I Just Can't Lose!

[Deathclutch]

Congratulations! Maybe you can rub some of that good fortune off on me. I think I'm going to make a change to my game too and only bet big when I'm using the casino's money. That's what I used to do and got good results. I bought into the entire counting system here hook, line and sinker and I think it needs to be tweaked because it sure hasn't worked for me.

Stick to the plan on this, don't deviate because of some losses. I haven't been playing long, around 130 hours or so but counting has worked just like it's supposed to. My chart shows wild swings in both directions but a steady uphill climb right in the middle of those swings.

 

[Jack_Black]

So you need a 2,3 hundred units for a bankroll? With that bankroll,
I have a 99 percent chance of succeeding???????????

general consensus is that you need 125 max bets for a good sized bankroll. But there are other factors involved that give you 1%. You could have 125 max bets and still have 25% RoR. YOu have to analyze the game and your play to get it down to an acceptable level. 1% RoR is something that pros use because that is their only bankroll and if they lose it, T.S. recreational to serious players don't need such a low RoR, but hey, it's up to you. I know it would suck if I lost my bankroll, but I still punch a clock, so if I lose it, it's not the end of the world. Well, I'd probably be sad and angry at the same time for about a month, but I'll get over it. I lost $10k in one bad trading day(can you guess what day that was?) and it took about a month to get over it. The emotions I felt were about the same as breaking up with my girlfriend. As a matter of fact, money is a like a girlfriend. When you have money, you're happy. You take it out for drinks, go shopping, spend time with your friends, show it off to people. When you lose money, you stay home, think about what you lost, wish you could get it back, cry about it.:cry:

Where was I? Oh, so a 1% RoR is pretty slow growth for me. Plus Pros usually have huge BR so 1% is still an attractive growth. Still playing blackchips or something crazy. Yellow, purple. I use about 10% of a small BR I've dedicated to this venture.

If you don't already have one
(Dead link: http://www.poker-tools-online.com/riskofruin.html)

 

[sagefr0g]

So how exactly does this work? Do the card gods hold quarterly meetings and say "this guy's been getting screwed for 6 months now, it's time we start steering the good cards his way"? Nope. There is a luck factor involved in every session, every shoe, every hand and every draw. It's this unknown factor that keeps the game interesting, but losing your money time and time again isn't so interesting.

there sort of is a schedule for being screwed by the cards, lmao.
thing is the schedule is in no particular order that we are ever gonna notice.
the good news is, the true count frequencies do live according to a normal distribution.
it's known by simulations of billions of rounds that the favorable true counts come to us less often than the unfavorable true counts.
some where on the order of 70% unfavorable to 30% favorable.
in a sense those favorable and unfavorable periods are ruled by how well we play basic strategy.

so you are correct that you could have just flat bet and done pretty well for a long period of time just using basic strategy. your fluctuation of your bottom line wouldn't be near as volatile.

thing is the house edge is always on the house's side and we judge the degree of the house edge against flat betting with basic strategy, so in the long run with just basic strategy your gonna lose.
the key to winning is that circa 30% favorable times for the true count.

BTW, if as you said "you lose more than you win, even in big counts" you'll never come out ahead. Losing more than you win in big counts simply makes you lose more, faster.

well jackblack said it but in case you missed it, i'll repeat it cause for me it was one of the most important lessons that i learned.
statistical data shows that you will indeed lose more hands than you win, counting or not counting, it doesn't matter.
statistical data also shows that you will win more insurance bets (at 2:1), receive more snappers (at 3:2) and have a higher percentage of successful double downs during that small fraction of time (circa 30% of the time) when the true count is favorable.
so having an optimal amount of money on the table that circa 30% of the time is where you make your money, not by winning more hands than you lose.
seems almost paradoxical, doesn't it?:whip:

so much for the kool aid, i'd just add, that's how it is supposed to be, but there is still the fact that risk of ruin is never gonna be zero.
with that in mind, i'd say don't ever lose that skeptical attitude you have entirely, it may just be what ends up saving you, lol.

 

[aslan]

so having an optimal amount of money on the table that circa 30% of the time is where you make your money, not by winning more hands than you lose.
seems almost paradoxical, doesn't it?:whip:

With that in mind, it makes sense to do nothing but wong in with large bets. Nothing else. And you can do it in various places, especially the 6 and 8 deck games where the house is not as likely to have a "no mid-shoe entry" policy. That being said, up until now I have not experienced enough pain for my actions to follow my intellectual convictions. Darn it, I like the social aspect of playing too much. I am, however, on the cusp of implementing this more sensible strategy. It is hard to continue to kick against the goad of reason. It's also unprofitable. I think experience is taming my game. :eyepatch::whip::whip:

 

[sagefr0g]

With that in mind, it makes sense to do nothing but wong in with large bets. Nothing else. And you can do it in various places, especially the 6 and 8 deck games where the house is not as likely to have a "no mid-shoe entry" policy. That being said, up until now I have not experienced enough pain for my actions to follow my intellectual convictions. Darn it, I like the social aspect of playing too much. I am, however, on the cusp of implementing this more sensible strategy. It is hard to continue to kick against the goad of reason. It's also unprofitable. I think experience is taming my game. :eyepatch::whip::whip:

i have no problem with wonging out, but wonging in, well i wonder about the ethics of that.
i mean i believe it does have some negative effect upon the prospects of the ploppies and or counters who have been sitting through the horrors of the game from the beginning of the shoe.

 

[Diver]

Ethics

i have no problem with wonging out, but wonging in, well i wonder about the ethics of that.
i mean i believe it does have some negative effect upon the prospects of the ploppies and or counters who have been sitting through the horrors of the game from the beginning of the shoe.

Some people would say that ethical considerations apply to everyone. Others assert they only apply to friends,business associates, family, or some other personal preferance. In a contest where the basic framework entails doing battle against a foe who starts with an advantage and does everything to keep you disadvantaged, it's reasonable and probably necessary to adopt a combative habit of mind toward the process. But as you say, we know wonging in has a negative impact on the earnings of the other players, so while I do think it is an ethical situation, it is easily resolved by the question "mind if I join in?" That affords a common coursety to some and informed consent to others. Simply dimissing them as "the other" and therefore somehow inferior and not worthy of consideration is something ethicists have addressed in various settings long ago.

 

[aslan]

i have no problem with wonging out, but wonging in, well i wonder about the ethics of that.
i mean i believe it does have some negative effect upon the prospects of the ploppies and or counters who have been sitting through the horrors of the game from the beginning of the shoe.

Do you mean to say that I may be speeding up the rate at which they lose their cash? Statistically in a far-fetched sort of way, you may be correct, but I hardly think one's entrance as the count turns positive does much to change their miserable plight. Especially consider the fact that it is always different ploppies that you so intrude on, and don't forget that ploppies will not necessarily play their cards right to benefit by a positive count. Lastly, be mindful of your own words that one is no more likely to win more hands in a positive count than in a negative count. So now it's down to the neglible effect their receiving additional blackjacks, and double downs and splits if they have the smarts to take advantage of them as they plod along flat betting their hard earned money away. Hmmm! Maybe we should call them plodders, or ploddies, not ploppies. No, they have already consented to the inevitable long-term loss of their treasure when they agreed to the house edge, far be it from me to deny their speedy accomplishment of that objective. If they ask me how to play a hand when I am with them at the table, I always give them the real poop, although sometimes telling them that some people do and some people don't when it's an index play. It's not good form to explain index plays in front of dealers and PBs. lol Finally, let me say that some of my best friends are ploddies. lol Troubled by a scrupulous conscience, FrogFriend? I don't think this is a moral question, more one of intelligent play. In fact, it may be immoral to ignore one's intelligence in the investment of one's monies. Good stewardship, you know. Ploddies really have an obligation to study up on the subject. Some day they may be called to render an accounting!

 

[sagefr0g]

Do you mean to say that I may be speeding up the rate at which they lose their cash? Statistically in a far-fetched sort of way, you may be correct, but I hardly think one's entrance as the count turns positive does much to change their miserable plight. Especially consider the fact that it is always different ploppies that you so intrude on, and don't forget that ploppies will not necessarily play their cards right to benefit by a positive count. Lastly, be mindful of your own words that one is no more likely to win more hands in a positive count than in a negative count. So now it's down to the neglible effect their receiving additional blackjacks, and double downs and splits if they have the smarts to take advantage of them as they plod along flat betting their hard earned money away. Hmmm! Maybe we should call them plodders, or ploddies, not ploppies. No, they have already consented to the inevitable long-term loss of their treasure when they agreed to the house edge, far be it from me to deny their speedy accomplishment of that objective. If they ask me how to play a hand when I am with them at the table, I always give them the real poop, although sometimes telling them that some people do and some people don't when it's an index play. It's not good form to explain index plays in front of dealers and PBs. lol Finally, let me say that some of my best friends are ploddies. lol Troubled by a scrupulous conscience, FrogFriend? I don't think this is a moral question, more one of intelligent play. In fact, it may be immoral to ignore one's intelligence in the investment of one's monies. Good stewardship, you know. Ploddies really have an obligation to study up on the subject. Some day they may be called to render an accounting!

thank you for your take on the matter aslan.
here is a link on the effect, i have to read it myself, lol.
so i'm not really sure what the effect is.......
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/othereffects1.htm

and thank you as well Diver...
quote from Diver

Some people would say that ethical considerations apply to everyone. Others assert they only apply to friends,business associates, family, or some other personal preferance. In a contest where the basic framework entails doing battle against a foe who starts with an advantage and does everything to keep you disadvantaged, it's reasonable and probably necessary to adopt a combative habit of mind toward the process. But as you say, we know wonging in has a negative impact on the earnings of the other players, so while I do think it is an ethical situation, it is easily resolved by the question "mind if I join in?" That affords a common coursety to some and informed consent to others. Simply dimissing them as "the other" and therefore somehow inferior and not worthy of consideration is something ethicists have addressed in various settings long ago.

as for myself, like i say i question wonging in as an ethical question.
so for me the jury is still out, lol.
i guess until i make up my mind i simply wont do it.

edit: the following line from the link above is interesting in my opinion with respect to the question of the ethics of wonging in......
These charts indicate that a card counter should probably leave if someone is backcounting his/her table. On the other hand, a basic strategy player that realizes the situation can increase his/her bet whenever a backcounter sits down and will end up improving his/her advantage.
like this could mean a savy enough basic strategy player might benefit rather than suffer as a result of a back counter.

 

[psyduck]

I find the ethics discussion interesting. Both Wonging in and out hurt the casino (at least in theory). In that regard, both are unethical. Can we call AP plays unethical?

 

[sagefr0g]

I find the ethics discussion interesting. Both Wonging in and out hurt the casino (at least in theory). In that regard, both are unethical. Can we call AP plays unethical?

lmao, somehow i just don't care enough about the casino's to worry about it.
although i'd draw the line at cheating them or stealing from them.

 

[aslan]

I find the ethics discussion interesting. Both Wonging in and out hurt the casino (at least in theory). In that regard, both are unethical. Can we call AP plays unethical?

Nay, nay! The casino puts the games out as a challenge to any would be participants. Further, the courts have held that it is not wrong to use one's mind to win at a game of cards.

The casino proposes a game that it believes it can win out because the laws of probability appear to be on its side. The state decides that this is okay, since the casino requires revenues to operate its business and to make a reasonable profit for its shareholders. There are no guarantees. The house edge depends on how well the players play the games. Some games can be beaten, others are nearly impossible to beat (but never say never).

Players who are so skilled so as to reverse the odds in their favor have risen to the casino challenge and overcome it. Therefore, they deserve a reward. Because the house could go out of business if everyone were able to defeat its games, it has developed certain counter strategies. In Las Vegas, the law allows them to refuse to do business with anyone entirely at their discretion. Therefore, when casinos in Vegas ID a counter, they may back them off. In New Jersey, they may not back a player off, so their strategy is to provide insufficient pen to thwart successful counting.

Another strategy employed by casinos is to offer games whose rules or conditions are not conducive to advantage play, or are borderline, resulting in the weaker advantage players being defeated. These casinos rely on their surveillance to ID and stop the stronger APs.

If anyone is immoral, it is the house, not the player. The house benefits by human weakness. Many people lose their life savings each week in Las Vegas. These people may have been naive, caught up in the emotion of gambling, or addicted to gambling. Any activity that encourages and even benefits from such tragic occurrences might arguably be called immoral. On the other hand, casinos often go to great lengths to inform players of the risks involved. Personally, I am more sympathetic with the players than I am with the casino. My gut is that casinos live more off of human weakness than they do off those who wisely use gambling for entertainment only, and never lose more than they can afford.

I do not place APs in the category of gamblers. It is rare to find someone who can beat another at their own game, and do so with some degree of consistency. They should be applauded. It's the American way!

 

[Machinist]

SAgefrog?

lmao, somehow i just don't care enough about the casino's to worry about it.
although i'd draw the line at cheating them or stealing from them.[/QUOT

Ahhhhh, I'm contemplating that statement Frog!!!!!! How that might apply to your new found hobby.....wink wink!!!! hmmm Technically you could be miss appropriating ....
cause the person that just left your machine,,,, if they had played all the way through would have put it all back in the machine and therefore the casino would get all the money that you are getting... Make any sense SAgefrog??? LOL
The word Cheating and stealing make me cringe!!!!! Bad words... misapproriating, fairing things up.... stick to a nice light gray area or less LOL
Let me sleep on you drawing a line.....


Machinist

 

[sagefr0g]

..
I do not place APs in the category of gamblers. ...

then why do you say the following "make sure you understand that you are gambling even though it is advantage play":whip:
in this post? http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=160933&postcount=81

 

[aslan]

thank you for your take on the matter aslan.
here is a link on the effect, i have to read it myself, lol.
so i'm not really sure what the effect is.......
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/othereffects1.htm

and thank you as well Diver...
quote from Diver


as for myself, like i say i question wonging in as an ethical question.
so for me the jury is still out, lol.
i guess until i make up my mind i simply wont do it.

edit: the following line from the link above is interesting in my opinion with respect to the question of the ethics of wonging in......
These charts indicate that a card counter should probably leave if someone is backcounting his/her table. On the other hand, a basic strategy player that realizes the situation can increase his/her bet whenever a backcounter sits down and will end up improving his/her advantage.
like this could mean a savy enough basic strategy player might benefit rather than suffer as a result of a back counter.

A ploppy has the right to enter the game whenever he wants. The fact that he does know that he can achieve an advantage by doing so is neither here nor there. He alone is responsible for his degree of knowledge when he consents to play a game of skill. Books are available. His lack of due diligence puts the onus on him, not the AP. There is nothing immoral about wonging in. It may be immoral not to. lol

 

[sagefr0g]

lmao, somehow i just don't care enough about the casino's to worry about it.
although i'd draw the line at cheating them or stealing from them.[/QUOT

Ahhhhh, I'm contemplating that statement Frog!!!!!! How that might apply to your new found hobby.....wink wink!!!! hmmm Technically you could be miss appropriating ....
cause the person that just left your machine,,,, if they had played all the way through would have put it all back in the machine and therefore the casino would get all the money that you are getting... Make any sense SAgefrog??? LOL
The word Cheating and stealing make me cringe!!!!! Bad words... misapproriating, fairing things up.... stick to a nice light gray area or less LOL
Let me sleep on you drawing a line.....


Machinist

no Machinist, i don't see my new found hobby as cheating or stealing.
i do however realize casino's might not like my hobby and might ask me to practice it some where else if they were to discover it.
the misappropriation, if that is really what it is would seem more of an oversight on the casino's part rather than any genuine unsavory action on my part. that i might profit by another's wasteful poorly thought out action is not imho unethical, especially if they are interested in engaging me in a contest.
the ploppies or AP's at a blackjack table however i see in another light, they are not actively engaging me in a contest, at least not in the same sense that the casino is.

 

[aslan]

then why do you say the following "make sure you understand that you are gambling even though it is advantage play":whip:
in this post? http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=160933&postcount=81

Words! All of life is a gamble. Crossing the street. Driving the car. Getting out of bed. I don't label any of the people doing these things "gamblers." An advantage player is gambling, but the odds favor him almost to a certainty in the long run. In the short run, it appears more like any other form of gambling. But we know it is not. I label a person "gambler" if he has little long-term chance of winning. We would not make the distinction between gamblers and advantage players if this were not true. Words have many different connotations depending on the context in which they are used.

You make me feel like Jesus when he was confronted by the Pharisees. Remember how they were always trying to trap him? hahaha No I am not calling you a Pharisee (nor myself, Jesus). You're a good guy. But stop trying to trip me up. lol

 

[sagefr0g]

A ploppy has the right to enter the game whenever he wants. The fact that he does know that he can achieve an advantage by doing so is neither here nor there. He alone is responsible for his degree of knowledge when he consents to play a game of skill. Books are available. His lack of due diligence puts the onus on him, not the AP. There is nothing immoral about wonging in. It may be immoral not to. lol

i guess in my mind it boils down to whether or not it would be legitimate to consider the players at a blackjack table to be in a contest not only against the dealer but also against one another.
i dunno, i guess i'll need to think about that one.

 

[sagefr0g]

....
You make me feel like Jesus when he was confronted by the Pharisees. Remember how they were always trying to trap him? hahaha No I am not calling you a Pharisee (nor myself, Jesus). You're a good guy. But stop trying to trip me up. lol

ok, sorry. i didn't really mean it that way, this is one of the pit falls of internet communication.:angel:
truly i more ask because i think you know, i consider AP stuff is still gambling.
i was really more interested to understand what i saw as a small, very small seemingly paradoxical couple of statements.
it's my interest in the problem of dealing with the unknowns of life that made me ask, is all.:toast:
so but your response really does help clarify what is to me confusing about gambling and AP stuff.

 

[aslan]

i guess in my mind it boils down to whether or not it would be legitimate to consider the players at a blackjack table to be in a contest not only against the dealer but also against one another.
i dunno, i guess i'll need to think about that one.

If you want a moral dilemma consider this. One of the ten commandments says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." Who is your neighbor? Is the casino your neighbor? I think so. Isn't the very motive in playing blackjack greed? Maybe not the overpowering greed of wall street tycoons, but isn't it our desire to acquire money? Not many are doing it solely to see if they can win without regard to the profit aspect. We want money. It is someone else's money at the time. They display it in front of us at every table in the form of house chips. They want us to covet what they have. They want us to break the commandment. It may be a small thing, since both parties are consensual in the matter, but coveting is coveting. Maybe it would be better if we decided to be satisfied with what we have. Then, no life savings would be lost. No such tragedies would occur. Arguably, the world would be a better place.

 

[aslan]

A casino is like a hustler. It offers an opportunity to reap large profits with minimal investment. It entices you with the fun aspect and the accompanying possibility of striking it rich. In the pool room the hustler entices the "fish" to play for a little amount, knowing that he might "get his nose open" and lose a bundle that he never intended to risk in the first place. He makes it seem like you have a good chance to win, when in reality you have little or none. He may even deceive you into thinking you are taking advantage of him, when just the opposite is true. That's appealing to your larceny if you have any. Hustlers know how to prey on human weakness. It is not an honorable profession.