However 'whether you have one or lost recently, and how much you have won/lost' is not one of those many things effecting the odds. Knowing it, and betting based on it, cannot effect anything.
well, it works, I win money consistantly, no matter what equipment the casino uses. See this is what you are missing:
flip a coin. the odds of heads or tails is 50%/50%. flip it again, the odds are still 50/50, but the odds of getting the same thing twice in a row is NOT 50/50. Flip it 10 times and the odds of getting 10 heads is well below 50/50, even though it was a 50% chance any flip would be heads. This should be obvious.
Using this betting strategy I could break the bank playing "bet the coin flip", because the strategy pays off MORE ON A SERIES OF WINS THAN IS LOST ON A LONGER LENGTH STRING OF LOSSES. You need to play a long series of hands which is why you need to have something like 20 times your minimum bet in your bank when you start. This is how it can produce an accumulation of money while only winning under 50% of the hands played.
"You acted like altering your bet was some incredible stragety you thought of, and it was much better than card counting..."
I never claimed I thought of it (in fact there are many books published about it), but I did claim (1) it worked (2) it was easier than card counting and (3) it was more widely applicable than card counting. And you haven't refuted any of those claims.
If I had lost twice more that would have been a losing night, and as I said, this method won't guarantee a win every time you sit down. What it does is improve the likelihood that, given the normal win % of a skilled bj player over a long series of hands, a positive net outcome is acheived.
You said I'm "like all the other supersitious (sic) gamblers...gambling with a pattern of money does not have anything to do with how likely you are to come out ahead, at all." which is totally illogical in many ways. For example if I bet my entire bank roll on one hand I have a very low probabiltiy of leaving a winner - the probabiltiy of winning one hand. Which is less than 40%. If I manage my bets and play a multitude of hands, then my % moves closer to the "standard decision table" win % which is ~40%. Clearly this demonstrates a difference based on how I bet my money. Calling me superstituous does not refute any point of this system.
how can you know enough about me to say I "dont realize.. card counting is done by altering your bet..." certainly not because you are psychic because if you were then you would know that I was taught to do it at a very young age... maybe you assumed I didn't RTFA or any of the posts made b4 mine... oops bad assumption, dude!
You try to discount this system by saying it relies on luck WHAT A JOKER are you trying to imply that card counting does NOT? When counting you notice, through keeping track of the cards played, that there is a slight increase in your probability of winning the hand. So you increase your bet for that one hand. I don't think you can demonstrate that any card counting stratgy will at any time give you a better than 50% probability to win based on information you have before any cards are dealt. (And how is THAT not depending on luck - you are self-contradicting)
What you failed to understand is that the strategy I outlined does not rely on anything except the standard decison table percentages and a distribution of wins and losses over a large number of hands.
if you play 500 hands you can expect to win 200 or so, in some random distribution of W and L, if you are a skilled player. That distribution will include strings of W and strings of L. The point of the system I described is that you will win more money in a string of Ws than you lose in an equal size string of Ls.
Prove it to yourself, take a random sample of W and L, where L makes up 60% of the elements. now track this system through that string of hands, what you would have bet, won, lost. That might be too much work for you, much easier to post gibberish on slashdot...
You make a classic logical phallacy when you take some observation about the one incident I described and genralize it to all other situations. I was down that night, others I get up early and stay up until time to leave.
Finally, this quote tells me that you have confused this strategy with a different bet escalation strategy, where you continuously raise your bet UNTIL YOU WIN IT ALL BACK and that is a bad strategy. You said "Sure, you might 'win back' all your money with higher and higher bets"
RMFP (read my f*in post)
Card counting is more than a little difficult, is obsolete where certain equipment is used, and is not really that effective anyway, since it relies in small mutations in the probability of certaan cards to appear.
A much better strategy involves the amount of your bet. Assuming you have mastered the standard blackjack decision tables, you can expect to win someting like 38-42% of hands. It is possible to make money at that rate.
This is a progressive betting stratgy. It uses a base wager and a progressions rate. You set your base wager as 1/20th of your total stake on hand. So if you ahve 200 dolalrs your base bet is 10.
Each time you win a hand, you move to the next level in the progression. When you lose, you go back to the base bet. Anytime you can amplify a bet (double down, split etc) you skip a level, unless the new level is a bet higher than the total you have won on the current "run". Here is the $10 progression:
so, if you win one, lose one, win one, lose one... you stay even as long as that continues. however if you lose 5 in a row then win 4 in a row, that works out to (-50 + 10 + 10 + 15 + 20) = +5. So, do the math... as long as wins come in bunches you will slowly increase you balance.
The most hands I ever won in a row was about 10. I was down $180 off my $200 bank. With some double downs in there I was at the 350 bet level but I chickend out, bet 100, doubled down and won the 13th for $200 when it should have been 700. I bet $100 again and lost, but at that point I was up something like $800, so I just took my money and went home:)
This won't make you a winner every time you sit down but over a long enough time it can be successfull. It is easier than card counting, and will work no matter what equipment the casino is using. In fact, IMO, it works better with a constant shuffle machine because then the standard decision tables are always at peak correctness (whereas card counting relies on an imbalanced deck to slightly shift the probability of winning outside the normal decision tables.)
actual trailer quote -> "He's not a super-agent - he's an Engineer!"
I don't know if I should get a hard-on or feel pandered to... wait, what am I saying, I do both all the time!
Slashdot Mirror
Now I can continue practicing my martial arts until my legs actually fall off!
well, it works, I win money consistantly, no matter what equipment the casino uses. See this is what you are missing:
flip a coin. the odds of heads or tails is 50%/50%. flip it again, the odds are still 50/50, but the odds of getting the same thing twice in a row is NOT 50/50. Flip it 10 times and the odds of getting 10 heads is well below 50/50, even though it was a 50% chance any flip would be heads. This should be obvious.
Using this betting strategy I could break the bank playing "bet the coin flip", because the strategy pays off MORE ON A SERIES OF WINS THAN IS LOST ON A LONGER LENGTH STRING OF LOSSES. You need to play a long series of hands which is why you need to have something like 20 times your minimum bet in your bank when you start. This is how it can produce an accumulation of money while only winning under 50% of the hands played.
I never claimed I thought of it (in fact there are many books published about it), but I did claim (1) it worked (2) it was easier than card counting and (3) it was more widely applicable than card counting. And you haven't refuted any of those claims.
You said I'm "like all the other supersitious (sic) gamblers...gambling with a pattern of money does not have anything to do with how likely you are to come out ahead, at all." which is totally illogical in many ways. For example if I bet my entire bank roll on one hand I have a very low probabiltiy of leaving a winner - the probabiltiy of winning one hand. Which is less than 40%. If I manage my bets and play a multitude of hands, then my % moves closer to the "standard decision table" win % which is ~40%. Clearly this demonstrates a difference based on how I bet my money. Calling me superstituous does not refute any point of this system.
how can you know enough about me to say I "dont realize.. card counting is done by altering your bet..." certainly not because you are psychic because if you were then you would know that I was taught to do it at a very young age... maybe you assumed I didn't RTFA or any of the posts made b4 mine... oops bad assumption, dude!
You try to discount this system by saying it relies on luck WHAT A JOKER are you trying to imply that card counting does NOT? When counting you notice, through keeping track of the cards played, that there is a slight increase in your probability of winning the hand. So you increase your bet for that one hand. I don't think you can demonstrate that any card counting stratgy will at any time give you a better than 50% probability to win based on information you have before any cards are dealt. (And how is THAT not depending on luck - you are self-contradicting)
What you failed to understand is that the strategy I outlined does not rely on anything except the standard decison table percentages and a distribution of wins and losses over a large number of hands.
if you play 500 hands you can expect to win 200 or so, in some random distribution of W and L, if you are a skilled player. That distribution will include strings of W and strings of L. The point of the system I described is that you will win more money in a string of Ws than you lose in an equal size string of Ls.
Prove it to yourself, take a random sample of W and L, where L makes up 60% of the elements. now track this system through that string of hands, what you would have bet, won, lost. That might be too much work for you, much easier to post gibberish on slashdot... You make a classic logical phallacy when you take some observation about the one incident I described and genralize it to all other situations. I was down that night, others I get up early and stay up until time to leave. Finally, this quote tells me that you have confused this strategy with a different bet escalation strategy, where you continuously raise your bet UNTIL YOU WIN IT ALL BACK and that is a bad strategy. You said "Sure, you might 'win back' all your money with higher and higher bets" RMFP (read my f*in post)
A much better strategy involves the amount of your bet. Assuming you have mastered the standard blackjack decision tables, you can expect to win someting like 38-42% of hands. It is possible to make money at that rate.
This is a progressive betting stratgy. It uses a base wager and a progressions rate. You set your base wager as 1/20th of your total stake on hand. So if you ahve 200 dolalrs your base bet is 10.
Each time you win a hand, you move to the next level in the progression. When you lose, you go back to the base bet. Anytime you can amplify a bet (double down, split etc) you skip a level, unless the new level is a bet higher than the total you have won on the current "run". Here is the $10 progression:
10-10-15-20-25-25-35-50-75-100-100-150-250-350-500 -750...
I've never made it that far...
so, if you win one, lose one, win one, lose one... you stay even as long as that continues. however if you lose 5 in a row then win 4 in a row, that works out to (-50 + 10 + 10 + 15 + 20) = +5. So, do the math... as long as wins come in bunches you will slowly increase you balance.
The most hands I ever won in a row was about 10. I was down $180 off my $200 bank. With some double downs in there I was at the 350 bet level but I chickend out, bet 100, doubled down and won the 13th for $200 when it should have been 700. I bet $100 again and lost, but at that point I was up something like $800, so I just took my money and went home :)
This won't make you a winner every time you sit down but over a long enough time it can be successfull. It is easier than card counting, and will work no matter what equipment the casino is using. In fact, IMO, it works better with a constant shuffle machine because then the standard decision tables are always at peak correctness (whereas card counting relies on an imbalanced deck to slightly shift the probability of winning outside the normal decision tables.)
actual trailer quote -> "He's not a super-agent - he's an Engineer!" I don't know if I should get a hard-on or feel pandered to... wait, what am I saying, I do both all the time!