You should work for the Barbary Coast.
Big plunger walks up to a table, lays down some cash, loses, and presses his bets. Happens to be in a positive count, and you think it is a 3 SD event!
Are you sure it wasn't just an inside job with the dealer?
Big plunger walks up to a table, lays down some cash, loses, and presses his bets. Happens to be in a positive count, and you think it is a 3 SD event!
No, it isn't. A random bettor would enter a positive shoe slightly less than 50% of the time.
In the previous example, the player was already at the table and raised his bet dramatically at a TC of +5. That is much less likely to occur to a random bettor because a TC of +5 occurs very rarely in a shoe game without extremely deep penetration. Further he increased his bet when the count rose to +6. A random bettor will produce this series of bets less than 1% of the time, assuming normal distribution of bets within reasonable paramaters.
Why is this report so difficult to believe? It was classic "Big Player" action. Ken Uston perfected it, and he acted like a bigger drunk and jerk than this "sugar daddy" that I saw. Furthermore, after his sacrificial double-down, this guy played flawlessly. That lost double-down paid for itself ten times over in longevity because the extremely sweaty pit believed that they had a sucker on their hands. A "sucker" who cleaned out all their green chips -- twice. This was an excellent example of getting signaled and jumping in. You have the perfect formula: a hot little tramp to distract the bosses and an apparent drunk who plays craps (which, if done correctly, is perfect cover at a neglible loss) and makes stupid double-downs (one, strategic stupid double-down). Does everyone lack the imagination to see how well this would work? It was so simple, yet so well executed.
John, accidents DO happen--as does coincidence--and to surmise, on the basis of Robert's report, that these two " accidental tourists " were on the make for anything other than gambling kicks does little more than create an aura of credulity around your own powers of deduction. Robert has jumped to a conclusion via his innocence, you have done the same through your apparent reoccuring desire to make mountains out of mole-hills.
There just isn't enough evidence here to proffer any grandiose claim that these two were in cahoots with the count. I have witnessed on many an ocassion--either on my backcounting forays or during actual play--other players raising their bets in synchronicity with the count, who were, nonetheless, not counting cards. If you play enough you will witness these, and other coincidences, simply by virtue of the shear volume of players you sit beside or stand in back of.
For this reason your introduction of Standard Deviation into this event is moot, and improperly considered, because we don't know how many other couples were/are hanging around in proximity to each other within the casino and we don't know how many " other " Robert's there are around to observe their actions as they are making dinner arrangements at the blackjack table ( in this case. )
It may well have been that there were two thousand such Robert's observing somewhat similar events and five thousand such couples playing together before a set of circumstances arose for " this " Robert to be moved to the point where he felt compelled to report this remarkable ( according to him ) event. Voila, an innocent coincidence parading as a dirty dalliance--to an AMAZED, albeit innocent, observer.
There is no hard evidence, in this case, that this couple was working together, and for this reason it is unreasonable to assume that they were. And if you do assume that they were BJ counting partners then there IS evidence that you are either a person who is easily gulled, or are just inexperienced and niave about such matters.
FWIW, a more likely scenario and " act ", based upon my experience in casino play, would be for the bodacious Asian tart to come upon the the harried, old-fart, caucasian sugar daddy while HE was at the BJ table in a state of dishevelment or generally liquored-up confusion. He would, nevertheless, be capable of perfect basic strategy play as he flat bet away until the mischevious mistress was ready to be signaled in.
The Asian gold-digger would then slide perfectly into her stereotypical role ( for all concerned ) like a twenty dollar Manila hooker around the arm of her next date. These are EXPECTED and repeated stereotypes which would not arouse suspician. The acrimonious woman would play the man's bankroll the way she plays the man--loose and fast--with that typical Asian tart nastiness--" c'mom baybee let me play more....baayybeee. " and so forth and so on.
The man's input would be resigned to calling the shots on the hands as he " battled " to keep control of a woman who was " obviously " beyond his ability to do so--with much success. THIS, and this alone, would be the extent of their act--her raising the bets with the count, as they both hemmed and hawed over playing decisions, with her finally making the concession owed to him as her over-the-hill bayyybeee...allowing him to make his ( perfect ) playing decisions.
If I saw this at Robert's table instead of what he has reported--then I could perhaps surmise, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that something just might have been going on there. But that's about it with a " reasonable degree of a might be "--nothing more and, for sure, something quite a bit less than mathematical certainty based upon standard deviation...that's just plain silly John, c'mon!
John, accidents DO happen--as does coincidence--and to surmise, on the basis of Robert's report, that these two " accidental tourists " were on the make for anything other than gambling kicks does little more than create an aura of credulity around your own powers of deduction
Coincidences do indeed happen. I said reasonable grounds existed for suspicion.
There just isn't enough evidence here to proffer any grandiose claim that these two were in cahoots with the count.
A +3 SD event is almost the definition of evidence as far as any question of probability is concerned.
For this reason your introduction of Standard Deviation into this event is moot, and improperly considered, because we don't know how many other couples were/are hanging around in proximity to each other within the casino and we don't know how many " other " Robert's there are around to observe their actions as they are making dinner arrangements at the blackjack table ( in this case. )
No, sample bias could only have limited effect here because Robert observed strange and unusual play and then took an interest in the couple. That is how you test a hypothesis: you observe abnormal behaviour and then test it against a future data sample. That way you eliminate sample bias.
The 3 SD event is merely the probability of a random bettor raising his bet at a TC of +5 and then at a subsequent TC of +6. If I had made some Bayesian refinements on, for example, the basis of the girl's play, the evidence would be much stronger, probably conclusive.
This is not rocket science.
If I saw this at Robert's table instead of what he has reported--then I could perhaps surmise, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that something just might have been going on there
Of course! I've said that three times now. That was all I was saying. Unless you take Robert's evidence at face value its pointless even discussing it for the simple reason it may never have happened.
There are terrible players who bet big, Robert.
Wake up to yourself and look under your bed .There's a "Communist" under it.
lol
Sorry ,but it's a fair analogy
Robert said:
Does everyone lack the imagination to see how well this would work? It was so simple, yet so well executed.
No. I think you lack the mathematics to see how awful this "act" was. The cover is so expensive as to put your brilliant couple into a negative situation. Their strategy probably gave them negative EV; I have no doubt that ti gave them negative Certainty Equivalent.
There used to an ad running for a local car dealer, who bragged about his low prices. He said his philosophy was " Sell a few cars and trucks at a little loss, and make a profit on the volume ".
Some counters seem to have the philosophy: "Play with a lot fo cover and have negative EV, but make a profit on longevity".
Some counter seem to think that merely getting a big bet on the table in a plus count is a major accomplishment, guaranteeing victory. And that your edge is so great to give up lots of errors to do it.
Our edge, even in a big plus count, is rather small. It is barely greater than the House advantage on the pass line at craps. You think the craps play is cheap cover, so you have some idea as to small the edge is.
Doubling 12v4, in a big count, is one of the worst plays you can make. Better cover is to make positive deviations, even in negative counts. Like "always talking insurance", or "always splitting 10s", etc. This way you make the right play when the big money is on the table.
And doubling the 12 is complete overkill. It doubles your expected loss, but it quadruples your Variance! He could have hit the hand, in order to "protect" the others. Or he could have doubled for less, which might actually have increased his cover.
Maybe somebody can run some numbers, but it would take about 10 max bets (maybe more), played perfectly, to make up for the loss in doubling the 12v4. This would bring you back to 0 EV, but with very high variance. However, it would still not pay for the cover given by the spotter in the beginning, nor that given up in the craps game. And he wouldn't be able to give any more cover on those other plays.
The thinking that really cinches it in my mind is that you noted that they turned down the comps. If you are playing with high cover, you really need to make money on the comps. Ian Adnersen plays with very high cover, some excessively high, in order to preserve longevity. But Ian makes a lot of money on comps. You have to if you are playing this way.
Since the turned down the comps, he probably didn't give them a name! This is another HUGE mistake. There is no point in playing badly and getting known as a sucker if your not going to let them put a note in the computer saying "give this guy anything he wants."
The described pattern could be how the guy usually or often bets. Maybe it was normal for him and it just happened that the count was high and a counter was watching.
The described pattern could be how the guy usually or often bets. Maybe it was normal for him and it just happened that the count was high and a counter was watching.
How can it be that this guy bets in accordance with the count without knowing anything about the composition of the deck?
It may have "just happened" that the count was high, but as I am trying to explain, it is unlikely this would occur by chance alone.
...Please provide some actual figures. Piss-weak anecdotal reasoning doesn't cut it in any aspect of blackjack. I've provided an answer-if you disagree with that answer provide your own and explain why the methodology differs. But enough with the "I don't think that" bullshit, this question has an answer. I get that every day from people who think I should stand on 16 vs 10.
Have a look under the bed
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus Man ,c'mon you are surely NOT that naive
Surely not, but alas methinks in this case ,you are.
that tale is phony.
Asian females simply don't jump up and down squealing. In casinos or otherwise. There is a reason the term inscrutable is applied to asians.
Interesting point. But I think it's a bit of a stereotype. I live in a collge town and know alot of Asians and Asian-Americans. You can't tell them which are which from looking at them (ok, maybe sometimes the clothing gives it away). But the Asian-American women don't act a whole ot different from American women of European descent.
to disagree.
I play in local casinos several times a week. It is no exagerration to say that over half the players I encounter are Asian.
About half of those are women. I am talking hundreds over the past 5 years.
They simply do not jump up and down squealing with excitement whether they are winning, losing, or watching someone else winning or losing.
A big demonstration from one of them is smiling while they sloftly clap hands a few times.
Yes it is "a bit of a stereotype", but that doesn't preclude it from being true.
and the conclusions we draw based upon them, are > 99.9999 SD'S away from the *exact* mean upon which all SD is based.
How do we find, or measure precisely, human dalliance or deviation when all measurement in this area are necessarily so grey and, at bottom, arrived at by guesswork...or by psychology...which may be even worse and even more " shadowy ". For at least here, in this forum, we can discuss such matters with a sense of humor instead of with the pompous solemnity of some would-be social scientist who actually believes he knows what he's taking about!! ( And let it be known--I don't! )...but here go's anyways...
Both in our judgements about the actions of others, and in our own human actions, we deviate ( individually always ) from the hypothetical mean, since no mean can accurately depict the UNIQUENESS of our actions and thoughts as individuals. The mean represents the AVERAGE, but individually speaking every buman action, from its conception to its actualization aways has the potential as a " special " case. Are you listening Emile Durkheim?
And this is one of the reasons why this particular subject under discussion has aroused such interest, speculation, or as you say perjoratively, anectodal reasoning, because that is precisely what it deserves based upon the fact that it is indeed another potential special case, which we, based upon the sum total of our life, or blackjack experience, can only make guesses about...which we love to do BTW.
We, as people, like to make guesses about the mystery of what others are " up to " and we can only do so in inexact and anectodal ways--short of putting them under the microscope in a lab with four white walls. That's not what happened here, John. And for you to conjecture with SD, just because it seems more " scientific " and exact to do so, is to not see the forest from the trees in terms of this casino event--which is about as far away from a controlled lab as one can get.
The mean simply does not, and should not ever be applied here John--because the case at hand has been layed out in such inexact terms, and for some of us who are perhaps--dare I say a little more sage--we have taken the subject a little less seriously than some other person who try's to arrive at precise conclusions about human activity with a slide rule in one hand and a calculator in the other.
What were these two " up to "--based upon the slim evidence here, it's anyone's guess John, no SD'S need apply--thank god--but anectodal evidence and stories may indeed shed more light on the perpetually grey area known as human behavior--thank god!
