Counter's Nightmare

I know that Don and Parker will get pissed at me for posting this question, and I can probably answer it myself, but I'll do it anyway just for the fun of it.

Anyone who has been playing blackjack for any considerable length of time has run into what I call "the shoe from hell", or what Norm Wattenburger the creator of Casino Verite, calls "Counter's nightmare". In fact in Casino Verite, you can program it to play "counter's Nightmare". What do I mean by this? The six deck shoe that starts off with a small positive count and as the count increases you continually lose every bet you make. Of course, since we all follow the discipline, we are increasing our bets as the count gets higher, hoping for the blackjack or double down that will get us back some of our money, but it never comes.

How do the pundits of blackjack suggest we guard ourselves against this horrible experience? Now, I know the answer will probably be, "stick to the discipline!", because, and I have seen this too, eventually you will run into "the shoe from heaven", where the count starts off slightly positive and continues to increase and you win everything. Blackjacks and double downs near the end of the deck with your maximum number of units win every time. So "the shoe from heaven" makes up for "the shoe from hell".

Moreover, most shoes and double decks and single decks, are nowhere like the two shoes I described above. Most are middle of the road and give you a standard win-loss-push percentage, and sticking to the discipline will give you the expected value you want. The only reason I'm asking the pundits to comment on this is that the experience of "the shoe from hell" is so emotionally gut-wrenching, and I have experienced it too many times, that there must be some way to ameliorate the emotional pain as it is happening, rather than just believing, as I do, that eventually the game will come back to you.

What do you guys think?

OK, Frank. You try to stem the tide by saying that if you have four straight losses than that is the signature of a bad shoe. But, what do you suggest we do at that point? Do you quit and find another table, even though the count is extremely positive and the pundits would say that the winning blackjack or double down is just around the corner? Do you decrease your bets waiting for a more "favorable shoe", even though we all know that is superstition rather than mathematics.

Is there some mathematically sound strategy that would protect us from this occurrence? I think the answer is probably no, but I am interested in seeing what Don Schlesinger or Parker have to say about it.

From Lapper:

The six deck shoe that starts off with a small positive count and as the count increases you continually lose every bet you make. Of course, since we all follow the discipline, we are increasing our bets as the count gets higher, hoping for the blackjack or double down that will get us back some of our money, but it never comes.

****************************

Myself

That is why proper capitaliaztion to cover standard deviations and using risk adverse indices are important...Also keep in mind that if, for example, the count was TC +2 when the hand started and TC +4 when it ended, you were actually betting into a negative expectation hand...That is, more small cards came into play to take the count up to +4.

Our higher bets do not mean that we will be betting perfectly at all times, but we will be betting correctly more times then not...It also means that unless you do raise them when required, you will not be able to eliminate the built-in Casino advantage and construct one for yourself.

Casino's must put up with standard deviations in favor of the players all the time...Their pockets are deep enough to handle even the worst S.D...They have another thing going for them...Stupid people throw their money at Casino's, but the card counter must play against the perfect game as set up by the Casino.

Hello Lapper:

Asking John S. or Parker for advice is excellent...Here is some excellent advice from me.

IGNORE FRANK STANTON.

"The six deck shoe that starts off with a small positive count and as the count increases you continually lose every bet you make."

As the count increases, you EXPECT to lose, since a rising count is indicative of small cards, fewer BJs and losing doubles and splits.

"eventually you will run into "the shoe from heaven", where the count starts off slightly positive and continues to increase and you win everything."

The "shoe from heaven" = blind luck! Now, the count is rising, but you're STILL getting those tens and aces.

Clearly, if all the big cards are behind the cut, the high count is illusory, in reality. That's the "nightmare shoe" - knowable after the event only, unfortunately.

BTW, "four losses = losing shoe" = J. Patrick alert!

I guess my original question is one that really can't be answered because I am asking for an intellectual solution to an emotional problem.

The problem is not "the shoe from hell", which as Caruso so rightly points out only occurs because the tens and aces are behind the cut card, or because of "blind luck", the dealer ends up with all the twenties and blackjacks to your nineteens and twenties.

The problem is the emotions one goes through when that occurs. I'm sure all of you have experienced those thoughts, "Oh, they must be cheating me" or "How could I have lost that hand with a TC of +6, I must be an unlucky person". If there were some way of protecting our emotions, mathematically and intellectually, when those thoughts occur, then winning at card counting wouldn't be so difficult as it is.

Mr. Adams points out, rightfully so, that the casinos do not have to deal with this because there are no emotions for them, if they lose big at one table they make it up somewhere else, either from other tables or other games. If we lose big, even with the correct capitalization, we are only human and sometimes our emotions get the better of our intellect, and we find ourselves making mistakes or doing things that are contrary to the card counting discipline. This is another reason why most card counters, even if they are good, will not win in the long run.

I was one of those that sometimes let my emotions take over, so I have quit playing blackjack professionally, because I realized that I did not have the steely temperament one needs to be truly successful at it. I still play recreationally, once or twice a year, and I still count cards, but because I do not have as much invested in it, both financially and emotionally, I do not allow my emotions to get the better of me. After all, when you are playing recreationally, with a smaller bankroll, at the smaller minimum tables, a big loss is not so big, so it is not as emotionally wrenching.

My advice to those of you who do want to play professionally is make sure you have the guts to do it. It isn't easy and it takes real emotional fortitude.

because--afterall--Parker never does :-)

Blackjack is a cauldron, a boiling pot for the emotions--placed under the flame of uncertainty and chance.

Right now, you're cooking your own goose, for which you evidently have no appetite for. And that's no surprise to anyone!

How many of us have gutted and canibalized our own lives over unrealized fears based upon expectations of gain or fear of loss?

Trust your culinary skills Lapper, as the school at which you acquired them is tried and true, and top notch.

And by all means, keep your anxious hands away from that pot, until THE goose--not your own--has been fully cooked.

If you find yourself in the middle of the shoe from hell, after you have lost four hands in a row and have a high positive count, think to yourself, "This is where Frank Stanton says to quit."

Frank, admits to being a long term loser, yet he still plays. Frank admits to not using basic strategy and refuses to do so. He thinks the laws of math are only theory and do not apply to him. He blames his losses, not on poor play, but on 'bad luck'.

By staying in the 'shoe from hell' and betting what the math and count dictates, you are doing the opposite of what Frank Stanton would do. This knowledge should be enough mental comfort to allow you to stay the course.

Next time I find myself feeling down about a blackjack loss, I will do exactly what you say. I have no sympathy for people (Mr. Stanton) who continue to defy both their intellect by not playing correctly, and their emotions, by admitting they are long term losers and continuing to play.

I at least feel that I was smart enough to play intellectually correct most of the time, but when I realized that my emotions were getting the better of me, I quit playing before it got to the point where I was a long term loser. If Mr. Stanton prefers to defy mathematics and depend on luck, then I wish him good luck, but I doubt that he will ever realize his goals.

"My encyclopedia says, "A normal, healthy individual shows reasonable emotional responses to the situations of everyday life." If you are this sort of normal, healthy individual, you will never make it as a professional blackjack player. If you feel emotional responses to the situations of everyday life, you are too emotional to be a professional blackjack player. If it takes an extreme situation to provoke an emotional response in you, then you might be stable enough emotionally to survive as a professional blackjack player.

"A professional blackjack player experiences big wins and big losses. Though you have an edge, your bankroll seems to go down fast and build up only slowly. Some losing streaks last for months. You must be able to cope with the losses that inevitably occur. If you get upset when you lose, if losing makes you suspect that you were cheated, or if losing leads you to suspect that the authors of blackjack boois have explained playing strategy backwards, then you had better find another way to keep rice on your dining table."

-- Stanford Wong (from Blackjack Wisdom)

Not much I can add, really. I highly recommend this book.

Excellent quote from Stanford. I have Professional Blackjack, but I do not have Blackjack Wisdom, sounds like a good book that I will have to get. Thank you.

From Lapper:

"How could I have lost that hand with a TC of +6, I must be an unlucky person". If there were some way of protecting our emotions, mathematically and intellectually, when those thoughts occur, then winning at card counting wouldn't be so difficult as it is.

****************************

Myself

Being properly capitalized still means that there is a slight chance that standard deviations will turn you into a loser...That is, you will lose your entire bankroll...So this amount should be money that you can lose without having to find yourself out on the street.

Your emotional responses come from the fear of failure and it all depends what achievement you are embracing at that particular time...Bankruptcy and no place to live equals high stress and nervous tension...Losing a $15,000 stake out of a total peronal wealth of $100,000 equals less tension.

One must keep in mind that when the true count is +5, you actually have a 2% advantage...That means that out of the next 100 wagers that you put on the table, you should win 51 and lose 49...Maybe by keeping this thought in mind, you will not be so suprised when you lose with a true count of +5...Don't tell anyone, but my nerves get rattled too, because I haven't got a bundle of money backing me up.

Good skill and good luck in that order.

I liked your response to my message and your posts in general. Thank you for being so reasonable. I would like to take issue with one thing you said, though.

"One must keep in mind that when the true count is +5, you actually have a 2% advantage...That means that out of the next 100 wagers that you put on the table, you should win 51 and lose 49."

As I understand the percentage advantage, and I could be wrong, it has nothing to do with the amount of hands you win or lose. I thought that if you have a 2% advantage, it means that for every $100 played you should expect to win $102. This is very different than saying that you should win 51 hands versus 49, because it really depends more on which hands you win, the blackjacks and double downs are what give you the expected win rate, rather than the amount of hands you win or lose.

I am humble enough to know that I do not know everything, so if I am wrong on this, please correct me.

"One must keep in mind that when the true count is +5, you actually have a 2% advantage...That means that out of the next 100 wagers that you put on the table, you should win 51 and lose 49."

Just stick "percent" after the two numbers. This is, however, an excellent clarification, and one that many over-excited "young guns" would do well to bear in mind when there salivating over there "+5" and such like. There is nothing more than a MINISCULE positive expectation in this situation; take one of Uston's proverbial bean jars, filled with "+5", ie. 49 black and 51 white beans, stick your hand in; do you expect to win the next hand in "+5" more than you expect to draw a white bean? Then you certainly will be an emotional wreck! Rationalixe in this way and you'll make a big jump towards sanity.

Bang on, Stephen, IMHO.

Hello Lapper:

I guess we both have a point here...I purposely used the word wager because blackjack is a little different...In my methology, a double down is two wagers and when you get two blackjacks, you are actually being paid for 3 wagers.

I think my ideas apply in as much as you will lose 49 "wagers" out of 100 and rather than say---what the hell kind of luck is this, when you lose 5 in a row, you should say those losses are part of the 49 that I will lose, no matter how good of a card counter I am.

Let me try another angle...When most players stand on 12-16 against a bust card and the dealer wins, they say---what kind of luck is this?...Against the 4, the dealer makes his hand 60% of the time...The question being asked by the players is stupid...With a statistical chance of winning 40% of the time, they expect to win 70% ot the time and when they don't they wonder why.

Similarly, if the dealer in this situation gets 21, they invariably go snake eyes...The dealer gets 21, twelve percent of the time...What is all this nonsense about bad luck?...Those people just refuse to learn about the basic mathematics behind the game.

There is no meaningful correlation between a series of losses or wins and the wins or losses of the hands that follow. This can be proven by both simulations and recordkeeping of real play. Betting (or not betting) according to streaks is one of the most common blackjack myths.

Page 80-327 shoes. 87 had losing streaks of 4 or
more. None achieved status as winning shoe. these
were the study shoes. Where's your math? some of
you guys couldn't smell cat crap if you were eating it.

If you're sitting next to me your count won't be
climbing because I lose one hell of a lot of 20s.

Keep beliving in math-soon you will be Wonging flop
houses.