Sustainable win rate percentage

About 5 months ago I started tracking my results. I live and play in Las Vegas. I only play doubledeck games. I am a green/black chip player. I normally only play black on games that are S17. I now have 100 sessions recorded and wanted to get some feedback on my win rate percentage. After 100 sessions I have won 88, lost 10, and broke even 2 times. I know this is a pretty small sample size. I am wondering if this seems like a normal win percentage or am I just on the right side of variance? My average win is $635, average loss is $1017. My standard deviation is $720.21. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

What matters is your net winnings.

For instance, you could use a progression which would increase your session win rate, but would be a loser overall.

To answer your question, yes, you have experienced a positive flux. Note the past tense. It has no bearing on future results.

You didn't state the length of an average "session," but there is no practical amount of time that would get you anywhere remotely close to winning 88-90% of your "sessions." (See the bottom of p. 21 of BJA3.)

You've had ridiculously good luck.

Nor does it make much sense that your average loss is much larger than your average win. It should be the other way around.

Of course, it is possible to adopt a style of play that "falsifies" results by booking small wins and quitting before the time defined by a "session," while stubbornly playing on, longer than average, when you are behind. That might partially explain the kind of results that you are reporting.

But, if you keep your sessions a standard length, and quit regardless of what the result is, what you have experienced is far, far from "normal."

Don

Don, I have observed that the typical player does indeed place great importance on booking a session win, and will quit early when ahead, but press on when behind. For that reason, he compiles a W/L record similar to that which you described -- many small wins with a handful of bigger losses.

They must understand that gambling is one long, long road landscaped with many hills and valleys. One's eventual destination is determined soley by the quality of his play. Although he can usually choose to park and rest on a hill rather than in a valley, his personal road is still taking him to the same place.

I agree with all that has been written but what strikes me as odd is the relative small size of wins and losses for a black chip player. Perhaps someone else pointed this out but he needs to define what a session is in his mind.

Doesn't betting with the count, a good positive count, say a minimum of plus 2 or 3 determine how long one would play? The answer is yes, With that advantage one should be ahead by that equivalent percentage in the long run. Isn't that correct?
Robbie

I failed to observe that Johnnyquad is obviously not card counting, which surprises me.

will this method of playing longer when behind, that Mr Renzey described, change the ratio of winning/losing sessions (which is meaningless), but it also will 'cost' you the opportunity to book a loss. Losing sessions happen (far too frequently) and you really want to show a loss when that happens. Booking losses is important for increasing longevity.

Are you counting cards or not? Because if you are, you would not be playing long sessions when behind unless you had a true count of .......I should let Don finish the sentence. I would say a true count of at least 2 and preferably 3 would be needed to continue playing while losing.

That observation is based on the fact that he did not say he was counting. So, I will ask him. Simple as that!

Yes I am counting. I am using HI-OPT1. I only play double deck. Most of the games I play do not allow mid deck entry. So there are times when I do play with a slight negative count. If the count goes south early or to deep then I do get up and take a break. My sessions are mostly under an hour. I have a set stop loss to prevent losing to much on any one session.

Also these records are mostly green chip play. I did not start playing black until my bankroll started to climb.

Thanks for the explanation. So, on my The Count message you do not play very long in negative counts. I'll let you know when I'm in Las Vegas the next time. I'm not far away.

Robbie

you are doing so just because of good luck. Be sure you are not overbetting your bank. If you are, but you want to ride the lucky wave, back down to green as soon as you have your first uncomfortable loss. Make that your hail mary stopping point. You shouldnt wait but if you do, stop and readjust before you give back too much of your BR.

Wow, the second half of that was pure poetry (not being sarcastic here). Really sums up this thing we (try to) do.

Does anyone care to respond to the above post? Correct it, amplify, or add to it or completely reject it. Gorgon, Flash, Francis Salmon, Anonymiss?

If there were a true count of at least 2, wouldn't the player continue playing because of the advantage, and the potential for the count to go higher?

I would like to hear from Don and Fred.

Thank you,

Robbie

It goes without saying that you don't stop playing in the middle of a hot shoe. That's why it doesn't make sense to link the session length to a particular result (conflicting principles).
I end my session usually at the end of a shoe or if the running count has gone double-digit negative.
I think with an average session length of 3 to 4 hours, the relation of wins to losses should be about 3 to 2.

Francis Salmon

You continue to play on when you have time, there is no heat, the game is good enough and you're still sharp. You need all four.

You quit when you're out of time, or when you sense there may be heat, or the conditions have deteriorated, or you've lost your poise. Any one of these are cause to hit the eject button.

Two notes of caution about being ahead or behind:
If you've made a big win, it's often good to disappear.
If you're stuck deep, you may tend to abandon all cover and expose yourself while trying to dig out.

We know about it. It's called Commando Operations.

Thanks Fred, can we hear from Don?
We have to add the count to your criteria. What would you say a TC should be? A TC of at least 2? The TC is what I am trying to get your opinion on. So could we say at least :

1. True Count = 2
2. There is no noticeable heat

If you don't have the time, of course you cannot continue. The conditions are irrelevant if you have a count that you like. Being sharp is moot as long as you can keep an accurate count and can make the proper strategy decisions; basic and departures.

Robbie

I would never continue to play if I had a double digit negative count at the end of any round! Even at a negative 7 or 8 I would look for another table. In fact my deceased mentor sets the limit at -5! Don knows who that is, and I wonder if he agrees.
Robbie