Online Casino

[Anonymous]

Nick777 wrote:

Go write a letter to your Wizard and tell him to get his math right.

I remind you that the Wizard is a PROFESSOR OF MATH at an accredited university. And who are you again?

Quote:

I am not an online math tutor…

Yeah, I’ve seen no evidence that you could even pass an elementary algebra course, much less match wits with a COLLEGE MATH PROFESSOR.

BonusGeek wrote:

I would love to see the wiz in a land casino betting $5K a hand, and splitting 88 against a 10 everytime. I usually get up when I see donkey players like that at the table, just like someone splitting 20.

I’ve played blackjack with the Wizard many times, and I’ve been there when they kicked him out for being too good. They don’t kick you out for being a loser.

Quote:

Can someone point me to a link where the wiz says he would play 88 this way.

Geez, how can you NOT find the Wizard’s blackjack strategy at WizardOfOdds.com easily?

[327007]

nick777 wrote:

I gotta admit Nolan, you are definitely one of the dimmer wits i’ve come across

What makes it most interesting is that even when presented with the proper formula, you still can’t seem to follow

Once again, your math is wrong, you are not considering the fact that you have 4 hands vs 1, all 4 being a 64% favourite each

You are deliberately trying to misinform people, like your mentor, the Wizard, by putting up unfactual numbers that support your theory, and trying to save face

I am not an online math tutor and i am permanently done with you
Read my post again. Why do you think I multipied by 4?…. BECAUSE THERE ARE 4 HANDS.

And it is 4 hands vs 2 hands, rather than 4 vs 1 in the real world. I realize there are different rules in your casino fantasy land where you can double on 1-card hands and split hand BJs pay 2 to 1 (What happens in your fantasyland if you double a 1-card hand and get a BJ, is that a “double BJ” that pays 4 to 1?) .

[Anonymous]

NolanA wrote:

Read my post again. Why do you think I multipied by 4?…. BECAUSE THERE ARE 4 HANDS.

And it is 4 hands vs 2 hands, rather than 4 vs 1 in the real world. I realize there are different rules in your casino fantasy land where you can double on 1-card hands and split hand BJs pay 2 to 1 (What happens in your fantasyland if you double a 1-card hand and get a BJ, is that a “double BJ” that pays 4 to 1?) .

I’ve been known to fly off the handles, but in this case it is truly deserving, and i will make you look even stupider than you are already doing to yourself

First of all, it’s my 4 hands vs the dealer’s 1 hand

Second, try to follow, it might be a bit advanced for you

It’s not the probability outcome of 1 hand vs 1 hand times 4, like you think, it’s the probability outcome of 4 favourable hands vs 1 hand times 4

On average you will win at least 2.6 times your bet by splitting

The most you can win by not splitting is 2 times your bet

And because you have 4 seperate hands, the chances of you losing your entire stake are also greatly reduced.

Once again i point out that your math is wrong, not the actual counting part, but the formula you are applying to correctly calculate the odds in this situation

[327007]

nick777 wrote:

I’ve been known to fly off the handles, but in this case it is truly deserving, and i will make you look even stupider than you are already doing to yourself

First of all, it’s my 4 hands vs the dealer’s 1 hand

Second, try to follow, it might be a bit advanced for you

It’s not the probability outcome of 1 hand vs 1 hand times 4, like you think, it’s the probability outcome of 4 favourable hands vs 1 hand times 4

On average you will win at least 2.6 times your bet by splitting

The most you can win by not splitting is 2 times your bet

And because you have 4 seperate hands, the chances of you losing your entire stake are also greatly reduced.

Once again i point out that your math is wrong, not the actual counting part, but the formula you are applying to correctly calculate the odds in this situation
I see you are still refusing to acknowlege losses. The average gain would only be 4*64% if the rate of loss was 0%. 64% of the time you win a hand and gain 1xBet. 36% of you lose the hand and lose 1xBet. You need to consider both results to produce an average.

We are comparing 4 hands when splitting to 2 hands when standing. If you want to call it 4 hands vs 1 hand for dealer, fine. It doesn’t matter if you have a million hands, there is still a 36% chance of losing each hand and a 64% chance of winning each hand, multiplied by number of hands:
4*(64% – 36%) = 112%

Now we compare to not splitting the 2 hands
2*(85%-15%) = 140%

If we divide by 2 for comparing standing and splitting with one hand, we get 56% and 70%… the same numbers listed in the article you quoted at http://www.casino.com/blackjack/article.asp?id=1720 . Why do you think the numbers are the same? Because the math is correct. Why do you think you are getting drastically different numbers from the quoted article, my numbers above, my simulation over 200 million hands, Wizard of Odds, and the other guy’s sim data I listed?

[Anonymous]

[ATTACH]232[/ATTACH]

xxxxxxxxxxx

[Anonymous]

Hey Mikey

You think you da man

Wadda you say me and you go head to head for a bit a coin

Choose your weapon, Sports capping, a little NFL Playoff style, pickin the ponies, or some heads up poker

You can do it, i know you up for the task

We can have it all goin on live right here for the world to see

Time for you to put up big boy

[Anonymous]

My name is Michael, please. I’m not taking liberties with your name, I ask that you show me the same respect.

Why would we bet on something other than what’s in dispute? You claim that the player should split 10’s against a 6, and should not split 8’s against a 10. I disagree. So that’s what we should be betting on. Why on earth would we bet on some other game that has nothing to do with what we’re actually talking about?

If you’re in Toronto (where your domains are registered), then Montreal is not far from you, and the Casino Affiliate Convention will be held there in September. We could conduct the bet there, with as many witnesses as you like. With so many webmasters there it would get no lack of coverage on the Internet, if it’s a big audience you seek.

Getting back to the dispute itself, you’re adamant that your analysis is correct, and the others are wrong. That raises several questions:

(1) Are you actually claiming that your math skills are better than that of a UNIVERSITY MATH PROFESSOR, who teaches a course specifically on gambling math? Are you really saying that you’re right, and this world-renowned expert is wrong? Your math trumps that of a professional math expert? Is that what you’re saying?

(2) Are you aware that every single other bona-fide blackjack expert has taken the exact same position as the Wizard? (And by “expert” I’m talking about people with advanced university degrees or who undisputably made their living playing blackjack professionally.) Do you know that there is 100% unanimous agreement among the experts about the position the Wizard (and Nolan and I) are taking?

(3) Those experts include Dr. Edward Thorp, Lawrence Revere, Ken Uston, Ian Andersen, Dr. Olaf Vancura, and Stanford Wong. Are you saying that each and every one of these (rather famous, successful, and well-educated) blackjack experts is wrong, and *you alone* have the correct analysis that all these experts fail to comprehend? Are you, Nick777, really smarter than all these people? You’ve figured it out, while all the blackjack pros and math professors are wrong? Is that really what you’re saying?

(4) Can you name even one person who supports your position who either (a) makes their living at blackjack, or (b) has an advanced degree in math? (And for (a), it should of course be someone who is willing to put their money where their mouth is by accepting a wager.) Can you name even one such person on the face of the whole planet?

[Anonymous]

I thought you wanted a shot at the title buddy, i guess i misunderstood

What i am saying is that the formula used to figure the correct roi for each probability is incorrect

As far as credentials go, they mean nothing, millions of people have them, including myself, it is quite possible that this guy is a casino stooly, and guys like you spread rumours of plotted instances where he got barred for being so good.

The fact is he isn’t much good, yet you accept his word as law

Now i’ve seen the same thing happen in horse racing where the Beyer speed figures are purposely misinformative on a particular horse to draw in sucker action, yet those numbers are considered immortal.

I mean he advises you to double your bet going up against a dealers 10, when the odds are stacked against you, and even emphasizes the point right atop his web page

That makes him a go off in my eyes, and not someone who’s word i would trust for even a nickel

I tried to explain, you guys can’t understand, so look at it another way

If you were to bet football, assume every team is +150 on the money line, since by being the favourite in this hand, we are basically getting + money odds,by getting an even money return for being the big favourite

now if you bet 4 of those teams

$100 = $250 return = +150 profit
$100 = $250 return = +150 profit
$100 = $250 return = +150 profit
$100 = $250 return = +150 profit
Total = $660 return = +260 profit

You will hit 2.6+ of these 4 every time over the long run, those are the odds

$100 = $250 return = +150 profit
$100 = $250 return = +150 profit
Total = $340 return = +140 profit

You will hit 1.7 of these 2 every time over the long run, those are the odds

Now the key is that your odds of losing all 4 bets in example 1 are huge(you are betting that a 64% favourite will lose 4 consecutive times).

That is rarely going to happen, even that 3 of 4, or the 2 of the 4 will lose is rarely going to happen

Plus the dealer getting a 21 total and beating you is negated, since the odds favour you getting a 2 card 21 total over the dealer hitting a 3 card 21 total

By standing on the 2 hand 20 total, the odds of the dealer hitting the 3 card 21 total are still there and working against you, they are not a factor when you split, your 10 draw will hit 21 more often than the dealer with his 6 draw, there is still the 40+% times the dealer will bust out giving you 4 winning bets, etc

All these little details which favour my system are completely overlooked by your wizard, he does not combine all the favourable circumstances, like you’re supposed to do.

His math is one dimensional, the proper formula for figuring this out is 3 dimensional, you are combining several factors together to get the right roi calculation, he is just taking basic odds and matching them head to head with one another, which would support his idea of splitting 8’s against a dealers 10, his calculating is telling him he has a better chance of drawing out a better hand with an 8, rather than standing or hitting with 16, but he doesn’t take into consideration the strong probability that the dealer will out draw him with a 10, and the amount of times he will lose both hands.

Like i said, his math is very basic, and mine is obviously better, i am a math genius btw, in case you haven’t picked up yet

I really didn’t want to shatter your belief in what you thought was true.

I’m not saying anyone is a bad guy, i like people who show an interest in beating the odds, i’m just saying his formula needs improving, it’s very basic, like one of those poker odds calculators, and not something i would rely too much on.

I mean if you know the guy, then by all means ask him, i am not one to back down from a challenge

Ask him to consider every possible intangeable factor that goes into this hand and come to a conclusion, because you can’t come to an accurate conclusion by using only what he has on his site graph.

I’m gonna tell you this, i really don’t care who believes what, my math takes second place to no one, and that’s that.

Since you put your foot in your mouth, it’s only natural you would wanna try to get it out of there, again, not my problem.

I don’t know what part of what i said you could possibly dispute, but i’m sure you’ll find something, just don’t expect a response.

Lets all just pretend we never met, i know i would prefer it that way, damn you Bodog for badbeating Stupid and his pr 7 blackjack site.

[Anonymous]

dude it happens, i live and play all the time in vegas, single double 6 deck, it has happened to me,

[327007]

nick777 wrote:

All these little details which favour my system are completely overlooked by your wizard, he does not combine all the favourable circumstances, like you’re supposed to do.

Are you for real? The more you post, the more I think you are troll who cannot possibly be serious. If you even had a basic understanding of the relevant mathematics, you would know that all of the items you listed are factored in. Let’s go through them one by one:

nick777 wrote:

Now the key is that your odds of losing all 4 bets in example 1 are huge(you are betting that a 64% favourite will lose 4 consecutive times). That is rarely going to happen, even that 3 of 4, or the 2 of the 4 will lose is rarely going to happen

The overall average return is the average return per hand * the number of hands. When you are playing many hands, you are less likely to get a result where all hands win or all hands lose, but the formula remains the same. The chances of winning or losing all 4 hands would be relevant for computing variance from expected return, but we aren’t talking about variance. There is no need to look beyond average return per hand (* number of hands) for our purposes.

nick777 wrote:

Plus the dealer getting a 21 total and beating you is negated, since the odds favour you getting a 2 card 21 total over the dealer hitting a 3 card 21 total. By standing on the 2 hand 20 total, the odds of the dealer hitting the 3 card 21 total are still there and working against you, they are not a factor when you split, your 10 draw will hit 21 more often than the dealer with his 6 draw…

Actually the dealer has a greater chance of getting 21 because he hits up to 16 (in some cases soft 17 as well). He may get multiple attempts to reach 21. I hope you do not hit on 16 when a 6 is showing and instead stop after drawing a single card, so you only get 1 attempt. The dealer has ~10% chance of ending at 21 when a 6 is showing. If you hit only 1 card on a 10, then your only chance of getting 21 is drawing an Ace, making the odds ~1/13… less than 10%. Of course the chance of getting 21 is factored into the computer simulations used to evaluate expected return.

nick777 wrote:

His math is one dimensional, the proper formula for figuring this out is 3 dimensional, you are combining several factors together to get the right roi calculation, he is just taking basic odds and matching them head to head with one another, which would support his idea of splitting 8’s against a dealers 10, his calculating is telling him he has a better chance of drawing out a better hand with an 8, rather than standing or hitting with 16, but he doesn’t take into consideration the strong probability that the dealer will out draw him with a 10, and the amount of times he will lose both hands.

Of course he takes the doubled bet size into consideration and is not simply matching odds. Only a complete fool would ignore doubling your bet on a split when computing optimal strategy or expected return. It did not just slip the mind of every blackjack expert in the world. A multiply by 2 or 4 was listed every time in my calculations, sometime in bold. Yet you keep bringing this point up over and over again… refusing to acknowledge that the increased bet size is included in calculations.

Splitting 8s on a dealer 10 is not a big advantage, but there is a slight overall benefit to splitting (including the doubled bet size in calculation, of course)… as the average loss per hand is more than cut in half. I just ran a sim on splitting 8s and got roughly the same numbers that are listed on Wizard of Odds site. Wizard of Odds is certainly not the only expert to recommend this. It is a virtually unanimous conclusion.

nick777 wrote:

Like i said, his math is very basic, and mine is obviously better, i am a math genius btw, in case you haven’t picked up yet

Statements like this make me think you are a troll and cannot possibly really believe this nonsense. If you truly believed what you are writing, you must have realized that you are not skilled at math at some point in your life. Perhaps trolling is why your user title says “Probation”.

[Anonymous]

Nolan, now you are out of line.

Argue strategies and math all you like, but no name calling.

What is the matter with you people?

[Anonymous]

As usual, Dom is the voice of reason when it comes to behavioral situations.

Regardless of any stature here at CAP there is no acceptable explanation for name calling or personal insults. If you don’t agree with a poster and feel strongly enough to warrant warning someone about their post: do it via a PM to whomever you feel is threatened.

Making public posts that insult other posters merely encourages people who aren’t sure about their position to not post. This is an ignorant approach because there are times .. however rare … that a person will expose a situation due to their feeling free enough to post without fear of risk of being punished by either the powers that be … or other posters …… as long as they don’t ever get personal.

Hell I’ve been wrong more times than pride is willing to admit … but even if I was right one one time by making a post I wasn’t sure about due to my (admitted) ignorance in many areas/levels of either gambling or PC related or anything … and I recall I have been … it made a considerable difference to a situation or outlook that otherwise wouldn’t have happened if I’d not felt confident in being allowed to be wrong and still be treated with some respect …

people come here and post in the best intentions IMHO about 95% of the time. That’s an impressive % IMHO (though admitttedly a guestimate) and their posts allow those with more knoweldge to either dispute the thought, or give it the credibility it deserves.

I beg all to consider what i have said and to not be intimidated for any reason to not feel free to be incorrect!

[Anonymous]

If anybody else thinks i’m wrong or wants to take a dig, do so now, because i will soon release the correct formula for solving this equation.

I really wanted to make it as easy as possible to follow, but my pal nolan has limited mental capacity with regards to this situation, he only knows what the wizard tells him, and the wizard has nothing on his site about this particular situation

And Michael, you want respect ?, you jumped in here announcing nick is wrong, like you had invented math, you won’t get any respect from me

You guys just sit there and think about where you went off, because soon i’ll put this baby to rest, like i always do.

[Anonymous]

well, I have found this thread very interesting.

You both seem to agree that the odds of wining are 85% without splitting and 64% when you split (Per hand).

so in a sample 50 deals ($100 bet per hand playing 2 hands – like stupid did) it WILL on average end up like this

Not Splitting
(85 x $200) + (15 x -$200) = $14,000 Profit

Splitting
(64 x $400) + (36 x -$400) = $11,200 Profit

it doesn’t matter if the odds of losing all your stake are reduced because you have 4 hands if you split, as on average(average take into account those variables) you will lose 36% of the time. So the only thing you need to take into account is the 64% and 85% – nothing else matters.

an average round will end up like this

85%-15% x $200 = $140 Profit for not splitting
64%-36% x $400 = $112 Profit for splitting

nothing else matters if you have 4 hands or 100 hands(assuming the you had like 60 deck if you did play 100 hands) on the table as the odds of profiting each hand is

Not Splitting – Splitting

.70 Vrs (.28*2) .56

.70 in 100 deals = $14,000 profit
.56 in 100 deals = $11,200 profit

There is no way these are wrong

these figures do take into account all other variables hence the term “average”

[Anonymous]

darko123 wrote:

well, I have found this thread very interesting.

You both seem to agree that the odds of wining are 85% without splitting and 64% when you split (Per hand).

so in a sample 50 deals ($100 bet per hand playing 2 hands – like stupid did) it WILL on average end up like this

Not Splitting
(85 x $200) + (15 x -$200) = $14,000 Profit

Splitting
(64 x $400) + (36 x -$400) = $11,200 Profit

it doesn’t matter if the odds of losing all your stake are reduced because you have 4 hands if you split as on average(average take into account those variables) you will lose 36% of the time. So the only thing you need to take into account is the 64% and 85% – nothing else matters.

an average round will end up like this

85%-15% x $200 = $140 Profit for not splitting
64%-36% x $400 = $112 Profit for splitting

nothing else matters if you have 4 hands or 100 hands(assuming the you had like 60 deck if you did play 100 hands) on the table as the odds of profiting each hand is

Not Splitting – Splitting

.70 Vrs (.28*2) .56

.70 in 100 deals = $14,000 profit
.56 in 100 deals = $11,200 profit

There is no way these are wrong

these figures do take into account all other variables hence the term “average”

And another one bites the dust

You too are wrong my friend, but at least you are in the majority here

I guess this will be like some shocking new revolution for everyone

I’ll use your numbers Darko, and show you where the mistake is made

[Author]

Posts