In hindsight, i wish i had sticked playing DD instead of switching to 6D where 120% of my loss came from. Hi-Lo with index plays seemed to work fine in DD but then i got BAN-phobic and turned to the 6 Deck games where with so many cards behind the shuffle point , high TC didn't guarantee that you'd get a face card on your double down!
Down 1000 units in 200 hr of counting
- Thread starter TrueCount
- Start date
Bj21
While there may be no math advantage to moving to 2 there is also no disadvantage, and the real adfvantage is hands per hour equals more money put in play at an advantage=$. There are times when playing 2 spots is a must. And if the dealer is constantly kicking your ass I say swing between the number of spots played, vodoo...some say so,,,I disagree, no harm no foul.
Hey, this may not be made up,,,maybe he works for Goldman Sachs:laugh:
CP
While there may be no math advantage to moving to 2 there is also no disadvantage, and the real adfvantage is hands per hour equals more money put in play at an advantage=$. There are times when playing 2 spots is a must. And if the dealer is constantly kicking your ass I say swing between the number of spots played, vodoo...some say so,,,I disagree, no harm no foul.
Hey, this may not be made up,,,maybe he works for Goldman Sachs:laugh:
CP
kewljason said:
A high true count never guarantees you anything! (except very rare cases dealt so deep that only high cards remain) 
All it does is slightly turn the odds in your favor.
All it does is slightly turn the odds in your favor.
However, getting so sick of receiving a low value card when doubled down on a high TC with max bet out !
I doubt changing counting systems is going to matter much one way or another. The biggest factor is: You cannot control what cards are dealt to you and/or what cards the dealer gets! Counting and knowing a lot of indices are fine, but the biggest factor affecting whether you win or lose is almost always "what kind of cards am I being dealt vs what kind of cards is the dealer getting?" You can be the greatest counter/BJ strategist, whatever in the world but when you get crap hand after crap hand and the dealer keeps getting good hands you're going to lose. How often is it going to help you to know when to hit 13 vs a dealer 2 or 16 vs 10? Not very often and even if you make the correct play on such calls 100% of the time it's only going to help you a very small % of the time, as many of these indices are borderline calls on almost certain losing hands.
I'm not saying that counting and knowing indices aren't important, just that the biggest factor that affects whether you have a winning or losing session is the cards you are dealt, and trust me I too have been having seemingly way more than my share of bad and losing hands when the count is high and I have (relatively speaking) a lot of money on the table, and changing the counting method is not going to change this phenomenon one bit.
I'm not saying that counting and knowing indices aren't important, just that the biggest factor that affects whether you have a winning or losing session is the cards you are dealt, and trust me I too have been having seemingly way more than my share of bad and losing hands when the count is high and I have (relatively speaking) a lot of money on the table, and changing the counting method is not going to change this phenomenon one bit.
kewljason said:
But, some times you double a ten, pull a three and win when the dealer breaks. And sometimes you double a 10 , pull a ten and lose to a 5 cards 21 with a super high count. It all evens out. You just tend to remember the negative pulls more.
And sometimes you double a 10 , pull a ten and lose to a 5 cards 21 with a super high count. It all evens out. You just tend to remember the negative pulls more.
I am surprised that this thread has gone on this long without more people addressing just how "normal" it is too lose 1000 units during a 200 hour stretch. I am really surprised that some of the "math guys" and/or "sim guys" haven't weighed in this, because while oviously possible, this seems not a very normal occurance to me. It has to be way outside the "normal" SD of EV.
kewljason said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone on this long without more people addressing just how "normal" it is too lose 1000 units during a 200 hour stretch. I am really surprised that some of the "math guys" and/or "sim guys" haven't weighed in this, because while oviously possible, this seems not a very normal occurance to me. It has to be way outside the "normal" SD of EV.
kewljason said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone on this long without more people addressing just how "normal" it is too lose 1000 units during a 200 hour stretch. I am really surprised that some of the "math guys" and/or "sim guys" haven't weighed in this, because while oviously possible, this seems not a very normal occurance to me. It has to be way outside the "normal" SD of EV.
I'd suggest you consider the following:
If you ran a sim of your strategy with a program CVData or CVCX, you'd be able to see exactly how far to the left of the mean your results ended up being. With the games and strategy you've described, I'm guessing that the chances of your results after 200 hours are 10% or less. There's not enough hours of play for you to definitively make any conclusions about whether or not you're playing a +EV game, but these results would at least have me a little concerned.
Knowing that the results are this far to the left of expectation, the next step is to figure out if it's because of variance, or if it's because there are other holes in your game. Consider the following:
Note that I've not suggested anywhere that you consider using a different counting system. The counting system is not the cause of your results. Several players (myself included) use Hi-Lo, KO, or other Level 1 systems with a great deal of success, and for most games do not lag far behind those who have invested the time and energy to learn something more complicated. Now is not the time to be thinking about learning a new system. Instead, reflect on your play, and come up with an honest assessment of whether your results are truly variance, or if there are other holes to fill. Switching to a more complicated system will not solve the issue. In fact, it could make the problem worse since it may cause you to make more mistakes. This would cause you to lose an amount greater than the benefit you'd be able to realize by using the improved system.
- How likely are your results?
- Are there holes in your game?
If you ran a sim of your strategy with a program CVData or CVCX, you'd be able to see exactly how far to the left of the mean your results ended up being. With the games and strategy you've described, I'm guessing that the chances of your results after 200 hours are 10% or less. There's not enough hours of play for you to definitively make any conclusions about whether or not you're playing a +EV game, but these results would at least have me a little concerned.
Knowing that the results are this far to the left of expectation, the next step is to figure out if it's because of variance, or if it's because there are other holes in your game. Consider the following:
- Are you consistently playing the proper strategy (basic strategy and indices)?
- Are you consistently maintaining the correct count (practice counting down decks to verify)?
- Are you afraid to get the money out there when the count calls for it? For example, if you just lost four max bets and the count continues to climb, are you able to still bet big or do you drop your bets?
- Do you play with too much cover? If the count tanks after winning a few hands whilethe pit is breathing down your back, do you overbet, or do you resize your bet accordingly and/or wong out?
- Do you go on tilt or steam? I If you lose a big bet and the count drops, do you continue betting big to chase your losses? Do you ever walk away from a +EV situation because you've just lost and cannot handle the variance?
Note that I've not suggested anywhere that you consider using a different counting system. The counting system is not the cause of your results. Several players (myself included) use Hi-Lo, KO, or other Level 1 systems with a great deal of success, and for most games do not lag far behind those who have invested the time and energy to learn something more complicated. Now is not the time to be thinking about learning a new system. Instead, reflect on your play, and come up with an honest assessment of whether your results are truly variance, or if there are other holes to fill. Switching to a more complicated system will not solve the issue. In fact, it could make the problem worse since it may cause you to make more mistakes. This would cause you to lose an amount greater than the benefit you'd be able to realize by using the improved system.
Playing 2 hands
This has been beaten to death on various boards from time to time...
You are right in that 2 spots = no harm done (heads up) but it definitely does NOT mean more money or more EV.
Assume I play 1 hand at $100, or two hands of $75 heads up.
For the same number of cards, I can play 2 rounds - each of one hand to the dealer and two hands for me - or I can play 3 rounds - of one hand each. In both cases, 6 hands in total are dealt. Total playthrough ? 3x$100 or 2x$150.
Marginal effects:
- playing one hand allows for marginally more granular bet sizing (you can resize twice if count varies for playing one hand as above, vs only once for two hands)
- dealer may use up more cards per hand since he hits stiffs. Then again he doesn't split - I don't know how many cards dealer would use vs player per hand - anyone ? Possibly you may get marginally more play in (eg in your +ve count zone) if you play 2 hands.
Voodoo ? that I have no example for... Maybe you can disrupt a fiendish plot to deal you a cooler deck
D.
This has been beaten to death on various boards from time to time...
You are right in that 2 spots = no harm done (heads up) but it definitely does NOT mean more money or more EV.
Assume I play 1 hand at $100, or two hands of $75 heads up.
For the same number of cards, I can play 2 rounds - each of one hand to the dealer and two hands for me - or I can play 3 rounds - of one hand each. In both cases, 6 hands in total are dealt. Total playthrough ? 3x$100 or 2x$150.
Marginal effects:
- playing one hand allows for marginally more granular bet sizing (you can resize twice if count varies for playing one hand as above, vs only once for two hands)
- dealer may use up more cards per hand since he hits stiffs. Then again he doesn't split - I don't know how many cards dealer would use vs player per hand - anyone ? Possibly you may get marginally more play in (eg in your +ve count zone) if you play 2 hands.
Voodoo ? that I have no example for... Maybe you can disrupt a fiendish plot to deal you a cooler deck
D.
bj21abc said:
This has been beaten to death on various boards from time to time...
You are right in that 2 spots = no harm done (heads up) but it definitely does NOT mean more money or more EV.
Assume I play 1 hand at $100, or two hands of $75 heads up.
For the same number of cards, I can play 2 rounds - each of one hand to the dealer and two hands for me - or I can play 3 rounds - of one hand each. In both cases, 6 hands in total are dealt. Total playthrough ? 3x$100 or 2x$150.
Marginal effects:
- playing one hand allows for marginally more granular bet sizing (you can resize twice if count varies for playing one hand as above, vs only once for two hands)
- dealer may use up more cards per hand since he hits stiffs. Then again he doesn't split - I don't know how many cards dealer would use vs player per hand - anyone ? Possibly you may get marginally more play in (eg in your +ve count zone) if you play 2 hands.
Voodoo ? that I have no example for... Maybe you can disrupt a fiendish plot to deal you a cooler deck
D.
You are right in that 2 spots = no harm done (heads up) but it definitely does NOT mean more money or more EV.
Assume I play 1 hand at $100, or two hands of $75 heads up.
For the same number of cards, I can play 2 rounds - each of one hand to the dealer and two hands for me - or I can play 3 rounds - of one hand each. In both cases, 6 hands in total are dealt. Total playthrough ? 3x$100 or 2x$150.
Marginal effects:
- playing one hand allows for marginally more granular bet sizing (you can resize twice if count varies for playing one hand as above, vs only once for two hands)
- dealer may use up more cards per hand since he hits stiffs. Then again he doesn't split - I don't know how many cards dealer would use vs player per hand - anyone ? Possibly you may get marginally more play in (eg in your +ve count zone) if you play 2 hands.
Voodoo ? that I have no example for... Maybe you can disrupt a fiendish plot to deal you a cooler deck
D.
(as you stated earlier) Playing two hands means some rounds you will win one and lose one for a net gain of zero rather than winning one larger bet or losing one larger bet. Doesn't that reduce variance?
kewljason said:
How is it that variance will be the same? (as you stated earlier) Playing two hands means some rounds you will win one and lose one for a net gain of zero rather than winning one larger bet or losing one larger bet. Doesn't that reduce variance?
(as you stated earlier) Playing two hands means some rounds you will win one and lose one for a net gain of zero rather than winning one larger bet or losing one larger bet. Doesn't that reduce variance?
TrueCount said:
i have a stockbroker license as well as real estate broker
You would need to be somewhat intelligent to pass all the exams required to become a "broker" in both specialties, so I won't question your capabilities.
As for the dollar amounts, 100k was piss in the wind to many brokers, etc., I know from just a few years back.
Using my simple math:
you say you lost 100k in 200 hrs.
taking your average bet of say $250 x lets say 100 hands/ hr heads up = $25,000/ hr action x 200 hrs = 5,000,000 dollars of action.
100k is 2% of your total action - to me it seems a bit high but a quick look at cvcx and if I have the numbers correctly, 200k br, 100k loss in 200hrs = (-3SD) loss (but in recent days I have been known to blunder the numbers
)but it seems that just maybe you may lack the required discipline so you were possibly overbetting, steaming, getting bothered by the possible heat at the orange betting level or lets say you kept losing the count due to frustration and your average bet was say $500, now thats only 200 hands to = 100k
OR
you play absolutely perfectly, your trip BR contains 15 max bets which at $1,600 ea = $24,000
of the 200 hrs in play time, 5 of those 8hr sessions you had really bad sessions and you went bust - now that can surely happen very easily - so you just lost 120,000k and the other 160 hrs.. well, you won back 1/2 your normal win rate (EV) of 3u per hour, again this is normal too.
So nothing looks strange to me.... other then having to admit you lost, but we all have to admit that at times.
I think to continue re-evaluating your play or changing counts is the mistake. Keep good records and see if you can find someone with experience to watch you play. Only then you'll now the real story.
If it's anything like what I've been up against, here's how it goes:
Dealers hands - 20,20,21,BJ,21, 17, bust, 17, 21 BJ, BJ, 21, 20... you just can't win
Better cards to you in the future.
BJC