Very Discouraged :(
- Thread starter MH1
- Start date
I've been playing a lot of blackjack this summer (I've never taken it so seriously til lately). In my last 230 hours of play, I've hit two big downswings (I'm not even sure if they are big, since they are bound to happen).
The first time it happened was early on this summer. In 18 hours of play, I dropped 31 max bet units. Since my bankroll was tiny and replenishable, I remained to using the same betting ramp. It took me another 58 hours to offset the losses (and this does not include travel time and expenses). After the long break-even stretch, I was on a heater for the next 60 hours or so, netting 82 max bet. I was consistently running a little over a standard deviation above my calculated EV.
Just when I thought variance was forever on my side, came another downswing chewing up 1/5th of my new and bigger bankroll in about 20 hours of play. Eh, talk about getting used to this.
The first time it happened was early on this summer. In 18 hours of play, I dropped 31 max bet units. Since my bankroll was tiny and replenishable, I remained to using the same betting ramp. It took me another 58 hours to offset the losses (and this does not include travel time and expenses). After the long break-even stretch, I was on a heater for the next 60 hours or so, netting 82 max bet. I was consistently running a little over a standard deviation above my calculated EV.
Just when I thought variance was forever on my side, came another downswing chewing up 1/5th of my new and bigger bankroll in about 20 hours of play. Eh, talk about getting used to this.
Last edited:
It gets easier (slightly) with time. Each time you experience this and bounce back it becomes a little less nerve-racking. That said, I look on it as a blessing. 
The fact that so few of us are able or willing to endure these swings is what makes this whole endeavor possible. If everyone just sat down and won 2 units each and every hour, the game would be altered so that it can't be beat.
The fact that so few of us are able or willing to endure these swings is what makes this whole endeavor possible. If everyone just sat down and won 2 units each and every hour, the game would be altered so that it can't be beat.
kewljason said:
It gets easier (slightly) with time. Each time you experience this and bounce back it becomes a little less nerve-racking. That said, I look on it as a blessing. The fact that so few of us are able or willing to endure these swings is what makes this whole endeavor possible. If everyone just sat down and won 2 units each and every hour, the game would be altered so that it can't be beat.
The fact that so few of us are able or willing to endure these swings is what makes this whole endeavor possible. If everyone just sat down and won 2 units each and every hour, the game would be altered so that it can't be beat.
I dissagree
I disagree on this one. I played through 3 decks, heads up against the dealer, putting out max bets for my bankroll. I must have played between 25 and 30 hands in this situation. I won 2, pushed one and lost the rest. I know 20% in 10 minutes is an amazing amount of variance but it was really just very bad variance. I have recouped my losses and drawdown and therefore the need to change bet sizing is not a concern.
I really appreciate your thoughts. I just disagree.
I disagree on this one. I played through 3 decks, heads up against the dealer, putting out max bets for my bankroll. I must have played between 25 and 30 hands in this situation. I won 2, pushed one and lost the rest. I know 20% in 10 minutes is an amazing amount of variance but it was really just very bad variance. I have recouped my losses and drawdown and therefore the need to change bet sizing is not a concern.
I really appreciate your thoughts. I just disagree.
I met a flat bet ploppy who obviously has read about card counting. Every time I placed the max bet, she always shouted out, "Watch out everybody, the count must be pretty good because look out who just placed the max bet." Normally I just ignored her but one time she called the pit boss to the table. She pointed to me and said, "That guy bet $25 normally. When he jumped to $400, he usually won. Don't tell me he is not a counter." I can't believe it. What could she possibly gain by saying that to pit boss? Pit boss acted confused but still keyed in something into the data even I am not rated. Sine that incident, I avoid playing at the same table with her.
This is unbelievable.
If this ever happened to me, and I doubt it will ever happen to me any place any time, why not say, "Hey, what's wrong with raising my bet? That's what the counters do to win. Everyone knows that you can't win by betting the same thing all the time because the casino's got the odds in its favor. Anyone can tell when the deck is hot, but most people are too stupid to go for it!" No charge for the advice, BJgenie.
If this ever happened to me, and I doubt it will ever happen to me any place any time, why not say, "Hey, what's wrong with raising my bet? That's what the counters do to win. Everyone knows that you can't win by betting the same thing all the time because the casino's got the odds in its favor. Anyone can tell when the deck is hot, but most people are too stupid to go for it!" No charge for the advice, BJgenie.
nothing to disagree with
The math is the math:
Kelly 50% chance losing half
1/4 Kelly I think less then 1%
N0 Kelly N0 * 9
Half Kelly N0 * 1.87
Half Kelly 75% growth rate of Kelly
Here is the kicker:
.8 Kelly & 1.2 Kelly same growth rate, but 1.2 Kelly has a lot more variance. Given the cost of betting over Kelly one should not get near it.
High % certainty of winning happens when betting conservatively. Supposedly what pros do.
The math is the math:
Kelly 50% chance losing half
1/4 Kelly I think less then 1%
N0 Kelly N0 * 9
Half Kelly N0 * 1.87
Half Kelly 75% growth rate of Kelly
Here is the kicker:
.8 Kelly & 1.2 Kelly same growth rate, but 1.2 Kelly has a lot more variance. Given the cost of betting over Kelly one should not get near it.
High % certainty of winning happens when betting conservatively. Supposedly what pros do.
More math
I still disagree. I use Stanford Wong’s bet sizing calculations from Professional Blackjack. He uses the variance and covariance of his benchmark game to derive an optimal bet of –
Optimal bet = 0.78 * % advantage * bankroll
At a true count of plus 6 my advantage is 2.5%. So my bet should be 0.78 *0.025 * bankroll. This comes to betting about 2% of your bankroll on each hand. If you lost about 50 straight hands at this level you would be bankrupt. A loss of 20 straight hands should wipe out 40% of your bankroll.
I was playing at this level (actually the true count crept a little higher for a bit) and lost about 20 excess hands. Example I won 2 hands, pushed 1 and lost 22 for a loss of 20 excess hands. I only lost 20% of my bankroll and not 40%. So according to Wong I could have been betting more at this advantage.
My current level of betting allows me to lose about 40% of my bankroll before I even consider drawdown and needing to resize my bets.
I enjoy the healthy debate but my math says I’m fine.
I still disagree. I use Stanford Wong’s bet sizing calculations from Professional Blackjack. He uses the variance and covariance of his benchmark game to derive an optimal bet of –
Optimal bet = 0.78 * % advantage * bankroll
At a true count of plus 6 my advantage is 2.5%. So my bet should be 0.78 *0.025 * bankroll. This comes to betting about 2% of your bankroll on each hand. If you lost about 50 straight hands at this level you would be bankrupt. A loss of 20 straight hands should wipe out 40% of your bankroll.
I was playing at this level (actually the true count crept a little higher for a bit) and lost about 20 excess hands. Example I won 2 hands, pushed 1 and lost 22 for a loss of 20 excess hands. I only lost 20% of my bankroll and not 40%. So according to Wong I could have been betting more at this advantage.
My current level of betting allows me to lose about 40% of my bankroll before I even consider drawdown and needing to resize my bets.
I enjoy the healthy debate but my math says I’m fine.