PDA

View Full Version : blackjack +EV?

poker1O1
10-13-2005, 02:59 AM
ok, so my roomie just started playing blackjack on PP. this is regular blackjack with the surrender option as well, which means if u bet 4, u can surrender and take 2 back. min bet is \$1, max is 200. blackjack pays 1.5x. this is our theory: u bet 1, if u win, u bet 1 again, however if u lose the \$1 bet, u double it to \$2, if u win, go back to \$1, if u lose, go to \$4, lose then \$8...etc until u win, then back to \$1, essensially making u a \$1 eventually (ex. lose \$1, then \$2, then \$4, but win \$8 = \$1 profit). it gets a little more complicated when u surrender, say at the \$8 level. now u've lost the 1, 2, 4, and half of the 8, so 4, so u'd be down 11, now ur next bet would be \$12, with the same goal of trying to win \$1. if u play perfectly, the house has a .03% edge, but, with this "win \$1 at a time mentality, then start back at \$1) is it EV+??? I'd love to see some math to back it up.

yellowjack
10-13-2005, 03:55 AM
When you play for \$1, it's -EV
When you play for \$2, it's -EV

Even though you're doubling your bet each time, it's still -EV

I don't know any strategy for BJ, but I do know that surrendering, doubling down, etc. are only moderately +EV in comparison to the overall -EV in playing. To simplify this, I'll put the probability of winning a hand at 40%, even though I think it is a bit generous (esp. online)

Suppose you're playing a max of 4 hands, where you go from \$1 to \$2 to \$4 to \$8 if you lose, and you're stopping at \$8 (we'll see later that the max amount doesn't matter, it's still -EV). Let's say you have a 40% chance of winning a hand. If you win at \$1 you just play for \$1 again.

Note that the win is always just +\$1 since when you're playing for say \$4, you have already lost \$3. So your net gain is +\$1.

EV = 0.40*(+\$1) + 0.6 * [0.4*(+\$1) + 0.6 * [0.4*(+\$1) + 0.6 * [0.4*(\$1) + 0.6(-\$15)]]]

EV = \$0.40 + 0.6 * [\$0.40 + 0.6 * [\$0.40 + 0.6 * [\$0.40 + (-\$9)]]]

EV = -\$1.0736 (OP should check this)

So in words, even though the chances of losing 4 bets in a row is small, when you do lose 4 bets in a row it costs a lot. It's worth noting that the more bets you're prepared to make, the worse your EV is.

Take for example just making \$1 and \$2 bets.

EV = 0.4(+\$1) + 0.6[(0.4)(+\$1) + 0.6(-\$3)]
EV = -\$0.44

kelvin474
10-13-2005, 12:35 PM
Hi yellowjack,

You're right, of course, about the double-up strategy.

Here's some more info about blackjack: The probability of winning is around 43%. Doesn't matter if its online or not. The crappy rules hurt on Party hurt you though.

The EV on Party is lower than -.03%. www.blackjackinfo.com (http://www.blackjackinfo.com)
I haven't looked much but i believe it is 8 decks, hit soft 17 so its in the neighborhood of -0.7%. Thats if you play perfect basic strategy.

REL18
10-13-2005, 05:01 PM
It pays 3 to 2 retards there is no game in the world beatable without 80% penetration at this rate pp has 10% penetration this game is exactly 2.18% negative ev and that double up bull [censored] makes no sense so u keep making a negative expection bet but u double it up how can u ever come up and heres the funny thing what about the times u double down u realized what happens if u lose 8 in a row 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 oh wait its capped at 200 there goes that. if anything u could come up with a crazy idea that doubleing your wager increases the amount u will lose it doesnt since that is a little more then 2% heres the rule if u cant card count never play 3 to 2 unless the penetration is insane even with card counting this game is horrid the sides bets are why better u only losing 7.5 cents a dollar stick to that

10-14-2005, 05:07 AM
Progressive betting systems (like you mentioned) with most gambling games are disastrous. Anyone who has played blackjack long enough will tell you about their losing streaks. You can use the best card-counting system and play the odds 100% correctly, yet still lose a lot of money. Here you buy-in for \$200. You lose first hand, \$2 is the next bet, you lose again, up to \$4 and you lose... and so on. I'm not kidding when I say there are people who have lost thousands of dollars trying these systems.

BJ with deep penetration and good rules is BARELY +EV when you play exactly by the odds. Card counting makes it slightly more +EV. But with Party Poker BJ, the penetration is very shallow and with 8 decks you might as well be dealt cards from a random number generator. Unlike typical BJ, with PP the past hands won't give you a good indication of the rest of the cards left in the deck.

elmitchbo
10-14-2005, 11:04 AM
what you're talking about is the martingale system. it's been around for a hundred years and it's the first crutch of most bad gamblers.

it doesn't work. search. you'll find more math than you want. many times it is in reference to roulette, but you'll get the point.

TomCollins
10-14-2005, 11:49 AM
Great idea! Wow, you guys should get the Nobel Prize. You shouldn't have posted here, otherwise Party will be on to you!

GL Busting Party.

10-14-2005, 02:32 PM
God help us

soko
10-14-2005, 04:31 PM
<font color="red"> Alright, here is the simple answer to this problem. yes the system would work if it was possible to continue doubling your bets until infinity however there is a maximum bet and once variance catches up to you and doubling your bet is greater than your maximum bet allowed you are stuck making maximum bets which are still -EV </font>

fluorescenthippo
10-14-2005, 05:21 PM
this would work with an infinite bankroll and no max table bet. if that was the case i wouldnt double my bet though. you can only make \$1 by doing that. i would go 4x or more. this way you actually make money when you win. of course you would need a limitless bankroll though.

A_Junglen
10-14-2005, 05:40 PM
it's called Negative Regression....nothing new