My worst week as an AP

Played 5 days. Lost 5 days...3 of those days 5 figure losses.

The caveat is that I began playing significantly higher stakes a month ago in an effort to accumulate more EV. It is uncanny how so often when a player goes up in stakes, they almost immediately experience a losing period. That is the gambling/AP gods at work. lol

So playing significantly higher stakes, I am not sure it is fair to measure against all those week (10 years worth) at a different level of play, but "it is what it is".

While I long ago learned to accept and deal with the variance that accompanies blackjack card counting, I have to admit that this week "threw" me some, as evidence of my posts earlier in the week wondering out loud if I was getting a fair game. Lol.

On a positive note....I AM BUILDING EV quicker. lol. And I have faith in the math, that IN THE LONG RUN.....it will all work out as it should. But that doesn't change that it was a week unlike any other in my now 16 year career. Just goes to show, you never stop learning (and experiencing) in this game.

Quote: kewlj

Played 5 days. Lost 5 days...3 of those days 5 figure losses.

Damn. Unlucky.

Quote:

On a positive note....I AM BUILDING EV quicker. lol. And I have faith in the math, that IN THE LONG RUN.....it will all work out as it should.

I recall you've used this construct before: Stating that you 'accumulate'EV'. Doesn't this sort of perpetuate the fallacy that the game 'Owes you some value' that you will eventually get? That you played into a winning opportunity and had the misfortune to lose, is unfortunate. It had the potential to increase your bankroll but did not actually advance your real bankroll. It's just 'sunk cost'

I think it's the same thinking as "over time you must win" or "over time you must lose" depending on whether or not you play with an edge. There is no must. At best, should.

Quote: MDawg

I think it's the same thinking as "over time you must win" or "over time you must lose" depending on whether or not you play with an edge. There is no must. At best, should.

Pot, meet kettle.
I see a similarity to "It'll go back over 3400 eventually". Which I think you should prefix with "On past form, I expect"

I subscribe to the Law of Large numbers theory that given a large enough number of trials or sample size, results will come pretty close to expectation, which is what the math says it should be.

When you start talking about "owe" this or that, you are talking short-term and in the short term anything can and will occur, but long-term, the math dictates what will happen. With a large enough sample size to experience results outside of what the math says is what I call "defying the math" and I just don't believe in that. Not long-term.

I will give you examples from my own experiences:

Early my career, I had a year that started out with a bang. I was way above expectation maybe 6 weeks or 2 months. I mean way above! So, I though a losing streak or period was "due". So I cut my bet spread and max bet in half, thinking I would only lose half as much during this coming losing period. That losing period NEVER came. I continued winning for the rest of the year, just at a reduced rate from those first 6 weeks. So over the last 46 weeks of that year I managed to win roughly half of what I would have, if I had not cut my wagers and spread. And here is the telling thing. Had I not cut my wagers, I would have ended the year almost spot on expectation, without that losing period that I was sure was coming.

There are many ways to get back to the means, to expectation. You are never "due" for anything, but the law of large numbers says you will get there.

OnceDear: q.v. my recent post about how people pull what they want to hear from a post to make their points. All I mean by that is, saying that a stock will go back up, it is assumed that this means "should." But saying or implying that I am "owed" EV defies the mathematics of that one session of blackjack play has nothing to do with the next.

Anyway, how do we make our hyperlinks here pull the title (as you were just able to do) versus just be https URLs ?

Quote: MDawg

Anyway, how do we make our hyperlinks here pull the title (as you were just able to do) versus just be https URLs ?

Like so [url=https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pot+meet+Kettle]Pot, meet kettle.[/url]

That would be tough to stomach! There's always that paranoia that upon scaling up bet sizes things will come crashing down, but you just gotta trust the math!

I have an odd question.

If other players provide cover for counters, wouldn't an environment wherein there are significantly fewer players overall be problematic? Or not?

To expand on this -- would, for example, surveillance maintain the same roster of people and be able to focus on fewer tables and players? Or would there be fewer surveillance people? Would counters, whether recreational or vocational, keep playing and counting while non-counters would be more likely to be sidelined? Would tolerance for counting go down as casino income goes down, or do you think casinos would be more likely to tolerate because they are starved for people in seats?

Quote: redietz

I have an odd question.

If other players provide cover for counters, wouldn't an environment wherein there are significantly fewer players overall be problematic? Or not?

To expand on this -- would, for example, surveillance maintain the same roster of people and be able to focus on fewer tables and players? Or would there be fewer surveillance people? Would counters, whether recreational or vocational, keep playing and counting while non-counters would be more likely to be sidelined? Would tolerance for counting go down as casino income goes down, or do you think casinos would be more likely to tolerate because they are starved for people in seats?

You ask some interesting questions. Questions that some of us are trying to figure out as we go.

First who said other players provide cover for counters? There is one scenario that I have found that to be true. Big event/ fights/ holiday weekends when big bettors are out (whales or whale jrs lol) If there is a bettor, non counter playing large stakes at my table, I can then bet larger than I normally would and not be noticed. This is known as playing in the shadow (of a whale). Even better is if the whale is at the next table, so as to draw attention completely away from you and your table. Other than that, other players don't do much for me.

Fewer surveillance people? Who knows? Casinos had already made cuts everywhere in the last decade or so. Pit people that used to watch 4 tables now watch 6 or 8. It is my understanding from talking to a few surveillance guys over the years that the same cuts were made in surveillance rooms. The "bank" of monitors per surveillance guy has increased. Whether that has increased even more due to covid....I have no idea. Technically any casino taking the mask wearing seriously, surveillance should have another thing to be looking for, people interacting without masks.

You know despite common misconception, card counters are pretty low on the priority list of surveillance. The exception being a well funded team or higher limit player. For mid level green to black players are way down on the list. All kinds of theft is much more priority than card counters and that includes theft by dealers.

One of the reasons I started playing again is because there are some opportunities as a result of covid. While there are only 3 players per table, some casinos have made up for that by opening more tables. Some haven;. The pit folks have extra responsibilities to keep them occupied as well. At some casinos, Silverton for example, it is the pit people that are responsible for coming out of the pit and wiping down each chair periodically and immediately after a player vacates. That is a whole thing not in their job description that keeps them busy, and I know of one pit guy not very happy about it. I suspect there are many.