Who here has made significant money with bonus and online blackjack?

[WVU]

I have confused myself but maybe this will help. Whether you bust out or not you still get to use the $100 bonus on a 100/100/2500 deal. If you do 100 deals at a bustoutless wager of $1 per hand (method A) you will have wagered 2500 per $100 in bonus dollars. If you do 100 deals at $100 per hand (method B) you will have wagered a significant amount less per $100 in bonus dollars since you will bust out before reaching the wagering requirements frequently...hence your EV increases with the second method

******wagers per dollars in bonus earned is the key********

If you are wagering $2500 per $100 earned in bonus dollars you will lose ~$12.50 per deal (.5% HA) for a profit of $88.50 per deal

If you are wagering only $1500 per $100 earned in bonus dollars you will lose ~$7.50 per deal (.5 HA) for a profit of $92.50 per deal

The Wussy method A yields an EV significantly less than the Ballsy method B

 

[onemwtheone]

I find this all very interesting, but it makes my head hurt. I wrote a program to try to make sense of all this. My assumptions are $100 bonus on $100 you put in, 8x rollover req or $1600 to meet the req (I assume that's how this works), and 10 plays per minute. Anyway ---

BetAmt RtnOnBonus AvgGamesPlayed BustPct RtnPerHour
$1.00 $90.70 1600 0.00 $34.01
$2.00 $90.23 799 0.09 $67.68
$5.00 $90.49 317 3.14 $170.84
$10.00 $90.90 153 12.91 $355.57
$25.00 $91.87 54 33.38 $1040.99
$50.00 $93.03 22 49.90 $2439.51


You definitely make money faster the more you bet, and on average make the same amount per site you try this at. Interesting academic exercise, but how many casino are there with this sort of arrangement? (I'm new here, I really don't know).

 

[levistep]

I find this all very interesting, but it makes my head hurt. I wrote a program to try to make sense of all this. My assumptions are $100 bonus on $100 you put in, 8x rollover req or $1600 to meet the req (I assume that's how this works), and 10 plays per minute. Anyway ---

BetAmt RtnOnBonus AvgGamesPlayed BustPct RtnPerHour
$1.00 $90.70 1600 0.00 $34.01
$2.00 $90.23 799 0.09 $67.68
$5.00 $90.49 317 3.14 $170.84
$10.00 $90.90 153 12.91 $355.57
$25.00 $91.87 54 33.38 $1040.99
$50.00 $93.03 22 49.90 $2439.51


You definitely make money faster the more you bet, and on average make the same amount per site you try this at. Interesting academic exercise, but how many casino are there with this sort of arrangement? (I'm new here, I really don't know).

I know that you make more per hour the more you bet, but your EV is the same no matter what you bet. The guys at 2+2 agree with me on this one, although the feelings are mixed. I was expecting a more conclusive response.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=6825722&page=0&vc=#Post6825722

 

[onemwtheone]

I guess it's a matter of whether you want to sit there for 2 hrs to make your $90, or 15 minutes.

It's like two job offers, both offering $100K salary. One expects you there five days a week while the other expects you only on Tuesdays, doing the same work in each case.

 

[tennis28]

I can't believe some people still don't agree that it's higher EV to bet bigger.

"As long as their continues to be people like you, we'll make money."

 

[WVU]

I know that you make more per hour the more you bet, but your EV is the same no matter what you bet. The guys at 2+2 agree with me on this one, although the feelings are mixed. I was expecting a more conclusive response.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=6825722&page=0&vc=#Post6825722

I insist you reread my last post. EV is definitely not the same. I could send 50 people who know to 2+2 to post what they think if you really need to be convinced. Either way it doesn't matter. As long as the majority doesn't understand this principle the longer +EV bonuses will be around.
:toast:

 

[Dante]

WOW some are making 5000$ bonuses...amazing!

 

[WVU]

and to think all the negative posts seen on this site over the years on how crooked the casino games are. You guys all missed the boat, but that is fine by me as the gravy train lasted much longer than it could have.

 

[Fishhead]

and to think all the negative posts seen on this site over the years on how crooked the casino games are. You guys all missed the boat, but that is fine by me as the gravy train lasted much longer than it could have.

:toast:

 

[WVU]

Fish, Tink and I want to share some of your time in Vegas. We could learn plenty from each other.

 

[marino13]

Maybe this would make things easier to understand.

In a non-bonus situation, and assuming the same amount of $$ wagered (ie three $1000 bets or thirty $100 bets), the bet size does not change the EV in the long run. It changes variance. For those of you who state that greater variance does not increase EV, you may be thinking of this, and you are correct in a normal non-bonus situation.

However, if your goal is "earning" a bonus by meeting a wager requirement, by betting the minimum you are increasing your odds of haveing a loss before the wager requirement is met (think of an extreme situation where the minimum bet is 25 cents with a $5,000 wager requirement). Using a minimum bet lowers the variance for the house, and increasing the number of "bets" brings home the casino's advantage. Think of the saying "in the end, the house always wins."

Conversely, if the player had a positve expection, you would then want to bet the minimum, as you would have a greater chance of meeting the wagering requirement without going broke.

Even though the maximum bet is the greatest way to take advantage of bonuses in the long run, it might not be the best strategy for everyone, as you will have greater swings. Adapt the bets to your own bankroll.

If that doesn't make sense, or I'm wrong, then I apologize.

 

[WVU]

Maybe this would make things easier to understand.

In a non-bonus situation, and assuming the same amount of $$ wagered (ie three $1000 bets or thirty $100 bets), the bet size does not change the EV in the long run. It changes variance. For those of you who state that greater variance does not increase EV, you may be thinking of this, and you are correct in a normal non-bonus situation.

However, if your goal is "earning" a bonus by meeting a wager requirement, by betting the minimum you are increasing your odds of haveing a loss before the wager requirement is met (think of an extreme situation where the minimum bet is 25 cents with a $5,000 wager requirement). Using a minimum bet lowers the variance for the house, and increasing the number of "bets" brings home the casino's advantage. Think of the saying "in the end, the house always wins."

Conversely, if the player had a positve expection, you would then want to bet the minimum, as you would have a greater chance of meeting the wagering requirement without going broke.

Even though the maximum bet is the greatest way to take advantage of bonuses in the long run, it might not be the best strategy for everyone, as you will have greater swings. Adapt the bets to your own bankroll.

If that doesn't make sense, or I'm wrong, then I apologize.

my point that I have been hammering home is that the same amount of money WILL NOT be wagered. When you bet bigger hands you will bustout more often. In my examples the bonus is upfront. You deposit 100 and start with a 200 bank. You get to use the bonus whether you bust out in 1 hand or chip away at the wagering requirements with small bets.

 

[jeckll]

Believe marino13 is agreeing with you WVU.

I think the important point is that most bonus hunters will prefer the slower method of betting near or at the minimum at the beginning of their bonus hunting adventure so as to build a large bankroll. Then once a sufficient bankroll is reached, playing big wagers pays.

I can only speak for myself, but for the first ~month of bonus whoring I played probably 10-20 cashable casino bonuses of the 100% up to $100 variety with between 8x-20x rollovers. I made about $1500 doing so on an initial investment of $100. I then proceeded to turn $1500 into around $5000 in a week or two playing sticky bonuses in a DOD approach. Sometimes cashing out for 2-3x my deposit and many times busting out entirely.

If, on the other hand, I had started doing these kind of large-wager bonuses there is a very good chance I would have lost a lot of money to begin with instead of building a smallish $1500 bankroll and I would have been turned off from the entire operation.

 

[WVU]

with the high wagering requirements of todays' bonuses wagering small hands is suicide. I know it is bedtime when I argue with myself and others that agree.

 

[Kruser6]

Just played a 100% bonus up to $200.

Played $5 hands till I got to $4000. ..

Withdrew $465

 

[WVU]

what site Kruser?

 

[jeckll]

with the high wagering requirements of todays' bonuses wagering small hands is suicide. I know it is bedtime when I argue with myself and others that agree.

I disagree that it is suicide. Yes, you will make more in the long run betting high but at the beginning, when one is just getting into bonus hunting and trying to build a bankroll, most would agree that making a sacrifice by accepting a lower EV but also a FAR lower variance is a good move.

Like I said, if someone who has just started out bonus hunting plays their first few bonuses do or die, with large wagers, there is a pretty good chance they will bust out 2, 3, 4 or 5 in a row losing maybe $500. That would turn a lot of people off. So betting the minimum until you build up a bankroll, and then turning up the bets once you can handle the swings (i.e. high variance) is, in my opinion, the best strategy.

 

[WVU]

true enough cklennon. I used to play 1 x deposit + bonus 20% deals way back in 1997 at Golden Palace. I remember wagering $2 hands one after the other on a 5k deposit 1k bonus. That was a lot of hands to play, but frankly I didn't trust the fairness at first. My bank grew quickly as well as my faith in the fairness of the software.

There are also programs out there that will play the hands perfectly for you, so you dont have to waste 6 hours betting $2 hands to clear the bonus.

 

[Igetp2s]

I believe this might be the best way to explain why betting larger amounts has the highest EV. It is because you are using the house's money as part of your bet, instead of your own when you bet larger, leaving you with a higher amount when you win.

Consider these 2 extreme examples, with no maximum bet limits, and an expected winning percentage of 49%:

Casino 1) Deposit $100, get $100 bonus, wager requirement is $1400
Wager #1:200 to win 200
Wager #2 400 to win 400
Wager #3 800 to win 800

Total Wagered = 1400, Total Cashout = 1600 This should happen 11.76% of the time, for an Expected cashout of around $188, and an expected proft of $88

Casino 2) Deposit $100, get $100 bonus, wager requirement is $1400

You make 1400 $1 bets, expecting to win 686 and losing 714. Your expected cashout is now $172, and expected winnings are $72


Conclusion:

Option 1 obviously has a higher variance but also a higher expected value, because you are using the $100 bonus as part of your wagering, while in option 2 you are basically only using your own money for each $1 bet.

I don't think the higher EV comes from busting out earlier and therefore betting less, I think the higher EV comes from using the house's money as a larger percentage of your wagering when you bet larger amounts.

 

[Igetp2s]

If you think about it, its not really any different than using a match play from a sportsbook on a parlay instead of a staright wager. I don' think anyone here would argue that a wager, even at +100 odds and a 50% chance of winning has the same EV as a 3 team parlay at +600.

The first has EV of 50 for a $100 Bonus Play, the second has 75, because you are reusing the Bonus Play over and over again. In the casino example, you are using your own money along with the Bonus Play, so the difference in methods might not be as much, but the concept is the same.