The conventional wisdom holds that because the house advantage at casino table games is immutable and invincible, any attempt to beat it must ultimately prove fruitless.
The message from the experts is that you can't win, so trying is a waste of time.
They tell me to "just do the math," and my problem is that the more math I do (applying far more strict standards of fairness and accuracy than most mathematicians I have encountered) the shakier and more vulnerable the house advantage proves to be.
In this post, fewer words, more pictures. Here they are (and as always, clicking on any image will make it larger and fully legible)...
I'm not a big fan of double-up or Martingale betting, not because it doesn't work (in spite of what house-trained mythematicians will tell you, it really does) but because it is quickly spotted by pit personnel who will then do whatever it takes to stop it. The chart above shows that against the current BST outcomes, the traditional Martingale and my more aggressive version of it both overcame the house edge without exceeding the house limit I imposed (a house limit being the highest permitted table limit). The summary above also reminds us that target betting is a far better way to go.
The data below cover the current batch of BST trials (#15) and have a lot to tell us about the inherent weakness of the house advantage, as long as it is not bolstered by tight spread limits. Casinos do all they can to prevent players from "betting wide" but gamblers are themselves the strictest enforcers of this damaging rule. Very few weekend punters spread wider than 1-5, and those that do (mostly high rollers) do it randomly. Bad idea!
Of all the claims I have made for my methods, the one that attracts the most flack is the target betting axiom that "if you win more when you win than you lose when you lose, then losing more often than you win won't hurt you." Yeah, I get it, they tell me, "You bet more when you know you are going to win and less when you know you are going to lose." Funny stuff! And very un-smart. You don't need a crystal ball to achieve this important objective, but you do need a strict set of rules and the discipline to apply them consistently.
In the latest BST contest, as in most of them, target betting could not succeed against a $5-$1,000 spread limit. And as always, I am not in the least surprised. Don't tell me that the bets that target betting requires are too high or that the risks my methods impose are beyond the reach of the average part-time punter. Tight spreads are far more dangerous than a controlled progression, as you can see (AGAIN) from the latest BST numbers. And this whole thing is not about making "recreational gamblers" rich on a shoestring budget: it's about proving that as well as not deserving to win as much as they do, casinos do not have to win as much as they do. The Math repeatedly proves that point.
_
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_
No comments:
Post a Comment