mental game

[blackjack avenger]

To Err is Human, No Forgiveness For Bank

Every time a newbie posts asking questions about learning to count, somewhere in the responses, someone says that learning to count and wager correctly is the easy part. That dealing with the mental aspects is the hard part, like learning to deal with the sometimes long losing periods without panicking. I have never heard mention of learning to deal with the winning. (we should all have this problem too often right?)

Fast forward. The early part of the year has once again been very good to me. I am up 2/3's of my winnings from all of last year, which is many times over expectation. While I am not about to repeat the mistakes of 5 years ago, I find myself certain that a 'correction' is due. I find it shocking and disappointing that my mind still even entertains these voodoo thoughts.

These concerns point to perhaps taking on more risk then one is comfortable with? In general investment strategy one becomes more conservative with larger sums of money or with money that cannot be easily replaced. Why not delay raising stakes? A cushion would be built up against having to lower bets on losses. Everyone should ask themselves what would the affect be if they lost half their bank and if this is near disasterous then they should reconsider things. We are not sims, if your little sim has you playing a 1.5 cut and you are in fact playing a 1.75 cut your ror is higher then you think. In the real world we need to be more conservative then a sim, if we err in our favor great, if we err to our detriment it could cost us our bank.:joker::whip:
or
just fever talk:joker::whip:

 

[kewljason]

These concerns point to perhaps taking on more risk then one is comfortable with? In general investment strategy one becomes more conservative with larger sums of money or with money that cannot be easily replaced. Why not delay raising stakes? A cushion would be built up against having to lower bets on losses. Everyone should ask themselves what would the affect be if they lost half their bank and if this is near disasterous then they should reconsider things. We are not sims, if your little sim has you playing a 1.5 cut and you are in fact playing a 1.75 cut your ror is higher then you think. In the real world we need to be more conservative then a sim, if we err in our favor great, if we err to our detriment it could cost us our bank.:joker::whip:
or
just fever talk:joker::whip:

You are probably correct about playing with more risk that comfortable with. No doubt 5 years ago I was playing at a high risk. Didn't really have much choice at the time. That is no longer the case, thankfully.

Back then I really believed a correction was due. Now I know that is not the case, but still occasionally have these kind of voodoo thoughts creeping into my thought process. That's the troubling part.

 

[sagefr0g]

Expectation exists from 'now' onwards.

agreed.
expectation could (and should for an AP or any player really) have existed in the past as well. in the case we are discussing, expectation was exceeded.

If unexpected results have already happened, they do not exert some magical force on future results in order to restore any kind of balance.

such results are a fact of reality, they set the stage for a measurement and comparison that can be made in the present and the future.
but right, no exertion of magical forces, the past is what it was and as such it can be evaluated with respect to the past and to what happens in the future, so the past has meaning, a 'weight' if you will, a relevance in it's own respect and it's a contributor to the sum of the past and the future when the future comes to pass.

Suppose you sit down at a table with $100 and, due to some outrageous good luck, quickly build it up to $1000. Someone then sits down next to you, bringing $1000. The blackjack gods are not going to make you lose more than he does. You both have the same expectation, going forwards, with the $1000 that you each have.

agreed as long as we both play the same overall strategy.

You do seem to have a misconception. There is no restorative force at work. Nothing is ever 'due'.

well i wouldn't call it a restorative force or any kind of force either. i'd call it playing with a edge. the edge one plays at has associated with it an expected value. i don't know about you but if i didn't have an expected value that i considered due at some (albeit unknown) point in time i wouldn't bother playing. but no, i have no idea when or even if i'll ever achieve results that equal that expected value.
edit: well actually we do have an idea of when or how many hands and a range of results that could happen in terms of ev and standards of deviation, sort of thing.

'Dilution' might be a good word to use. If you start out with a streak of good or bad luck, that will initially have a huge impact on your overall profits. But over time it becomes less and less significant, until it is totally lost in the noise, and your overall results are in line with your expectation.

yes, that's pretty much how i perceive this stuff as well.
just, i dunno, where you say "overall results are in line with your expectation",
well i call that what i perceive as being due.

I'm no mathematician. But the words 'correction' and 'due' imply that the past is influencing the future, even in just plain, everyday english. That does seem to be what you are suggesting. But it simply isn't the case.

well your doubtless more knowledgeable in both maths and English than i.
i think we are on opposite sides of the pond, so i don't know enough about English to know if that has anything to do with our perceptions of words or not.
so what ever, i guess it's entirely possible that i'm misusing the words 'correction' and 'due' if the use of those words implies that the past is influencing the future. i can only assure you that is not how i mean to use those words.

i would say however, that like the OP, Jason made a decision as far as how he decided to bet, that was based upon his past results and that was based upon a knowledge of his expectation. that decision as he described it, did in fact influence his future results.
i haven't really thought much about the action he took, but off hand i guess you could call his action a 'risk averse' betting kind of action. well, i guess you'd want to simulate it to see if his betting lowered his ror, but i suspect it did.
so really i know this is entirely an off the hook thing to say and it's not a fair argument to claim that past results influence the future, but in this case it seems it actually did. :laugh:

 

[shadroch]

I look at in in baseball terms. Lets say KJ is my newly signed free agent superstar. For the last five years, he's averaged .315 with 25 HRs and 99 RBIs.
After 41 games( a quarter of the season), he's hitting .375, with 15 HRs and 55 RBIs., on pace to hit 60 HRs and drive in 220 runs.
Obviously, he can't keep up this pace for the rest of the season, as no one in 140 years of baseball ever has.
Do I cut down his playing time, assuming he will regress towards his normal production or keep him in there? The next baseball thrown to him will have no memory, right?

As I understand it, if you play at a 1% advantage, over your lifetime you'll make 1% profit. Same with playing with a disadvantage. Along the way, you'll experiance peaks and valleys.

 

[London Colin]

Human Nature

Back then I really believed a correction was due. Now I know that is not the case, but still occasionally have these kind of voodoo thoughts creeping into my thought process. That's the troubling part.

I doubt anyone is totally immune to such thoughts. The point is that you know them for what they are, and are able to resist.

I don't play enough (or for high enough stakes) to be too greatly influenced by voodoo thoughts of potential corrections. Nevertheless, I know I have my own weaknesses. For example, despite the fact that I know full well that the concept of a 'session' is totally arbitrary, I will often catch myself considering quitting for the day, simply because I'm ahead, or playing on a little longer, simply in the hope of not finishing the day behind.

 

[London Colin]

so what ever, i guess it's entirely possible that i'm misusing the words 'correction' and 'due' if the use of those words implies that the past is influencing the future. i can only assure you that is not how i mean to use those words.

Fair enough, but the point is that your usage doesn't tally with kewljason's. (Hence the confusion.) ....

I find myself certain that a 'correction' is due. I find it shocking and disappointing that my mind still even entertains these voodoo thoughts.

well, correct me if i'm wrong, but if you are five times above expectation, then yeah a correction is due. no?

but it shouldn't be considered voodoo or wrong headed to believe that at some point on up the road you will no longer be five times above expectation, sort of thing.

That isn't considered voodoo or wrong headed. It is in fact certain to happen, after you've accumulated enough results. The voodoo part is the feeling that a recent run of good results is due to be balanced by a forthcoming run of bad results, or vice versa.

I think some people actually believe that to be true, while the rest of us know it isn't, but still sometimes can't stop ourselves from briefly getting caught up in such thinking.

 

[fungusAmongus]

You are probably correct about playing with more risk that comfortable with. No doubt 5 years ago I was playing at a high risk. Didn't really have much choice at the time. That is no longer the case, thankfully.

Back then I really believed a correction was due. Now I know that is not the case, but still occasionally have these kind of voodoo thoughts creeping into my thought process. That's the troubling part.

well, regression to the mean is a valid mathematical concept, and has been studied since the late 19th century. it is easy, however, to misunderstand this phenomenon, and fallacies exist.

your point, however, that the psychology of winning is just as important as the psychology of losing, is well taken and deserves to be discussed, IMO.

 

[sagefr0g]

Fair enough, but the point is that your usage doesn't tally with kewljason's. (Hence the confusion.) ....

~~~~~~~~

That isn't considered voodoo or wrong headed. It is in fact certain to happen, after you've accumulated enough results. The voodoo part is the feeling that a recent run of good results is due to be balanced by a forthcoming run of bad results, or vice versa.

I think some people actually believe that to be true, while the rest of us know it isn't, but still sometimes can't stop ourselves from briefly getting caught up in such thinking.

ahhh, ok , well like ok in my first response to the OP, i mentioned i'm probably off base and lol, i still may be.
like i didn't say it full out but my thinking is that confusion is the main point of the OP's post.
like ok, Jason is a professional, he knows full well what bull crap gambler's fallacy thinking is. (and yes, we all do probably have issues with the gambler's fallacy, me more than most, i suspect) but ok, what it seemed like to me is that his disdain for one's normal predilection for regarding the gambler's fallacy may be getting in the way of his genuine understanding of the facts of life, lol.
i mean it seemed possible to me that he was second guessing a valid decision he had made that is mathematically sound and then blaming his decision and the less than stellar results on the gambler's fallacy.
and again, i'm probably off base, but this is how it seemed to me.
what ever, to my way of viewing this sort of stuff, that is just how riddled with pitfalls the combination of dealing with uncertainty, probability and statistics can be when deep with in us lurks the gamblers fallacy.:laugh:

 

[SleightOfHand]

The way I see it. Lets say that you are in fact playing a game with 1% advantage, standard deviation of 1, and an average bet of $10. You played 30k hands and you made $15000 (this number is 5x and ~7 SDs above mean, but for example's sake lets keep going). Now, as a short term experience, this is way beyond expectation. However, what does this mean long term?

If you project what will happen in 970k more hands, a total of 1M, you are expected to be at 112k (97k + 15k) with a SD of $10000. Now, your results are only 1.2 SDs above the mean from your EV prior to your big win. Project another 4M hands? ~.54 SDs. Another 5M? You get the point.

Short term results have very little bearing to what happens in the long run. As the number of trials increases, these "huge" deviations from the mean become smaller to the point of insignificance. There is no "correction," its just that your short term result won't matter compared to the rest. Granted, noone is going to be playing 5M hands (well I suppose its possible), but if you are 7 SDs above mean, chances are that you are not playing the game you think you are.

 

[assume_R]

The way I see it. Lets say that you are in fact playing a game with 1% advantage, standard deviation of 1, and an average bet of $10. You played 30k hands and you made $15000 (this number is 5x and ~7 SDs above mean, but for example's sake lets keep going). Now, as a short term experience, this is way beyond expectation. However, what does this mean long term?

If you project what will happen in 970k more hands, a total of 1M, you are expected to be at 112k (97k + 15k) with a SD of $10000. Now, your results are only 1.2 SDs above the mean from your EV prior to your big win. Project another 4M hands? ~.54 SDs. Another 5M? You get the point.

Short term results have very little bearing to what happens in the long run. As the number of trials increases, these "huge" deviations from the mean become smaller to the point of insignificance. There is no "correction," its just that your short term result won't matter compared to the rest. Granted, noone is going to be playing 5M hands (well I suppose its possible), but if you are 7 SDs above mean, chances are that you are not playing the game you think you are.

That's a very good explanation. I only want to add that in science a lot, people use "standard error" instead of "standard deviation", which is defined as

standard error = (standard deviation) / sqrt(N)

If your measured standard deviation is too large, you don't need to worry. But if your measured standard error is too large (after N hands), then you should start to reevaluate things.

 

[Sharky]

As if I don't have enough things to track now you are suggesting that if I have experienced an inordinate +ev I should lower my bets in anticipation of a "correction" and, accordingly, I should increase my bets during -ev as I am "due"????

Seriously, this thread has gone on long enough ...PLEASE someone move this thread to Voodoo where it belongs:whip:

 

[Deathclutch]

As if I don't have enough things to track now you are suggesting that if I have experienced an inordinate +ev I should lower my bets in anticipation of a "correction" and, accordingly, I should increase my bets during -ev as I am "due"????

Seriously, this thread has gone on long enough ...PLEASE someone move this thread to Voodoo where it belongs:whip:

It's just a discussion, I don't think it has went voodoo just yet.

 

[sagefr0g]

It's just a discussion, I don't think it has went voodoo just yet.

yeah, really. heck i can think of plenty of reasons where using knowledge could be considered justifiable.
but one would have to agree with Sharkey's viewpoint of the discussion as being voodoo.

 

[Machinist]

Here's my take

I was at my favorite store couple of months ago. Playing a little OCP with a few other regulars, although they were playing that other game 3cp.. And the discussion came up from an older gal that she gets really nervous playing 3cp. I asked why? She just says, well its the thought of losing her money. Well three ploppies were discussing how they feel about play table games. An hour went by or so and i kept thinking about what she had said.
I knew the dealer quite well and another player. After these ladies left, it hit me. I casually asked the dealer what she thought about the discussion. She also said she gets really up tight when she plays the game. But she definitely has fun at it. So i says to her, would you feel that way if you were playing for pennies????? Say 1 cent a hand... She thinks about it and says well heck no!!! Well i says, obviously you are betting to much money to be comfortable.
I have thought about this alot , about all the different stuff i have done over the years.
I remember starting with nothing , if i lost 100 bucks man that was alot of money to sweat.
I remember moving from 25 cent stuff to dollars , to 5 dollar plays. Each time was a new threshhold to get used to. All i can say is trust NUMBERS they do not lie...
Hey guys , thats my 2 cents

Machinist

 

[Kasi]

The real purpose of my thread was to show how difficult the mental part of the game is. Here I find myself thinking about concepts that I know to be false, like a correction is due. ...

I guess I don't get why, 5+ yrs later, just because you are 2/3's ahead of last year whatever you still seem to know what your EV is, how many times you are above EV implyiny you know your avg win% and also implying how many rounds you have played, yet still seem to express results in a comparative $EV way, as if that's what matters, but yet never seem to express your actual results in terms of Stan Dev.

Also, sometimes, you almost make it sound you maybe play with a risk that is unknown to yourself?

I hope you know by now I have the greatest respect for what you have accomplished over 5+ years doing what I think you are and have been doing maybe in AC primarily.
It's a beautiful thing to me - what I think you are and have been doing.
I'll just say, for the record, what I think you have been doing and you can say no comment if you want, affirm, deny, I completely understand that, but it sounds like you have been mostlyn back-counting AC shoes, maybe spreading to multiple hands occasinally or more often, and covering life expenses via playing BJ for years.

If I'm even close it is totally awesome to me. Know that above all else.

I don't believe there are many others here who are as forthright here with sharing their actual methods and actual results.

So when I wonder stuff about how you do what you do, stuff like this, me wondering about how you may or may not take SD into consideration, play with a "known" (you know some basis for it) risk or not, use of a sim or not, etc, it's just my curiosity.

It just seems like such a dichotomy to me that a a guy like you still wonders about concepts like "correction" and "voodoo" as opposed to "knowing", as best as one can, maybe also "risk to roll", of one's actual results.

Such an oxymoron - a pro like you succumbing to concepts like "correction" and "voodoo".? Yet who knows his EV, apparently, apparently knows how many rounds he has played, yet doesn't also, maybe, know his risk or how far his actual resuklts are from expected expressed in SD's which, to me, is the only thing that ultimately matters.

Apologies for my rambling.

You have no idea in what detail I have, and have had for a long time, in knowing exactly how you do what you do lol.

Trust me, this is the tip of the iceburgh to me. For a long time now, I've wanted to know exactly what you do at a level of detail that is most likely publicly inappropriate.

What the heck do you do when you return to your room after a day's play?

Do you use software?

 

[kewljason]

A few answers, kasi.

I roughly know my expected win, SD, RoR. I say roughly because, these numbers with vary for each exact game, set of rules and penetration and I don't figure for each exact situation but rather use a generic set for each of the 2 games, double deck, and 6/8 deck games that I play. I use the same spread for each double deck game and a different spread for each shoe game and my initial RoR is roughly 2% for each. Since I would resize with a substancial BR loss, this makes my actual RoR less than 1%, which I am comfortable with. To run sims and figure optimal bet spreads, SD, and RoR for each individual circumstance would require more time and effort than I am willing to spend. I would rather spend that time playing the game.

I am not a math guy (geek). :laugh: No offense to those of you that are. Dr Thorp once said he was more interested in the mathematics of blackjack than winning money. I am the opposite. My main objective is to win money and support myself. To do so, I must have a general understanding of the math involved but I don't have to know and analize every detail. There is a thread in this section entitled 'Accuracy of Illustrious 18' in which the poster questions the math behind the index numbers for the insurance decision. I don't need to know the math behind this decision, I just need to know the number. It is enough for me to know that people smarter than I, have figured this out using hundreds of millions of simulated rounds.

Concerning my AC play. I don't back count. There are only a few games left that you can back count and jump in. Most are NMSE, so I play off the top and wong out of negative counts. As for spreading to 2 hands, I rarely do so. In my opinion the 4 top things that give a counter away are bet spread, spreading to 2 hands in positive counts, splitting 10's, and insurance play. For this reason I generally forgo splitting 10's unless the count is extremely high and rarely spread to two hands, accepting a little less EV. The value in spreading to 2 hands is less variance and I personally believe the value of this moved is skewed a bit, because the two hands are not completely independant of each other. They are both played against the same dealer hand. I am sure someone will prove me wrong with this, but it doesn't matter as my initial reason still stands.

As for the dichotomy, (which I had to look up...lol) and oxymoron of the voodoo concepts, when one should know better, well that was the premise of my post. The chances of the plane I am getting on crashing are 1 in 470,000 but that still doesn't stop me from thinking about it when I fly.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Future Results are Known

Whatever your play has been in the past does not matter, whatever your previous wins or losses have been, it does not matter. In considering the future, if you know how to figure your approx. EV and SD then you should know your range of probable results for a session, trip or year so one should have some idea of what to expect. The more you play the closer you will be to expectation and the wild swings will smooth out over time:joker::whip:

Swings are not as dramatic if you play to a very low ror:joker::whip:

Of course whenever you enter a casino you can leave with less cash then you entered with!:joker::whip:

 

[kewljason]

Whatever your play has been in the past does not matter, whatever your previous wins or losses have been, it does not matter. In considering the future, if you know how to figure your approx. EV and SD then you should know your range of probable results for a session, trip or year so one should have some idea of what to expect. The more you play the closer you will be to expectation and the wild swings will smooth out over time:joker::whip:

Swings are not as dramatic if you play to a very low ror:joker::whip:

Of course whenever you enter a casino you can leave with less cash then you entered with!:joker::whip:

I don't think anyone here will disagree with anything you said, avenger, but I am not sure what your point is. I think maybe you have missed the point of the thread. It's not about not knowing what to expect. It's about how sometime when dealing in the real world of actual money and actual play instead of the world of computer simulations and "units", your mind will revert back to thoughts that you know are incorrect and of a ploppie nature.

I absolutely know that my chances of winning or losing in my next session are no different now than on the first day of the year. But in the real world of dollars, when you are 51K ahead in a two month period when expectation for the games and number of hands you have played is 12-14K, you start to think stupid, "ploppie" thoughts like I am due for a downturn.

Perhaps the fault lies with my tendency to begin each year anew, starting at zero, making the extreme of the results seem magnified because of the short term of play. If I had continued my results from last year or several years on a on going, running basis, rather than starting anew, at the beginning of the year, this period would seem much less extreme and more a positive bump in the road.

 

[Machinist]

Luck

Hey Kewljason,
I just had another thought for you.....Out of all the characters i have met in my life of AP, i know of 2 people who are the luckiest people in the world... They never run bad. If they only have one ticket in a drawing they will win. 10,000 to 1 oh hey i win again. I will take that new Mustang in a red color please!!!!!! LOL
And then there are the poor sobs that couldn't win if they had those 10,000 tickets ...!!
The there are the rest of us grinders. Trusting numbers...
Maybe you are one of those LUCKY guys...!!!!!! I just thought as long as we were thinking about the due theory, and such, chew on that for a while.
Hey and if you are a" Lucky person", lets just ramp them bets up.... I can say that i have "gotten out of the gate fast " numerous times. It's a great feeling when that happens. Much easier to take when you are at the top of the barrel and fall back in , rather than at the bottom trying to crawl out. LOL
Now if you are truely blessed , with that Golden Horseshoe, i want in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take care all
Machinist

 

[sagefr0g]

..

As for the dichotomy, (which I had to look up...lol) and oxymoron of the voodoo concepts, when one should know better, well that was the premise of my post. The chances of the plane I am getting on crashing are 1 in 470,000 but that still doesn't stop me from thinking about it when I fly.

my take on voodoo concepts, superstition sort of stuff is that there is a reason for much of it.
maybe some of it is linked to common sense, maybe some of it is linked to actions that actually worked in the absence of superior knowledge.
maybe some of it will still actually work when superior knowledge doesn't such as was the case for economic nobel prize winner Merton & LTCM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGfXyVtiB1E&feature=related
oh and guess who came up with that magic formula for real? not Merton....... Thorp.
and i doubt he got burnt as bad, and why, he probably used his brain.