a friend told me that a negative betting progression will always make someone money in the long run, assuming that you have a large bankroll.
is this correct?
January 30, 2023 4:23 am
BJ21 News Service
a friend told me that a negative betting progression will always make someone money in the long run, assuming that you have a large bankroll.
is this correct?
Please read the statement at the top of this board.
Card counting can give you an edge. Progressions are fun, but do not give you an edge.
"a friend told me that a negative betting progression will always make someone money in the long run, assuming that you have a large bankroll.
is this correct?"
Yes, a negative progression will always make someone money in the long run. Of course the "someone" is the owner of the casino where you try this.
See link below for more help.
for the casino.
There is a negative correlation between rounds in BJ. That is, if you lose the first round, your odds are slightly better on the next round.
If you had a SD game with excellent rules (like H17-DAS), you would have a slightly negative situation off the top. But if you increased your bet after every loss, you could gaina very slight edge. The game would have to fairly deeply dealt, and with no cut card effect.
In that limited sense, your friend was right. I am not sure if that what he was talking about?
In any real game of BJ, a negative progression not related to the count will be a loser. You will lose a smaller percentage than a flat better. However, your dollar loss will be much greater than if you flat bet the minimum.
please explain further why a person with a huge bankroll will not win in the long run? it seems that he would end up a small winner.
explain the math that is used to arrive at the conclusion that "all progressions are 100% losers in the long run"
i am not doubting that you are right mathprof, but please explain more simply. i am just a beginner to bj and not good at math.
Here is a simple example. Suppose you were betting a simple coin toss with a disadvantage, Your probability of winning is 49%, and your prob of a loss is 51%.
But you are going to playa Martingale. If you lose the first bet, you bet 2 units on the seond. If you lsoe that, you bet 4 on the third, etc. If you win any of these bets, you have netted 1 unit overall, and you could back to square 1.
You will do this 10 times. Your probability of losing is very, very small. You have to lose bets in a row, The probability of this happening is (.49)^10 or .119%. If you engage in 840 such cycles, you would expect to lose in only one of them.
But if you do lose, how much does it cost you? It is 1+2+4+8+ � =2^10-1 =1023 units.
In every 840 attempts, you lose 1023 units. In the other 839 attempts, you make 1 unit each time.
You overall win, per 840 starts, is 839-1024. In other words, the times you get �unlucky� and lose you give back all of your winnings and then some.
You will do this 10 times. Your probability of losing is very, very small. You have to lose bets in a row, The probability of this happening is (.49)^10 or .119%. If you engage in 840 such cycles, you would expect to lose in only one of them.
poor kid,
MathProf had two slight typographical errors in the above quotation. First, he should have said You have to lose 10 bets in a row. Second, the equation should have said (.51)^10 = 0.119%, rather than (.49)^10, since your probability of losing is 51%, not 49%.
Except for these small errors, MathProf's analysis is, as always, right on the money (so to speak!).
Dog Hand
an infinite bankroll and table limits did not exist then a progression would work, sadly there are table limits and I don't have an infinte bankroll :(
The table limit and bankroll limitations will always stop a progression dead in its tracks.
To have infinite time. If you have only a finite amount of time to play, then your progression would have still negative EV.
BTW, you don�t actually need an infinite bankroll. Only infinite credit.
Thanks, Dog Hand, for posting the corrections.
Any finite return on investment on an infinite bankroll would be 0, so the venture would be pointless were it possible.
I think Norm Wattenberger made the point that having an infinite bankroll would have a major effect on the fabric of reallity, to the extent your gambling winnings would become a minor issue, and the whole universe might be sucked into the space-time continuum.
I think the key here is unlimited credit. If God allowed me to use His bankroll (which He has by the way) then I can pound HELL out of anything I want to as I see fit and keep all the winnings. ;>
Look up depth charging, which is a progression into a good BJ game where you bets increase as you go deeper into the deck. I do the same thing within a sports series (go Calgary GO!).
The fact remains we are born pennyless and die the same way, so everything is just meaningless numbers. There is so much more to life than collecting wealth.
(I've got to stop hanging around with those Cherubim and Seraphim)
I think the key here is unlimited credit. If God allowed me to use His bankroll (which He has by the way) then I can pound HELL out of anything I want to as I see fit and keep all the winnings. ;>
You need a good enough return on investment to overcome the interest rate. If you had an "unlimited bankroll" you would soon figure out that you can only do so much stuff because you only have 24 hours in the day.
Look up depth charging, which is a progression into a good BJ game where you bets increase as you go deeper into the deck. I do the same thing within a sports series (go Calgary GO!).
That makes no sense. Running a progression within a sports series will not give you positive expectation in and of itself. Because you can't make negative expectation bets and end up with positive expectation through a progression. The reason depth charging works is because you have positive expectation from play variation alone when you are deep in single deck.
Math Boy
Bj21 uses cookies, this enables us to provide you with a personalised experience. More info