What is the "long run" in blackjack?
Quote: TomGWe could also entertain the argument that 100 divided by infinity does not equal zero
Very good. That's why I brought up Georg Cantor. There exist variations on the concepts of both infinity, and yes, zero. When I was 16 (a million years ago), I developed a transfinite system that I actually used to solve limit theory problems in high school in seconds. It involved concepts like nx0 and 0^n. I was asked to write a thesis on it at UofP. But, it was silly and I knew it. I was just joking around as Limit Theory tests were trivial and it kept me from "showing my work". But, I'm not an expert in "small pebbles used for counting on an abacus" (English for the Latin word Calculus).
Quote: TomGCertainty of seeing a profit is Romes' definition of long-run.
Ahh, the word "profit" goes back to 14th Century Middle-English and has so many meanings. You can lose some cash in a casino, yet gain an eventual profit thereby. And that also applies to the "long run". In fact, I would suggest it is an important concept of the long run.
As an aside, there is also another meaning, that should not be overlooked in any endeavor. In Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare wrote: "No profit grows where there is no pleasure ta'en". But, I'm not a linguist.
Quote: TomG
I think RS nailed it in the very beginning. Rather than think about a specific number of hands, think about what x% chance you have of being within y% of your expected profits after z amount of time.
And I agree that's an important concept. As is RoR, which oddly hasn't been mentioned, as if bankroll isn't one of the most important aspects. I have a dozen free calculators at the below link that examine ways of looking at such.
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/resourcespage.php?do=calcpage
I apologize if I have seemed to hijack this thread with what sounds like esoterica. There is method behind my madness (or vice-versa). It's just that I think precision is important, deep thought is important, and that we should make use of some great works that have preceded us. If you look at the forumulae in Blackjack Attack, some are incredibly intricate -- not even stable. The double barrier formula, I believe created by Peter Carr, is amazing, originally created for financial options trading (the area Thorp used to make a few hundred million).
But, I am not a financial analyst.:)
I think a discussion of the "long run" is quite useful.Quote: QFITAhh, the word "profit" goes back to 14th Century Middle-English and has so many meanings. You can lose some cash in a casino, yet gain an eventual profit thereby. And that also applies to the "long run". In fact, I would suggest it is an important concept of the long run.
A) IMO many people's idea of a good time is going to Vegas 5-10X and winning some money >50% of the visits. And a "system" is something which has allowed to them to win on >90% of their recent 10-50 visits.
B) For some +EV players, "long run" is some point where there is <1% (or <5%, or something) chance of really bad luck where there will be an overall gross/net loss. A point where the up & down fluctuations of luck are usually (99+%, 95+%, etc...) overcome by the underlying +EV.
-----
However, a third type of situation is not often discussed.
C) When a situation or game appears where you WILL NOT be able to reach the "long run" before the game disappears (e.g. a one-time one-day promotion at a new casino, or a slot machine appears which disappears three months later.
Sometimes, the edge is so high (e.g. BJ 2x-3x blackjacks) that professionals come out of the woodwork to hammer the one-day promotion.
But other times it is only a small edge.
"+EV" long-term analysis, may not be as useful as short-term playing tactics, which may include money management - actively looking at real-time win/loss to decide on strategy. I have not found much useful information on-line or in any books discussing "+EV" situations where you may only have 1-10% of the "long-run" time.
There is some analysis on-line of BJ rebate situations (especially high value $1-10 million situations), how much to bet, and when to leave with X profit.
Look at the "Axiom of Choice" and the "Axiom of Countable Choice".Quote: QFITBut, if time is infinite, and my life span 100 years, then there is no chance that I am currently experiencing any perspective.
Another esoteric source says "we are actually billions/trilliosn of years in the future, and the 'now' we are experiencing is simply the replaying of an old memory...which is why the 'future' is already known".
There are many possible ways that time can be infinite (and what about things/life/existence outside of time, in non-time, in eternity, etc...).
There is probably no way to "prove" that we not "in the dream of a butterfly"... (The pre-Matrix-movie Matrix...)
Quote: mamat
C) When a situation or game appears where you WILL NOT be able to reach the "long run" before the game disappears (e.g. a one-time one-day promotion at a new casino, or a slot machine appears which disappears three months later.
Yes, I was thinking of mentioning an example of this. BJ 2:1 with no counting and flat-betting has an N0 of around 6,000. Typically, you won't count this game to avoid a backoff. But, as you say, pros come out of the woodwork for this game -- which can mean the game moves at a fast clip, even with a full table (and the table will be full). Nonetheless, knew a guy that played such a game 'til the end of the promotion, and lost. That's disappointing.
I guess he just didn't think positive enough.Quote: QFITNonetheless, knew a guy that played such a game 'til the end of the promotion, and lost. That's disappointing.
Quote: mamatLook at the "Axiom of Choice" and the "Axiom of Countable Choice".
Another esoteric source says "we are actually billions/trilliosn of years in the future, and the 'now' we are experiencing is simply the replaying of an old memory...which is why the 'future' is already known".
There are many possible ways that time can be infinite (and what about things/life/existence outside of time, in non-time, in eternity, etc...).
There is probably no way to "prove" that we not "in the dream of a butterfly"... (The pre-Matrix-movie Matrix...)
Yes, there are ways of getting around the apparent paradox of the absurdity of being alive at this moment in an ocean of time. In speaking of the death of a friend, Einstein said: "...the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” And Quantum Theory expands on this. But, you could arguably trace this concept back to Bishop Berkeley, who argued against the Newtonian views of space/time. You could expand his theory of what we now call subjective idealism to deny the concept of death. But then, he died in 1753; so what does he know?:)
Did any of them make money gambling?Quote: QFITYes, there are ways of getting around the apparent paradox of the absurdity of being alive at this moment in an ocean of time. In speaking of the death of a friend, Einstein said: "...the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” And Quantum Theory expands on this. But, you could arguably trace this concept back to Bishop Berkeley, who argued against the Newtonian views of space/time. You could expand his theory of what we now call subjective idealism to deny the concept of death. But then, he died in 1753; so what does he know?:)
Well that's your problem, you're trying to convince the ball to behave when you should be sending positive energy vibes to the wheel.Quote: QFITWell, Quantum Theory includes corollaries that you can affect past events (delayed-choice) and cause actions at a great distance (quantum entanglement). Problem is, only been shown with particles. Can’t seem to get a Roulette ball to behave.:)
If a person says that in a negative expectancy game such as baccarat you are certain to lose in the long run.
Then for example you might calculate that after 10,000 hours of flat betting in baccarat there is a one in one hundred trillion chance of being ahead. (this is just a raw example, not a mathematically accurate one.) So if that is true then you cannot say that a person got into the long run after 10,000 hours of play. Because there is still some chance, however slight that he could be ahead. And the long run is a phrase that reflects certainty as far as gambling is concerned.
So, to me, the long run has always meant infinity.
Boom! Thread goes full circle and the OP's question is answered =D.Quote: QFITGood luck getting there.:) “Long run” is really a macroeconomic term. It has no definitive mathematic definition, and outside of economics is a relative term. In the AP world, it is generally considered the point where you have a pretty good chance of being reasonably near your EV. The most popular point among APs is 1SD. But, that’s just because it’s how Brett Harris defined N0.
Couldn't agree more. Experience from which we lean knowledge. Knowledge that builds and builds and with reflection on our knowledge, from our experiences, it becomes the foundation of wisdom.Quote: QFITWell, I can walk a block to the grocery store. Or, proceed in the opposite direction and experience the world on the way. And life is about experience.
Experience->Knowledge->Wisdom has been my mantra for some time. People need to get out an experience the world!
Quote: mamatC) When a situation or game appears where you WILL NOT be able to reach the "long run" before the game disappears (e.g. a one-time one-day promotion at a new casino, or a slot machine appears which disappears three months later.
Sometimes, the edge is so high (e.g. BJ 2x-3x blackjacks) that professionals come out of the woodwork to hammer the one-day promotion.
But other times it is only a small edge.
"+EV" long-term analysis, may not be as useful as short-term playing tactics, which may include money management - actively looking at real-time win/loss to decide on strategy. I have not found much useful information on-line or in any books discussing "+EV" situations where you may only have 1-10% of the "long-run" time.
This subject alone could be analyzed to death forever, and for good reason. There's a lot relating to this subject. I'm in a bit of a time crunch, so here are a few of my quick thoughts on it:
N0 and variance go hand in hand. Variance is additive (not co-variance*). If you graphed your EV and +/- 1, 2, and 3 SD's for all of your play, you'll be able to see if you've covered the long run or 1 N0 (or 4xN0 or 9xN0 etc) by looking at where the negative SD curves cross the X (flat) axis.
You also have the tax issue, assuming you pay taxes. You don't want to play a game for such few rounds so that at the end of the year you'd be a net -EV loser given the reverse loss rebate that is taxes. You want a sufficient amount of rounds played (N0) such that you are very likely enough to be ahead such that your taxes doesn't make it -EV. Of course some games have a small down side and a huge upside, where you don't need a high win rate to be +EV, even including taxes.
Some people are in the small bankroll and building process. For them, IMO, it's essential to have a high probability of winning on a given play or at least a sum of their play in general, for a short period of time.
Some people wouldn't play something where they can only get to 10% of N0, and rightfully so. But if you can find 10 games with similar variance where you can get to 10% of N0 on each, that's like getting to 1 N0 on one game (okay, a tad different, but you get the point).
Ultimately what it comes down to is personal preference. And that's gonna be different for everyone. Anyone can figure out the EV of a play. But I think it's important we understand the math or at least have the ability to figure out if something is worthwhile for us or something we want to pass on, not looking at it simply from a ROR, SCORE, EV, etc. perspective, but more in depth. Knowledge is power, or something like that.
Quote: LostWagesI am just hoping there might be some new opinions from the WoV forum mathletes [about the long run]? Please express in non-technical terms, if possible, or add explanations to terms used.
My question is "what is generally considered as the long run in Blackjack?"
The thread leaves me close to breathless, but I wanted to make a small contribution to my own OP. From all the posts, the ones I could absorb more easily than others came from RS and Romes -- basically, engaging in the long run depends on defining your acceptance ranges of Lady Variance, coupled with a reasonably good idea on the EV of the game you're playing.
The "long run" will be different for everyone, and is triggered by the conditions evolving at the time you start your run.
Apologies to the mathletes - I'm challenged to convert that sentence into mathematical expressions like N0 and SDs. But I'm glad to swim in the waters of master swimmers as I balance my breathing, stroke, and leg kicks . . . Thanks everyone!
--> My contribution with sources cited:
in the long run
Over a lengthy period of time, in the end. For example, He realized that in the long run, their argument wouldn't seem so awful. This expression, which originated as at the long run in the early 1600s, presumably alludes to a runner who continues on his course to the end. Economist John Maynard Keynes used it in a much-quoted quip about economic planning: "In the long run we are all dead." The antonym, in the short run, meaning "over a short period of time," dates only from the 1800s. The novelist George Eliot used both in a letter (October 18, 1879): "Mrs.Healy's marriage is surely what you expected in the long or short run."
See also: long, run
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 2003, 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
He meant that we shouldn't live by the long run, in the sense that we let it run our lives? That there are things we can do now not to have to wait for or play by the long run? That it's stupid to live that way? That the long-run view of life is misleading? Come to think of it, he did do some original work in statistics, but that's not quite the same as gambling.Quote: LostWages...Economist John Maynard Keynes used it in a much-quoted quip about economic planning: "In the long run we are all dead."
"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."
He was arguing against Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand". The concept that if you just let markets do what they will, there will be a set of natural pressures that will bring about equilibrium in the markets. A concept that history has not favorably ratified.
But, I'm not an economist.
I think that an "equilibrium system" in economics implies a stochastic process as well, which is at least more than "markets do what they will".
At least that's my interpretation.
I guess that gamblers tend to confuse (personal) will, which also is often found in the markets, with the term equilibrium system. The other thing I've noticed over the years is that gamblers fail to separate the gambling math from the casino games. Life isn't a gamble, good or otherwise, and it's telling when people talk, and actually think, as though it really is.Quote: QFITAt least that's my interpretation.
Quote: QFITYes, an equilibrium system suggests natural pressures, like those that keep oxygen fairly well distributed in a room instead of migrating to one side. Properties of physical systems. Adam Smith suggested such pressures exist in economic systems. Keynes was making light of that, as was I.
So then, would you say that the boom/bust phenomenon that continually recurs in free market economies is not in fact a pressure that causes a return to equilibrium?
Quote: InTimeForSpace1I guess that gamblers tend to confuse (personal) will, which also is often found in the markets, with the term equilibrium system. The other thing I've noticed over the years is that gamblers fail to separate the gambling math from the casino games. Life isn't a gamble, good or otherwise, and it's telling when people talk, and actually think, as though it really is.
Speaking of long run, how much longer are the admins going to let this banned/former member keep posting?
Quote: InTimeForSpace1I guess that gamblers tend to confuse (personal) will, which also is often found in the markets, with the term equilibrium system. The other thing I've noticed over the years is that gamblers fail to separate the gambling math from the casino games. Life isn't a gamble, good or otherwise, and it's telling when people talk, and actually think, as though it really is.
Well, only those that fall for gambler's fallacy. Life is a gamble, in some sense, every time you get out of bed or cross the street. But, you are certainly correct that those that attribute concepts like equilibrium are ignorant of the mechanics. That is not to insult all of them. Depends on objectives. Those that want to have a fun vacation probably have a better time playing a stupid system than the grinder with an advantage, even though the grinder is better off in the long run monetarily. Gambling addicts longing for the magical system, would be addicted to something else if gambling didn't exist. At least they are contributing to the casinos, so that they have money to give to APs.
Quote: lilredroosterSo then, would you say that the boom/bust phenomenon that continually recurs in free market economies is not in fact a pressure that causes a return to equilibrium?
Problem with economic discussions is they always veer towards politics. Not going there.:) But, thanks for the question.
Perhaps, when the equilibrium of perceived funniness begins to tip the other way? Or, more likely, there's no one left with half a brain to ban. In any event, how many cards in the standard deck of playing cards?Quote: IbeatyouracesSpeaking of long run, how much longer are the admins going to let this banned/former member keep posting?
Quote: InTimeForSpace1Perhaps, when the equilibrium of perceived funniness begins to tip the other way? Or, more likely, there's no one left with half a brain to ban. In any event, how many cards in the standard deck of playing cards?
Pinochle: 48
Skat: 32
Sicilian game 7 and 1/2: 40
Eucre: 24, 38, or 32
500: 45
SP21: 48
I'm skipping Chinese games that started in the 1400's
Ahh, you meant standard deck. Generally called French playing cards. Although, when Baccara was introduced into France under Charles VIII (mayhaps celebrating the deaths of Sicilians in the Italian War), I think it had fewer cards. Sorry, I like card games. But, I'm not an historian.
Wrong again. What is it that you know something about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_52-card_deck In any event, I wrote 'the' standard deck.Quote: QFITAhh, you meant standard deck. Generally called French playing cards. Although, when Baccara was introduced into France under Charles VIII (mayhaps celebrating the deaths of Sicilians in the Italian War), I think it had fewer cards. Sorry, I like card games. But, I'm not an historian.
Quote: QFITProblem with economic discussions is they always veer towards politics. Not going there.:) But, thanks for the question.
I didn't see my question as being in any way political, but you didn't want to answer, that's okay. I'll try one last one. If I develop a fabulous new food, barbecued turkey gyros, and open a restaurant and they become fantastically popular so that I am able to raise prices very high, so that my markup is 50% more than average in the restaurant business; and then others see my success and 3 more restaurants open in my town featuring barbecued turkey gyros and try to take business away from me by selling at much lower prices; isn't that an example of a free market pressure that causes a return to equilibrium?
"The word 'the' is one of the most common words in English. It is our only definite article. Nouns in English are preceded by the definite article when the speaker believes that the listener already knows what he is referring to." The standard deck of playing cards wasn't around in the past to have had fewer cards then. They may have used fewer cards in the past, but those decks are no longer standard. There can be only one standard something at a time. It's not fun to waddle in unclear reasoning for the sake of fluffy history lessons.Quote: QFITPlease, I was only having fun and providing some history.
Quote: IbeatyouracesSpeaking of long run, how much longer are the admins going to let this banned/former member keep posting?
Would you care to PM me with specifics? I'd appreciate it.
