How do you deal with variance?

Syph · Jan 31, 2011

CalgaryBlackJack said:

Now, this is an attitude I confess to never actually understanding.

Rather than discuss how you played the hand, and your general approach to poker, the fact is that in this specific situation, you put your money in as an 80-20 favorite.

Dead stop.

If the stack sizes were about $300 each, we have a pot of about $600. You're expectation on this hand is ~$480. That's the equivalent to a 60% advantage. When was the last time you counted cards and had a Hilo true count of 120?

Most of the time, you'll be putting your large bets in as a ~51/49 favorite with counting. Which, incidentally, is why you are always losing with your large bets. The edge is slight.

The poker gods are not that dissimilar to the BJ gods. They too, will reward you with an exceptional return on your investment. Given, of course, a sufficient time line.

Insofar as your personal issues towards how these opportunities present themselves, again you have to change your perceptions. If you are angry over 60% edges, and would sacrifice those for 2% edges on account of emotional sensitivities, advantage play may not be for you. A Zen detachment is required in this field, remove the "monkey mind" which is hellbent on reacting to every outcome of every moment, and look at what took place in your hand:

A 60% advantage.

That is an exceptional event in this field. That you have access to such moments, suggests to me the gods look upon you quite favorably.

Best,
Syph

(ps That said, if you do find yourself playing poker again, and you wish to play deepstack, I would strongly recommend you head over to 2+2, go to the "Live-Low Stakes NL" forum, and read all the posts by "always_tilting". His advice is exceptional for beating the low stakes games.)

monte_vv · Jan 31, 2011

gamblingghost said:

Use a bettor count against 6 decks like
Halves.

Really how much better is Halves than Hi/Lo for multi-deck games? BC for Halves is .99, HI/Lo is .97 (according to Qfit). Hi/Lo IC .76, Halves .72. Halves PE of .56 and Hi/Lo .51. So for going from a level 1 count to a level 3, you gain .02 of BC. Is it worth the effort?? is there anyway to quantify changes in BC/PE/IC in units per hour or changes in ror?? Thanks.

kewljason · Jan 31, 2011

monte_vv said:

gamblingghost said:

Yes, of course there is. You run multi million hand simulations for each count. For a multideck game the results will show an increase of somewhere between 5-10% for halves over hi-lo, depending on the exact rules and conditions. Of course the simulations are based on perfect play. What the simulation doesn't show is if the player will make greater errors using a higher count and if the mental challenge of such a higher level count will reduce the length of time he can play such a count before fatigue sets in and he starts to make more frequent errors. Most players shrug this off, saying they can play a higher level count just as efficent as a lower level count, but if they are human beings, it just isn't so, no matter how much time they put in. I don't think enough players take this into consideration. Also maybe that tiny fraction of a second that it takes your brain to calculate could occupy and distract you just enough that you miss other opportunities around you. Add these variables into the equation, and I really believe the advantage shrinks to next to nothing.

I am not degrading the importance of simulations. They are the best tool we have for such comparisons, and Qfits products are the best. Anyone who is even semi-serious about BJ is far better off for having access to such products. I am just saying they don't take into account 'human elements'. There is no feature to compare the mental capability of a player who drove 3 hours to the casino vs the player who hops out of bed at MGM and hits the tables. There is no feature to calculate the loss of mental capability of the horny guy distracted by the cocktail waitress.

Sonny · Jan 31, 2011

Another gem from Snyder's website:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/phsylose.html

-Sonny-

kewljason · Jan 31, 2011

Sonny said:

That's a great read, Sonny.

Sadly, I find myself somewhere in between player A and player B.

I do like to review my play at the end of the day, mainly thinking about situations slightly out of the norm that may have arose and how I handled them and how I might handle them better in the future. And while, I do always think in terms of EV rather than monetary losses or wins on a daily basis, I do still have those times during a prolonged losing periods that I analyze everything to the extreme and my thoughts tend to sway away from that of player B and towards player A. Something to work on.

Syph · Jan 31, 2011

kewljason said:

On this note, I would generally recommend most straight counters abandon their balanced counts and turn to Red 7 or KO. Arnold once wrote that only about one in a hundred counters actually make money. I have met very few recreational players that did not steam after losses, over bet their roll, and fudge the true counts in their favor ... whether consciously or not. Let alone make accurate true count conversions in the first place.

Pop quiz:

How many decks are in the tray?

Regardless, it adds one more step to the dance for those already tripping up.

Best,
Syph

blackjack avenger · Feb 7, 2011

I Am in a Lot of Trouble

Syph said:

When I first looked at the pic I wondered why it was upside down.
:joker::whip:
good cards

blackjack avenger · Feb 7, 2011

Fighting Dogma

kewljason said:

monte_vv said:

Kewl's remarks above are the general dogma you hear about complex counts and nothing against Kewl, but I am in a mood to take them on!

What is the general standard used to count down a deck for speed? 20 to 30seconds? If one can do that with a higher level count then they are not slowed down. Even if one is slowed with a higher level count, does it matter if one can count hi lo in 28 seconds but halves in 30 seconds?

The error for those lower level counts is much higher. An ex. the 7 and 9 have value with respect to EOR. In Halves they are accounted for, in hi lo they are not. So if using hi lo every time a 7 or 9 goes by you are making an error with respect to EOR. The halves count outperfoms hi lo with respect to the 2,7,9,5. That is 16 cards per deck where halves outperforms hi lo. One would have to make a lot of errors in halves to equal the "built in" hi lo error rate.

Also, the 5% improvment really adds up if you resize your bets based on wins and losses. A resizing better would bet more with halves, win more and that is compounded. Think compound interest. If one does not resize their bank then it's just a 5% improvement. One would get the benefit; only less so, of compounding even if they bet a fraction of kelly. Finally, 5% can be a fair amount of dollars if you bet enough. The above is not the same as adding a few very rare indices, concern over exactness of indices or contemplating exact deck estimates, A compounded 5% is a real increase.

On fatigue, it's upon the hi lo player to play the increased time in order to compare to halves. That is extra time the casino has to evaluate your play. I would prefer to limit my time playing, or make more when I do play.

Now, some may not be able to accurately with speed use a higher level count, we all have limitations in our lives. What is competency? Perhaps when one can count down 8 decks in a row in under 30 seconds each without error, while holding a conversation? Others will probably have different standards.

Is counting the ultimate capitalist activity? The more you can do the more you make, but with diminishing returns. Pick your spots for mental effort.

:joker::whip:
good cards

forwhat77 · Feb 7, 2011

SleightOfHand · Feb 7, 2011

blackjack avenger said:

Kewl's remarks above are the general dogma you hear about complex counts and nothing against Kewl, but I am in a mood to take them on!

What is the general standard used to count down a deck for speed? 20 to 30seconds? If one can do that with a higher level count then they are not slowed down. Even if one is slowed with a higher level count, does it matter if one can count hi lo in 28 seconds but halves in 30 seconds?

The error for those lower level counts is much higher. An ex. the 7 and 9 have value with respect to EOR. In Halves they are accounted for, in hi lo they are not. So if using hi lo every time a 7 or 9 goes by you are making an error with respect to EOR. The halves count outperfoms hi lo with respect to the 2,7,9,5. That is 16 cards per deck where halves outperforms hi lo. One would have to make a lot of errors in halves to equal the "built in" hi lo error rate.

Also, the 5% improvment really adds up if you resize your bets based on wins and losses. A resizing better would bet more with halves, win more and that is compounded. Think compound interest. If one does not resize their bank then it's just a 5% improvement. One would get the benefit; only less so, of compounding even if they bet a fraction of kelly. Finally, 5% can be a fair amount of dollars if you bet enough. The above is not the same as adding a few very rare indices, concern over exactness of indices or contemplating exact deck estimates, A compounded 5% is a real increase.

On fatigue, it's upon the hi lo player to play the increased time in order to compare to halves. That is extra time the casino has to evaluate your play. I would prefer to limit my time playing, or make more when I do play.

Now, some may not be able to accurately with speed use a higher level count, we all have limitations in our lives. What is competency? Perhaps when one can count down 8 decks in a row in under 30 seconds each without error, while holding a conversation? Others will probably have different standards.

Is counting the ultimate capitalist activity? The more you can do the more you make, but with diminishing returns. Pick your spots for mental effort.

:joker::whip:
good cards

There is also the intrinsic value of higher level counts that they have more granularity in the TCs. There is a significant increase in advantage in being able to start making bigger bets at +0.25% advantage [zen] versus +0.5% [hilo] (we have a weak enough advantage as it is). Personally, I think this is one of the greatest values in using a higher level count.

zengrifter · Feb 8, 2011

Syph said:

4.25? zg

blackjack avenger · Feb 8, 2011

It Was Good

Sonny said:

I would add if you bet conservatively; regarding kelly, those big bets are less of a shock when lost. Also, Wong talks about target hours played and not money won or lost.

The long run is a lot farther out if you resize your bets compared to if you don't. If as a resizer you take a large loss, it will take longer to win the money back due to reduced bets. Although, resizing bets down on losses will reduce larger losses. That being said the closer to kelly you bet and the more frequently one resizes the more they will make in the long run, if they last.

However, since it's about money, money is the ultimate measure of success? Would not focusing on $ won or lost be like playing a football game and focusing on yards gained instead of the score ($)? or SCORE.

Possibly the best would be to focus on the money; being detached, and chasing hours, ATH's and $$$?

:joker::whip:
good cards

aslan · Feb 8, 2011

CalgaryBlackJack said:

I haven't read any of the responses yet, but I'll wing it anyway, since I have had a lot of ups and downs with variance. What I have discovered is that you can't fudge your bankroll. If you don't have enough bankroll, you will go absolutely bonkers when a long run of negative variance comes. Even when you do have adequate bankroll, it takes all your emotional strength to just hang in there with faith in the math. One thing I have been working on is quitting when I get tired. A tired mind is a losing mind. By remembering that it is all one long ongoing session helps in this regard. In the past I have pushed my limits because I wanted to be winner before I completed my session. Better to be on top of your game by getting proper rest.

blackriver · Feb 8, 2011

blackjack avenger said:

kewljason said:

Kewl's remarks above are the general dogma you hear about complex counts and nothing against Kewl, but I am in a mood to take them on!

What is the general standard used to count down a deck for speed? 20 to 30seconds? If one can do that with a higher level count then they are not slowed down. Even if one is slowed with a higher level count, does it matter if one can count hi lo in 28 seconds but halves in 30 seconds?

The error for those lower level counts is much higher. An ex. the 7 and 9 have value with respect to EOR. In Halves they are accounted for, in hi lo they are not. So if using hi lo every time a 7 or 9 goes by you are making an error with respect to EOR. The halves count outperfoms hi lo with respect to the 2,7,9,5. That is 16 cards per deck where halves outperforms hi lo. One would have to make a lot of errors in halves to equal the "built in" hi lo error rate.

Also, the 5% improvment really adds up if you resize your bets based on wins and losses. A resizing better would bet more with halves, win more and that is compounded. Think compound interest. If one does not resize their bank then it's just a 5% improvement. One would get the benefit; only less so, of compounding even if they bet a fraction of kelly. Finally, 5% can be a fair amount of dollars if you bet enough. The above is not the same as adding a few very rare indices, concern over exactness of indices or contemplating exact deck estimates, A compounded 5% is a real increase.

On fatigue, it's upon the hi lo player to play the increased time in order to compare to halves. That is extra time the casino has to evaluate your play. I would prefer to limit my time playing, or make more when I do play.

Now, some may not be able to accurately with speed use a higher level count, we all have limitations in our lives. What is competency? Perhaps when one can count down 8 decks in a row in under 30 seconds each without error, while holding a conversation? Others will probably have different standards.

Is counting the ultimate capitalist activity? The more you can do the more you make, but with diminishing returns. Pick your spots for mental effort.

:joker::whip:
good cards

its funny that some people think hilo is to primitive while others think its too rigorous. unbalanced counts are after all are taking ur logic a step further. "oh no, i might miscalculate the true count from time to time so im better off just being wrong all the time with an unbalanced count"

blackjack101 · Feb 8, 2011

Syph said:

The best advice I can give you is to stop counting and take up poker, but since no one ever takes this advice ...

Counting is a long term investment. Daily results are meaningless. Fine. What I found helpful, however, was to view all losses as temporary bank deposits. The bankroll you are playing from (and I assume you have one) is for counting. Nothing more. Where it sits for the next thousand hours of play (or two thousand with your spread), is irrelevant. You are not taking rent out of it, you are not going to movies with it, you are not giving it to panhandlers/dealers.

Provided the money makes a direct path from your pocket, to the casinos, it is virtually assured of returning to you, with interest, given a long enough time line.

So where it sits overnight, or for a few months, or a year, shouldn't matter. In fact, it's probably safer sitting in the vaults of your local casino than under your bed (or your bank, for that matter). See, all this time you were bummed out over losing X-amount of money, when in fact the BJ gods were simply protecting their investment by placing your money in a more secure environment until such time as the terms of the contract were up.

Those BJ gods are very clever. And always have the best interests at heart for the faithful.

Honest.

Now, if not having this money causes an inconvenience to your lifestyle, it is money that you simply couldn't afford to invest to begin with. You were worshiping with ear-marked cash. The gods don't like this. It takes time, even for a god, to materialize return. And if you welch out part way through the worship process, the gods get very, very angry. The agreement is immediately nullified and all assets are frozen.

The gods don't mess around with broken contracts, but they will always welcome you back into their fold.

They're actually pretty cool about that.

Best,
Syph

Chapter 3 Verse 6 of the blackjack bible
...."and then the Gods told the casinos "you shall repay this man his money with interest" and so they did"......

blackjack101 · Feb 8, 2011

blackriver said:

blackjack avenger said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

aslan · Feb 8, 2011

blackriver said:

blackjack avenger said:

Just do a KO with key count checkpoints (-11, -8, -5, -2 for 5, 4, 3, and 2 decks remaining) to give you the best of both worlds. It's simplicity of unbalanced count, with true up on a casual basis to squeeze a little more efficiency out. Pivot Point is still +4 all the time. It's just a way to take advantage of early key count situations, which KO's "automated" true up system misses. I'd write a book, but there are already way too many out there. Maybe since you know HiLo, you can figure a way to make it more like KO. Who knows? There may be an even simpler count lurking out there somewhere.

blackjack avenger · Feb 8, 2011

What the Heck is Going on Around Here

aslan said:

aslan · Feb 8, 2011

blackjack avenger said:

aslan said:

What I have done is adjust an unbalanced count to come a bit closer to a balanced count. What you can do in the opposite direction, I don't know. It was a challenge for finding a better way to true up a balanced count with some easier methodology (which may or may not exist).

aslan · Feb 8, 2011

The point is, we all want to get to true count, or satisfactorily close to it, with the least amount of effort.

How do you deal with variance?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member