It takes $ to make $

I saw a Japanese guy in a casino flatbetting $3000 a hand and playing basic strategy. I guess he just figured if he was having a bad day that he�d keep playing until he got up one unit. They say it takes money to make money. Playing this strategy how much of a bankroll would this guy need to get away with coming out on the positive side of the standard deviation over the long run?

I saw a Japanese guy in a casino flatbetting $3000 a hand and playing basic strategy. I guess he just figured if he was having a bad day that he�d keep playing until he got up one unit. They say it takes money to make money. Playing this strategy how much of a bankroll would this guy need to get away with coming out on the positive side of the standard deviation over the long run?

He wouldn't come out on the "positive side of standard deviation over the long run." Every hand played at a negative expectation game would simply put him deeper in the hole. The size of his bankroll is irrelevant, except that the larger the bankroll, the more money he will lose before he goes bust.

The rich are entitled to a better deal than those who live by selling their labor?
A bigger bankroll means his odds drift upward by Divine Right?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A woman calls 911 to report a sex offender:

Complainant: "There's a Democratic in a green Pontiac in the parking lot playing with himself!"

Operator: "Yes ma'am, we�re sending a patrol car right away. How do you know he's a Democrat?"

Complainant: "If he were a Republican, he'd be fucking someone else."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A woman calls the police to her apartment because a man in the next building is exposing himself:

Complainant: "There he is officer", pointing to the window across the alley, "walking back and forth, naked as a jaybird."

Cop: "I can see he's not wearing a shirt, but I can't see that he's naked."

Complainant: "Stand on the dresser!!"

Really no difference in Republicans and Democrats when it comes to playing basic strategy and hoping to win. The Republican is playing out of his own bankroll and the Democrat is playing out of ... the Republican's bankroll too.

Why sepnd your own money when you can spend someone elses?

:)

Indeed, the $3000 basic strategy flat bettor could well come out ahead after a short period of play.

He is only playing at a 1/2% disadvantage, and Variance/Luck plays too much of critical factor in limited play.

We tend to dismiss less skilled players. We shouldn't. They often have the Luck/Variance we think we should always have. No one wins all their sessions, and I suspect that there are non AP's who only play a few hours a year who do quite well.

Explain.

Here we go. Still polarized after all these years.

Unless you're talking about betting on election outcomes, this is not the correct forum.

So how come all the Dems money comes from people like Barbara Striesand, George Soros, big corportate bigwigs and the Hollywood Left, and almost all the Republicans money comes from people whose average donation is about $25?

You need to open your eyes, and realize the two parties have switched roles. The Democrats used to be the conservative party representing the working and middle classes. Now they represent nobody except those on leftwing ideological toots, a la Michael Moore.

As union leader, and later President, Ronald Reagan said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."

I'm with Panama Rick on this one. I didn't start this thread to hear about politics nor do I care if you think the Republican or the Democratic party is superb or not. Nor do I care if you think you're witty or not. Just answer the damn question!!!

to make $. If you had both, $1000 would give you a very good chance of success. You may have drawn the wrong conclusions from what you saw.

The poster asked what kind of bankroll he would need to come out ahead in the long run by using a "get one unit ahead and quit" strategy. In the long run, he would eventually lose his entire bankroll. As for short-term results, he is still the underdog. If blackjack is the game, he has about a 43% chance after one hand to be ahead. His chances after that will diminish, not increase.

his ass . However in the "short run " at $3000 a hand , he could even give up BS and split every pair of 10s ,double every hard 12 and stay on every 16 (er A5 )and make more than I will in a lifetime .

Alright forget the long run because he wouldn't need 100,000 hands or whatever you'd classify as the long run to get up $3000. He'd get up $3000 sometime in the short run, maybe after the first or second or one hundredth hand.

Shoeless D wrote: "We tend to dismiss less skilled players. We shouldn't. They often have the Luck/Variance we think we should always have. No one wins all their sessions, and I suspect that there are non AP's who only play a few hours a year who do quite well."

He�s right. With that kind of bankroll, you�d never have to play the long run. If I had $1,000,000 in the bank, then I wouldn�t mind going out there and betting $1500 on my first hand. If I won, then I�d bet $1500 again. If I lost then I�d bet $3000. If I lost that hand then I�d keep flat betting $3000 until I was up $3000. Because of variance and luck it wouldn�t take long to be up one unit.

Note the caveat at the top of the page regarding progressions. It is there for a reason.

Progression systems have been thought through, refined and re-refined ad nauseum.

Progression systems have been tested, and retested ad nauseum.

Progression systems do not throw off profits. Progression systems change nothing except the time required to arrive at the result, which is that earnings are the product of your action times your advantage. No matter when you come and go from the tables, it's all one long game.

Successful progression systems occupy a very small universe: the only other two occupants are perpetual motion machines and chickens with lips.

If you think otherwise, if you believe you have a progression system that works, then prove it by testing it in accordance with the requirements published four decades ago in Alan Wilson's The Casino Gamblers Guide. And then, young friend, you will be honored throughout history. In fact, we'll pay to have you dipped in bronze and displayed at the Smithsonian Institution.

" If I lost that hand then I�d keep flat betting $3000 until I was up $3000. Because of variance and luck it wouldn�t take long to be up one unit."

How would one ever conclude that? variance is still "variance from the mean". Do that enough times and you will end up on the negative side more often than on the positive side. Just as often you will start in the hole and go further in the hole every round. Variance is not going to pull you back to + more often. It will pull you further on the - side most frequently.

Variance is not your friend...

This guy can flat bet and get up his $3,000 quite a few times and then he leaves a winner.
It is what will definately happen the other times that will kill him. There will be sessions where he is never up, constantly betting that $3,000 and going deeper and deeper in the hole. How many small $3,000 win sessions does he need to make up for the sessions where he loses early on 6,8 or more hands in a row (my personal longest was either 19 or 20). It happens, it happens often enough that the guy will land up a loser.
Playing perfect basic strategy is still a negative expectation short or long run. Several smaller winning sessions will disappear during a losing session. Then when his blackjack days are over and you add up his wins, losses, and dollars bet, you will come up with a lossing percentage very close to the house advantage.

> Just answer the damn question!!!

It has been answered, but I'll restate it again.

You did draw the wrong conclusion. Flat betting basic strategy will not in the long run earn you any money. In fact you will lose money. Only betting large when you have the advantage while betting small (or none at all) when you don't will earn you the money.

That is why you learn to count.

Me too. A couple positive strokes early and he lucks in to my annual objective.

It does take money to make money, the rich do get richer, and that is why the poor man is bent.

The only thing keeping my sanity intact is I know Fade's big bankrolled example will never stop at earning one unit and going home. Nobody ever does. It's those fat cat highrollers without a clue that ultimately keep the casino doors open to the rest of us.

:)