# Let's say....

#### gfkostas

##### Ex-Bonus Whore
I have 200 and i want to reach 300 with one bet or I die. Isn't the best bet 2 dozens on roulette? That way I have 64% of staying alive . Sure the house edge is 2.7% but that is irrelevant here isn't it?

I asked Hoffman and he said two \$90.00/spins on Tally-Ho.

I asked Hoffman and he said two \$90.00/spins on Tally-Ho.

Heh hee!

What about covering the mid numbers on Sic Bo maybe? Dunno... Probably something to do with Craps thinking about it... Ah, it's one bet... Hmmm... Roulette. Yes.

I have 200 and i want to reach 300 with one bet or I die. Isn't the best bet 2 dozens on roulette? That way I have 64% of staying alive . Sure the house edge is 2.7% but that is irrelevant here isn't it?
How about one blackjack bet of \$100? If you win, you stop. If you lose, you bet \$100 again, and see if you can get up to \$300. (If your first hand is one you should split/double, well, that's up to you)

It's about a 66.52% chance of hitting your target, and it's a lower house edge than roulette (not that it matters much on one bet)

Note that I would never condone such play unless you were exploiting a bonus.

are sports bets included?

Find a player at a craps table whos betting enough on the passline to allow a \$200 odds bet but who's not taking odds. Then when the point is 5 or 9 ask politely if you can take his odds bet.

Give him a long story about if you don't make the \$100 your aunt will die due to you not being able to afford to pay for her life saving operation, and 9/10 times I think the player would let you make the bet.

edit: I mean lay odds on the point of 5 or 9. doh!!!

I have 200 and i want to reach 300 with one bet or I die. Isn't the best bet 2 dozens on roulette? That way I have 64% of staying alive . Sure the house edge is 2.7% but that is irrelevant here isn't it?
If you are only allowed a single bet (or you die), then roulette is the way to go. The house edge certainly is not irrelevant. With no house edge (no zero roulette) you have a 24/36 = ~67% chance of survival. With single zero roulette, you have a 24/37 = ~65% chance of survival. With double zero roulette, you have a 24/38 = ~63% chance of survival.

If you are allowed multiple bets, then bj gives you a slightly greater chance of survival than roulette.

How about one blackjack bet of \$100? If you win, you stop. If you lose, you bet \$100 again, and see if you can get up to \$300. (If your first hand is one you should split/double, well, that's up to you)

It's about a 66.52% chance of hitting your target, and it's a lower house edge than roulette (not that it matters much on one bet)

Note that I would never condone such play unless you were exploiting a bonus.
The original question was about a single bet, and I cannot think of anything better than roulette for that.

If you are allowed more bets then the problem with blackjack is that you may go over your target as a result of splitting, doubling or a blackjack, and this inevitably reduces the probability or reaching your target. Where did the 66.52% come from? It seems too high. If you can find blackjack with very small house edge or even a player's edge then betting small at blackjack might work.

The best I have come up with so far is craps. If you bet \$100 on don't pass or don't come until you reach \$300 or bust, you will reach \$300 with probability 1826825/2779401=65.73%.

The best I have come up with so far is craps. If you bet \$100 on don't pass or don't come until you reach \$300 or bust, you will reach \$300 with probability 1826825/2779401=65.73%.

On what basis is craps better than roulette for my case?

Where did the 66.52% come from?
I plugged the parameters into here:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It's targeted towards card counters, so it's not perfect, but what the heck.
Target = 3
Starting bankroll = 2
Win Rate = -0.5 (to reflect house edge)

That gives you a risk of ruin figure. Flip that to see the odds of success. Actually, I just did it again and got 66.62.

As for the "problem" of winning more than the target amount, is that really a problem? What about ties?

On what basis is craps better than roulette for my case?
Lower house edge.

I plugged the parameters into here:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It's targeted towards card counters, so it's not perfect, but what the heck.
Target = 3
Starting bankroll = 2
Win Rate = -0.5 (to reflect house edge)

That gives you a risk of ruin figure. Flip that to see the odds of success. Actually, I just did it again and got 66.62.

As for the "problem" of winning more than the target amount, is that really a problem? What about ties?
I can guarantee you it is wrong. It may be based on an approximate formula which is not accurate enough for small numbers.

The probability of blackjack is at least 8/169=0.04734, so if you bet \$100, you will end up with a bankroll of \$350 with a probability of at least 0.04734.
Let the probability of ending up with at least \$300 be x, then the player's expectation is at least 0.04734*350+(x-0.04734)*300. This can be at most 200 if the game has a house edge, hence x is at most 0.6588, but this is an overestimate, since it does not take into account the house edge, that the player won't be able to follow perfect strategy if it calls for a double after a split or for resplitting, or that the player might end with more than \$300 in situations other than after getting a blackjack on the first hand.

The best I have come up with so far is craps. If you bet \$100 on don't pass or don't come until you reach \$300 or bust, you will reach \$300 with probability 1826825/2779401=65.73%.
Allowing multiple bets... I am getting 65.17% for craps, assuming a 1.36% house edge on the don't pass/come bets. This is slightly above the 64.86% for single-zero roulette.

I'm getting 65.50% for baccarat, assuming a 1.06% house edge on banker.

Blackjack may be higher than any of the above, depending on specific rules and bet size. For example, with a 0.09% house edge on MG classic BJ, house edge is not going to have a tremendous effect. One solution would be to select a smaller (don't care enough to determine optimal bet size) that is a divisor of both 200 and 300, then switch to baccarat on hands where you are one bet away from busting or reaching \$300.

The best I have come up with so far is craps. If you bet \$100 on don't pass or don't come until you reach \$300 or bust, you will reach \$300 with probability 1826825/2779401=65.73%.
I have to correct myself. I forgot about baccarat. If you bet on the player, then the probability of reaching \$300 is 65.75%, assuming 8 decks.

Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Baptism by Fire - success Betreels is finally giving it a go!
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K