"Would you like to offer me the same challenge?"
If accepted my bet is on you Roger and would like to be "in on" the "deal."
Gary
"Would you like to offer me the same challenge?"
If accepted my bet is on you Roger and would like to be "in on" the "deal."
Gary
but a good system wouldn't need that much spread. In a billion hand sim, you'd probably hit some really extreme situations and that much spread would encourage recklessness. A sim should be played the same way you would in a casino, otherwise it becomes pointless.
When you play progression, you are playing multiple games. What I mean by that is, at the end of the day you could take a look back at all the bets you have made and determine how many bets you made at each different level. Then you can total them up and multiply by the house edge which is .005 (.5 percent assuming you played perfectly) and you will get your loss. Lets look at an example.
You made 100 bets at $25 (equals 2500). 40 bets at 50 (equals 2000). 10 bets at $100 (equals 1000). and 2 bets at 200 (equals 400). This is a fairly common progression bettors total. When you add these amounts bet up you get $5900 bet over 152 hands. This is only about 2 hours of play.]
So 5900 X .005 = $29.50 loss. Also if you played less than perfect you can give away a 2 percent edge (which is about what most people give). 5900 X .02 = $118 loss
You might say, "Well, I'm up $500, so how can it be a loss?". My answer to that is, "Just give it time, bud." You can win playing progressions 5 sessions in a row, but on that 6th session you lose every penny back plus more. If you play Martingale, and your limit is 7 hands in a row. Then your progression would be, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320. Ok, now what happens when you are faced with 8, 8 vs 10. Now you need to split and pony up another 320 and fight a losing battle. All your hard work down the drain by a small losing streak, and now the hill is even steeper. People lose 7 in a row all the time, hell, some people lose 20 in a row once in a while. If you progressed that, you'd have to sell your house.
Time is all the casino needs to separate you from your money and unless you learn the truth about playing any game, then you will join the millions of broke gamblers.
What it really does, is describe the problem.
When one clearly understands the problem, the solution is usually close at hand.
(You're scaring away the pigeons. ;-)
"You didn't answer if you would take the challenge under my conditions."
Well, you didn't say if you were offering it.
... to take up Roger's challenge.
ETF
I'm not exactly clear on which side of the proposition you want me to take!
Clearly, the Wiz had it up for Craps, Roulette, or Baccarat because he knew there can be exceptions for blackjack. He took up the blackjack challenge because he looked at the specific conditions, and decided his money was safe. But he didn't set a precedent. He didn't say he would take up the challenge for any blackjack game proposed with any progression proposed and any spread.
The blackjack game you describe is just a good game. It's not a "very, very good game," like I stipulated. If we start with a BJ game (rules of my choosing) with < 0.04% house edge, I'll undertake to beat it with a progression.
I'm not sure about beating 0.26% with a progression. MathProf did a study once you might want to look up. Turns out there's a limit on negative correlation effect after the second or third hand bad hand in a row -- something like that. Maybe with one deck you could do it. ;-)
ETF
And the solution is counting and wonging.
is MathProf's study ETFan?
Thanks in advance.
Tim
take the challenge and not if you WILL. My guess is that the Wizzard took down the challenge because of answers like the one you gave.
Anyway I'll assume per your answers to ETFan that you WOULD take the Wizzard's challenge if there were one. Unfortunately it's no longer offered. Very convenient, isn't it?
Regards,
Tim
Sorry for the delay in responding, I did manange to read through all the posts, and the listed articles on mathematical proofs and explanations of progression failures in the long run.
Exactly the information I was looking for, and it was all very much appreciated.
Throp abandoned the game. Guess he couldn't stand the prosperity.
Some supersillious assumptions counters make:
If the count is high or low, don't worry, the remaining decks won't be out of wack but will be EVENLY distributed with the differences.
The decks behind the cut card, don't worry, just assume they're normal decks.
I have a great idea for you. If you like to play single deck, just play the first 52 cards, no matter how many decks there are.
The original challenge stipulated that the game had to be either Craps, Roulette, or Baccarat, so his money was perfectly safe.
Probably not safe. At baccarat there is an extremely mild effect caused by a microscopic negative correlation between hands-winning bank hands for example tend to have more bank-favourable cards than normal, so you get some extremely minor shift in advantage towards the player. We are talking hundredths of %.
But, in theory anyway, you could probably get a statistical edge over a billion hands by doing something like waiting for a run of 80 straight player wins and then betting bank, not betting otherwise. Your edge would be the order of .0000000001% or something. The Wiz almost certainly wouldn't have accepted the challenge, which was kind of my problem with it-he was rather selective about what he took on.
As I recall, one guy tried to exploit the vulnerability in his PRNG used for the test and he disallowed it, getting all huffy in the process. He really should have thought the rules through properly if he is going to disallow things retrospectively.
I'm not exactly clear on which side of the proposition you want me to take!Clearly, the Wiz had it up for Craps, Roulette, or Baccarat because he knew there can be exceptions for blackjack. He took up the blackjack challenge because he looked at the specific conditions, and decided his money was safe. But he didn't set a precedent. He didn't say he would take up the challenge for any blackjack game proposed with any progression proposed and any spread.
What I'm saying is that, using exactly the same game rules and bet spread that the Wiz offered to Daniel Rainsong, I believe it is possible for a progression to show a profit after one billion rounds. If he were to withdraw the challenge because of the "progression proposed" -- i.e. because it might win his $20,000 -- that would sort of defeat the purpose of the challenge, wouldn't it?
So, I was merely wondering if you or anyone else on the board would like to extend the Wiz's challenge to me. But I'm not greedy; I would also consider a more modest prize for the challenge. ;-)
I believe this is the article ET Fan is referring to:
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/progloss.htm
"At baccarat there is an extremely mild effect caused by a microscopic negative correlation between hands..."
The negative correlation between Blackjack hands is much larger, but it's still so microscopic that it might as well not exist; it has no practical use as a betting system. But what the Wiz offered for the Blackjack challenge was a helluva digital-zoom magnifying glass: the 1 to 1028 bet spread.
If he were to withdraw the challenge because of the "progression proposed" -- i.e. because it might win his $20,000 -- that would sort of defeat the purpose of the challenge, wouldn't it?
No, because that wasn't the challenge! The challenge didn't include blackjack at all. The bet he took from that guy was no part of the official challenge.
Got it straight now? ;)
ETF
If the count is high or low, don't worry, the remaining decks won't be out of wack but will be EVENLY distributed with the differences.
Counters don't assume that.
The decks behind the cut card, don't worry, just assume they're normal decks.
That either. If counters assumed that, they wouldn't divide by the number of decks remaining to get the true count. Instead, they'd divide by (decks remaining - 1).
ETF
The cut-card effect reduces the expectation of all players, whether they're flat-betting, playing a progression, betting randomly, or counting. So, yes, if one were willing to take the progression challenge played with a cut card, then one should be more than willing to take it if played with a fixed number of rounds.
Bj21 uses cookies, this enables us to provide you with a personalised experience. More info