Should Have Got Up & Left the Table?

Today I played BJ on the Vegas strip, and had an experience that causes me to question whether or not I should have just left the table. I rarely get to play BJ, so I was reluctant to leave.

This dealer won such a high percentage of hands, that everyone but me got up and left in frustration. Then the empty seats gradually filled up, and all of those players left in stunned frustration as well. In about an hour and a half of play, I lost all double downs and all pair splits. I was never dealt a BJ. I stopped counting at the dealer's 10th BJ.

Playing perfect BS only (no counting), I was down 26 units when I left, with all flat betting (except for DD and pairs).

I did not leave because I realized that moving to another table does not affect the random selection of cards. Should I have left anyway with such devasting results?

As you state, your results were random, and you can have a similar result over the same number of hands, even if you go from table to table playing 1 hand, 10 hands or whatever. You have probably had winning streaks that were as strong as the losing streak. The winning and losing streaks are random and part of the game, and cannot be changed or avoided by changing tables, starting or stopping play or whatever. Your blackjack play is ultimately just one long session.

I like to play against dealers who are hot because this gives more head on play. Sometimes the hot dealer works me over good, and sometimes its the opposite. On balance, I win against the so called hot dealers.

However, if getting clobbered like that gives unpleasant feelings, quit for a while, and do something else. When you start playing again it could still be bad, but taking breaks during losing streaks can make it less painful, and helps you to quit before you lose more than your limit.

Since you are apparently a basic strategy player, with a small disadvantage, you would be better off playing at a fuller table, getting fewer hands per hour. That would be a good reason to change tables.

Better luck soon!

Unless you want a change of scenery, it makes no significant difference. If you play long enough, you WILL experience such abormalities, and you can experience much worse! Fortunately, the odds (for the advantage player) are slightly favored for the reverse to happen. Hence, we will ultimately compensate for these tragedies :). You must prepare and except this; there is no avoidance. You will lose to WIN in BJ when you are an advantage player.

My record loss inspired me to respond to your post. I had the worst run in my life this past November. I lost 50 units in 5 shoes flat betting head to head with the dealer. Good thing it wasn't my max bet!
December, however, was VERY lucrative :).

Dave

My condolences regarding your mother.

Your playing a negative expectation game if you don't count. Learn to count. You'll still have individual sessions where dealers pound you. Some of the worstfor me, and I'm not sure why (coincidence no doubt) are new dealers, or trainees. They murder me for the most part. Probably everybody who posts on this board have had experiences where they've lost 26 units in a session. The counters lose this kind of bankroll when the high counts go against them. It happens. Dealer has 10 up, 10 under - and the few times they have to draw, they always seem toget the 4, 5, or a 6 they need to make their hand. Part of the game.

Rather than worrying about whether you stayed too long - spend the time learning a count and playing perfect basic strategy and you'll succeed over time.

26 units is only 2600 in black.

When I first read your post, I saw your comment that you stopped counting when the dealer got his tenth BJ. I originally thought you were counter, who got so discouraged that you couldn't keep the count. I was going to say, if you are so rattled that you can't count, then you should usually take a break for a while.

I read your post again, and I think my original interpretation was incorrect. It sounds like you are just a BS player who was flat-betting. I will answer the question under those assumptions.

1. One of the few things that a BS player can do is to slow the game down, by playing at a crowded table. You minimize the cost of your comps by playing at crowded tables. When everyone leave the table, your in a bad situation, and you would do better to find an other table.

   However I would not immediately leave the table. I would take a break and ask for a lamer. Some places will include your lamer time in you play time. Maybe make a comment about going to an ATM machine. When you come back, if there is no-one else playing, seek out a new table after playing a couple token hands as slow as possible.

2. If you were a playing a Shoe game, and this beating place in one shoe, then you may wish to finish the shoe. Sometimes the dealer is cleaning everyone out because the low cards are running. In fact, is a mathematical fact that on average you have a more favorable composition after the house won a bunch of hands than after the players have won a bunch of hands.

   If you can''t count, then I wouldn't play simply because the dealer was hot. But I would try to pay attention to what was going on. If people were getting lots of double down opportunities and drawing low cards, then you are probably now facing a positive pack. There have been times when I have been at the table and the composition of the Shoes is obvious even to all the civilians ("There have to be some big cards in there some place.")
   

3. If you were playing a pitch game, then there is a remote possibility that the dealer is cheating. I think the probability is very small, but non-zero. I do think there are some dealers that c an and do cheat. If you were a beginner at a low-staekls table, then this strikes as very unlikely: I don't think a dealer would risk detection by cheating low-rollers. There isn't any percentage in it. However, people have know to do stupid things.
   

   
   All other things being equal (and they are almost never are), it makes sense to avoid a "hot" dealer at a pitch game.
   

And, gentle reader, before you hit flame button, remember the assumption that the player is not a counter.

...when you learn counting. It's been said that 98% of counters don't make any money; one reason is because most don't have a big enough bankroll to make it through the losing streaks that inevitably occur. Take some time to scan through the archives for discussions on optimal bankroll and bet sizing.

A lot of people recommend setting a stop limit; ie, make a deal with yourself to get up and walk away if you get down 20 units or 40 units or whatever works for you. That doesn't save you any money. If you do that all the time, then occasionally you will have a trip where you get four or five losing sessions in a row. But dang! Losing more than 20 units in a row has a psychological effect. The game's more fun if you limit your losses, plus it's easier to stay on top of your game that way. I've seen those poor saps trying to drain the ATM dry. It's not pretty.

My personal record so far is 40 units down in an hour. I was down 20, came back 15, then went down 40. Yow. The last 20 minutes was...surreal. Nightmarish. I'd tell you about it but...I can't.

TampaDave,
you say that a lot of people recommend setting a stop limit, to limit the amount of $$$ you lose in a particular session. Tamburin talks about doing this in "Take the money and run". I realize that doing this won't save you any money in the long term, so I'm wondering how much this can hurt you. The times when you lose the most are when the count is high and you have a big bet out there. So how bad of a play is it mathematically to leave after you've lost X amount of units, instead of at least finishing the shoe?

I am assuming there is no other reason to leave the table, such as heat, complete loss of money, or other personal reasons. You have the advantage only about 27 to 30% of the time. Playing with an advantage is what you are there to do. If you leave the table when the count is high because you have hit an arbitrary stop loss, you will be giving up EV and it will cost you in the long run. You will be playing more often when you have the disadvantage and less often when you have the advantage. It is difficult to quantify, but the fact is, you lose the most when you have the advantage because that is when you have your big bets out. Of course, you also win the most.

Your response number 2 might infer that a negative progression could work in certain circumstances? Don't take this as a challenge, it is just the first thing that came to my mind reading your post above, with me being a negative progression player and all.

In case I am, let me just explain one of his theories. Table biases can be caused by the non-random shuffle. Its been proven that it takes 7 shuffles per deck to get a completely random distribution of cards.

"I did not leave because I realized that moving to another table does not affect the random selection of cards."

I believe this statement is untrue. You were probably at a dealer-biased table with unfavorable card clumping. I think you should of got up and left.

Tim

But few of them post on boards like this where arguments are based on mathematical probabilities instead of voodoo nonsense.

Most people on this board base their arguments on computer simulations which have little to do with the reality of actual casino play.

...although my understanding is that if you have a big enough bankroll, you can grind it out if conditions are good. Seems like a lot of people underestimate how much money you really need to play this game, eg, about three grand to play at the $5 level. So, for example, the night I dropped forty units, if I had a grand in my pocket and another two grand upstairs, and I wasn't too tired or irritated, I coulda ground it out.

I'll just start with a simple question:

Why would you think that computer simulations have little to do with the reality of actual casino play?

The game of BJ uses cards that are arranged in an order based on previous play and more or less consistent shuffling techniques (within a given casino). Why would it be inherently difficult for a computer to simulate the order of these cards being played? Computers can simulate the launching of a rocket into orbit. Do you think that the play and shuffling of cards is more complicated?

...let me help you find your way home.

I get the following error message when I try to access JP's site:

"There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time."

Gawd, I sure hope this is true. That means there are a bunch of people out there giving money to the casino's so that the casino's can give it to me (nice how that works).

All I am saying is that you can't assume that the last shoe has nothing to do with the present shoe. The reason I believe this is because dealers don't shuffle enough times to generate a random distribution of high and low cards. Computer simmulations are a great tool, but you have to take those results with a grain of salt. The computer does not take into account the affects of the non-random shuffle. I don't believe that dealers are simply "hot."

A computer simulation can take into account the effects of every conceivable type of shuffling technique. Computer sims are based on the most common shuffling methods that are in use. They also factor in the pick-up procedures, etc. All you are dealing with is the arrangement of various numeric values. It is fairly simple to simulate the effects of a perfect riffle, imperfect riffle, stripping, etc.

Professional BlackJack by Stanford Wong includes the results of numerous studies into the effects of non-random shuffles on the order of the cards. Interestingly enough, the impact of various shuffling techniques was minimal.

Jerry Patterson's theories on card clumping do have some practical applications in shuffle tracking, but other than that, they are pretty much worthless.