A question about system play

[21gunsalute]

21gun,

I think you are missing a very important factor: BR.

If you have the BR, spreading is the optimal way to make money. If losing your big bets hurts you, that means you are overbetting.

The players have a very small advantage at high TC. That means you still have a good chance of losing. Losing large bets at high TC is part of the game. It just happens. Think about it. The odd of winning lottery is very small. But people win it all the time. The chance of losing at high TC in BJ is much higher than the chance of winning a lottery.

You just contradicted yourself:

"If you have the BR, spreading is the optimal way to make money. If losing your big bets hurts you, that means you are overbetting."

It's one way or the other. It can't be both ways. Such a statement just sets one up for failure. You're saying you need a large spread to make money but if you lose money then you're overbetting. Actually it can go either way, but not both ways. You can make a lot of money with a wide spread and you can also lose a great deal of money with a large spread.

And your lottery analogy really misses the mark. People don't win the lottery all the time. Very few people win the lottery, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[QFIT]

You just contradicted yourself:

"If you have the BR, spreading is the optimal way to make money. If losing your big bets hurts you, that means you are overbetting."

It's one way or the other. It can't be both ways. Such a statement just sets one up for failure. You're saying you need a large spread to make money but if you lose money then you're overbetting. Actually it can go either way, but not both ways. You can make a lot of money with a wide spread and you can also lose a great deal of money with a large spread.

And your lottery analogy really misses the mark. People don't win the lottery all the time. Very few people win the lottery, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

No, he didn't contradict himself at all. In fact it's a very good way of putting it.

 

[21gunsalute]

Overbetting and spread are two entirely different subjects. You must have a bankroll that fits your betting ramp. BUT, reducing the spread is the wrong answer. If your bankroll is small, reduce all bets, not the spread. If you can't do that, wong. If you can't do that, stop playing. Your bankroll is just going to get smaller.

Well I reduced my spread and played more conservatively and I did quite well the last couple of sessions. You may disagree with me if you like and you may certainly play any way you see fit, but this needed to be said because there are a lot of new counters here who are going to blow their life savings with such big spreads. I wish someone would have had the guts to have posted something similar here before I got caught up in all the large spread hoopla. I could have saved myself a big chunk of change.

 

[QFIT]

Well I reduced my spread and played more conservatively and I did quite well the last couple of sessions. You may disagree with me if you like and you may certainly play any way you see fit, but this needed to be said because there are a lot of new counters here who are going to blow their life savings with such big spreads. I wish someone would have had the guts to have posted something similar here before I got caught up in all the large spread hoopla. I could have saved myself a big chunk of change.

As long as this stays on the voodoo page and new counters are advised that you are giving poor advice based on empirical knowledge as opposed to mathematics.

 

[psyduck]

but this needed to be said because there are a lot of new counters here who are going to blow their life savings with such big spreads.

If that happens, it is due to overbetting. You missed the BR factor again.

 

[Deathclutch]

21gun, this is the most simple way I can put it since I think I know what you're missing:

When you're at a disadvantage you'll lose X cents for so many Y dollars.

When you have the advantage you'll make X cents for so many Y dollars.

Since you'll spend the majority of time in the former you need more Y in the latter to make up for the former.

If you flat bet Y or spread too small you'll never overcome the first situation no matter how much you want to believe 30 or so sessions will tell you otherwise.

 

[rrwoods]

you win 17 hands or more without losing the three in a row then you have adequate added br to offset the $40 loss when it does happen.

[ late reply but still prudent i think ]

Statistically this happens (more than) one-eighth of the time given any given three-hand set.

As far as the overbetting/bankroll discussion goes: Yes. You are increasing your bet tenfold when your advantage goes up ever-so-slightly. This is why blackjack is such a hard game to play and requires a large bankroll. Correlating your bets with your advantage is the only way to make any money playing blackjack -- however it is that you do that -- and if you want to increase your expectation, you need to increase your bets. Significantly. Doing this increases your deviation as well; hence the need to have many, many max bets available to you before you even start.

I realize that I'm basically repeating what's already been said and for that I apologize. It really can't be said enough though.

 

[21gunsalute]

As long as this stays on the voodoo page and new counters are advised that you are giving poor advice based on empirical knowledge as opposed to mathematics.

No, I took poor advice and lost my shirt. After reassessing everything I've made adjustments and am doing very well now, thank you.

 

[21gunsalute]

If that happens, it is due to overbetting. You missed the BR factor again.

No I didn't. You're overlooking the fact that many have blown their entire bankroll by making the large spread recommended here.

 

[21gunsalute]

21gun, this is the most simple way I can put it since I think I know what you're missing:

When you're at a disadvantage you'll lose X cents for so many Y dollars.

When you have the advantage you'll make X cents for so many Y dollars.

Since you'll spend the majority of time in the former you need more Y in the latter to make up for the former.

If you flat bet Y or spread too small you'll never overcome the first situation no matter how much you want to believe 30 or so sessions will tell you otherwise.

Wrong. That only happens for a static event. Each individuals results will vary greatly, and the variance far outweighs any perceived, conceptual advantage. You can make a killing or get killed by using large spreads. Telling new counters they have to make large bet spreads will greatly increase their ROR. It's happened to several of us now and I think it's pretty pompous and arrogant to keep spouting the same suicidal nonsense. Let people start out conservatively and work their way up, gradually spreading more as the bankroll and the individuals comfort level increases.

 

[IcedTea23]

21, The point they are trying to make about overbetting, is that if you are not comfortable with the percieved risk of betting that much for the increased EV, you are essentially overbetting. May not be overbetting your br, but you are overbetting your comfort zone.

 

[assume_R]

Telling new counters they have to make large bet spreads will greatly increase their ROR. It's happened to several of us now and I think it's pretty pompous and arrogant to keep spouting the same suicidal nonsense. Let people start out conservatively and work their way up, gradually spreading more as the bankroll and the individuals comfort level increases.

Simulation:
6D, S17DAS, 75%, using HiLo, 10k BR, $10 unit size:

CVCX Results:
1-4 spread: Win $4.75/hr, RoR 19%
1-8 spread: Win $13.97/hr, RoR 14.4%
1-12 spread: Win $21.24/hr, RoR 16.4%

Conclusion:
A larger spread does not always increase RoR. If you are just trying to minimize RoR, there is a "sweet spot" spread for a given game.

 

[QFIT]

Telling new counters they have to make large bet spreads will greatly increase their ROR. It's happened to several of us now and I think it's pretty pompous and arrogant to keep spouting the same suicidal nonsense. Let people start out conservatively and work their way up, gradually spreading more as the bankroll and the individuals comfort level increases.

Name-calling does not make you any less wrong. Increasing bet spread does NOT increase RoR on its own. And bankroll will probably DECREASE if your bet spread is too small.

 

[MountainMan]

Betting too conservatively is a guaranteed loser

21: I also cringe when I must put out a large bet. I wish it wasn't necessary to win, but unfortunately it is. All you need to do to prove it to yourself is to run billions of hands of simulations and it will become very clear. I look at it this way. Playing blackjack is like running a business. You have overhead to overcome before you turn a profit. If your revenue doesn't exceed your overhead, you will eventually be out of business. The overhead in blackjack varies with how you play the game. If you wong out, your cutting your overhead. If you can't do that, you'll need more revenue. If you increase your bet spread, you will have more revenue but need more capital. In any business you will fail if you are undercapitalized.

You should be more uncomfortable playing with a conservative bet spread. You will either win at a slower rate, or possibly even be running your business at a loss. By evaluating your short term experience and making long term conclusions is a big mistake. You are right that many players will experience losses with big bet spreads but they would have a higher probability of losing their money playing more conservatively. You can't change the math to your comfort level. You can bet less overall, but at some level it wouldn't be worth the time invested. MM

 

[21gunsalute]

Simulation:
6D, S17DAS, 75%, using HiLo, 10k BR, $10 unit size:

CVCX Results:
1-4 spread: Win $4.75/hr, RoR 19%
1-8 spread: Win $13.97/hr, RoR 14.4%
1-12 spread: Win $21.24/hr, RoR 16.4%

Conclusion:
A larger spread does not always increase RoR. If you are just trying to minimize RoR, there is a "sweet spot" spread for a given game.

Yeah, I know. Simulations. Thats fine if you have a trillion dollar bankroll and have the time to play trillions of hands. But no one has that kind of bankroll and no one can play that many hands. In any case the risk of ruin you cited is rather high across the board. You start losing those big bets like I did and you aren't going to last long. The simulations give static results...but no one individual is likely to produce the same results the sims show. Some will win bigger, some will win less and a much too high % IMO will lose their entire bankroll. You need to start out conservatively and make adjustments to avoid this happening. I'm trying to help people out here so they can avoid making the same mistake I made. I've adjusted and I've been quite pleased with the results ever since.

 

[21gunsalute]

Name-calling does not make you any less wrong. Increasing bet spread does NOT increase RoR on its own. And bankroll will probably DECREASE if your bet spread is too small.

I'm not name calling, but I do think it's very pompous and arrogant to demand that everyone play the same way that you do. That's what I did and I nearly lost my entire bankroll rather quickly. I've made modifications and adjustments and I'm offering people an alternative so that they won't blow their whole bankroll quickly.

 

[assume_R]

Yeah, I know. Simulations. Thats fine if you have a trillion dollar bankroll and have the time to play trillions of hands. But no one has that kind of bankroll and no one can play that many hands.

The simulations give static results...but no one individual is likely to produce the same results the sims show. Some will win bigger, some will win less and a much too high % IMO will lose their entire bankroll.

Well the only reason simulations use millions of hands is to be more accurate in the percentages they report. You're right, it does return an average result, and is not completely indicative of an individual's performance. However, it DOES show that on average, 86 out of every 100 individuals won't go bankrupt with that bankroll and a 1-8 spread.

In any case the risk of ruin you cited is rather high across the board. You start losing those big bets like I did and you aren't going to last long.

Just to clarify, I didn't try to make a simulation that represented your specific situation; I was just showing that RoR does not always increase as spread increases.

You need to start out conservatively and make adjustments to avoid this happening. I'm trying to help people out here so they can avoid making the same mistake I made. I've adjusted and I've been quite pleased with the results ever since.

I am truly happy for you that you have made adjustments and are doing well. I hope you stay pleased with your results! We all must play our own way and find what works for us

 

[iCountNTrack]

I'm not name calling, but I do think it's very pompous and arrogant to demand that everyone play the same way that you do. That's what I did and I nearly lost my entire bankroll rather quickly. I've made modifications and adjustments and I'm offering people an alternative so that they won't blow their whole bankroll quickly.

I find this statement to be pretty laughable, i dont even think QFIT has the time to play.
In any case, i find it arrogant from YOUR END to give advice to people based on the very little statistically insignificant number of hands you have played.
Once again for shoe games if you are playing all, you would need the biggest bet spread that you can get away with.
If you are worried about your bankroll there are TWO ways to reduce your ROR:
A) Find a better game (better rules, penetration)
B) Decrease the size of your base unit, you would still need to use a large spread.

One last thing, when you run a billion hand simulation you are just looking for an accurate answer i.e the average value of one hand.

 

[QFIT]

I'm not name calling, but I do think it's very pompous and arrogant to demand that everyone play the same way that you do.

You just called yourself pompous and arrogant.

 

[assume_R]

Perhaps an explanation about why such spreads are necessary will help? Let's say you're using hi-lo, and playall at a shoe game.

When the EV is negative (the TC <= 0), you bet $10, and are hence you are losing $6/hr. Your RoR is 100% at any -EV game. Also, these counts will occur about 63% of the time.

To overcome that, you must first have a large enough spread to at least make back that $6/hr (essentially you must at least breaking even), and you must also remember these good situations only occur 37% of the time.

Also, while your standard deviation per hour increases with a larger spread, your win/hour increases as well, making your RoR go down.

For example: With a 1-3 spread (playing $30 at TC >= 1), your win/hour is now +$2.30/hr, and your stdeviation is $206/hr (RoR = 34%). When you increase your spread to 1-4, your win/hour more than doubles to +$4.80/hr but your standard deviation only goes up to $240/hr (wayyyy less than double the previous stdev of $206/hr), and your RoR thus drops to 19%.

I hope this helps somewhat.

-AR