The 20% doesn't make 10,200 losing hands into winners. It just lessens the magnitude of losing hands. If you plotted a curve of likely outcomes after 100,000 hands, you'd have the center below 0. With the 20% sweetener, the distribution would just shift right a bit. However, the probability of losing outcome after 100,000 hands would still be quite high.
I'm more interested in knowing how he was able to get this advantage on the casinos without raising their alarms. They have staff with years of training to spot card counters, all kinds of security etc
Actually my math is correct. I dont know if that is what was happening, but the math is correct. How do you know if he martingales? Is there a story about his strat?
I think the reason why they were going to give him a 20% discount on his losses was to get him back into the casinos so they could probably get a better idea of how he won such a massive amount of money. Aside from that I think its pretty unfair that the casinos were turning him away recently because of his massive winnings. The casinos are constantly winning and when one or 2 people take the casino for a ride they quickly ban them.
Number of Decks House Advantage Single deck 0.17% Double deck 0.46% Four decks 0.60% Six decks 0.64% Eight decks 0.66% The following table illustrates the mathematical effect on the house edge of the number of decks, by considering games with various deck counts under the following ruleset: double after split allowed, resplit to four hands allowed, no hitting split aces, no surrender, double on any two cards, original bets only lost on dealer blackjack, dealer hits soft 17, and cut-card used. The increase in house edge per unit increase in the number of decks is most dramatic when comparing the single deck game to the two-deck game, and becomes progressively smaller as more decks are added. WIKI
Player walks into the casino with 100 large, wins 49k, loses 51k, gets 10.2k refunded. He leaves with 108.2k. Some assumptions, of course. Perfect standard play, same size wager every hand. But not unreasonable. There must be other factors.
If he gets back 20% of his losses, then yes it does. He bets a dollar, loses a dollar, and gets back 20 cents. When he wins a dollar he keeps it.
Ok, I see what you and TGregg are saying. I assumed it was a 20% back on losses after a whole session or "stay" at the casino. On each hand? that would be crazy.
it appears that 200K compensation for the loss is a huge advantage. for a given set of conditions (bankroll, stake size, house rules) there must exist optimal PL(s) where the player with this insurance should stop the game to maximize his chances. Prof. Micky "Shortie" Rosa Out