Blackjack Blackjack strategy: Flawed, or flawless?

Okay, I know that there is supposedly no strategy to beat casino blackjack short of card counting.

So I am certain this strategy has a flaw, but I can't think of what that flaw may be, so tell me the error in this.

Say that I want to win $100,000 at the casino blackjack table, after only starting with $100.

So bet it all each time. If you win 10 in a row, you can walk away with $102,400.

Here's my reasoning, You have a 49% chance of winning a hand, where the house edge is 51%

Ergo, you have a mere 4.9% chance of winning ten hands in a row.

Rounded up. you should win 10 hands in a row once every 20 tries.

So I go into a casino tonight with $100, and bet it all each win. 95% chance I leave the building down $100 bucks.

But then I return tomarrow. And the next day, and the next day, until I win 10 in a row, then I cash out.

I'll then have, on average, spent about $2000 to get at that $102.400 win.

Sure I might have "lost" a lot more when I bet it all after a 2-3 hand winning streak and then lose, but my bank statement will still show that I'm only down a $100 ATM withdrawal for the day.

Is there an error in my math?

 

Table limits is the problem on your theory if successful.

 

You also get the numbers wrong, you only win 47% of non pushed hands. Edge is about .5% But what you are missing is all the hands where you have to split or double. Blackjack is the worst game to try to win on a progression. Try non commission bacarrat.

 

I think that 10 wins in a row would lead to (49%)^10 = .08% (approx) chance happening - roughly 1 in 1250 tries.

so 1250*$100 = $125000 for the $102,400 you wanted. Of course, your streak might happen well before 1250 tries this so it's worth a shot.

 

I am not sure I have ever won ten decisions in a row. Pretty sure I've lost ten, but win ten? Not at all sure.
I've a friend who used to let his wins ride three times. $10-$20-$40-$80. When he won, he'd slip $100 in his pocket and start over. He said it was a winning strategy. Pretty sure math disagreed.

 

Suddenly in a morning I found myself at a six-deck blackjack table which was just an average kind of game, with the dealer standing on all 17s, double downs allowed on any first two cards, including after splitting pairs.

 

Dealer stands on all 17 is a good rule. Used to be that was the norm, now if you find stand 17, it's a little extra bonus. But what you didn't mention, the single thing that is really going to determine if you were playing an average game or a crappy game is "what did blackjack pay 3/2 or 6/5?

I have! Shadroch, you probably heard this story because it occurred 5 years ago when we were both at Ken's site, but I will give a brief recap for those that haven't heard it. I called it the perfect shoe, but that is misleading because I didn't win every round. I lost a few rounds early in the shoe with my minimum and smaller bets out. But by the time the count got to where I was placing my max bet, which was pretty early on in the shoe, I did not lose a round. In probably close to 40 rounds playing heads up with the dealer, with my max bet, I had one hand that I pushed and one hand that I split and won one, lost one (push scenario). Every other round I won, including a number of double downs. Oddly enough I didn't receive a backjack with all those max bet high counts. Turns out the win for this 20 minute shoe was about 1/3 of my years total.

And another interesting thing to come from this event, One of the guys working the pit and I became good friends. I have him over to the house several times a year whenever I have any sort of get-together with friends...because he is a good friend now. And we have an understanding...I don't play blackjack at his location when he is working.