Worst blackjack losing streak?
Thanks for the input
Quote: FlippyfishI just lost $8500 in 2 hours of play. My max bet is 2 hands of $300 ($600 total). That's a loss of about 15 max bet loss in 2 hours. Does this seem abnormal to anyone? Has anybody had worse losing streaks than this in such a short amount of time?
Thanks for the input
No and yes. You are not alone. It happens more often than you may think and I have had worse.
If your game is solid and nothing such as rules etc has changed, put it behind you and soldier on. It's just part of the game.
For every $600 big bet that you lost you would have $1,200 if you had won. You'd win $600 on the bet, and not lose your $600 wager. So if 7 $600 had won instead of lost you have $8,400-- you'd be about even.
I'm going back to this Indian casino. 6D, LS, DAS, DA2, $10 min, 78%Pen.
Quote: GreasyjohnI just lost $1,200 in 20 minutes playing $150 a hand. That's would be $7,200 over 2 hours. It was at an Indian casino where I wonged in.
That's not really the same thing. That's like saying I lost $100 in 15 seconds, so that's the same as me losing $48,000 in 2 hours.
Quote: FlippyfishI just lost $8500 in 2 hours of play. My max bet is 2 hands of $300 ($600 total). That's a loss of about 15 max bet loss in 2 hours. Does this seem abnormal to anyone? Has anybody had worse losing streaks than this in such a short amount of time?
Thanks for the input
My play partner lost 11k in 3-4 hours with a 25 to 2x250 spread.
He won 13k in around 50 hours prior to this with a slightly lesser spread.
These streaks aren't unreasonable at all. A lot of the pros suffer 1000 unit downswings, multi month losing streaks, even entire years of negative variance.
The only real way to tell how your play is doing is to track your statistics (hands played per session, EV of the session given the game rules/etc, spread used, etc). This way you can find your overall EV and you can find your overall Standard Deviations. After 10k hands or so you should start moving towards your EV. If you're 1SD out, it's plausible, if you're 4SD out by then, then either the game is rigged or you are not playing correctly. Knowing your numbers will tell you all you need to know.
Table Max was $1500 and he just kept ploppling 15 crisp $100 bills each bet and lost about 12 in a row with some brutal doubles.
Hope they at least comped him enough for a microwaved Sausage, Egg n Cheese sandwich upstairs!
It isn't pleasant, but it can happen. Usually the way it occurs is the count skyrockets early in a shoe and stays there, meaning you are placing max wager after max wager, but the big cards never emerge. They stay behind the cut card. :(
If you have one of those streaks where you seem to lose almost every hand, many because the dealer doesn't break, making all his break hands with multi-card hands and you throw in a couple of those hands where you split 3 times with a couple double downs, the loss grows quickly.
On a new shoe or session after (or during) such a streak, it is very common to want to get large bets out earlier than normal and win back that money, so it is VERY important not to be rattled by such a streak and be disciplined and not give in to temptation of chasing losses. This is human nature.
It is very difficult to go back to placing your minimum wager and waiting after having lost dozens of max bets. For this reason, even as a fairly experienced player who plays nearly every day, I take a break for at least the rest of the day to regroup. The tables will be there tomorrow or the day after. :)
Quote: kewlj...On a new shoe or session after (or during) such a streak, it is very common to want to get large bets out earlier than normal and win back that money, so it is VERY important not to be rattled by such a streak and be disciplined and not give in to temptation of chasing losses. This is human nature.
It is very difficult to go back to placing your minimum wager and waiting after having lost dozens of max bets. For this reason, even as a fairly experienced player who plays nearly every day, I take a break for at least the rest of the day to regroup. The tables will be there tomorrow or the day after. :)
I think we're all (at one point) a bit guilty of this... This is truly professional advice. You have to be a machine and try to not let the emotions of the game get to you. Easier said than done, but clearly some are capable =P.
Side question on this topic kewlj, have you ever caught yourself betting more aggressively/etc as mentioned above? Perhaps earlier in your career? Just curious... I've got to imagine even the pro's are quite capable of getting flustered (as I sure am), but do they ever let it accidentally spill in to their game?
Quote: RomesSide question on this topic kewlj, have you ever caught yourself betting more aggressively/etc as mentioned above? Perhaps earlier in your career? Just curious... I've got to imagine even the pro's are quite capable of getting flustered (as I sure am), but do they ever let it accidentally spill in to their game?
Nothing major immediately comes to mind, but I am sure such incidents did occur, especially earlier in my career. I really have taught myself to be quite disciplined over the years as I have seen so much, so many swings in each direction, that I know things will eventually go the other way.
This may seem contradictory to the disciplinary approach, but I do allow for more aggressive betting during winning periods. It's a very rare thing I call "the super max bet", which is 150% of max bet. The requirements are that the TC be pretty far above my usual max bet number of TC +4. Maybe TC +8 or so. It is also important that I be winning, so as to be 100% sure, I have enough funds on hand to not run out should I start to lose every round. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WORSE than being forced to walk from a table in the midst of a monster true count.
Even if the requirements have been met, I have to feel like going to this super max bet isn't going to 'jeopardize' a location in my regular rotation, which is where most of my play takes place. So it is REALLY very rare for me to go to 'supermax bet'. I have only done so about 4 times and none in last couple years.
I mean really, if I felt that amount was well tolerated, that would be my max bet. There is a reason, I am playing a lower max bet and that is because THAT is the amount I have determined is well tolerated for that store and circumstances (day of week, time of day ect).
-kewlj 2015
The new blackjack meta game is born.
Quote: DonutsSuper Max Bet™
-kewlj 2015
The new blackjack meta game is born.
I do that on occasion. I never called it a super max bet but I like the term. Another thing I'll do at very high counts involves playing two hands. Rather than bet 75% I'll keep both bets at max. In other words if my max bet is $400 I'll keep that for both hands instead of betting two at $300. It works - sometimes. Lots of pushes - never enough blackjacks.
Quote: 1BBQuote: DonutsSuper Max Bet™
-kewlj 2015
The new blackjack meta game is born.
I do that on occasion. I never called it a super max bet but I like the term. Another thing I'll do at very high counts involves playing two hands. Rather than bet 75% I'll keep both bets at max. In other words if my max bet is $400 I'll keep that for both hands instead of betting two at $300. It works - sometimes. Lots of pushes - never enough blackjacks.
We do that when the TC gets above 15 on DD games with great pen. You have 7% advantage at the point, no reason to not slam huge bets on the table.
Quote: kewljMy worst single day of my 12 year career occurred earlier this year when I lost 19K. That's nearly 50 max bets of $400. It occurred over 3 different sessions at 3 different casinos. It also included replenishing my stakes after losing my daily stakes or bankroll, which is something I rarely do. But I lost my initial daily stakes of 11 grand so quickly in about 30 minutes, that I made an exception, replenished and continued to play and lose.
It isn't pleasant, but it can happen. Usually the way it occurs is the count skyrockets early in a shoe and stays there, meaning you are placing max wager after max wager, but the big cards never emerge. They stay behind the cut card. :(
If you have one of those streaks where you seem to lose almost every hand, many because the dealer doesn't break, making all his break hands with multi-card hands and you throw in a couple of those hands where you split 3 times with a couple double downs, the loss grows quickly.
On a new shoe or session after (or during) such a streak, it is very common to want to get large bets out earlier than normal and win back that money, so it is VERY important not to be rattled by such a streak and be disciplined and not give in to temptation of chasing losses. This is human nature.
It is very difficult to go back to placing your minimum wager and waiting after having lost dozens of max bets. For this reason, even as a fairly experienced player who plays nearly every day, I take a break for at least the rest of the day to regroup. The tables will be there tomorrow or the day after. :)
How do you cope with the Variance. You lost 19K but you could have won 19K the next day. One day you have your head between your legs and the next day you will be celebrating and spending furiously.
We are human beings and I know you concentrate on your theoretical win.
Just the other day I calculated my theoretical loss at $350. But it turn out won $2500 and the next session I loss $2000. I was shock as I was flat betting throughout and playing on 2 baccarat game simultaneously on the split screen bac machine terminal.
Quote: Deck007How do you cope with the Variance. You lost 19K but you could have won 19K the next day. One day you have your head between your legs and the next day you will be celebrating and spending furiously.
We are human beings and I know you concentrate on your theoretical win.
I guess the answer is that you get used to it. :/ If you are going to do this for a living, or even not professionally, but seriously, you have to be able to deal with the swings. You must understand they are part of the game, they WILL occur and you must have the bankroll to be able to withstand them.
I am not going to say the swings don't bother me at all....they still do. Long periods of losing or underperforming, like weeks turning into months, bother me much more than single big swing days.
19K is a big amount for me to win or lose in one day, at my level of play (max bets in mid black). It is by far the biggest single day loss I have suffered. At my level of play, 5 figure days don't occur that often, I guess 8-10 a year (that is combined 5 figure winning and losing days). All my others 5 figure losing days have been 10-11k as that is my daily bankroll amounts, so unless I replenish, as I did this particular day, I will usually call it a day after losing 10K, rather than replenish and continue.
It just so happened that this worse day I have experienced in 12 years occurred at the best possible time (if there is a best possible time for a 19k loss). I was having a very positive year, significantly above expectation when this day hit back in the spring and this loss took me from way above expectation, to just slightly above expectation.
,
Happy to say bankroll has recovered thru other avenues, but always remember if your game is solid you will CONVERGE.
But either way, winning or losing streaks or periods, it is all short-term "nonsense". I really try hard to get away from focusing on these short-term results (see signature). It's not always possible, but I do try hard. :l
Quote: kewljIt's a very rare thing I call "the super max bet", which is 150% of max bet. The requirements are that the TC be pretty far above my usual max bet number of TC +4. Maybe TC +8 or so.
This idea is interesting and I ran a couple simulations on CVData a couple months ago. The simulations were ran for 2 deck games with fairly standard rules, 70 cards penetration (67%), H17, DA2, DAS. I used Zen count with all index plays except for splitting 10s. The idea was to keep ramp up bets until player has +4% advantage (TC +18 for Zen count), Results were quite interesting, and I have been following the ramp somewhat and it has been working well. The betting ramp are as follows.
Scenario 1: 1-7 spread. The "Normal" betting ramp, with max bet of 7 units at +1% advantage (TC +6 for Zen)
Scenario 2: 1-7 spread, 10 units at +2% advantage, and then 14 units at +4% advantage
I ran a 1400 units bankroll, it's equivalent to half Kelly. I ran 500M hand and some of the results are as follow:
Result 1: earning per 100 hands: 2.9367 units, ROR: 0.34%
Result 2: earning per 100 hands: 3.9309 units, ROR: 0.36%
The interesting part is your earning goes up by about 33% while your ROR only goes up by 6%. It make sense because given above rules and penetration, 2%+ advantage happens about 6% of the time and 4%+ advantage only happens about 0.75% of the time, so you won't be making those big bets very often, but when you do they are highly favorable.
But what if we take a step further and bet half Kelly on all the "Super max bets¡°£¿
Scenario 3: 1-7 spread, 14 at +2%, 21 at +3%, 28 at +4%
Result 3: earning per 100 hands: 6.2459 units, ROR: 1.30%
So the ROR skyrockets, and most pros are not comfortable with an ROR greater than 1%. But what if we increase the BR to 2000 units, and compare Scenario 3 to a regular 1-10 spread (max bet at +1% advantage)?
Scenario 4: 1-10 spread
Result 4: earning per 100 hands: 4.5167 units, ROR: 0.19%
Result 3 with 2000 units BR: earning per 100 hands: 6.2459 units, ROR: 0.20%
So the "Super max bet" method earns almost 40% more than the conventional half Kelly betting, with essentially the same ROR.
Heat wise I haven't experienced any so far, because for one you are not throwing those max bets out very often. For two I do use so non-EV cover, stuff like leave as soon as the shoe finishes where max bet were shown, also I never show my ID and wear casual disguises such as glasses, hats, beard.
So, if you are running a simulation, then you have moved out of the realm of 'super max bet' and the extremely rare circumstances that I use it and are more simply talking about a larger bet spread and top wager. Maybe a top wager a little further out at a higher advantage than one 'normally' does, which would make it less frequent, but still no where near the one or twice a year that I use it.
in baccarat, just one shoe, sometimes, banker is 28 more than P. if playing player all the time.
and i have all proofs to show the luck in all games copies the barccarat or barccrat follow all other games.
or we can just do random number, put 1 and 2. we can find 1 is 28 times more than 2 in likely 100 numbers. even more...
by the way, if another shoe,banker can also be 10 times more, just following that shoe.
here is what i found i wizard's site:
1102BPPPPBBBBBBBBBBBBBBPPBBBBBPBPBPBBBBBBBPBPBPPBBBBBBBBBBBPPBBBPPPPBPBBPB 49B, 21P,
1103BBBPBBBBBPBPBPPBBPBPBBPPBPBBBPPBPPBBPBBBBBBPPPPBBBPBBBPBPBPPPPPPBBB 39B,28 P.
for the gambling, alway follow the streak. like life.
Quote: tomchina123if USD300/hand, it is 28.33 hands lost.
in baccarat, just one shoe, sometimes, banker is 28 more than P. if playing player all the time.
and i have all proofs to show the luck in all games copies the barccarat or barccrat follow all other games.
or we can just do random number, put 1 and 2. we can find 1 is 28 times more than 2 in likely 100 numbers. even more...
by the way, if another shoe,banker can also be 10 times more, just following that shoe.
here is what i found i wizard's site:
1102BPPPPBBBBBBBBBBBBBBPPBBBBBPBPBPBBBBBBBPBPBPPBBBBBBBBBBBPPBBBPPPPBPBBPB 49B, 21P,
1103BBBPBBBBBPBPBPPBBPBPBBPPBPBBBPPBPPBBPBBBBBBPPPPBBBPBBBPBPBPPPPPPBBB 39B,28 P.
for the gambling, alway follow the streak. like life.
你能在中国解释，请 (Can you explain in Chinese please)
Quote: kmcdIn the last 12 days, I've played 1,200 $100 hands of single deck on Bovada and lost $10,600. After an already miserable November, the odds of December going this badly or worse were only 0.4%.
Some of us would say "wrong", that you have no idea what the odds are.
Quote: kmcdThe house edge on Bovada's single deck game using composition dependent basic strategy is a negligible 0.04%. The stdev on blackjack is 1.14 times bet size, which converts to a stdev of 39.49 units across the 1,200 hands. I lost 106 units, which is a z-score of -2.68. On a normal distribution, the area to the left is 0.4%
100% accurate. Bad run. 1 in 250 sucks, but it happens.
It was fun when the boss changed it to a $500 minimum. That was kinda cool though.
Amazing how this happens several times a year to me, yet it's supposed to be a 1 in 1.66 million chance. And no, I don't play "that much" blackjack to see this lol.
...somehow ended up winning about $600 on the session after starting out down $1600. Can never start up... ever.
Quote: Romes...somehow ended up winning about $600 on the session after starting out down $1600. Can never start up... ever.
I know what'cha mean. Had a session earlier today, getting back into counting [shaking the rust off]. Wasn't in for a significant amount, but kept losing and losing throughout the shoe. Made it all back in the last 2 rounds. I thought I had surely lost that session (I don't keep track of how much I'm buying in for...that's for afterwards!) -- but low and behold, I came out ahead with a small profit!
Quote: Romes2 days ago I lost 20 hands in a row of blackjack. That's 1 in 1.66 million (.49^20). I'm ignoring ties, but only had 1 after about 15 losses in a row.
Amazing how this happens several times a year to me, yet it's supposed to be a 1 in 1.66 million chance. And no, I don't play "that much" blackjack to see this lol.
...somehow ended up winning about $600 on the session after starting out down $1600. Can never start up... ever.
20 hands in a row? Oh boy...that sounds like one of our other members who posts things like that. :-)
Can I ask how long your sessions are? Being as you are an experienced counter, I am sure you know this, but want to mention it for the benefit of some others. Digging out from a big loss, can have real negative consequences for a card counter. There is nothing wrong with "booking" a loss, especially if it is a place you play regularly. It can extend you longevity at that location.
The process of digging out, while feeling good (getting even or a small win can feel really good after being down big early), usually involves playing too long and showing too much information. If you got in a big hole in the first place and then were able to dig out, you probably played through numerous big bet cycles and that means showing your spread numerous times.
A lot of times counters think that being down buys them some sort of immunity and they play longer than they should or ordinarily would while digging out and end up showing too much. ( I have done this). So getting back to even or registering that small win, has consequences going forward.
Quote: RSI once had an $8k swing IN HALF A SHOE betting 2x$600 (supermax). I got called in to play heads up, after just a few rounds of play. The first half of the shoe I could do no wrong, splits with doubles, winning all hands, BJ's, etc. The second half was the exact opposite, whereas I still got those juicy hands with splits & doubles, but lost all of them. Had to re-buy in near the end of the shoe. :(
It was fun when the boss changed it to a $500 minimum. That was kinda cool though.
Did you mean he switched to $500 minimum or $500 maximum wager?
Either way, I would say that action by pit, was a flat out sign that your play exceeded their tolerance or comfort level and if this was a place you play regularly could have future negative consequences. Sometimes despite attempting to identify and play within certain comfort levels, I can see signs like this that I have not succeeded in doing so. I usually treat the incident as I would a back off and stay away from that store for a little while and then return to a different shift making special note to avoid that particular pit person for an even longer period.
Quote: kewlj20 hands in a row? Oh boy...that sounds like one of our other members who posts things like that. :-)
KewlJ has a long memory...
Once upon a time I posted that my record for losses was 20 in a row......
I do believe that much more recently Buzzard got popped under some new name for a reference to 20 losses in a row.....
Apparently there is no forgiveness.....
Record still 20 BTW.
Didn't know the chances were 1 in 1.66 Mil.
Unless of course, you're playing at the same table with Romes ;-)
Quote: TwoFeathersATLKewJ has a long memory...
Apparently there is no forgiveness.....
Record still 20 BTW.
Just having some fun 2F. :)
The thing I find really interesting about someone mentioning consecutive losses, is that people can even count them. I know in my own case, I am never even sure. It goes something like this. After a number of losses, I think "hey I have lost a bunch in a row, but is it 8 or 9 or 11"?? I usually don't know and selective memory probably works against you in this situation.
I also don't like that 1 in XXXX chance of something happening thing. I don't get the purpose of even wasting time figuring or thinking about that.
On another site, several years ago when I fist joined, I posted about an unusual down swing. It wasn't consecutive losses, but it was just a bad run over a short period of time. One of the "math guys" responded with something like "there is a 1 in 946,000 chance of that happening. I really don't get that kind of response. It almost seems like they are doubting you. But even if that is not the intent, does the fact that it is a relatively rare occurrence supposed to make me feel better about it? If I get struck and killed by lightning, should I feel better because it is so rare? LOL.
Yeah, I used to not think things like that were too possible (or at least that they were but I'd pretty much never see them). Boy was I wrong =P.Quote: kewlj20 hands in a row? Oh boy...that sounds like one of our other members who posts things like that. :-)
Can I ask how long your sessions are? Being as you are an experienced counter, I am sure you know this, but want to mention it for the benefit of some others. Digging out from a big loss, can have real negative consequences for a card counter. There is nothing wrong with "booking" a loss, especially if it is a place you play regularly. It can extend you longevity at that location.
The process of digging out, while feeling good (getting even or a small win can feel really good after being down big early), usually involves playing too long and showing too much information. If you got in a big hole in the first place and then were able to dig out, you probably played through numerous big bet cycles and that means showing your spread numerous times.
A lot of times counters think that being down buys them some sort of immunity and they play longer than they should or ordinarily would while digging out and end up showing too much. ( I have done this). So getting back to even or registering that small win, has consequences going forward.
Fun fact, I also went 1 for 15 at one point with the hand 19 (0-14 with it before actually winning with 19). I kept track for fun because I lost like 3-4 hands in a row with it so it was pretty easy to notice. This was over many more hands of course, but the 0-14 and 1-15 was just when I was either dealt or drew to the hand value of 19.
I actually like that you brought up session time and "digging out" as you kind of hinted at some of these things in your "trip report" thread. I'm in the MW, as mentioned before. I do have a lot of options around me, but they're a couple hours this way, a couple hours that way, a couple hours that way, etc. So when I head somewhere for a day/weekend I might have a couple places to play, but that's about it. This usually leads to longer sessions than you'd play. It also requires some cover to go from max bet and then having to 3x off the top as to not just drop to min, etc. This is't something I'll do often unless there isn't much heat and it's quite early in a day trips session. It's quite common, and we haven't had any issues for a while now, playing some longer sessions (at least a couple hours). Much like you mentioned in your thread, it's a bit situationally (locationally) dependent.
As far as "digging out" I agree this is something people feel the need to do but shouldn't. We weren't digging out, but just playing our regular session of at least a couple hours. So when we got rocked for about $1600 in the first 30 minutes to 1 hour, we didn't stay because we were down, but to just keep playing to get our hours/hands in for our EV. I definitely don't mind booking a loss here and there as if you win every time they'll figure something out, eventually =).
I used to be the same way, then I had some really long losing streaks and I'm the type of person that likes to do the math =)... So on those I'd "estimate" how many I loss, but then it got to the point where it's like a side count I'll keep to do the math on later =p. We had a pretty horrible losing couple months in the middle of the year, and it seemed every time myself particularly started a session I'd lose the first 5-10 hands in a row. This got me interested in how "likely" these events really were to happen.Quote: kewlj...The thing I find really interesting about someone mentioning consecutive losses, is that people can even count them. I know in my own case, I am never even sure. It goes something like this. After a number of losses, I think "hey I have lost a bunch in a row, but is it 8 or 9 or 11"?? I usually don't know and selective memory probably works against you in this situation.
The count is two so far, not direct strikes obviously, but one knocked me unconscious and left my arm numb, the arm holding the umbrella ;-), for a couple weeks.
Also, do not stand atop the tallest mountain in Utah (Kings Peak) as a late summer thunderstorm rolls in.
Bad choice, I don't care how hard it was to get up there, or if you were still taking pics....
Run Feathers, run. Jump off the cliff, get down, go now.....
Several died that day on the next peak over, just east of me. I didn't know until the next day....
Quote: TwoFeathersATLKewlJ has a long memory...
Once upon a time I posted that my record for losses was 20 in a row......
I do believe that much more recently Buzzard got popped under some new name for a reference to 20 losses in a row.....
Apparently there is no forgiveness.....
Record still 20 BTW.
Didn't know the chances were 1 in 1.66 Mil.
Unless of course, you're playing at the same table with Romes ;-)
I thought he was referencing our infamous 30 in a row.
Romes you said you were ignoring ties, doesn't that change the 1 in 1.66? Isn't it a different number if the total is not winning in 20 hands opposed to losing 20 In a row.
30 in a row? I missed that, the chances are in billions, or trillions, or some denomination I can't spell?Quote: GWAEI thought he was referencing our infamous 30 in a row.
Romes you said you were ignoring ties, doesn't that change the 1 in 1.66? Isn't it a different number if the total is not winning in 20 hands opposed to losing 20 In a row.
Ok AOS JR. ☺Quote: Romes2 days ago I lost 20 hands in a row of blackjack. That's 1 in 1.66 million (.49^20). I'm ignoring ties, but only had 1 after about 15 losses in a row.
Amazing how this happens several times a year to me, yet it's supposed to be a 1 in 1.66 million chance. And no, I don't play "that much" blackjack to see this lol.
...somehow ended up winning about $600 on the session after starting out down $1600. Can never start up... ever.
But it was on 2 different tables. So it makes it more believable.
----------------------------------
WON got dealt Pocket Aces like 3 or 4 times in a row.
He failed to tell us he was playing 52 card pick up.
Quote: AxelWolfOk AOS JR. ☺
But it was on 2 different tables. So it makes it more believable.
----------------------------------
WON got dealt Pocket Aces like 3 or 4 times in a row.
He failed to tell us he was playing 52 card pick up.
You're misremembering, it was 3 tables. 10 hands 3 times in a row. Then he went to craps and got 18 yos in a row.
Quote: kewljDid you mean he switched to $500 minimum or $500 maximum wager?
Either way, I would say that action by pit, was a flat out sign that your play exceeded their tolerance or comfort level and if this was a place you play regularly could have future negative consequences. Sometimes despite attempting to identify and play within certain comfort levels, I can see signs like this that I have not succeeded in doing so. I usually treat the incident as I would a back off and stay away from that store for a little while and then return to a different shift making special note to avoid that particular pit person for an even longer period.
It was a $25 or $50 min game before. Someone jumped in mid-shoe, I asked if they could wait till the end of the shoe, and they bought in and played. I think they bought in for $100 in crumpled $20's and $10's. Once that player left the table, the boss came over and made it a $500 min game (since I was betting above that), so as to make the game a "no mid shoe entry", of sorts, so I could play undisturbed.
It was the exact opposite of heat -- the boss was catering to me.
I think that worst run I had (not money wise but in terms of max bets ) was a weekend I lost 22k betting 2x300. It was brutual.
The worst lose I ever had in single shoe was 52k.. that was not fun but I ended up makng a profit for the day.
play heads up, close your eyes to the swings, play long hours and you don't gotta sweat swings.
Quote: smallcapgrowthplay heads up, close your eyes to the swings, play long hours and you don't gotta sweat swings.
+1
Quote: FlippyfishHow did u lose $52k in one shoe at a spread of 2x300? Typo?
IIRC (from the GWAE interview), he said his max bets are significantly higher, I think up to the 2x$3000 (3 thousand) range.
Quote: FlippyfishI just lost $8500 in 2 hours of play. My max bet is 2 hands of $300 ($600 total). That's a loss of about 15 max bet loss in 2 hours. Does this seem abnormal to anyone? Has anybody had worse losing streaks than this in such a short amount of time?
Thanks for the input
Not sure what the game and rules and bet ramp were for this event but if you were counting and had a bet ramp that maxed at 2X300 then -$8500 is likely around 3 standard deviations. Very low probability but not impossible.
WON was on 3 tables. My 20 in a row (with only 1 tie at hand 16) was on 1 table. Part of my "1 for 15" with the hand 19 was in this streak too.Quote: AxelWolfOk AOS JR. ☺
But it was on 2 different tables. So it makes it more believable.
----------------------------------
WON got dealt Pocket Aces like 3 or 4 times in a row.
He failed to tell us he was playing 52 card pick up.
