Blackjack Myths and Errors

There is a widespread belief that many gamblers adhere to. How many times have you seen a gambler start out making $5 or $10 bets. Then, after losing four or five bets in a row, he will raise his bets to $25 or even $50. Why does he do this? Many players feel like they are due to win a bet.

If the bettor continues to follow this line of reasoning, he may end up losing all of his gambling bankroll in short order because the hoped for string of winning bets never showed.

Many experts like to use examples like this to disparage any types of betting progressions, smugly opting that they all must fail because it is impossible to predict the outcome of the next decision in a casino game. The experts will point out that having lost four or five bets in a row is no guarantee that you will win the next bet or even one of the next four or five bets.

There are many different ways that it can be proven that previous decisions in games of chance like craps, roulette and baccarat have no bearing on the outcome of future decisions. Even card counters would argue that in blackjack a loss of four or five consecutive decisions does not increase the probability of winning unless the dealer has used an abundance of low-valued cards leaving the unplayed cards with a surplus of high cards. This condition tends to favor the player and could influence the outcome of future hands.

The experts’ argument can be boiled down to a simple statement: If you are a gambler and consistently raise your bets after losses, hoping that fate will intervene and give you a winning streak to counter the losses, you will be doomed to lose.

This statement, when made by proponents of card counting, is considered a quid pro quo type of damning statement against any type of betting system other than card counting ever having any chance of winning at blackjack. These experts believe that it is impossible to win consistently over the long-term against any games of chance where the house has an edge over the player.

The expert argument then concludes with the reasoning that the only way that blackjack can be beaten is by learning to count cards.

The premise that the player’s negative expectancy must always catch up with him and cause him to lose is based on the player playing nonstop until infinity. Players don’t play that way. Our focus is on short-term play using the player’s options of leaving a table with winnings intact, or stopping play under certain circumstances.

Let’s assume that losing four bets in a row at blackjack is a sign that this particular table may be too tough for us to beat. We could opt to simply walk away and look for a different table. We may not chose to act the way our critics chose to portray us.

We may decide to quit rather than fight a decidedly negative trend.

On the other hand, after a couple of losing bets, we may decide to raise our wager using the reasonable expectation that most trends in blackjack are short lived, and raising our bet after a losing wager may be one of the smartest moves we can make if we want to win consistently.

One of my favorite examples refuting the experts’ claim that games with negative player expectancies can’t be overcome was given by Frank Barstow in Beat the Casino. He presented an example of using a simple arithmetic betting system to win at a game offering the opportunity to wager on even-money bets. He used craps for his example, but he just as easily could have used roulette, baccarat or even blackjack. However, using blackjack for a test of wagering on even-money bets is a little less clear because of the effect of doubling down and splitting pairs on the amount wagered.

Here’s the system. You will start wagering $1, betting only on the pass line at craps. After each bet, you will raise the next bet by $1 regardless of whether you have won or lost the previous bet. You will stop each game when you have a profit.

Barstow picked an extreme case to test this betting strategy. He found a sequence of craps decisions starting with only four pass line decisions in the first 27 decisions.

He had to continue wagering for some time, eventually investing almost $13,000 in wagers, with his bets reaching $160 before he won.

He concludes with the observation that in a trial of 500 or more decisions, it would be virtually impossible to lose using this progression. I wouldn’t go so far as to state that it would be virtually impossible to lose, as even this progression could run into the house limits on the maximum size bet allowed, and therefore, not be allowed to continue.

The point here is that a progression can be used to over-come games with negative expectancies and win on a consistent basis.

There are other strategies with better risk-reward ratios than this “foolproof system.” Interestingly, this “increase each bet by $1” system was being sold some years ago as a “foolproof” way to win at Blackjack.