Worst negative variance you have experienced?
- Thread starter Knox
- Start date
Would u say it's 1 in 10 normal, 1 in 100 normal, 1 in 1000 normal or what?
Nothing at all on you, but at what point, might a loss compel one to re-examine anything?
Would a 300 unit loss vs 200 unit loss in 6 hours change anything for u? Or still be blithely dismissed as surprisingy easy to do? Or maybe only "very" easy to do.
At what point does anyone examine his results over time and decide if everything's OK or not?
And, if u do, how do u do it?
Nothing at all on you, but at what point, might a loss compel one to re-examine anything?
Would a 300 unit loss vs 200 unit loss in 6 hours change anything for u? Or still be blithely dismissed as surprisingy easy to do? Or maybe only "very" easy to do.
At what point does anyone examine his results over time and decide if everything's OK or not?
And, if u do, how do u do it?
In this particular case, about 1 in 35 normal, about the same risk as throwing boxcars or hitting a number on a roulette wheel. In other words- don't count on it happening, don't count on it not happening. You do these calculations by knowing the win rate and standard deviation of the game you are playing.
Unfortunately, nearly all BJ players play with a significant risk of ruin and by the time you realize "something isn't right" from your results, you have lost all your money.
Unfortunately, nearly all BJ players play with a significant risk of ruin and by the time you realize "something isn't right" from your results, you have lost all your money.
Standard deviation and expected value
Lets look at standard deviation and its effect on short term results
Lets say you are cardcounter with a 1% average advantage and you play a 100 hands at an average of a $100 a hand. Standard deviation is equal to the square root of the number of hands played times a 110% of the amount bet. So one standard deviation can produce results bad enough to put you a loser in such a short period of time.
#of hands expected value of play is standard devaition is
100 $100 10*110=$1,100+or-
10,000 $10,000 100*110=$11,000
1,000,000 $1,000,000 1,000*$110=$110,000
100,000,000 $100,000,000 10,000*$110=$1,100,000
10,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000 100,000*$110=$11,000,000
The point is even though you could be a loser after 10,000 hands if you truely had an advantage after 1,000,000 hands you will never be a loser. At 10,000 hands the odds of losing a $1,000 and winning $21,000 are the same. At a 100 hands the odds of losing $1,000 and winning $1,200 are the same.
At a 1,000,000 hands of playing with a 1% advantage the odds of winning $890,000 to $1,110,000 are the same even if you had terrible variance and where 3 standard deviations lower than where you should be at a 1,000,000 hands you would still be $670,000 ahead which would be just as likely as being $1,330,000 ahead! Thats why short term flucktion might suck but long term it is golden.
The point is the larger the number of hands the smaller the relative standard deviation is. At a 100 hands the standard deviation was 1,100% of expected value. At a 100 million hands the standard deviation shrank to 1.1% of expected value.
Lets look at standard deviation and its effect on short term results
Lets say you are cardcounter with a 1% average advantage and you play a 100 hands at an average of a $100 a hand. Standard deviation is equal to the square root of the number of hands played times a 110% of the amount bet. So one standard deviation can produce results bad enough to put you a loser in such a short period of time.
#of hands expected value of play is standard devaition is
100 $100 10*110=$1,100+or-
10,000 $10,000 100*110=$11,000
1,000,000 $1,000,000 1,000*$110=$110,000
100,000,000 $100,000,000 10,000*$110=$1,100,000
10,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000 100,000*$110=$11,000,000
The point is even though you could be a loser after 10,000 hands if you truely had an advantage after 1,000,000 hands you will never be a loser. At 10,000 hands the odds of losing a $1,000 and winning $21,000 are the same. At a 100 hands the odds of losing $1,000 and winning $1,200 are the same.
At a 1,000,000 hands of playing with a 1% advantage the odds of winning $890,000 to $1,110,000 are the same even if you had terrible variance and where 3 standard deviations lower than where you should be at a 1,000,000 hands you would still be $670,000 ahead which would be just as likely as being $1,330,000 ahead! Thats why short term flucktion might suck but long term it is golden.
The point is the larger the number of hands the smaller the relative standard deviation is. At a 100 hands the standard deviation was 1,100% of expected value. At a 100 million hands the standard deviation shrank to 1.1% of expected value.
The 250 units does not mean a whole lot without knowing your bet spread.
Spreading 1-5 you lost 50 of your max bet (pretty bad)
Spreading 1-10 you lost 25 of your max bet, not so bad
Spreading 1-15 you lost 17 of your max bet, in line with my worst variance
Same comment as above, except the numbers would be 40, 20, and 13 of your max bet.
I assume these are shoe games, and great example of why I avoid them. You have to spread at least 1-10 to make them playable. I still think a good rule of thumb is to take 500 of your minimum bet and 100 of your maximum bet and average the two for total bankroll size. Then you account for larger bet spreads.
KISS concept, so far to good for me except I am still a little underbankrolled (aren't we all LOL).
So for 1-5 betting you need 500 units, 1-10 betting you need 750 units, 1-15 betting you need 1000 units, and 1-20 would require 1250 units. As long as gbesq is not spreading more than 1-20, I would say his bankroll is adequate.
Quick, someone sim that and tell me how good I am!
Spreading 1-5 you lost 50 of your max bet (pretty bad)
Spreading 1-10 you lost 25 of your max bet, not so bad
Spreading 1-15 you lost 17 of your max bet, in line with my worst variance
Same comment as above, except the numbers would be 40, 20, and 13 of your max bet.
I assume these are shoe games, and great example of why I avoid them. You have to spread at least 1-10 to make them playable. I still think a good rule of thumb is to take 500 of your minimum bet and 100 of your maximum bet and average the two for total bankroll size. Then you account for larger bet spreads.
KISS concept, so far to good for me except I am still a little underbankrolled (aren't we all LOL).
So for 1-5 betting you need 500 units, 1-10 betting you need 750 units, 1-15 betting you need 1000 units, and 1-20 would require 1250 units. As long as gbesq is not spreading more than 1-20, I would say his bankroll is adequate.
Quick, someone sim that and tell me how good I am!
Last edited:
I would say definitely in a shoe game 6D or more. If you aren't going 1-10 you might as well not play it. Variance will be way too high. Pits often don't watch the shoe games that closely because they figure the game is too tough to beat. I'd think about 1-15 if you can get away with it. I'm going to play in Indiana next month, 6D is the only game in town. I plan to spread $10-$150 unless/until they throw me out. I play so many places I don't really care if they back me off, but my cover has been good enough to avoid it so far.
I think AM is a good resource for shoe games strategy. I recall that he like to wong in almost exclusively and rarely play a negative hand. In that case, your bet spread becomes virtually impossible to track. Too boring for me in most cases though, conditions may dictate you only get a few hands on a crowded night!
That's all I ask so u satisfy urself it's very normal and therefore no need to question what u r doing.
I suppose an overall standard deviation for a game in dollars would be based on ur overall average bet size rather than minimum bet. So, when u say, 200 units, is that minmum units or average bet units? Or am I way off here?
I suppose an overall standard deviation for a game in dollars would be based on ur overall average bet size rather than minimum bet. So, when u say, 200 units, is that minmum units or average bet units? Or am I way off here?
I agree with ur overall point.
But do u really think betting 1 unit until +TC7 and 10 units only at >TC+7
is the same as perhaps betting 1 unit until TC +2 and always betting 10 units after that?
In other words, should u end up 25 max units down in both cases over the same number of hands, the liklihood of that happening is not the same.
So I don't really see why u think losing $255 spreading 15-1 (17 max bets) is so much worse than losing $250 spreading 1-10 (25 max bets).
On what basis do u call the former ur worst variance ever?
From a minimum bet viewpoint, you lost 250 units, 250 units, and 255 units. Not much difference. Why is the liklihood different?
Just saying it might be a subject worth pursuing with a view to how well u may be approaching a certain game.
But do u really think betting 1 unit until +TC7 and 10 units only at >TC+7
is the same as perhaps betting 1 unit until TC +2 and always betting 10 units after that?
In other words, should u end up 25 max units down in both cases over the same number of hands, the liklihood of that happening is not the same.
So I don't really see why u think losing $255 spreading 15-1 (17 max bets) is so much worse than losing $250 spreading 1-10 (25 max bets).
On what basis do u call the former ur worst variance ever?
From a minimum bet viewpoint, you lost 250 units, 250 units, and 255 units. Not much difference. Why is the liklihood different?
Just saying it might be a subject worth pursuing with a view to how well u may be approaching a certain game.
Who said his bet spread only occurs when the TC reaches +7? 1-10 means that his minimum bet is 1 unit and maximum bet is 10 units, and that depending on the TC it will be somewhere in between.
The difference with the scenarios is that in one situation he lost 50 max bets, meaning that when he plays max bets he should be favored to win, and losing 50 of them would be really bad variance. If he was still with a good TC and lost 17 max bets the variance would be bad, but within reason. Losing 50 max bets would be much worse variance than that 17.
The difference with the scenarios is that in one situation he lost 50 max bets, meaning that when he plays max bets he should be favored to win, and losing 50 of them would be really bad variance. If he was still with a good TC and lost 17 max bets the variance would be bad, but within reason. Losing 50 max bets would be much worse variance than that 17.
Nobody. But I hope u understand that betting different amounts at different TC's does effect the liklihood of finishing wherever. Even though the max bet is 10 units. Surely, that's almost intuitive?
Yet he characterized losing 50 max bets as not as bad as losing 17 max bets.
Surely u can see the difference that if all max bets occurred at TC+1 (let's assume he has an advantage at that point) and greater compared to all max bets occurred at only TC+10 or more? In which case would losing 50 max bets be more likely?
The overall point is that variance should be measured in standard deviations not max or min units. U have to take into account how much is bet at each true count and how often that occurs and recoginize each true count will have a different standard deviation than another. I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying it's a nice thing to know how likely ur results are.
Put another way, I guess ur saying since, if it were based on min units instead of max, the liklihood is the same (about 250 units). Afterall, the liklihood is what it is, so it can't be good and bad at the same time.
Yet he characterized losing 50 max bets as not as bad as losing 17 max bets.
Surely u can see the difference that if all max bets occurred at TC+1 (let's assume he has an advantage at that point) and greater compared to all max bets occurred at only TC+10 or more? In which case would losing 50 max bets be more likely?
The overall point is that variance should be measured in standard deviations not max or min units. U have to take into account how much is bet at each true count and how often that occurs and recoginize each true count will have a different standard deviation than another. I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying it's a nice thing to know how likely ur results are.
Put another way, I guess ur saying since, if it were based on min units instead of max, the liklihood is the same (about 250 units). Afterall, the liklihood is what it is, so it can't be good and bad at the same time.
I used Kelly betting consistent with KO preferred strategy, mixing in some cover plays. 50 units lost at max bet is much worse than 17, 17 just happens to be my worst variance. Sorry if I was not clear on that point.
I like to think in simple terms since I don't have any sim software running yet and sometimes I think we tend to overanalyze things on the computer.
I like to think in simple terms since I don't have any sim software running yet and sometimes I think we tend to overanalyze things on the computer.
No problem. And, certainly, quite possibly true.
Also also, quite possibly, not.
Needless to say, I'm not overly familiar with the concept of over-analyzing.
If u choose to explain why u think 17 is worst variance but 50 is not, perhaps we can get to the bottom of it or at least closer. I mean why do u think one is a less likely result than the other.
No big deal - to me it's a very complex subject which is why I inquire as to how others decide their worst "bad luck".
I pretty much know what I'm doing for a neg EV game, flat-betting or not, but add the monies bet at various bet amounts at various TC's for how many hours for what game and it gets a bit daunting.
Basically impossible for me without software invented by people one whole helluva lot smarter than I am.
Still think I can get close though. Might be wrong though lol.
Also also, quite possibly, not.
Needless to say, I'm not overly familiar with the concept of over-analyzing.
If u choose to explain why u think 17 is worst variance but 50 is not, perhaps we can get to the bottom of it or at least closer. I mean why do u think one is a less likely result than the other.
No big deal - to me it's a very complex subject which is why I inquire as to how others decide their worst "bad luck".
I pretty much know what I'm doing for a neg EV game, flat-betting or not, but add the monies bet at various bet amounts at various TC's for how many hours for what game and it gets a bit daunting.
Basically impossible for me without software invented by people one whole helluva lot smarter than I am.
Still think I can get close though. Might be wrong though lol.