What is my expectation and my "advantage" in percent terms??

bklynkid

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
11
Assume I have a method of playing Blackjack where during 2/3 of all Blackjack hands I am at a
1/2% Negative edge and for the remaining 1/3 of hands I have a
Positive edge of 1/2%, and I know in advance whether the next hand will be a positive or negative edge type hand, if I bet $1.00 during the negative edge hands
and $10.00 during the positive edge hands what is my "Expectation"? Can it be expressed as a percentage also, such as "I have a Y % positive edge in this game"

I tried to solve it in the fashion show below:

66.7 hands X -.005 X $1.00 = minus 33 cents AND then 33.3
hands X .005 X $10.00 = + $ 1.66 . So, Over 100 hands I should
be ahead on average, over many 100 hand trials, $1.66 - .33 which =
$1.33. Then to find my overall % edge I took the $ 1.33 and
divided it by the total amount of dollars player in the 100 hands,
which gives : $1.33 / $399.70 = +.003 or what I interpret to
be 3/10 ths of 1%. Do you think my math is correct here ??? Thanks,
 
Assume I have a method of playing Blackjack where during 2/3 of all Blackjack hands I am at a
1/2% Negative edge and for the remaining 1/3 of hands I have a
Positive edge of 1/2%, and I know in advance whether the next hand will be a positive or negative edge type hand, if I bet $1.00 during the negative edge hands
and $10.00 during the positive edge hands what is my "Expectation"? Can it be expressed as a percentage also, such as "I have a Y % positive edge in this game"

I tried to solve it in the fashion show below:

66.7 hands X -.005 X $1.00 = minus 33 cents AND then 33.3
hands X .005 X $10.00 = + $ 1.66 . So, Over 100 hands I should
be ahead on average, over many 100 hand trials, $1.66 - .33 which =
$1.33. Then to find my overall % edge I took the $ 1.33 and
divided it by the total amount of dollars player in the 100 hands,
which gives : $1.33 / $399.70 = +.003 or what I interpret to
be 3/10 ths of 1%. Do you think my math is correct here ??? Thanks,
Looks good to me. The real problem is if you vary your bet by 10 times you will be thrown out or the dealer will shuffle the deck on you. Try to find a dealer who will shuffle the deck every time you bet 10 times more. This way when the deck is bad you get the deck shuffled! This way you only play with good cards and can always bet $10 (every time you bet $100, the deck is shuffled and then you reduce your bet to $10). You can make a lot of money from such a dealer. They are just trying to show their boss that they are card counting (when they are not) or that they know how to spot a card counter.
Exactly what is your strategy? With multiple decks being used you need a high bankroll to make money at BJ these days.
 
Thank you very much Jomo for your review of the math of this notion of mine and your additional insights. I am not sure that the theory behind raising the bet actually works the way I think it does, though I have SOME real world experience that it might, I wanted to understand first what the potential returns would be, IF it is valid, so that I could decide whether it is worth pursuing and how much effort to exert in doing so. i.e. proving it out with computer simulation runs and so forth. As a help to close out/nullify one rogue idea of mine, I have another way of thinking about the whole construct and I would welcome any input from you on the following. What is, (if any), the math/logic flaw in thinking about the expectation of this "method" in a different way than the way I showed in my first post. Why doesn't the raising of the bet by a factor of 10 times on "advantage" hands versus non advantage hands yield much more added total edge? Intuitively, one might think in a crude way; If I have a neg edge against me of 1/2% on 2 out of 3 hands at a 1 X bet size, and then I raise the bet to 10 X when I have the 1/2 % advantage, why isn't my "real" edge - 1/2 % (+) -1/2 % (+) 5.0 %= + 4.0 % ( I get the + 5.0% by multiplying the positive 1/2 % by 10 X).. This question haunts me to no end.. <br>
<br>
Clearly once I am sure of what the hypothetical edge and expectation really are, and that the betting non hypothetically creates those effects as a fact, that creates the foundation around everything else such as bankroll, risk of ruin variance etc. At this point it's sort of like a flying car. In terms of sharing the basis for varying the bets (the system), I wouldn't do that right now, but if you are good at programming, that certainly opens up a chance at collaboration. I have 0 programming skills, but I have a good amount of other skills that would come into play.Thanks
<br>
 
Thank you very much Jomo for your review of the math of this notion of mine and your additional insights. I am not sure that the theory behind raising the bet actually works the way I think it does, though I have SOME real world experience that it might, I wanted to understand first what the potential returns would be, IF it is valid, so that I could decide whether it is worth pursuing and how much effort to exert in doing so. i.e. proving it out with computer simulation runs and so forth. As a help to close out/nullify one rogue idea of mine, I have another way of thinking about the whole construct and I would welcome any input from you on the following. What is, (if any), the math/logic flaw in thinking about the expectation of this "method" in a different way than the way I showed in my first post. Why doesn't the raising of the bet by a factor of 10 times on "advantage" hands versus non advantage hands yield much more added total edge? Intuitively, one might think in a crude way; If I have a neg edge against me of 1/2% on 2 out of 3 hands at a 1 X bet size, and then I raise the bet to 10 X when I have the 1/2 % advantage, why isn't my "real" edge - 1/2 % (+) -1/2 % (+) 5.0 %= + 4.0 % ( I get the + 5.0% by multiplying the positive 1/2 % by 10 X).. This question haunts me to no end.. <br><br>
<br><br>
Clearly once I am sure of what the hypothetical edge and expectation really are, and that the betting non hypothetically creates those effects as a fact, that creates the foundation around everything else such as bankroll, risk of ruin variance etc. At this point it's sort of like a flying car. In terms of sharing the basis for varying the bets (the system), I wouldn't do that right now, but if you are good at programming, that certainly opens up a chance at collaboration. I have 0 programming skills, but I have a good amount of other skills that would come into play.Thanks<br>
<br><br>
 
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Jomo and the added insights. I submitted the question in order to understand what the "edge" would be IF the theory (when to raise the bet) was actually valid, so that I would know if it was worth expending the effort to prove it's validity. I have some experience that it does "work" but knowing that it works would take some computer simulation over many many trials. Thanks,
 
Top