The first post you link to contains the gamblers fallacy. Therefore there is no need to consider their argument further they are ignorant of probability.Hey guys,
Anyone here familiar with blackjack mathematics? I came across a series of threads at another forum where a guy is trying to convince people that he's developed a better betting method than basic strategy. I haven't cracked open a math book in a decade but to me his system looks like a just a no-bust martingale variation that should have a much lower expected value over basic strategy.
This is his system:
"I recommend ignoring this if you really want to win at blackjack. There is a reason that the casino will hand you that chart and wants most players to play that way and that is because it makes the house the favorite.
Blackjack is a game I have won far more money at then I have ever lost and I have invented my own system. The only downside to my system is that other players will hate you for not playing to the same playbook they play by. The last time I played I was winning huge but had 3 players verbally abusing attacking me until the dealer said "give the guy a break...he is winning." Also you need to have about $300 to lose to play this way.
Anyway I will for the first time detail my black jack system here.
IT is simple really. Mathematically speaking the dealer is going to bust (get more then 21) every X hands. This is fact. In my experience that number is about 4-6 hands although I have counted a dealer going as many as 11 without a single bust (except they busted me).
So in my system you are playing the bust....not your hand...and not the dealers hand. That means you NEVER bust yourself, ever. I don't care if you are showing 12 and the dealer a 10 you do not hit and bust yourself because that might be your one bust the dealer was going to give you that series.
In my system I will sit out hands while holding my spot until the dealer goes 3 hands in a row without busting. Sometime I sit up to 8 or more hands but thta is rare. Then I will bet the table minimum ($10). If the dealer does not bust and beats my hand then I double my bet ($20) and if I win I am up $10. If the dealer again does not bust and beats my hand then again I double ($40) and so on. I have five straight bets I can make or 8 hands where I am counting on him busting.
I am betting that the dealer will ust once during the 8 hands (remember I waited until he went 3-no-bust). As soon as the dealer busts I go back to sitting out to start all over again.
NOw how I make big money in this system is when the dealer does not bust but I beat their hand outright. I still ramp up my bet expecting a bust to come very soon. I can double and triple my stack on these wins.
Personally I can never understand how people can walk into the ediface that is a casino and realize that it is built with gamblers money and then play off the sheet the casino gives you to play by.
Do yourself a favour and stand and watch and count how many hands it takes a dealer to go bust and what is his longest streak without busting. I doubt you will ever see him go more then 8 straight with no bust unless you watch hours and hours of Blackjack. Hopefully if you play you will not hit his hot streak and you can get in and out with a Mitt full dough by playing the bust."
The thread is here:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/show ... stcount=49
but the discussion continues here after Cuepee was banned and returned as QP:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/show ... ?t=2267387
If anybody is up to it can they analyze his system here so as not to get mixed up in the mess that most QP threads turn into over at rottentomatoes.
Also, you are not to try relocating flame wars from another forum to MHF