win rate

I have been reading the book “Burning the Tables” by Ian Anderson. In the chapter green chip players, he played 50 sessions betting from $25 to 2@$250. He used no cover and played until he made his max bet then ended the session. He won 232 chips and won 64% of the time [32 W & 18 L]

Question: Assuming you play perfectly, what % win rate can you expect? If I’m above 64% can I expect to lose a few & if I’m under can I expect to win the next few? When does the large number theory kick in?

That's the Gambler's Fallacy. Just because you are ahead or behind does not mean that your results will change so that things even out. The more you play, the closer your results will be to your expectation, but that is because your sample size becomes larger and your "uneven" result gets smaller and smaller in relation to your total results. The link above gives more information and examples.

-Sonny-

kewl name

this link shows win, loss & push percentages for a particular game across a range of true counts:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount5.htm
those percentages will (errhh i think they will) change some what depending on the game rules.

being above or below the expected percentage of wins or loss's doesn't tell you what to expect for future play, it only gives you an idea of how lucky or unlucky you have been.
what you can expect (given no additional information) for future play is what ever the known percentage is.
that known percentage wont change based upon prior play or results.
you can expect that your aggregate results averaged over the long term will come ever closer to the expected average results.
so there is essentially no penalty for good luck, but unfortunately there is essentially no reward for bad luck.

Using the same rules Ian did, walking after your max betting session
What is the long run expected win rate??
What does a sim say after a million hands?

I play a similar hit and run style in which I always end the session after a shoe in which I placed my max wager. The object is to never let them see you reduce your wager. There is a draw back to this style of play that you may not be considering and that is down time. It works great in a large casino with several different pits, or in locations where there are several casinos grouped closely together, downtown Vegas for example or some locations on the strip, but other places it creates a lot of down time traveling between places and in many places where a single casino stands alone, it doesn't even make sense to play this way.

Out of curiousity,how many hours a week do you actually play and how many do you spend in getting to and from the casinos?

I don't keep track of either. Guaranteed it is far more than someone working a 40 hour work week though.

kewljason
What spread do you use?
What spread could you use and not have the need to move around so much?

Sagefr0g
thanks for the link.
However that is for how many hands you win
it is not for how many sessions you win on the $$ side
Ian won 64% sessions, I think that means his bank roll for the session ended with more $$ that he started with.

I use a 1-16 spread in a 6 deck game, but I don't believe the actual spread is what matters. There are certain betting thresholds that draw attention. The first of which is $100, when of course most places give the 'checks play' call. A red chipper could probably go $5-$90 (1-18) without drawing much attention, But hit $100 and he's in trouble. The next threshold is $500. A green chip player, such as myself can wager $25-$400 (1-16) and get away with it substantially longer than if he went $25-$500 (1-20) which is only slightly more. $500 brings a whole new level of attention. By the same token, a $50-$400 spread which is only 1-8, is viewed pretty much the same as a $25-$400 spread which is twice as much at 1-16. The important factor is the large wager, not the spread. I can't speak of the next threshold as I am not at that betting level yet, but I suspect it is $1000. Of course I am just speaking very general terms. In reality, different casinos have different thresholds. Some places, you hit 50 bucks and they get nervous. :laugh:

So why no car?

What does one have to do with the other? :laugh: I have no car because I choose not to have a car, not because I can't afford one. Living in an east coast city center city district, as I have most of my adult life, there is no real need to own a vehicle and the expense is outrageous. You pay for parking what some people pay for rent. Las Vegas, like most southwest cities is not quite as easy in that aspect as it is spread out more. With the absense of a car share program like we had in Philly, I probably will joing the ranks of auto worshiping world at some point.