Yeah, saw the movie 21, but that's card counting, I think MIT also developed a strategy to beat blackjack without counting cards, or at least reduce the house edge to 0.every single game in the casino is designed to give the house an edge.
the only game that the player can actively manipulate the edge is Blackjack.
other than that, every game in the casino is designed to make you loose money, and more often than not, that's what happens.
I dont think I made it up.I was introduced to this by a friend.And whats with all the hostility Im just giving the dude some betting strategies.All you have had to offer was a bunch of flaming.You need to get a life friend.Your not as smart as you think you are.It is the Martingale strategy, feel free to Google it if you think I made it up. Why it is dumb is not an opinion, it is fact, and I will show you why it's dumb, then address the rest of your dumb post, then wait 24 hours for you to make another dumb post so I can shit on you again.
i start with a bankroll of 600First, to start at 1$ and be able to overcome 13 spins against you, you would need a bankroll of $4096, and with that kind of roll, who wants to have a goal of winning 1$?
Thats American roulette.European Roulette is 2.7%Moving on...Roulette has a house edge of roughly 5.26%
Ths dependant on a number of factors IE cards left in the deck,how many decks are used, last shuffle, number of players at the table.Blackjack with a typical strategy has a house edge of about 2%
Blackjack with a perfect (MIT) strategy has a house edge of 0 to .5%
Thats partly right Except it would happen 1 in every 47 sets of 6 not 1 in every 47 spins.so lets say you get by with 20 sets of 6 6wins at 100$ =600x20 sets =12000 so long before your luck runs out you should run.I use this system till i build a buffer and then I gamble.Ive never came out in the Red and thats a fact.Each spin your chance to lose is 20/38 or 52.63157%. So his chance to lose 6 in a row and go broke is 52.63157% ^6 or about 1 in 47.
Yes in the movie, MIT card counted, but I believe one of their game theorists also developed a system to play without card counting that reduced the house edge to 0, if not swing it in the players favor.MIT card counted, you employ basic strategy with card counting, all though the strategy thats shown in the film is rubbish counting method
Martingale is a proven bad strategy. That's like my friend asking me how to drive, and I say floor it on the left side of the road (this is a real country [America] and we drive on the right side of the road). When you're trying to insult someone's intelligence, you should make sure not to confuse "your" and "you're." If you want to cry in the corner because I highlighted the faults of a proven awful gambling strategy that you walk around thinking your a genius and the only person to have thought of it, and call it "flaming," go for it. I still want you to get in a car accident where you lose arms so you can't place bets anymore.I dont think I made it up.I was introduced to this by a friend.And whats with all the hostility Im just giving the dude some betting strategies.All you have had to offer was a bunch of flaming.You need to get a life friend.Your not as smart as you think you are.
No, it is completely irrelevant of any of those factors. That is just the house edge in Blackjack. I forget what the statistics law is called, but it has to do with as numbers increase they will get closer to the statistical expectation. Sure those factors might change the short term payout, but has nothing to do with the standardized house edge in Blackjack.ME: Blackjack with a typical strategy has a house edge of about 2%
Blackjack with a perfect (MIT) strategy has a house edge of 0 to .5%
You: Ths dependant on a number of factors IE cards left in the deck,how many decks are used, last shuffle, number of players at the table.
In all honesty, with your gambling strategies that you try to pass off as successful, I highly doubt you've ever left a casino with more money than you came with, but don't worry, you'll get em next time.Thats partly right Except it would happen 1 in every 47 sets of 6 not 1 in every 47 spins.so lets say you get by with 20 sets of 6 6wins at 100$ =600x20 sets =12000 so long before your luck runs out you should run.I use this system till i build a buffer and then I gamble.Ive never came out in the Red and thats a fact.
I know Smuggler! I was thinking about going over to the casino later on this morning. Ive never actually went down to the poker room and played at the casino but I would like to give it a try. I would probably just be easy picken's for those guys over there, but would like to try it nonetheless.Dammit Timmy, now I want to go to the casino and play poker... lol. S
Basic strategy with a count is the only way you can get odds in your favour, but still they're only odds, it's always going to b e gambling.I stand corrected, MIT did not develop a system to swing the edge in favor of the player without card counting. I'm not sure if they did or did not develop this system for optimal play, which should reduce the house edge to .02% to .05%, from 5% with woman strategy, or 1.5% with typical strategy, or .5% with basic strategy.