Player loses 41 consecutive blackjack hands online

[cincy_]

No. Amazingly enough I actually penned this entire email from my own head.

Then why do you question the facts? It just seems like the standard lines we see in textbooks. If you're saying he didn't get 41 straight losing hands, just call him a liar and let that be the end of it - it has NOTHING to do with any analysis. If you want to say it wasn't blackjack and it was poker, then the same thing applies.

We both know "sample size" is a common statistical phrase. I certainly didn't coin it but I am comfortable using it. How many total hands he played during this BJ session and EVERY session before and after have EVERYTHING to do with this example. We're attempting to determine the long run possibilty of the event occurring, no? The short run is irrelevent. If I hit a jackpot in my first ever pull of a slot machine the casino is not going to run and adjust the payout on the machine. They know the long run is the only accurate number.

I will review the rest of your rebuttal but it's suspect if you're dismissing the need for an appropriate sample size right off the bat.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn't matter how many hands he played.

If you flip a coin 5 times and get 5 heads, the chance of that happening does NOT depend on whether the coin was flipped BEFORE or AFTER that. It is what we term an "independent event". The probability is not going to be anything different from 50% for flipping a head on single toss whether it was flipped 5 times prior or 434 times prior. The same goes for losing a BJ hand.

If I ask you the probability of rolling a 7 in craps, the probability is 1 in 6 - REGARDLESS of who touched it last, how many times it was rolled, who put a jinx on it, what the temperature and humidity is, how many times you roll it afterwards and so on. There is a 16.6% chance of rolling a 7 in craps - and that is all it is.

 

[valueman]

0.0000000000000469% chance of this happening.

Judge for yourself - fixed or not. Awful lot of zeros for me.

 

[jeffry22]

I want to thank the math concious on this board for putting Phig in his place. I dont understand his reasons for posting bogus math in this thread to contradict a report of another poor person who has been taken to the cleaners by a crooked online casino. The point is, while its possible some online blackjack is legit , my experience is that most are not, and sometimes its so extreme as to be ridiculous(41 in a row).

 

[Phigment]

Why the condescending tone? This will be my last post in this thread since we're obviously talking about apples and oranges.

Then why do you question the facts? It just seems like the standard lines we see in textbooks. If you're saying he didn't get 41 straight losing hands, just call him a liar and let that be the end of it - it has NOTHING to do with any analysis. If you want to say it wasn't blackjack and it was poker, then the same thing applies.

Huh? My response was simply refuting the implication that my statements were taken from some sort of textbook. I was not calling anyone a liar.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn't matter how many hands he played.

If you flip a coin 5 times and get 5 heads, the chance of that happening does NOT depend on whether the coin was flipped BEFORE or AFTER that. It is what we term an "independent event". The probability is not going to be anything different from 50% for flipping a head on single toss whether it was flipped 5 times prior or 434 times prior. The same goes for losing a BJ hand.

If I ask you the probability of rolling a 7 in craps, the probability is 1 in 6 - REGARDLESS of who touched it last, how many times it was rolled, who put a jinx on it, what the temperature and humidity is, how many times you roll it afterwards and so on. There is a 16.6% chance of rolling a 7 in craps - and that is all it is.

I am well aware that the flip of a coin, roll of dice, and a hand of blackjack are independent events. I never made a claim that he was "due" to hit a winner because of his previous string of losses. The point I made before is still valid in the fact that you are incorrectly analyzing his 47 losses as an isolated event when in fact the correct method would be to include ALL blackjack hands played over the long-term in order to arrive at an accurate assssment. If I said I went 3-2 this weekend ATS and made the claim that I was an 60% capper you would be justified in stating that I need to reproduce those results over the long-term before quitting my day job.

 

[flyinghigh+]

The reason sample size doesn't matter is because we're talking about how many hands he lost IN A ROW... not out of total hands played.

Don't bring oranges to an apples thread?

Why the condescending tone? This will be my last post in this thread since we're obviously talking about apples and oranges.



Huh? My response was simply refuting the implication that my statements were taken from some sort of textbook. I was not calling anyone a liar.



I am well aware that the flip of a coin, roll of dice, and a hand of blackjack are independent events. I never made a claim that he was "due" to hit a winner because of his previous string of losses. The point I made before is still valid in the fact that you are incorrectly analyzing his 47 losses as an isolated event when in fact the correct method would be to include ALL blackjack hands played over the long-term in order to arrive at an accurate assssment. If I said I went 3-2 this weekend ATS and made the claim that I was an 60% capper you would be justified in stating that I need to reproduce those results over the long-term before quitting my day job.

 

[cincy_]

Why the condescending tone? This will be my last post in this thread since we're obviously talking about apples and oranges.



Huh? My response was simply refuting the implication that my statements were taken from some sort of textbook. I was not calling anyone a liar.



I am well aware that the flip of a coin, roll of dice, and a hand of blackjack are independent events. I never made a claim that he was "due" to hit a winner because of his previous string of losses. The point I made before is still valid in the fact that you are incorrectly analyzing his 47 losses as an isolated event when in fact the correct method would be to include ALL blackjack hands played over the long-term in order to arrive at an accurate assssment. If I said I went 3-2 this weekend ATS and made the claim that I was an 60% capper you would be justified in stating that I need to reproduce those results over the long-term before quitting my day job.

No tone involved - it's just that you were overlooking something and I didn't see what it was. I thought it was something else. Now I see where you're making a mistake, so let me explain.

The issue with trying to put a % on your capping ability is that the probability is NOT known - and that is why you need a large sample to justify it (or prove it within a confidence level) and that is what you're saying. That much I agree with. It is the same way when you're talking about polling data when Zogby or Gallup polls people prior to elections - the more people you survey, the better and the more surveys you do, the better.

When it comes to BJ,, everything changes. The chances of winning and losing a hand is CALCULATABLE (and I just assumed it was 49%). It depends on the rules and such, but one can calculate what the odds are of winning a hand. The same goes for rolling a 7 on craps. One knows that the probablity is 1 out of 6.

The same goes for picking a 7 out of a full deck of cards - it is 1 out 13 and it won't change as long as you keep replacing the cards. That is why you say that the chances of picking a 7 out of a full deck of cards twice in a row is 1 in 169 - regardless of where the deck had been or how many times you had picked cards from it.

The bottom line is that the chances of winning a hand in BJ is KNOWN and you are making the assumption that we do not know what it is - when we actually can calculate it (even though I don't know what it is) - if, like you said, the strategy of the player doesn't vary and is rational.