Hello. I seem to be creating a storm on a gambling website. But I don't dispute math. How can those two statements both be true? ?
Because you now have some idea about where I'm coming from, I have some questions that may not be exhausted by this post:
1. What qualification do respondents of mathematical questions have, on this website?
The storm I'm kinda engulfed in, is to do with math as applied to gambling. Specifically, the game of blackjack (BJ). This game, according to stats, has a house edge of about 0.5%. If we remove ties (where the player and dealer draw the same card total, resulting in no win or loss to either), then the house edge is about 8% (54% in favour of the dealer, 46% chance of winning for the player).
If a player uses a Fibonacci betting strategy (a negative progression strategy), then generally speaking, he would only need to win approx. 50% of hands dealt, in order to return him to his starting pot. Agreed?
The way I've described the game of BJ is somewhat narrow, though, because although the above may be true, one needs to accept the natural variation inherent in the game. Two of the main variations being a number of streaks of losses, favouring the house or player. And if a large number of losses were to be experienced by the player, who is using a negative progression strategy, then this may mean the player runs out of money.
However, what if a player is insanely wealthy and has a line of credit at a casino, worth $100 billion. And what if this same player were to start with a small bet of just $5. My next question is:
2. Because the player starting bet is so small ($5) compared to his bankroll ($100 billion), would it not be feasible that this player should always come away from a casino a winner, in regard to his starting and finishing pot (assuming time is never an object, and he applies the Fibonacci betting strategy)?
You may want to note that from what I've read, the only reason that a good BJ player loses using a Fibonacci betting strategy, is because he experiences a catastrophic losing streak, and he runs out of money. But for the above example, the player would need to experience a seriously abnormal losing streak to run out of money. A losing streak that would exceed the natural variation of the game of BJ.
Best regards,
David
Because you now have some idea about where I'm coming from, I have some questions that may not be exhausted by this post:
1. What qualification do respondents of mathematical questions have, on this website?
The storm I'm kinda engulfed in, is to do with math as applied to gambling. Specifically, the game of blackjack (BJ). This game, according to stats, has a house edge of about 0.5%. If we remove ties (where the player and dealer draw the same card total, resulting in no win or loss to either), then the house edge is about 8% (54% in favour of the dealer, 46% chance of winning for the player).
If a player uses a Fibonacci betting strategy (a negative progression strategy), then generally speaking, he would only need to win approx. 50% of hands dealt, in order to return him to his starting pot. Agreed?
The way I've described the game of BJ is somewhat narrow, though, because although the above may be true, one needs to accept the natural variation inherent in the game. Two of the main variations being a number of streaks of losses, favouring the house or player. And if a large number of losses were to be experienced by the player, who is using a negative progression strategy, then this may mean the player runs out of money.
However, what if a player is insanely wealthy and has a line of credit at a casino, worth $100 billion. And what if this same player were to start with a small bet of just $5. My next question is:
2. Because the player starting bet is so small ($5) compared to his bankroll ($100 billion), would it not be feasible that this player should always come away from a casino a winner, in regard to his starting and finishing pot (assuming time is never an object, and he applies the Fibonacci betting strategy)?
You may want to note that from what I've read, the only reason that a good BJ player loses using a Fibonacci betting strategy, is because he experiences a catastrophic losing streak, and he runs out of money. But for the above example, the player would need to experience a seriously abnormal losing streak to run out of money. A losing streak that would exceed the natural variation of the game of BJ.
Best regards,
David
