In case you didn't believe in negative variance...
But, positive variance occurs as well and we must take advantage of it when it does.
You lost 160 times your basic bet.
Was it variance, poor decisions on your part, or just a bad counting system ( aka SPEED ) ?
Bullshit us all you want, but don't lie to the man in the mirror !
Quote: BuzzardWas it variance, poor decisions on your part, or just a bad counting system ( aka SPEED ) ?
I resemble that remark!
dealer dealt you 7/7. Then between your splits and dealers hand there were 15 cards dealt. I can only assume the cut card came out before that hand was finished.
I seriously doubt +15 was accurate, considering these 15 cards per your own thread.
A2346777799101010.
But only you really know !
I will admit that not 100% of the action was rational, and that part of these losses are from going on tilt. Damn you, mirror...
This time around, the most valuable lesson learned is about playing conditions. Over the last month, I've had really good runs primarily because I was playing on weekdays -- and so, 1v1 tables were around. $25, even $50 base bet (TC >= 0) vs the dealer gives you way more hands per shoe, and gives you way more opportunity to exploit positive count situations. Sat/Sun = completely packed tables, even the no mid-shoe entry $50 or $100 min bet tables...
So if you want to gamble, go with a group and have a good time at the baby tables. If you want to make money, go at 6am on Wednesdays or something...
Personally my preferred time is from 10 am to 6 pm. I usually only play with 1 or 2 other people and it's just busy enough that most people aren't looking at me.
Quote: arcticfunThis weekend sucked balls. Playing 50-250, and just kept getting hammered. The most successful runs were 1v1 against the dealer. Packed tables killed me. Net -8000. This makes me sad, but it does serve to illustrate that downward swings can be nasty.
Am I reading this correctly that your spread is only 1 to 5? All else being equal, that's a weak spread.
I qualified that with "all else being equal" because a lot depends on the decks, rules, etc. But even with great rules at a 2D game, that's still a weak spread unless you are aggressively wonging in and out.
Quote: Lemieux66Min should be like 10-15. 250 max is fine I think.
Well yeah, but the original spread was weak. For double deck 25-200 is fine. Or 15-120 or 50-400. At least I hope it was double deck for an original 1-5 spread.
Quote: geoffWell yeah, but the original spread was weak. For double deck 25-200 is fine. Or 15-120 or 50-400. At least I hope it was double deck for an original 1-5 spread.Quote: Lemieux66Min should be like 10-15. 250 max is fine I think.
We don't know anything about this guy's bankroll or the specific game he's playing (unless y'all remember something from an old post which I don't). So it's hard to speculate. But in general, 1-5 is NOT going to get the money, with today's crappy rules. Again, unless he's aggressively wonging in. If he's coming in with that $50 bet at a +2 TC and then maxing out at $250 then that's a great spread, I think. Not running the numbers.
He did blame his losses on variance !
Quote: BuzzardHe did say it was dealt from a shoe, He did not convert to a True Count, and was not wonging.
He did blame his losses on variance !
Course it was variance. That's the only right true way to explain such a phenomenon it 'tis.
Quote: geoffCourse it was variance. That's the only right true way to explain such a phenomenon it 'tis.
In fairness, his EV might be slightly positive (there are definitely good DD games you can beat with 1-5) or probably around even so -8000 is certainly a bad result with a $250 max bet.
Even if he is not counting, and instead varying his bets randomly between $50 and $250, that is a bad result.
But, hey, that happens. The real questions are whether his previous wins are also due to variance. Probably, they are (or at least, they mostly are), which is why he thinks that he is beating this game even though he is probably not (and, if he is, probably not by much)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIn fairness, his EV might be slightly positive (there are definitely good DD games you can beat with 1-5) or probably around even so -8000 is certainly a bad result with a $250 max bet.
Even if he is not counting, and instead varying his bets randomly between $50 and $250, that is a bad result.
But, hey, that happens. The real questions are whether his previous wins are also due to variance. Probably, they are (or at least, they mostly are), which is why he thinks that he is beating this game even though he is probably not (and, if he is, probably not by much)
I've been thinking over the playing style, the multiple winning sessions, and the losing streak and I have to say that I probably agree with Ax. It's difficult, though, to think that you're getting positive variance when you correctly play index plays to your benefits ("you're taking insurance? AGAIN?? what's wrong with you?!" or "I will stay on this hard 16 vs 10!") and having them work out 2 out of 3 times, winning big bets and losing small ones, etc... That's what's "supposed" to happen, right?
Like I wrote previously, there was some true gambling involved (ie, irrational betting). That was the tilt effect and it's clear that I don't know how to deal with it yet. But I'm not a complete noob either -- the number of hands and even entire shoes with straight dealer 10 up-cards was pretty phenomenally depressing.
As for the aggressiveness of the bet spread - I agree that it's smaller than it probably should be. But there were other advantages to playing $25 or $50 min (NMSE, more available tables to play 1v1, etc.) And as for my bankroll ... well, I took a big hit, but I'm not wiped out. But the hit is big enough that I can't play $50 anymore. Unless I take out some 0% loan somewhere [/sarcasm]
squares are never negative yo.
Quote: arcticfunI've been thinking over the playing style, the multiple winning sessions, and the losing streak and I have to say that I probably agree with Ax. It's difficult, though, to think that you're getting positive variance when you correctly play index plays to your benefits ("you're taking insurance? AGAIN?? what's wrong with you?!" or "I will stay on this hard 16 vs 10!") and having them work out 2 out of 3 times, winning big bets and losing small ones, etc... That's what's "supposed" to happen, right?
haha, exactly.
The point is that if your EV is $20 per hour and you win $3000 in a night, that result is also mostly due to variance. You need to play a long time before your results start to become distinguishable from a non-counter.
It's human nature to blame your good results on skill and your bad results on luck, but, realistically, when your edge is 1% all your results are mostly due to luck and only slightly due to skill. The key is that over a long (long, long) time all that luck all tends to even out and the skill starts to show through the noise.
Quote: AxiomOfChoicehaha, exactly.
The point is that if your EV is $20 per hour and you win $3000 in a night, that result is also mostly due to variance. You need to play a long time before your results start to become distinguishable from a non-counter.
It's human nature to blame your good results on skill and your bad results on luck, but, realistically, when your edge is 1% all your results are mostly due to luck and only slightly due to skill. The key is that over a long (long, long) time all that luck all tends to even out and the skill starts to show through the noise.
I think your first sentence is true, but not the rest. Before I counted, I very rarely had a winning session. Now it's uncommon to have a losing session. I don't think this is due to luck.
Quote: chrisrnegative variance...
squares are never negative yo.
Unless the variance is an imaginary number.
Quote: SonuvabishI think your first sentence is true, but not the rest. Before I counted, I very rarely had a winning session. Now it's uncommon to have a losing session. I don't think this is due to luck.
I'm sorry to say that, unless your sessions are very very long, it is. Your counting edge is slim, and individual session results are based on luck. Look at a session distribution graph for say 100 hands. An alarming amount is in negative territory.
Quote: WizardUnless the variance is an imaginary number.
Wouldn't that be standard deviation?
Quote: SonuvabishI think your first sentence is true, but not the rest. Before I counted, I very rarely had a winning session. Now it's uncommon to have a losing session. I don't think this is due to luck.
Wow. WOW. Really? It's uncommon for you to have a losing session? What do you mean by "uncommon?" How long have you been counting? How much do you play?
Losing sessions are common for card counting. Losing weeks are not uncommon. Losing months happen to the best players (just ask kewlj). As has been stated ad nauseam, the edge is tiny. Your statement just smacks of inexperience.
Quote: SonuvabishI think your first sentence is true, but not the rest. Before I counted, I very rarely had a winning session. Now it's uncommon to have a losing session. I don't think this is due to luck.
I think it's because you have a tendency to play to get even now, as you've mentioned in another thread. That is a bad habit. You are also willing to put in very long sessions to get back to even. If you played a fixed amount of time instead you would have a lot more losing sessions.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think it's because you have a tendency to play to get even now, as you've mentioned in another thread. That is a bad habit. You are also willing to put in very long sessions to get back to even. If you played a fixed amount of time instead you would have a lot more losing sessions.
I couldn't agree with you more, Axiom, this is a bad habit! Early in my career when I was based on the east coast, didn't have a large rotation of stores to play and didn't play the short session, hit and run style that I now do, I had quit a number of these marathon session, where you dig a deep hole and then dig out back to even after several (or many) hours. It actually leaves you feeling pretty good. You have irrational thoughts, like "under the circumstances it was almost like winning". lol
But the truth is, these types of sessions are bad on a number of levels. First, you have missed an opportunity to book a loss. I never WANT to lose, but when I do experience a losing session, whether playing blackjack, or video poker, I want to take full advantage of it. Get the maximum benefit from it. In blackjack, that goes a long way towards improving longevity, especially if I have not played too long and provided much information to evaluate me by. In both cases, it will improve your mail offer.
Secondly, in blackjack, if you are playing with an advantage, it is all about longevity. You achieve longevity by not providing enough information from any one session for anyone to make a determination about your play. At the very least, you want to force them to string together several sessions to see any patterns.
Quote: SonuvabishI think your first sentence is true, but not the rest. Before I counted, I very rarely had a winning session. Now it's uncommon to have a losing session. I don't think this is due to luck.
I often hear people say, it seems that non counters (playing at say a 1% disadvantage), seem to have their results be much much more to the bad, then counters playing with a 1% advantage see results to the good. I guess it's because non counters often have their session bankrolls wiped out due to unlucky variance, and they aren't able to stick around long enough to get back up to the -1%
Quote: michael99000I often hear people say, it seems that non counters (playing at say a 1% disadvantage), seem to have their results be much much more to the bad, then counters playing with a 1% advantage see results to the good. I guess it's because non counters often have their session bankrolls wiped out due to unlucky variance, and they aren't able to stick around long enough to get back up to the -1%
This is closer to how I see it. The typical player, relying on luck, has a 1.5-2% disadvantage. They typical counter, relying on skill, is playing with a 1-1.5% advantage. That's a 3% swing. Now, look at the hold on blackjack. What is it, about 14%? That's really the number the lucky player has to overcome, not the meager house edge. Reversing it, the house has to get pretty lucky to beat the counter. Definitely more than 1% lucky. I think most people are thinking 1%. That's just wrong. First of all, it's closer to a 3% difference between luck and skill. Then you got that money cycling through over and over again, and it adds up. Before being an AP, I had this friend who thought he was good at poker. I told him it was mostly luck. This infuriated him. Although he wasn't really that good, I think he was right.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think it's because you have a tendency to play to get even now, as you've mentioned in another thread. That is a bad habit. You are also willing to put in very long sessions to get back to even. If you played a fixed amount of time instead you would have a lot more losing sessions.
I think it's partially due to fighting to get to even. But the long sessions would happen regardless, because I have a job and I don't live very close to any casinos. It's not really a habit that I can break, unless I want to make counting not worthwhile. So it is easier this way. I think you are correct, if I played for an exact time each session I would lose more sessions. But my point of view remains unchanged; I wouldn't be able to get even so often if it was all luck, I'd just lose more.
Quote: AcesAndEightsQuote: SonuvabishI think your first sentence is true, but not the rest. Before I counted, I very rarely had a winning session. Now it's uncommon to have a losing session. I don't think this is due to luck.
Wow. WOW. Really? It's uncommon for you to have a losing session? What do you mean by "uncommon?" How long have you been counting? How much do you play?
Losing sessions are common for card counting. Losing weeks are not uncommon. Losing months happen to the best players (just ask kewlj). As has been stated ad nauseam, the edge is tiny. Your statement just smacks of inexperience.
This is ridiculous. I possibly have played more hours than you. I most definitely use a more sophisticated count. I count 8-12 hours per week. Each is a session.
Uncommon means I have lost 1 session this year, starting Jan. 1. Typically, I win over 70% of my sessions. By uncommon, I did not mean rare, as I did use the word rare in the same sentence. I merely meant I win most of the time.
I have gone for a couple months operating at a net loss in the past. I would consider this to be rare. Going up and down and operating at a break-even pace is more common.
Quote: SonuvabishQuote: AcesAndEightsQuote: SonuvabishI think your first sentence is true, but not the rest. Before I counted, I very rarely had a winning session. Now it's uncommon to have a losing session. I don't think this is due to luck.
Wow. WOW. Really? It's uncommon for you to have a losing session? What do you mean by "uncommon?" How long have you been counting? How much do you play?
Losing sessions are common for card counting. Losing weeks are not uncommon. Losing months happen to the best players (just ask kewlj). As has been stated ad nauseam, the edge is tiny. Your statement just smacks of inexperience.
This is ridiculous. I possibly have played more hours than you. I most definitely use a more sophisticated count. I count 8-12 hours per week. Each is a session.
Uncommon means I have lost 1 session this year, starting Jan. 1. Typically, I win over 70% of my sessions. By uncommon, I did not mean rare, as I did use the word rare in the same sentence. I merely meant I win most of the time.
I have gone for a couple months operating at a net loss in the past. I would consider this to be rare. Going up and down and operating at a break-even pace is more common.
So, we're arguing about semantics then. Sorry I was so abrasive.
If your session is 8-12 hours, then with your definition of "uncommon," I can see how this all fits together.
floors covered in sawdust. Nails were sold by the pound
out of wooden barrels. Chain and rope came up thru a
hole in the floor from the basement. It smelled good
in there, it was a very cool place.
Quote: AcesAndEightsQuote: SonuvabishQuote: AcesAndEightsQuote: SonuvabishI think your first sentence is true, but not the rest. Before I counted, I very rarely had a winning session. Now it's uncommon to have a losing session. I don't think this is due to luck.
Wow. WOW. Really? It's uncommon for you to have a losing session? What do you mean by "uncommon?" How long have you been counting? How much do you play?
Losing sessions are common for card counting. Losing weeks are not uncommon. Losing months happen to the best players (just ask kewlj). As has been stated ad nauseam, the edge is tiny. Your statement just smacks of inexperience.
This is ridiculous. I possibly have played more hours than you. I most definitely use a more sophisticated count. I count 8-12 hours per week. Each is a session.
Uncommon means I have lost 1 session this year, starting Jan. 1. Typically, I win over 70% of my sessions. By uncommon, I did not mean rare, as I did use the word rare in the same sentence. I merely meant I win most of the time.
I have gone for a couple months operating at a net loss in the past. I would consider this to be rare. Going up and down and operating at a break-even pace is more common.
So, we're arguing about semantics then. Sorry I was so abrasive.
If your session is 8-12 hours, then with your definition of "uncommon," I can see how this all fits together.
No prob. I should have been clearer, my bad too. My whole point is that winning over 70% of the time as opposed to my ploppy session win rate of about 10%, is not attributable mostly to luck. Although, maybe luck plays a role in the numbers being further apart than they should. And as Axiom pointed out my fighting to break even--we can make our own luck.
Quote: Sonuvabish
No prob. I should have been clearer, my bad too. My whole point is that winning over 70% of the time as opposed to my ploppy session win rate of about 10%, is not attributable mostly to luck. Although, maybe luck plays a role in the numbers being further apart than they should. And as Axiom pointed out my fighting to break even--we can make our own luck.
I think you are assigning too much weight to this number of winning 70% of the time. I mean are you talking 7 out of 10 times or are you talking 700 out of 1000 times. In the short term anything can happen (7 out of 10), but you are not going to achieve those kind of long term results from card counting under normal distribution. What I mean by that is you can change the distribution to show that kind of results if it is important for you to say you won 70% or 80% of the time. What will happen is you will end up with many small wins, and a few losses which average much larger than your wins.
You can even achieve this with the martingale system if you want. Bet 1 unit, double after each loss. Quit anytime you are 1 unit ahead. You will end up with 90% winning sessions, but the 10% losing will be many times the 1 unit average win. Is all you are doing is changing the distribution of wins and loss, not creating more wins.
It is the same principal with card counting. Card counting does change the advantage from house to player, but only ever so slightly. With such a slim margin, over time, you may have more winning sessions than losing, but that too will be slim. A good card counter, and I consider myself a good card counter, will probably win 50-some % of his sessions.
You were playing at the M with me weren't you! haha. jk. Story seems so similar.
Quote: kewljI think you are assigning too much weight to this number of winning 70% of the time. I mean are you talking 7 out of 10 times or are you talking 700 out of 1000 times. In the short term anything can happen (7 out of 10), but you are not going to achieve those kind of long term results from card counting under normal distribution. What I mean by that is you can change the distribution to show that kind of results if it is important for you to say you won 70% or 80% of the time. What will happen is you will end up with many small wins, and a few losses which average much larger than your wins.
You can even achieve this with the martingale system if you want. Bet 1 unit, double after each loss. Quit anytime you are 1 unit ahead. You will end up with 90% winning sessions, but the 10% losing will be many times the 1 unit average win. Is all you are doing is changing the distribution of wins and loss, not creating more wins.
It is the same principal with card counting. Card counting does change the advantage from house to player, but only ever so slightly. With such a slim margin, over time, you may have more winning sessions than losing, but that too will be slim. A good card counter, and I consider myself a good card counter, will probably win 50-some % of his sessions.
I'm talking about 7 out of 10 as an average. Do you think I only played 10 times? Or 100? I've lost 5 of 6. I've won 13 of 14. In fact, normal distribution says you will win 70% If my estimation of being a little over is correct, I should decrease only slightly. A short trip of set duration, which Axiom suggests would decrease my winning percentage, normal results would be over 55%.
My methodology does not involve sustaining large losses or increased risk to obtain more wins. My top two wins are higher than my largest loss. My top 8 wins are larger than my 2nd largest loss. There have been times when my largest loss exceed my largest win. My count system now exceeds hi-opt 2 in performance, and I expect results.
Card counting is a vast improvement when compared to the average player. I think the tendency is to compare it to a break-even game with a negligible house edge. It also may be typical to compare it to a bad game. I've counted with a 2.5% advantage before. That's not typical, but it happens. I used to be an awful player, probably a 2.5% disadvantage. That's a 5% swing for that game. Casino takes a 14% hold off of a 1.5% actual edge. The advantage is slim, but it is not so ultra slim as to make the whole thing pointless. If it were, it would be pointless for casinos to operate tables.
Quote: michael99000I did not realize that card counters walk away from a table with a profit an average of 7 out of every 10 times.
It depends on how long they stay at the table, and on their proficiency. The type of play I do I'm going to win more. The type these guys are talking about it's going to be less than 6 out of 10, but they may play three tables for every one I play.
Quote: michael99000I did not realize that card counters walk away from a table with a profit an average of 7 out of every 10 times.
There are two big factors here:
1. If you have an edge, the longer the sessions, the larger the winning percentage. A 10-hour session where you win $500 is a "100% win rate", while 5 2-hour sessions where you have 2 losses and 3 wins (all of $500) is a "60% win rate) but they are identical -- $500 won in 10 hours.
2. If you will play longer sessions when losing than when winning (to try to get even) that will skew the win percentage as well, even though it won't change the hourly rate.
In the end, percentage of winning sessions are irrelevant. Go to the baccarat forums and look at those degenerates talk about how many of their sessions they win, even though they are all big lifetime losers. All that matters is money won per hour.
as to, how he is having so many winning sessions unless he is purposely stopping once he has a winning session.
Where are you playing at Sob?
Here's the question @Sob: what do you do when you're down ~$500 in a $15-150 spread game, after you've been sitting there for, let's say, 5 hours?
Quote: arcticfunI do have to say that I too am confused by what Sob is saying. I mean, tip of the hat to you if you are performing as well as you say, but the mathematical statements you are making are not correct. Run any script with a variable vector of probabilities for (win,loss,tie) and adjust your bet according to those probabilities, define a "session" as however many games you want (~5000?) and you will get losing sessions more than 30% of the time. Even if you give yourself an unrealistic 5% edge during the 1% or so of the time that a shoe really is that good.
Here's the question @Sob: what do you do when you're down ~$500 in a $15-150 spread game, after you've been sitting there for, let's say, 5 hours?
His sessions are not constant length.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHis sessions are not constant length.
Correct. This statement is the missing piece that is probably throwing everyone off.
Arctic-- There's nothing wrong with my math, other than I gave a ballpark rather than a precise calculation of my wins. I am not sure how you calculate that losing sessions occur more than 30% of the time, regardless of session length or number of sessions. What if I only play one session and it lasts 1,000,000 years? 100% of the time, I am going to be a winner. 70% of the time, weekend sessions are winners. I have seen data graphed by sim experts. I think you are talking about short trips. Maybe I am mixing up the terms trips and sessions and confusing you.
To answer the above question, if I am down 500 and I've been playing for 5 hours, I would most likely continue to play. I would not employ a 15-150 spread though. It would be larger, and my min bet would be lower. After 5 hours, it could very well be 2 AM. The tables are slowing down. Why would I want to leave? If after five hours it is now at it's absolute peak business hour, I am much more likely to call it a loss and leave. If I lost 1000, I am much more likely to leave. If I have a headache, I am much more likely to leave. If it's not the peak time, if I am not in danger of making a new loss landmark, and I am feeling good, then I don't just up and leave after a mere 5 hours when I'm down. If I won 1500 after 5 hours, I probably would leave.
Quote: SonuvabishSpeak of the devil, I just took my biggest loss to date. Not happy, but my utter lack of despair makes me feel like a pro. I lost all the money I won in March. Nothing more.
Ouch. Sorry to hear that.
Quote: SonuvabishSpeak of the devil, I just took my biggest loss to date. Not happy, but my utter lack of despair makes me feel like a pro. I lost all the money I won in March. Nothing more.
Argh sorry dude -- but in the infamous words of Arnold Snyder: don't worry, you'll get it back. Good to hear that emotions don't screw with your head post-facto...
If a person playing basic strategy with a -.05% edge <b>flat betted only</b>, how often would he expect to be either up or down 50 units, 75 units, or 100units?
If the math is much easier, how often would a player (flat betting) with 0% edge be either up or down 50 units, 75 units, or 100units?
Thank you
