Worst negative variance you have experienced?

K

Knox

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
I'll go first. Please keep in mind this is the CARD COUNTING, or AP forum, not basic strategy playing.

Once while spreading 1-8 on a 6D shoe, I lost 100 of my minimum bet but that was only 15 of my max.

Another time on a SD game, I lost 60 of my minimum and about 18 of my max.

It is worth noting that on that SD session, which lasted several hours, the dealer hit every hand possible, almost always had 1 more than me, never busting, even my 20s and 21s rarely won. While a repeat of this or worse is certainly statistically possible, I've had a number of positive sessions that were as bad as this was good.

Point of this thread though is those horror stories are a good idea to remind us of worst case scenarios.

Also, feel free to post single sessions or negative variance that spanned multiple sessions. I have been fortunate to avoid those so far.
 
Last edited:
Mimosine

Mimosine

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
quickest dump: 35 units in 15 minutes, flat betting.

largest dump: 65 units in 2.5 hours, twice.

worst vegas dump: lost 40% of my weekend trip BR in my first 3 hours there!
 
K

Knox

Well-Known Member
#9
#9
Mimosine said:
quickest dump: 35 units in 15 minutes, flat betting.

largest dump: 65 units in 2.5 hours, twice.

worst vegas dump: lost 40% of my weekend trip BR in my first 3 hours there!
Click to expand...
35 and 65 max bet I presume? That's pretty ugly too then!
 
K

Knox

Well-Known Member
#12
#12
Wow, there was really some voodoo in that thread! Any notion that Sagefrog is "due" for some negative variance is laughable. It's like flipping a coin, 99 heads in a row, there is still a 50% the next flip is heads yet again! That is unless the casino has rigged up a bad coin for you, LOL.

The reason we bandy about concepts like having a bankroll 100 times your max bet is many of us are risk averse. Everyone likes the "sure thing". Having an adequate bankroll gets you awfully close to that. However, there is many cases of the underbankrolled counter getting up and staying that way, never looking back. If you have a positive EV there is no reason you should lose. The house is just getting "lucky" when it wins against you. Never forget that.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
Knox said:
Wow, there was really some voodoo in that thread! Any notion that Sagefrog is "due" for some negative variance is laughable. ....
Click to expand...
probably so. i wonder about this scenerio however.
suppose you have a really lot of positive fluctuation and land up having about four times as much realized value as your expected value when you have played nearly as many hands needed to reach your N0 .
the question being can you expect your results to spiral downward as you play on so that your expectation value is realized. :eek:
 
Last edited:
L

letsdothis21

Well-Known Member
#14
#14
sagefr0g said:
Knox said:
Wow, there was really some voodoo in that thread! Any notion that Sagefrog is "due" for some negative variance is laughable. ....
Click to expand...
probably so. i wonder about this scenerio however.
suppose you have a really lot of positive fluctuation and land up having about four times as much realized value as your expected value when you have played nearly as many hands needed to reach your N0 .
the question being can you expect your results to spiral downward as you play on so that your expectation value is realized. :eek:
Click to expand...
I think it is just like Knox said, there is no way that the cards know whether or not you are up more than you should be or not, so I doubt your results should spiral downward.
 
K

Knox

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
I think Senor Frog is wiley enough figure out ways to enhance his EV. From what I scanned about him being up 1000+ units though, he should probably expect to win at a lesser rate in the future. I don't recall what the timeframe was for that 1000+ unit winning span though, and don't know how many hours he played. I think he said he is winning about 50% more than his EV suggests. That would not be hard to do with some wonging in/out in the right conditions.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
letsdothis21 said:
I think it is just like Knox said, there is no way that the cards know whether or not you are up more than you should be or not, so I doubt your results should spiral downward.
Click to expand...
yeah i think what he is saying makes sense. i would imagine N0 is not all that precise with respect to actual results. it would make sense (i think) that expected value around N0 time would have a standard deviation of it's own.
lol
 
C

Cardcounter

Well-Known Member
#17
#17
$660 in 20 minutes!

I was playing at a $15 minimum table spreading $15 to $100 and in less than 20 minutes I had lost $660. That was by far my fastest losing streak I ever had since becoming educated about blackjack. My average bet was probably $50 a hand for the session. I happened to be playing heads up against the dealer usually a good thing for a card counter but I don't like it. I prefer to play with others to see there cards to make better decisions. Luckily I had to go to work after that brief session because I could easily got trapped into dropping a $1,000 I think it is best to take a break for awhile to cool your head and replenish your bankroll after a tough losing session like that.
 
W

waveslider

Member
#18
#18
Neg V offset by Pos V

Should not a balance be struck between the two over time? Neg V means i am lossing hands i should be winning, as Pos V means i am winning hands i should be losing. The problem is hands i should be winning i am pushing my bet whereas hands i should be losing iam betting minimum, therefore winning minimum bets! So now i have answered my own question, that although the two balance in number of "hands won" over time neg V costs $$$ because of the increased betting with good counts. P.S. i have lost at least 100 units in a a bad session.
 
Last edited:
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#20
#20
Knox said:
I'll go first. Please keep in mind this is the CARD COUNTING, or AP forum, not basic strategy playing.
Once while spreading 1-8 on a 6D shoe, I lost 100 of my minimum bet but that was only 15 of my max...
Click to expand...
I was just wondering if any of u ever tried to figure how unusual ur results were.

Wouldn't u want to know whether losing 100 units over x hands playing whatever is a 1 in 1000 chance or a 1 in 100 chance?

I guess I would measure variance by standard deviations rather than units or dollars.

After all, whether I'm a basic strategy player or card-counter, one SD is one SD.

That said, I have been down over 3 standard deviations over 7000+ hands assuming flat-betting. Up in dollars though.

So, despite actually winning dollars, I consider that my biggest losing streak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top