I have a friend who works for the ACOA. He called me and told me they won't kick you out and will give you all the comps you want!
Just please come play at their casinos.
PS: Don't forget your money and your progression system!
I have a friend who works for the ACOA. He called me and told me they won't kick you out and will give you all the comps you want!
Just please come play at their casinos.
PS: Don't forget your money and your progression system!
Are you just ignorant, or are you a troll?
to soothe the minds of those who don't understand the math.
Northwind - what you suggest isn't a bad idea if your only goal is to reduce overall variance/sd since you would have lower swings in the bankroll from the higher swings with your max bet all the time to smaller swings with some smaller bets thrown in. One problem is the following statement you made:
"Does anyone here dispute that there can some benefit to averaging?"
In order to reduce some of the negativity being associated with your post - I'm not going to continue to use the word progression but use bet variations instead.
The thing that you seeem to be missing is that there is absolutely no change in ev in the long run as the result of changing bet size AT A GIVEN COUNT. For the same reason bet variations don't make a negative ev less negative, they won't make a positive ev more positive. The mathematical proofs are given in the progression link at the top of this page.
The problem here is that this is only true at a given count. Betting variations are the main reason counting is profitable and the important relationship is the relatively bigger bets during positive ev shoe states compared to smaller bets during negative ev shoe states. So when you are reducing your average bet size during the positive shoe states as you suggest - you are really REDUCING YOUR OVERALL EV.
The other thing that shows you really don't understand the big picture is the entire post:
"It's the flow of chips you need to worry about."
There is no such thing as the flow of the chips. The ev at any given time is estimated by the count and for that given count, the "flow" doesn't exist. Try and think of it like playing basic strategy but instead of there just being one game played straight through, your are playing many different games, one at each count, all in parallel. For each "game" you are playing you have a different bet size and if you use strategy variations then you are using different strategies for each one as well. During the play of each of these games, you will have wins and losses but the order and bet sizes don't matter, you're perecent ev for each individual game is the same and more specifically, the "flow" of the cards during each game is irrelevant.
So in conclusion, since the overall ev for any of these sub-games is the average bet size times the precent ev of the sub-game, with what you suggest you are:
1) Reducing your overall ev
2) Not getting any increase in ev by averaging
3) Fooling yourself into thinking you can follow the flow of the chips since there is no such thing on a count-by-count basis
As a side-note, I don't know if there's any benefit from a cover standpoint from what you suggest that may allow you to last longer at the tables. If there is, then there may actually be some saving in ev since you'd spend less time travelling between casinos relative to the loss of ev from the strategy - but I'd be very surprised.
Good luck though and as long as your having fun and not worried about getting the best bang for your buck, I wouldn't worry about any of it.
Sincerely,
MGP
I apologize for the confusion.
I started out thinking that the OP honestly believed what he is saying, but his persistence in the face of numerous logical arguments indicates that he may just be a troll. It was especvially suspicious when he just claimed that he needs to see a sim in order to understand that reducing your spread lowers your SCORE, all other things being equal. He can't possibly believe that SCORE would increase by reducing spread. Since he is making an argument that he probably knows to be false, he could only be a troll.
I tend to be a bit naive and always assume that others are acting with good intentions. This is probably because I am fortunate enough to be surrounded by quality people for the most part. The downside is that it takes me a while to spot when someone is just pulling my chain.
First, thank you for your thoughtful post and staying on subject.
Your response may have been a little different if you had known the following:
I don't believe in the flow of cards.
I don't believe in the flow of chips.
It was made up at the spur-of-the-moment to counteract the flow of cards comment that everyone likes to use as a thought stopper.
Same as Progressions,voodoo,gamblers falacy,full astrays.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it used here in the future and take on all kinds of strange meanings. So I better give it a definition;
chips coming to or from your chip stack.
I question the math when it's contrary to reality while at the same time recognizing that reality keeps changing. Because someone uses a temporary solution to an immediate problem doesn't mean one's abandoning the overall math.
Concerning the rest of your response, I have a difficulty in addressing EV because it's positive EV that caused the problem in the first place. To my mind losing a max bet should be a rare occurance instead of a common one. I could see lower bets having a higher SD & Var because there are more of them. BTW do these have a
higher var than max bets?(just curious).
Been staring at this post for hours and rather than let it reach book
length, although incomplete, I'll let it go.
I wonder if I should really be worried about germs. The reality is that I can't see them, so do they really exist?
I question news reports. I didn't see that man get murdered, so did it really happen. Should I just take someone's word for it?
I question whether USC was really more talented than Texas. The reality is that Texas won the game, so should I really believe that USC had more talent?
I question whether I am really a great lover. My wife says so, but she might be lying (OK, she doesn't really say this, but I'm on a roll, damnit).
I question whether pocket aces are really favored to win against AK in hold'em. I just lost a $200 pot, after all.
Of course I question whether it was a good idea to bet $100 when the math said that I had a 5% advantage, and should expect to lose only 48% of the time. Deep down, I know that the math is right, but it still hurts when the dealer scoops up my $100. When this happens 6 times in a row, and the snot nosed kid next to me gives me a condescending look like I need to get some help for my gambling problem, I REALLY start to question whether this makes any sense. I think, maybe I should just bet less so that this doesn't hurt so much.
These are natural, emotional reactions. That does not mean that they are right. In the realm of things that I should be questioning, proven mathematical principals are the last thing on my list.
At least give us a hint as to what the change will be and why so far off 'til it's up and running again?
"To my mind losing a max bet should be a rare occurance instead of a common one."
Well there it is - I suspect this is where your issue with believing reality has its roots. The problem is simple psychology. It sucks to lose a max bet and it's easier to remember that than remembering a winning one - especially if you're expecting to win much more often.
Unfortunately our minds often play tricks on us and warp reality. One example is of a prominent physician who was accused of rape by a lady who swore it was him. It turned out he was on a talk show at the time she was being raped and the tv had happened to be on. The association she had formed with his face and the unfortunate event was so strong she was able to pick him out of a line up. Of course being on national television live was enough of an alibi - but it is an example of how our perception of negative events is often wrong.
Anyways, you should really look at the following site:
http://www.bjstats.com/bjsc.asp
and pull up your game.
For the first example I pulled up using 6D High-low, at a TC of +18 you the % wins was 45% vs 40% losses.
I don't know at what TC your max bet is, but if it's anything less than +7, you're only winning <1% more often than losing. Even at +10 you are only winning 2.5% more often. I.e. your win and loss rates at max bets are very nearly the same, but just slightly biased towards winning and losing a max bet is clearly not supposed to be a rare occurrence.
So unfortunately, it is your mind that is leading you away from reality and not the math.
Good luck,
MGP
I hope you wont feel you've wasted your time. Your responses are much appreciated.
Being a non-counter, but an avid player and theorist of the game, I often adopt the problems being faced by counters to see if I can solve the problem and increase my knowledge of the game and possibly improve my own play. All this is done without the posters knowing I'm doing so. I ask myself what would I do if I was a counter facing that situation.
Having experimented with averaging in the past, I thought it might have an application to a post by Barbie on CardCounters.com. My response never made it past the moderator. A week later a similar response to (Frustrated) a post on AdvantagePlayer.com never made it past the moderator.
I thought these sites were being too restrictive, so I posted it to this site.
I personally don't have any problems with max bets. My EV is calculated differently and bankroll fluctuations at BJ are minor.
Sorry for any confusion and thanks for magnifying what happens in the max bet zone.
> I have a difficulty in addressing EV because it's positive <
> EV that caused the problem in the first place.<
No, what caused the problem is the way the cards came out. E.g., lots of tens and one Six. You got the T6 and the dealer got TT, instead of the other way around -- way its "supposed" to be. The fact is that it will come out "wrong" ca. 50% of the time, but you still have the overall advantage on AVERAGE because a certain percentage of the time that Six will show up as the dealer's up-card, revealing his weak hand.
> To my mind losing a max bet should be a <
> rare occurance instead of a common one. <
Wrong again. For example, in DD, S17 DAS, you will win 50.07% of the time at a TC of +3. Let's say the count is even higher and you will win 51% of the time and "only" lose 49% of the time. Since it's about a 50-50 shot at virtually any count, this makes losing a COMMON occurance at ANY count, not a rare one.
Where you make your money in this game is not by winning more hands, but through the "premium" hands: 3:2 for a snapper; doubles and splits.
OK, assuming a count of +3, and a prob of loss @ 49.93%, the chance of losing 3 in a row would be ~= 0.1245, or just a little worse than 1 chance in 8. In actual practice, we hope to lose only 1 of the 3, and we can survive losing 2 out of the 3; but losing all 3 definitely gets our attention and is long remembered, while the other events are quickly forgotten.
You -- and me, and all of us -- have no choice but to accept that losing all 3 (or more) is an EVENTUALITY, not merely a possibility. The only defense is to have enough bankroll depth to withstand it.
So, basically counters try to pinpoint a VERY SMALL portion of
the winning hands that would normally accur in a 100 hand series.
Dividing the ties equally between the wins and losses would give
47 1/4 units won plus 2 1/2 extra units because of BJs = 49 3/4 units won and 50 1/4 units lost.
If the count doesn't correspond with one of the randomly placed wins in a 100 series, then the counter is in trouble.
Is this an accurate picture.
that it is very sad that you are apparently a pathological liar...
There is nothing wrong with asking questions and I am not a counter either, but it is pathetic that you boast that:
"All this is done without the posters knowing I'm doing so."
Why bother with the charade? Clearly you really don't:
"hope you wont feel you've wasted your time."
because then you wouldn't have just made things up and lied repeatedly in your posts. You lied about how you deal with max bets which apparently you never make, you made up a perception of how often they come out since you wouldn't even know when the count would call for them since you can't count, and the worst thing of all is that you tried to pass this off as trying to help someone when you have no idea what in the world your talking about. Did you think for a second that if someone had listened to you since you purported to know what you were talking about they would literally be harmed since their real life bankroll would be effected?
If you have questions you should just ask them and maybe even try and do research before you make things up and pretend to be something you aren't - especially if you don't even understand simple math. Honest mistakes and questions of ignorance are just that and there is nothing wrong with those - but you clearly had malintent from the beginning. There is a reason the mods busted your post, because they saw the potential harm to others, and that is why people took the time to try and help you once your post actually got through.
Finally - you are also lying to yourself because while you might be an avid player, you are clearly not a theorist of the game since you never even took the time to understand the basics and aren't even practicing what you initially said you do. That make you not a theorist but a simple bull--itter.
When the response started to drift away from my suggestion on averaging and whether it had any practical value, I immediately tried to make you aware that I was putting myself into the shoes of another poster. If I had intended to deceive, I wouldn't have said anything.
Please read the post by "Frustrated" over at AdvantagePlayer.com on the Parker Pages - Blackjack Main.
Post, dated Jan.4/06
When does it become (long term)
If you still feel the same way then I offer my apology.
I've been posting on BJ21 for years and always claimed to be a prograession player.
Your responses are well written and should be of interest everyone, whether I'm in the picture or not.
> So, basically counters try to pinpoint a VERY SMALL portion of
> the winning hands that would normally accur in a 100 hand series.
> Dividing the ties equally between the wins and losses would give
> 47 1/4 units won plus 2 1/2 extra units because of BJs = 49 3/4
> units won and 50 1/4 units lost.
>
> If the count doesn't correspond with one of the randomly placed
> wins in a 100 series, then the counter is in trouble.
>
> Is this an accurate picture.
Even playing B.S., 6D, Atlantic City rules, the player will win ~47.5% and lose ~52.5% of the hands, excluding push, but his average win will be ~$1.2046 for every dollar bet and his average loss will be ~$1.0996 for every dollar bet.
Now, if you could keep the same "money odds" proportion, but get to a count where you will win 50%, then you have a (1.2046 - 1.0996) / 2 = 0.0525 profit for each $1 bet.
Unfortunately, the "money odds" proportion changes for the worse as the count rises, as you will have fewer doubling and splitting opportunities (fewer low cards available to give you those 65's and 64's to double and 33s and 66s to split, to give you a few examples) but a higher chance of getting high pat hands and snappers, so the count has to be VERY high indeed to give you anything close to the 5.25% alluded to above.
It also changes as the count goes negative, as fewer and fewer doubles and splits are indicated at negative counts, on top of the lower number of high pat hands and snappers, not to mention the fact you will win a lower proportion of the hands at low counts.
A counter is looking for an overall advantage of 1% to 1�%. You could look at this as one extra win or one extra snapper per 100 hands.
Most non-counters do not understand this, and just assume that by counting cards you should be able to win 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the hands. In reality, it means winning and losing roughly the same number of hands, but with larger bets out on a small majority of winning hands.
This is why this takes a GREAT deal of patience, unshakable discipline, and a fairly sizeable bankroll. It is not for the casual player or "weekend warrior." Such players should just take their chances with a reasonable progression and hope for the best.
Most "counters" are really just gamblers who bought a book on card counting. The fact they are gamblers means they do not and never will have the discipline required to make card counting work. Face it, gambling and discipline are pretty much antithetical. Few gamblers have discipline and few disciplined people gamble.
Thus they have unrealistic expectations, and give it up, complaining, "every time the count got high, the dealer got the good hand and I got the stiff" or some such. This is just evidence of a lack of patience. What they want is "the big score," and they want it NOW.
As for your "100 series," that is a very small amount of data, and virtually anything can happen in such a small sample -- roughly an hour's worth of play. Some hours, you get kicked in the teeth; and some hours you kick ass. The trick is to make the "kick ass" times worth more than the "kicked in the teeth" times so that, in the long run, you end up with a reasonable return on risk.
When you go to the site why do you get a picture of a guy flipping you off?
Eliot is now a guest of the Department of Homeland Security and is sequestered in an unspecified facility where inducements to speak freely (and at great length and heightened volume) are administered by sneering civil servants who really, really like their jobs.
He's naming names like the lyrics of McNamara's Band.
The site was too lean
Too narrow of scope with nothing to see
Ebay is where it ought to be
But the one dollar value is too much for me
Good luck in the future
but please no more books
to tell us all
just what it took
My life is a mess
after reading your book
Now we all know
you don't know what it took
Note: I didn't really read your book but I needed it to make it rhyme.
Bj21 uses cookies, this enables us to provide you with a personalised experience. More info