markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark T Vandewettering) (11/23/89)
A digression has appeared here on a topic of relative interest to myself. I avoided responding to it originally, but will do now. Any followups should go to alt.gambling, where such discussions are common. I have added it to the newsgroup line, please delete comp.object. >Granted. But lets look at some figures: > pay_per_hour = rate_of_win * size_of_bet * bets_per_hour >Assuming: > rate_of_win = .005 (.5%) > size_of_bet = $500 (house limit) > bets_per_hr = 20 (3 minutes per hand) >gives a pay_per_hour of $50/hr. Hardly raking it in for such exhausting work. >There are also serious problems because this is an *average*, which means >there are possibilities of going $10 grand in the hole pretty easilly. >You're gonna need a large bankroll and a lot of guts to stick it out till >the odds have a chance to work for you. There is no table in Vegas that takes 3 minutes to play a single blackjack hand. They should be able to sustain a much higher rate. You also have neglected the possibility of a single player playing multiple hands. Other ways to extract maximum profit in minimum time is to vary betsize, although doing so is a pretty sure fire way to tip of the house that you are counting. >All in all, I'd have to agree that blackjack is not viable. Gambling in >Vegas is strictly for 1) suckers and 2) entertainment. If you are gambling, you are a sucker. If you have an edge (and in blackjack, it might be possible depending on the rules in effect at a particular casino) then its just cashing a paycheck. mark