Blackjack - Casinos Suck - Page 6

I explained this in an earlier post in this thread, so no need to repeat it here.

"Knowing when to quit" is a fallacy, an illusion. There is no way to predict when to quit such that in the long run quitting at any point will translate into having better odds than the house and therefore see a profit. Virtually the only way to not allow the house their statistically advantage is not to gamble.

What... do you actually think casinos would go out of business if everyone all of the sudden "knew when to quit"? Casinos have every reason to be appreciative of those who believe this fallacy as it helps increase their profits.

Long shot events in gambling are a fact and no one in this thread has stated the experiences you shared in this thread are not true.


If he had bet enough on the few races he did bet on, he would have made a living from doing so. Although his success rate is one of many that exist, there surely are countless more untold failures than winning stories.

These observations change nothing and are irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with your claimed 96% to 98% blackjack success rate, but it does show you used no successful system at video poker, or else you simply did not "know when to quit" (joking).

The casinos have every reason to be grateful for you using and publicizing your system. While very few who would use it would win, many more would lose, and the casinos would continue to win big time. Unless good reason is offered for your system to work as stated, there's no reason to believe its use will produce any better odds than crossing one's fingers.

This means nothing. The house still has the advantage, regardless of when one starts and stops. To obtain a profit by stopping while ahead is an event that is less likely than losing because of the house advantage. To play with the house's money is an event that is less likely to begin with than losing because of the house advantage. There's no way around the house advantage, and no number of examples of people winning or "would have wons if" will change that and bankrupt the casinos.

Considering your extraordinary success at the blackjack table, you must have done very poorly at slots.

No problem here... a lot of posts and content in this thread are on topic.

I fail to see how I could be guilty of any wrong doing worthy of this response; no offense intended.

It is possible to win consistently at blackjack. Problem is most people are not discipline enough. I taught a lot of my friends to play. They all won during practice but all lose at the table.

One thing I do want to do is to warn people of the myth of hot and cold tables. Sometimes it just seemed that way especially on multideck games. Next time when you go to the casino, watch the dealer. She will always pick up the busted hands first and put them in the discarded pile. Those are usually small cards. After a while the cards become stacked with 10 poor runs and 10 rich runs. Multideck cards are not easy to shuffled. So after a while the cards are stacked, and there go the streaks of hot and cold. These streaks are unpredictable. They come as fast as they go

I typically avoid multideck games and lazy dealers. Card counting doesn't help in these situation because the deck is not random.

After years of playing, I can tell you the house WILL win 60% of the hands. The compensation of these odds are splits, double downs and blackjacks. After Julian Braun's book, rules have changed. You can't double down on any two cards, multiple decks etc. All the rule change is to give the house more of an edge. You can't win without knowing what your odd is.

Crap actually has a better odds of winning than blackjack for beginners or casual gamblers.

No, I didn't mean "know when to quit" as in you know when is the best time to quit, but I meant it as in "you better quit while you're still a bit ahead and not becoming greedy".

Actually yesterday I went to a local RSL club to play slot, I was down 350 bucks, and got a bit pissed because I didn't enjoy it at all, so I went straight to casino after that to play a bit of Blackjack.

So there I was, at the casino - When I arrived there I just walked around to browse and I was looking at 100 dollars table, and for some reason I got this good feeling and just for the heck of it, I followed bet (put a bet behind other's) for 100 dollars each on 2 people, and then I put a perfect pair bet for $25 each. Perfect pair is the rule that if the 1st two cards dealt at Blackjack is the exact same pair, you get paid 1 to 30.

And guess what, I got the perfect pair bets (2 red diamond kings), and also won the 2 backbets for 100 each. So basically I won like $950 bucks in a single card deal. I played 1 more hand, and then I stopped right after that - didn't wanna take any more chances. So all in all I was ahead 400 bucks (counting the loss from 350 earlier and a bit more of slot afterwards).

And the guy that I was backbetting with, when I was there he was actually ahead a few grand I think, but he continued playing, and as far as I know he lost all his money when I came back to see him later on.

So yeah, I don't know, maybe if I continued, I could've won much more, or I could lost even more. But what I mean is, I know when to quit and not to become too greedy for more money. 400 bucks is cool enough for me, but apparently not for some people who wants much more.

PS: Can you actually do card counting? The cards here are all shuffled in that little machine. I don't know how thorough it can shuffle cards.

1Time - you continue to assert that unrelated events can influence each other.

In your coin toss example if I first toss heads, then the next toss must be tails. This is absurd. Statisticly the odds of tossing 10 heads in a row is 2 to the power of the number of tosses; in this example 1 in 1024. But, if I have just tossed 9 heads in a row, what is the probability of tossing another head? It remains 1 in 2. The previous tosses have nothing to do with the next.

You suggest that the sample set size is irrelevant in realising the statistical outcome. I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. The greater the sample size the more likely the closer to the statistical outcome.

In the case of my blackjack playing each time I play I have a 48% chance of winning. Whether I won or lost on my last visit to the casino has no bearing on this.

As far as knowing when to quit. I disagree with you. I have never suggested the concept is about the 'optimal time to quit'. It is simply quit while you're ahead. I tend to quit when I have double my stake (I normally start with $100 - $200). Or, I will cash in my stake and the equivalent in profit and then play with any additional winnings. If I lose those, I'm still ahead.

If everyone knew when to quit the casinos would go broke, but very few people know when to quit; so the casinos continue to make money. You seem to think that gambling is a logical pursuit for most people. Fact is, it's not. People rely mostly on their emotions when gambling.

Why do people chase losses? Because they believe that they can regain their losses.

Why won't people quit while they're ahead? Because they believe that they can win more.

You seem to be missing the details of some of the points raised here. You continue to come back to the 'house has the advantage so nobody can ever win argument'. Remember, the house doesn't care if if the house average is applied across 1 or 100 people. Some will win, and many will lose. If everyone always lost, who would return?

It's also worth remembering that people are illogical when they gamble. Why don't most people back the same number in roulette? Because we illogically assume that if the number just came up there is somehow a lower probability of it coming up the next time. Statistically, the probablity is identical.

Why do casinos give you those cards to track the numbers in roulette? Because casinos know that people are illogical.

The follwoing is an article on the beahviour of gamblers:

Casual gamblers may be no more impulsive than non-gamblers when it comes to discounting the value of a delayed reward in favor of a smaller amount of cash on hand. But gamblers are more likely than non-gamblers to take a chance on a possible higher payoff instead of taking a smaller guaranteed reward.

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/570.html

Casual gamblers will take a smaller guaranteed reward. That's me.

Your definition of this expression is a subset of the one I gave, and so my previous reply remains just as applicable. I suggest re-reading it with that in mind.

No. You seem to be conducting yourself with such an air of authority on this matter that you must be basing it on some serious experience. If not, well...

You seem to be confusing my success rate with the average success rate and the general probablity associated with black jack. Your example is ill considered.

I have never disputed the odds in blackjack, nor have I ever contended that my win rate is repeatable.

You have provided the silly example that I assert that everyone in the game has 96% chance based on my 'system' (as you keep calling it) - I have never claimed that, and your example simply demonstrates is that you have not really thought about this very well, and that you don't understand distibution at all. I am no expert, but I appreciate that gambling returns would most likley comply with normal distribution.

Based on your example of 100 people with $100 each; the house will take about 52% or $5200. (at least we seem to agree on this)

The remaining money will not be distributed evenly amongst the 100 people. A few will lose all of their money, many will lose part of their part of their $100 an approximatly equal number will win part of an additonal hundred, and a few will win more. Your line of logic demands that nobody in this example could ever do better than losing 52% of their stake. Thus, the remaining $4,800 will be distributed evenly amongst the 100 people. Clearly, that is not based in reality.

I am simply saying that I am in the leading edge of the distribution curve. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Would it be more believeable for me to say that I lost 96% of the time? Surely it stands that if someone can lose regularly someone else can win regularly?

Actually come to think of it, I think it is much more important to "know when to quit when you're losing" than to "know when to quit when you're winning".

I think casino earns the most money when someone already losing is starting to lose their cool and eagerly wants to chase and win back the money they lost. When you lost your cool and clear head and start to play VERY riskily and hastily, I think that's the most dangerous time for you. It happened to me at times, and I just saw the example last night.

That guy who lost at 100 bucks table, I saw him (with losing expression all over his face) again playing at 50 bucks table with lower bets (between 75-100 each bet), and he kept losing, his luck must be very bad because he kept getting crap cards and dealer for some reason managed to get high cards out of nowhere. But then the way he played didn't help either. For example, when dealer got a first card of 9, he doubled his eleven - and guess what, he f--ed himself up there. And he hit when you're usually not supposed to hit, and passed when it's not suppose to be passed. So yeah, not knowing when to stop when you're losing is real dangerous.

One more guy I saw also lost maybe around 7 grand at that table, and it took him maybe just 30 minutes to lost all that. One smart lady, changed 500 bucks, played at 100 bucks table, she was lucky cause she got blackjack a few times, and many easy wons, and she left so quick after that. I think she got like close to a grand in 15 minutes. Now that's what I call knowing when to quit. If I were her I'd probably just cash all out, and then maybe just allocate 100-200 bucks to play small and just leave if I lost that.

But anyway, 1time, just relax man, I don't know what's with you and casinos. I know it's hard to win at casino, but sometimes people just wanna play and have fun. Like me, I love playing Blackjack, and sometimes I just wanna, well, play Blackjack at casino.
If I win, that's great, if I lost, oh well, it sucks, but then, hey, I've never said that I can make money out of casino. Although some people do. Have you watched the documentary about a professional gambler? It's quite interesting. This guy actually married and got a supporting wife. And from what I see, looks like he's doing pretty well for himself too.

It appears you are mistaken.

I wrote nothing that states or implies this.

I agree, and I find no conflict with this and what I've written in this thread.

No, I wrote my examples for the sake of simplicity, not to suggest a rewriting of statistical analysis. Nothing I wrote with regard to the examples I gave renders the points I made any less valid.

Understanding the concept of previous events not affecting the odds of the next event was and is not at issue. And yes, if your system is as effective as I described, you should have up to a ~ 48% (but not likely more) chance of walking away a winner. However, I applied the coin toss example to the likelihood of you having accomplished your reported 96% to 98% success rate, and, I applied it to the likelihood of you or anyone repeating this success rate. I did not, however, apply the coin toss example to the likelihood of your success at your next event (as doing so would be absurd).

As I'm sure you will agree "knowing when to quit" is an expression commonly used, and it is practically synonymous with the expression "quitting while you're ahead". The following quote is of a previous statement I wrote that addresses this. Note the bold text.

While it is true a gambler cannot determine an optimal time to quit, a careful reading of my above quote will show I did not refer to or imply to an optimal time to quit. The bottom line is a gambler cannot beat the house odds by using a "quit while still ahead rule".

Anyone's use of the above stated rules or partial system will not change the house advantage.

No. This is of course not true. The casinos would not go broke if everyone knew when to quit or "quit while still ahead" or used your system, because doing so does not dispense with the house advantage.

No, I'm well aware gambling for most involves emotion, and I've posted nothing to suggest otherwise. Remember the example I gave earlier about gamblers using the rule to play for "fun"?

Your posting reasons why you think people can't know when to quit does not change the truth that casinos would not go out of business "if" they knew when to quit.

Competing is not my objective here, and I suggest it not be the use of this thread. I will be glad to offer details as I am able and deem it appropriate to do so.

I have not stated or implied anything to the contrary. Perhaps reading my posts again will help.

Playing with or without emotion or varying the size of the bet or reward does not overtake the advantage of the house.

Well I will say this much, I live in Las Vegas and can read and search the internet.

Not so.

I never stated differently.

I never claimed that you asserted this. I suggest it's best to quote whatever I state that you object to. Otherwise it may appear as though you're just making up accusations. As I wrote earlier, I used 100 people in my example as a matter of simplicity. It was not necessary to make my point by giving an example with a sample size more likely to result in a normal distribution.

I'm really not a very good student of probability and never tried to be.

Let me say it this way. Your use of your system (the one you described) are not on the leading edge of the distribution curve. If you go gamble now your odds are less than 50/50. However, yes, during the past reported period of time, your use of your system was on the leading edge of the distribution curve. And, your or anyone's use of your system in the future is not any more likely to be on the leading edge than crossing ones fingers while gambling. Did I understand you this time?

It is more believable to lose 96% of the time because it is more likely than winning 96% of the time, and that's due to the house advantage. Regardless, I already posted about how poorly you must have done with video poker to come out about even after doing so incredibly well with blackjack. To have done both makes your claim of winning and losing practically twice as unlikely, and that's pretty long odds.