Is it true?
- Thread starter FUHGEDABOUDIT
- Start date
Don't know about that. First 5 years I NEVER had a losing year. The last 2 nothing but downhill. So figure the math? The only thing that matters to me is the bottom line and mine is still a plus! I remember I had one streak of 18 winning sessions in a row. The losing streaks you want to forget. 60 months of + minus 24 months of - = + 36 months = 71.4% of the time a +.
Last edited:
Couldn't find a reference
I skimmed Bluebook II but the only thing I could find was a small
table in the Kiss II/III section comparing 100 hr. win rates for
various counts including Kiss, KO and Hi/Lo. These win rates
were all in the 60-65% range.(nearly 2 of 3)
I also went through Blackbelt, without success. I also recently
referred to Million Dollar BJ, so I looked there, too. No luck.
Then I tried Gamemaster's BJ school. No luck.
I also went thru BJ Blueprint. No luck.
It just seems to me that I read, somewhere, that about 2 out of
3 sessions should be winners, or you need to re-evaluate the
games you choose to play, your skills, etc.
Maybe it was just an article somewhere. I doubt that it was in
BJA3, which is the book I'm currently reading.
If I see it again, I'll definitely make a note and try to post it here.
There are alot of little details like this that slip thru the cracks, while
engrossed in reading about this game.
BJinNJ
I skimmed Bluebook II but the only thing I could find was a small
table in the Kiss II/III section comparing 100 hr. win rates for
various counts including Kiss, KO and Hi/Lo. These win rates
were all in the 60-65% range.(nearly 2 of 3)
I also went through Blackbelt, without success. I also recently
referred to Million Dollar BJ, so I looked there, too. No luck.
Then I tried Gamemaster's BJ school. No luck.
I also went thru BJ Blueprint. No luck.
It just seems to me that I read, somewhere, that about 2 out of
3 sessions should be winners, or you need to re-evaluate the
games you choose to play, your skills, etc.
Maybe it was just an article somewhere. I doubt that it was in
BJA3, which is the book I'm currently reading.
If I see it again, I'll definitely make a note and try to post it here.
There are alot of little details like this that slip thru the cracks, while
engrossed in reading about this game.
BJinNJ
I would think that's about right. I believe it was Schlesinger who said, but don't quote me on this that a counter should win somewhere between 55% and 65% of his sessions. I guess it also comes down to how you define a session? For myself my solo play has yielded a 66% session win rate which is right on the 2 out of 3 mark and my team play results are at 57%.
Interesting question. I put up an answer at http://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackvariance3.htm. Basically, Sonny's numbers are right.
what is a session?
If I take 30 years of AP and count it as 30 sessions, then I am winning 77% of sessions. If I took the first 5 years and throw them away, calling it my long term learning curve, then I am winning 84% of my sessions.
Without counting up every single (session), if 30 minutes or several hours, my best guestimate would be something in the area between 55%-60%, but I am not sure that these numbers mean anything, as I note that cardcounters who are still learning tend to have long sessions with big losses quite often which can destroy the wins of many short sessions.
ihate17
If I take 30 years of AP and count it as 30 sessions, then I am winning 77% of sessions. If I took the first 5 years and throw them away, calling it my long term learning curve, then I am winning 84% of my sessions.
Without counting up every single (session), if 30 minutes or several hours, my best guestimate would be something in the area between 55%-60%, but I am not sure that these numbers mean anything, as I note that cardcounters who are still learning tend to have long sessions with big losses quite often which can destroy the wins of many short sessions.
ihate17
Win Limits
Many people, either consciously or unconsciously, set win limits on their sessions. This has no overall effect on the results other than limiting the number of hours played but will shift the distribution of winning to losing sessions. Setting win limits will increase the proportion of winning sessions but these winning sessions will typically be smaller than the losing ones.
Many people, either consciously or unconsciously, set win limits on their sessions. This has no overall effect on the results other than limiting the number of hours played but will shift the distribution of winning to losing sessions. Setting win limits will increase the proportion of winning sessions but these winning sessions will typically be smaller than the losing ones.
I was wondering if the BJA formula you referred to on your link above was Formula 1 for goal given a time constraint.
Even if it wasn't, lol, is there anywhere you know of I could see a step-by-step calc with an example? Is it solvable in a spreadsheet? I can't even find a function for summing an infinite series.
No matter what I do the second part always comes up zero and it's been a stone in my shoe for I don't know how long.
Obviously, I'm clueless, maybe not completly but mostly, lol, on that infinite series stuff lol.
Even if it wasn't, lol, is there anywhere you know of I could see a step-by-step calc with an example? Is it solvable in a spreadsheet? I can't even find a function for summing an infinite series.
No matter what I do the second part always comes up zero and it's been a stone in my shoe for I don't know how long.
Obviously, I'm clueless, maybe not completly but mostly, lol, on that infinite series stuff lol.
yes, sort of
A talented Card Counter will have between 60 and 70 percent winning sessions.
The exact figure depends on several variables, i.e. rules, penetration, betting spread.
The wins will tend to be larger than the losses as well.
Anyone who claims that they nearly always win, or words to that effect is either a liar or someone who has only played a few dozen sessions and/or keeps no records.
A talented Card Counter will have between 60 and 70 percent winning sessions.
The exact figure depends on several variables, i.e. rules, penetration, betting spread.
The wins will tend to be larger than the losses as well.
Anyone who claims that they nearly always win, or words to that effect is either a liar or someone who has only played a few dozen sessions and/or keeps no records.
Thanks so much Norm.
So it's kind of maybe a variation of the "chances of being ahead at any point during a specified number of hours of play by at least $1" but assumes you you start with a 0 unit bankroll?
Man, if they had this formula around, why even invent the other one?
Anyway, thanks again - I'll give it a shot.
So it's kind of maybe a variation of the "chances of being ahead at any point during a specified number of hours of play by at least $1" but assumes you you start with a 0 unit bankroll?
Man, if they had this formula around, why even invent the other one?
Anyway, thanks again - I'll give it a shot.
I think, like System said it depends greatly on how you define a session.
Some might choose to define a session by time too rather than win amount. Maybe 1-2 hours because that's all the longer he wants to play in one place. When he wns, he wins. When he doesn't , he doesn't.
So a guy who goes to Vegas every week and plays 6 hours a day in 3 2-hour sessions won't come out ahead in maybe, like Sonny says, but, say, 53% of the sessions.
Then he goes back home and calls a session a week's play of 42 hours a "session". Now he might be winning 65% of his weekly sessions.
Then, after 40 years of playing, he calls a year a session and can now likely brag to his friends he wins 95% of his sessions.
If you do set win limits, don't leave in a good shoe!
Some might choose to define a session by time too rather than win amount. Maybe 1-2 hours because that's all the longer he wants to play in one place. When he wns, he wins. When he doesn't , he doesn't.
So a guy who goes to Vegas every week and plays 6 hours a day in 3 2-hour sessions won't come out ahead in maybe, like Sonny says, but, say, 53% of the sessions.
Then he goes back home and calls a session a week's play of 42 hours a "session". Now he might be winning 65% of his weekly sessions.
Then, after 40 years of playing, he calls a year a session and can now likely brag to his friends he wins 95% of his sessions.
If you do set win limits, don't leave in a good shoe!
