For this to be remotely possible, was he playing $100,000 hands?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354272)

Scott Segrin

@scottsegrin

If you sat at a $10,000 limit table, you'd have to win 140 more hands than you lose to come out that far ahead. Try that sometime and let me know how it works out.

12:53 PM · Oct 16, 2025

·

12.9K

Views

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354275)

***

Q: Let's say a person is playing blackjack mathematically optimally, without card counting, at $10k a hand. He has $3 million and resolves to continue playing until he is up to $4.5m. What are the odds he loses all his money, and what are the odds he leaves with $4.5m?

A: The problem can be modeled as a gambler's ruin scenario with absorbing barriers at bankroll levels of $0 and $4.5 million, starting at $3 million, and a fixed bet size of $10,000 per hand (i.e., 0 units, 450 units, and 300 units, respectively). However, because basic strategy in blackjack involves variable effective bet sizes due to doubling down and splitting pairs, along with non-uniform payouts (e.g., 3:2 for blackjack), a simple biased random walk on ±1 unit does not fully capture the dynamics. Instead, a diffusion approximation using Brownian motion with negative drift is appropriate for large bankrolls and many hands, as it accounts for the expected value (house edge) and variance per hand under optimal play.

Typical parameters under basic strategy in U.S. casinos are a house edge of approximately 0.5% (expected value μ = -0.005 per unit bet) and variance of approximately 1.3 per hand. The probability u of reaching the upper barrier (450 units) before the lower barrier (0 units), starting from x = 300 units, is given by:

u = \frac{e^{\gamma x} - 1}{e^{\gamma \cdot 450} - 1}

where \gamma = \frac{-2\mu}{\sigma^2} = \frac{2 \times 0.005}{1.3} \approx 0.007692.

Computing the values:

- \gamma x \approx 2.3077, so e^{\gamma x} \approx 10.052

- \gamma \cdot 450 \approx 3.4615, so e^{\gamma \cdot 450} \approx 31.905

Thus, u \approx \frac{10.052 - 1}{31.905 - 1} \approx 0.293 (29.3%).

The probability of reaching $4.5 million is therefore approximately 29.3%, and the probability of losing all money (going broke) is approximately 70.7%. These values assume standard rules yielding a ~0.5% house edge; more player-friendly rules (e.g., ~0.3% house edge) would increase the success probability to ~44%, while worse rules (~0.6%) would decrease it to ~24%.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354491)

Short answer: on the order of tens of thousands of hands.

[...]

So roughly 33,600 hands until you either go broke or reach $4.5m.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354509)

and in any case we're talking about gambling probabilities, not expected outcome. on average the guy will make negative money. it's like you're saying it would take an average of X hours of a person to either win or lose a gambler's ruin.

it's like pointing out that a person would have to play the slots for an average of 8 hours to win a 1:1000 jackpot to argue against the possibility someone wins it after playing 15min. which would still happen 1 out of every 32 times. not exactly an uncommon occurrence!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354544)

can you show your math here?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354563)

the jackpot odds don't matter aside from how frequently he must have to play during those 8 hours. i just pulled them out of my ass, but to do something 1000 times in 8 hours you'd have to do it about every 30 seconds. which is pretty slow for slots, your average slot player would hit a 1:1000 jackpot far faster than 8 hours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354575)

Q: Let's say a slot machine played at average speed will pay out of a jackpot every eight hours. What are the odds a player will win the jackpot in 15 minutes?

A: The occurrence of a jackpot can be modeled as a Poisson process, where the average rate of jackpots is 1 every 8 hours (λ = 1/8 jackpots per hour). The probability of at least one jackpot occurring within t = 15 minutes (0.25 hours) is given by 1 - e^{-λ t} = 1 - e^{-(1/8) \times 0.25} = 1 - e^{-1/32}.

To compute this value:

- First, calculate 1/32 = 0.03125.

- Then, e^{-0.03125} ≈ 0.969233 (using the exponential function).

- Subtract from 1: 1 - 0.969233 = 0.030767.

Thus, the probability is approximately 3.08%.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354624)

the issue here is that candy ride thinks it's mathematically impossible to win $1.4m at $10k a hand but that it is plausible at $100k a hand. not because of the amount of time it would take to play, but because of probability. because he's very stupid.

Date: October 16th, 2025 7:05 PM

Author: Candy Ride

https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1978906461150298291?t=xjIGj7e14njoa2TXA5tNgA&s=19

For this to be remotely possible, was he playing $100,000 hands?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354272)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354613)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354872)

A money launderer can only launder money if they win back at least as much money as they brought into the casino. This requires a gambling strategy that's effectively guaranteed to pay out.

The most cost effective strategy is to bet a Fibonacci sequence, and expect to lose a LOT before you win. Each time you lose, you bet the next number in the Fibonacci sequence, and you just keep doing that until your number comes up. The beauty of this strategy is that you only have to win ONCE to win back all your money and then some.

The downside is that you have to be prepared to lose a LOT of money along the way. Each time you bet another number in the sequence, you are betting exponentially larger amounts. You might be $1mm in the hole but you still gotta bet the next number in the sequence. And the number after that.

This is why table limits exist. To stop people from running the Fibonacci sequence before their chance of winning back all their money crosses 50%. If a dood is scooping millions out of the casino, something ain't workin right at that casino.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354479)

2) he confuses the martingale system of doubling your bet after every loss with the Fibonacci sequence. or, more likely, he thinks by calling any sequence Fibonacci is sounds smarter.

3) some how he slots money laundering into this at the beginning but completely forgets about it by the end. the casino doesn't have an interest in winning more than they lose to prevent money laundering, it's because if they lose more than they win it's a loss lmao.

i love nsam because the layers of his schizo retardation are literally awesome. i'm in awe of how densely he packs so much in a single poast.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354597)

"he didn't do the $2 bet, something's up"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354934)

how is the money ineffectively laundered if he loses or breaks even? if he cashes out at $100,001, how is the $1 he won effectively laundered but the $100k he started with not?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354565)

Back when the say the MOB owned the casinos you could have a GOOMBAH come in and lose 25k of drug money are whatever that would then be legit profit fort the casino, but I guess NSAM thinks if you change a 20 into 5s that works too!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354595)

somehow he thinks that if you have $100k of dirty money anything you win is clean but somehow the principal remains dirty.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354605)

i'll spot you

fat fuck

good luck

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354672)

who casinos knew as a risker

he'd hit and he'd stay

at high limits all day

and win by much more than a whisker

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49354944)

It figures.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49355129)

Encore Macau has 70k limit blackjack tables, would never find that in the US

https://www.tiktok.com/@casinocompwallet/video/7297370333294742826

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5787019&forum_id=2#49355424)