yes.Quote: mstauffis there a way to calculate the probability of being up at some point in a session that is X period of time long where X is an hour, two hours, etc?
discussed B4 here
but being up after X number of rounds played.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/blackjack-odds-winning-session-after-x-amount-hands-1466708/
part data from that thread
round | win | push | loss |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 42.423888 | 8.481647 | 49.094465 |
2 | 37.635512 | 26.675903 | 35.688585 |
3 | 42.323496 | 11.487638 | 46.188866 |
4 | 43.239856 | 13.516454 | 43.24369 |
5 | 44.014364 | 9.76373 | 46.221906 |
6 | 44.939134 | 9.214479 | 45.846387 |
7 | 45.2278 | 7.958355 | 46.813845 |
8 | 45.761803 | 7.265674 | 46.972523 |
9 | 45.975792 | 6.654919 | 47.369289 |
10 | 46.275252 | 6.14874 | 47.576008 |
11 | 46.445924 | 5.761864 | 47.792212 |
12 | 46.628292 | 5.412894 | 47.958814 |
13 | 46.759345 | 5.137076 | 48.103579 |
14 | 46.881687 | 4.888899 | 48.229414 |
15 | 46.980962 | 4.681783 | 48.337255 |
16 | 47.069403 | 4.49664 | 48.433957 |
17 | 47.145386 | 4.335774 | 48.51884 |
18 | 47.212652 | 4.191514 | 48.595834 |
19 | 47.272057 | 4.062852 | 48.665091 |
20 | 47.325058 | 3.946404 | 48.728538 |
21 | 47.372607 | 3.84072 | 48.786673 |
22 | 47.415488 | 3.744031 | 48.840481 |
23 | 47.454388 | 3.655158 | 48.890454 |
24 | 47.489818 | 3.573027 | 48.937155 |
25 | 47.522245 | 3.496784 | 48.980971 |
26 | 47.552027 | 3.425714 | 49.022259 |
27 | 47.579483 | 3.359212 | 49.061305 |
28 | 47.604874 | 3.296773 | 49.098353 |
29 | 47.628424 | 3.237964 | 49.133612 |
30 | 47.650323 | 3.18242 | 49.167257 |
31 | 47.670735 | 3.129824 | 49.199441 |
32 | 47.689803 | 3.079903 | 49.230294 |
33 | 47.70765 | 3.03242 | 49.25993 |
34 | 47.724382 | 2.987168 | 49.28845 |
35 | 47.740095 | 2.943965 | 49.31594 |
36 | 47.754872 | 2.90265 | 49.342478 |
37 | 47.768786 | 2.863081 | 49.368133 |
38 | 47.781902 | 2.825132 | 49.392966 |
39 | 47.794281 | 2.788688 | 49.417031 |
40 | 47.805974 | 2.753649 | 49.440377 |
41 | 47.817029 | 2.719921 | 49.46305 |
42 | 47.827489 | 2.687421 | 49.48509 |
43 | 47.837392 | 2.656075 | 49.506533 |
44 | 47.846774 | 2.625814 | 49.527412 |
45 | 47.855667 | 2.596573 | 49.54776 |
46 | 47.864101 | 2.568296 | 49.567603 |
47 | 47.872102 | 2.540931 | 49.586967 |
48 | 47.879696 | 2.514426 | 49.605878 |
49 | 47.886906 | 2.488738 | 49.624356 |
50 | 47.893752 | 2.463826 | 49.642422 |
51 | 47.900255 | 2.439649 | 49.660096 |
52 | 47.906432 | 2.416172 | 49.677396 |
53 | 47.912301 | 2.393362 | 49.694337 |
54 | 47.917876 | 2.371188 | 49.710936 |
55 | 47.923174 | 2.349619 | 49.727207 |
56 | 47.928207 | 2.328629 | 49.743164 |
57 | 47.932989 | 2.308192 | 49.758819 |
58 | 47.93753 | 2.288285 | 49.774185 |
59 | 47.941843 | 2.268885 | 49.789272 |
60 | 47.945939 | 2.249969 | 49.804092 |
61 | 47.949826 | 2.231519 | 49.818655 |
62 | 47.953514 | 2.213515 | 49.832971 |
63 | 47.957012 | 2.195941 | 49.847047 |
64 | 47.960328 | 2.178779 | 49.860893 |
65 | 47.96347 | 2.162013 | 49.874517 |
66 | 47.966446 | 2.145627 | 49.887927 |
67 | 47.969261 | 2.129609 | 49.90113 |
68 | 47.971924 | 2.113944 | 49.914132 |
69 | 47.97444 | 2.098619 | 49.926941 |
70 | 47.976814 | 2.083623 | 49.939563 |
71 | 47.979053 | 2.068944 | 49.952003 |
72 | 47.981162 | 2.054571 | 49.964267 |
73 | 47.983146 | 2.040492 | 49.976362 |
74 | 47.98501 | 2.026699 | 49.988291 |
75 | 47.986757 | 2.013182 | 50.000061 |
76 | 47.988394 | 1.999931 | 50.011675 |
77 | 47.989922 | 1.98694 | 50.023138 |
78 | 47.991348 | 1.974197 | 50.034455 |
79 | 47.992674 | 1.961696 | 50.04563 |
80 | 47.993903 | 1.94943 | 50.056667 |
81 | 47.99504 | 1.937391 | 50.067569 |
82 | 47.996088 | 1.925572 | 50.07834 |
83 | 47.997049 | 1.913966 | 50.088985 |
84 | 47.997927 | 1.902568 | 50.099505 |
85 | 47.998725 | 1.89137 | 50.109905 |
86 | 47.999444 | 1.880369 | 50.120187 |
87 | 48.000089 | 1.869556 | 50.130355 |
88 | 48.00066 | 1.858929 | 50.140411 |
89 | 48.001162 | 1.848479 | 50.150359 |
90 | 48.001595 | 1.838205 | 50.1602 |
91 | 48.001963 | 1.828099 | 50.169938 |
92 | 48.002267 | 1.818158 | 50.179575 |
93 | 48.002509 | 1.808378 | 50.189113 |
94 | 48.002691 | 1.798754 | 50.198555 |
95 | 48.002816 | 1.789281 | 50.207903 |
96 | 48.002885 | 1.779956 | 50.217159 |
97 | 48.002899 | 1.770775 | 50.226326 |
98 | 48.00286 | 1.761736 | 50.235404 |
99 | 48.002771 | 1.752832 | 50.244397 |
100 | 48.002631 | 1.744064 | 50.253305 |
the rules of the game also can matter to how accurate one needs to be
some say anything can happen in one short session...
well I never got 10 Blackjacks in a row only playing 10 rounds!
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyyes.
discussed B4 here
but being up after X number of rounds played.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/blackjack-odds-winning-session-after-x-amount-hands-1466708/
part data from that thread
round win push loss 1 42.423888 8.481647 49.094465 2 37.635512 26.675903 35.688585 3 42.323496 11.487638 46.188866 4 43.239856 13.516454 43.24369 5 44.014364 9.76373 46.221906 6 44.939134 9.214479 45.846387 7 45.2278 7.958355 46.813845 8 45.761803 7.265674 46.972523 9 45.975792 6.654919 47.369289 10 46.275252 6.14874 47.576008 11 46.445924 5.761864 47.792212 12 46.628292 5.412894 47.958814 13 46.759345 5.137076 48.103579 14 46.881687 4.888899 48.229414 15 46.980962 4.681783 48.337255 16 47.069403 4.49664 48.433957 17 47.145386 4.335774 48.51884 18 47.212652 4.191514 48.595834 19 47.272057 4.062852 48.665091 20 47.325058 3.946404 48.728538 21 47.372607 3.84072 48.786673 22 47.415488 3.744031 48.840481 23 47.454388 3.655158 48.890454 24 47.489818 3.573027 48.937155 25 47.522245 3.496784 48.980971 26 47.552027 3.425714 49.022259 27 47.579483 3.359212 49.061305 28 47.604874 3.296773 49.098353 29 47.628424 3.237964 49.133612 30 47.650323 3.18242 49.167257 31 47.670735 3.129824 49.199441 32 47.689803 3.079903 49.230294 33 47.70765 3.03242 49.25993 34 47.724382 2.987168 49.28845 35 47.740095 2.943965 49.31594 36 47.754872 2.90265 49.342478 37 47.768786 2.863081 49.368133 38 47.781902 2.825132 49.392966 39 47.794281 2.788688 49.417031 40 47.805974 2.753649 49.440377 41 47.817029 2.719921 49.46305 42 47.827489 2.687421 49.48509 43 47.837392 2.656075 49.506533 44 47.846774 2.625814 49.527412 45 47.855667 2.596573 49.54776 46 47.864101 2.568296 49.567603 47 47.872102 2.540931 49.586967 48 47.879696 2.514426 49.605878 49 47.886906 2.488738 49.624356 50 47.893752 2.463826 49.642422 51 47.900255 2.439649 49.660096 52 47.906432 2.416172 49.677396 53 47.912301 2.393362 49.694337 54 47.917876 2.371188 49.710936 55 47.923174 2.349619 49.727207 56 47.928207 2.328629 49.743164 57 47.932989 2.308192 49.758819 58 47.93753 2.288285 49.774185 59 47.941843 2.268885 49.789272 60 47.945939 2.249969 49.804092 61 47.949826 2.231519 49.818655 62 47.953514 2.213515 49.832971 63 47.957012 2.195941 49.847047 64 47.960328 2.178779 49.860893 65 47.96347 2.162013 49.874517 66 47.966446 2.145627 49.887927 67 47.969261 2.129609 49.90113 68 47.971924 2.113944 49.914132 69 47.97444 2.098619 49.926941 70 47.976814 2.083623 49.939563 71 47.979053 2.068944 49.952003 72 47.981162 2.054571 49.964267 73 47.983146 2.040492 49.976362 74 47.98501 2.026699 49.988291 75 47.986757 2.013182 50.000061 76 47.988394 1.999931 50.011675 77 47.989922 1.98694 50.023138 78 47.991348 1.974197 50.034455 79 47.992674 1.961696 50.04563 80 47.993903 1.94943 50.056667 81 47.99504 1.937391 50.067569 82 47.996088 1.925572 50.07834 83 47.997049 1.913966 50.088985 84 47.997927 1.902568 50.099505 85 47.998725 1.89137 50.109905 86 47.999444 1.880369 50.120187 87 48.000089 1.869556 50.130355 88 48.00066 1.858929 50.140411 89 48.001162 1.848479 50.150359 90 48.001595 1.838205 50.1602 91 48.001963 1.828099 50.169938 92 48.002267 1.818158 50.179575 93 48.002509 1.808378 50.189113 94 48.002691 1.798754 50.198555 95 48.002816 1.789281 50.207903 96 48.002885 1.779956 50.217159 97 48.002899 1.770775 50.226326 98 48.00286 1.761736 50.235404 99 48.002771 1.752832 50.244397 100 48.002631 1.744064 50.253305
the rules of the game also can matter to how accurate one needs to be
some say anything can happen in one short session...
well I never got 10 Blackjacks in a row only playing 10 rounds!
Sally
Then you obviously haven't played enough.
In your theoretical example, would you quit after the tenth hand?
no way. play until the streak (of BJs) endsQuote: billryanIn your theoretical example, would you quit after the tenth hand?
Sally
This is the inverse of a risk of ruin problem...instead of finding the probability of ever being down x units over a period of time you’re looking for the probability of ever being up. I’ve never seen a formula for this scenario (negative EV, fixed number of plays, payout isn’t 1:1). As far as I know you can only get the (approximate) number via simulation or Markov chain.Quote: mstauffBased on what appears to be a streak intensive game, is there a way to calculate the probability of being up at some point in a session that is X period of time long where X is an hour, two hours, etc?
I used the Markov chain solutionQuote: Ace2As far as I know you can only get the (approximate) number via simulation or Markov chain.
I also used the Wizard probability distribution found in the link
trying to be up at least one unit in X rounds (can over-shoot the 1 unit win goal)
this is flat-betting and using basic strategy only
20,50 and 100 unit bankrolls
target gain at least 1 unit
BJ rounds↓ | units 20. gain 1 | units 50. gain 1 | units 100. gain 1 |
---|---|---|---|
20 | 0.8070051 | . | . |
40 | 0.8595123 | . | . |
50 | . | 0.8733143 | 0.8733143 |
100 | 0.9077178 | 0.9081048 | 0.9081048 |
200 | 0.9282505 | 0.9330436 | 0.9330436 |
300 | 0.9328274 | 0.9441434 | 0.9441437 |
sim data from cvdata
Bankroll:100 units
Target: 101
Max Rounds: 100
Sessions: 24,004,510
Hit Target: 90.97%
ruin trying for at least 1 unit
BJ rounds↓ | units 20. ruin | units 50. ruin | units 100. ruin |
---|---|---|---|
20 | 4.37E-05 | . | . |
40 | 0.004259194 | . | . |
50 | . | 1.32E-10 | 1.50E-38 |
100 | 0.03598879 | 9.42E-06 | 1.19E-19 |
200 | 0.05899992 | 0.001123231 | 5.15E-10 |
300 | 0.06428841 | 0.0048157 | 3.73E-07 |
*****
for being up more than 1 unit
that requires a different calculation with the same R code
(It is messy right now and not a function. maybe later)
now,
from MY gambling experience and observations...
many casino gamblers think that almost 100% of the time they will be UP at least 1 unit
in any session
well,
ain't so
but feelin' good while gamblin' is good
Sally
I am not good enough with statistics to understand most of the explanations. However, I am not sure the question can be answered. When a player plays short sessions (15 - 30 minutes), it doesn't seem to me that the mathematical calculations come into play. I guess if someone tracked a bunch of short sessions over 10 or 15 years, they might see that the end results match what would be expected from simulations or calculations. But in short sessions of 50 to 100 hands, I really believe it is a matter of playing good basic strategy and just enjoying the company of the people at the tables and having fun and hopefully getting a few good runs now and then as incentive to keep coming back.
Short sessions do adhere to the probabilities, but they are the probabilities of small numbers of events, which as you observe are wildly different to long term expectations. You can expect volatile and amusing variations in your session bankroll. That's why most of us play... for the amusement and occasional adrenaline rush... that and the enjoyment of the company of dealers and fellow players.Quote: mstauffI appreciate all the explanations related to my question about what percentage of sessions a player is ahead in at some point.
I am not good enough with statistics to understand most of the explanations. However, I am not sure the question can be answered. When a player plays short sessions (15 - 30 minutes), it doesn't seem to me that the mathematical calculations come into play. I guess if someone tracked a bunch of short sessions over 10 or 15 years, they might see that the end results match what would be expected from simulations or calculations. But in short sessions of 50 to 100 hands, I really believe it is a matter of playing good basic strategy and just enjoying the company of the people at the tables and having fun and hopefully getting a few good runs now and then as incentive to keep coming back.
Those who are motivated by financial profit, are really playing a different game and fall into the categories of wise card counters (and exploiters of other weaknesses) or foolish system players.
If you're enjoying the game, you're already winning.
You are right when you say, if you are enjoying the game, you're already winning. I do enjoy the game and the people I have met along the way as well as the just being in Las Vegas. I have grown particularly fond of downtown Vegas in the last five or ten years. I am always happy when I pick up a month or two long consulting gig in Las Vegas... That gives me time to enjoy the area at a more leisurely pace than a four-day getaway.
Quote: mstauffI guess if someone tracked a bunch of short sessions over 10 or 15 years, they might see that the end results match what would be expected from simulations or calculations. But in short sessions of 50 to 100 hands, I really believe it is a matter of playing good basic strategy ......
You might be better off with a win limit, instead of a time, or hands played limit.
This is a study on the effect of win and loss limits, using a slot machine simulation of 900 players up to 5,000 plays each.
A $100 loss limit resulted in only 7.3% of players winning, and a $76 average loss.
A $100 win limit resulted in 48.3% of players winning, and a $153 average loss.
No win or loss limits resulted in 17.6% of players winning, and a $251 average loss.
A one hour time limit resulted in 35% of players winning, and a $30 average loss.
“Nevertheless, our simulation shows that using win limits can help reduce the average player’s losses and improve the probability a person leaves the casino as a money winner.”
you mean this oneQuote: mstauffHowever, I am not sure the question can be answered.
"Based on what appears to be a streak intensive game,
is there a way to calculate the probability of being up at some point in a session that is X period of time long where X is an hour, two hours, etc?"
I agree playing for HOURS is really meaningless
unless U know about how many actual rounds of play were completed.
well, I 4 1 disagree with you on that 100%Quote: mstauffWhen a player plays short sessions (15 - 30 minutes), it doesn't seem to me that the mathematical calculations come into play.
start with a 50 unit bankroll and play a MAX 50 rounds.
what Do you expect to be the probability of being ahead at some point?
the math is easy to do once one knows how (Markov chains)
and the results are even easier to understand.
just because a fair coin flip is a 50% chance to get Heads,
I just flipped 4 Tails in a row
same concept
the probability does not change
Sally
I found that I was ahead at some point in a session between 75% and 80% of the time.
Over the course of play I finished between 61% and 65% of the sessions ahead, I pushed in between 7% and 8% of sessions, and I lost money in between 18% and 22% of the session. Initially, I was losing between 2.29 units and 3.31 units per session and winning between 1.52 and 1.56 units per session. As I have finetuned my gameplay, the win to lose ration has narrow to the point that it is =/- about 15%.
Playing sessions with a low loss limit definitely narrow the ration of average betting units won to betting units lost. However, a lower loss unit also limits the ability to recover from multiple consecutive losses at the start of a session. There is a fine line between the high and low loss limit in terms of the most advantages to gameplay. In the end, as I have refined gameplay, I find that I hit my loss limit very infrequently. I am typically walking away from a session with a small win and not hitting a specific win or loss limit.
Had I been playing $100 a hand blackjack, my average win per day over the last week would be about $1,000 a day. The only problem with my gameplay is that I need my spreadsheet open to help me make the correct play decision.
At this point, I find myself wondering if I have been extremely lucky, or I am getting expected results based on playing short runs and walking away from a session whenever I am ahead a few bets. Because the results were so similar between the two online casino sites, my inclination is to say that it isn't just luck. However, I have had very few long negative runs. That is not normal. So, my common sense tells me I am mostly on a very lucky run right now.
Comments and thoughts on my experience would be not only welcome, but, appreciated.
Trust me. It's just luck. Not even extraordinary luck.Quote: mstauffComments and thoughts on my experience would be not only welcome, but, appreciated.
This may help
Plug your numbers into this. Substitute your loss limt into 'Starting bankroll'
Probability of Success <= (Starting Bankroll)/(Starting Bankroll + Target Profit)
You'll see that Probability of modest success can be quite high, but at the cost of potentially massive losses from time to time.
YOU HAVE NO ADVANTAGE!
My approach is that if I can play four sessions a day at $100 a hand with a $400 loss limit, knowing that at some point in every run I have a 75% chance of being ahead, I can win $100 or $200 a day. Your formula says I have a 67% chance of doing that.
Look closer at my formula. It says '<=' not '='. It's only '=' where the house has no edge.Quote: mstauffActually, you just proved my point if I understand your formula correctly. If I start a session with a loss limit of four and my goal is to win two units, my probability of success would be 4/(4+2)=67%.
My approach is that if I can play four sessions a day at $100 a hand with a $400 loss limit, knowing that at some point in every run I have a 75% chance of being ahead, I can win $100 or $200 a day. Your formula says I have a 67% chance of doing that.
And 66.67% is not 75%
You mix and match your $100s and $200s and pluck 75% out of the air. Here I'll do the calcs for $200. You can do similar for $100 and you'll get the same 0 profit outcome.
So... Take $400 into a casino with the win target of $200 each day
Let's be kind and assume no house edge, but let's be a bit tight and use precise floating point maths.
Each day, P Success = 4/(4+2) = 66.66% recurring. When you succeed, you walk out with $200 profit. When you fail, you walk out with $400 loss.
Let's do it for 3 days. Over that set of sessions, we can easily deal with that 66.6666recurring by saying we succeed 2 days and fail one day ( on average )
Day 1 Succeed... Profit so far $200
Day 2 Succeed... Profit so far $200 + $200 = $400
Day 3 Fail... Profit so far $200 + $200 - $400 =$0
Of course, some sets of days you will win all 3 days and some sets of days you will win none or one. Over hundreds or thousands of sessions, you'll get close to the 2/3 proportion, so closer to 0 profit 0 loss overall.
BUT.
If house edge is 0.5%. that's 0.5% of every dollar you stake, on average... On average, you won't break even you'll tend to lose.
But, it would be fun. $:o) I actually play a bit like this for recreation.
The 75% number I was referencing is that in my play of over 10,000 hands, in about 75% of my sessions, I was ahead at some point during the session. I did not win at the end of 75% of the sessions.
However, if I did quit whenever I was ahead, I would have won money in 75% of the sessions. That would have limited my winnings to one unit a session for most of winning sessions though. My assumption before I started this excersice was that I would have large enough losses in the sessions that I was never ahead that my losses in the losing sessions would exceed my winnings in the sessions I won.
By setting a low loss limit, I was trying to limit the large losses.
Correct. In a zero edge game, you will break even on average, regardless of how you wager or what stop losses and win goals you set. You CAN skew the proportion of sessions you win ( eg target profit=1% of bankroll easily achieved, but cost of failure being relatively massive)Quote: mstauffOkay... I am a little brain dead this morning. It is a zero sum gain with no house edge.
Your perception of being ahead 75% of the time is reasonable, but has not mathematically accounted for the massive losses that you may have had, and would have had eventuallyQuote:The 75% number I was referencing is that in my play of over 10,000 hands, in about 75% of my sessions, I was ahead at some point during the session. I did not win at the end of 75% of the sessions.
You can limit the frequency of large losses, but your trade off is that those losses must be potentially and proportionally much larger.Quote:However, if I did quit whenever I was ahead, I would have won money in 75% of the sessions. That would have limited my winnings to one unit a session for most of winning sessions though. My assumption before I started this excersice was that I would have large enough losses in the sessions that I was never ahead that my losses in the losing sessions would exceed my winnings in the sessions I won.
By setting a low loss limit, I was trying to limit the large losses.
Quote: billryanWhy limit your bets to $100? $1,000 bets will get you rich ten times faster.
Heat comes too quickly spreading $1k to $15k.