I just wrapped up the latest batch of blackjack bets against BST and as expected, the money machine cranked up my virtual bankroll a few more notches.
I keep on doing this because the assault from mythemaniacs defending the house's ordained right to win usually comes down to the warning that while any betting method can win for a while, the other shoe must drop eventually.
The final session before a new batch of around 8,000 hands gets under way was about as mean and nasty as they get, and in real play I would have bailed out several times and gone in search of relief elsewhere. The gross AV was -34, and because for once double-downs and splits did not soften the blow, the net AV was even worse (-36).
What matters is that when the $1,000 table limit was swept away, target betting flipped a 14.8% overall house edge into a comfortable +3.42% "player advantage."
My critics (specifically those frustrated by the steady wins even they record when they give target betting a try) sometimes resort to petulant complaints about the size of the bets that the method occasionally requires.
So let's remember that even casinos will now and then find themselves a very long way behind, victims of a high-roller's temporary winning streak, before The Math exerts its pull, the player's luck flees, and all the chips in play go home to the dealer's tray.
And please, don't imagine there is a contradiction here. Any player who bets flat amounts or at random will lose in the end, because the longer he plays, the more likely it becomes that lost bets will outnumber winning ones.
That is not a problem for target betting, which neuters negative expectation by winning more when it wins than it loses when it loses.
Relevant screen shots are below, but I will sum up their story before we get to them.
In spite of some seriously challenging BST sessions, the overall NET house edge for batch #14 (8,020 rounds) in the current trial was a relatively soft 0.17%. The GROSS actual value (AV) was -365/8020 or a much nastier NE of 4.55%. Ouch!
Target betting delivered a final win of +5.6% and was able to do that because the average win value exceeded the average loss value by 23% (485/395).
If BST's $1,000 table limit had applied, the final outcome would have been a LOSS of $111,000 on action of $6.1m (-1.82%).
Instead, target betting delivered a win of $168,000 on action of $3m (+5.6%).
Note the effect of table limits here. They would have served their purpose well, that purpose being to limit a player's ability to recover prior losses in fewer bets than it took him to get into trouble.
So although target betting seems to demand greater risk then so-called conservative betting, it routinely (as in this case) results in reduced exposure because recoveries are faster and action can be cut in half (as here).
The effect is also scary when a typical player-imposed limit is applied.
Most punters panic at the prospect of spreading wider than 1-5, but if a more aggressive 1-10 is put into effect against "BST Batch #14" the end result is a predictable loss (-$1,048 after action of $387,000 is -0.36%, which is less than negative expectation but far from a happy ending).
A critical consequence of the 1-10 spread limit is that 95% of the 8,020 bets in the session would have been at the max, to no avail.
So it follows that the narrower or tighter a player's betting spread, whether it's self-imposed because of an inadequate bankroll or enforced by a table limit that cannot be evaded, the more certain an overall loss becomes.
As the chart below confirms, dropping from 1-10 to 1-5 reduces the action and the overall loss but dies not change the fact that the player is in the hole for most of the 8,020 rounds.
And instead of an average EOS rate of six rounds or less, the number jumps to 34+.
It just doesn't make sense to play at all if you can't afford to win.
By that I mean that bellying up to the table with an inadequate bankroll that forces you to bet a tight spread is a very bad idea.
Bet wide, back your play with big bets when you have to, and you will beat the house every time.
And there's really nothing outrageous or amazing about this idea - it's what casinos have to do whenever a high roller gets lucky for a while and takes a million or two home with him. The house knows that eventually, he will bring it all back, lose it, and pay a hefty penalty for being a bad boy.
With turnaround betting, losses are just short-term loans to the house. Without it, the reverse is true: winnings are money you get to carry around for a while until that magnetic force known as the house edge sucks it back into the casino's coffers.
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