Quitting while you're ahead?

I've been away from this site for quite some time, so, please forgive me for asking a question that has probably been answered many times.

I use Basic Strategy and play both DD and 6&8D BJ using the KO Blackjack card counting system and vary both the playing strategy and the amounts I bet with the count. I know that my stack of chips will fluctuate as play progresses, regardless of the card count. I also know that there are certain times when it is necessary to quit playing for a significant period of time (e.g. getting some sleep, having dinner, doing my laundry, etc.) Is there an advantage to quitting after my stack has just completed an upswing rather than a downswing? In my own experience, it seems to make a LOT of difference. But, what can you experts tell me?

Is there an advantage to quitting after my stack has just completed an upswing rather than a downswing? In my own experience, it seems to make a LOT of difference.

As counters we make money by spending time at the tables. However, there is no guarantee that the next session you play will win or lose, regardless of whether that session is in the next hour or three weeks from now.

A question to you: How do you know that your "stack has just completed an upswing?" How do you know it's not in the middle or the beginning of a longer upswing? You can't predict the short-run, but you can predict the long run. The more hours you spend playing, the faster you will get there.

You replied: "A question to you: How do you know that your "stack has just completed an upswing?" How do you know it's not in the middle or the beginning of a longer upswing? You can't predict the short-run, but you can predict the long run. The more hours you spend playing, the faster you will get there."

I may not know that my stack has COMPLETED an upswing, but I cetainly know whether or not I have just recently increased or decreased my winnings. It's like the stock market, I know when I've had a runup, even tho' I don't know if the future is going to be up or down. (I'm assuming here that I'm deciding whether or not to stop for a while at the completion of the shoe, because if it's during the shoe the card count would assist in predicting the future for that shoe.)

I agree with you that the more you play the more you win, if you play correctly. But, my question here is based on practical considerations such as the need to stop occasionally for such things as sleeping, eating, and taking my wife to a movie. Another of my limitations, although not necessarily yours, is that after some time I get tired and groggy and do not concentrate very well. The question, then, is, when I find it necessary to stop playing for a while, would it be advantageous to stop after I've had a runup of winnings?

If you play for comps, it may be better to quit on a downswing so when you leave the table and the dealer colors you up, you don't have as much that you are walking away with. If you don't play for comps, go for the ego boost and quit while you're ahead. That way it feels like a winning session. Just my 0.02 :-)

I may not know that my stack has COMPLETED an upswing, but I cetainly know whether or not I have just recently increased or decreased my winnings. It's like the stock market, I know when I've had a runup, even tho' I don't know if the future is going to be up or down. (I'm assuming here that I'm deciding whether or not to stop for a while at the completion of the shoe, because if it's during the shoe the card count would assist in predicting the future for that shoe.)

The way I invest in the stock market is to periodically add money to my S&P index fund. Do you realize that even though the S&P is down 25% over the past 4 years, my investments are slightly up? People who try to time the market by selling high are likely to lose out when the market continues to go up.

I agree with you that the more you play the more you win, if you play correctly. But, my question here is based on practical considerations such as the need to stop occasionally for such things as sleeping, eating, and taking my wife to a movie. Another of my limitations, although not necessarily yours, is that after some time I get tired and groggy and do not concentrate very well. The question, then, is, when I find it necessary to stop playing for a while, would it be advantageous to stop after I've had a runup of winnings?

I don't understand. Why would it be advantageous in this situation? As you noted there are criteria for stopping play, but, from a mathematical standpoint, winning is not one of them.

However, you may wish to leave after a big win to avoid undue scrutiny. In my last visit to LV, I won 250 units in a single shoe. I was out of there so fast that the slot machines were toppled over by my wake. I did continued to play at an adjacent casino.

...if you're not walking away in the middle of a positive-count shoe or deck.

As long as you're quitting when the dealer goes to shuffle, then "quitting while you're ahead" makes zero difference.

Why?

Because each SHOE is an independent event. What happened in the shoe or deck prior makes no difference to what's going to happen in the NEXT shoe/deck.

Now, advantage play (counting) is of course based on the fact that DURING a shoe/deck, the cards that come out ARE dependent. They're dependent on which cards have already been played during THAT shoe/deck.

But what you're asking is essentially whether quitting while you're up makes you a bigger winner in the long run. The answer is no. How much money you won in the previous session, or the previous five minutes, makes no difference as soon as you're going into a new shoe or deck.

Now, if you're truly seeing a difference over a long period of time, we cannot ignore that evidence. However, we KNOW that it doesn't have anything to do with the cards; remember, each shoe is an independent shoe from the one previous. You've seen this; some shoes get to a hugely positive count, and some never seem to move more than a couple of points away from the IRC.

The odds are much more likely that you just don't have the stamina or ability to focus properly over a certain length of time. There's nothing wrong with this; it just means you're human. :) We can't sit and count endlessly, and neither should we try.

If you consistently wind up winning more playing 2 hour sessions instead of when you consistently play 4 hour sessions, the odds are that during those last couple of hours you're just not able to pay as much attention and thus you're losing the count, or you're slipping away from basic strategy (ie, not being disciplined), or something like that.

Coop

PS The notion that you can just always quit when you're "up" is essentially what betting "progressions" are based on. They don't work.

What you say makes sense, even to me. But, suppose I need to quit playing (for whatever reason) but because it's not immediately urgent, I can choose between stopping at the end of any one of several shoes. Doesn't it make sense to choose the shoe that represents a relative gain in winnings over the previous few shoes? Futhermore, if that is achievable, and if I do that consistently over time, aren't my total winnings greater than if I quit randomly?

"Suppose I need to quit playing (for whatever reason) but because it's not immediately urgent, I can choose between stopping at the end of any one of several shoes. Doesn't it make sense to choose the shoe that represents a relative gain in winnings over the previous few shoes?" -old aggie

And how do you know that the next shoe -the one you just bailed on -wasn't the best shoe of the night? Or, how can you be certain that, when it starts becoming time to quit, that you won't lose the next three shoes? Then what? Stay till the fourth; then the fifith? Then what?

The fact is if you "quit while your ahead" your just simply quitting .. till next time. I personally like to quit winners for a lot of reasons -none of then however have a single thing to do with the mathmatical probability of me winning or losing.

Cooper said each shoe is an "independent event." That may be. So is tossing a coin. Isn't it amazing how all those independent events tend to average out .. to the expected value.

Cooper is absolutely right. As long as you don't walk when the TC is +2 or better, it makes no diff. You may FEEL better walking with change than being down a notch or three, but that is the life of a card counter. You may not be cut out for it, and knowing this, have made amends of your own sort to give you reason to keep on playing with an advantage. We should play like a machine would, but we are not machines. We like to be ahead, and tell ourselves we will swing around because we understand the math. Why? Because we have feelings.

"Open the pod bay doors HAL"
Rob McGarvey

What you say makes sense, even to me. But, suppose I need to quit playing (for whatever reason) but because it's not immediately urgent, I can choose between stopping at the end of any one of several shoes. Doesn't it make sense to choose the shoe that represents a relative gain in winnings over the previous few shoes? Futhermore, if that is achievable, and if I do that consistently over time, aren't my total winnings greater than if I quit randomly?

Let us compare your strategy using a fair coin. Suppose you win 1.1 units for each heads and lose 1.0 units for each tails (such a deal!). Suppose you have time to play 5 flips, but choose to quit after two heads in a row. Consider the following equally likely results. The first number is your result, the second number is result if you stop only after five rounds:

HHHHH: 2.2, 5.5
HHHHT: 2.2, 3.4
HHHTH: 2.2, 3.4
HHHTT: 2.2, 1.3
HHTHH: 2.2, 3.4
HHTHT: 2.2, 1.3
HHTTH: 2.2, 1.3
HHTTT: 2.2, -0.8
HTHHH: 2.3, 3.4
HTHHT: 2.3, 1.3
HTHTH: 2.3, 1.3
HTHTT: -0.8, -0.8
HTTHH: 1.3, 1.3
HTTHT: -0.8, -0.8
HTTTH: -0.8, -0.8
HTTTT: -2.9, -2.9
THHHH: 1.2, 3.4
THHHT: 1.2, 1.3
THHTH: 1.2, 1.3
THHTT: 1.2, -0.8
THTHH: 1.3, 1.3
THTHT: -0.8, -0.8
THTTH: -0.8, -0.8
THTTT: -2.9, -2.9
TTHHH: 0.2, 1.3
TTHHT: 0.2, -0.8
TTHTH: -0.8, -0.8
TTHTT: -2.9, -2.9
TTTHH: -0.8, -0.8
TTTHT: -2.9, -2.9
TTTTH: -2.9, -2.9
TTTTT: -5.0, -5.0

You will notice there are times when your strategy seems to work. But overall if you add up all the results you get: 7.2, 8.0. Clearly, the better strategy is to play all 5 rounds.

Suppose your strategy is to quit when you're ahead. I'll leave that as a exercise for you.

"You may not be cut out for it, and knowing this, have made amends of your own sort to give you reason to keep on playing with an advantage." -Rob.

If you are referring to the collective "You", then fine. If your referring to myself directly, then not so fine.

I'll tell you that I am cut out for it, have not had to make any .. amends .. to justify my play, and understand that trying to quit session winners is a futile concept.

That dosen't change the fact that I still like to quit winners "for a lot of reasons -none of then however have a single thing to do with the mathmatical probability of me winning or losing."

Now, I may like too .. but it dosen't always happen!

Merry Christmas

to you too. Once again, I was referring to the original post by Old Aggie, not to you. I try to play for a certain time period regardless of what is happening. Sometimes I may cut it short if I feel my ability is not up to scratch that day, but normally do not play over the limit. True there are times when you think you have a good read on a shuffle that never seems to disipate, and that calls for an expresso.

I also like to do the smae when playing poker with friends. "I'm out at 2AM or when you pricks finally clean me out" ;> That way I can leave if I am up without feeling guilty.

YOu are more likely to be getting attention from the pit when you have a big run up, which often makes it a good time to quit. But if you're quitting because you want to protect a win before you get hit with some negative variance then there is no practical reason for it in most cases.

Your demonstration was interesting and I thank you for the time you took to post it. BUT, it only proves your earlier point that, if you are playing with an advantage, the longer you play the more you win. But, I've already agreed with that conclusion. Recall that I replied earlier as follows:

"I agree with you that the more you play the more you win, if you play correctly."

Obviously,if you get 1.1 for a head and only 1.0 for a tail and the likelihood of each result is 50/50 for each flip, eventually you will win by betting on heads and, furthermore, the longer you play the more you'll win.

However, you still haven't addressed the question I asked. That is, if you find it NECCESSARY to quit, shouldn't you quit while you're ahead? I realize that, even tho' I may be in an upswing of winnings, it is still more likely that I'll win more if I continue to play, if I correctly play an advantaged system. But, (Please get this. It is important.) suppose that I MUST quit because something requires that I do. That is, I CAN'T continue to play past just a few more shoes. So, shouldn't I quit after a runup in winnings rather than after a rundown in winnings?

I've tried to think how I could apply your coin flip model to the situation I've described. But, I don't see how to do it. All I can tell you is that I have been playing an advantaged system for many years and I have found that by quitting the sessions I play during each day when I'm ahead (relatively) I win more often for the entire several-day-trip than I lose. I haven't been booted by the casinos because I play only $5, $10, and $25 (rarely) games. I use a 10-spread on the MD games and a 5-spread on the DD games.

But, maybe your argument applies and I just don't see it. I guess that what is meant by the old saying "Ignorance is bliss!"

That is, if you find it NECCESSARY to quit, shouldn't you quit while you're ahead?

This is the part that doesn't make sense. If it is necessary to quit, you quit,regardless of whether or not you're ahead.

Are you saying is that if you are ahead you quit, but you would continue if you weren't? I would then argue it wasn't "necessary" to quit at that time. And, since it isn't necessary to quit, you are better off continuing to play.

All I can tell you is that I have been playing an advantaged system for many years and I have found that by quitting the sessions I play during each day when I'm ahead (relatively) I win more often for the entire several-day-trip than I lose.

I have no doubt this is true. You are playing with an advantage. However, had you chosen you quitting points when it was truly "necessary" to quit, you would likely have won even more. That is the point of my coin-flip example (quitting after 5 flips rather than after a runup of two wins in a row).

There is an adage for negative EV games that applies to small players...
"You will not lose money if you quit while you are ahead."

If you are playing serious money it is a different axiom...
"You will lose more money by not pushing out your big bets with positive EV than you will through actual losing hands."

If you are mainly playing for the flush that comes from winning, by all means leave a winner. If you are on the road to Eldorado and terms like EV, SCORE, and NO drive your itinerary, there is never a good time to leave while you have an edge. Leaving your money on the table means you can't possibly continue to win.

There is theoretical and practical magic in the ways of blackjack wizardry.

Will you end up better in the long run adjusting your playing time by leaving when you have positive flux?
No.
Rick's illustration with coin flip EV is an excellent example of what the math says about ending play 'prematurely.'

But if you play long enough....which you have... and know the real world fluctuations found in probability theory and the law of large numbers...which you do... then there may be other reasons to leave a good game. If experience tells you that you will feel 100 times better leaving early after a win and 1000 times worse if you give it all back and more, then psychological utility theory suggests you book your winning session and go.

Stop to buy some roses for your significant other with the additional free time you have also won from skilled play. No one else feels your pain when your ecstasy turns to agony on a dime. To paraphrase, In cyber space, no one can hear your scream.

You are trying to build a mathematical model to support your anecdotal experience and it does not fit. It is as if you were attempting to outline a moving image on a projection screen. But you do not really need to parse sims to understand that you feel a lot smarter after leaving a winner. Nobody can play 24/7 no matter how good the game is. So not leaving while you have positive EV hands to be played before the shuffle is really the only guideline that is is written in stone. Trying not to be barred from a good game is another piece of good advice. The rest is depends on the price you are willing to pay. Or not.

One can lose a lot of chips on the trail to the long run while trying to strictly adhere to theoretical constructs based on billions of trials. If advantage play is your primary income producing activity and you log hundreds of hours with infinitesimal Kelly, variance will probably be overcome. For the rest of us, as long as we continue to play with a strong system, use an appropriate spread, and make skilled decisions based on acute observations, we are doing nothing wrong. We tell ourselves after huge losses that the most important thing is that our game selection was wise and we played well. My opinion is that since life intrudes on our play constantly.....previous appointments, travel plans, fatigue, hunger, emotional reactions, casino hostility, changing table conditions, etc.... it is perfectly understandable that we take the reins over short term variability by making our own decisions when to leave... as evidence of our emotional maturity. I like to decide beforehand how long I will play and then I will always have the satisfaction of following my battle plan. This does not always pan out. Pros will often mention that they stop play after a climax shoe...win or lose. Is this 100% predicated by surviving detection? ... or partially an excuse to re-inforce a disciplined approach to the long run? Maybe calling a halt to a grinding session ending with a big win or loss has some psychological appeal. Whatever you do to create enthusiasm to return to your advantage play sooner has some financial benefit. We are flesh and blood, after all, behind those steely blue eyes.

How do you know that the longest running hot shoe you ever had is not just around the corner? By playing it out. How do you know that you are not about to set a record for most consecutive losing hands in the next shoe? By playing it out. Otherwise, it is still all in the future... and you can check it out tomorrow after enjoying your win. The only time those mountains of chips really belong to you are when you cash them in for American dollars and walk through those casino doors with real world currency.

then quit. Your expectation is only affected by how much time you spent at the table, not by what your result was. From a standpoint of longevity, it would probably be better to quit while you were losing.

If a hot shoe brought me more than $1,000, I would never quit. A gambler will never leave a lucky table. If I really planned to quit, I would play for a few more hands, when the count was negative and I lost a hand, that would be the best time to quit.

In short, quitting when winning or losing has absolutely no effect on your EV. The above strategy is for cover purpose only.

Of course I never leave a hot shoe, no matter how many max bets I have lost in a row.

Merry Christmas.

TJ