Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #1  
Old November 29th, 2011, 12:28 PM
White Guy White Guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 232
Default RANT -200 units in 80 hrs of play.

I have played more in the last 60 Days than any other 60 days I am pretty sure. Three sessions pretty much are to blame for all the losses.

Good news? I won a big side bet that actually makes me even over that period. Plus due to the fact that two of 3 said sessions were rated in a HL room I have a lot of good comps flooding in. The actual value of said comps is probably equal to 50 percent of the actual losses. I think ratholing may have helped.

Motivated me to read Comp City. Just started.
  #2  
Old November 30th, 2011, 01:30 AM
Bondy3 Bondy3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Guy View Post
I have played more in the last 60 Days than any other 60 days I am pretty sure. Three sessions pretty much are to blame for all the losses.

Good news? I won a big side bet that actually makes me even over that period. Plus due to the fact that two of 3 said sessions were rated in a HL room I have a lot of good comps flooding in. The actual value of said comps is probably equal to 50 percent of the actual losses. I think ratholing may have helped.

Motivated me to read Comp City. Just started.
being down sucks

trust me, I know the feeling so do most people here on this forum

Last edited by Bondy3; November 30th, 2011 at 01:40 AM.
  #3  
Old November 30th, 2011, 12:14 PM
BrianCP BrianCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 250
Default

I know the feeling even though I've never been to a casino! I was running a six deck with local rules at home (just dealing to 4 imaginary BS players and to myself) while counting and altering my bets like I planned on doing later.

I don't remember how far down I was, but it was at the bottom end of probable variance. I didn't think I could lose nearly as much (imaginary) money as I did spreading 5-75 on a six deck game.

Honestly, I'm glad I had such a bad swing while I was practicing. It showed me how bad the bad streaks can get and how much you can actually lose despite playing with an advantage.
  #4  
Old November 30th, 2011, 12:39 PM
Friendo's Avatar
Friendo Friendo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 330
Default Believe!

During my cratering/ass-whipping, I ran from all-time high to all-time low in 15 hours, for a slide of around 460 units, putting me well into the red for the year.

Highlights of this exciting period included:
  • 110 units lost on one shoe
  • All 11s doubled were met with an ace - not really all, but it seemed that way
  • Max bet, split to three hands, doubled on two - all three hands were 20. Dealer 5 up, with 10 in the hole: drew a six, of course. 5 max bets bye-bye.
  • Many, many other dealer hands of 10-6-5 during this period. Uncanny.

Interestingly, the all-time high was at the end of a 200-unit gain over three hours.

Feel the variance - live the variance - be the variance!

The weirdest things about this? Knowing full well that it means absolutely nothing statistically, and that if I were black-chipping, I would have been around $45K poorer.

Last edited by Friendo; November 30th, 2011 at 12:53 PM.
  #5  
Old November 30th, 2011, 12:49 PM
Friendo's Avatar
Friendo Friendo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCP View Post
Honestly, I'm glad I had such a bad swing while I was practicing. It showed me how bad the bad streaks can get and how much you can actually lose despite playing with an advantage.
Casino Vérité is still my home store - something about Cassie is really sexy - and gave me a positive swing that provided some clarity: +$11K in 2800 hands: up, up, and up, spreading $10 - $80 and Wonging.

It was actually scary, because an $11K upswing is about as likely as a $10K downswing during 28 hours of red-chipping.
  #6  
Old November 30th, 2011, 01:09 PM
White Guy White Guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 232
Default

Thanks for the support guys and the stories.

Friendo. Funny thing the stupid aces on the 11 double downs and some splits are what really pissed me off too.

Also, I was seriously starting to wonder how many f in 7s were in the shoe on one shuffle because it seems like every 14 turned to a 21. I guess this is a problem with hi lo because 7s are neutral so I can have a sky high count with 24 7s left in 2 decks.

I am sure my swing would have been WAY worse if it hadn't been for aggressive wonging and spreading 1-20 when I saw it was possible.

Thanks.
  #7  
Old November 30th, 2011, 01:59 PM
tthree tthree is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Guy View Post
Thanks for the support guys and the stories.

Friendo. Funny thing the stupid aces on the 11 double downs and some splits are what really pissed me off too.

Also, I was seriously starting to wonder how many f in 7s were in the shoe on one shuffle because it seems like every 14 turned to a 21. I guess this is a problem with hi lo because 7s are neutral so I can have a sky high count with 24 7s left in 2 decks.

I am sure my swing would have been WAY worse if it hadn't been for aggressive wonging and spreading 1-20 when I saw it was possible.

Thanks.
When things go bad at high counts big spreads mean big loses. You hope for the favorable side of variance but you don't always get it.
  #8  
Old November 30th, 2011, 02:45 PM
BrianCP BrianCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tthree View Post
When things go bad at high counts big spreads mean big loses. You hope for the favorable side of variance but you don't always get it.
Very true. Sometimes, you will also encounter a "false" positive count. This is what got me during my practice sessions. Count would start going up, I would start betting more, then the count would just keep going up until I reached the cut card (75% pen at 6 decks).

This means that I never actually played with the advantage because the high cards were all in the portion of the deck that wasn't dealt. This also means I was playing with a significant disadvantage on my high bets.

Obviously, a high count with 3 decks or so to go will usually have the high cards evenly distributed. On average, I would've had the advantage in that situation. A few times, I might actually have a huge advantage because of the high cards being clumped together when I get out the max bet.

Also, this reveals the importance of deck penetration. If every card was dealt, these clumps being cut away obviously couldn't happen. Eventually, your max bet would be rewarded by a significant drop in count. You would still lose some money, but not nearly as much as if the high cards were just cut away.
  #9  
Old November 30th, 2011, 02:57 PM
Friendo's Avatar
Friendo Friendo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCP View Post
Count would start going up, I would start betting more, then the count would just keep going up until I reached the cut card (75% pen at 6 decks).
We're more likely to win our splits/doubles and get blackjacks during falling counts.

Since it's impossible to know with certainty whether the count will rise or fall during the next hand, we vary our bet according to the likelihood of the count falling during that next hand: at high counts, the count is more likely to drop during the next hand. At negative counts, the count is more likely to rise, so we bet little, or Wong out.

If the we lose at a high count, and the count rises, we have a greater advantage on the next hand, which is some consolation for the loss.

And then there are the ultra-high counts which drop quickly to zero, because everybody, including the dealer, gets a bunch of 20s: pushville.
  #10  
Old November 30th, 2011, 03:13 PM
BrianCP BrianCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendo View Post
We're more likely to win our splits/doubles and get blackjacks during falling counts.

we vary our bet according to the likelihood of the count falling during that next hand: at high counts, the count is more likely to drop during the next hand. At negative counts, the count is more likely to rise, so we bet little, or Wong out.

If the we lose at a high count, and the count rises, we have a greater advantage on the next hand, which is some consolation for the loss.
.
Exactly. This is why it is so frustrating when the count doesn't actually ever fall. It was very likely that it was going to, and then the dealer hits that cut card. There goes the consolation prize for the count going up when it was already high, right into the ASM.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC