Bet spread

moraine

Well-Known Member
#41
  1. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? This time I must humbly admit THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED YOUR POINT, IF THERE IS ANY.
  2. If you only wanted to tell me that I "have a lot to learn", I AGREE TO THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. May I also add, so is everyone else. BUT YOU MAY EXCLUDE YOURSELF IN CASE YOU THINK YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION.
 
Last edited:

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#42
  1. "WHAT IS YOUR POINT? This time I must humbly admit THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED YOUR POINT, IF THERE IS ANY.
  2. If you only wanted to tell me that I "have a lot to learn", I AGREE TO THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. May I also add, so is everyone else. BUT YOU MAY EXCLUDE YOURSELF IN CASE YOU THINK YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION."
I made a point in post #12. If you want to ignore me fine at least pay attention to post #8 from Don S.
 

moraine

Well-Known Member
#43
BoSox said:
  1. "WHAT IS YOUR POINT? This time I must humbly admit THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED YOUR POINT, IF THERE IS ANY.
  2. If you only wanted to tell me that I "have a lot to learn", I AGREE TO THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. May I also add, so is everyone else. BUT YOU MAY EXCLUDE YOURSELF IN CASE YOU THINK YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION."
I made a point in post #12. If you want to ignore me fine at least pay attention to post #8 from Don S.
  1. I believe I had addressed all prior posts adequately at the time. In case it wasn't satisfactory to any persons, anyone could bring it up SEPCIFICALLY THEN, OR AFTER THIS POST IF anyone is still interested.
  2. I just reviewed the #12 post, my respond is still the same. Whether I am "calling the shot" or not is irrelevant, my position has been "A SELF-IMPOSED BET SRPEAD IN NEITHER NEEDED NOR HELPFUL" in shoe games.
  3. As to #8, I RESPECTFULLY leave it to the author of that post to see if any additional remarks from me is warranted or even welcome.
 

aceside

Active Member
#44
moraine said:
Kelly Criterion is this simple: For one hand in Blackjack, ONE Kelly Bet = 0.77 x The player's POSITIVE EXPECTED VALUE (in %) x The SIZE of Player's BANKROLL (in $).
The player’s advantage as a function of TC should not differ very much from a 6-deck shoe to an 8-deck shoe; however, the variance for an 8-deck should be a lot larger. This means the 0.77 factor cannot be generalized from 6-deck to 8-deck shoes. I lost a lot of money playing 8-decks and thus am looking for tricks to improve my skills. Thank you in advance.
 

moraine

Well-Known Member
#45
aceside said:
The player’s advantage as a function of TC should not differ very much from a 6-deck shoe to an 8-deck shoe; however, the variance for an 8-deck should be a lot larger. This means the 0.77 factor cannot be generalized from 6-deck to 8-deck shoes. I lost a lot of money playing 8-decks and thus am looking for tricks to improve my skills. Thank you in advance.
These much I know:
  • The standard deviation for blackjack is 1.14 (it may change a little bit depending on the rules).
  • Variance is the square of Standard deviation = 1.14 x 1.14 = 1.3
  • 0.77 = 1/variance = 1/1.3 (This coefficient is valid for both 6 and 8-deck blackjack.)
As to your loss in 8-deck, I know that 8-deck is mostly a waiting game. You need a SIMPLE AND EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OR YOU MAY HAVE BECOME TOO TIRED OR MAY HAVE LOST THE COUNT ALREADY before the good betting opportunities have arrived. I think the reason that casinos have not gone to 10-deck is because they have already beat most card counters at 8-deck, and going to 10-deck is a needless overkill.

There may be other reasons, but I should not speculate too much, except for saying that you should also RE-EXAMINE YOUR BETTING PRACTICE, which from what you wrote before, APPEARS TO BE OVER-BETTING TOO MUCH.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#46
aceside said:
The player’s advantage as a function of TC should not differ very much from a 6-deck shoe to an 8-deck shoe; however, the variance for an 8-deck should be a lot larger. This means the 0.77 factor cannot be generalized from 6-deck to 8-deck shoes. I lost a lot of money playing 8-decks and thus am looking for tricks to improve my skills. Thank you in advance.
The advantage per TC doesn't change much but the true count frequencies change greatly from 8 deck to 6 deck (or the other way), which can make the profitability much, greater or less depending on which way you are going 6 deck to 8 deck or 8 deck to 6 deck. When I moved to Las Vegas over a decade ago, I was actually stunned at the difference after playing mostly 8 deck in Atlantic city for 5+ years. Of course you can verify or even just understand this easily with either software or Don's book.
 

aceside

Active Member
#47
KewlJ said:
The advantage per TC doesn't change much but the true count frequencies change greatly from 8 deck to 6 deck (or the other way), which can make the profitability much, greater or less depending on which way you are going 6 deck to 8 deck or 8 deck to 6 deck. When I moved to Las Vegas over a decade ago, I was actually stunned at the difference after playing mostly 8 deck in Atlantic city for 5+ years. Of course you can verify or even just understand this easily with either software or Don's book.
I understand your being stunned at Las Vegas, but I have slightly different views on this part. I believe the true count frequency is a minor cause for not beating 8-decks, but the variance introduced by added cards is the main cause. The TC frequency is determined by the number of unplayed cards behind the cut card. For 8-decks, there are often two decks of unplayed cards, causing a narrower frequency distribution, as compared to 6-decks with 1.5 decks of unplayed cards. Most of my big losses in 8-decks were in those situations when the running counts were still as high as +24 but the shoes were finished. I incorrectly gambled on the number of aces and ten valued cards behind the cut card.
 

DSchles

Well-Known Member
#48
aceside said:
I understand your being stunned at Las Vegas, but I have slightly different views on this part. I believe the true count frequency is a minor cause for not beating 8-decks, but the variance introduced by added cards is the main cause. The TC frequency is determined by the number of unplayed cards behind the cut card. For 8-decks, there are often two decks of unplayed cards, causing a narrower frequency distribution, as compared to 6-decks with 1.5 decks of unplayed cards. Most of my big losses in 8-decks were in those situations when the running counts were still as high as +24 but the shoes were finished. I incorrectly gambled on the number of aces and ten valued cards behind the cut card.
Your analysis is exactly opposite from the mathematical truth. You even mention a "narrower frequency distribution" for the eight-deck game, which is correct. But, somehow, you then interpret that to imply greater variance, when, in fact, just the opposite is true. If all the true counts are squeezed into a narrower width, then there is clearly LESS variance. To take it to the absurd, suppose all the true count could ever be was -1, 0, or +1. Results and bet sizes would hardly vary at all! It's precisely because, with fewer decks, there is a wider distribution of true counts that the variance for these games is, obviously, greater.

But, if you would stop trusting your erroneous and faulty intuition and just look at the Chapter 10 charts of BJA3, you would see all of this clearly.

Don
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#49
DSchles said:
. To take it to the absurd, suppose all the true count could ever be was -1, 0, or +1. Results and bet sizes would hardly vary at all!
Absurd, but not THAT far off unfortunately. Maybe more like -3 to +3. with an occasional +4's occurring just before the shuffle. I didn't understand it at the time, but these 8 deck games with mediocre penetration, resulting in minimal higher true count frequencies at the higher counts and less variance, is why someone like me with a small bankroll was able to survive Atlantic City, especially my first couple years. Game was just enough to have a tiny advantage, especially escaping some of the negative counts, while minimizing variance. The variance that I routinely see today, would have wiped me out 10 times, during those first 2 years. And I was blind to it at the time.
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#50
KewlJ said:
Absurd, but not THAT far off unfortunately. Maybe more like -3 to +3. with an occasional +4's occurring just before the shuffle. I didn't understand it at the time, but these 8 deck games with mediocre penetration, resulting in minimal higher true count frequencies at the higher counts and less variance, is why someone like me with a small bankroll was able to survive Atlantic City, especially my first couple years. Game was just enough to have a tiny advantage, especially escaping some of the negative counts, while minimizing variance. The variance that I routinely see today, would have wiped me out 10 times, during those first 2 years. And I was blind to it at the time.
KewlJ, do you know what a hypothetical example is? Don just gave one.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#51
BoSox said:
KewlJ, do you know what a hypothetical example is? Don just gave one.
Yes, I am aware Don gave a hypothetical example. One which he prefaced with "absurd". I was just pointing out that sadly that "absurd" isn't that far off for those crappy 8 deck games.

Now what is your problem BoSox? You seem to want to follow me around from forum to forum and challenge almost everything I say.
 

moraine

Well-Known Member
#52
Hi ALL, I'm a bit confused. I only know in math that variance is the square of Standard Deviation. But it seems "variance" is often loosely used to express a NEGATIVE BIG LOSS every time a card counter hit the skid. Can someone define the the word "variance" that we are talking about now?
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#53
moraine said:
Hi ALL, I'm a bit confused. I only know in math that variance is the square of Standard Deviation. But it seems "variance" is often loosely used to express a NEGATIVE BIG LOSS every time a card counter hit the skid. Can someone define the the word "variance" that we are talking about now?
I can't tell if you are being sincere or not, so will give you the benefit of doubt. Yes, I am guilty of using "variance" in a looser manner, to describe negative losses or runs. I do this because I participate on several forums that not all are educated card counters. So when I describe an extended period of losing, which can be months a time for me, 40, 50 thousand rounds, dropping 30, 40 thousands dollars (usually with a slow recovery), I almost always get questions like why are you losing if playing with an advantage. So I try to express that this kind of swing is very "normal", well within several standard deviations and I have taken to describing it as normal variance in that effort, which of course is different from that mathematical definition of variance.
 

aceside

Active Member
#54
moraine said:
Hi ALL, I'm a bit confused. I only know in math that variance is the square of Standard Deviation. But it seems "variance" is often loosely used to express a NEGATIVE BIG LOSS every time a card counter hit the skid. Can someone define the the word "variance" that we are talking about now?
There is no standard deviation in this world, there is only variance. SD is just a scientific term. Some people have a girlfriend, some people don’t and This means variance. But if you have a wife, your variance is zero on this matter.
 

moraine

Well-Known Member
#55
KewlJ said:
I can't tell if you are being sincere or not, so will give you the benefit of doubt. Yes, I am guilty of using "variance" in a looser manner, to describe negative losses or runs. I do this because I participate on several forums that not all are educated card counters. So when I describe an extended period of losing, which can be months a time for me, 40, 50 thousand rounds, dropping 30, 40 thousands dollars (usually with a slow recovery), I almost always get questions like why are you losing if playing with an advantage. So I try to express that this kind of swing is very "normal", well within several standard deviations and I have taken to describing it as normal variance in that effort, which of course is different from that mathematical definition of variance.
THANKS, but that may not be the "variance" that aceside was talking about in #32 and later on in #44, which might have triggered the "variance" discussions. It seems to me he had mixed-up the two.
 

aceside

Active Member
#56
DSchles said:
Your analysis is exactly opposite from the mathematical truth. You even mention a "narrower frequency distribution" for the eight-deck game, which is correct. But, somehow, you then interpret that to imply greater variance, when, in fact, just the opposite is true. If all the true counts are squeezed into a narrower width, then there is clearly LESS variance. To take it to the absurd, suppose all the true count could ever be was -1, 0, or +1. Results and bet sizes would hardly vary at all! It's precisely because, with fewer decks, there is a wider distribution of true counts that the variance for these games is, obviously, greater.

But, if you would stop trusting your erroneous and faulty intuition and just look at the Chapter 10 charts of BJA3, you would see all of this clearly.

Don
Seemingly we are talking about two different variances. You are talking about the global variance on total EV for a card counter when flat betting all the way through the shoe, and I agree with you that it will decrease as the deck number increases. However, I am talking about the instantaneous local variance that I use to adjust my bet amount at that moment. The local variance varies swiftly as a 8-deck shoe is dealt out, it is a lot larger than that of 6-decks. I am still learning about Kelly. Is this correct?
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#57
aceside said:
The local variance varies swiftly as a 8-deck shoe is dealt out, it is a lot larger than that of 6-decks. I am still learning about Kelly. Is this correct?
No that is wrong, it is just the opposite.
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#58
KewlJ said:
Now what is your problem BoSox? You seem to want to follow me around from forum to forum and challenge almost everything I say.
No problems on my part other than periodic disagreements at times. I have better things to do than follow you around websites.
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#59
aceside, variance is the risk that you take by putting money in the betting circle. The better the rules and the deeper the cuts the more opportunities you will see to raise your bets. When you raise your bets it also increases variance which should be understandable to you. If you are properly bankrolled you should welcome all the variance that presents itself.
 

moraine

Well-Known Member
#60
BoSox said:
aceside, variance is the risk that you take by putting money in the betting circle. The better the rules and the deeper the cuts the more opportunities you will see to raise your bets. When you raise your bets it also increases variance which should be understandable to you. If you are properly bankrolled you should welcome all the variance that presents itself.
YOU JUST GAVE ONE MORE DEFINITION OF VARIANCE. I am afraid if I add anything IT MAY LEAD TO ANOTHER WILD-GOOSE CHASE of "K**** criterion", which seemed to have offended a few yesterday already.
 
Top