Gambling vs. Advantage Play
- Thread starter StandardDeviant
- Start date
Blackjack is safe in my neck of the woods, the tribes have compacts that assure that blackjack is dealt out of a shoe, and payments for a snapper will be 3:2 or 2:1 "at the Tribe's discretion."
They never seem to choose 2:1 :laugh:
Furthermore, the tribes will never renegotiate the contracts which have indefinite length, since to do so would be to risk the state trying to get a piece of the pie.
They never seem to choose 2:1 :laugh:
Furthermore, the tribes will never renegotiate the contracts which have indefinite length, since to do so would be to risk the state trying to get a piece of the pie.
Last edited:
Evaluation
I think we all need to take a good, hard look at just what XYZ pointed out in that post. The specific reasons that contributed to his failure, which he is well aware of in hindsight. He allowed his demise by not adhering to the strict money management principles of an advantage player. He did not adhere to the basic principle of playing under the most advantageous conditions available. You name it, he did it wrong although he had to KNOW this based on his knowledge of the game while it was all going on.
I have stated in previous posts that even the most talented player going can hit disastrous results and that NO ONE is invincible. You CAN LOSE! Minimizing risk and maximizing advantage is your only way to go and if you falter on this one little bit you have a much higher probability of going under financially. Keeping a clear head and thinking logically at all times helps...
Two guys are driving down the freeway at the same time---BOTH have a likelihood of getting into a major accident with disastrous results but if one is driving carefully and the other is somewhat drunk and also wearing a blindfold, which one is MORE likely to achieve a disastrous result?
I am headed down to the casino and I hope I don't get hit by any Mack trucks along the way!
I think we all need to take a good, hard look at just what XYZ pointed out in that post. The specific reasons that contributed to his failure, which he is well aware of in hindsight. He allowed his demise by not adhering to the strict money management principles of an advantage player. He did not adhere to the basic principle of playing under the most advantageous conditions available. You name it, he did it wrong although he had to KNOW this based on his knowledge of the game while it was all going on.
I have stated in previous posts that even the most talented player going can hit disastrous results and that NO ONE is invincible. You CAN LOSE! Minimizing risk and maximizing advantage is your only way to go and if you falter on this one little bit you have a much higher probability of going under financially. Keeping a clear head and thinking logically at all times helps...
Two guys are driving down the freeway at the same time---BOTH have a likelihood of getting into a major accident with disastrous results but if one is driving carefully and the other is somewhat drunk and also wearing a blindfold, which one is MORE likely to achieve a disastrous result?
I am headed down to the casino and I hope I don't get hit by any Mack trucks along the way!
Last edited:
But both can know with certainty the liklihood of the range of the actual results for any length of play they choose to assume before they play.
A 1SD event will be visited on each with the same liklihood.
Like an "AP" guy would know after 1 billion hands that it would take a 30+ SD event for him to be losing after 1BB rds.
He would know it's utterly "impossible" to be behind should he last 1BB hands.
Going back to your "losing 20 in a row" stuff and what guarantees the future.
Say, for simplicity, it's a fair coin that has come up tails the first 20 times you flipped it.
Point#1, chances may already be reasonable it is not a fair coin in the first place - what's that somewhere between a 4 and 5 SD event in the first place?.
Point #2, if, 999,980 spins later, if they came out as expected, and you'd still be short those same expected number of say heads, well, at that point it's a non-event from the point of view of how many SD's one's actual expected number of tails after 1MM coin-flips differed from expected, isn't it?
Not to you, but, I don't get alot of this. A "gambler" has $2K and bets $300 a hand and is "overbetting" his roll. He's over-betting the moment he chooses to play.
When would an avg initial bet of $300/hd for an alleged "AP" also not be "overbetting" a $2K roll?
What is the definition of "AP" anyway? Is it only based on "success" - if one happens to succeed for a few hundred thousand hands, that alone makes one an "AP"?
Alot of people seem to think, just my opinion only, that they are "AP" just because they can add and subtract 1 from a whole number very, very quickly, even throw in the assumption they can also divide whole numbers quickly, yet then go out and fail miserably due to bad money management, wildly overbetting their adv compared to roll, etc.
Just throwing cr*p on the wall and seeing what sticks lol.
A 1SD event will be visited on each with the same liklihood.
Like an "AP" guy would know after 1 billion hands that it would take a 30+ SD event for him to be losing after 1BB rds.
He would know it's utterly "impossible" to be behind should he last 1BB hands.
Going back to your "losing 20 in a row" stuff and what guarantees the future.
Say, for simplicity, it's a fair coin that has come up tails the first 20 times you flipped it.
Point#1, chances may already be reasonable it is not a fair coin in the first place - what's that somewhere between a 4 and 5 SD event in the first place?.
Point #2, if, 999,980 spins later, if they came out as expected, and you'd still be short those same expected number of say heads, well, at that point it's a non-event from the point of view of how many SD's one's actual expected number of tails after 1MM coin-flips differed from expected, isn't it?
Not to you, but, I don't get alot of this. A "gambler" has $2K and bets $300 a hand and is "overbetting" his roll. He's over-betting the moment he chooses to play.
When would an avg initial bet of $300/hd for an alleged "AP" also not be "overbetting" a $2K roll?
What is the definition of "AP" anyway? Is it only based on "success" - if one happens to succeed for a few hundred thousand hands, that alone makes one an "AP"?
Alot of people seem to think, just my opinion only, that they are "AP" just because they can add and subtract 1 from a whole number very, very quickly, even throw in the assumption they can also divide whole numbers quickly, yet then go out and fail miserably due to bad money management, wildly overbetting their adv compared to roll, etc.
Just throwing cr*p on the wall and seeing what sticks lol.
Oh yeah - definitely lol.
Years ago, when Pittsburgh had a "bridge to nowhere" for a few years, basically a 4 lane 2-way highway they built halfway over a river 400 feet below but then stopped due to funding. Sat there incomplete for years.
Sure, they put up multiple barriers etc.
One night a guy drove thru all the barriers and off the end of the "bridge to nowhere" plunging hundreds of feet into the river below in his car. By the time they got to him it turns out his blood alcohol level was "near-death". The fact he happened to wake up in a submerged car and apparently thought, "this is very cool", thereby not going into shock, pretty much saved his life :grin:
The experts later speculated a sober guy would have died for sure going into panic and shock lol.
Thank God, God blesses the children and the drunks.
Since I'm no longer a child lol.
Years ago, when Pittsburgh had a "bridge to nowhere" for a few years, basically a 4 lane 2-way highway they built halfway over a river 400 feet below but then stopped due to funding. Sat there incomplete for years.
Sure, they put up multiple barriers etc.
One night a guy drove thru all the barriers and off the end of the "bridge to nowhere" plunging hundreds of feet into the river below in his car. By the time they got to him it turns out his blood alcohol level was "near-death". The fact he happened to wake up in a submerged car and apparently thought, "this is very cool", thereby not going into shock, pretty much saved his life :grin:
The experts later speculated a sober guy would have died for sure going into panic and shock lol.
Thank God, God blesses the children and the drunks.
Since I'm no longer a child lol.
Sd
SD,
First I would like to say I like your style and intelligence and I hope you stay for a while. Nice job.
My 2cents in this fine discussion, as a very disciplined AP I first only play fine games, if they are not fine I will not play, just to play BJ.
I care less about long run, it is all about the hand before me and that session, long run is a crutch.
I will use the count for my playing decisions and my betting with a nice cover tactic thrown in that actually makes me money.
My return on buy in is, with great frequency, much better than one will receive on all investment instruments available today, and it is not taking me months or years to realize that gain, usually it can take place in 2 hours or less.... and that is all I am looking for these days.
But the difference between my play and a gamblers is VAST. But,,no doubt what I do still has a gamble in it.
CP
StandardDeviant said:
I was just reading another post where someone said something like, "I would never gamble. Gamblers are losers. I will only play when I have an advantage." This will sound familiar to all of us, because many of us (including me) tend to think this way. We think we are somehow better situated than the poor gambler who doesn't know what he's doing.
That got me thinking, "How are we better than the regular gambler?" The first response is "APs will realize their EV if they just play correctly and long enough." This is a true statement for all APs in aggregate, but it is not true for an individual AP. The individual AP can only expect a probability distribution centered on EV. In other words half of all APs will never realize their EV no matter how well or how long they play. But we all play on, expecting to reach EV (or better). In other words we gamble on EV+ being our outcome.
So I think the reality is APs gamble with an expectation of approximately 0.5% and gamblers play with an expectation of approximately -0.5%. The probability distributions of both overlap to a significant extent, meaning that some degenerate gamblers will do better than some APs - even in the long run (which few of us reach anyway).
I've recognized that gamblers tend to have a higher average bet than most APs (well, higher than me anyway). When I'm there betting 1 unit waiting for a positive count, they are swinging their bets from a few units to 50 or more. So I think gamblers' variance tends to be much higher than APs much of the time. And while I don't know how to prove it, I'm gonna bet that most gamblers don't have particularly sound money management. In other words they over bet their bankrolls. Some do not think in terms of bankroll, they play with all the money they have, or that they can borrow. So they have a very high risk of ruin.
So I think reality is:
That got me thinking, "How are we better than the regular gambler?" The first response is "APs will realize their EV if they just play correctly and long enough." This is a true statement for all APs in aggregate, but it is not true for an individual AP. The individual AP can only expect a probability distribution centered on EV. In other words half of all APs will never realize their EV no matter how well or how long they play. But we all play on, expecting to reach EV (or better). In other words we gamble on EV+ being our outcome.
So I think the reality is APs gamble with an expectation of approximately 0.5% and gamblers play with an expectation of approximately -0.5%. The probability distributions of both overlap to a significant extent, meaning that some degenerate gamblers will do better than some APs - even in the long run (which few of us reach anyway).
I've recognized that gamblers tend to have a higher average bet than most APs (well, higher than me anyway
). When I'm there betting 1 unit waiting for a positive count, they are swinging their bets from a few units to 50 or more. So I think gamblers' variance tends to be much higher than APs much of the time. And while I don't know how to prove it, I'm gonna bet that most gamblers don't have particularly sound money management. In other words they over bet their bankrolls. Some do not think in terms of bankroll, they play with all the money they have, or that they can borrow. So they have a very high risk of ruin.So I think reality is:
- Casinos will hit their EV because they average their results across many thousands of people
- APs in aggregate will hit their EV for the same reason
- Individual APs and gamblers are both gambling that their individual outcomes will be on the plus side of the probability distribution
- More than a few APs will lose money no matter how well they play. We just don't hear much from them because many quit (survivorship bias)
- APs as a group practice better money management, so they are far less likely than gamblers to suffer a catastrophic result, even though a significant number of both are equally likely to have a losing result
First I would like to say I like your style and intelligence and I hope you stay for a while. Nice job.
My 2cents in this fine discussion, as a very disciplined AP I first only play fine games, if they are not fine I will not play, just to play BJ.
I care less about long run, it is all about the hand before me and that session, long run is a crutch.
I will use the count for my playing decisions and my betting with a nice cover tactic thrown in that actually makes me money.
My return on buy in is, with great frequency, much better than one will receive on all investment instruments available today, and it is not taking me months or years to realize that gain, usually it can take place in 2 hours or less.... and that is all I am looking for these days.
But the difference between my play and a gamblers is VAST. But,,no doubt what I do still has a gamble in it.
CP
creeping panther said:
SD,
First I would like to say I like your style and intelligence and I hope you stay for a while. Nice job.
My 2cents in this fine discussion, as a very disciplined AP I first only play fine games, if they are not fine I will not play, just to play BJ.
I care less about long run, it is all about the hand before me and that session, long run is a crutch.
I will use the count for my playing decisions and my betting with a nice cover tactic thrown in that actually makes me money.
My return on buy in is, with great frequency, much better than one will receive on all investment instruments available today, and it is not taking me months or years to realize that gain, usually it can take place in 2 hours or less.... and that is all I am looking for these days.
But the difference between my play and a gamblers is VAST. But,,no doubt what I do still has a gamble in it.
CP
First I would like to say I like your style and intelligence and I hope you stay for a while. Nice job.
My 2cents in this fine discussion, as a very disciplined AP I first only play fine games, if they are not fine I will not play, just to play BJ.
I care less about long run, it is all about the hand before me and that session, long run is a crutch.
I will use the count for my playing decisions and my betting with a nice cover tactic thrown in that actually makes me money.
My return on buy in is, with great frequency, much better than one will receive on all investment instruments available today, and it is not taking me months or years to realize that gain, usually it can take place in 2 hours or less.... and that is all I am looking for these days.
But the difference between my play and a gamblers is VAST. But,,no doubt what I do still has a gamble in it.
CP
And your words "long run is a crutch" are thought provoking to me -- particularly this weekend. I just got back from the casino, where I had another losing session. I played about 3 hours (at 2 places), and was down 18 units. This is certainly well within normal parameters, but out of my last 10 sessions, 9 were losers. This is also not that unusual, I understand. Still, it is starting to wear on me a bit. On the drive home I was thinking, "remember the long run." Perhaps instead I should be looking more critically at my game. Maybe I'm not being picky enough, like why was I playing that 6D with 1.75 cut off? And I notice that I'm starting to play more conservatively, lowering my spread to keep the variance down in hopes of finishing ahead. And I found it difficult to wong out at -1; I kept saying "try one more hand to see if the count comes back."
WARNING! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!
So, as you can tell, I have some reflecting to do. Despite the frustration, I'm excited, because I think I'm about to break through to a new level in my play -- at least I hope so!
creeping panther said:
SD,
My 2cents in this fine discussion, as a very disciplined AP I first only play fine games, if they are not fine I will not play, just to play BJ.
I care less about long run, it is all about the hand before me and that session, long run is a crutch.
I will use the count for my playing decisions and my betting with a nice cover tactic thrown in that actually makes me money.
My return on buy in is, with great frequency, much better than one will receive on all investment instruments available today, and it is not taking me months or years to realize that gain, usually it can take place in 2 hours or less.... and that is all I am looking for these days.
But the difference between my play and a gamblers is VAST. But,,no doubt what I do still has a gamble in it.
CP
My 2cents in this fine discussion, as a very disciplined AP I first only play fine games, if they are not fine I will not play, just to play BJ.
I care less about long run, it is all about the hand before me and that session, long run is a crutch.
I will use the count for my playing decisions and my betting with a nice cover tactic thrown in that actually makes me money.
My return on buy in is, with great frequency, much better than one will receive on all investment instruments available today, and it is not taking me months or years to realize that gain, usually it can take place in 2 hours or less.... and that is all I am looking for these days.
But the difference between my play and a gamblers is VAST. But,,no doubt what I do still has a gamble in it.
CP
I do not doubt that you have access to games with great rules. I do not doubt your skill either. What I do not get is why the casino will let you win again and again. Maybe you are one of the owners.
And another thing...
I just realized that I've gotten to a dangerous point - that point, like in playing tennis, where I think I've played long enough that I should be "serious" and getting "better." You know...that point where you slam the racket on the ground after missing a shot.
Not that I ever did that of course...
I just realized that I've gotten to a dangerous point - that point, like in playing tennis, where I think I've played long enough that I should be "serious" and getting "better." You know...that point where you slam the racket on the ground after missing a shot.
Not that I ever did that of course...
My take of this whole situation is, if you are an AP, you should be committed to blackjack in the long-term, with frequent visits.
I am a single red chipper, and am super interested in advantage play, but since I'm a casual player and have no long-term commitment to blackjack, I cannot do the bet spreads that I'm required to do with counting.
So, right now, if I play once a week, for 3-4 hours, with $5 each time, my annual expected loss is $416 ($8/week), which is not so bad considering how much other forms of entertainment cost. If there's a wild negative variance in my results, it's not going to bankrupt me; and if there is a wild positive variance, then it'd be nice.
If I were to become a dedicated counter, I would have to play ~1:20 spreads with average bets of probably $25-30. EV is nice then, but if I go into a negative variance, I'd have to stomach thousands of dollars of loss. And will need to keep playing in the long-term until I reach my expected EV.
So, since I don't want to commit to a casino game in the long-term, I'd probably never become an AP. However every now and then, if I find a sloppy dealer, I'd do casual holecarding, and if I find a slow dealer, I'd do casual counting with 1:2, 1:3 spreads just for the fun of it.
So, yes, the definition of what I do is gambling, but I prefer under control gambling, to committed long-term AP play. It's like do you want protected one-night stand with a hot chick every now and then, or do you want to marry? In the former one, the most you can lose is the cost of dinner, whereas in the latter, you can lose your shirt if there's a divorce, or a life-threatening situation etc. Choice is up to you
I am a single red chipper, and am super interested in advantage play, but since I'm a casual player and have no long-term commitment to blackjack, I cannot do the bet spreads that I'm required to do with counting.
So, right now, if I play once a week, for 3-4 hours, with $5 each time, my annual expected loss is $416 ($8/week), which is not so bad considering how much other forms of entertainment cost. If there's a wild negative variance in my results, it's not going to bankrupt me; and if there is a wild positive variance, then it'd be nice.
If I were to become a dedicated counter, I would have to play ~1:20 spreads with average bets of probably $25-30. EV is nice then, but if I go into a negative variance, I'd have to stomach thousands of dollars of loss. And will need to keep playing in the long-term until I reach my expected EV.
So, since I don't want to commit to a casino game in the long-term, I'd probably never become an AP. However every now and then, if I find a sloppy dealer, I'd do casual holecarding, and if I find a slow dealer, I'd do casual counting with 1:2, 1:3 spreads just for the fun of it.
So, yes, the definition of what I do is gambling, but I prefer under control gambling, to committed long-term AP play. It's like do you want protected one-night stand with a hot chick every now and then, or do you want to marry? In the former one, the most you can lose is the cost of dinner, whereas in the latter, you can lose your shirt if there's a divorce, or a life-threatening situation etc. Choice is up to you
aggregate results of all counters must equal expected win
The AP's who survive must make, as a group, somewhat more than their expected EV because the overall EV of all AP's in the longrun must equal actual cumulative EV. The money lost by the players who lost and quit MUST be offset by someone. The casino doesn't just get a lucky windfall.
The AP's who survive must make, as a group, somewhat more than their expected EV because the overall EV of all AP's in the longrun must equal actual cumulative EV. The money lost by the players who lost and quit MUST be offset by someone. The casino doesn't just get a lucky windfall.
This would be true if the long run truly exists, but it doesn't. You are basically saying someone somewhere must magically win because a card counter went bust who wouldn't have had the card counter won or broke even.
In theory of course this is all true. But with no one possibly playing long enough to reach the true long run, the casinos simply will in fact get a lucky windfall on occasion when a card counter goes broke.
APs as a group making the EV is what must happen theoretically. In the real world where we live in the short run, there is absolutely no guarantee that the AP community's aggregate win will be at EV. It might not even be that close!
This is one of the things I am getting more and more skeptical, this "long run." If my losses are much worse than expected, I should not simply have faith in the long run that it will be evened out. I mean really, what guarantee is there that my results would ever deviate enough from the mean the opposite way to offset these losses?
I personally believe the long run is merely a concept, and has limited value. The short run is much more important in this game.
In theory of course this is all true. But with no one possibly playing long enough to reach the true long run, the casinos simply will in fact get a lucky windfall on occasion when a card counter goes broke.
APs as a group making the EV is what must happen theoretically. In the real world where we live in the short run, there is absolutely no guarantee that the AP community's aggregate win will be at EV. It might not even be that close!
This is one of the things I am getting more and more skeptical, this "long run." If my losses are much worse than expected, I should not simply have faith in the long run that it will be evened out. I mean really, what guarantee is there that my results would ever deviate enough from the mean the opposite way to offset these losses?
I personally believe the long run is merely a concept, and has limited value. The short run is much more important in this game.
BPs point was that successful CCs are the players that are on the positive side of variance, while most of those that give up or just lost all their money are the ones that are on the negative side of variance. There probably is some correlation there, but I wouldn't make assumptions that the correlation is very strong.
A losing CC does not create a winning CC just like a loss does not lead to a win. This is the same sort of the gambler's fallacy, except using EV instead of winning streaks. http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=175634#post175634
As per the short run vs the long run, they are the SAME. Combined short run sessions is what creates the long run. The long run is the best indication of what will occur during the short run. Will we ever "reach the long run?" Not in the sense that we will be playing 2 billion hands of blackjack. However, the statistics derived from the long run will be reflected in the short run.
Using information derived from the short run is what ploppies do (hindsight thinking), and that can lead to some very bad decisions. While we cannot reach the "long run" it is possible to play enough hands where we have a strong probability to observe results that are close to what the long run predicts.
I wouldn't say of limited value - long term EV figures provide the basis for comparing the mathematical return on different rulesets and strategies for tackling games. Having said that I agree that the "long run", and the maths that fall out of it, shouldn't be the holy grail to base decisions on - other factors such as risk and money management should come into it. One reason why I'm sceptical about doubling some hands that carry marginal +EVs - for example risking an additional £40 because over the "long run" the maths suggest you'll derive an additional 4p in the £ on the original bet by doing so. Because the return expectation is marginal, it's inherrent that you'll lose a lot of them. In such cases, I think managing the variance fluctuations is more important than return, although that is of course a personal choice.
Sleight, can you elaborate on this please? I'm puzzled. In my own case, my results to date are nowhere near what the long term expectation for the games that I play calculate out to (they're well in excess of 3 Std Devs pos I'm happy to say). Thanks.
Sleight, can you elaborate on this please? I'm puzzled. In my own case, my results to date are nowhere near what the long term expectation for the games that I play calculate out to (they're well in excess of 3 Std Devs pos I'm happy to say). Thanks.
If variance is the issue for you, RA indeces will give you a better point in which you should make certain high variance plays. The very purpose of RA indeces is to find the balance of risk and expectation that is comfortable for you. Also, remember that as the count goes up, marginal doubling hands like soft 13v5 become a lot stronger.
If you are "well in excess of 3 Std Devs," it's possible that you are in the .15% of people that happened to be so lucky, but its more likely that you are not evaluating your game correctly (Hands/hr, pen, etc). While you will practically never land on EV, the standard deviation that is obtained from the "long run" will be the same in the short run. The advantage you will be playing at, also the same. Using this data, you calculate the RoR that you are currently playing at for your short term endeavor. That is what we use statistics for. We simulate large samples of data to make predictions about future small samples (or conversely, take small samples of data to make conclusions about the larger population).
If you are "well in excess of 3 Std Devs," it's possible that you are in the .15% of people that happened to be so lucky, but its more likely that you are not evaluating your game correctly (Hands/hr, pen, etc). While you will practically never land on EV, the standard deviation that is obtained from the "long run" will be the same in the short run. The advantage you will be playing at, also the same. Using this data, you calculate the RoR that you are currently playing at for your short term endeavor. That is what we use statistics for. We simulate large samples of data to make predictions about future small samples (or conversely, take small samples of data to make conclusions about the larger population).
Last edited:
Thinly disguised variance brag in this post...
Yeah, UK-21, you might want to look into that. My last BJ session, which lasted less than an hour, was obscenely good. I made 118X my EV. If my calculations are correct, and it’s easy to go wrong with this, that was 2.4 SDs, and I would have a 99.2% chance of doing worse in a session that long. So 3 SDs over any length of time does seem a little excessive.
Yeah, UK-21, you might want to look into that. My last BJ session, which lasted less than an hour, was obscenely good. I made 118X my EV. If my calculations are correct, and it’s easy to go wrong with this, that was 2.4 SDs, and I would have a 99.2% chance of doing worse in a session that long. So 3 SDs over any length of time does seem a little excessive.
I mean no offense to you Blue, but I always chuckle when I hear people say things like that. I've heard other people say things like "You'll never reach the long run" and "you still have to rely on luck to win." My experiences have been much different.
My local casino has a game with a N0 of 480 hands. I can overcome one standard deviation in about 4 hours of play. After 24 hours of play I have over a 99.7% chance of reaching my long-term results. The game I played before that had a N0 of 850 hands. Hitting the long-term results every month was very likely. After a few months it becomes almost impossible not to reach the long run.
It is true that many novice players don't have the slightest chance of reaching the long run, but serious players have been there several times and will get there several more times before they die. I can assure you that the long run does exist and that it can be much closer than you think.
-Sonny-
My local casino has a game with a N0 of 480 hands. I can overcome one standard deviation in about 4 hours of play. After 24 hours of play I have over a 99.7% chance of reaching my long-term results. The game I played before that had a N0 of 850 hands. Hitting the long-term results every month was very likely. After a few months it becomes almost impossible not to reach the long run.
It is true that many novice players don't have the slightest chance of reaching the long run, but serious players have been there several times and will get there several more times before they die. I can assure you that the long run does exist and that it can be much closer than you think.
-Sonny-
Sleight, you are right. My results (on a fairly small sample size) have been skewed by instances that I didn't calculate into the EV for the game I play. I based my calcs on playing all, whereas in the last 4 sessions I've left tables when the count has hit TC-2, I've enjoyed the benefits of dealer errors in my favour etc etc. I'm not in the top .15% of lucky punters by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm not sure we've been on the same wavelengh in this discussion though - I think we've been considering different measures. I've been referring to £/p (or $/c) being represented by x Std Devs derived from the EV of the overall amount I've wagered to date (which in the grand scheme of things isn't very much). Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Of course that won't be the same in £/$ terms as for someone who has wagered much more over x,000,000 hands, and where it's much more likely that the actual results will be nearer the expectation.
I'm not sure we've been on the same wavelengh in this discussion though - I think we've been considering different measures. I've been referring to £/p (or $/c) being represented by x Std Devs derived from the EV of the overall amount I've wagered to date (which in the grand scheme of things isn't very much). Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Of course that won't be the same in £/$ terms as for someone who has wagered much more over x,000,000 hands, and where it's much more likely that the actual results will be nearer the expectation.