Lucky BS player?

[techster]

My wife and I sat down at a blackjack table for the first time three years ago and were immediately hooked! We have since played in Vegas, Reno, Tahoe, Tunica, Kansas City, as well as many Indian casinos. I've become a card counter, and have done pretty well. My wife on the other hand plays straight basic strategy (not perfectly, but pretty close when I'm there to make suggestions) with flat betting. Here's the kicker: she's done almost as well as me! We've played hundreds of hours, long enough I think for the odds to work out, yet she continues to defy them and win money. Has anyone ever experienced such a thing?

[zengrifter]

Sure, a few hundred hours does not the longrun, make. zg

[Dyepaintball12]

I have a friend who plays BS with me.

We have gone to the casino about 6 times, and the last time we went was the only time he lost any money.

He is probably up $1,000 after 5 months using BS.

But eventually he will lose it with his -EV.

[halcyon1234]

Originally Posted by techster

long enough I think for the odds to work out,

If she's up, then by definition, it hasn't been long enough.

What you should be more concerned with is tracking your results. If you're hitting the long haul, and you're down, then you need to evaluate your play.

[EasyRhino]

Out of curiosity, what are your relative betting levels? And is she in any way "piggybacking" on the counting (like, you back count a table, and join it together?)

[SPX]

Originally Posted by halcyon1234

If she's up, then by definition, it hasn't been long enough.

There's really no guarantee that the math will ever win out with such a small house advantage. If you consider that each session is as independent from the last as a spin of the roulette ball, it's not entirely inconceivable that a player might have the LUCK to sit at more good tables than bad ones.

[techster]

She only plays at $5 tables, and only occasionally bets $10, but only when she feels lucky--she really does not pay attention to what I bet. I usually play at the $5 tables with her, and spread $5-$40, although I've had a lot of success spreading $10-$50 at $10 minimum tables. I'm still trying to build my bankroll to the point I can play higher limits comfortably.

[halcyon1234]

Originally Posted by SPX

There's really no guarantee that the math will ever win out with such a small house advantage. If you consider that each session is as independent from the last as a spin of the roulette ball, it's not entirely inconceivable that a player might have the LUCK to sit at more good tables than bad ones.

Except each session isn't indepenent, because it is all measured against a single starting point: her initial bankroll. When calculating the total profit, each session isn't analyzed individual, but rather as one, long session. 10x 1hour sessions are actually 1x 10 hour session.

The house edge is 0.5% for a perfect BS player. Probably around 1% for a near perfect. And she's varying her bets from $5 to $10 as she sees fit, so her average bet overall will be higher than $5.

It's luck until her expected losses are equal to a standard devitation, which is somewhere around her 12,000th hand, where she'll be expected to have lost ~$700 +/- ~$700.

[SPX]

Originally Posted by halcyon1234

Except each session isn't indepenent, because it is all measured against a single starting point: her initial bankroll. When calculating the total profit, each session isn't analyzed individual, but rather as one, long session. 10x 1hour sessions are actually 1x 10 hour session.

The house edge is 0.5% for a perfect BS player. Probably around 1% for a near perfect. And she's varying her bets from $5 to $10 as she sees fit, so her average bet overall will be higher than $5.

It's luck until her expected losses are equal to a standard devitation, which is somewhere around her 12,000th hand, where she'll be expected to have lost ~$700 +/- ~$700.

I understand . . . I am simply saying that nothing is impossible. In reality, every session is just that: a session. My only point is that there is no supernatural force known as The Math which is going to follow her around and MAKE SURE that it all evens out.

She can walk into a casino and, against the odds, sit down to an unreasonably good shoe more often than not and walk away a winner. Is it likely? No. But the Spirit of Standard Deviation isn't going to stop it from happening either.

[Mimosine]

Originally Posted by SPX

My only point is that there is no supernatural force known as The Math which is going to follow her around and MAKE SURE that it all evens out.

She can walk into a casino and, against the odds, sit down to an unreasonably good shoe more often than not and walk away a winner. Is it likely? No. But the Spirit of Standard Deviation isn't going to stop it from happening either.

actually, while The Math might not be responsible, its inbred relative The Statistics usually does The Math's dirty work. Standard deviation will catch up with all of us over time, those of us playing with an edge will be above break even, those without below breakeven, by how much, well 68% of us will be roughly +/- 1 standard deviation above or below our expected EV.