mathematically you can't over come the house edge long term in roulette but if you want to gamble for a couple hours and vary the bet size like I said and you don't ever reach table limits it will work. I so it when I go on a cruise and want to drink and bs all night and not pur much thought into gambling. Counting cards effectively takes the concentration.
Your only shot to hit on table games is: one. stick with the low profit games,(Blackjack and Craps as I know it) learn how to play those games correctly. Two. Luck runs in cycles so bet low until you start hitting. when you are hitting drag profit while pressing up your bets. A loss drops you back to table minimum.
Makes it hard for them to touch you but you have a chance to hammer them.
Makes it hard for them to touch you but you have a chance to hammer them.
First bit of advice. FIND A SLOW DEALER.
Whatever you do, if you're playing an -EV game you need to play the LEAST amount of hands possible in an hour. Slow is your friend. Crowded tables are your friend.
However, any way you look at it blackgack and roulette are -EV games. If you want your best chance it's playing +EV video poker games.
Your best bet is to get Bob Dancer's software, which will let you practice at your computer until your heart's content and you have learned every play in every situation.
You can take a 6/9 Jacks or Better game, which although is a -EV game, you can swing the game into +EV by playing only those games where you earn enough comp points to put you over into a +EV.
Or, find a 6/9 JorB game that has a high enough progressive to get you into the +EV.
Although I didn't see any a few weeks ago when i was in Lost Wages, err, Las Vegas, there are still likely to be some full pay dueces wild games out there that are +EV. Gotta be few and far between, and most likely none on the strip, but they are out there somewhere.
You gotta work at it if you really want to win.
Or, if you really want to stretch out your time play pai gow poker. There are so many damn ties in the game you can generally play a long time. Because of those ties you're not going to earn enough comps to put you into +EV but if you go with the mindset you are paying for entertainment then whatever floats your boat.
On the plus side with pai gow, the dealer will help you set your cards the "house way", so you really don't have much to learn there.
Whatever you do, if you're playing an -EV game you need to play the LEAST amount of hands possible in an hour. Slow is your friend. Crowded tables are your friend.
However, any way you look at it blackgack and roulette are -EV games. If you want your best chance it's playing +EV video poker games.
Your best bet is to get Bob Dancer's software, which will let you practice at your computer until your heart's content and you have learned every play in every situation.
You can take a 6/9 Jacks or Better game, which although is a -EV game, you can swing the game into +EV by playing only those games where you earn enough comp points to put you over into a +EV.
Or, find a 6/9 JorB game that has a high enough progressive to get you into the +EV.
Although I didn't see any a few weeks ago when i was in Lost Wages, err, Las Vegas, there are still likely to be some full pay dueces wild games out there that are +EV. Gotta be few and far between, and most likely none on the strip, but they are out there somewhere.
You gotta work at it if you really want to win.
Or, if you really want to stretch out your time play pai gow poker. There are so many damn ties in the game you can generally play a long time. Because of those ties you're not going to earn enough comps to put you into +EV but if you go with the mindset you are paying for entertainment then whatever floats your boat.
On the plus side with pai gow, the dealer will help you set your cards the "house way", so you really don't have much to learn there.
Play Roulette! Play the Street Numbers ONLY!! Thats combinations of 1-6,4-9,etc etc.
Series goes like this
1st round= 1 unit, 1 unit, 1 unit, 1 unit
2nd round =2 units, 2 units, 2 units
3rd = 4, 4, 4
4th = 8,8,8,
5th= 10,12,14,17,20.
You start over at 1 unit after each win. If after the 20 unit spin, you don't win, start over or take a break. This is a very boring system but IT WORKS In Land Based Casinos about 85% of the time. Don't try it online though.
Series goes like this
1st round= 1 unit, 1 unit, 1 unit, 1 unit
2nd round =2 units, 2 units, 2 units
3rd = 4, 4, 4
4th = 8,8,8,
5th= 10,12,14,17,20.
You start over at 1 unit after each win. If after the 20 unit spin, you don't win, start over or take a break. This is a very boring system but IT WORKS In Land Based Casinos about 85% of the time. Don't try it online though.
I'd love to see some math proving a winning Roulette or craps system.
Only way you're beating Roulette are complicated methods of "timing" a robotic dealer, finding a biased wheel,cheating,getting stacks of Matchplay coupons, etc.
With Craps you need to learn controlled dice rolls....debatable if this can really be done, if it can, it is by very few players. It's not really intellect, more of a physical skill....like pitching a baseball.
Only way you're beating Roulette are complicated methods of "timing" a robotic dealer, finding a biased wheel,cheating,getting stacks of Matchplay coupons, etc.
With Craps you need to learn controlled dice rolls....debatable if this can really be done, if it can, it is by very few players. It's not really intellect, more of a physical skill....like pitching a baseball.
hno:
http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/bettingsystems-faq.html
Betting Systems FAQ
You cite as evidence of the worthlessness of betting systems the fact that none can survive a billion hand computer simulation. If it takes a billion hands to kill my system I'm okay with that because I won't live that long. Why don't you use a more reasonable test like a 1000 hands?
One billion is an arbitrary number. For most systems I could use a much smaller one. However, if the system were based on pick-20 keno, I would need a large sampling to get enough big wins. Furthermore, I'm not just trying to kill a system but to show that the ratio of losses to total amount bet approaches the house edge with a large sampling of hands. Most systems trade lots of small wins for a few big losses. So for short sessions they do usually win. However, all the winnings are given back on the bad days. I could do a million simulations of a thousand hands, average the results, and the result would be the same as a billion hand single session. In other words, if a million people used a system for 1,000 hands and averaged their results, it would be the same as if one person played a billion hands. So what can't be trusted over a billion bets can't be trusted for 1,000, or any number.
I have developed fool proof betting system that will make me as rich as Bill Gates. However it is too good to keep to myself and I would like to share it with you because you seem like such a nice guy. The reason I offer is to see exactly how well it does under a computer simulation. So are you ready to change your life?!
No, go ahead without me. Be sure to write back to say "I told you so" after you make your first million.
I know you won't believe me when I say that I have a betting system that will make me millions. What I would like to know from you is will the casinos throw me out if I win too much?
The casinos see betting systems all day long and are not afraid of them. The more you win, the more they will treat you like royalty. Time is on the casino's side and they know that eventually you will lose it all back. So go ahead and try to take them for all they're worth.
No, really, I have found a betting system that works. I'm 100% positive that by this time next year I will be known as the man who broke Vegas. Just remember my name, because everyone in America will know it soon.
*groan*
What do you think of my betting system?
It is just as worthless as all other betting systems.
What do you think of doubling your bet after every loss at even money games? Wouldn't you win your original bet for every single win, regardless of how many losses preceded the win? It seems to me this method can't lose!
Gamblers have been playing this system, known as the Martingale, for centuries and yet the casinos are still standing. In real life you will eventually either run up against the limit of your bankroll or the maximum bet size. Like most gambling systems, this one trades a lot of small wins for a few huge losses. In the long run you will lose. The Martingale is discussed in more depth in my section on betting systems.
If the Martingale is no good doesn't that mean the anti-Martingale will win?!
Nope. The house edge will kill both of them, and every other betting system.
When do I enter the "long run"?
It is a matter of degree. It is like asking how many grains of sand do you need to a make a heap. The sample mean will approach the true mean as the square root of the sample size increases. I am usually asked this question by someone who is convinced they have a winning betting system and have 1,000 to 10,000 hands to prove it. For purposes of putting a betting system to the test I think you need to be looking in the neighborhood of at least a million hands. The greater the bet size variation the larger the sample size required.
More from the Wiz:
Betting Systems
This is a pure "what-if" business question. If you created a betting system that actually worked in a positive mode, and you considered marketing it, how would you go about pricing such? You'll note that I am NOT suggesting, implying, arguing, or anything relative thereto. I'm simply asking your business advice on a pricing subject. — Larry
Putting aside the issue that such a system would be impossible, I would charge about 50 million dollars. If I had no buyers, fine, I would just go out and make much more than that on my own. December 23, 2008
Wow! This is an amazing site, and I cannot believe that I have just recently discovered it. I have now spent several days reviewing your data, analysis and commentary. Your information is so compelling that I could not even begin to refute it.
Since I cannot control the statistics, my question involves something that I can control, session length (and bankroll). Since a million or a billion number of hands is composed of so many “sessions” of, for example, 300 – 1,000 hands, does it not make sense to play until you either a) reach a pre-established target win amount, or b) play until you recover from a losing streak and end the session at break even?
One last question, can you recommend a source for a software simulation system that can handle all rule variations, stop/loss provisions, extracting “sessions” of variable lengths, and variable hit/stand strategy based upon the size of the bet. I would love to give my approach a shot at the computer. — Tom from Bowling Green, KY
Thanks. I get questions like this a lot. Usually I delete them, but since you buttered me up so nicely, I’ll answer this time. As I state many times, all over the site, all betting systems are equally worthless. There is no magic quitting point. I am not opposed to any winning or losing marker for quitting, but the expected value is no better or worse than flying by the seat of your pants. I'm told that Casino Vérité is capable of simulating what you ar asking about. Finally, in blackjack, the hit/stand decision should not depend on the size of the bet. The right play for a $1 bet is right for a million dollars. March 24, 2008
I was reading your section on the difference between the element of risk and house edge. Firstly, I assume that the element of risk is based on the correct strategy according to house advantage. I have an argument that the correct strategy for some games would be different if you are trying to minimize the element of risk. In Texas Hold 'Em Bonus, surely you should play hands like 5/2 off-suit. My intuition would think that if you played every hand you could reduce the element of risk below the quoted amount of 0.53%. — Paul from London
You're right, you can lower the element of risk by deviating from my strategy, and raising on hands with expected values of slightly less than -1. In your example, 5/2 has an expected value of -1.019987, under the Las Vegas rules. That means if you raise on that bet on average, then you can expected to lose about 1.02 times your original bet by the time the hand is over. After the initial raise, and possible additional raises after the flop and turn, the average wager on that hand will be 3.627374 units. The way I would look at it, making the raise bet is worth -0.0109987 units to the player, over 2.627374 additional units bet. The ratio of marginal additional win to marginal additional bets, by raising, is -0.0109987/2.627374 = -0.00761. That is less than the overall expected value of the game of -2.04%. So, if your goal is to minimize money lost to total money bet, including raises, then, yes, you should deviate from my basic strategy and raise on that hand. Other examples could be made in lots of games that involve raising.
To summarize, if you are trying to minimize money lost per hand, then you should follow the house edge minimizing strategies on this site. If you are trying to minimize money lost per total amount wagered, then you should opt to bet more on very borderline plays. February 21, 2008
First off let me say unequivocally I understand and agree with your stance on betting systems. It's quite simple: If you are at a disadvantage for an individual hand, the same holds for multiple hands, regardless of bet amount. End of story. I know the longer I play games in a casino, the higher my chances of leaving without money.
My question isn't about winning long term with systems, as we know that's impossible. But might systems have a usefulness in 'tailoring' the losing experience? For example, player A prefers that each trip to the casino he will either win or lose a moderate amount of money (of course he'll lose slightly more often than win). Player B prefers a chance to make a little money 4 out of 5 trips, and lose lots of money 1 in 5 trips.
Both will lose money in the long run, but is there a betting system that might help each accomplish his goal? - Karl from Minneapolis MN
Yes. While betting systems can not change the house edge, they can be used to improve the probability of achieving trip objectives. Player A wants as little risk as possible. To minimize risk he should flat bet. Player B wants a high probability of a trip win. He should press his bets after a loss. Such a strategy carries the risk of a substantial loss. Although you didn’t ask, a player who wants to either lose a little or win big should press his bets after a win. This kind of strategy will usually lose, but sometimes will have a big win. December 26, 2006
I think one of the more important parts of gambling is knowing when to walk away. The most common stories I hear from gamblers is how much up they were playing a certain game, only to turn around and lose it all. And most players will simply keep playing a game until they lose their whole bankroll.
My question is, is there any way to calculate an optimum playing range of wins/losses? That if a player reaches X number of losses it is highly unlikely that they will recover and should just quit? Likewise, if a player wins X amount, then the player has achieved respectable winnings considering the probabilities of the game and should quit while ahead. – Chris from Tampa
I get asked variations of this question all the time. If you are playing a game with a negative expectation, which is almost always the case, the best strategy to preserve your money is to never play. However, if you are going to play anyway, for the sake of entertainment, there is no best quitting point. The more you play, the more you can expect to go down from wherever your bankroll is at the moment. As I have said many times before, a good time to quit is when you aren’t having fun any longer. December 13, 2006
I realize that the house edge allows a casino to make much of its money. But please help settle a bet: If a casino had no house edge, say paid double on a coin toss, wouldn't the casino still be likely to come out ahead based on the poor money management of its patrons? In particular, don't people tend to quit when they've lost money and can't afford to go on? Thanks! Love the web site. – Rob from Vienna
I’ve addressed this before and I disagree with your hypothesis. As I have said many times, all betting systems are equally worthless. Thus, if the casino had no house edge it would neither win nor lose money over the long run. Let’s say every player had the goal of winning $1,000,000 or go bust trying. Most would go broke but the few players that won the $1,000,000 would even things out. October 4, 2006
A friend of mine believes that casinos benefit from the tendency of gamblers to leave the table when they've reached their stop-loss, but stay when they're winning. My position is that this behavior may have some effect in the short run, but in the long run it has none and the house edge determines the casino's earn. Although it seems plain as day to me, his argument must be seductive since other (reasonably intelligent) friends of ours have bought into it. I've tried every argument I can think of but my buddy remains unconvinced. I was hoping you could set him straight. – Harold from Los Angeles
You are right. In the long-run, betting systems and the reasons for a bet don’t matter. With a limited bankroll, ruin is frequently the outcome. However, there is also a cap on the downside, with an almost unlimited upside. In the long run it all averages out and the casino makes close to expectations based on handle and the house edge. September 22, 2006
I understand the put bet is a good bet when the odds are 10x or more. So, if the point is a 6 or 8, bet $5 plus $50 free odds for example. My question is, why wait for the point? Why not bet on the passline, and then if the point is a 6 or 8, bet the full 10x odds? This way you get the advantage of the odds, plus the advantage of the come out 7 / 11 roll. Am I missing something? – Jay from Whitestone
I agree. I don’t recommend making put or place bets, because as you said, the odds are better making a line bet and then maximum odds. However, some people absolutely must bet on the points directly. If that is a given, I advocate making the best bet between the place, buy, and put, which I explain in greater depth in my craps section. August 9, 2006
Not a question, just a sincere thank you. Keep telling people there is no winning system. I retired at age 51 and have averaged $86K per year for the past 11 years playing craps. I definitely want others to not believe they can beat the games. Keep up the good work! – Dennis from Lakewood, CO
I will. Over a long enough period of play 99.9% of system losers will lose and 0.1% will sit there full of self-righteousness, thinking it was skill when it was really just luck. July 31, 2006
If everyone who gambled quit the second they were ahead, I believe there would be a few casinos in bankruptcy. Given that your bankroll will fluctuate a good bit, won't most people be ahead at some point in their gambling (of course meaning the house is behind)? – Chris
I disagree, at least for the reason you state. Under your scenario most people would indeed leave Vegas winners. However, some players would lose the first bet and keep falling deeper and deeper in the hole after that, until they exhaust their entire bankroll. Assuming the same game and player strategy, the overall house edge would remain the same regardless of player money management strategy. In other words, betting systems not only can’t overcome the house edge, they can’t even put a dent in it. Getting back to your question, if everyone quit as soon as they were ahead, there would be a lot less gambling going on. So while the house edge would be the same, it would be applied to less total money bet, which would indeed hurt the casinos financially. June 9, 2006
Why do people insist on believing in betting systems and beating house odds when they know better? There are plenty of folks who are unaware of either rules or probabilities, but some of us know both well and still insist that through a betting system, timing, or some other fallacious method that the house can be beat. I know that your degree is in math, not psychology, but by your experience you also must have some insight into the gambler's mind that gives you an idea about what motivates this line of thinking... right? -- Brendan from Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Betting Systems
This is a pure "what-if" business question. If you created a betting system that actually worked in a positive mode, and you considered marketing it, how would you go about pricing such? You'll note that I am NOT suggesting, implying, arguing, or anything relative thereto. I'm simply asking your business advice on a pricing subject. — Larry
Putting aside the issue that such a system would be impossible, I would charge about 50 million dollars. If I had no buyers, fine, I would just go out and make much more than that on my own. December 23, 2008
Wow! This is an amazing site, and I cannot believe that I have just recently discovered it. I have now spent several days reviewing your data, analysis and commentary. Your information is so compelling that I could not even begin to refute it.
Since I cannot control the statistics, my question involves something that I can control, session length (and bankroll). Since a million or a billion number of hands is composed of so many “sessions” of, for example, 300 – 1,000 hands, does it not make sense to play until you either a) reach a pre-established target win amount, or b) play until you recover from a losing streak and end the session at break even?
One last question, can you recommend a source for a software simulation system that can handle all rule variations, stop/loss provisions, extracting “sessions” of variable lengths, and variable hit/stand strategy based upon the size of the bet. I would love to give my approach a shot at the computer. — Tom from Bowling Green, KY
Thanks. I get questions like this a lot. Usually I delete them, but since you buttered me up so nicely, I’ll answer this time. As I state many times, all over the site, all betting systems are equally worthless. There is no magic quitting point. I am not opposed to any winning or losing marker for quitting, but the expected value is no better or worse than flying by the seat of your pants. I'm told that Casino Vérité is capable of simulating what you ar asking about. Finally, in blackjack, the hit/stand decision should not depend on the size of the bet. The right play for a $1 bet is right for a million dollars. March 24, 2008
I was reading your section on the difference between the element of risk and house edge. Firstly, I assume that the element of risk is based on the correct strategy according to house advantage. I have an argument that the correct strategy for some games would be different if you are trying to minimize the element of risk. In Texas Hold 'Em Bonus, surely you should play hands like 5/2 off-suit. My intuition would think that if you played every hand you could reduce the element of risk below the quoted amount of 0.53%. — Paul from London
You're right, you can lower the element of risk by deviating from my strategy, and raising on hands with expected values of slightly less than -1. In your example, 5/2 has an expected value of -1.019987, under the Las Vegas rules. That means if you raise on that bet on average, then you can expected to lose about 1.02 times your original bet by the time the hand is over. After the initial raise, and possible additional raises after the flop and turn, the average wager on that hand will be 3.627374 units. The way I would look at it, making the raise bet is worth -0.0109987 units to the player, over 2.627374 additional units bet. The ratio of marginal additional win to marginal additional bets, by raising, is -0.0109987/2.627374 = -0.00761. That is less than the overall expected value of the game of -2.04%. So, if your goal is to minimize money lost to total money bet, including raises, then, yes, you should deviate from my basic strategy and raise on that hand. Other examples could be made in lots of games that involve raising.
To summarize, if you are trying to minimize money lost per hand, then you should follow the house edge minimizing strategies on this site. If you are trying to minimize money lost per total amount wagered, then you should opt to bet more on very borderline plays. February 21, 2008
First off let me say unequivocally I understand and agree with your stance on betting systems. It's quite simple: If you are at a disadvantage for an individual hand, the same holds for multiple hands, regardless of bet amount. End of story. I know the longer I play games in a casino, the higher my chances of leaving without money.
My question isn't about winning long term with systems, as we know that's impossible. But might systems have a usefulness in 'tailoring' the losing experience? For example, player A prefers that each trip to the casino he will either win or lose a moderate amount of money (of course he'll lose slightly more often than win). Player B prefers a chance to make a little money 4 out of 5 trips, and lose lots of money 1 in 5 trips.
Both will lose money in the long run, but is there a betting system that might help each accomplish his goal? - Karl from Minneapolis MN
Yes. While betting systems can not change the house edge, they can be used to improve the probability of achieving trip objectives. Player A wants as little risk as possible. To minimize risk he should flat bet. Player B wants a high probability of a trip win. He should press his bets after a loss. Such a strategy carries the risk of a substantial loss. Although you didn’t ask, a player who wants to either lose a little or win big should press his bets after a win. This kind of strategy will usually lose, but sometimes will have a big win. December 26, 2006
I think one of the more important parts of gambling is knowing when to walk away. The most common stories I hear from gamblers is how much up they were playing a certain game, only to turn around and lose it all. And most players will simply keep playing a game until they lose their whole bankroll.
My question is, is there any way to calculate an optimum playing range of wins/losses? That if a player reaches X number of losses it is highly unlikely that they will recover and should just quit? Likewise, if a player wins X amount, then the player has achieved respectable winnings considering the probabilities of the game and should quit while ahead. – Chris from Tampa
I get asked variations of this question all the time. If you are playing a game with a negative expectation, which is almost always the case, the best strategy to preserve your money is to never play. However, if you are going to play anyway, for the sake of entertainment, there is no best quitting point. The more you play, the more you can expect to go down from wherever your bankroll is at the moment. As I have said many times before, a good time to quit is when you aren’t having fun any longer. December 13, 2006
I realize that the house edge allows a casino to make much of its money. But please help settle a bet: If a casino had no house edge, say paid double on a coin toss, wouldn't the casino still be likely to come out ahead based on the poor money management of its patrons? In particular, don't people tend to quit when they've lost money and can't afford to go on? Thanks! Love the web site. – Rob from Vienna
I’ve addressed this before and I disagree with your hypothesis. As I have said many times, all betting systems are equally worthless. Thus, if the casino had no house edge it would neither win nor lose money over the long run. Let’s say every player had the goal of winning $1,000,000 or go bust trying. Most would go broke but the few players that won the $1,000,000 would even things out. October 4, 2006
A friend of mine believes that casinos benefit from the tendency of gamblers to leave the table when they've reached their stop-loss, but stay when they're winning. My position is that this behavior may have some effect in the short run, but in the long run it has none and the house edge determines the casino's earn. Although it seems plain as day to me, his argument must be seductive since other (reasonably intelligent) friends of ours have bought into it. I've tried every argument I can think of but my buddy remains unconvinced. I was hoping you could set him straight. – Harold from Los Angeles
You are right. In the long-run, betting systems and the reasons for a bet don’t matter. With a limited bankroll, ruin is frequently the outcome. However, there is also a cap on the downside, with an almost unlimited upside. In the long run it all averages out and the casino makes close to expectations based on handle and the house edge. September 22, 2006
I understand the put bet is a good bet when the odds are 10x or more. So, if the point is a 6 or 8, bet $5 plus $50 free odds for example. My question is, why wait for the point? Why not bet on the passline, and then if the point is a 6 or 8, bet the full 10x odds? This way you get the advantage of the odds, plus the advantage of the come out 7 / 11 roll. Am I missing something? – Jay from Whitestone
I agree. I don’t recommend making put or place bets, because as you said, the odds are better making a line bet and then maximum odds. However, some people absolutely must bet on the points directly. If that is a given, I advocate making the best bet between the place, buy, and put, which I explain in greater depth in my craps section. August 9, 2006
Not a question, just a sincere thank you. Keep telling people there is no winning system. I retired at age 51 and have averaged $86K per year for the past 11 years playing craps. I definitely want others to not believe they can beat the games. Keep up the good work! – Dennis from Lakewood, CO
I will. Over a long enough period of play 99.9% of system losers will lose and 0.1% will sit there full of self-righteousness, thinking it was skill when it was really just luck. July 31, 2006
If everyone who gambled quit the second they were ahead, I believe there would be a few casinos in bankruptcy. Given that your bankroll will fluctuate a good bit, won't most people be ahead at some point in their gambling (of course meaning the house is behind)? – Chris
I disagree, at least for the reason you state. Under your scenario most people would indeed leave Vegas winners. However, some players would lose the first bet and keep falling deeper and deeper in the hole after that, until they exhaust their entire bankroll. Assuming the same game and player strategy, the overall house edge would remain the same regardless of player money management strategy. In other words, betting systems not only can’t overcome the house edge, they can’t even put a dent in it. Getting back to your question, if everyone quit as soon as they were ahead, there would be a lot less gambling going on. So while the house edge would be the same, it would be applied to less total money bet, which would indeed hurt the casinos financially. June 9, 2006
Why do people insist on believing in betting systems and beating house odds when they know better? There are plenty of folks who are unaware of either rules or probabilities, but some of us know both well and still insist that through a betting system, timing, or some other fallacious method that the house can be beat. I know that your degree is in math, not psychology, but by your experience you also must have some insight into the gambler's mind that gives you an idea about what motivates this line of thinking... right? -- Brendan from Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Good question. I have run across numerous system believers and the one thing they all seem to have is a lot of conceit. Despite the fact that they never seem to have gone much past algebra, if they made it that far, they all think they know better than greatest names in mathematics. This inability to consider contradicting evidence or other points of view is certainly not confined to betting system chasers. The more ridiculous a belief is the more tenaciously it tends to be held, and there is no shortage of ridiculous things for weak-minded people to believe in. Oct. 3, 2005
Dear Wizard, I know from reading your website and from other sources that betting systems do not give you an advantage over the house. My question is do they decrease the house advantage? I have been playing the betting system outlined in Progression Blackjack by Donald Dahl for the last 8 years and it gives me the excitement of betting higher amounts then I normally would. I usually play the $10 tables and I often get up to $30 bets and on my last trip to Vegas I got up to the $100 level at Sam's Town which really got my heart pumping not to mention a $600 profit that I left the table with. Thanks for your help. Regards, Chris W.No! Not only do betting systems not overcome the house edge but they can't even put a dent in it. Nor can they increase the house edge. All they can do is affect volatility. Since it sounds like you like a volatile exciting game than your system is fulfilling its purpose. Just don't expect to win. Sept. 30, 2004
I would like to encourage your readers to continue to utilize their favorite betting system. They all work. We've never lost long term on any of them. Of course when I say "we" I mean those of us who work in the casino. -Mark, A casino managerI couldn't have said it better myself. Sept. 14, 2004
Do you mean to tell me that man has designed a way to put 3 million transistors on a single chip (microprocessor) the size of a finger nail, and we don't have a way to beat a 50/50 even money game bet. I find that to be unbelievable, besides I found that computer simulations are definitely not the same as live world action. Also why don't casinos introduce video blackjack to thwart the card counters and get rid of dealers? - Mark Grzeskowiak from Chicago, USAI have said numerous times that there is no long-term way to beat a game with a house edge. If there were a true 50/50 game with no house edge it would be impossible to guarantee beating or losing to it under real world conditions. The results always approach the house edge in the long-term. It is not just computer simulations that back this up but the fundamental laws of probability. About video blackjack that may be the way of the future. I have seen fully electronic tables with video display at the World Gaming Expo. I have also seen tables that with cameras can track every bet and every play each player makes. This enables the house to accurately comp players and alert them to card counters. These tables look and feel like any other blackjack table, so you card counters may be out of business if these tables are successful. Jan. 14, 2001
In general, when betting on anything which pays even odds, is there any kind of "system" to help improve chances and or payoffs? - JJ from Boston, USA No. Nov. 11, 2000
You take a lot of your time or space on your web site to explain that no system can beat the house edge. I'd like to know what drives you to continue to play Casino games if you know that you will lose in the end? - Yvan from Quebec, CanadaMy own philosophy of gambling is that I bet big when the odds are in my favor and small when they are not. The reason I bet at all when the odds are against me is for the entertainment value. Considering the low house edge I can get in blackjack, video poker, and craps, gambling is less expensive than most any other form of entertainment on an expected-loss-per-hour basis. Nov. 4, 2000
Q: I have read a couple of articles about 'Parrando's Paradox'. Is there a way that you could explain what is going on as it is extremely counter-intuitive that two losing games played in a certain sequence could add up to a winner - I thought I understood the mathematics of gambling / probability! I can see that there is a subtle link between games A & B as game B is dependent on capital that is affected by game A; I am unable to carry the logic any further. Does Parrando's Paradox have any implications for negative expectation casino gamblers? I doubt it but would love to hear it from someone with a greater understanding. - Gavin Parnell from Burt St Edmunds, England A: Parrando's Paradox states that two suboptimal games of chance can show a long term gain if played alternately. However the games can not be independent of each other, which eliminates any comparison to casino games. July 30, 2000
Q: Would it be that in general the longer you play the more likely you are to lose, with the exception of games where the player can overcome the dealer advantage? Do you recommend a strategy to overcome this, such as initially making large bets as a percentage of deposit. If you come out ahead on larger bets then you can reduce the size of your bets to try to stay in the game longer. - Chris Baker from Andover A: Yes, in a negative expectation game (as most are) the longer you play the more likely you are to lose. If you want to maximize your chances of a net win, at the cost of a possible very large loss, then the best strategy is to bet more after losing, thus trying to recoup past losses. The Martingale is an example of a very aggressive form of this strategy. April 29, 2000
Q: Are you saying in the long run you will lose at every casino game no matter what you do? - Joe from Harrisburg, USA: With the exception of rare positive expectation opportunites in blackjack and video poker, yes, that is what I'm saying. March 11, 2000
Ican try to show you a screen shot of my account on the dublinbet LIVE casino. its taken almost 7 months to get it to 36 grand of play $ on a REAL TABLE. but Id say its workng pretty well,
the one thing I dont know yet is if the bet phoenix table is -0- or double, if its double I wont play there, I have logged in twice to see, and it doesn't say so in the advertising,,,
anyway, no worries,,,
cheers to all,
Just as all handicappers are losers Im sure my roulette system is too,, lets leave it at that,
Im not a liar though,
tater
the one thing I dont know yet is if the bet phoenix table is -0- or double, if its double I wont play there, I have logged in twice to see, and it doesn't say so in the advertising,,,
anyway, no worries,,,
cheers to all,
Just as all handicappers are losers Im sure my roulette system is too,, lets leave it at that,
Im not a liar though,
tater
Last edited:
