Non-Progression Strategy is Winning

Hello friends,

After using a 6-deck shoe to deal myself 302 hands that yielded either a win or a loss (in other words, ignoring pushes), I have won 179 of them. If my math serves me correctly, from the below from "hundredpercentgambling.com,"
then the standard deviation for my small sample is 19.9. And, with 302 hands, I believe I should have won only about 148 units, not 179, correct?

Again, I am NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT (now you know why my nickname is Overkill) using a progression. So you guys and girls (are there any ladies out there, or is this forum 92% male?) better be nice to me because I might (after I get a bankroll of more than $15!!!) enlist the help of one or two of you if and when I decide to carefully implement this legal strategy without getting my arms broken in a casino.

I was fortunate enough to find a copy of a sample of 50,000 manually dealt hands, and in a few weeks I should have the results of applying my system to that small sample. If that is successful, I plan to hire an off-duty professional dealer to come to my home and deal me 100,000 or so hands and, while disguising my strategy, see if it continues to win.

I got the idea for this system about 10 years ago and have tweaked it to its current state just recently. I understand if you think I am close-minded or wrong - maybe I am. But maybe I'm not..............

Outside of using a simulator (which cannot be used for my strategy), after what point would you experts conclude that someone has a winning strategy? 100 million manually dealt hands? 1 billion manually dealt hands?

-Overkill

Courtesy "hundredpercentgambling.com":

Volatility in blackjack

Blackjack, like all gambling games, is subject to the ups and downs of Dame Fortune; fortunately, there is a simple statistical formula we can use to measure it, using "standard deviation".

Standard deviation in blackjack is calculated as follows:

� Take your total initial hands played
� Find the square root
� Multiply the square root by 1.15.

Here�s an example, using 200 initial hands:

(sq.rt.200 = 14.14) � 1.15 = 16.26

The standard deviation of 200 hands is therefore 16.26.

Your results will fall within one standard deviation approximately 68% of the time; within two, 95%, and within three, 99.7% of the time - which covers almost all eventualities.

Playing a typical multi-deck blackjack game with an expectation of −0.5%, you will on average lose one unit for every 200 played. Supposing you end up losing 35 units out of 200 hands played - how probable / improbable is that?

The difference between your expected loss (1) and your actual loss (35) is 34.

34 � 16.26 (one standard deviation) = 2.09.

Your 35-unit loss is therefore a fraction in excess of two standard deviations; we know that results fall within this figure 95%s of the time, and therefore outside it, 5% of the time.

As such, a 35-unit loss out of 200 initial hands will occur on approximately one occasion in twenty.

"I got the idea for this system about 10 years ago and have tweaked it to its current state just recently. I understand if you think I am close-minded or wrong - maybe I am. But maybe I'm not.............. "

It's more hypocritical than being close-minded. You base your playing decisions on a mean if you play by basic strategy. You examine your unit winnings via standard deviation, also derived from a mean. But with your method of wagering, your reasoning somehow goes out the window with all of this.

I appreciate your enthusiam but 302 hands is hardy enough to base a system on. A Martingale system will win with this run. You didn't mention the strategy and I know you want to keep it secret but I have only one question now. Do you hit 16 vs small cards?

I won't comment on your "system" because, well, you know it's ridiculous.

But, the site you quoted made a mistake, too, when they wrote:

"Your 35-unit loss is therefore a fraction in excess of two standard deviations; we know that results fall within this figure 95%s of the time, and therefore outside it, 5% of the time."

This is true for the TWO-SIDED probability (actually, 95.4%).

"As such, a 35-unit loss out of 200 initial hands will occur on approximately one occasion in twenty."

Wrong! It will occur HALF of that -- actually, 2.3%, or about one in 43.

Don

Thanks Don for pointing out the error on the website I mentioned.

In my small sample, the dealer has been standing on soft 17 and doubling after splitting is permitted.

If you wish, I will run your system through my computer "blackjack engine" to see how it does. However, you must be prepared to get results you might not like.

Thank you so much for the offer, but no thanks.:)