Trade Inciarte or No?

[sturg33]

It isn't possible for you to have played a significant amount of time with blackjack and not won money, once.

Getting rich quick does happen. I've had it happen and I've also been with a dude that turned $50 into 10k in less than 2 hours.

I've probably played 15-20 different nights of my life. There was a time or two when I went up $500 or so and kept playing and eventually lost. But most of the time, I was just a quick loser.

I remember at brother's bachelor party, nobody really knew how to play but me. I decided to sit out and just help them. Basically told them all what to do at every turn... within an hour or so, the 4 of them had made a combined $3K... I decided to give it a go... sat down with just $100... and 6 hands later was out. Was very frustrating... It's just been bad luck.

Another night I was on a bit of a run. Then some lady sat next to me and hit blackjack on 4 of first 6 hands... she was only betting the mins where I was betting hundreds. Had she not sat down those would have been my cards. Just bad luck

[bravesfanMatt]

I've probably played 15-20 different nights of my life. There was a time or two when I went up $500 or so and kept playing and eventually lost. But most of the time, I was just a quick loser.

I remember at brother's bachelor party, nobody really knew how to play but me. I decided to sit out and just help them. Basically told them all what to do at every turn... within an hour or so, the 4 of them had made a combined $3K... I decided to give it a go... sat down with just $100... and 6 hands later was out. Was very frustrating... It's just been bad luck.

Another night I was on a bit of a run. Then some lady sat next to me and hit blackjack on 4 of first 6 hands... she was only betting the mins where I was betting hundreds. Had she not sat down those would have been my cards. Just bad luck

not to nit pick, but no they would not have. The first BJ, yes, but each one after that would have been different results.

[sturg33]

not to nit pick, but no they would not have. The first BJ, yes, but each one after that would have been different results.

Good point

[Tapate50]

I've probably played 15-20 different nights of my life. There was a time or two when I went up $500 or so and kept playing and eventually lost. But most of the time, I was just a quick loser.

I remember at brother's bachelor party, nobody really knew how to play but me. I decided to sit out and just help them. Basically told them all what to do at every turn... within an hour or so, the 4 of them had made a combined $3K... I decided to give it a go... sat down with just $100... and 6 hands later was out. Was very frustrating... It's just been bad luck.

Another night I was on a bit of a run. Then some lady sat next to me and hit blackjack on 4 of first 6 hands... she was only betting the mins where I was betting hundreds. Had she not sat down those would have been my cards. Just bad luck

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have ourselves a cooler.

[Enscheff]

The only advantage the house has in blackjack is that the players all have to go first, and if they bust they lose immediately even if the dealer busts on his turn. Like everything else, the casino has essentially unlimited money backing them, so they can play until you lose. You can only play until you run out of cash.

You can absolutely "beat" the casino at blackjack by counting cards. If you count the number of 10s (including face cards) that come out between shuffles, the "count" can become such that there are 5-10 more or less 10s remaining than usual. At that point the dealer is either more likely to bust if there are more 10s remaining, or you are less likely to bust if there are fewer 10s remaining. At that point you can alter your strategy while the dealer can not, and you end up with a slight advantage (still less than 5% though). The idea is to bet $10 on every hand until there is a favorable count, at which point you bet $1000. Take advantage of enough favorable card counts by betting large and you will be guaranteed to come out ahead. Then they will throw you out of the casino.

[sturg33]

I once did the triple down strategy... basically just kept tripling down until I won a hand. So the minimum was $10, and the max bet was $1,000.

This was roulette... I figured what the hell... I'm almost assured to win with in 5 rolls if I just bet black each time.

$10 - lost
$30 - lost
$90 - lost
$270 - lost
$810 - lost

5 rolls... $1200 bucks. All reds.

That's about the time I decided to stick to stocks

[Enscheff]

I once did the triple down strategy... basically just kept tripling down until I won a hand. So the minimum was $10, and the max bet was $1,000.

This was roulette... I figured what the hell... I'm almost assured to win with in 5 rolls if I just bet black each time.

$10 - lost
$30 - lost
$90 - lost
$270 - lost
$810 - lost

5 rolls... $1200 bucks. All reds.

That's about the time I decided to stick to stocks

Haha casinos love it when guys come in spouting off about "strategies" like this.

[sturg33]

Haha casinos love it when guys come in spouting off about "strategies" like this.

Well... I wasn't spouting off. Just decided... what the hell? I just figured the math made sense, does it not?

Let's see, in roulette, you have a 17/36 chance of hitting black, or 47.22%. With each roll being independent of the previous one, that would mean a 2.3% chance of me losing, and a 97.7% chance of me winning. Unless the system is rigged.

That's the ENTIRE reason tables have maximum bets. Because at some point you would be guaranteed a win

[bravesfanMatt]

Well... I wasn't spouting off. Just decided... what the hell? I just figured the math made sense, does it not?

Let's see, in roulette, you have a 17/36 chance of hitting black, or 47.22%. With each roll being independent of the previous one, that would mean a 2.3% chance of me losing, and a 97.7% chance of me winning. Unless the system is rigged.

That's the ENTIRE reason tables have maximum bets. Because at some point you would be guaranteed a win

I have seen a black streak go to 8 before, but I couldn't count on one hand the times I have seen a color not switch by the 5th spin... not counting green(s).. that system would work 90% of the time probably. only issue is the 1 time out of ten would wipe out all winnings the other 9 times..

[sturg33]

I have seen a black streak go to 8 before, but I couldn't count on one hand the times I have seen a color not switch by the 5th spin... not counting green(s).. that system would work 90% of the time probably. only issue is the 1 time out of ten would wipe out all winnings the other 9 times..

Yep... you also have to have balls of steel on the 5th roll. Because at that point... the previous 4 rolls no longer matter and you have a 47% chance of winning.

A safer strategy is to double up + $10 or something. That would give you an extra roll. That takes your chances of winning up to 99%, but then you only win $10. Whereas with the triple strategy, you stand to more than double your money with just slightly more risk.

$10
$30
$70
$150
$310
$620

[gilesfan]

I can't count how many guys I know that tried the double up strategy and lost before they could get money back.

[Enscheff]

Well... I wasn't spouting off. Just decided... what the hell? I just figured the math made sense, does it not?

Let's see, in roulette, you have a 17/36 chance of hitting black, or 47.22%. With each roll being independent of the previous one, that would mean a 2.3% chance of me losing, and a 97.7% chance of me winning. Unless the system is rigged.

That's the ENTIRE reason tables have maximum bets. Because at some point you would be guaranteed a win

This is precisely why casinos make so much money. Do you really think the order you place these bets has anything to do with the odds of you winning? It doesn't, but folks insist that they do, and that's why casinos can afford to build mega resorts.

All that matters is you wagered money on bet with 2:1 payback that had less than 50% chance of winning. You lose. Period. It doesn't matter what bet sequence you come up with. Over time, you lose 3%, no matter what.

One night you win, the next night you lose. You will lose more than you win by about 3%. It is inevitable.

[sturg33]

This is precisely why casinos make so much money. Do you really think the order you place these bets has anything to do with the odds of you winning? It doesn't, but folks insist that they do, and that's why casinos can afford to build mega resorts.

All that matters is you wagered money on bet with 2:1 payback that had less than 50% chance of winning. You lose. Period. It doesn't matter what bet sequence you come up with. Over time, you lose 3%, no matter what.

One night you win, the next night you lose. You will lose more than you win by about 3%. It is inevitable.

I totally agree... but the odds say that 5 consecutive lands of 47% = a 3% chance of occurring.

The casino cleaned up on me... wheras most people probably would have won by the 3rd roll... and they owuld have made like $50.

[sturg33]

I can't count how many guys I know that tried the double up strategy and lost before they could get money back.

Well yeah, that's why have they have the table maximums.

You essentially HAVE to win within 5 turns or you've just gotten burned badly

[Enscheff]

I totally agree... but the odds say that 5 consecutive lands of 47% = a 3% chance of occurring.

The casino cleaned up on me... wheras most people probably would have won by the 3rd roll... and they owuld have made like $50.

You suffered from small sample size unfortunately.

[JohnAdcox]

not to nit pick, but no they would not have. The first BJ, yes, but each one after that would have been different results.

It's so hard not to make an inappropriate joke after that.

[Enscheff]

Table limits are in place to segregate gamblers into tiers, and to limit potential downside when high rollers come in. They are not in place to foil some silly roulette "strategy".

[bravesfanMatt]

It's so hard not to make an inappropriate joke after that.

I am sure one of *50*(tapate/head) will take that softball.. they are usually quick with the wit...

[bravesfanMatt]

For someone who says they are in the business, I would think you would know Maximums are in place to exactly prevent double bets to a X number of lives and Minimum bets are to segregate gamblers. There are countless articles and testimonies as to why maximum bets are put in place. it has nothing to do with segregation.. This only confirms my suspicion that it is just another made up persona...

[smootness]

I totally agree... but the odds say that 5 consecutive lands of 47% = a 3% chance of occurring.

The problem is, in that 3%, you lose $1200 each time. In the 97%, you win just $10 every time. So if you tried that strategy and got to 5 rolls 100 times and lost just 3 of those times, you'd be out $3,600 while winning just $970 in your wins.