The Long Run - And Other Fiction
- Thread starter StandardDeviant
- Start date
Short Term = Long Term = = Important!
:joker::whip:
If you base your session play betting ramps on a whim instead of sound betting/bankroll math considerations you can hurt your long run and possibilities of success. When taking the long run into consideration you can catch these type of errors.
Short term thinking can lead to overbetting. Many here have asked about not needing ror considerations because they won't play to the long run. This type of thinking is very dangerous to one's bankroll.
I do think we are in agreement that each session is to be taken seriously.
:joker::whip:
If you base your session play betting ramps on a whim instead of sound betting/bankroll math considerations you can hurt your long run and possibilities of success. When taking the long run into consideration you can catch these type of errors.
Short term thinking can lead to overbetting. Many here have asked about not needing ror considerations because they won't play to the long run. This type of thinking is very dangerous to one's bankroll.
I do think we are in agreement that each session is to be taken seriously.
Avenger
Now,,,who said anything about a WHIM???
A true AP takes nothing on a whim, but approaches every session as if going into battle, with great ferocity and of the utmost importance.
You catch errors by examining every session, and not blowing it off because in the "Long Run", it will be magically all right...it is this "Long Run" religion that causes one to play with less intensity and less as a BJ Warrior, because you always think, "oh well....tomorrow is another day..."
CP
Now,,,who said anything about a WHIM???
A true AP takes nothing on a whim, but approaches every session as if going into battle, with great ferocity and of the utmost importance.
You catch errors by examining every session, and not blowing it off because in the "Long Run", it will be magically all right...it is this "Long Run" religion that causes one to play with less intensity and less as a BJ Warrior, because you always think, "oh well....tomorrow is another day..."
CP
Again, I am in agreement with you on the value of paying attention to sessions. The importance of looking for good games and playing them well.
However,
What are some of the complaints, confusion and errors in playing we come across on these boards?
I went broke!
I took a big loss!
What should my bets be!
I am going to bet big because long run does not matter!
How many take all their money and lose it in the short term, because they did not think long term and proper ror considerations?
If you focus to much on the short term; like many new players, you may be tempted to overbet and will not leave the casinos in a wake of destruction but may be lamenting your shattered bankroll and unable to answer the call to battle!
It's a long and brutal struggle where only the strong will endure!
In the short term the battle is uncertain and often bloody to the bank due to SD. The war is won; the casinos are utterly defeated, in the long run when winning becomes certain!:joker::whip:
However,
What are some of the complaints, confusion and errors in playing we come across on these boards?
I went broke!
I took a big loss!
What should my bets be!
I am going to bet big because long run does not matter!
How many take all their money and lose it in the short term, because they did not think long term and proper ror considerations?
If you focus to much on the short term; like many new players, you may be tempted to overbet and will not leave the casinos in a wake of destruction but may be lamenting your shattered bankroll and unable to answer the call to battle!
It's a long and brutal struggle where only the strong will endure!
In the short term the battle is uncertain and often bloody to the bank due to SD. The war is won; the casinos are utterly defeated, in the long run when winning becomes certain!:joker::whip:
part of the problem as i see it
isn't it true with simulations, simulations that are billions and billions of rounds of play, that what we see as a whole masks what actually happens over long, long, very long stretches of hands and rounds? need a number? lol, that's not asking too much but i don't have one. i'll just guess and say thousands upon thousands of hands for your typical six deck game say, some number of hands a good bit less than N0 say.
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
isn't it true with simulations, simulations that are billions and billions of rounds of play, that what we see as a whole masks what actually happens over long, long, very long stretches of hands and rounds? need a number? lol, that's not asking too much but i don't have one. i'll just guess and say thousands upon thousands of hands for your typical six deck game say, some number of hands a good bit less than N0 say.
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
I think i have some parallels
I think i have some parallels to that kind of thinking Sagefrog. Your last few sentences, but i am to tired!!!! Just hitting the hay. I will reread in the morning. It has to do with the bonusing systems of slots.....
Machinist
sagefr0g said:
isn't it true with simulations, simulations that are billions and billions of rounds of play, that what we see as a whole masks what actually happens over long, long, very long stretches of hands and rounds? need a number? lol, that's not asking too much but i don't have one. i'll just guess and say thousands upon thousands of hands for your typical six deck game say, some number of hands a good bit less than N0 say.
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
Machinist
heh, heh, at it again huh. i don't blame you i'm wanting to go back and bang those machines some more, lol. it can be hard work crisscrossing back and forth, back and forth between far spaced 'milk' machines, dodging little ole ladies and cocktail waitress's, for hours on end, while trying to figure out the psyche of those feeding the machines.
but anyway, those bj machines we was playing the five for's erhh three to two payoff ones, lol...... well you did mention it might be ok to switch machines when the one was being contrary.:whip:
but anyway, those bj machines we was playing the five for's erhh three to two payoff ones, lol...... well you did mention it might be ok to switch machines when the one was being contrary.
:whip:
No, Yes, Maybe & Sure all the Time
No, the sims don't have to be billions and billions of hands, a couple hundred million can suffice! LOL The more we play the greater our chances of success, so playing more is always a good idea.
Yes, we can manipulate our sessions to be more successful. We can play better games, can play a stronger game. We can choose to wong out. Also, we can choose to end our session when up and can do this without hurting our long term success chances! If I am up and a little and tired I will quit. If I am a little behind I will push on and often get back on the winning side. Manipulating session length is not a detriment to me.
Maybe we can do the above and not suffer the psychological trauma of big downswings.
Sure, I try to maximize my winnings in the short and long term all the time!:joker::whip:
sagefr0g said:
isn't it true with simulations, simulations that are billions and billions of rounds of play, that what we see as a whole masks what actually happens over long, long, very long stretches of hands and rounds? need a number? lol, that's not asking too much but i don't have one. i'll just guess and say thousands upon thousands of hands for your typical six deck game say, some number of hands a good bit less than N0 say.
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
Yes, we can manipulate our sessions to be more successful. We can play better games, can play a stronger game. We can choose to wong out. Also, we can choose to end our session when up and can do this without hurting our long term success chances! If I am up and a little and tired I will quit. If I am a little behind I will push on and often get back on the winning side. Manipulating session length is not a detriment to me.
Maybe we can do the above and not suffer the psychological trauma of big downswings.
Sure, I try to maximize my winnings in the short and long term all the time!:joker::whip:
The big mistake
Avenger,
In order for the sim to be correct you must play the same game, the same rules, same pen, same conditions, same physical and mental condition...to have accurate math sampling. The same for a few, billion or a few million hands. This is a problem isn't it! And BTW, most of us will not hit a few million hands
You see this is the Big Mistake, a mistake that by playing to each session, in and of itself will be alleviated. :grin:
CP
Avenger,
In order for the sim to be correct you must play the same game, the same rules, same pen, same conditions, same physical and mental condition...to have accurate math sampling. The same for a few, billion or a few million hands. This is a problem isn't it! And BTW, most of us will not hit a few million hands
You see this is the Big Mistake, a mistake that by playing to each session, in and of itself will be alleviated. :grin:
CP
Amen Brother, do I hear a Hallelualalaala, praise BJ
keep this up, you and zengrifter are gonna have me to start betting a bigger unit.
errhh well i can only wish i had a bigger unit.:whip::laugh:
at least maybe i can get me one of them there fanny packet unit holders like CP and the smoking monkey's got.
keep this up, you and zengrifter are gonna have me to start betting a bigger unit.
errhh well i can only wish i had a bigger unit.
:whip::laugh:at least maybe i can get me one of them there fanny packet unit holders like CP and the smoking monkey's got.
sagefr0g said:
isn't it true with simulations, simulations that are billions and billions of rounds of play, that what we see as a whole masks what actually happens over long, long, very long stretches of hands and rounds? need a number? lol, that's not asking too much but i don't have one. i'll just guess and say thousands upon thousands of hands for your typical six deck game say, some number of hands a good bit less than N0 say.
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
We all know that the cards that have already come out affect the future hands to be dealt before the next shuffle. The order of the previous cards, though, means nothing. It doesn't matter if we've gotten 3 blackjacks in a row or the dealer has, that's still 6 big cards gone. It doesn't matter if we've won or lost; it only matters if the count is good. Once a deck has been dealt, there is no reason at all to base your decision on whether or not to continue to play that shoe on how much you have won or lost. You should evaluate the situation objectively without considering your past results. If the 1.5 decks are cut off, and 1 deck is dealt, would you rather play 3.5/5 decks given the current count or 4.5/6 decks from a fresh shoe? How much you have won or lost does not play into the decision, and if you let it be a factor, you will ultimately be reducing your winrate.
Sage, this is the gambler's fallacy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
QFIT, could you be more vague?
i mean i am cursed with the gambler's fallacy, doubtless.
just a little more specific critique would help. a lot to ask, i know, so no big deal if it's too much trouble.
edit: like ok, just point to the specific point i was making that involves the gambler fallacy, errhh that would help.
i mean i am cursed with the gambler's fallacy, doubtless.
just a little more specific critique would help. a lot to ask, i know, so no big deal if it's too much trouble.
edit: like ok, just point to the specific point i was making that involves the gambler fallacy, errhh that would help.
Last edited:
CP I think you are missing nynes point. He made the point about poker. He is essentially saying what you are saying. In his example he "got the money in good" meaning got money in at a huge advantage. You can't control the fact that the guy hit runner runner to beat you. Its just like me playing a 9000 SCORE game. I actually managed to lose over a long session. Am I disapointed that I lost? Yeah I am. But I could have done nothing to improve my chances of winning. The fact that I lost there is just part of variance. I did my best to come out ahead but the cards wouldn't allow for it. Sometimes on individual sessions coming out ahead just " Isn't in the cards".
i'm having a problem finding anything wrong with what your saying, except you fail to mention risk.
but did i say anything about the order of the previous cards?
just i made the point that a simulation can mask a large stretch of crappy results. results that a machine can handle psychologically just fine, humans, well that's another matter.
sure the count is important, no argument.
my point is essentially expectation is what it is for a given shoe, and a shoe is an independent event. that being the case the capture of fortune for that event or the abrogation of ruin is manageable.
edit: reason being, we can know the expectation and standard deviation a'priori. (sp. ?)
but did i say anything about the order of the previous cards?
just i made the point that a simulation can mask a large stretch of crappy results. results that a machine can handle psychologically just fine, humans, well that's another matter.
sure the count is important, no argument.
my point is essentially expectation is what it is for a given shoe, and a shoe is an independent event. that being the case the capture of fortune for that event or the abrogation of ruin is manageable.
edit: reason being, we can know the expectation and standard deviation a'priori. (sp. ?)
Last edited:
Results Are Everything!
Don't get me wrong. I am not making a statement against proper play. The most important thing is proper play!
However,
Results are everything!
Why do we play?
Not for a mathematical advantage but for money!
Actual $ won also can be an indicator of skill and/or longevity!:joker::whip:
Don't get me wrong. I am not making a statement against proper play. The most important thing is proper play!
However,
Results are everything!
Why do we play?
Not for a mathematical advantage but for money!
Actual $ won also can be an indicator of skill and/or longevity!:joker::whip:
sagefr0g said:
QFIT, could you be more vague?
i mean i am cursed with the gambler's fallacy, doubtless.
just a little more specific critique would help. a lot to ask, i know, so no big deal if it's too much trouble.
edit: like ok, just point to the specific point i was making that involves the gambler fallacy, errhh that would help.
i mean i am cursed with the gambler's fallacy, doubtless.
just a little more specific critique would help. a lot to ask, i know, so no big deal if it's too much trouble.
edit: like ok, just point to the specific point i was making that involves the gambler fallacy, errhh that would help.