Down 1000 units in 200 hr of counting

[TrueCount]

No advice, just my thoughts. .. I will say I believe a level two count gives you a better feel for the composition of the remaining decks, but won't automatically help you win. Level 2 is great in DD games. I would stay with the DD games. At your unit level you could play them right and not be on any table long enough to get backed off. You could play the other games when DD is not practical. As far as counting... You have to have a good game to make any headway in a reasonable amount of time. The trick in DD is not to stay too long. Hit and Run with a big spread.

What area do you play (PM me.)

In hindsight, i wish i had sticked playing DD instead of switching to 6D where 120% of my loss came from. Hi-Lo with index plays seemed to work fine in DD but then i got BAN-phobic and turned to the 6 Deck games where with so many cards behind the shuffle point , high TC didn't guarantee that you'd get a face card on your double down!

 

[daniel27]

maybe i`m too late in this, but , what kelly did u use ??
i also lost half my BR in a month 55% exactly , ( now only 8% down) with kelly 0,6 , since then i lower my spread from 1-60 to 1-20 and using kelly 0.4 to 0.5 , that work for me really fine , less stress etc

 

[kewljason]

In hindsight, i wish i had sticked playing DD instead of switching to 6D where 120% of my loss came from. Hi-Lo with index plays seemed to work fine in DD but then i got BAN-phobic and turned to the 6 Deck games where with so many cards behind the shuffle point , high TC didn't guarantee that you'd get a face card on your double down!

A high true count never guarantees you anything! (except very rare cases dealt so deep that only high cards remain) All it does is slightly turn the odds in your favor.

 

[creeping panther]

Bj21

1. Playing 2 hands instead of one:
He specifically asked whether or not to move to 2 hands at 150%/2 - when playing heads up. From a pure play point of view, there is no benefit to this. Action will be the same, variance will be the same.
There are other reasons to spread to 2 or more hands (non-counting AP, low table limits, other players at the table etc) but these are not relevant here.

2. This post has received 4 pages of responses, on everyone's favourite topic : "you don't know enough to play so go learn/practice some more", but -
Had a $ 200k bankroll ? lost half of it ? coming to a public forum for advice ? Knows enough to name level 2+ counts and the correct bet ratio for 2 simultaneous hands, but has not come across any information about risk ?

Sorry, sounds completely made up to me.

D.

While there may be no math advantage to moving to 2 there is also no disadvantage, and the real adfvantage is hands per hour equals more money put in play at an advantage=$. There are times when playing 2 spots is a must. And if the dealer is constantly kicking your ass I say swing between the number of spots played, vodoo...some say so,,,I disagree, no harm no foul.

Hey, this may not be made up,,,maybe he works for Goldman Sachs:laugh:

CP

 

[TrueCount]

A high true count never guarantees you anything! (except very rare cases dealt so deep that only high cards remain) All it does is slightly turn the odds in your favor.

I think the dealer still has more chance to win in high counts, its just the double downs & blackjacks & insurance that gives me the long term advantage...
However, getting so sick of receiving a low value card when doubled down on a high TC with max bet out !

 

[kewljason]

I think the dealer still has more chance to win in high counts, its just the double downs & blackjacks & insurance that gives me the long term advantage...
However, getting so sick of receiving a low value card when doubled down on a high TC with max bet out !

But, some times you double a ten, pull a three and win when the dealer breaks. And sometimes you double a 10 , pull a ten and lose to a 5 cards 21 with a super high count. It all evens out. You just tend to remember the negative pulls more.

 

[21gunsalute]

Then how about Level III system such as Uston APC for example?
I mean instead of trying to make the biggest money on the biggest count, why not improve the playing efficency and beat the dealer on a moderate/negative count as well ?

I doubt changing counting systems is going to matter much one way or another. The biggest factor is: You cannot control what cards are dealt to you and/or what cards the dealer gets! Counting and knowing a lot of indices are fine, but the biggest factor affecting whether you win or lose is almost always "what kind of cards am I being dealt vs what kind of cards is the dealer getting?" You can be the greatest counter/BJ strategist, whatever in the world but when you get crap hand after crap hand and the dealer keeps getting good hands you're going to lose. How often is it going to help you to know when to hit 13 vs a dealer 2 or 16 vs 10? Not very often and even if you make the correct play on such calls 100% of the time it's only going to help you a very small % of the time, as many of these indices are borderline calls on almost certain losing hands.

I'm not saying that counting and knowing indices aren't important, just that the biggest factor that affects whether you have a winning or losing session is the cards you are dealt, and trust me I too have been having seemingly way more than my share of bad and losing hands when the count is high and I have (relatively speaking) a lot of money on the table, and changing the counting method is not going to change this phenomenon one bit.

 

[TrueCount]

I doubt changing counting systems is going to matter much one way or another. The biggest factor is: You cannot control what cards are dealt to you and/or what cards the dealer gets! Counting and knowing a lot of indices are fine, but the biggest factor affecting whether you win or lose is almost always "what kind of cards am I being dealt vs what kind of cards is the dealer getting?" You can be the greatest counter/BJ strategist, whatever in the world but when you get crap hand after crap hand and the dealer keeps getting good hands you're going to lose. How often is it going to help you to know when to hit 13 vs a dealer 2 or 16 vs 10? Not very often and even if you make the correct play on such calls 100% of the time it's only going to help you a very small % of the time, as many of these indices are borderline calls on almost certain losing hands.

I'm not saying that counting and knowing indices aren't important, just that the biggest factor that affects whether you have a winning or losing session is the cards you are dealt, and trust me I too have been having seemingly way more than my share of bad and losing hands when the count is high and I have (relatively speaking) a lot of money on the table, and changing the counting method is not going to change this phenomenon one bit.

Tried practising the Zen count last night with CVBJ v.5, after 1.5 hr of practise i felt my head was about to explode! I'm just so used to counting hi-lo you know,
I dont think i can swich to level II over-nite , i'll just do it gradually while still playing with Level I on the 'FIELD'.

 

[TrueCount]

But, some times you double a ten, pull a three and win when the dealer breaks. And sometimes you double a 10 , pull a ten and lose to a 5 cards 21 with a super high count. It all evens out. You just tend to remember the negative pulls more.

The problem is, no one knows when it's going to "EVEN OUT". It might be in my next two sessions, or next year, or 5 years after or not in my lifetime!

 

[kewljason]

I am surprised that this thread has gone on this long without more people addressing just how "normal" it is too lose 1000 units during a 200 hour stretch. I am really surprised that some of the "math guys" and/or "sim guys" haven't weighed in this, because while oviously possible, this seems not a very normal occurance to me. It has to be way outside the "normal" SD of EV.

 

[TrueCount]

I am surprised that this thread has gone on this long without more people addressing just how "normal" it is too lose 1000 units during a 200 hour stretch. I am really surprised that some of the "math guys" and/or "sim guys" haven't weighed in this, because while oviously possible, this seems not a very normal occurance to me. It has to be way outside the "normal" SD of EV.

When i started counting about 4 month ago, i was glad that finally i was getting rid of my typical gambling 'superstitious beliefs' and play acording to count. Now after this huge negative variance i have been experiencing of late, im getting "superstitious" again thinking maybe a bad luck spirit is in my back :whip:!

 

[kewljason]

When i started counting about 4 month ago, i was glad that finally i was getting rid of my typical gambling 'superstitious beliefs' and play acording to count. Now after this huge negative variance i have been experiencing of late, im getting "superstitious" again thinking maybe a bad luck spirit is in my back :whip:!

Statements like that will probably bring a permanate end to this thread. Perhaps you should read the thread in the voodoo section on ESP. Esp might be able to overcome your bad luck spirit.

 

[21gunsalute]

I am surprised that this thread has gone on this long without more people addressing just how "normal" it is too lose 1000 units during a 200 hour stretch. I am really surprised that some of the "math guys" and/or "sim guys" haven't weighed in this, because while oviously possible, this seems not a very normal occurance to me. It has to be way outside the "normal" SD of EV.

That's only 5 units an hour. If he were playing 1 unit=1 red chip it would be losing $25 per hour. In my last 10 hours of play I'm down about 250 units or 25 units per hour. Obviously it's not as long of a stretch, but I'm currently losing at a pace 5x greater than his. And this right after I had a couple of big wins and thought I had finally turned the corner. Guess not.

 

[EmeraldCityBJ]

I'd suggest you consider the following:

1. How likely are your results?
2. Are there holes in your game?

If you ran a sim of your strategy with a program CVData or CVCX, you'd be able to see exactly how far to the left of the mean your results ended up being. With the games and strategy you've described, I'm guessing that the chances of your results after 200 hours are 10% or less. There's not enough hours of play for you to definitively make any conclusions about whether or not you're playing a +EV game, but these results would at least have me a little concerned.

Knowing that the results are this far to the left of expectation, the next step is to figure out if it's because of variance, or if it's because there are other holes in your game. Consider the following:

1. Are you consistently playing the proper strategy (basic strategy and indices)?
2. Are you consistently maintaining the correct count (practice counting down decks to verify)?
3. Are you afraid to get the money out there when the count calls for it? For example, if you just lost four max bets and the count continues to climb, are you able to still bet big or do you drop your bets?
4. Do you play with too much cover? If the count tanks after winning a few hands whilethe pit is breathing down your back, do you overbet, or do you resize your bet accordingly and/or wong out?
5. Do you go on tilt or steam? I If you lose a big bet and the count drops, do you continue betting big to chase your losses? Do you ever walk away from a +EV situation because you've just lost and cannot handle the variance?

Note that I've not suggested anywhere that you consider using a different counting system. The counting system is not the cause of your results. Several players (myself included) use Hi-Lo, KO, or other Level 1 systems with a great deal of success, and for most games do not lag far behind those who have invested the time and energy to learn something more complicated. Now is not the time to be thinking about learning a new system. Instead, reflect on your play, and come up with an honest assessment of whether your results are truly variance, or if there are other holes to fill. Switching to a more complicated system will not solve the issue. In fact, it could make the problem worse since it may cause you to make more mistakes. This would cause you to lose an amount greater than the benefit you'd be able to realize by using the improved system.

 

[bj21abc]

Playing 2 hands

This has been beaten to death on various boards from time to time...

You are right in that 2 spots = no harm done (heads up) but it definitely does NOT mean more money or more EV.

Assume I play 1 hand at $100, or two hands of $75 heads up.
For the same number of cards, I can play 2 rounds - each of one hand to the dealer and two hands for me - or I can play 3 rounds - of one hand each. In both cases, 6 hands in total are dealt. Total playthrough ? 3x$100 or 2x$150.

Marginal effects:
- playing one hand allows for marginally more granular bet sizing (you can resize twice if count varies for playing one hand as above, vs only once for two hands)
- dealer may use up more cards per hand since he hits stiffs. Then again he doesn't split - I don't know how many cards dealer would use vs player per hand - anyone ? Possibly you may get marginally more play in (eg in your +ve count zone) if you play 2 hands.

Voodoo ? that I have no example for... Maybe you can disrupt a fiendish plot to deal you a cooler deck

D.

While there may be no math advantage to moving to 2 there is also no disadvantage, and the real adfvantage is hands per hour equals more money put in play at an advantage=$. There are times when playing 2 spots is a must. And if the dealer is constantly kicking your ass I say swing between the number of spots played, vodoo...some say so,,,I disagree, no harm no foul.

Hey, this may not be made up,,,maybe he works for Goldman Sachs:laugh:

CP

 

[kewljason]

This has been beaten to death on various boards from time to time...

You are right in that 2 spots = no harm done (heads up) but it definitely does NOT mean more money or more EV.

Assume I play 1 hand at $100, or two hands of $75 heads up.
For the same number of cards, I can play 2 rounds - each of one hand to the dealer and two hands for me - or I can play 3 rounds - of one hand each. In both cases, 6 hands in total are dealt. Total playthrough ? 3x$100 or 2x$150.

Marginal effects:
- playing one hand allows for marginally more granular bet sizing (you can resize twice if count varies for playing one hand as above, vs only once for two hands)
- dealer may use up more cards per hand since he hits stiffs. Then again he doesn't split - I don't know how many cards dealer would use vs player per hand - anyone ? Possibly you may get marginally more play in (eg in your +ve count zone) if you play 2 hands.

Voodoo ? that I have no example for... Maybe you can disrupt a fiendish plot to deal you a cooler deck

D.

How is it that variance will be the same? (as you stated earlier) Playing two hands means some rounds you will win one and lose one for a net gain of zero rather than winning one larger bet or losing one larger bet. Doesn't that reduce variance?

 

[fwb]

How is it that variance will be the same? (as you stated earlier) Playing two hands means some rounds you will win one and lose one for a net gain of zero rather than winning one larger bet or losing one larger bet. Doesn't that reduce variance?

Not at all. You can also lose two or win two, resulting in more variance. Assuming a fixed cut card, you're still playing the same number of hands...playing two single hands one after the other is technically the same. But, if playing two hands at once results in you playing through more hands per hour, in the long run you will have more hands under your belt and be closer to your statistical long term expectation.

 

[bjcount]

i have a stockbroker license as well as real estate broker

Maybe it was just payback time for selling homes to people who couldn't afford it or selling those internet stocks to your clients before the bubble burst.

You would need to be somewhat intelligent to pass all the exams required to become a "broker" in both specialties, so I won't question your capabilities.

As for the dollar amounts, 100k was piss in the wind to many brokers, etc., I know from just a few years back.

Using my simple math:
you say you lost 100k in 200 hrs.

taking your average bet of say $250 x lets say 100 hands/ hr heads up = $25,000/ hr action x 200 hrs = 5,000,000 dollars of action.

100k is 2% of your total action - to me it seems a bit high but a quick look at cvcx and if I have the numbers correctly, 200k br, 100k loss in 200hrs = (-3SD) loss (but in recent days I have been known to blunder the numbers )

but it seems that just maybe you may lack the required discipline so you were possibly overbetting, steaming, getting bothered by the possible heat at the orange betting level or lets say you kept losing the count due to frustration and your average bet was say $500, now thats only 200 hands to = 100k

OR

you play absolutely perfectly, your trip BR contains 15 max bets which at $1,600 ea = $24,000

of the 200 hrs in play time, 5 of those 8hr sessions you had really bad sessions and you went bust - now that can surely happen very easily - so you just lost 120,000k and the other 160 hrs.. well, you won back 1/2 your normal win rate (EV) of 3u per hour, again this is normal too.

So nothing looks strange to me.... other then having to admit you lost, but we all have to admit that at times.

I think to continue re-evaluating your play or changing counts is the mistake. Keep good records and see if you can find someone with experience to watch you play. Only then you'll now the real story.

If it's anything like what I've been up against, here's how it goes:

Dealers hands - 20,20,21,BJ,21, 17, bust, 17, 21 BJ, BJ, 21, 20... you just can't win

Better cards to you in the future.

BJC

 

[Deathangl13]

Rules are 6 decks, S17, LS, RSA with 1.5 ~1.2 deck remaining. standard vegas strip rule. I think Hi-lo 's 51% playing efficiency is basically a toin coss. if you aren't lucky on those high counts you are toast!

It's not the count, it's the cut card brother.... who knows how many of those "remaining" high cards will never see the felt?

 

[Martin Gayle]

Not at all. You can also lose two or win two, resulting in more variance...But, if playing two hands at once results in you playing through more hands per hour, in the long run you will have more hands under your belt and be closer to your statistical long term expectation.

This is contradictory. More hands gives a bigger sample size which reduces variance.