
February 14th, 2008, 08:49 PM

Member


Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: southern US
Posts: 40


Sonny,
Thanks for your responses...it is obvious your grasp of the game is far greater than mine. I will try one more question.
We all know the 48/52 is, in the long run, unavoidable. What I cannot quantify is the value of mean regression. For example, if I played 1000 hands and only won 200, I agree that the expectaion of the next hand being won is still 48%. However, I know this trend must reverse toward the mean. As you have stated, I just don't know when. Is there anyway to quantify the liklihood of the ievitable mean regression?
BTWI have a friend who has a coin flip program. He ran a sim today for me with heads at 48% and tails at 52%. The # of flips was 1000, and he ran it 1000 times. The lowest heads won in the 1000 sessions was 223.

February 14th, 2008, 10:23 PM


Executive Member


Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,141


Quote:
Originally Posted by adventureboy
Sonny,
Thanks for your responses...it is obvious your grasp of the game is far greater than mine. I will try one more question.
We all know the 48/52 is, in the long run, unavoidable. What I cannot quantify is the value of mean regression. For example, if I played 1000 hands and only won 200, I agree that the expectaion of the next hand being won is still 48%. However, I know this trend must reverse toward the mean. As you have stated, I just don't know when. Is there anyway to quantify the liklihood of the ievitable mean regression?
BTWI have a friend who has a coin flip program. He ran a sim today for me with heads at 48% and tails at 52%. The # of flips was 1000, and he ran it 1000 times. The lowest heads won in the 1000 sessions was 223.

i think your question about when such a reversal or regression is likely to occur in a quantifiable way is interesting. i guess that is a rate of change sort of question which i guess would involve taking a derivative of what ever like in calculus i suppose. but if each hand is 48/52 then it doesn't seem you would have anything to differentiate. i suppose that in reality (which is unknown to us) that each hand is not really 48/52 but then we have no way of knowing when that is either lol. so even if each hand isn't really 48/52 the best that we can know is that each hand is apparently 48/52 lol since thats how it turns out in the long run. but i think differentiation requires a continuous function which apparently the phenomenon of wins or loss's in blackjack are not. so i guess the rate of change of wins to loss's and viceaversa are free to come in any order and quantity so that again it can't be differentiated or quantified.
not sure if i really know what i'm talking about here but it's something to ponder.

February 14th, 2008, 11:21 PM

Executive Member


Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,119


Quote:
Originally Posted by adventureboy
Is there anyway to quantify the liklihood of the ievitable mean regression?

I could be way off here but I'll take a stab at your questions.
To the above, I'd say the liklihood is always 100%. Unfortunately there is no way to predict when that will occur so the knowledge is utterly useless.
To your question "In a game of 1000 hands, what is the most hands one could lose playing perfect basic strategy? We would "expect" to win 480. How far could we go below that? 380, 280, 180? I am not sure how to go about answering that question."
I'd guess about all one can do is quantify the liklihood of finishing with 380 wins or more (or less) in 1000 hands etc. So you could lose all 1000 hands but that has a very small probability.
Winning less than 380 hands is likewise, essentially, impossible, according to what I come up with. Which could be wrong lol. And then some lol.
But all you would really know anyway is the last 1000 hands were a billions to 1 event. In real llife, you'd probably also know the game is likely not fair.
So, if you want, it's always possible to determine the probability of winning at least x hands over the next however many hands should you feel that knowledge helps in any way.
This has nothing to do with units won/lost by the way  you might win 48% of the hands and they all might be 1 unit or 8 units lol.
In case Sonny cares, and even if he doesn't lol, since I'd like to know where I went wrong if I did, and I assume I did lol, I get a different stan deviation than he did of 15.8 (square root of 1000*.48*.52) for 1000 hands since all you seem to care about is simply whether a hand has a net win or loss and ties don't count, I assume.
What were the results of your 11,000 hands?

February 15th, 2008, 11:18 AM


Moderator


Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,748


Quote:
Originally Posted by adventureboy
Is there anyway to quantify the liklihood of the inevitable mean regression?

In theory, the regression is always happening. The problem is that it happens so slowly, and with such high variance, that it is difficult for us to see in the shortterm. Here’s how most gamblers think of it: If you have a coin that lands on heads 10 times in a row, how do you know that it isn’t just regressing from 10 tails that happened before? How do you know that the coin isn’t at it’s mean after those 10 heads? Maybe it just “evened out” and now you’re betting on a completely random coin. You don’t know.
In reality, the fact that a coin lands on heads 10 times in a row doesn’t mean that the coin is “uneven” at all. It doesn’t mean anything. As Guynoire said, you would expect it to be 10 heads ahead for the rest of its life. If you flip that coin 100,000 more times it will average 50,010 heads and 50,000 tails. But, as the number of flips increases, those ten flip become less significant. The coin still may exhibit a bias, but the percentages become smaller as the number of flips increases. And don’t forget, the percentages can approach the expected 50/50 results even though the difference between the number of heads/tails is increasing.
This theory works in reverse as well. Imagine that the coin has been flipped 100,000 times before you flipped 10 heads in a row. You would expect 50,000 heads in the past, so now it has 50,010 heads and 50,000 tails. The coin is still at 50/50 and there is no reason to expect it to behave any differently than before.
Sonny

February 15th, 2008, 11:21 AM


Moderator


Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,748


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasi
…I get a different stan deviation than he did of 15.8 (square root of 1000*.48*.52) for 1000 hands since all you seem to care about is simply whether a hand has a net win or loss and ties don't count, I assume.

But that doesn’t include splits, doubles and BJs. Instead of using .48*.52, try using 1.33 (the variance on a single hand of BJ).
Sonny
Last edited by Sonny; February 28th, 2008 at 02:02 PM.

February 15th, 2008, 03:12 PM

Member


Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: southern US
Posts: 40


Sonny,
Well, I guess I will just spill the beans as to what I am really trying to get at. When counting cards, I experience a lot of the following:
1. +true countlose hand after hand as the count goes up!
2.  true countwin hand after hand as the count goes down and I am betting the table minimum!
I know this happens to other counters. It is very frustrating to me...to sit there and count down deck after deck, finally get to a nice +6 true count in double deck, and wham!, the losing starts as the count continues to skyrocket! I was hoping to find some way to sidestep those freight trains as they barrelled down on me. Mean regression is what I came up with. Over the last few months I have still been counting, but only betting with the count when mean regression showed that it was neutral or in my favor. I would not increase my bet on a + count if my win ratio on hands was over 50%. This method has skyrocketed my win rate...but it looks like the consesus on this board (whick I really respect) is that I have just been lucky, so I should take the money and run. If regression analysis cannot stand on its own, I don't see how it can add anything to a counting method over the long haul. There is still a part of me that believes that there is something to mean regression, but I am not the smartest guy in the world so I am going to defer to the experts here.........unless so one out there would encourage me otherwise!!

February 15th, 2008, 03:41 PM


Executive Member


Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,267


Quote:
Originally Posted by adventureboy
Sonny,
Well, I guess I will just spill the beans as to what I am really trying to get at. When counting cards, I experience a lot of the following:
1. +true countlose hand after hand as the count goes up!
2.  true countwin hand after hand as the count goes down and I am betting the table minimum!
I know this happens to other counters. It is very frustrating to me...to sit there and count down deck after deck, finally get to a nice +6 true count in double deck, and wham!, the losing starts as the count continues to skyrocket! I was hoping to find some way to sidestep those freight trains as they barrelled down on me. Mean regression is what I came up with. Over the last few months I have still been counting, but only betting with the count when mean regression showed that it was neutral or in my favor. I would not increase my bet on a + count if my win ratio on hands was over 50%. This method has skyrocketed my win rate...but it looks like the consesus on this board (whick I really respect) is that I have just been lucky, so I should take the money and run. If regression analysis cannot stand on its own, I don't see how it can add anything to a counting method over the long haul. There is still a part of me that believes that there is something to mean regression, but I am not the smartest guy in the world so I am going to defer to the experts here.........unless so one out there would encourage me otherwise!!

If the count goes up during the actual hand you are playing you will probably lose. As an example you double your 10 or 11 and get the small card and the final card the dealer draws for their hand is low and they do not break. If however the count is going down as you play your hand then you are likely to win. When you double you get the big card on your 10 or 11 and the final card the dealer draws is high and breaks their hand. When we place big bets we are hoping big cards come out so we get our 20s and blackjacks, if they do not come out on the hand then we are probably in trouble.
If you are only raising your bets some of the time when appropriate for whatever reason you may turn an advantage to a disadvantage.
What you are betting on is for the count to return to normal distribution when all those 10s and As come out! LOL

February 15th, 2008, 05:31 PM

Banned


Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 213


Quote:
Originally Posted by adventureboy
Well, I certainly would not predict when a winning hand is comming. I know I may lose 1020 hands in a row at any given time. However, I do not believe that I can lose 100 hands in a row. As losses continue to rise and draw me away from the 48% win expectaion, I do believe it becomes more likley that the trend will reverse and start back toward expectation. The question is, how far can it go....and can my bankroll withstand it?

I was playing $25 a hand blackjack against the dreaded CSM's yesterday when anything can happen and went down from $1000 to $75 before things started to go right. I ended at $1300 1 1/2 hrs later... so a good result in the end considering bet size (up 12 units). I might have stayed longer had I not been due at work a half hour later. :)
So, answering your question I lost 37 units before things started to improve. Not all one after the other, but pretty damn close. I never got up in bankroll until the end of the session.
Standard deviation is just that  standard, worked out on millions on hands. In the short term anything is possible.
I will say however that my experience with handdealt or shoe games has never seen me lose that many in a row  I think the record number I've lost in a row (on a single hand up against the dealer) was 22. My maximum winning streak was 18 hands in a row. I only recall these because I diarised them at the time.

February 15th, 2008, 09:59 PM

Executive Member


Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,119


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny
That’s fine for even money bets, but that doesn’t include splits, doubles and BJs. Instead of using .48*.52, try using 1.33 (the variance on a single hand of BJ).Sonny

OK  it just seemed to me all he cared about was achieving a netwinofany amount vs a netlossofanyamount percentage and that how many units he may win on a win or lose on a loss was irrelevant to him as long as he achieved the winning percentage given his betting system.
So, essentially, an even money bet on a win vs a loss as opposed to how many units he may win or lose once he achieved those winning percentages. A biased coin with a 4% disadvantage if you will  after all he will "win" 48% and lose 52%.
Does this make any sense to you if all he cares about is he only "won" (a net win of any amount, say 18 units) 380 times in 1000 instead of 480? I just don't see it mattering to him, given the way he stated his betting system, that he might expect to win 1.2 units when he wins or lose 1.5 units when he loses kind of thing.
So I just don't see of how applying the variance of regular BJ in determining the liklihood of winning 380 hands out of 1000 vs an expected 480 of 1000 matters.
At least right now lol.

February 18th, 2008, 11:41 AM


Moderator


Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,748


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasi
So, essentially, an even money bet on a win vs a loss as opposed to how many units he may win or lose once he achieved those winning percentages. A biased coin with a 4% disadvantage if you will  after all he will "win" 48% and lose 52%.

Ah, I understand. If his system is only counting winning hands vs. losing hands then the variance will be much lower. As you said, it would be like a biased coin. Actually it would be the same as the variance of red/black in Roulette, which is exactly 1. In that case the actual SD would be about 31.62 hands at the end of 1,000 trials. My numbers were for dollars, not number of hands.
However, I don't think those numbers are going to help him anyway. That kind of counting system is really not applicable to blackjack. Knowing the win/loss ratio doesn’t tell you anything about the results. You could win 4 hands and lose 6 hands, but if those 3 winnings hands were BJs then you would have broken even despite your 60% loss percentage. Conversely, you could win 6 hands and lose 4 hands but if your losses were splits or doubles then you would have lost 2 units even though you had a 60% win percentage. Knowing the distribution of wins and losses simply doesn’t tell you anything about the actual results of the game.
Sonny
Last edited by Sonny; February 28th, 2008 at 02:05 PM.
Reason: Fixed numbers

Thread Tools 

Display Modes 
Linear Mode

Posting Rules

You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT 6. The time now is 02:43 PM.
