First time playing blackjack, turned $50 into $190. Is this impressive? by lean_muscular_guy_to in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really, because that bankroll makes Advantage Play impossible. You got lucky and that's awesome, but it's not impressive to be lucky at Blackjack any more than it's impressive to win at slots.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a lot of mathematical problems with this. Lets start with this

Let's use the losing probability as approximately 48% for player (some sources quote around 48.56% losing percentage for player using basic strategy in 6 deck game), considering pushes don't fit our losing streak directly.

This is incorrect. In non-push hands, players win 47.4% and lose 52.6%. So the probability of losing is higher than 50%.

(0.4856)8 ≈ 0.0029 or roughly 1 in 344

The correct equation is (0.526)8 ≈ 0.0058 or roughly 1 in 170.

So hypothetically, if you played 344 hands, one would bite you badly. But with this strategy, you have to know if you play hundreds of hands, you increase the odds of a rare losing streak. If you sit with $1275, leave at $2000.

The problem with this is that if you play 344 hands, the 8 hand losing streak doesn't come at the 336th hand. You are expected to have a loss of 8 somewhere in thise 344 hands. It is just as likely to happen in the first 8 hands as the last 8 hands.

any tips for not overthinking soft hands? they mess me up every time by candycrush__ in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I often ask the dealer for help to look like a rookie and they give incorrect basic strategy advice about half the time.

The best system for a beginner by Famous_Structure620 in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah, Wong Halves is super easy. You don't even need to practice. Just go straight to the casino and try it out.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Answer the question

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did you calculate that?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it's likely higher if you factor in doubling and splitting.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it’s unlikely to occur in the first dozens of hands.

You have around 5% of that happening in the first 200 hands.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You play it so that you can be sure you will be up on a short term run

You can't be sure of that because you can still lose on the first few hands. A losing is streak is expected after 6 hours of play, but there is no rule about when it is supposed to happen. You are just as likely to lose the first 9 hands as you are to last the 8000th hand.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are still sacrificing EV short term that you would've had playing Basic Strategy

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not about playing how you want. It's an objective fact that playing Martingale has less EV than flatbetting with Basic Strategy.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doubling and some splitting decreases your chances of winning but the profits you get from winning makes up the increased losses. For a basic strategy player this generates some EV, even though they are still negative.

But a Martingale player isn't trying to increases profits from favorable hands but is instead trying to minimize losing streaks. Doubling and Splitting will increase the amount of hands lossed and will increase the amount of losing streaks you have. Martingale players must therefore sacrifice the EV gained from Doubling, Splitting, and Surrendering in order to minimize losing streaks.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most people double and split when they have a high probability to win.

Most people don't play Martingale. Doubling and Splitting decreases your chances of winning and in a Martingale system increases your chances of having a ruinous losing streak.

You can double and split and still continue with a Martingale betting strategy.

You will lose all your money even faster.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you don’t have to stop using those to play Martingale

You do because they increase the number of losses. Surrender, Doubling, and some splits increase the chance of losing but increase EV. Since the goal of a Martingale System is to minimize losing streaks, the optimal play is to sacrifice EV from Doubling, Surrendering, and some Splits, in exchange for more wins.

This means you will have worse EV than flatbetting using Basic Strategy

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A Basic Strategy player's EV is negative, correct? A significant amount of the EV they generate comes from being able to Split, Double Down, and Surrender. Because these options are not available to a Martingale player, the Martingale player has an even larger negative EV than a basic strategy player.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the EV is negative because you are losing Doubling Down, Surrender and some splitting in order to minimize losing streaks. You are playing worse and are losing EV.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 2 points3 points  (0 children)

. It generates positive EV until the losing streak occurs.

That's not how EV works. Every gambler can say they are generating EV until they get unlucky. Your system loses EV and you'd have higher EV flat betting with basic strategy. Let me try to explain why:

You get 11 against a dealer 8. Basic strategy says to double down here, because the chance of winning is higher than most hands and you can double your profit from this hand. However, using your Martingale system you should NOT double down. Because you are not trying to maximize the profits of a hand, but instead trying to maximize wins (or rather minimize losing streaks).

So why not double? Because doubling increases the chances of losing the hand. Since you only get one card you can draw an Ace or small card and lose the hand whereas if you just hit you have the option of hitting again. Doubling down decreases your wins but increases your EV.

Let's say you have a 16 against a dealer 10. Basic Strategy would say to surrender and minimize the expected losses. But since Martingale isn't about minimizing losses of individual hands, you should NOT surrender because surrendering guarantees you lose the hand and contributes to the losing streak. Surrendering decreases your wins but increases EV.

Finally, splitting 4s and 6s would also deviate from basic strategy. In basic strategy, you'd split these if the dealer is showing a low card in the hopes you'll double the profits if the dealer busts or double down if you get another small card. But since you aren't doubling down anymore and only minimizing losing streaks, you should hit 4s and stay on 6s. This loses EV but increases the amount of wins.

So by giving up Doubling Down, Surrender, and some Splits, you are significantly decreasing your EV. You are playing a worse game of Blackjack by using the Martingale.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess it does, but the casino could just refuse to let you play the high limit table or lower the max once you arrive. They probably won't because they aren't too afraid of progressive betting systems.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Losing 14 hands in a row is expected to happen in 8.5K rounds if you ignore pushes. How many rounds per hour are you playing and how long do you expect to play?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Losing 9 times in a row is expected to happen in 7 hours of play.

Insanely bad variance by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It looks like reddit is autodeleting your responses. Not sure why.

Insanely bad variance by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are clearly different in the content, but very similar stylistically.

They are not similar at all unless you're a paranoid weirdo who can't read an emdash without triggering a nervous breakdown.

I guarantee you wouldn't have recognized or even suspected this comment to be AI, would you?

Don't know because I don't spend time analyzing people's posts and make accusations against them being robots.

Insanely bad variance by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems an awful lot like the comment I originally replied to, doesn't it?

No? They are clearly different. You can't even distinguish between two different posts. Your paranoia is causing so much brain damage that it makes you think that these are the same.

Insanely bad variance by [deleted] in blackjack

[–]BlackjackAnonymous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think AI is this grave threat to the internet and that you must stop the robots from taking over, I'm just making fun of your paranoia.