The conventional wisdom (along with the laws of probability, which do not always dovetail with the CW) requires that no betting method can win forever, and finally target betting has met a data set it really didn't like
My method has never been touted as 100% bullet-proof, and this first ruination outside of the deliberately deceptive world of runaway sims puts its win rate quite a bit higher than the 99.9920% I have used for years as a guideline preceded by the words at least.
As things stand everywhere outside of New Jersey, casinos are permitted to bar a player for any reason, and winning just a little more than probability indicates is one of them.
I have long dreamed of accumulating enough profit to be able to launch a legal challenge to this patently unreasonable state of affairs, and I suspect that a foolproof way to win would not be well received. Not that a 99.9920% WR is likely to be popular, either!
First, the latest blackjack data set...
I have daubed green ink all over the pencil log this time to highlight the paired (or better) wins that make it possible for target betting to overcome the fact that in this sample as in many others, there are far more losses than wins.
The term conventional wisdom can be defined as "what most people believe," and it has long been clear that where casino gambling is concerned, most people are wrong.
That is a bigger advantage to the house than the house advantage itself, and whenever I take time out from winning to watch other people's betting habits, I am reminded that while ignorance may be bliss, it can also be very expensive.
Logic confirms that if you can repeatedly turn a profit from a small series of bets in which you lost more often than you won, then it follows that over a very large number of contests, you will do serious damage to the house edge and might actually (perish the heresy!) reverse it.
If you bet flat or fixed amounts and losses outnumber wins the way Loser's Law ordains it, you will certainly lose more money than you win. That's just simple arithmetic.
But if you bet in such a way that you consistently and predictably win more when you win than you lose when you lose, then the house's bottom line will run with red ink and yours won't.
Red ink ran the wrong way for target betting in just one series out of almost 58,000 (315,000 rounds!) of baccarat supplied by two sources over which I have no control, along with no desire to alter the data they sent me.
The strategy was more than $900,000 (in Monopoly Money) ahead when the bleep hit the fan, and ended up with a +0.13% profit on turnover or action vs. an overall house edge of 0.92%.
The good news is that the setback was temporary, and was in due time more than offset by $1.97 million in wins with relatively few brown-trouser moments.
And then, of course, came seventy-odd thousand blackjack rounds against Ken Smith's BST app, and almost $1.6m in funny-money winnings.
The win rate (WR) therefore stands at 1-(1/70,000) = 99.9986%. I'm so sorry it's not 100% but, hey, we're in a recession right now.
The Rodriguez data set looks like this:
The crash'n burn came with the target betting rules set as indicated. When OLx was eliminated, while leaving WPx2 and MSL-1000 intact, the ruination turned into jubilation with a win of +4.7% of action. That's a big endorsement for the entire LTD+ after a win concept that is at the very core of target betting.
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