STOP LOSSES

I know this group does not advocate stop losses, and statistically thinking, I agree. However, I am beginning to think that a stop loss may be a good thing for each session?(at least for me-from a psychological point, if not statistical)

I have had big gains wiped out and then some (see my post in Midwest-to Tom from IN) by playing at the same table for hours-no other casinos nearby. I have had worse experiences (and so have many of you).

If I had stop losses on my Tech Stocks (without listening to my broker) I would be a millionaire now! He said go for the long run. Fortunately, I did cash-out some on my own internet account-including a OTC (Nasdaq heavy) mutual fund. I had put $3000 on it about 10 years ago and forgot about it-when I looked at it about a year or 2 ago it had gone upto $36,000 (I sold half of it-should have sold the whole damn thing). My doctor told me (few years ago)that he had thousands of stocks of yahoo and other dot.com companies-which he had bought cheap and some have gone up 10 fold-I told him to sell half as I did-but he said the same thing-go for the long run-also that he dosent need any money now. He is still holding them! (some even have gone out-of-business).

Is setting a "moving" STOP LOSS in BJ a bad thing? I know sometimes you loose at the beginning and win at the end etc. and if you have stop-lossed, there is no other place to play in Midwest? Your advice is invaluable to me. (I do undertand that theoretically STOP-LOSS doesn't make sense-but in practice?)

bj is one long session.if you put a stop loss at 3000-there is no guarantee you will win the next day.you can lose 3k a day for a week.the cards have no memory.you should get a bank and play until you lose it all or win forever.you set your bank at a ror your comfortable with and go with it.

If you have a positive expectation, the more you play, the better your chance of being ahead. Your expected value grows proportional to number of hands you play, while the standard deviation grows proportional to the square root. In the short term, SD is high in comparison with the EV, but over the long run, EV catches up and surpasses it. Once your EV is 3 times the SD, you have a better than 99% chance of being ahead. (I feel sorry for that 1% that are still losing at that point.)

In your example, had you quit, you may have missed out an winning opportunity. You just can't tell until after it's happened. Unless you plan on never playing again, stop-win and stop-loss strategies make no sense, neither in theory nor in practice.

BTW, I feel your pain; on my last trip, I was up $1400 over several days, but lost half of it during the last 24 hours -- $400 in the last two hours. However, there have been other occasions where I've had great success even after a big win.

and blackjack are not comparable. If the market goes way up today it can be more likely to drop in the future because of people taking profits. If you win a bunch at blackjack you are no more or less likely to give it back than before.

If you lose a bunch and your mentally unprepared to continue playing you should just stop. If you are still functioning properly, getting a good game, and have money this is your best chance to play with little casino heat...however when you begin to catch up you should consider quitting and letting the casino book the moderate win against you. Eventually, as you catch up, your pile of chips will start to get attention.

"the cards have no memory" or do they, at times? I mean is it fair to say we always get a random distribution of cards. With the insufficent shuffling they do (with 6 decks) won't some of the character/distribution of the cards remain after the shuffle. In other words, won't the previuos distribution/sequence of the cards effect the current one? at least some times? I know most simulation software use random generated cards-but are there ones which simulate the way they shuffle and also start from where it was finished last time?

To me, it is not as clean/clear as tossing an unbiased coin?

for your advice. The 2 are not the same, unless cards have memory? See above

while agreeing with the long run for counters because you're playing a positive expectation game and basically you have to continue until your ahead, however long it takes, but once ahead if you quit, you have reached your expectation early. Your next session would be an independent session with the same expectation, that is you must play until your ahead.

To stem the flow of criticism that will follow, I offer the following:
truism.

If you were to play until you WIN 10 hands(any small number for practical purposes),

A)If there was a winning streak(winning more hands than you lose) up ahead, you would cut the winning streak short.

B)If there was a losing streak(losing more hands than you win) up ahead, you would encompass most of the losing streak, because your criteria is to win 10 hands.

On the other hand, if you were to play until you LOSE 10 hands:

a)If there was a winning streak up ahead, you would enjoy most of the winning streak.

b)If there was a losing streak up ahead, you would cut the losing streak short, because your criteria is to lose 10 hands.

Examples should make this clear:

Winning ten hands:
W-L-L-W-L-W-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W-W-L-L-W-W
As you can see the 10 winning hands emcompassed a losing streak.
The criteria of 10 losing hands would have cut the losing streak short

Losing 10 hands:
L-L-W-L-L-W-L-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-W-W-W-L
The ten losing hands gives you a winning streak.
The criteria of 10 winning hands would have cut the winning streak short.

This truism is verifiable. Play any small number of hands to verify.

I have on my raingear, so let the storm begin.

I am still just starting out and I have a tendency to let the results impact my mood. If I am way up, I start to get very happy, and if I am way down, I start to get depressed. If winning, this can lead to thinking along the lines of "what the hell, I am just playing with the casinos money anyway", and an urge to overbet my advantage. Conversely, if losing, I may think "nothing is working...counting is crap....I couldn't possibly lose another hand in a row, maybe I should try a progression".

When I catch myself go down one of these paths I know that it is time to leave.

what is your point?

Are you saying that it is best to stop after N number of loses because that might prevent you from losing too much money, while giving you an opportunity to be ahead?

BTW, don't use specific WL situations to back up your argument. Instead you must exhaust all possibilities. For example, if N is 4, all possible outcomes include:

LLLL
LLLWL
LLWLWL
LWLWLWL
LWLLL
LWLLWL
...

If you calculate the probability of all these occurring, you will notice 1) that although the short sequences (loses) are fewer, they are more common than the long ones (wins) and 2) if W/L is 50/50, your total expected value is 0.

To show this you, start with N=1.

P(L) = 0.5, value = -0.5
P(WL) = 0.25, value = 0
P(WWL) = 0.125, value = 0.125
P(WWWL) = 0.0625, value = 0.125
P(WWWWL) = 0.03125, value = 0.09375
P(WWWWWL) = 0.015625, value = 0.0625
P(WWWWWWL) = 0.0078125, value = 0.0390625
P(WWWWWWWL) = 0.00390625, value = 0.0234375
P(WWWWWWWWL) = 0.001953125, value = 0.013671875
...

If you continue to infinity, the sum of the values = 0. Try it using a spreadsheet.

You can't fool Mother Math.

With the insufficent shuffling they do (with 6 decks) won't some of the character/distribution of the cards remain after the shuffle. In other words, won't the previuos distribution/sequence of the cards effect the current one? at least some times?

With shuffle tracking you can predict where the good (high) cards and bad (low) cards are in the shoe. Otherwise, it's just as good as random. A random card is one in which you are unable to predict its value.

predetermine a set amount to win or lose, because each session has the same goal of winning. By quiting early, he can determine whether he is behind or ahead of expection. If he's ahead of expection, he may want to lower his bet slightly during his next session. Likewise, if he's behind he may want to start off with higher minimum bets during his next session. Not to mention the psychological benefit of walking away a winner or a manageable loser.

My example might not be of much benefit to a counter, because he would have to count the cards and determine his bets and at the same time count how nany hands he's played.

Your response deserves much more attention than this, but I have to go to work.

not really...that is to say that there aren't sectors of cards in a shoe that have a higher density of tens to non-tens...but that does not affect the ratio of wins and losses. See Wong's "Professional Blackjack" for more info on shuffles. Actually, the more incomplete the shuffle the BETTER it is for the player all the way to the point where a six deck shoe with NO SHUFFLE actually gives the player an off the top edge when heads up.

If you have a losing shoe it's just dumb bad luck...nothing else...the same streakiness can and does happen in Roulette, Slots, Craps, or any other game of chance. The way to overcome this is to play a lot of hands and a lot of hours...then all patterns of wins and losses are accounted for and the result will be your expectation.

bp

Pat: If cards have no memory, how come I always get a ten when I hit 12 and always get a small card when I double down 10 or 11? Just kidding! Thanks for the advice

I thought a random card means that every card (say Ace of Clubs) has the same probability (of 1/52) as picking any other card. Wong's PBJ says after a shuffle (single deck) he didn't get a random distribution! there was a higher probability that the adjacent cards stayed closer to each other. I have a strong belief that the previous distribution of cards (random or not) in the shoe effects the distribtion after the shuffle-unlike a coin toss which has no memory at all (completely independent events). (Of course I have no way of proving it!).

Stop loss is good idea for Gamblers. When you are playing a negative expectation game- the more you play, the more you lose. If you have been fortunate to win at the slots, roulette, big six, (or BJ without counting) quit while you are ahead.

In playing Blackjack as a card counter, you are supposed to be the Little Engine That Could. You may slip a little on the tracks and even lose ground, but you are supposed to keep chugging and triumph in the end. Most experienced counters preach against using a stop loss- they don't need it. They quit too, but for other reasons such as session time limit, fatiuge, hunger, discomfort, heat, and sometimes when a big loss (and sometimes a win!) affects them emotionally.

Use a stop loss if it makes you feel better. If nothing else, use it to take a break, refocus and evaluate. Are you still sharp? Are game conditions still good? If so, get back at it!

Sentry

Good advice.

that the losses are taking a mental toll on you.it probably means your playing with scared money or your overbetting your bank.you have to bet on par with your comfort level.

I thought a random card means that every card (say Ace of Clubs) has the same probability (of 1/52) as picking any other card.

Correct, which mean you would have no way of predicting what its value is.

Wong's PBJ says after a shuffle (single deck) he didn't get a random distribution! there was a higher probability that the adjacent cards stayed closer to each other.

This knowledge is useful only if you keep track of what cards are close to each other.

I have a strong belief that the previous distribution of cards (random or not) in the shoe effects the distribtion after the shuffle-unlike a coin toss which has no memory at all (completely independent events). (Of course I have no way of proving it!).

Of course it might, but, unless you have knowledge about the distribution, how does this help you? In other words, how will the shoe be different than one that is throughly mixed? You can't predict the ordering of the cards in either case.

If you have bought into the theory that a bad shoe tends to remain bad after shuffling, if can't defend your position with sound logic, don't expect anyone to give any credence.

I have had my ups and downs. I think I may be underbetting? I am a very conservative guy. Current BR $28K for BJ only-kept in a separate account. Was upto $15K in net profits (wins-losses-expenses; recorded on Excel since 1996) last April, now up only $13K. (most of the time you are below your all time high). My investment $15K and time? about 3-4 trips to Vegas/year (occassionally Reno), and mostly IN (once a month).

Mostly play 2D spreading $25-$200; sometimes 1D $25-$100 (downtown Vegas or Reno); and rarely 6D $25-$100 (and Wong in and out-much to the annoyance of the ploppies). Do you think that is overbetting? What is my RoR? I have never been down more than $3K in any trip/session but have been up sometimes $4K on an extended trip. Use HiLo with I18 and Ace side count for playing 1D and 2D. I play for fun-have PhD in Engineering-with a good knowledge of Statistics etc-a steady job-with annual income over $150K; own 12 rentals+house; other assets (stocks etc) over $1Mil-so a few grand loss is not painful anymore. I also have credit lines $20K (with my real name-get comps etc-is that OK? for longevity) in about 5 casinos (with highest SCORE games) in Vegas and a few in IN (room and board comped every time). Backed off only 3 times (use to spread more aggressively then). Have also played at most good casinos (with good pen etc) all over the world.

I have read most of the literature in BJ and have great respect for Wong and others. And I believe in counting. However, I still think that cards are not random all the time particularly when they are hand shuffled. Some or few of the characteristics of the previous distribution goes into the next round-that is the very reason for shuffle tracking or Ace location. If it is completley random shuffle tracking or Ace location wont work!

In this post, you state, "I play for fun-have PhD in Engineering-with a good knowledge of Statistics etc-a steady job-with annual income over $150K; own 12 rentals+house; other assets (stocks etc) over $1Mil-so a few grand loss is not painful anymore."

In a previous post in this thread, you stated, "If I had stop losses on my Tech Stocks (without listening to my broker) I would be a millionaire now!"

Are you a millionaire, or aren't you? Or did you have a tremendous 27 hours and 40 minutes between the two posts? If so, will you let me know how you went from wishing you were a millionaire to being one in such a short amount of time?