Losing
Now... I am not a blackjack player. I know nothing about card counting. So bear with me as I ask a few questions.
1. Losing $6,000 in a day when playing $50/hand?? That's 120 losing hands. Isnt that extreme-- especially for say 4 hours of play? How many hands per hour is typical at blackjack?
2. If a card counter believes he has an advantage but he's not winning, when does he admit something is wrong with his count or betting system?
I admit I've had days when I lost money like that at craps and video poker... but at those games you dont have a mathematical edge when you play.
If he is camping out and playing for length of time, I can see him being down max bet or two and the inevitable one punch knockout happens.
You have a max bet out, split nd get cards to either double down or split again. Suddenly you are a $50 bettor who has four or five $500 max bets out, and the dealer pulls five card 21 and you lose all.
In this case, the player did everything exactly right but just dropped fifty units in one hand. Why would he stop if he has money?
Almost every BJ regular will tell you they had losing streaks that defy logic. I once went an entire eight deck shoe with only one winning hand. I did have an unusual amount of ties but only one win. long losing streak that occurs with a monster count can be a killer.
BTW- A guy who "figures" he has an advantage and goes up to 4X his unit bet doesn't sound like that much of an AP. He might have been camped at the table much more than four hours.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI just read an article about a card counter who admitted to losing $6,000 in one day when he said he figured he had a positive expectation. He also said he typically plays $50 per hand but will increase his bets to $100 or $200 if the count dictates.
Now... I am not a blackjack player. I know nothing about card counting. So bear with me as I ask a few questions.
1. Losing $6,000 in a day when playing $50/hand?? That's 120 losing hands. Isnt that extreme-- especially for say 4 hours of play? How many hands per hour is typical at blackjack?
2. If a card counter believes he has an advantage but he's not winning, when does he admit something is wrong with his count or betting system?
I admit I've had days when I lost money like that at craps and video poker... but at those games you dont have a mathematical edge when you play.
1) It would be many more than 120 total hands because he'd have many ebbs and flows of winning/losing hands, then a fair few hands with 200 bet that split, resplit or double. Those are the 5h1t or bust hands that dominate the session. 30 to 60 hands per hour would not be unreasonable at a quiet table. Losing 6,000 would be fairly bad luck. More likely he understates his big wagers as he goes chasing losses with big bets.
2)With Blackjack, the player advantage is seldom more than a couple of percent. It's still a high variance prospect for a short session. There are some really poor card counters who expect instant profit with the tiniest edge. If they are not properly kelly betting, then he is a lost cause. many are. And any system betting that is not card counting is just bunkum, but many do kick into system mindset when they fall behind. Then they often overbet.
However, I can't tell you about how many shoes I have experienced this trip alone where Player has won literally 2:1 and sometimes as much as almost 3:1 over the course of and by the end of the shoe with Bank never catching up. I can assure you I was NOT betting Bank much on such shoes.
How does this one, for example, grab you?
Look at the top line, all blue, with the exception of one tie.
I've played Blackjack double decks heads up where I barely lost 4 hands in the entire shoe. And I've played Blackjack double deck shoes where I lost something like 11 hands in a row.
So, yes, in the short term - anything may happen.
Nice post. Excellent visual demonstration to go along with the point you are making.
Quote: Ace2Assuming a 1% advantage, 60 bets per hour and $100 average bet, losing $6,000 in four hours is about 3.5 SDs to the left of expectations. About a 1 in 4000 chance. Bad luck for sure
Or, average, ‘Luck,’ depending on how many such sessions he has played.
Quote: MDawg
So, yes, in the short term - anything may happen.
You are always in the short term, you will
never play enough to be in the long term.
The game is in the long term every
minute, you never are,
Quote: EvenBobYou are always in the short term, you will
never play enough to be in the long term.
The game is in the long term every
minute, you never are,
I would disagree with this. Many people play enough that they should approach long term as opposed to short term. In Las Vegas there are many locals that play a couple hours a day five days a week. After five years they should be approaching the long term results. Of course, most of those people are idiots and playing terribly.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI just read an article about a card counter who admitted to losing $6,000 in one day when he said he figured he had a positive expectation. He also said he typically plays $50 per hand but will increase his bets to $100 or $200 if the count dictates.
1. Losing $6,000 in a day when playing $50/hand?? That's 120 losing hands. Isnt that extreme-- especially for say 4 hours of play? How many hands per hour is typical at blackjack?
2. If a card counter believes he has an advantage but he's not winning, when does he admit something is wrong with his count or betting system?
Alan, the first two questions in # 1 contradict what you wrote above #1, where you stated the 1 to 4 spread that he is using. Speaking of which I believe the spread is actually 1 to 8 and yes he typically plays $50 per hand but has the option of spreading in both directions up or down. I believe the table was $25 minimum and the player was trying to disguise his spread. The reason that I believe this is because a 1 to 4 spread is not sufficient for even a double-deck game never mind a shoe game that requires an even bigger spread to obtain an edge over the house. Either way, the player did not end up losing 120 hands at $50 a hand, most of the loss happened while the player was making his max bets. Now the last question in # 1 is the key point. Hands per hour are very important for a card counter. If a player sits down at the only open seat, making a full table he/she will be lucky if they can get 50 hands per hour "considering side bets" the game tends to creep along. Max bet opportunities diminish significantly because everyone seated is receiving cards.
Now the other extreme is when the counter is the only player seated at the table. The player can very easily receive four times the amount of hands per hour that the full table player receives. Understandably, this situation allows the player much longer max betting opportunities. All of this is good for the player. However, many more
opportunities also create more risk better known as volatility and I suspect that the majority of the player's $ 6K loss happened in that type of scenario.
Regarding # 2 the last question that you asked you to have it all wrong there is nothing wrong with his count or betting system. The player's edge is very small, subsequently, sometimes he gets hammered.
Mission for Moderator.
Quote: EvenBobYou are always in the short term, you will
never play enough to be in the long term.
The game is in the long term every
minute, you never are,
this post, while it may be technically accurate, depending on how one defines long term, is highly misleading
the longer a player plays, the closer his results are likely to be to what his long run expectation indicates
a mathematician (which I'm not) can make quick work of this
he will be able to calculate for example, that an AP playing with a 1.25% advantage:
will be ahead 67% of the time if he plays 1,000 hands
85% of the time if he plays 10,000 hands
and 95% of the time he plays 100,000 hands
these %s are not meant to be accurate -
they are just rough estimates serving as examples of exactly what a mathematician would be able to calculate
he can also make more in depth calculations - such as how often he will exceed his expectation by how much depending on how many hands he has played
anybody considering the worth of an EB post re gambling should consider this:
he has claimed he can easily beat double zero roulette
he has stated that it doesn't matter if the wheel has one or 2 zeroes
he refuses to state his methods for doing this
he has stated that the math doesn't matter
he has stated that he considered buying a Minivan for $2,500 with 200,000 miles
even though if he can easily beat roulette as he says, all he would have to do is up his bets for a day or a few days and he would easily have enough to buy a new Minivan
.
Quote: DRichI would disagree with this. Many people play enough that they should approach long term as opposed to short term.
Nope. Here is the long term. Every hand of BJ that's
ever been played in the world and is being played
at the moment. There is no way one person can
even put a dent in being in the long term. Why do
you think it took Thorpe so long, with the help of
computers, to prove card counting works. A computer
is the only thing that can simulate the long term. We
humans are permanently stuck in the short term.
Quote: lilredrooster
he has claimed he can easily beat double zero roulette
It only works because I realize I am totally
stuck in the short term. And always will
be. I cannot beat the long term, but I don't need
to. In the long term everything smoothly evens
out. In the short term anything can and will
happen and that can be exploited..
By that thinking, he didn't prove jack, because you seem to interpret 'the long term' as eternity.Quote: EvenBobWhy do
you think it took Thorpe so long, with the help of
computers, to prove card counting works. A computer
is the only thing that can simulate the long term. We
humans are permanently stuck in the short term.
One can prove that card counting works without simulating or playing one single hand. It's actually fairly simple arithmetic.
With just a little bit of maths, and zero simulation, one can say with x% probability that a card counter will be within a range of outcomes where the outcome is 'in profit'
and as number of hands is increased WITHOUT PLAYING ANY, one could calculate and chart how x% varies win n, where count of hands is n.
All without computer simulation or hours of play.
Oh.... And EvenBob cannot beat Roulette $:o)
What percent is your supposed average advantage?Quote: EvenBob.
In that case, you should have no problem beating any game no matter how bad the payback is.Quote: EvenBobIt only works because I realize I am totally
stuck in the short term. And always will
be. I cannot beat the long term, but I don't need
to. In the long term everything smoothly evens
out. In the short term anything can and will
happen and that can be exploited..
At -5% that so-called long run shows up fairly quickly.Quote: OnceDearBy that thinking, he didn't prove jack, because you seem to interpret 'the long term' as eternity.
One can prove that card counting works without simulating or playing one single hand. It's actually fairly simple arithmetic.
With just a little bit of maths, and zero simulation, one can say with x% probability that a card counter will be within a range of outcomes where the outcome is 'in profit'
and as number of hands is increased WITHOUT PLAYING ANY, one could calculate and chart how x% varies win n, where count of hands is n.
All without computer simulation or hours of play.
Oh.... And EvenBob cannot beat Roulette $:o)
So True. I suppose EvenBob whups that long term by never playing at all.Quote: AxelWolfAt -5% that so-called long run shows up fairly quickly.
WMOAT!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote: OnceDearSo True. I suppose EvenBob whups that long term by never playing at all.
Quote: OnceDear
One can prove that card counting works without simulating or playing one single hand.
Absolutely. But Thorpe needed
the math proof of the long term and he
needed a computer to do it.
Quote: OnceDearSo True. I suppose EvenBob whups that long term by never playing at all.
I actually play every day. Have for years.
Quote: EvenBobI actually play every day. Have for years.
WoO game?
Sad. your suspension means you cannot reply.Quote: EvenBobI actually play every day. Have for years.
You have said many times that you are staying away from casinos because of covid. You say that you know Online RNGs are rigged. That doesn't leave many winning opportunities to play every day. Somehow I can't see you APIng online roulette.
I can visualise you playing alone at your own table, beating your own personal bank.
I think if one goes back they might be able to find a place where he contradicts even playing online everyday, but whatever.Quote: OnceDearSad. your suspension means you cannot reply.
You have said many times that you are staying away from casinos because of covid. You say that you know Online RNGs are rigged. That doesn't leave many winning opportunities to play every day. Somehow I can't see you APIng online roulette.
I can visualise you playing alone at your own table, beating your own personal bank.
If I recall correctly, he plays at places that have live online dealers. There are not too many reputable United States friendly online casinos that offer live dealer roulette.
Quote: OnceDear
You have said many times that you are staying away from casinos because of covid. You say that you know Online RNGs are rigged. That doesn't leave many winning opportunities to play every day.
It doesn't? The live games feed from Costa Rica
that Bovada uses is also used by dozens of
other online casinos, some of which allow play
from the US. This means I can play 2-3 at
once if I want. More online play than I can
possibly handle and I don't have to leave
the house.
Quote: AxelWolfThere are not too many reputable United States friendly online casinos that offer live dealer roulette.
There are enough. How many do you think
you need.
I guess the answer to that would be, just one, if you are nickel and diming it. If I had an actual winning roulette system, I would want as many different places available as possible with as many accounts as possible, so I could reap the highest amount of rewards possible. Even if I had no interest in keeping that money for myself, I would figure out a way to make as much money as possible and then do something good with the money, like donate it to a charity.Quote: EvenBobThere are enough. How many do you think
you need.
Quote: AxelWolfII would want as many different places available as possible with as many accounts as possible,
I'm not giving details of how I play.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI just read an article about a card counter who admitted to losing $6,000 in one day when he said he figured he had a positive expectation. He also said he typically plays $50 per hand but will increase his bets to $100 or $200 if the count dictates.
Now... I am not a blackjack player. I know nothing about card counting. So bear with me as I ask a few questions.
1. Losing $6,000 in a day when playing $50/hand?? That's 120 losing hands. Isnt that extreme-- especially for say 4 hours of play? How many hands per hour is typical at blackjack?
2. If a card counter believes he has an advantage but he's not winning, when does he admit something is wrong with his count or betting system?
I admit I've had days when I lost money like that at craps and video poker... but at those games you dont have a mathematical edge when you play.
Sounds like either a poorly written article or author has a weak understanding of blackjack and counting. There are lots of those online. But to answer your questions:
1) I would consider it on the extreme side for someone with a $200 max bet; I also understand extreme things happen all the time. It could be even more extreme for a black chip player to never see swings like that.
2) The best thing is for there to be a constant evaluation of as much as possible: conditions, edges, etc. Given a 4-to-1 spread, I would say there could very well be something wrong with whatever he is doing. Or there could just be some missing information.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI just read an article about a card counter who admitted to losing $6,000 in one day when he said he figured he had a positive expectation. He also said he typically plays $50 per hand but will increase his bets to $100 or $200 if the count dictates.
Now... I am not a blackjack player. I know nothing about card counting. So bear with me as I ask a few questions.
1. Losing $6,000 in a day when playing $50/hand?? That's 120 losing hands. Isnt that extreme-- especially for say 4 hours of play? How many hands per hour is typical at blackjack?
I believe this thread started by Alan while I was on hiatus, was in reference to an experience that I shared only the day before he posted. Alan can prove me wrong by linking to the almost identical story he read. On August 2nd, I posted about a losing day of $6000 while playing positive expectation (+EV) of $170, playing a spread of $50 to $100, to $200, to MAXBET.
The only difference in my experience and the experience Alan started this thread with was the final jump in wager to MAXBET. I suspect when Alan read my account, that “to MAXBET” didn’t register as another and final jump in wager because I didn’t put a number to it. The number is $400. That was my max bet that day. So my spread was $50 to $400, not $50 to $200.
From previous discussions, I know Alan is not a blackjack player and understands very little about card counting, and that is OK. But, Alan’s conclusions are very wrong. The idea that a $6000 loss for a card counter represents (120) $50 or minimum wager losses is ridiculous. For a card counter, results for any session or day is going to be reflected by what happens when his largest bets are out, not his smallest. The smaller bets are almost insignificant.
So a card counter losing $6000 in one day is going to be about his max bets, in my case for that day, my $6000 loss is really 15 max bets ($400 bets), not (120) $50 bets. Now losing15 max bets or $400 bets doesn’t seem anywhere near as rare or unusual does it Alan? Especially when you consider that a player can lose 4, 5, 6 max bets in one hand with splits and double downs. 15 max bet loses or wins, is actually a fairly common occurrence, not the extreme (I think someone said 4000-1) event Alan seemed to think.
And in my case, my $6000 loss for that day was over 3 sessions, 2 small losses before my lunch break and one $4800 loss after. So my big loss for the day $4800 was actually only 12 max bets, even more common.
So that is the answer to your question #1 Alan. Not rare at all! Fairly common actually.
Quote: ChumpChangeSo if I was gonna spread $25 to $250, I'd buy-in with 10X $250 for one session, but be prepared to buy-in a couple more times for the day?
Every player has to figure out what they are comfortable with carrying around for themselves. I would just remind, that it is possible to have a couple splits and double downs on one hand and have 4,5,6 of your "max bets" on the felt. Dealer turns over a 4 card 21 and goodbye 6 max bets. :(
Everything about card counting is about getting to that max bet situation, a really strong count that lasts several, sometimes many rounds. The LAST thing a player wants to do is finally get to that situation and have to walk away due to lack of funds. But you want to balance that out with not carrying around too much money, especially anyone that has experienced a robbery at one time. So it is a balancing act to find, just the right amount.
For me, I won't start a 6 deck game without at least 15 max bets and a double deck game without 10. And even with that, there have been one of two times I have still been burned and tapped out during a high count.
Quote: ChumpChangeSo if I was gonna spread $25 to $250, I'd buy-in with 10X $250 for one session, but be prepared to buy-in a couple more times for the day?
No, you should not buy-in for $2500 at a $25 minimum table. Ten times the minimum bet would be more suitable. Whereby you give the appearance of being a non-threat small player.
Often I am entering a game with chips in hand (chip inventory). This is usually only a handful of chips, just to get in the game avoiding that first pit interaction. So at a $25 min table, maybe I have 4, 5, 6 green chips that I enter the game with. Maybe a couple black chips in my pocket to cover the first bigger (not max) bet. After that I go with cash. By that time, it looks like you are chasing losses anyway.
Now if I don't happen to have chips for the game entering, I will buy into the $25 game with only $100. 4 minimum bets. That sends a message. It says I don't have much money and won't be here long. First impressions are the big impression. While a cash buy-in does normally require that first pit interaction, buying in for such a small amount (4 minimum wagers), often results in pit approval from afar, like a wave of a hand, instead of coming over getting in my face asking for a players card. For effect a hundred in crumpled 20's and 10's really screams "I have no money" even more so. lol.
And again, when you do start buying in for more, it has the appearance of chasing losses.
Quote: kewljI believe this thread started by Alan while I was on hiatus, was in reference to an experience that I shared only the day before he posted. Alan can prove me wrong by linking to the almost identical story he read. On August 2nd, I posted about a losing day of $6000 while playing positive expectation (+EV) of $170, playing a spread of $50 to $100, to $200, to MAXBET.
The only difference in my experience and the experience Alan started this thread with was the final jump in wager to MAXBET. I suspect when Alan read my account, that “to MAXBET” didn’t register as another and final jump in wager because I didn’t put a number to it. The number is $400. That was my max bet that day. So my spread was $50 to $400, not $50 to $200.
From previous discussions, I know Alan is not a blackjack player and understands very little about card counting, and that is OK. But, Alan’s conclusions are very wrong. The idea that a $6000 loss for a card counter represents (120) $50 or minimum wager losses is ridiculous. For a card counter, results for any session or day is going to be reflected by what happens when his largest bets are out, not his smallest. The smaller bets are almost insignificant.
So a card counter losing $6000 in one day is going to be about his max bets, in my case for that day, my $6000 loss is really 15 max bets ($400 bets), not (120) $50 bets. Now losing15 max bets or $400 bets doesn’t seem anywhere near as rare or unusual does it Alan? Especially when you consider that a player can lose 4, 5, 6 max bets in one hand with splits and double downs. 15 max bet loses or wins, is actually a fairly common occurrence, not the extreme (I think someone said 4000-1) event Alan seemed to think.
And in my case, my $6000 loss for that day was over 3 sessions, 2 small losses before my lunch break and one $4800 loss after. So my big loss for the day $4800 was actually only 12 max bets, even more common.
So that is the answer to your question #1 Alan. Not rare at all! Fairly common actually.
Yeah, less experienced card counters don't realize how big the swings can be.
with a max bet of 300$, I have won >4000$ in a single shoe (20 mins, fast heads up) and I have also lost multiple times 3000$ in a shoe.
I actually once lost 5000$ in less than an hour playing Double Deck 50$ to 200$ max bet...
