Giving it a rest

[Automatic Monkey]

... I kept getting... in her box...maybe 5 or 6 times. ...completing... I ... switched to... a Hasidic Jew.
He whispered to me... Quickly I ... jumped up and said I had to go.

Great story!

I don't think those are really Hasidim we see in the casino, just ultra-Orthodox. Hard to tell the difference by appearance sometimes. As I understand it, the Hasidim are theologically deviate, in the Christian world their analogues would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, who may be obsessive and outrageous but not exemplars of traditional Christianity.

 

[KimLee]

Aslan Quitting

I respect Aslan for gutting it out during 4 figure swings. But a real advantage player would never quit. I suggest he just cut bets in half to tolerate the swings better.

Apparently he prefers to play a small losing game to a big winning game. Yuk. I also suggest betting bigger with a focus on comps. Betting small is not worth the time. Just watch T.V. or learn to play poker.

 

[aslan]

I respect Aslan for gutting it out during 4 figure swings. But a real advantage player would never quit. I suggest he just cut bets in half to tolerate the swings better.

Apparently he prefers to play a small losing game to a big winning game. Yuk. I also suggest betting bigger with a focus on comps. Betting small is not worth the time. Just watch T.V. or learn to play poker.

I've come to that conclusion, also. On my last trip I tried spreading 2 and 3 times, a couple of times, 2 x 5, but the feedback I'm getting is that it is either a -EV game, or too low a plus EV game to be worthwhile. I imagine a 1/2 betting spread with wonging out would easily be a winning game with a lower RoR than what I was playing (that's what Sagefr0g told me). I guess I was trying to play it too close to the margin. I just don't know my way around low EV games, but it does seem to dampen the large swings in variance, and reduce the chances of large session losses. Since I don't play enough hours to get to the long run quickly, large session losses can be hard to stomach. It seems that card counting works better if you do it professionally and thereby put in a ton of hours each year; what I mean is, you can turn it around, get to the long run, in a shorter number of days. That's something I don't want to do, however; it would ruin my life. :laugh:

 

[sagefr0g]

.. I imagine a 1/2 betting spread with wonging out would easily be a winning game with a lower RoR than what I was playing (that's what Sagefr0g told me). ....

huh? errrhhh i don't remember that. but we've discussed lots of stuff, so maybe i'm just forgetting the details?
errrh i used references to 1:4, 1:3 & 1:2 spreads with respect to a sim i had, but not 1/2 spreads in this link : http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=229803&postcount=57
...... if that's what you are referring to.......
whatever take my stuff with a grain of salt, please, i'm essentially a lost puppy.

 

[aslan]

huh? errrhhh i don't remember that. but we've discussed lots of stuff, so maybe i'm just forgetting the details?
errrh i used references to 1:4, 1:3 & 1:2 spreads with respect to a sim i had, but not 1/2 spreads in this link : http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=229803&postcount=57
...... if that's what you are referring to.......
whatever take my stuff with a grain of salt, please, i'm essentially a lost puppy.

I guess I was remembering the 1 to 4 spread as being a half spread (actually 1 to 5 would be a half spread in my scheme of things) so I apologize for talking so loosely of what you said. The lesser spreads is what I was experimenting with this week-- the spreads that you said were at unacceptable RoR levels I think. lol I didn't want to mention these things without giving you credit for it. I believe you said the 1 to 4 spread had a decent RoR which fit right into what Kim Lee was saying about a 1/2 spread, although that would be 1 to 5 and presumably an even better RoR.

But then someone said I should be using a 1 to 50 spread, and that about blew my mind, what's left of it. Talk about variance, 1 to 50 is all I need. I am trying to become a winning player with the least amount of variance possible. I am not trying to be a winning player with the maximum win rate because that means greater variance, at least, in my mind. I don't think I play enough hours in a year to play with large spreads-- just seems like too much short run risk and the long run is really long for me in terms of calendar months. And lastly, nothing you ever say is taken with a grain of salt. :laugh:

 

[Most Interesting Man]

Well I think we all have opinions about our own tolerance for risk but in the end balancing risk vs. win rate is a personal thing. Use the sims to find out how much you risk in the short term and long term and see if the hourly rate is worth your time. If you're playing for entertainment the hourly rate probably isn't a huge factor, but you should understand the long term impact of play. Don't be afraid of what the sims show -- embrace it. And if you don't like what it says, consider that you've saved yourself a lot of trouble. Experiment with the sims. I'm sure you'll find a way to adjust the parameters to achieve the level of risk you desire.

 

[aslan]

Well I think we all have opinions about our own tolerance for risk but in the end balancing risk vs. win rate is a personal thing. Use the sims to find out how much you risk in the short term and long term and see if the hourly rate is worth your time. If you're playing for entertainment the hourly rate probably isn't a huge factor, but you should understand the long term impact of play. Don't be afraid of what the sims show -- embrace it. And if you don't like what it says, consider that you've saved yourself a lot of trouble. Experiment with the sims. I'm sure you'll find a way to adjust the parameters to achieve the level of risk you desire.

MIM, most sound advice!

 

[bjcount]

I know you must have run over my post on page 6 since it was kind of weak in content, and I know it's been a very long time since I ran sims, but what am I missing here? Here's two sims using RPC as the strategy and only I18 & fab4. I dont see any issue with RoR.... playing $25min... even $50min is only a 1.3% RoR if you have a $30,000 BR and a $500 trip BR.... based on your wong out and playing 2 hands at +1.....

These are run at 1-12 spread, but even at the 1-6 spread there not much different. If you begin to play 2 hands at +2 instead of +1 the RoR doesnt change much neither.

Other then the fact that the trip BR is way too small should you be playing and run into a High TC, it doesnt sound like your "style" will hurt you that much, it will only impact your long run win totals.. and the lower spread which if you want a sim posted I will, at 1-6 spread the NO for 5/6d game becomes 12,350 and the win rate is 31.28/hr w/ 0.0 RoR. and a 32% chance of doubling your $500 trip BR.

BJC

EDIT: The sims have different settings to see how the bet size impacted results.

 

[aslan]

I know you must have run over my post on page 6 since it was kind of weak in content, and I know it's been a very long time since I ran sims, but what am I missing here? Here's two sims using RPC as the strategy and only I18 & fab4. I dont see any issue with RoR.... playing $25min... even $50min is only a 1.3% RoR if you have a $30,000 BR and a $500 trip BR.... based on your wong out and playing 2 hands at +1.....

These are run at 1-12 spread, but even at the 1-6 spread there not much different. If you begin to play 2 hands at +2 instead of +1 the RoR doesnt change much neither.

Other then the fact that the trip BR is way too small should you be playing and run into a High TC, it doesnt sound like your "style" will hurt you that much, it will only impact your long run win totals.. and the lower spread which if you want a sim posted I will, at 1-6 spread the NO for 5/6d game becomes 12,350 and the win rate is 31.28/hr w/ 0.0 RoR. and a 32% chance of doubling your $500 trip BR.

BJC

EDIT: The sims have different settings to see how the bet size impacted results.

I really appreciate you running this, because my CVData is not working I think due to upgrading to Windows 7.

Betting half my usual spread (in my case the usual spread is 10X) should not be unnecessarily risky. I can't wait to get my sims up and running so I can play with various combinations of factors: different trip bankrolls, different total bankrolls; 6-deck with wonging out at various levels; the effect of penetration; lower than 1/2 10X betting spread; etc.

I am keen on developing the ideal game plan for the recreational player who does not have the luxury of playing more than 100 to 300 hours a year. The idea I have in mind is to trade reduction in variance for win rate, while staying solidly in the winning bracket. Variance is much harder to swallow, IMHO, when your limited number of hours played each year is relatively low, which means that the long run is further away in terms of calendar days. I want to reduce the risk of carrying large losses due to variance on my shoulders, chafing at the bit to rectify them, but shackled by the number of hours played each year. Reduced variance should keep the losses more manageable over time to my way of thinking. Thanks.

 

[bj bob]

I've come to that conclusion, also. On my last trip I tried spreading 2 and 3 times, a couple of times, 2 x 5, but the feedback I'm getting is that it is either a -EV game, or too low a plus EV game to be worthwhile. I imagine a 1/2 betting spread with wonging out would easily be a winning game with a lower RoR than what I was playing (that's what Sagefr0g told me). I guess I was trying to play it too close to the margin. I just don't know my way around low EV games, but it does seem to dampen the large swings in variance, and reduce the chances of large session losses. Since I don't play enough hours to get to the long run quickly, large session losses can be hard to stomach. It seems that card counting works better if you do it professionally and thereby put in a ton of hours each year; what I mean is, you can turn it around, get to the long run, in a shorter number of days. That's something I don't want to do, however; it would ruin my life. :laugh:

I kept telling you so, but you were just too damned stubborn to listen. :cool2:

 

[bj bob]

Great story!

I don't think those are really Hasidim we see in the casino, just ultra-Orthodox. Hard to tell the difference by appearance sometimes. As I understand it, the Hasidim are theologically deviate, in the Christian world their analogues would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, who may be obsessive and outrageous but not exemplars of traditional Christianity.

Only the twisted mind of a mad monkey could come up with such creative editing.

 

[Coyote]

Great story!

I don't think those are really Hasidim we see in the casino, just ultra-Orthodox. Hard to tell the difference by appearance sometimes. As I understand it, the Hasidim are theologically deviate, in the Christian world their analogues would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, who may be obsessive and outrageous but not exemplars of traditional Christianity.

That was too funny! :laugh: Very wrong, but too funny! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Coyote]

I am keen on developing the ideal game plan for the recreational player who does not have the luxury of playing more than 100 to 300 hours a year. The idea I have in mind is to trade reduction in variance for win rate, while staying solidly in the winning bracket. Variance is much harder to swallow, IMHO, when your limited number of hours played each year is relatively low, which means that the long run is further away in terms of calendar days. I want to reduce the risk of carrying large losses due to variance on my shoulders, chafing at the bit to rectify them, but shackled by the number of hours played each year. Reduced variance should keep the losses more manageable over time to my way of thinking. Thanks.

I would love to see a thread for this! I think it would be bennificial to many of us recreational players in this situation.

Do make the Bash if at all possible!

Coyote

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I really appreciate you running this, because my CVData is not working I think due to upgrading to Windows 7.

Betting half my usual spread (in my case the usual spread is 10X) should not be unnecessarily risky. I can't wait to get my sims up and running so I can play with various combinations of factors: different trip bankrolls, different total bankrolls; 6-deck with wonging out at various levels; the effect of penetration; lower than 1/2 10X betting spread; etc.

I am keen on developing the ideal game plan for the recreational player who does not have the luxury of playing more than 100 to 300 hours a year. The idea I have in mind is to trade reduction in variance for win rate, while staying solidly in the winning bracket. Variance is much harder to swallow, IMHO, when your limited number of hours played each year is relatively low, which means that the long run is further away in terms of calendar days. I want to reduce the risk of carrying large losses due to variance on my shoulders, chafing at the bit to rectify them, but shackled by the number of hours played each year. Reduced variance should keep the losses more manageable over time to my way of thinking. Thanks.

Sounds like what you're looking for is a good backcounting game. Even in the lousy environment of AC, you can play a $25 max if you are willing to stand around waiting for a 1% advantage all day for a few dollars an hour. The second best thing you can do to prevent losses is not play even one hand with a negative expectation, and that's an environment where you can get away with those things.

 

[zengrifter]

I've always felt it a touch negligent that counting is promoted so recklessly. It is a winning strategy, to that there is no doubt ... but the people employing it are not succeeding. It's estimated that 99% of all counters end up losing money.

Whoaa! That is a skewed statistic, Mr. Twain.
Your 99% of "counters" ain't "counters" - they are ploppies who "tried counting."
"Real counters", like the core membership here and at BJ21, etc., are in the majority, like Charlie Sheen, WINNING!

Mark Twain's three kinds of lies -
1. Lies
2. Damned Lies
3. Statistics.

 

[aslan]

I kept telling you so, but you were just too damned stubborn to listen. :cool2:

I musta had wax in my ears. Right now I can't even run sims cuz I got a new operating system.

 

[aslan]

Great story!

I don't think those are really Hasidim we see in the casino, just ultra-Orthodox. Hard to tell the difference by appearance sometimes. As I understand it, the Hasidim are theologically deviate, in the Christian world their analogues would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, who may be obsessive and outrageous but not exemplars of traditional Christianity.

Gee! I'll have to warn with my Jewish Wife. She told me they had a town of Hasidic Jews not far from AC, and that she considers them to be the most religious of the religious.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Gee! I'll have to warn with my Jewish Wife. She told me they had a town of Hasidic Jews not far from AC, and that she considers them to be the most religious of the religious.

They may be religious, in the sense that they put a lot of devotion into what they do, but what exactly are they practicing? Last weekend on the Boardwalk the May 21st people were running around with their signs telling me I have only 3 weeks. They put a lot of devotion into what they do too, which makes them very religious, it's just not any religion I can identify.

There's a nice backcounting system I came up with designed especially for high volume shoe games like you'd find on the Boardwalk. It's like KO except you count the 5 as +2 and the 7 as 0, as I think those system tags work a little better when you are only playing in high counts. I might have time to draw it up and post it here tonight.

 

[KimLee]

I believe you said the 1 to 4 spread had a decent RoR which fit right into what Kim Lee was saying about a 1/2 spread, although that would be 1 to 5 and presumably an even better RoR.

But then someone said I should be using a 1 to 50 spread, and that about blew my mind, what's left of it.

You don't understand. To cut your RoR, you should cut your max bet in half. But to maintain a winning spread, you must also cut your minimum bet.

For example, suppose you were spreading $25-$250, a 1-10 spread. Instead you might spread $10-$125, a 1-12.5 spread. You might also consider a $10-2x$90 spread, which looks like 1-9, but avoids "cheques play" or "black action". If you do this then your swings will be half as large, but your game will still be quite strong. In contrast, betting $25-$125 at a mediocre game will slowly bleed you.

Also, remember your EV is only 1.5 units per hour. Is it worth your time to play for $15 per hour, including the risk, travel, and hassle? Only you can decide. But don't kid yourself that you are making any EV by playing a weak spread on a crummy game. You would just be another ploppy deceiving yourself. I can tolerate the risk and still rarely find it worth my time.

 

[aslan]

You don't understand. To cut your RoR, you should cut your max bet in half. But to maintain a winning spread, you must also cut your minimum bet.

For example, suppose you were spreading $25-$250, a 1-10 spread. Instead you might spread $10-$125, a 1-12.5 spread. You might also consider a $10-2x$90 spread, which looks like 1-9, but avoids "cheques play" or "black action". If you do this then your swings will be half as large, but your game will still be quite strong. In contrast, betting $25-$125 at a mediocre game will slowly bleed you.

Also, remember your EV is only 1.5 units per hour. Is it worth your time to play for $15 per hour, including the risk, travel, and hassle? Only you can decide. But don't kid yourself that you are making any EV by playing a weak spread on a crummy game. You would just be another ploppy deceiving yourself. I can tolerate the risk and still rarely find it worth my time.

You're right, I did not understand. But it was coming to me this afternoon as I ran sims, something I take no pleasure in. At first I thought, this simulator must be busted. But, alas, it was my strategy that was broken.