CREDIBILITY
July 9th, 2011 at 10:34:56 AM
permalink
Can't find the other thread but this should not only address his credibility, but also Eliot's insight into the gambling psyche.
Casino Journal
March 2011
by Eliot Jacobson, Ph.D.
Watching blackjack tables day after day one hears the same laments from players: "you took the dealer's bust card," "bad players can ruin the game," "third base controls the table," and so on. None of these statements is based on science or fact; they are myths that degrade the long run odds for the player.
These myths turn a game with a typical house edge of about 0.5 percent into a game with an edge well over 1 percent. They cost players millions, if not billions, of gambling dollars per year. These myths persist in the face of dozens of books devoted to blackjack, information available everywhere on the web, recent movies like 21, and TV shows like the History Channel's Breaking Vegas.
It follows that we cannot blame poor blackjack play on ignorance alone. There is simply too much information available. Players must actively choose to play poorly and their poor play must be reinforced both socially and by their own personal recollection of events. Why do players choose and defend their poor play when it costs so much?
In search of an answer I came across a quote from Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist at Harvard University. He said: "The mind is not a passive machine. Once you believe in something - once you expect something - it changes the way your memory recalls it." This comment was made with respect to eye-witness testimony in criminal cases, but applies equally well to casino gaming. In other words, players tend to recall their gaming experiences in a way that is not consistent with what really happened. They experience "false memory syndrome."
For example, in blackjack the player is likely to recall the actions of the maverick player at third base who correctly hit his hard 12 against the dealer's 3, taking the dealer's bust card. However he is unlikely to recall all the times that same play worked in his favor. This is not merely selective memory. It is a profound re-writing of events to follow a false narrative. Players subsequently create mythological principles about how to play based on this narrative.
False memory syndrome creates a basic strategy for blackjack focused around two primary types of errors.
First, players are hesitant to take risks as often as they are required to by basic strategy. In these cases all strategy choices lead to a longterm win, but some win more than others. In life we often take rewards that are immediate in place of greater rewards that entail both waiting and risk. Over-remembering short-term losses has a direct impact on our willingness to invest for a greater return in the long run.
Examples of this tendency include the unwillingness to make soft doubles, like doubling A-7 against a dealer 4. Players view A-7 as a strong hand and don't want to risk making it worse in search of twice the profit. By doubling, players lose the hand more often, but when they win their winnings are greater. In the end, doubling is the right move. But, the immediate and painful memory of doubling and losing overwrites the more accurate long-term experience of winning more by doubling.
A similar story holds for 9-9 vs. 8. Players don't want to give up the safety of the imminent "18/18 push" to go for the risk and rewards of correctly splitting the hand and playing each 9 independently against the dealer's 8.
A second source of false memory occurs when all choices lead to loss, but some choices lose less than others. In this case we decry our sorry fate, but fail to take immediate actions that lessen the overall loss. This also makes it possible to be the victim. If we delay taking a loss, and subsequently the actions of others lead to us experiencing an even greater loss, we can blame others and not ourselves. Pain that can be delayed is easier to bear.
When the player has a hard 12 against the dealer's 3, basic strategy says to hit. By standing in this situation, the player delays the pain of an immediate bust and puts the burden on the dealer to make a hand. When the dealer makes his hand the player is a victim of fate. It was not his action that caused the loss; it was the dealer's action. It's not his fault. The universe simply did not do what it was supposed to do.
Though correct blackjack basic strategy is complicated, it is no more complex than the way the average player already plays and expects other "skilled" players to play.
The lesson here is that we have to take an active role in situations where false memory syndrome can influence our decision making. Gambling is one such opportunity. The tendency is to over-remember actions that cause short-term pain and under-remember actions that cause long-term gain. When it's positive we want it now. When it's negative we want to put it off as long as possible. Whether it's cashing out a lottery win or filing income taxes, correct basic strategy is often the opposite of what we believe and do.
The author, Eliot Jacobson, Ph.D., is president of Jacobson Gaming, based in Santa Barbara, Calif. He has held positions as professor of mathematics and professor of computer science, and with dozens of research articles, publications and media appearances to his credit, he is widely recognized for his expertise in casino table games and casino game mathematics.
Casino Journal
March 2011
by Eliot Jacobson, Ph.D.
Watching blackjack tables day after day one hears the same laments from players: "you took the dealer's bust card," "bad players can ruin the game," "third base controls the table," and so on. None of these statements is based on science or fact; they are myths that degrade the long run odds for the player.
These myths turn a game with a typical house edge of about 0.5 percent into a game with an edge well over 1 percent. They cost players millions, if not billions, of gambling dollars per year. These myths persist in the face of dozens of books devoted to blackjack, information available everywhere on the web, recent movies like 21, and TV shows like the History Channel's Breaking Vegas.
It follows that we cannot blame poor blackjack play on ignorance alone. There is simply too much information available. Players must actively choose to play poorly and their poor play must be reinforced both socially and by their own personal recollection of events. Why do players choose and defend their poor play when it costs so much?
In search of an answer I came across a quote from Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist at Harvard University. He said: "The mind is not a passive machine. Once you believe in something - once you expect something - it changes the way your memory recalls it." This comment was made with respect to eye-witness testimony in criminal cases, but applies equally well to casino gaming. In other words, players tend to recall their gaming experiences in a way that is not consistent with what really happened. They experience "false memory syndrome."
For example, in blackjack the player is likely to recall the actions of the maverick player at third base who correctly hit his hard 12 against the dealer's 3, taking the dealer's bust card. However he is unlikely to recall all the times that same play worked in his favor. This is not merely selective memory. It is a profound re-writing of events to follow a false narrative. Players subsequently create mythological principles about how to play based on this narrative.
False memory syndrome creates a basic strategy for blackjack focused around two primary types of errors.
First, players are hesitant to take risks as often as they are required to by basic strategy. In these cases all strategy choices lead to a longterm win, but some win more than others. In life we often take rewards that are immediate in place of greater rewards that entail both waiting and risk. Over-remembering short-term losses has a direct impact on our willingness to invest for a greater return in the long run.
Examples of this tendency include the unwillingness to make soft doubles, like doubling A-7 against a dealer 4. Players view A-7 as a strong hand and don't want to risk making it worse in search of twice the profit. By doubling, players lose the hand more often, but when they win their winnings are greater. In the end, doubling is the right move. But, the immediate and painful memory of doubling and losing overwrites the more accurate long-term experience of winning more by doubling.
A similar story holds for 9-9 vs. 8. Players don't want to give up the safety of the imminent "18/18 push" to go for the risk and rewards of correctly splitting the hand and playing each 9 independently against the dealer's 8.
A second source of false memory occurs when all choices lead to loss, but some choices lose less than others. In this case we decry our sorry fate, but fail to take immediate actions that lessen the overall loss. This also makes it possible to be the victim. If we delay taking a loss, and subsequently the actions of others lead to us experiencing an even greater loss, we can blame others and not ourselves. Pain that can be delayed is easier to bear.
When the player has a hard 12 against the dealer's 3, basic strategy says to hit. By standing in this situation, the player delays the pain of an immediate bust and puts the burden on the dealer to make a hand. When the dealer makes his hand the player is a victim of fate. It was not his action that caused the loss; it was the dealer's action. It's not his fault. The universe simply did not do what it was supposed to do.
Though correct blackjack basic strategy is complicated, it is no more complex than the way the average player already plays and expects other "skilled" players to play.
The lesson here is that we have to take an active role in situations where false memory syndrome can influence our decision making. Gambling is one such opportunity. The tendency is to over-remember actions that cause short-term pain and under-remember actions that cause long-term gain. When it's positive we want it now. When it's negative we want to put it off as long as possible. Whether it's cashing out a lottery win or filing income taxes, correct basic strategy is often the opposite of what we believe and do.
The author, Eliot Jacobson, Ph.D., is president of Jacobson Gaming, based in Santa Barbara, Calif. He has held positions as professor of mathematics and professor of computer science, and with dozens of research articles, publications and media appearances to his credit, he is widely recognized for his expertise in casino table games and casino game mathematics.
July 9th, 2011 at 11:34:27 AM
permalink
Great article! Thanks.
July 9th, 2011 at 12:08:45 PM
permalink
Thanks for the post. Can you edit that down to a link? I don't want Michael troubled by copyright issues from Casino Journal.
You may enjoy this article that was recently published -- Married to the Blackjack Tables
You may enjoy this article that was recently published -- Married to the Blackjack Tables
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
July 9th, 2011 at 12:35:41 PM
permalink
I wouldn't necessarily accept this as a "false memory syndrome" which more or less involves memories actively planted by someone often in a position of trust such as some therapist or teacher or the like.
All memories are selective impressions and selective recall. Men often remember the 38-24-36 but not even the hair color. This is also why a cop tailing someone will often carry something. A shopping bag perhaps or even pick up a bag from the gutter and carry it. A person alert to the possibility that he is being followed will see the bag or the box or something and not take note of the person who can then ditch it, reverse a windbreaker and keep following without being noticed.
Also attribution for bad events is different than good events. If you win at blackjack it is because you are a skilled player whereas if you lose at blackjack someone who is an absolute idiot took "your" card. The recall of the number of hands won and lost during a blackjack session varies also.
The man who comments on my play is an obnoxious jerk but the sweet young thing that comments favorably on my play is attractive and obviously intelligent.
The short term pain of adhering to Basic Strategy is remembered and people vary from it because they've hit on 16 and lost for the last "x" times but fail to remind themselves that each of those "x" times it was still the optimal play. The real problem is that we are all willing to make minor adverse adjustments and let the casino enjoy a cumulative enhancement of the house edge.
Its like that 100x Odds Bet at craps: reduces the house edge to something like 0.06 percent. Thats okay. The salaries and lighting bill are paid from the Center Bets if a man takes odds at 100x and also takes a free drink, he will eventually be making center bets.
All memories are selective impressions and selective recall. Men often remember the 38-24-36 but not even the hair color. This is also why a cop tailing someone will often carry something. A shopping bag perhaps or even pick up a bag from the gutter and carry it. A person alert to the possibility that he is being followed will see the bag or the box or something and not take note of the person who can then ditch it, reverse a windbreaker and keep following without being noticed.
Also attribution for bad events is different than good events. If you win at blackjack it is because you are a skilled player whereas if you lose at blackjack someone who is an absolute idiot took "your" card. The recall of the number of hands won and lost during a blackjack session varies also.
The man who comments on my play is an obnoxious jerk but the sweet young thing that comments favorably on my play is attractive and obviously intelligent.
The short term pain of adhering to Basic Strategy is remembered and people vary from it because they've hit on 16 and lost for the last "x" times but fail to remind themselves that each of those "x" times it was still the optimal play. The real problem is that we are all willing to make minor adverse adjustments and let the casino enjoy a cumulative enhancement of the house edge.
Its like that 100x Odds Bet at craps: reduces the house edge to something like 0.06 percent. Thats okay. The salaries and lighting bill are paid from the Center Bets if a man takes odds at 100x and also takes a free drink, he will eventually be making center bets.
July 9th, 2011 at 1:09:13 PM
permalink
Quote: teliotThanks for the post. Can you edit that down to a link? I don't want Michael troubled by copyright issues from Casino Journal.
You may enjoy this article that was recently published -- Married to the Blackjack Tables
Wish I knew how. I am computer illiterate. Also judgement proof at present. Only source of income is Social Security. LOL
But should be more careful in case I get lucky with a patent in the future.
July 9th, 2011 at 2:10:27 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaff... Players view A-7 as a strong hand and don't want to risk making it worse in search of twice the profit. By doubling, players lose the hand more often, but when they win their winnings are greater. In the end, doubling is the right move. But, the immediate and painful memory of doubling and losing overwrites the more accurate long-term experience of winning more by doubling. ...
I'm too lazy to check all the numbers, so I'll just ask, "Is this part right?" Yes, I know that doubling is the correct action, but is it true that doubling will increase the frequency of losing the hand? It seems as if a choice that both increases the amount of the wager and increases the frequency of losing would not offer an overall benefit.
July 9th, 2011 at 4:45:41 PM
permalink
Did someone representing himself as Eliot sell you a winning system or do you have a valid point to make ??
July 9th, 2011 at 5:12:20 PM
permalink
Doc I am surprised at you. Let's think about this. Anytime you double down you will lose more hands than you will win, had you not doubled down. Think about it. Last time you doubled down that 11 and got an A, don't you wish you could get another card.
Lets ignore pushes and look at 100 decisions 58 to 42 in your favor at $5 = $80 profit
56 to 44 in your favor at $10 =$120 profit
Lets ignore pushes and look at 100 decisions 58 to 42 in your favor at $5 = $80 profit
56 to 44 in your favor at $10 =$120 profit
July 10th, 2011 at 2:36:15 AM
permalink
Concerning that "married to blackjack" article wherein the supposed(?) newlyweds hit the table for nine grand in short order and the plodding low level counter/bet-spreader got "the tap" for taking chicken-feed over a much longer period of time, I wonder if this stuff still goes on. The one shoe counting behavior and then take your "just married" act to the next casino must work. The next night they might be a bickering couple contemplating divorce and arguing over the amounts of the bets and "you sure ain't getting any tonight". Its really the difference between the ten dollar bettor and the thousand dollar bettor.
Are casinos still fixated on the fleas of the BJ table? I know of three low level card counters who supposedly got backed off at SouthPoint going from two red chips to one green chip. But SouthPoint is sometimes called SweatPoint.
Do casinos generally still fixate on the low end counter who probably costs them zilch to peanuts while the casinos ignore those higher level counters who are simply good actors and betting at levels wherein the casino does not want to discourage them at all. I know team play used to be big... plodder gives a signal and drunken rover suddenly shows up at table at bets big while plodder keeps betting table minimum and hopes to avoid being connected to drunken rover who wins often.
Are casinos still fixated on the fleas of the BJ table? I know of three low level card counters who supposedly got backed off at SouthPoint going from two red chips to one green chip. But SouthPoint is sometimes called SweatPoint.
Do casinos generally still fixate on the low end counter who probably costs them zilch to peanuts while the casinos ignore those higher level counters who are simply good actors and betting at levels wherein the casino does not want to discourage them at all. I know team play used to be big... plodder gives a signal and drunken rover suddenly shows up at table at bets big while plodder keeps betting table minimum and hopes to avoid being connected to drunken rover who wins often.
July 10th, 2011 at 8:14:54 PM
permalink
" has unquestioned credibility in the AP world " ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 10th, 2011 at 10:06:44 PM
permalink
Quote: RussHaleyThe fact is, I made valid points several times, and they were deleted each time. But since you asked, I'll try one more time and we'll see how long this one lasts.
From the Jacobson bio:
The author, Eliot Jacobson, Ph.D., is president of Jacobson Gaming, based in Santa Barbara, Calif. He has held positions as professor of mathematics and professor of computer science, and with dozens of research articles, publications and media appearances to his credit he is widely recognized for his expertise in casino table games and casino game mathematics.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Jacobson has a very long history on AP message boards, and even ran one for a spell. He tried his hand at AP and was a dismal failure. The fact is, he is held in very low regard by most experienced advantage players.
You're making an equation where none exists, I'm afraid. Being an AP has nothing to do with being an expert in casino game mathematics, nor vice-versa. I am an expert in casino game mathematics but I am not an AP, nor do I aspire to be one. Conversely, most self-titled APs, even the truly successful ones, couldn't even begin to properly design casino game mathematics (especially for a slot game). There are undoubtedly those who are adept at both roles -- I personally know several, and know of many more -- just as there are those who cannot do either.
I am unfamiliar with Dr. Jacobson's background as an advantage player, successful or otherwise, so I cannot comment specifically. But I fear your "valid point" is anything but. It would seem that your primary sources are all advantage players who distrust anyone who was formerly an advantage player (regardless of success) and is now working for the gaming industry. As an analogy, it would make sense that a group of professional thieves would lose all respect for one of their own who has "gone to the dark side" and is now a police detective. The opinion of the thieves is understandable but not relevant to whether that person is a good detective. Similarly, the fact that a bunch of APs don't like Dr. Jacobson because he's a casino consultant is not relevant to whether he's a good one.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
July 10th, 2011 at 11:02:09 PM
permalink
Quote: RussHaleyThe fact is, I made valid points several times, and they were deleted each time. But since you asked, I'll try one more time and we'll see how long this one lasts.
By your own admission you are posting the same message multiple times, which would violate the site's no spamming rule. The flagging option on this site is there for a reason. If you don't like your posts being flagged then tone it down, or say what you have to say elsewhere.
Quote: RussHaleyThere have been many threads regarding this self aggrandizing, talkative, attention-getting, and loose-lipped gentleman.
While some of your post is factual, other parts are both opinionated and insulting, including the above. Personal insults of forum members is also against the rules. For that reason I'm going to bust the post in question myself.
Basically, I'm not going to let you use this forum to satisfy a vendetta you have against Eliot. Normally I might suspend you for the rule violations, but I"m in a good mood today, so will let it go with a warning, and busting the offending post.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 11th, 2011 at 8:09:27 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardBy your own admission you are posting the same message multiple times, which would violate the site's no spamming rule. The flagging option on this site is there for a reason. If you don't like your posts being flagged then tone it down, or say what you have to say elsewhere.
About that, when I see identical posts starting two or more threads, I will flag one of them. I surmise others do the same, but since we don't necessarily pick the same thread, then both vanish into thin air.
Naturally the thing to do is not to post multiple times.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
