I Just Can't Lose!

[StandardDeviant]

No, it's not what you think...

I've proven that I can lose, and the big hands, when the count is high, seem to be the ones that are so easy to lose!!

I'm finding that it is more difficult than expected for me to put out the full spread when the count is high because I don't want to endure the big variances that come with the big bets. It seems I don't want to lose.

When I first started playing, losing didn't bother me. Now that I've been at this over a year, I'm finding that my mind has this expectation that I should play better. And somehow this "play better" idea is translating into a type of score keeping that is messing up my play. Even when I know it's not about "playing better," I still get this knot in my stomach. It's all very interesting, and a phase I guess I'll get through at some point.

 

[psyduck]

I thought you got everything figured out!

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

It may be helpful to remember that decreasing your spread decreases your risk (and expectation), but it increases your variance!

 

[somtum]

xxxxxxxxx

 

[StandardDeviant]

I thought you got everything figured out!

I think I do have it figured out, but that doesn't make it any easier!

 

[StandardDeviant]

It may be helpful to remember that decreasing your spread decreases your risk (and expectation), but it increases your variance!

Not! Thanks for trying. I'll mail you the home game version.

 

[StandardDeviant]

xxxxxxxxx

Insightful.

 

[daddybo]

Not! Thanks for trying. I'll mail you the home game version.

LOL... Smart one!

 

[StandardDeviant]

I think that one of the things that happens is that the correlation of practice effort expended with results, which is strong in the early weeks and months, actually gets weaker as skills get stronger. Then, results have a large random component, with a small positive expectation. And more effort does not, especially in the near term, yield discernible results.

Such is the nature of this "game" methinks, and it is made difficult by a Puritan work ethic that has been drummed into our heads "100% effort = 100% results." For BJ it should be "100% efforts = 1% results +/- SD, maybe."

 

[StandardDeviant]

LOL... Smart one!

I guess I was a little sharp-tongued to Lonesome, who was just trying to help, for which I apologize. I should stay off the forum after I've had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner.

That said, I was struck by the idea of reducing my spread from 1:10 to 1:1 and then to 1:0 or, in other words, no bet. The thought that entered my wine-fogged mind was that that would mean, according to Lonesome's view, that my volatility would approach infinity as my spread approached zero. That's a non sequitur in my book.

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

I'm pretty thick-skinned. But am I incorrect in thinking that variance increases—all other factors being equal—when your spread decreases, given that your BR requirements are up to par?

I would hazard a guess that the reason for this practice/results correlation is because when you first start playing, you are much more "on the roller coaster" then you are later in your career, when you've come closer to the "long run." At that point, your swings are still wild, but you've come much closer to uniform results, which—as we all know—are typically less exciting than we would like them to be. So a new player can hit huge positive variance right off the bat and rake in absurd amounts of money, but when they become experienced and play a lot more, their relatively flimsy ~1% edge becomes more apparent and the results mellow out a bit.

And unfortunately, I already own the home game, but any other consolation prizes would be appreciated.

 

[StandardDeviant]

I'm pretty thick-skinned. But am I incorrect in thinking that variance increases

Thanks for being a better sport than I was, Lonesome.

I think of spread/variance this way: more risk, more reward. We spread to higher levels to increase our earnings. More money on the table means more risk (i.e., we could lose the bet), but it also means more reward (because our EV goes up).

If I have a $10 bet out, my bankroll (BR) will only vary +/- $10 based on the outcome of the hand - $20 of volatility. If I spread 1:15 and have a $150 bet out, then by BR will vary by $300 based on the outcome of the hand (ignoring BJs and pushes). So the way I think about it, volatility (variance) and bet size are positively correlated.

 

[ihate17]

that knot in your stomach

No, it's not what you think...

I've proven that I can lose, and the big hands, when the count is high, seem to be the ones that are so easy to lose!!

I'm finding that it is more difficult than expected for me to put out the full spread when the count is high because I don't want to endure the big variances that come with the big bets. It seems I don't want to lose.

When I first started playing, losing didn't bother me. Now that I've been at this over a year, I'm finding that my mind has this expectation that I should play better. And somehow this "play better" idea is translating into a type of score keeping that is messing up my play. Even when I know it's not about "playing better," I still get this knot in my stomach. It's all very interesting, and a phase I guess I'll get through at some point.

The perfect cardcounter may play like a computer but need to look like an emotional gambler.
One problem most of us run into is that we are human and our emotions can effect in many ways.
When those emotions take full charge and someone who should be a winning counter begins to steam, he often becomes another losing counter. More subtile and much less expensive (but it still costs) is that counter who runs into a few sessions of negative variance and now will no longer spread to the amounts he should spread too. The nice thing about this is you can still play a winning game but you will never make as much.

There can also be other factors effecting this. We have had posters on this board whose spread is near break even for the game they play. Sometimes it is a matter of bankroll. The only playable game may be at a minimum that is too high for the player. The answer for them is often wonging, smaller spread but only playing positive EV hands.
Sometimes it is not bankroll but emotions. The answer again may be wonging but only you can figure out what to do when your emotions get in the way of playing your best.

ihate17

 

[Kasi]

I think that one of the things that happens is that the correlation of practice effort expended with results, which is strong in the early weeks and months, actually gets weaker as skills get stronger. Then, results have a large random component, with a small positive expectation. And more effort does not, especially in the near term, yield discernible results.

Such is the nature of this "game" methinks, and it is made difficult by a Puritan work ethic that has been drummed into our heads "100% effort = 100% results." For BJ it should be "100% efforts = 1% results +/- SD, maybe."

Holy Moly.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about lol.

I'm going to hazard a guess - you don't have a sim, do you?

I guess this becasue you would not have a knot in your stomach when a max bet is called for becasue you already know, becasue you chose it to begin with, what your risk is.

Are you unsure of your bet ramp to begin with? If so, why? Are you betting a ramp a sim told you was maximized or not?

Scared to bet a bet-ramp chosen in advance for the game you expected?

Fear and Puritan values can't change the laws of probability. The best one can do is minimize fear with a low ROR and maximize Puritan values by betting what you are supposed to and when.

A Puritan wouldn't bet at all unless he knew he was right to bet that amount.

Whatever. Just BS'ing lol.

 

[StandardDeviant]

More subtile and much less expensive (but it still costs) is that counter who runs into a few sessions of negative variance and now will no longer spread to the amounts he should spread too. The nice thing about this is you can still play a winning game but you will never make as much.

This is what is happening to me. I'll get over it, but I thought I was immune to it in the first place because I have years of trading experience and the same dynamic goes on there (except more money is involved there).

 

[StandardDeviant]

I'm going to hazard a guess - you don't have a sim, do you?

I guess this becasue you would not have a knot in your stomach when a max bet is called for becasue you already know, becasue you chose it to begin with, what your risk is.

I use CVCX and CVData and have done a lot of work with both.

Are you unsure of your bet ramp to begin with? If so, why? Are you betting a ramp a sim told you was maximized or not?

No, I know the right bet ramp from CVCX.

Scared to bet a bet-ramp chosen in advance for the game you expected?

Two sessions ago, I dropped 150 units in a few hours play. The following weekend I was down another 30 units after only 15 minutes of play. Then I get a 4-way split at a high count. Three of the hands result in double downs, so I've got 7 max bets out against a dealer 5. The dealer's hole card is a 10. I think, "Finally, I'm going to win one of these big hands." And then the dealer goes on to make a 4 card 21 to win all 7 hands. It seems that I've lost almost all of my big bets like this over the past 5 or so sessions. I know it's just an unlucky streak, but it still is hard to take.

Fear and Puritan values can't change the laws of probability. The best one can do is minimize fear with a low ROR and maximize Puritan values by betting what you are supposed to and when.

I'm typically playing with a RoR < 10%.

A Puritan wouldn't bet at all unless he knew he was right to bet that amount.

I suppose a Puritan wouldn't play the game at all. Anyway, I'm not a Puritan.

 

[bjcount]

Two sessions ago, I dropped 150 units in a few hours play. The following weekend I was down another 30 units after only 15 minutes of play. Then I get a 4-way split at a high count. Three of the hands result in double downs, so I've got 7 max bets out against a dealer 5. The dealer's hole card is a 10. I think, "Finally, I'm going to win one of these big hands." And then the dealer goes on to make a 4 card 21 to win all 7 hands. It seems that I've lost almost all of my big bets like this over the past 5 or so sessions. I know it's just an unlucky streak, but it still is hard to take.

Selective memory stinks.

We remember all the details when we lose, but remember only the great time we had when we won.

No blood spilled, you'll live to fight another battle, just don't go half cocked or you may get slaughtered.

Remember your opt bet spread only works when you follow it and put those "full" max bets out when called for. Just close your eyes, push the money out, and pray to the BJ g-ds for their help.


BJC

 

[ihate17]

Work on this

Selective memory stinks.

We remember all the details when we lose, but remember only the great time we had when we won.

No blood spilled, you'll live to fight another battle, just don't go half cocked or you may get slaughtered.

Remember your opt bet spread only works when you follow it and put those "full" max bets out when called for. Just close your eyes, push the money out, and pray to the BJ g-ds for their help.


BJC

I think you can actually help select what your selective memory remembers.
Often when you have a great session there were a few key hands that might have been the difference between having that huge session or having an unremarkable session. Or perhaps it was just a day where over and over again everything went right.
Examples:

The best session I had this year was one where over and over again I got 8,8 and most times I seemed to get an additional 8 and one or two of them became doubles. The amazing thing was that even though I seemed to be getting these pairs against dealer 9,10 and Ace, my guess was the last 9 or 10 times I split these the dealer landed up busting every time. It happened with one dealer 5 times in 2.5 shoes according to his memory. Just a real remarkable run of positive variance but by remembering this, when similar situations come up in the future and the dealer is always beating me, it becomes much easier to take.

Another: Super high count, have two max bets on the table and it seems that I am the proud owner of every low card left in the shoe. With a TC of nearly 7, only ihate17 could get a pair of 2,2 and a pair of 3,3 but thankfully the dealer showed a 7. Of course the other guy at the table had a 20.
One of the things to understand in a count that considers 7,8, and 9 neutral is you really do not know just how neutral strong or weak the remaining cards are but you are hoping for most of those cards on this kind of split.
Anyway, the two splits with another split and one double, gives me 6 max bets on the table and every hand is above an 18 and the dealer had a ten in the whole.

Or the two max bets that get two blackjacks. Remember that and the next time your two max bets result in two stiffs it might be easier to take.

S*&t happens, so try to remember the good stuff also.

ihate17

 

[StandardDeviant]

I think you can actually help select what your selective memory remembers.

Thanks. That's helpful advice, and I think you're right.

Funny thing about what happens in BJ -- the high count raises our expectation that the odds are in our favor. And while that is true, as we know, the advantage shift from house to player is pretty small. But our shift from min to max bet is pretty big, so it can feel like a disaster when the cards don't fall our way. Add to that what psychologist tell us, that the pain of losing is 3 times more intense than the pleasure from winning, and we have a challenging situation on our hands.:sad:

 

[ihate17]

why most "counters" are life time losers

Over many years I have observed many a "self proclaimed" cardcounter and based upon these observations I firmly believe that over 95% of those who say or try to count fail.

You have the guy who watches a movie and now knows everything there is to know +1 for these cards, -1 for those and when the count is high throw the money out there. He knows nothing about ROR, nothing about TC conversion, nothing about indices and odds are he does not even know basic strategy

You have the guy with a gambling problem who now thinks he can now feed his habit and win. He, even if he has studied, will fall victim to his disease and land up steaming and losing his bankroll when he runs into a run of negative variance. It is like a baseball player getting into the batter's box when he already has 3 strikes against him.

You have people who do not play, playable games and yet count.

You have people who though they may have done a good job learning a count, do not understand ROR, over bet and lose their bankroll.

You have people who after several bad beats during high counts no longer spread as they should.

Mostly you have people who have never put in the time it takes to master a counting system combined with being the master of their bankroll and then combine it with the perhaps the hardest thing, being the master of all of your emotions.

Finally, you just have the people who lie, say they are "expert" counters and five minutes of watching them lets you know that they are full of it.

ihate17