(For updated information about Target's ongoing sports betting experiment, please go to the Sethbets website, or click here for an introduction to progressive betting, and here [20] and here [5] for current picks)
The latest BST screen shot looks good - $10,000-plus against a 13.6% house edge? Awesome!
But it hides the fact that I had to pull out my virtual wallet 42 times during the 90-minute session, meaning that if this had been real money, I would have LOST more than $30,000.
That would have put a very large dent in my winnings from the previous 11 BST blackjack sessions, no doubt prompting a chorus of toldyous from the army of doom-sayers who insist that casino games can't be beaten in the long run.
In fact, what the latest session proves is that like all casino table limits, BST's $1,000 betting cap paints a fatal bulls-eye on the back of anyone who dares to try using progressive betting to beat the house.
The house edge took off for the moon less than a dozen bets into this new session, and was for most of the time even higher than the big fat red number (13.6%) that it stood at when I finally got tired of losing.
I was deliberately playing a very aggressive version of Target, piling on the bucks to reach the table cap far quicker than I would have otherwise.
I was betting $1,000 every time after 15 rounds, and a lot more when double-downs and splits were called for!
You will find a full summary of the session in the latest BST log, and the first thing to notice is that after two failed turnaround attempts, the all-important "twins" (two wins in succession) showed up - and in real play, that would have been the end of the first deadly slump.
After that, there were thirty-five sets of twins, many of them with "siblings" attached, versus thirty-three failed turnaround tries.
The failures would, of course, have kept pushing bet values higher.
But the grouped wins would have negated the runaway house advantage every time.
And this is really what the whole concept of twins and wasted wins is all about.
If you bet fixed or random amounts, you are certain in the long run to fall victim to the house advantage.
So the casino will do all it can to push you into a red corner, shrinking your wiggle room and encouraging you to keep on betting a tight spread until you run out of money.
Then, hopefully, you'll take your plastic over to the cashier's window and use an ATM to draw some good money to throw after the bad.
You think ATMs are there for your convenience? Sure they are, the way non-slip floors and stun guns in a slaughterhouse are meant to keep the cattle happy!
An analysis of all 12 of the 2011 BST sessions provides a perfect lesson for anyone who's tired of trying to beat the odds at casino table games.
One obvious option for the frustrated loser is to go home and give up gambling forever.
An alternative is to get serious, and learn why the house advantage can be consistently exploited to generate profits that will never find their way back to the dealer's tray.
Let's first of all take a look at a breakdown of the BST sessions as a whole, starting with a summary of how a fairly conservative modification of Target would have performed:
The first thing to notice is that Mr. Smith's BST game (the most honest simulation I have ever found) hewed pretty closely to the expectation for perfect blackjack play.
Yes, it was an overall "player edge," but plus or minus 1.0% for 4,400 rounds is in the ballpark (or in the pit, if you'd rather use a casino cliche).
If you regularly read this blog, you will know that in any event, the final AV - actual value of the overall lost bets to number of bets percentage - matters a whole lot less than what happened when the house edge spiked and dipped along the way.
Most players are wiped out by short-lived swings against them because they bet the wrong amounts at the right time or vice versa!
Next, compare expectation with what actually happened - or would have happened if all of the BST hands had been dealt in the exact order in a casino that didn't impose a 1-200 bet spread limit.
Target's job is to maximize wins and minimize losses while delivering average wins that are bigger than average losses to make up for the fact that usually (although not in this example!) there are more losses than wins.
The average win value here was $190 and the average loss was $138.
The 37% difference will come as a surprise to all those experts who have said over the years, "Yeah, we get it, you bet more when you know you're going to win than when you know you're going to lose."
Target Betting gets the job done, folks.
The summary above includes a breakdown of the number of successful turnarounds and the average number of bets required for each recovery - 5.2, reduced to less than 5 when pushes are excluded.
Here's the next "shocker" from the BST sample (no surprise to me after all these years, but no doubt the numbers will prompt the usual claims from the usual shills that I must have cooked the books!).
The charts are revealing, but what counts the most are the win and action totals along the top of the summary.
You will see that betting a tight spread - and 1 to 10 is actually on the adventurous side for most players - does not even match the +0.89% expectation for the game, delivering a feeble +0.3% which as it happens was only marginally improved upon when the spread was pushed to 1-200.
The big surprise for most of you will be the action value when the spread is widened all the way to 1-5,000: $620,000 (average bet $140) versus $876,000 ($197) for spreading $5 to $500.
It is a myth enthusiastically bolstered by the casinos and their tame mythematicians that the wider your spread, the greater your risk and (by far) the bigger your loss at game over.
What crap! Freedom to make the right bet at the right time reduces your long-term exposure and increases your profit at the end of the day.
Never mind that "most people" can't afford the huge bets Target sometimes calls for.
This is not a feel-good blog offering penny-ante players a magic trick to help them get rich for little outlay.
It's about sound mathematics and truth, neither of which matters a damn to your average "recreational gambler."
Now let's drill down to the last of the 12 BST sessions, a horror story that handed the house an edge of almost 14 percent!
Nothing on earth could beat a house advantage that huge, right?
Well...once again, we see a huge difference between the overall action (a very telling yardstick for risk) when the betting spread is kept in check by tight table limits, and...when it isn't.
BST's table limit - generous, according to most blackjack players - required an overall average bet of $1,076.
Placing much bigger bets only when absolutely necessary instead of being forced by a low table limit to play a (doomed) game of constant catch-up, cut Target's average bet by almost 80 percent to a much more affordable $127.
What's very dramatically and convincingly demonstrated here is the sheer futility - the insanity! - of betting the way the casinos want you to, and their "expert" shills tell you to.
The old shills' chorus - Any amount bet against a negative expectation must always have a negative result - is only true if you let it be.
Bet as wide as you can and you will beat the house every time.
Bet any other way, and you'll go home with a lighter wallet.
It really is that simple.
I have used more underlines and italics and flashy colors in this entry than I usually do as a reminder that I'm not here to preach to the converted.
It's just as well, because there are precious few of those around the world!
I keep plugging away in an attempt to turn as many gamblers as I can away from betting practices that were, in effect, invented BY casinos FOR casinos.
And you should all know this: When a pit boss sidles up to you and tells you that if you keep on doing what you're doing, you are sure to lose, you're definitely betting right.
Progressive betting attracts unwanted attention, and that's why Target has so many rules, most of which are camouflage.
Some of them boost overall profits, too - but can be dispensed with as long as the core LTD+ rule isn't messed with.
As for giant house advantages, please jump back to the top of the page and check on the current numbers for Target's real-time, real money sports book trial.
To date, we have faced a "bookies' edge" that has not wavered much from 10.0%, or about ten times the expected HA for a straight game of blackjack.
With each day's selections always posted online ahead of game times, we're now ahead almost $160,000.
Bookies' edge: 10.1% Target's edge: 7.4%.
(Sometimes, only colors will do...)
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. One more piece of friendly advice: If you are inclined to use target betting with real money against online "casinos" such as Bodog, spend a few minutes and save a lot of money by reading this._
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am happy to hear constructive criticism from people genuinely interested in improving their game, but life is too short for the drivel that too many posters have made their stock in trade. If insults are your game, not blackjack, please go away. If you work for a casino, you will know that progressive betting is only for fools, a surefire way of losing your bankroll. If you take blackjack seriously, as a player, you will know that that is a lie, one that the gambling industry promotes to protect its bottom line. I hope you will find something here of value. Thanks.