In applying some of my 'system' with some computer sims, I've noticed that, for example, after I stopped after about only 100,000 hands, I am ahead .007%. I realize this is a very small sample size of hands, but, let's assume that I've stumbled on a way to get a sizeable chunk of dealer advantage minimized.
Now here comes the kicker: even if one cannot get a long-term advantage, if he/she can reduce the usual house edge some (with flat betting), can't one expect to walk away with a huge sum of money if they can afford to bet, say, $50,000/hand. (From the Blackjack News, it seems that Las Vegas casinos that will handle $50,000/hand maximum bets are not difficult to find.).
On the way to making the huge sum of money, one will experience probable highs and lows. Let's say that, at the worst, the player is losing $12,000,000 betting $50,000 per hand, but at the best, she/he is ahead $3,400,000. If she is willing to endure a risk of, say, 5% of losing everything, can't she walk away with that $3,400,000 if she has a huge bankroll and the time to reach the high of $3,400,000 (alternately, she could agree ahead of time to 'settle' for, say, 'only' about $1,500,000.)
The Wizard of Odds did some very interesting sims with players who have 1 and 2 percent advantages. He showed how long it would take for him, her to make, I believe, 1 million dollars. Granted, a 1-2% advantage is quite sizeable. (Also, his sims involved a version of compound interest though rather than strict flat betting.).
Of course, the hard part is finding a whale player who is willing to endure such an emotional roller coaster. Also, I wonder if the casino would be willing to put up with $50,000 bets for days upon days (if it takes that long to reach the financial objective). Assuming the casino will not handle such big action, what if we reduce the bet to, say, $10,000 per hand, and therefore change the parameters to a less favorable, but still hugely profitable, situation?
Even if one is not able to reduce the typical house edge at all, it seems that she can still walk away with over a million while riding a winning crest, as long as she is willing to endure a risk (perhaps as high as 40%?) of losing everything.
But it seems that with a gigantic bankroll of, say, $5 billion, one's risk of losing it all is greatly reduced while winning millions
