• Are there any statistics that tell how often I would double my money verses loose all my money if I always start each session with the same amount of money and bet exactly the same, using only the basic strategy? Also, when using only the basic strategy, is there a suggested percentage of your bank-roll to bet with (maybe $25-$50 per hand if bank roll is $500?). Thanks.
  • i think if u only bet one time , your winning chance is 44%

    since i play the blackjackinfo game , i can see our winning

    rate is always around 44% after i have play hundreds hand

    of coz , this not include the double , spilt and blackjack then u can win more money from that
  • i just play 326 hands by BS

    126 win (38%)
    172 loss
    28 draw

    actually blackjack seems a game much favourable to dealer
  • It sure does seem that way, doesn't it!
  • I know from watching other when I'm playing that most people loose money at this game. The biggest reason I find people loose money is they do not vary their betting strategy. And if they do vary it, they can't seem to anticipate a good hand coming. They bet the same amount hand after hand and when they win a few hands they increase the bet size and they are not watching cards and hands that have been played. The big bets loose and the small bets win. Most people I see playing generally get about the same number of winning hands as I do during a decent shoe and same number of loosing ones during a shoe the dealer seems to win 70% or more of the hands. Also I see the heavy betters as well do not drop down to minimum bets either. They tend to stick to $50+ amounts and if they play greens never seem to get some red chips to drop down to the minimum of $10 or $15. I have only witnessed a couple big betters win it 3-4G's vs many who drop 1-2 grand a session :( These people play BS too but the difference between my play and theirs is I'm not a big bettor so the house takes me for minumums and I win my bigger bets about 70% of the time.

    Also it helps to minimize your bet risk by playing accross 2 spots. Why bet $60 or $80 on one spot when you can split accross 2? I have found this strategy works well and I win far more times then loose
  • Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying ... but if you're claiming that playing 2 spots at $30-40 wil reduce your risk as compared to playing one spot at $60-80, I'm guessing that's not a valid claim.

    I'm sure that for serious counters there could be a small advantage on the 2nd bet, because you get to see more cards. But for the average player, I think the odds would be essentially the same.

    Maybe our more experienced veterans could comment.
  • A couple of points:

    1. If you bet one spot at X dollars, or two spots at .75X dollars, your EV is about the same either way. I do that when either (a) I want to eat more "good cards" when there are others at the table and the count is +, or (b) in a SD game dealt to RO6 or RO7 and I'm playing heads-up. In RO6, playing alone, I'd get 5 rounds dealt (5 rounds + 1 player = 6). If I play two spots, I get 4 rounds, but if you total up the cards, each round with me playing one spot deals 2 total hands, or 10 hands total. With me playing 2 spots, 4 rounds are dealt but there are 12 hands dealt, so the penetration is deeper.

    But the first point is that betting 1 x 60 or 2 x 30 are _not_ equivalent. Due to co-variance. If you bet like that, your loss rate climbs, your variance climbs, and your playing time will be cut short. One reason is that if the dealer gets a 21, both hands lose. Yes, playing 2 hands will see more "break even" rounds since one loses and one wins. But if you don't limit your bet per spot to about .75 of the single-spot bet, your effective bet size is increasing and your risk of ruin climbs.

    If you use classic Kelly-derived betting, your risk of ruin is 13.5% (no resizing). That means that if 100 people play using the optimal bet ramp, play correctly, count correctly, etc, 13.5 of them are going to go bankrupt, the rest will grow their bankroll. If they do not resize their betting at all as their bankroll grows, their risk of ruin steadily decreases and their bankroll growth continues at the same rate as before. Eventually the risk of ruin can get near zero, but then the bankroll has grown significantly but you are stuck at the same "win rate". Most therefore re-size their bets as their bankroll grows, to produce a faster rate of growth without incurring too significant a RoR. A pro or pro team might play at something like 1/4 kelly and have a very low RoR, and with a large enough starting bank, still have a very good win rate.
  • PhilTx said:
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying ... but if you're claiming that playing 2 spots at $30-40 wil reduce your risk as compared to playing one spot at $60-80, I'm guessing that's not a valid claim.

    I'm sure that for serious counters there could be a small advantage on the 2nd bet, because you get to see more cards. But for the average player, I think the odds would be essentially the same.

    I'm speaking purely from experience...not math stats or any other systems. The author has asked about winning stats playing the same amount of bet using pure BS. I'm not a statistician or theorist. My obsevations and my experience is that those who have a wall of chips at their spot are playing 1-2 spots and varying their bets accross them. They can also choose to drop a hand or add one. Now weather or not this translates into mathmatical odds for favourite or not I am not really sure. I have had more bigger wins and gone home up signifigantly when I have mixed in the extra hand to the play. And to answer SSR there have been a few times I have lost a lot very fast playing 2 spots too and seen others loose a ton fast. But if a person is purely playing BS with same amount I would rather play the amount accross 2 spots then just the one. But to also answer this author I do not think you will win in the long run purely playing BS and betting the same amount all the time.
  • As with Moosehead, my largest wins have come from playing two spots on a less than crowded table. I have no explanation since I am not an AP. I do know my basic strategy and understand it is negative expectation. With two spots there were lots of pushes, but it's nice when you are winning both spots while increasing bets.
  • Tribute:

    That is not surprising. Would you expect your largest win to happen when betting $25 mins or $5 mins? :) Of course your largest losses are also going to come when your average bet is largest as well...
  • Bman:

    Your rather simple question in fact is not so simple to answer. Essentially its based upon 'how much do you bring to the table'. Basic Strategy indicates that for a 5% chance of Ruin that one brings 23 units... for a 30% chance of Ruin, bring 11 or 12 units, and for a 0.3% Ruin, bring 34 units. That being said, understand that doubling has roughly the same chance as Ruin. So the more units you bring, the less likely you will lose all, or double.

    Having said this, the numbers you see above are good IF you play 100 rounds. If you play more, naturally one has to bring more, and this means that your chances of ruin increase IF you only bring enough to cover 100 rounds. If you play less, your chances of Ruin decrease (as does your chances of doubling).

    The reason that your chances are 'roughly equal' to double vs. bankrupt is that Basic Strategy still favors the House. Consider that you have a 1 in 24 chance to double, but a 1 in 22 chance to go bankrupt. This statement is based upon bringing 23 units, and playing 100 rounds. Should you play the 100 rounds and NOT go either bankrupt, or double-up, the odds are that your session will lose $$$ as opposed to win $$$.

    Thanks to CVData and Norm Wattenberger for the above stats.
  • You are SO right, Stainless. I just remember the wins more than the losses.
    (Hey, I am also a blackjack playing conservative. I just don't have all the math down yet.)

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!