I've had it!
Quote: MathExtremistSomeone thinks player and banker are meaningfully countable *after* doing research into it? That was conclusively disproven decades ago.
The player and banker bets at baccarat are countable (and winnable) and will reveal the method later this year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyTpV8v7BOw
Quote: teliotNo, I already busted JSTAT on my blog once, he's not going to get any more attention on my blog than that:
http://apheat.net/2013/01/13/baccarat-card-counting-flim-flam/
I've read it. Even read the threads about it on the Beyond Counting forums before it was taken down.
Quote: InfidelIt's just like I told you. I'm sure I've made mistakes, but I'm telling you that the dealers simply get fantastic cards a a greater rate than they should. But I knew that the "selective memory" argument would materialize sooner rather than later, and all your points are well taken. I've also had some pretty good periods of winning in the last three years, when I started playing more seriously. Actually, I'm only down a small amount over that period, but the point is I was way up a couple of times, after months of struggling, only to run into about a 6 week buzz saw where the dealer suddenly can do no wrong, wins a huge proportion of hands, and eviscerates my bankroll.
The only records I have are not that good. I realize the games I play in are not that "good" either. I play at a couple of Indian casinos where the rules are fair, DD penetration poor in one, (about 50-55%), rules better in the second one with better penetration, (about 70%) but I can't play there anymore because I was banned from BJ because the pit boss said I was "too 'good' for their little casino" after a couple of hours when I beat the crap out of them, (I also had won 11 of 12 sessions there in two week's time at that point, but it didn't seem to be enough money to actually hurt them at all) so I was stuck with the other. There are several other games around, but they all feature NDAS so I don't play there. Vegas is not an option except an occasional trip, and I've not been there in quite a while. So I know what I'm up against. It's just hard to believe that Vegas suits wouldn't peg a counter just as easily as that novice at that hick Indian casino.
And I know that in at least some games, over my normal period of 2-3 hours of session play, the dealer gets 10 up and then 10 in the hole at least 60% of the time. Sure, it probably evens out somewhere else, at another time, but when this happens with higher counts, it's devastating. I'm conservative with the betting spread, (1-5 to 1-10, depending on the minimum) because I'm underfunded most of the time, but I would have lost much sooner with a bigger betting spread because of the dealer's fantastic luck on high counts. I know, I know. If I had lots of money I wouldn't be trying to win more by playing blackjack. OK, so I'm not that good. But I'm convinced my count (simple hi/lo) is accurate. I use the illustrious 18 (I never split 10, however), my BS is good, I sometimes cover on low bets (like doubling/splitting on -1 or -2 counts) , I go to two hands on high counts when I can.
My records basically suck, just win/loss session records for the last 18 months or so. I'll restrict discussion to that period of time, since it's the most relevant. So, there is plenty of grist for you there, I'm sure.
I'm not asking for help, because, as I said, I feel like I never want to hit another stiff, at least until I feel confident that I can win, and not encounter so much dealer luck. Oh, hell, maybe I just need a long break. But if you guys want to send some good advice my way, I will graciously accept, and I thank you in advance.
I am speaking the truth. I don't think you are ignorant people. If I did, I wouldn't have posted here. I think you'll treat me fairly.
Maybe you should employ the 8/9 side count to supplement the Hi-Lo Count. Maybe those dealers who refuse to bust at 14,15,16 will nail an 8 or 9 to go over 21 when they are in excess. Your double down winnings on 10/11 will increase with more 8/9's. Here is a video I did on the 8/9 side count https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGw8__5xlds
There's a lot of dumb stuff presented on the internet, and most of it really is not too difficult to identify.
Quote: JSTATYou notice I didn't delete your comment on my YouTube page. It's because I respect others opinions without attacking them
But you did. You did attack the mathematical principles around the hi/low count, and you did so while showing a clear lack of understanding to the math behind it. It isn't my opinion, it's mathematical fact that it works, and works well. That much is not even up for debate. Perhaps when my 3 "A to Z Counting Cards in Blackjack" articles are released you'll review and give me your analysis. Now, in my "opinion" I believe it is the most 'bang for your buck' when it comes to applying the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) method. I would take an educated guess that 75%+ of the counting community use hi/low, and for you to attack it, saying it's flawed and will ultimately make you lose, is just that, an attack... especially to those of us whom know the math, very well.
Quote: JSTATMaybe you should employ the 8/9 side count to supplement the Hi-Lo Count. Maybe those dealers who refuse to bust at 14,15,16 will nail an 8 or 9 to go over 21 when they are in excess. Your double down winnings on 10/11 will increase with more 8/9's. Here is a video I did on the 8/9 side count https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGw8__5xlds
As stated in my A to Z thread, you should not try supplementing with an 8/9 side count. You should focus on mastering one task at a time as these more complex counts and side counts will absolutely lead to 10x more training time and 10x more player mistakes, COSTING you EV. The ideal count for someone should be the count they're most comfortable with and have the fewest player mistakes... which is why Hi/Low is so perfect for so many, but understandably not everyone.
Quote: RomesBut you did. You did attack the mathematical principles around the hi/low count, and you did so while showing a clear lack of understanding to the math behind it. It isn't my opinion, it's mathematical fact that it works, and works well. That much is not even up for debate. Perhaps when my 3 "A to Z Counting Cards in Blackjack" articles are released you'll review and give me your analysis. Now, in my "opinion" I believe it is the most 'bang for your buck' when it comes to applying the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) method. I would take an educated guess that 75%+ of the counting community use hi/low, and for you to attack it, saying it's flawed and will ultimately make you lose, is just that, an attack... especially to those of us whom know the math, very well.
As stated in my A to Z thread, you should not try supplementing with an 8/9 side count. You should focus on mastering one task at a time as these more complex counts and side counts will absolutely lead to 10x more training time and 10x more player mistakes, COSTING you EV. The ideal count for someone should be the count they're most comfortable with and have the fewest player mistakes... which is why Hi/Low is so perfect for so many, but understandably not everyone.
Let's see, the developer of the High-Low (or Hi-Lo) Count was Julian Braun, and his findings was published in Ed Thorp's "Beat The Dealer" in 1966. Braun admits in his 1980 book "How to play winning blackjack" that he made an error in developing the system by stating, "In the depleted decks no 7's, 8's, or 9's were removed; the analysis was made for overly 7, 8, 9 rich decks". You can find this at :56 of my video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLtT8fzQsTc. So instead of shooting the messenger (me), one should ask math guy Ed Thorp to address the major flaw of the development of the Hi-Lo Count in his book!
BTW, I've done the math with combinatorial analysis of the frequencies of blackjack and incorporated it with my Ten Count. But since I opened up a can of worms with the Hi-Lo Count, I expected to be wrongfully crucified by those whose livelihood depends on book/software sales involving the Hi-Lo Count.
Quote: JSTATBTW, I've done the math with combinatorial analysis of the frequencies of blackjack and incorporated it with my Ten Count.
No, you have not. That is simply an untruth. In fact, that sentence doesn't even make sense.
Wait a minute. I've seen the work you did. You did compute the "frequencies of blackjack!" I remember ... you said that in a six deck shoe that the frequency of blackjack is 2*(96/312)*(24/311) = .047489. I wish I was being facetious here, or otherwise being sarcastic. But, honest, I saw something you wrote where you presented this computation as your proof of your system.
Obviously if you want to keep a side count of various cards, then I can see how this might help in some cases - for instance counting 6s probably helps decide whether you hit 15 vs 10. On the other hand it might not be worth the bother for the small gain - I have no idea.
| Count | House Edge | BlackJacks |
|---|---|---|
- 2.0 | -1.284% | 4.133% |
- 1.9 | -1.217% | 4.154% |
- 1.8 | -1.406% | 4.173% |
- 1.7 | -1.309% | 4.184% |
- 1.6 | -1.162% | 4.202% |
- 1.5 | -1.129% | 4.216% |
- 1.4 | -1.060% | 4.235% |
- 1.3 | -1.005% | 4.268% |
- 1.2 | -1.022% | 4.279% |
- 1.1 | -1.057% | 4.298% |
- 1.0 | -0.870% | 4.325% |
- 0.9 | -0.895% | 4.332% |
- 0.8 | -0.815% | 4.375% |
- 0.7 | -0.718% | 4.399% |
- 0.6 | -0.719% | 4.417% |
- 0.5 | -0.663% | 4.423% |
- 0.4 | -0.650% | 4.466% |
- 0.3 | -0.507% | 4.477% |
- 0.2 | -0.547% | 4.500% |
0.0 | -0.436% | 4.529% |
0.1 | -0.384% | 4.566% |
0.2 | -0.339% | 4.582% |
0.3 | -0.164% | 4.603% |
0.4 | -0.120% | 4.628% |
0.5 | -0.161% | 4.653% |
0.6 | -0.043% | 4.674% |
0.7 | -0.033% | 4.682% |
0.8 | 0.038% | 4.733% |
0.9 | -0.023% | 4.734% |
1.0 | 0.059% | 4.746% |
1.1 | 0.147% | 4.770% |
1.2 | 0.183% | 4.790% |
1.3 | 0.273% | 4.820% |
1.4 | 0.265% | 4.852% |
1.5 | 0.309% | 4.876% |
1.6 | 0.441% | 4.894% |
1.7 | 0.529% | 4.903% |
1.8 | 0.379% | 4.918% |
1.9 | 0.536% | 4.961% |
2.0 | 0.620% | 4.955% |
Edit : Added BlackJack percentages for various counts - the simulation uses six decks.
Quote: teliotNo, you have not. That is simply an untruth. In fact, that sentence doesn't even make sense.
What is it with your trolling Teliot? Totaling the number of combinations for a blackjack is very easy. 52x51=2652. 4 aces x 16 ten cards = 64. 2652 divided by 64 = 41.4375. 41.4375 divided by 2 = 20.71875. We (or the dealer) will get a blackjack approximately once every 20.7 hands. Very simple math and profitable for me for many years counting cards at single deck games. With more aces and tens are left in the deck, we can have the advantage when Hi-Lo indicates negative expectation . BTW, are you a winning card counter?
Yes, during the time I counted, I was firmly ahead. I have extensive log books from that time and never had a losing year (1997 to 2004).Quote: JSTATBTW, are you a winning card counter?
Perhaps losing hurt more than winning felt good? Not sure, but I always felt like I was getting my ass kicked. And if I didn't keep records, and separate my bankroll from personal funds, I'd be convinced I lost money overall.
My results were a bit below expectation, but that was likely due to small holes in my game, not variance.
By the way, MODS, this is the second time JSTAT has accused me of trolling. I mean, JSTAT appears to have come here for the primary purpose of driving people to his YouTube page, while saying things that are provably false.Quote: JSTATWhat is it with your trolling Teliot?
Quote: teliotBy the way, MODS, this is the second time JSTAT has accused me of trolling. I mean, JSTAT appears to have come here for the primary purpose of driving people to his YouTube page, while saying things that are provably false.
Nothing has been proved false here Teliot. That's another troll statement you've racked-up. You attack me, expect me to fight back. Don't think the Wizard Shackleford or many others have a problem with this. Is this your standard operating procedure to attack someone, then edit the troll post to erase the evidence, to get others thrown off this board as you did with expert John May (GBV)?
Infidel, I don't think your problem is that card counting doesn't work...it does work. I think the problem is you don't know how it works and don't have the proper tools to play a solid game.
Quote: teliotBy the way, MODS, this is the second time JSTAT has accused me of trolling. I mean, JSTAT appears to have come here for the primary purpose of driving people to his YouTube page, while saying things that are provably false.
If I'm not mistaken, JSTAT has done that on other found, too.
BBB, Why would you "minus 1" my post?
Quote: JSTATNothing has been proved false here Teliot. That's another troll statement you've racked-up. You attack me, expect me to fight back. Don't think the Wizard Shackleford or many others have a problem with this. Is this your standard operating procedure to attack someone, then edit the troll post to erase the evidence, to get others thrown off this board as you did with expert John May (GBV)?
You are not going to win many fights, if any, with teliot. He is one of the most respected men on this forum, and IMO might be the most respected man here outside of The Wizard himself. His knowledge and expertise on gaming both as a player and on the other side of the rope is unparalleled here. His mathematical acumen is beyond impressive and is probably the most valuable member of this community, at least in this humble person's opinion
Quote: RS
If I'm not mistaken, JSTAT has done that on other found, too.
Better get your facts straight before accusing anyone of something. I am a member in good standing on Twitter https://twitter.com/Casino_Examiner and Two Plus Two Poker Forums and rarely post on other forums. I came here to discuss the 20 year losing streak by the OP and the "establishment" keeps derailing this thread. The OP's 20 year losing streak could have been caused by the flaws of the Hi-Lo Count. I tried helping by suggesting he use a 8/9 side count to better his game.
Quote: JSTATWhat is it with your trolling Teliot? Totaling the number of combinations for a blackjack is very easy. 52x51=2652. 4 aces x 16 ten cards = 64. 2652 divided by 64 = 41.4375. 41.4375 divided by 2 = 20.71875. We (or the dealer) will get a blackjack approximately once every in 20.7 hands.
So you only play the first hand of each shuffle? I thought you were a card counter.
Quote: MathExtremistSo you only play the first hand of each shuffle? I thought you were a card counter.
Just wanted to show the "establishment" here that I know the math of blackjack. I made a video on how to use the math after the first hand at single deck playing heads up. I'd post it, but don't want to be accused of promoting my YouTube site again. Just Google "single deck card counting" to find it on the first page;) I compared Hi-Lo to my count and demonstrated how I got away with a 1-20 spread. Knowing surveillance uses Hi-Lo as a skills check, I bet big when more blackjacks than normal were left in the deck. Many times the Hi-Lo Count reflected a negative count while my count had the advantage. Got away with my method for 7 years until I got greedy and hit the 6 deck tables in Vegas where the Hi-Lo and my count yield similar advantages and got banned in 1997 :(
Anyway using the EORs from wizard, I put in different values for each card. So rather than using +1.0 (2-6) -1.0 (T-A) I used (2,3...T,A) 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.6 0.9 0.6 0 -0.4 -1.1 -1.2. and this produced a very similar table. I will admit that the "Profit" figure increased from $27.20 to $28.73, although for this run of 10m shoes the correlation between count and House Edge wasn't so consistent. I can't think that many are going to use these types of figures, however they might use 1/2s for 7s and -1/2s for 9s.
| Count | House Edge | BlackJacks |
|---|---|---|
- 2.0 | -1.236% | 4.146% |
- 1.9 | -1.215% | 4.160% |
- 1.8 | -1.157% | 4.189% |
- 1.7 | -1.179% | 4.203% |
- 1.6 | -1.062% | 4.216% |
- 1.5 | -1.062% | 4.241% |
- 1.4 | -0.998% | 4.279% |
- 1.3 | -0.958% | 4.275% |
- 1.2 | -0.910% | 4.317% |
- 1.1 | -0.781% | 4.341% |
- 1.0 | -0.806% | 4.348% |
- 0.9 | -0.818% | 4.355% |
- 0.8 | -0.706% | 4.395% |
- 0.7 | -0.741% | 4.402% |
- 0.6 | -0.640% | 4.419% |
- 0.5 | -0.553% | 4.443% |
- 0.4 | -0.581% | 4.459% |
- 0.3 | -0.566% | 4.484% |
- 0.2 | -0.494% | 4.505% |
- 0.1 | -0.420% | 4.506% |
0.0 | -0.433% | 4.528% |
0.1 | -0.332% | 4.560% |
0.2 | -0.295% | 4.572% |
0.3 | -0.242% | 4.587% |
0.4 | -0.236% | 4.613% |
0.5 | -0.144% | 4.634% |
0.6 | -0.131% | 4.650% |
0.7 | -0.084% | 4.679% |
0.8 | -0.059% | 4.690% |
0.9 | 0.024% | 4.713% |
1.0 | 0.084% | 4.728% |
1.1 | 0.081% | 4.737% |
1.2 | 0.151% | 4.777% |
1.3 | 0.246% | 4.781% |
1.4 | 0.238% | 4.789% |
1.5 | 0.221% | 4.811% |
1.6 | 0.379% | 4.850% |
1.7 | 0.307% | 4.839% |
1.8 | 0.507% | 4.874% |
1.9 | 0.425% | 4.892% |
2.0 | 0.416% | 4.907% |
In summary using figures more closely aligned to EORs than the simpler HiLo does theoretically seem to give a more accurate point as to when to increase your bets. However as it only gives 3% more profit ($28.73/100 hands rather than $27.20) and is not the easiest method to employ, so is it really worth the extra hassle.
I can understand if playing a single deck, careful analysis of all the cards gone would give a much better edge than using the blunt HiLo. I've kept my analysis to looking at a player keeping a single count in a multi-deck shoe.
At one time, J-stat, you were pushing the notion that not only did hi-lo not work, but that card counting in general didn't work. You went so far as to claim "card counting is a scam perpetrated by the casino industry". Well, apparently the casino industry didn't get that memo, because they are falling over themselves more than ever denying play to card counters.
And finally, you have harped on a mistake in Beat the Dealer as long as I have known you. That mistake has been acknowledged. But it is a minor error. It isn't a game changer. It doesn't disqualify hi-lo, just changes some numbers slightly.
At one time I used to get upset with your claims. But really, I don't care. It doesn't effect me. I KNOW what is true and what works. :)
But here's something I have never quite 'gotten' J-stat. What is your angle? With all the videos that you make and post on youtube and all the debates you are always in, I have never seen you selling anything. That would almost make sense. That fact that you aren't selling anything, makes your whole motive very unclear. Could you explain? What do you have to gain either way?
Anyway, I guess you were looking for an opportunity to engage Teliot, but I am disappointed that you used the guise of this particular poster and his shortcomings and/or failure, to do so. I am convinced this guy is doing something wrong, I just haven't figured out yet what. But it's not because of hi-lo. It may be because he is not implementing it correctly, or over betting bankroll, but his situation is not specific to hi-lo. Don't suggest that it is.
Valuable post. That's something the OP really needs to think about.Quote: HowManyDuring my counting "career" (if I can call it that), it usually felt like I was losing. But I kept solid records and my bankroll was increasing even though it didn't feel like it.
Perhaps losing hurt more than winning felt good? Not sure, but I always felt like I was getting my ass kicked. And if I didn't keep records, and separate my bankroll from personal funds, I'd be convinced I lost money overall.
My results were a bit below expectation, but that was likely due to small holes in my game, not variance.
On that note, you could also assume it was really someone just trying to spike up conversation in order to promote their you tube videos.Quote: HowManyPerhaps the OP is really Paigowdan? employing a new approach to discourage AP's.
Quote: kewlj
But here's something I have never quite 'gotten' J-stat. What is your angle? With all the videos that you make and post on youtube and all the debates you are always in, I have never seen you selling anything. That would almost make sense. That fact that you aren't selling anything, makes your whole motive very unclear. Could you explain? What do you have to gain either way?
Hi Kewlj! My goal as it says on my YouTube page is to share my love of card counting and casinos without charge. No angle or selling of anything. Having been there and done that in regards to blackjack card counting, I wanted to share my unique experience of being an actual winner by going against the conventional grain. I won big in the 90's as a single deck specialist and the only people who believe me are my family, friends, and the casino surveillance departments I burned in Reno, Lake Tahoe, and Las Vegas. I would do the opposite of the conventional Hi-Lo card counter by betting the minimum at 50% of the deck, no matter what the count! At minus Hi-lo Counts and positive blackjack expectations, I'd bet $100 at $5 tables playing heads up. A 1-20 spread. It was perfect cover knowing the surveillance departments were using Hi-Lo as a skills check. I was Danny Ocean before George Clooney. It all came to a screeching halt in 1997 at the New York - New York in Las Vegas where I played 6 deck (S17, LSR, RSA) and won $4000 after a 13 hour marathon at one table. They flyered me and have been toast ever since. I still play not rated, but those were the days Kewlj.
So that's my story. A nobody who fooled the mighty casino industry for 7 years. It took many years of mathematical research prior to my domination of casinos. I wanted to write a great book, but the blackjack establishment won't have any of it, as seen by the "experts" on this board.
But kudos on thinking outside the box and using extreme cover to buy you some longevity. With such good games, you could afford to do that.
I can understand that if you had access to better games, like deeply dealt single deck, there are better options than hi-lo. That's a fair argument. But where did you get hooked on the idea that hi-lo doesn't work? It works fine. And in todays games, I believe and argue it works even better. The crappy games have sort of come back to hi-lo making it a better choice, today. But, lets not get into that.
Here's what I will argue with you though. YOU were NOT Danny Ocean before George Clooney. Frank Sinatra was Danny Ocean before George Clooney! :)
Quote:Perhaps losing hurt more than winning felt good?
That is indeed the case. We talked about it
here awhile back. Losing has 2-3 times
more effect on you than winning. It's
a biological fact.
The example they use is you find a $20
bill in a parking lot. You feel good about
it. An hour later you discover you've
lost it. The pain of the loss will be twice
the emotion of when you found it, or more.
We are hard wired that way. It comes
from when losing something could mean
life or death. In stone age times, the loss
of a knife, or a flint to make fire, or a
weapon to hunt with. You needed to
hang onto these things dearly, and if
you did lose something, the pain of it
was very intense. This is with us to this
day. Ask a pro gambler what his biggest
win was and they're often vague about the
details. His biggest loss, however, is right
there in his mind, every detail of it.
With single deck you could probably use the monkey count and have good results.Quote: JSTATHi Kewlj! My goal as it says on my YouTube page is to share my love of card counting and casinos without charge. No angle or selling of anything. Having been there and done that in regards to blackjack card counting, I wanted to share my unique experience of being an actual winner by going against the conventional grain. I won big in the 90's as a single deck specialist and the only people who believe me are my family, friends, and the casino surveillance departments I burned in Reno, Lake Tahoe, and Las Vegas. I would do the opposite of the conventional Hi-Lo card counter by betting the minimum at 50% of the deck, no matter what the count! At minus Hi-lo Counts and positive blackjack expectations, I'd bet $100 at $5 tables playing heads up. A 1-20 spread. It was perfect cover knowing the surveillance departments were using Hi-Lo as a skills check. I was Danny Ocean before George Clooney. It all came to a screeching halt in 1997 at the New York - New York in Las Vegas where I played 6 deck (S17, LSR, RSA) and won $4000 after a 13 hour marathon at one table. They flyered me and have been toast ever since. I still play not rated, but those were the days Kewlj.
So that's my story. A nobody who fooled the mighty casino industry for 7 years. It took many years of mathematical research prior to my domination of casinos. I wanted to write a great book, but the blackjack establishment won't have any of it, as seen by the "experts" on this board.
That's so true.Quote: EvenBob
The example they use is you find a $20
bill in a parking lot. You feel good about
it. An hour later you discover you've
lost it. The pain of the loss will be twice
the emotion of when you found it, or more.
.
Quote: RSThe point of my post (asking OP what his EV, SD, ROR, N0 is) was to see if he actually knew, specifically, what he was doing. There's a big difference between reading a book that was probably meant for playing strong SD games years ago, half learning the material, and going out and playing with a 100-mqx-bet BR....compared to someone who has already read plenty of books, practices frequently, sims his game and figures out an optimal spread with a desired level of risk & low N0...then goes out and plays.
Infidel, I don't think your problem is that card counting doesn't work...it does work. I think the problem is you don't know how it works and don't have the proper tools to play a solid game.
If I'm not mistaken, JSTAT has done that on other found, too.
BBB, Why would you "minus 1" my post?
RS,
My apologies; your "quiz" post read like you were grinding on a guy while he was down (patronizing), not trying to help him diagnose his leaks, which you make clear here was your intent. If you can help him through this, please have at it.
On a lighter note, at least the drama involves mostly real people.Quote: beachbumbabs.
Quote: EvenBobThat is indeed the case. We talked about it
here awhile back. Losing has 2-3 times
more effect on you than winning. It's
a biological fact.
The example they use is you find a $20
bill in a parking lot. You feel good about
it. An hour later you discover you've
lost it. The pain of the loss will be twice
the emotion of when you found it, or more.
We are hard wired that way. It comes
from when losing something could mean
life or death. In stone age times, the loss
of a knife, or a flint to make fire, or a
weapon to hunt with. You needed to
hang onto these things dearly, and if
you did lose something, the pain of it
was very intense. This is with us to this
day. Ask a pro gambler what his biggest
win was and they're often vague about the
details. His biggest loss, however, is right
there in his mind, every detail of it.
I was playing off some free play tonight on a video BJ game $5 denomination. Lost the first 5 hands at what I thought was a one credit bet per hand. Nope, I was hitting the max bet button for 10 credits per hand. Found out when the free play zeroed out. Had it gone the other way, I probably wouldn't think twice about it. Now I will probably kick myself for a week and be paranoid double checking myself for awhile. Doh, I feel like an idiot.
Quote: MaxPenNow I will probably kick myself for a week and be paranoid double checking myself for awhile. Doh, I feel like an idiot.
This is something casinos wish didn't
exist. How we punish ourselves when
we lose.
Thank you Romes. I'd like that very much, and I would be forever appreciative. But excuse my ignorance. I don't know what you mean by "PM". Could you expand on that?
"During my counting "career" (if I can call it that), it usually felt like I was losing. But I kept solid records and my bankroll was increasing even though it didn't feel like it.
Perhaps losing hurt more than winning felt good? Not sure, but I always felt like I was getting my ass kicked. And if I didn't keep records, and separate my bankroll from personal funds, I'd be convinced I lost money overall.
My results were a bit below expectation, but that was likely due to small holes in my game, not variance."
That's one thing I DO know. I started with a fairly small bankroll. I was way ahead for a while, only to lose almost everything in very short order. Then win it all back with a severely truncated starting bankroll, only to lose it all plus a little more. This happened twice in less than three years.The gyrations are incredible. Yeah, it sucks to lose all those winnings. I didn't end up losing all that much overall, but I look at that as My money once the dealer pays it. If I win $3000 and then give back $2500, I don't feel like I won $500, rather, I feel like I lost $2500.
Quote: InfidelRomes: "If you'd like shoot me a PM with an e-mail address and I'll forward you the 3 articles. It should shed a lot of light on how to pull all the pieces together. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask them in the thread or PM me =)."
Thank you Romes. I'd like that very much, and I would be forever appreciative. But excuse my ignorance. I don't know what you mean by "PM". Could you expand on that?
Infidel: Look at the top of the page, just below the big Wizard of Vegas banner.
There is a dark blue menu bar, then below that, a light blue menu bar that starts with "Welcome, Infidel"
Just past the middle of the bar, there's a label that says, "Private Messages" aka PM's. That's where you send and receive them.
Shortcut: Click on Romes' name (in blue) next to any of his posts.
It will bring up his profile, and just below his name there's a button that says, "New Message". Click that, and you will be taken to a private message format that is addressed to him. There must be a subject/title you put in the second line or it will reject.
In the big box below those entries, just type like in the body of any email. at the bottom press "send".
Quote: Infidel
That's one thing I DO know. I started with a fairly small bankroll. I was way ahead for a while, only to lose almost everything in very short order. Then win it all back with a severely truncated starting bankroll, only to lose it all plus a little more. This happened twice in less than three years.The gyrations are incredible. Yeah, it sucks to lose all those winnings. I didn't end up losing all that much overall, but I look at that as My money once the dealer pays it. If I win $3000 and then give back $2500, I don't feel like I won $500, rather, I feel like I lost $2500.
You are/were probably way over betting your bankroll. What % of your bankroll were your minimum bets? Or how did you size your bets?
First, Infidel, if you start with a BR of $1000, say and you win $3000 for a total of $4000 and then lose all $4000, you have not lost $4000, you have lost $1000. That remaining $3000 was a product of variance, first positive and then negative.
More importantly, minimum bet of 1% of bankroll, spreading 1-5 and/or 1-10, means that your large or top wagers were 5% and 10% of your bankroll. That means you are most definitely severely over betting your bankroll, much more than double Kelly. Playing more than double Kelly, guarantees that that you will go broke.
The preferred way to determine what your spread and ramp (we haven't even really talked about betting ramp yet) should be is to use software. But in the absence of that, there is a very 'loose' rule (actually from years ago and I don't think it holds up very well today) that your TOP wager should be 1% of your total bankroll, to be playing at a safe RoR (risk of ruin). In your case, your smallest bet is 1% of bankroll and your top wager is 5% - 10%. As I said, this mathematically guarantees Ruin.
Quote: kewljOthere is a very 'loose' rule ...that your TOP wager should be 1% of your total bankrol
Interesting post.
The Wizard's loose Kelly formula is advantage/variance. He also lists the variance in BJ as 1.3225*. That means your advantage would have to be pretty high [well, like 1.33% LOL] to allow 1% Kelly. Thus 1% could easily be double Kelly already.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/
*actually my calc. from SD of 1.15
Quote: odiousgambitInteresting post.
The Wizard's loose Kelly formula is advantage/variance. He also lists the variance in BJ as 1.3225*. That means your advantage would have to be pretty high [well, like 1.33% LOL] to allow 1% Kelly. Thus 1% could easily be double Kelly already.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/
*actually my calc. from SD of 1.15
You can get this edge around a TC of 5. Seems like a good place for a top bet. I don't see the problem.
but I seem to hear that for the most part it ain't so hot
Quote: odiousgambitI don't know what kind of advantage BJ players can get to ... too ignorant
but I seem to hear that for the most part it ain't so hot
The ballpark figure is usually a 1%-2% advantage for straight counting decent games. I would think it to be much closer to 1% with today's games. You might squeeze 2% out of the best single deck games if you're allowed to play long enough. You won't be.
Quote: odiousgambitI don't know what kind of advantage BJ players can get to ... too ignorant
but I seem to hear that for the most part it ain't so hot
Yeah but you are able to get a lot of money out on those slim edges. On the flip side video poker has healthy edges but low bets.
Also the avaliability of +ev occurs more often in blackjack then a machine. Sit at a table long enough and youll be able to put out bets on a high count, as for machines the opportunity to make +ev happens less.
