consecutive winning/loosing sessions
- Thread starter Jeff25
- Start date
7 wins/ 4 losses - each has happened many times. See my recent results below. The blue line is my EV and the red lines are my actual results, both in units. As you can see I'm coming off of a big negative flux (hopefully!). Even during that time I never had more than 4 consecutive losing sessions.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
Attachments
Canceler said:
9 winning sessions in a row (twice), 6 losing sessions in a row (also twice), out of 405 total sessions.
If this was just about anyone else, I'd suspect quitting to preserve a win.
I guess I'd be interested to know what causes sagefr0g to end a session.
If this was just about anyone else, I'd suspect quitting to preserve a win.
I guess I'd be interested to know what causes sagefr0g to end a session.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=13648&postcount=16
i'm a low stakes player. by necessity since my bankroll is rather meager :cry: .
the good thing for me has been starting with only 60 units a year and two months ago and ending up so far with 1,256 units.
thats for 163 sessions.additionally about half of those sessions my skill level was shall we say lacking as to what it is now. i'm not all that much of a hot shot but i can keep the count, bet properly and work bs and the illustrious 18 departures.
i have had incredible luck and i know it. i once addressed this luck issue that i've experienced on another forum site with two very astute posters. one expressed that since i've experienced so much positive fluctuation that it was likely that over time the negative fluctuation may gently work its way back into my statistics. the other poster surmized that my lucky streaks are mine to keep. i hope the later is correct on this issue (of course) but i suspect that both views hold the truth which would not be so bad.
best regards,
mr fr0g
your are welcome sir and may luck follow you all of your days!
when it comes to luck the way i figure it is that all we need is just a little bit of it and we'll be really well off as ap's and with out it we're in trouble.
i'm curious what do you think in regards to negative and positive fluctuation ie. do you think that one of necessity follows the other in the long run or do you think that one can survive over the long haul with out the other?
best regards,
mr fr0g
when it comes to luck the way i figure it is that all we need is just a little bit of it and we'll be really well off as ap's and with out it we're in trouble.
i'm curious what do you think in regards to negative and positive fluctuation ie. do you think that one of necessity follows the other in the long run or do you think that one can survive over the long haul with out the other?
best regards,
mr fr0g
If you're asking me personally, I will have to defer to others who are much more qualified than I am to speak on this subject. I will say that I understand you are never "due" for anything, but it seems unlikely that you'll totally escape some nasty negative fluctuation.
I also want to know what was responsible for that big jump in Sonny's EV line.
And I really want more responses to the original question of consecutive winning/losing sessions. This is interesting. Come on people, even if it's not that impressive!
I also want to know what was responsible for that big jump in Sonny's EV line.
And I really want more responses to the original question of consecutive winning/losing sessions. This is interesting. Come on people, even if it's not that impressive!
I'm curious as to the records you guys keep so you can see where you are currently vs. your EV. Do you use any kind of special program where you can input things like average bet, time played, hands per hour, house rules, counting system used, etc. or is it just something you created in Excel? I would love to start keeping those stats.
i just keep the records cash lost/won per session and my charts are created in excel. i don't know how Sonny gets his ev to graph but that is kewl. also i like your ideas about things like average bet, time played, hands per hour, house rules, counting system used. i sort my graphs three different ways. by gain over time, by size loss to size won and win/loss size over time. it's all the same info just sorted differently.
best regards,
mr fr0g
best regards,
mr fr0g
Last edited:
Canceler said:
9 winning sessions in a row (twice), 6 losing sessions in a row (also twice), out of 405 total sessions.
If this was just about anyone else, I'd suspect quitting to preserve a win.
I guess I'd be interested to know what causes sagefr0g to end a session.
If this was just about anyone else, I'd suspect quitting to preserve a win.
I guess I'd be interested to know what causes sagefr0g to end a session.
http://may.casinocitytimes.com/article/finding-an-edge-in-every-game-5999
now consider my previous post see link below:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=13648&postcount=16
now let us consider Parrando's parodox. well look it up on the web it's interesting but puported to be of no use in a casino. none the less consider a point regarding Parrando's parodox. it is inspired by the idea that on the quantum level it is theoreticaly possible to glean work from the natural fluctuations that occur on the quantum level by engineering a quantum ratchet that traps the effect of a given bias one targets in that fluctuation. the overall fluctuation is useless as it is symetrical and cancels itself out but if you trap some targeted part of it you can theoreticaly get work out of it.
the whole idea is you change nothing in the fluctuation but you trap the part you want. then in turn you make that trapped part do work for you. the really tricky part here when thinking about blackjack is how does one avoid the effect that negative fluctuations have on ones bankroll. it's easy enough to trap the positive fluctuations. that is essentially what i do when i quit at a standard deviation above my expected hourly winrate. as an asside i think it is interesting that in essence wonging is very much so a method of trapping positve fluctuation when we know we have the advantage in an analogous way to how one can trap positive fluctuation by quiting when one is ahead.
i try to overcome the problem of avoiding the effects of negative fluctuation by forging on with my play when i encounter negative fluctuation carrying the flag proudly waving that is an advantage players motto "hey i'm playing advantage blackjack here i'll come out ahead in the long run! :cool2:
just some thoughts here. no doubt there is a flaw in my logic here but hey it's fun and it's done in the spirit of taking down the one thing we all hate the effects of ie. negative fluctuation.
best regards,
mr fr0g
Wow, you’ve been thinking about this quite a bit! Although there is logic in your ideas, it doesn’t really translate to the world of gambling.
There’s nothing wrong with that. You will be limiting the size of your wins, but you will also be taking the time to enjoy them more often.
This will have a slightly different effect. You will be enjoying your small wins but your losses will still be quite large. You will often enjoy several winning sessions only to lose most of it back in one disastrous session. Again, there is nothing wrong with this as long as you understand and expect those results. Our graphs will end up in the same place but they will look somewhat different. Notice that yours looks more like a saw tooth (frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss) whereas mine looks more like a wild sine wave (occasional big wins and losses).
Therein lies the problem. The “Parrando’s Rachet” model only works if you have a lever that “locks in” the work that you have done thus far. Unfortunately, there is no such lever for variance. You cannot “trap” variance by leaving a table or taking a break from playing. The variance will be right there waiting for you when you return. Sometimes it will give you a little more money when you return, other times it will take back the money it just gave you. Sometimes you spend weeks earning a nice little win only to lose it back in one terrible session later. As you say, the overall fluctuations theoretically cancel themselves out.
You are not “trapping” the variance, you are only slowing it down. You are not escaping the negative variance by walking away with a win. The only way to escape that negative variance is to quit playing forever. You are not trapping the positive variance either, you are only limiting the size of the wins. Your wins and losses are just a big as mine but yours are spread out over several sessions.
Wonging is a method for trapping advantage, but not variance. A Wonger will actually experience much higher variance than a regular player. Essentially, “Wong’s Ratchet” is a way to “lock in” the advantage and stop all work until that advantage has been restored. You can use this as a “lever” to maintain a constant advantage, but the same is not true for the variance. Variance is uncontrollable. The best plan is to be aware of it, be prepared for the size of it, and take it like a man.
Quitting while you are ahead will reduce the magnitude of each session’s fluctuation (smaller wins) but will not affect your overall results. You will still have the same swings in your bankroll but they will take longer to happen. Whereas I (with no limits) might win or loose 50 units per session, you might limit yourself to 10 units, but that doesn’t mean you won’t lose 10 units 5 times in a row. Our overall results will be the same.
Although I appreciate your desire to smooth out the variance by setting limits for yourself, I personally just don’t work that way. In my mind I would rather get the whole thing over with as soon as possible, like pulling off a band-aid. I don’t want to lose 5 short sessions in a row. That would depress me. I would rather lose one big session then be ready to win it back. Huge swings don’t bother me as much as prolonged losing streaks. If I lose 100 units in one session then I think “Man, that was a nightmare! Well, time to move on” and I get over it, but if I lose 10 continuous sessions of 10 units each I think “Man, this is terrible. I just can’t win! I’ve just wasted 10 sessions.”
When it comes right down to it, everyone will think and play differently. Gambling will always be a huge psychological roller coaster. We all find our own ways to make the ride bearable.
-Sonny-
There’s nothing wrong with that. You will be limiting the size of your wins, but you will also be taking the time to enjoy them more often.
This will have a slightly different effect. You will be enjoying your small wins but your losses will still be quite large. You will often enjoy several winning sessions only to lose most of it back in one disastrous session. Again, there is nothing wrong with this as long as you understand and expect those results. Our graphs will end up in the same place but they will look somewhat different. Notice that yours looks more like a saw tooth (frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss) whereas mine looks more like a wild sine wave (occasional big wins and losses).
Therein lies the problem. The “Parrando’s Rachet” model only works if you have a lever that “locks in” the work that you have done thus far. Unfortunately, there is no such lever for variance. You cannot “trap” variance by leaving a table or taking a break from playing. The variance will be right there waiting for you when you return. Sometimes it will give you a little more money when you return, other times it will take back the money it just gave you. Sometimes you spend weeks earning a nice little win only to lose it back in one terrible session later. As you say, the overall fluctuations theoretically cancel themselves out.
You are not “trapping” the variance, you are only slowing it down. You are not escaping the negative variance by walking away with a win. The only way to escape that negative variance is to quit playing forever. You are not trapping the positive variance either, you are only limiting the size of the wins. Your wins and losses are just a big as mine but yours are spread out over several sessions.
Wonging is a method for trapping advantage, but not variance. A Wonger will actually experience much higher variance than a regular player. Essentially, “Wong’s Ratchet” is a way to “lock in” the advantage and stop all work until that advantage has been restored. You can use this as a “lever” to maintain a constant advantage, but the same is not true for the variance. Variance is uncontrollable. The best plan is to be aware of it, be prepared for the size of it, and take it like a man.
Quitting while you are ahead will reduce the magnitude of each session’s fluctuation (smaller wins) but will not affect your overall results. You will still have the same swings in your bankroll but they will take longer to happen. Whereas I (with no limits) might win or loose 50 units per session, you might limit yourself to 10 units, but that doesn’t mean you won’t lose 10 units 5 times in a row. Our overall results will be the same.
Although I appreciate your desire to smooth out the variance by setting limits for yourself, I personally just don’t work that way. In my mind I would rather get the whole thing over with as soon as possible, like pulling off a band-aid. I don’t want to lose 5 short sessions in a row. That would depress me. I would rather lose one big session then be ready to win it back. Huge swings don’t bother me as much as prolonged losing streaks. If I lose 100 units in one session then I think “Man, that was a nightmare! Well, time to move on” and I get over it, but if I lose 10 continuous sessions of 10 units each I think “Man, this is terrible. I just can’t win! I’ve just wasted 10 sessions.”
When it comes right down to it, everyone will think and play differently. Gambling will always be a huge psychological roller coaster. We all find our own ways to make the ride bearable.
-Sonny-
Yeah, I just use Excel. I keep track of each session by date, location (city, state, casino), length (time), win/loss (money and units), EV (units), and comments about the session. Excel does the rest. I don't really keep track of the hands per hour, average bet or house rules since they are never constant. They aren't really necessary for me.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
Sonny said:
Wow, you’ve been thinking about this quite a bit! Although there is logic in your ideas, it doesn’t really translate to the world of gambling.
There’s nothing wrong with that. You will be limiting the size of your wins, but you will also be taking the time to enjoy them more often.
This will have a slightly different effect. You will be enjoying your small wins but your losses will still be quite large. You will often enjoy several winning sessions only to lose most of it back in one disastrous session. Again, there is nothing wrong with this as long as you understand and expect those results. Our graphs will end up in the same place but they will look somewhat different. Notice that yours looks more like a saw tooth (frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss) whereas mine looks more like a wild sine wave (occasional big wins and losses).
Therein lies the problem. The “Parrando’s Rachet” model only works if you have a lever that “locks in” the work that you have done thus far. Unfortunately, there is no such lever for variance. You cannot “trap” variance by leaving a table or taking a break from playing. The variance will be right there waiting for you when you return. Sometimes it will give you a little more money when you return, other times it will take back the money it just gave you. Sometimes you spend weeks earning a nice little win only to lose it back in one terrible session later. As you say, the overall fluctuations theoretically cancel themselves out.
You are not “trapping” the variance, you are only slowing it down. You are not escaping the negative variance by walking away with a win. The only way to escape that negative variance is to quit playing forever. You are not trapping the positive variance either, you are only limiting the size of the wins. Your wins and losses are just a big as mine but yours are spread out over several sessions.
Wonging is a method for trapping advantage, but not variance. A Wonger will actually experience much higher variance than a regular player. Essentially, “Wong’s Ratchet” is a way to “lock in” the advantage and stop all work until that advantage has been restored. You can use this as a “lever” to maintain a constant advantage, but the same is not true for the variance. Variance is uncontrollable. The best plan is to be aware of it, be prepared for the size of it, and take it like a man.
Quitting while you are ahead will reduce the magnitude of each session’s fluctuation (smaller wins) but will not affect your overall results. You will still have the same swings in your bankroll but they will take longer to happen. Whereas I (with no limits) might win or loose 50 units per session, you might limit yourself to 10 units, but that doesn’t mean you won’t lose 10 units 5 times in a row. Our overall results will be the same.
Although I appreciate your desire to smooth out the variance by setting limits for yourself, I personally just don’t work that way. In my mind I would rather get the whole thing over with as soon as possible, like pulling off a band-aid. I don’t want to lose 5 short sessions in a row. That would depress me. I would rather lose one big session then be ready to win it back. Huge swings don’t bother me as much as prolonged losing streaks. If I lose 100 units in one session then I think “Man, that was a nightmare! Well, time to move on” and I get over it, but if I lose 10 continuous sessions of 10 units each I think “Man, this is terrible. I just can’t win! I’ve just wasted 10 sessions.”
When it comes right down to it, everyone will think and play differently. Gambling will always be a huge psychological roller coaster. We all find our own ways to make the ride bearable.
-Sonny-
There’s nothing wrong with that. You will be limiting the size of your wins, but you will also be taking the time to enjoy them more often.
This will have a slightly different effect. You will be enjoying your small wins but your losses will still be quite large. You will often enjoy several winning sessions only to lose most of it back in one disastrous session. Again, there is nothing wrong with this as long as you understand and expect those results. Our graphs will end up in the same place but they will look somewhat different. Notice that yours looks more like a saw tooth (frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss) whereas mine looks more like a wild sine wave (occasional big wins and losses).
Therein lies the problem. The “Parrando’s Rachet” model only works if you have a lever that “locks in” the work that you have done thus far. Unfortunately, there is no such lever for variance. You cannot “trap” variance by leaving a table or taking a break from playing. The variance will be right there waiting for you when you return. Sometimes it will give you a little more money when you return, other times it will take back the money it just gave you. Sometimes you spend weeks earning a nice little win only to lose it back in one terrible session later. As you say, the overall fluctuations theoretically cancel themselves out.
You are not “trapping” the variance, you are only slowing it down. You are not escaping the negative variance by walking away with a win. The only way to escape that negative variance is to quit playing forever. You are not trapping the positive variance either, you are only limiting the size of the wins. Your wins and losses are just a big as mine but yours are spread out over several sessions.
Wonging is a method for trapping advantage, but not variance. A Wonger will actually experience much higher variance than a regular player. Essentially, “Wong’s Ratchet” is a way to “lock in” the advantage and stop all work until that advantage has been restored. You can use this as a “lever” to maintain a constant advantage, but the same is not true for the variance. Variance is uncontrollable. The best plan is to be aware of it, be prepared for the size of it, and take it like a man.
Quitting while you are ahead will reduce the magnitude of each session’s fluctuation (smaller wins) but will not affect your overall results. You will still have the same swings in your bankroll but they will take longer to happen. Whereas I (with no limits) might win or loose 50 units per session, you might limit yourself to 10 units, but that doesn’t mean you won’t lose 10 units 5 times in a row. Our overall results will be the same.
Although I appreciate your desire to smooth out the variance by setting limits for yourself, I personally just don’t work that way. In my mind I would rather get the whole thing over with as soon as possible, like pulling off a band-aid. I don’t want to lose 5 short sessions in a row. That would depress me. I would rather lose one big session then be ready to win it back. Huge swings don’t bother me as much as prolonged losing streaks. If I lose 100 units in one session then I think “Man, that was a nightmare! Well, time to move on” and I get over it, but if I lose 10 continuous sessions of 10 units each I think “Man, this is terrible. I just can’t win! I’ve just wasted 10 sessions.”
When it comes right down to it, everyone will think and play differently. Gambling will always be a huge psychological roller coaster. We all find our own ways to make the ride bearable.
-Sonny-
thats part of the fun of it for me.
while i got your ear a quick question. can you explain in laymans terms how it is that statistical effects follow an individual (ie. a person) instead of getting all co-mingled with other individuals 'personal' statistics? in other words how is it that say my positive fluctuation is unique to me and that my negative fluctuation keeps from being saddled upon some other poor dumb sluck sitting at another table across from me.
best regards,
mr fr0g