Was I cheated?

I have been playing a game for 300 hours and have lost 20 000. Average is 100 hands per hour, so assume 30 000 hands. It is a 4 deck game with standard rules and 1 deck has been cut. I play from 15 to 2*200. My bet schedule is full Kelly based on a 10 000 bank the entire time. The unusual things about this place include that they have very thin cards(three quarters as thick as regular decks used by every other casino in the area). I also get no heat while playing with total impunity, and they know for certain that I count. Why would they not give a damn, unlike most places? I doubt that it is a short shoe, but could certain dealers be cheating me by dealing seconds or perhaps using a mirror? I am not able to tell FOR SURE if each card is coming out in its correct order, and the fact that they are paper thin excerbates the problem. The casino is Indian. Also, the dealer makes too many 5 and 6 card hands in high plus counts, and I am also not dealt the number of blackjacks at the high counts that I should be getting, and trust me its by a longshot. This nightmare has only been going on at the one place, and my results have been muchmore encouraging elsewhere. A year ago, I did not think that this was conceiveable, but I truly believe that I am right that sometihng has been going down since I am losing at a faster rate than I should be winning.

3. How many different dealers have you played against?
2. At what True Count do you increase to 2x200?
1. DO YOU EVER SEE THEM CHANGE THE DECKS? (So that you could verify all decks are complete?

You said: My bet schedule is full Kelly
You said: I play from 15 to 2*200

These are not consistent. Full Kelly always means readjusting your bet size after each bet, basked on the new bank. You must mean something else.

There is a great post in the GC archives about results for counters over 300 hour spans. The number of these spans that show negative results is astounding (and, I admit, a bit depressing). Your results are normal (but one should always be suspicious...).

-Mayor

If for any reason you don't (like, trust, enjoy) the casino in which you are playing, then just dump it. You didn't sign any contract that forces you to patronize that casino. Something else you might do is to investigate your suspicions by coralling other counters at that establishment and relating your experience and see if they are empathetic. If not, it could just be that the game's fluctuation factor is working overtime for you.

If it is a good game, and you have checked your skills, it might be worthwhile to make sure it is fair and if it is fair, then keep playing. Personally, I would have checked everything long before this, before racking up 30,000 hands at -2 standard deviation. Still, the statistics are that 2% of players must do as bad or worse than you, and someone has to be in that 2%, it could be it is just your bad luck.

With BJRM, which is fairly standard software among serious counters, you can set parameters such as unit size, maximum bet, bankroll, and Wong out point, and the program will crank out what it calls "Kelly optimal" bets for various TCs. The ROR always comes out to ~13.5% (quite a coincidence, eh?). This is the definition of "Kelly betting" that John Auston wrote into the program with the blessing of Don Schlesinger.

I've raised objections to this (mis)use of language. There is nothing optimal about a 13.5% ROR! I believe MathProf shares the same opinion, and has expressed this on the green chip, and elsewhere. But Don is adamant, and he has many followers, so it appears we have to deal with two different definitions of Kelly betting.

The flip side of the coin is that Don does recommend resizing after losing half your bankroll, which reduces overall ROR greatly.

ETF

If you are using "full Kelly" in the same way as BJRM, then you have a 13.5% ROR. You've lost two banks of $10,000, so the probability of that occurence is 13.5% x 13.5% = ~2%, or a 1 in 50 chance. Please realize this assumes you are playing like a computer, with no errors, and NO cover betting or cover strategy.

A 1 in 50 shot is not a rare event, but it's right at the level where I would begin to suspect cheating. I don't hold with those who are extremely suspicious of Indian casinos. I hear lots of rumors about Wisconsin casinos, yet I have been quite lucky in that neck of the woods.

My personal belief is that very, very few dealers can cheat you without betraying it emotionally. After a really bad hand, just ask the dealer "You wouldn't cheat a guy, would you?" I can't imagine a young cheater, say under 30, being able to look you in the eye after that. Older cheaters, with souls mired in cynicism, will have a hard time not PUFFING UP with pride in their "skill!" Either reaction would be enough to send me packing.

A dealer who can cheat, and takes his craft so professionally that he has COMPLETE emotional cover, is not a 1 in 50 shot. It's more like 1 in a thousand.

You might want to consider targetting dealer error. Nothing increases my faith in a dealer's honesty like getting paid on a push. ;)

ETF

that 13.5 is optimal -what does he say is optimal?

... is zero. The less ROR the better, so zero is optimal. And zero is just what you get when you bet Kelly, with continual resizing.

Now, continual resizing is not very practical, mainly because of the mental gymnastics that would require. The divisibility of currency (or chips) is not really a practical problem. Just choose the bet (including bet = 0) that makes g as large as possible with the chips available. I would call that Kelly betting. ROR is not zero, but it's vanishingly small.

So I don't object to playing to a 13.5% ROR, if that truly represents your personal tolerance for risk, I just object to calling it "Kelly," or "optimal." Again, JMHO (Just My Humble Opinion).

ETF

"... is zero. The less ROR the better, so zero is optimal. And zero is just what you get when you bet Kelly, with continual resizing. "

Why is everyone so fascinated with this Kelly betting rubbish?

Your Risk of Ruin is 1%? So what? If that means you are making $5 an hour, you'd be better off spending that time flipping burgers at McDonalds.

My betting strategy is simple: if I am making less than $25 an hour, casino is a complete waste of my time. If I wanted to make $25 an hour, I'd spend the weekend in the office instead.

Forget Kelly and bet like a real man! If making $30 an hour means 40% ROR, then so be it. Whats the worst thing that can happen? My bankroll isnt my rent money, its just spare cash laying on the side, I lose it - life moves on. I might not set the foot into a casino for a year, but thats probably more of a benefit than loss. LOL.

the reason that it is not is because I have been replenishing the bank from winning elsewhere. Secondly, my bank has always been much more healthy than 10 000. In fact it has never been less than 40 000, so the absolute most that I have been betting is one quarter Kelly. This is conservative, but I do not even like the slighest possibility of ruin, and I have not needed to use the ramp yet. I bet my maximum at a hilo equivalent true count of 6(2.5% edge), and I blatantly Wong out around a negative true count of 3. I use near minimal cover strategy for either betting or playing. I think that I am facing a variety of dealers, and I highly doubt that it is a short shoe, as all the cards are shown on the layout, and I think that they would be taking too great a risk in doing that.

i agree 100%.when i started i followed the 5% ror crap that the books said i should do.i wasnt getting anywhere with my small bankroll.i had to bet 5-20.who wants to make 10 bucks an hour counting cards.i rather deal.everything changed for me when i said f@@@ it-im going to green if i lose i will just save up for 5 months and start over.i have been on the greatest ride since.math prof is to conservative in wanting no ror.most people dont have 20 grand lying around.the average counter probably has 5K to play with.

You need to back up and re-group. After being down $20,000 after 300 hours of play I would definitly start taking pre-cautions. Always assume your risk of ruin stands a good chance to be considerably higher than what the books or computers tell you. We are NOT a machine. I would also question how proficient (or as close to proficient) are you actually playing. Having a generous bankroll and assuming you're playing 1/4 kelly at a low risk of ruin is not a good reason to continue betting the way you are. Jumping into action with a $40,000 bank in a first experience of real world casinos is not a good idea.

The odds of you being cheated at a consistent rate are slim to none.
It is very difficult to be cheated from a shoe(almost impossible).
However I will say it is not impossible. The only possible way (I can think of) being cheated out of a shoe from a full deck is-

If the cards are very thin they are also more sensitive to the touch and can be dealt very swiftly out of the shoe. Face cards will have a grit feel to the dealers touch and small cards will have a smooth waxed surface. The dealers will always have the tips of their fingers on the back of the card coming out of the shoe therefore they know what the value of the next card is. The players hand will determine if the dealer will deal the first or second card from the shoe.

I doubt you're being cheated this way. You need to calm down and take it easy.

unless you can make a combined reward (free rooms,meals and $$$) that adds up to more than working at your regular job. Of course, this assumes you LIKE your regular job!

Entertainment? It's too expensive in Vegas these days anyway, compared to other places in the US.

Free booze? Well, is it really "free"?

The joy and exhilaration of visiting a fancy-ass casino? Uhh - no, not really a factor for more than a few hours each trip. And not even that if you frequent places such as the El Cortez,etc.

Overall, an almost completely unpleasant experience after your first few visits, unless you MAKE MONEY! That's what I, along with many of my friends and relatives have concluded, anyway.

Just trying to keep it real!

DIMPLES, BLISTERS, ROUGH & SMOOTH ? How about a gafed shoe.
Read Bill Zenders book. The SANDS before they blew it. Nice looking
relief dealer. Her manner of dealing is perfectly described in the book. This is a major reason why you should not try to weather
a losing trend-you can never be sure.

In your original post you said: "My bet schedule is full Kelly based on a 10 000 bank the entire time." My calculation was based on that. You can call it one-quarter Kelly, based on a $40k bank. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

It might seem shocking that there's a 1 in 50 chance of losing half your bankroll, when playing one-quarter Kelly with no resizing. I'm sorry to have to tell you that's the case. People must realize that bankroll dollars are there for a purpose. If there were no risk on that money, there would be no purpose in calling it "bankroll."

I'm sorry you've lost so much, and I'm sorry I can't completely assuage your suspicions about being cheated. The best I can suggest is for you to go to the appropriate regional board (on your left) and find out how other counters are doing at this joint. I also hope you're milking them for every comp dollar you possibly can.

L:U:C:K
ETF

The unusual things about this place include that they have very thin cards(three quarters as thick as regular decks used by every other casino in the area).

I am having a hard time understanding why a casino would want to use thin cards. I assumed that decks from reputable card companies were almost always the same thickness.

Can anyone speculate on the reasons (legitimate or otherwise) for the thin cards. The only legitimate reason I came up with is that they might work better in certain shuffle machines.

8 decks look like six ?