage of the range that's in the positive will increase. Eventually, the lower limit of the range will be positive.

* The formula: Low limit = n*-0.005-3*1.13*sqrt(n), High limit = n*-0.005+3*1.13*sqrt(n), where n = number of bets, -0.005 = expectation of 1 bet, 3 = number of standard deviations, and 1.13 is standard devation of 1 bet. Actually, I should use sqrt(n-1), but that would make the numbers messy, and it makes little difference for large number.

However, I'll stick to what has worked for me. People who bet every time without a betting strategy invariably get the shit kicked out them in most sessions. Their limited bankrolls can't sustain the swings. Even though I have plenty of reserves, I play with a tiny bankroll in each session, and rarely do I lose it.

It's likely I'm just softening the damage compared to other players. No method works in craps or roulette and nothing has ever worked for me in any of those games. Even mini baccarat. Blackjack on the other hand has kept me in front.

Good luck, you will need it.

"I play with a tiny bankroll in each session, and rarely do I lose it."

That's their point. They are saying that whilst you might have a high winrate, the times that you do lose, you will lose big. The numbers are more likely to balance themselves out the more you play. In other words, quit while you're ahead.

I play with tiny bankroll for each session. I rarely lose that. I have huge reserves anyway. This all means, I'm ahead over 4 years.

You need that with counting. I cancel out the massive swings counters experience because I don't play every hand.

Last night I was getting stiff after stiff and still managed to come out $95 ahead with a $300 session bankroll. Rarely do I lose that $300.

You say you limit your potential losses by playing with a small BR? That means theoretically you should bust more than you are. Simply means you're on the better side of variance. You should be thankful for that.

A while back, I had an arguement about beating BJ without use of counting. I had been using progressions for a bit, and had quit ahead. I simply stated that I used them successfully (never said they produced an advantage). I pointed out that not [i]everyone[/i] will lose (most will), as variance dictates some of us will somehow manage to stay ahead. I never disagreed about them with anything, but some of them refused to let it drop, and kept hounding me about it.

My point is don't come onto this board and post something like this, you'll never hear the end of it.

BTW, I'm not wrong. You simply didn't read my post carefully. I never said you [i]will[/i] lose, I said the more you play, the more you are [i]likely[/i] to (lose).

you'll just lose bit by bit.

You say you can win longterm by quitting ahead. If it helps you sleep at night...

You talk of the swings counters have. That's not because they play every hand, it's because of the amount they bet /hand. Bet size dictates the swings they have (the larger the bet, the larger the swing). However, by betting more on higher counts, they are wagering more $$$ with an advantage, which in the longterm = profit. The more they wager, the more likely their results will begin to reflect the advantage they have.

You say your've counted for quite awhile? I don't believe you. I'm not that experienced a counter (in fact, I've only counted once this year, only time I played this year). Still, it seems I'm more aware of the mathematics of gambling/BJ than you are. If you can't even understand the maths, I doubt you were a profitable counter.

If I'm wrong, my apologies, but I find it hard to believe a competent counter could fall into this line of thought.

Are you looking to profit, or are you just looking to have (reasonably) free entertainment? Just curious.

I understand the maths. I know it's not mathematically possible to win long-term using my method, but from actual experience, it is possible.

"I know it's not mathematically possible to win long-term using my method, but from actual experience, it is possible. "

But from actual experience you haven't played for the 'long term'- you've played lots of 'very short terms' which all still add up to a short term. Anyone can win over the short term, just as anyone can lose.

Anyone can go into a casino and sit at a BJ table and know they have a higher chance of leaving a winner than a loser. The odds of winning the first hand are nearly 50/50, with a small advantage to the house. If you win, you can stop. If you lose play another hand, you have nearly a 50/50 chance of getting even. Then if you do get even, play again and have a nearly 50/50 shot at being able to leave a winner.

So, you have nearly a cointoss chance of being a winner immediately, and even if you don't win first time you still have good chance (nearly 50% x nearly 50%) of leaving a winner within 2 more hands. Wow, this is a great game!! If you don't mind going to a casino to play just a few hands, you know every time you go to the casino that it's more likely you can win a chip than leave a loser!!

Unfortunately this isn't profitable if you do it long term. Because, although you're more likely to be able to stop at a 1 chip win than lose your bankroll, if you do lose that first hand (more likely than not), you are then more likely to lose 2 chips than win 1 chip. Leaving a loser might happen more times than a winner, or less times but for a greater loss each time. Either way, the casino edge WILL get you in the end if you don't play an 'advantage game'. Leaving when you're up isnt an advantage game.

FWIW I've made quite a few grand this year. Maybe 1 in 4 shoes I'll KO count all the way through and play accordingly, but mostly the profit has come from just playing the game with a bunch of other punters at crowded tables for fun, and stopping whan I've won a set amount. Oh, and online casino promos. The KO and promos give me a slight advantage, the BS play gives me a slight disadvantage. Thing is, I don't have the time or the bankroll to *guarantee* I can get my hands on the full 0.5-1% that KO can give me, and neither can the casino guarantee they'll take their full 0.5-1% off me when I'm not counting.

I'm living proof that stopping while you're ahead allows you to build a nice savings account. But I wouldn't boast that I've found some 'winning strategy'- all that has happened is I have been *lucky enough* to be able to stop more sessions ahead by bigger amounts than the 'house odds' suggest.

I'm sure that the people who have won a Megabucks slot jackpot are ahead and probably after a lifetime of moderate play won't likely ever get behind as a result. However, the casino is still ahead on this game. It means someone is losing. Right now, it just isn't you. However, we have yet to determine what the future holds. If 300 per session is a "tiny" BR compared to your "reserves", why not find some suitable liquid investment so that your "reserves" make you some money before you need to call them in.

I don't play for a few hands. I get at least $100 for the session, then go somewhere else for another session. I see the inherent futility in play a few hands.

It's yielding high-interest at the moment. And yes, the casino is ahead because 95% of players are consistent losers. You just have to go to any table to see losers betting the same every hand until their bankroll is depleted.

it is not possible in blackjack to win enough on one hand or one session (given the same unit size) for a losing player to stay ahead of the game after a large number of hours has been played.

If a losing player plays 500 hours a year for 10 years there is ZERO chance that he will be ahead after 10 years no matter how lucky he was early in his playing career.

Slots, perhaps, if a player was lucky enough to hit Megabucks early in his lifetime he may never be behind again. Blackjack doesn't have that kind of variance.