Just lost a massive 100 units

JohnCrover · May 30, 2018

The title says it all. Lost a massive 100 units. I don't know what to do with myself. Am I being CHEATED? I can't be counting cards correctly if I lost 100 units. That adds up to what? 10 whole max bets??? I was tempted to ask the pit boss if he could run a skill check on me to see if I was counting cards correctly but even I'm not that stupid.

Hell'nBack · May 30, 2018

JohnCrover said:

My last session I burned up 30 max bets. Yeah, I counted correctly but I'm still pissed. At this juncture I'm minus 100 maxies. Woo hoo!

Talmadge · May 30, 2018

JohnCrover said:

I dont think that you are being cheated.
Losing 10 max bets isn't all that uncommon, and as HellnBack mentioned losing 30 max bets is also possible.
Hopefully your next session swings the other way!
Just for clarification, are you saying that your min bet is your unit?
I think a lot of players define there unit in different ways.
I've always described my unit as how much i bet at my first .5% advantage and increase by that amount at each .5% advantage after that.

Ryemo · May 30, 2018

10 max bets? I’ve lost 23 max bets before in a SINGLE shoe... not one session. One 6D shoe. It’s happened more than once too.

You aren’t being cheated. It’s called variance.

21forme · May 30, 2018

Yes, varianance happens!

KewlJ · May 30, 2018

Ryemo said:

21forme said:

Yep, not only does variance happen....but variance is our best friend. Without variance every counter and his brother

would be.... Hum, let's try a different route. Variance is what allows casinos to be able to still offer beatable games.

My worse losses have occurred at some of the best games I have played. And that makes sense. Deeper penetration, especially heads up or with one other player, makes for far more max bet opportunities. And sometimes you lose the majority, even the vast majority, of those opportunities.

But other times these same better conditions will return some of your bigger wins.

It's little consolation when you are losing but these better conditions, means you are really building EV and that's the name of the game. In the end results will come back in line with EV. Somebody I know used to have a signature to that effect.

KewlJ · May 30, 2018

The thing with these big negative swings of variance, is that you just have to go through them a few times. You have to experience going in the hole big time and eventually coming out the other side and everything is right back where it should be. Each time you go through it, it becomes less stressful, and after a few rides of that rollercoaster, you don't even think about it anymore. It is just normal.

KewlJ · May 30, 2018

Talmadge said:

I believe this misuse and misunderstanding of "unit" is one of the more damaging aspects of the game that must be overcome by new counters.

The unit is an amount wagered at certain increments of advantage, usually either .5% or 1%. This should be the amount the player raises as he is going up the betting ramp. The minimum wager is not the unit...it is just that....minimum wager and should be a fraction of the unit. If a player uses his minimum wager as a unit, he will be raising much too slowly and his betting ramp will be much too shallow and the max bet territory rarely realized.

I have said it before and gotten some blow back for it, but I believe some of the books from the 80's and 90's are responsible for this misunderstanding and misuse of "unit". For example in Professional Blackjack, Wong used a "benchmark" bankroll of $10,000 and had a minimum bet of $10 which he referred to as unit. His betting ramp then increased by this "false unit" to $20 @ tc +2, $30 @ tc +3, $40 @ tc +4 and so on.

Maybe that worked for that time and conditions (better), but in today's world that means a player is not going to be realizing his max bet of say $120 (1-12 spread) or $160 (1-16 spread) until TC's of +12 or +16, which for all intensive purposes don't occur. By using that methodology and shallow betting ramp, a player is really playing to a much smaller spread.

Each time I have posted these thoughts, it feels like I am picking on Stanford Wong and I am not. Other authors of that time (not Don S) did the same thing. As I said, it may have worked for the times and conditions, but doesn't work for today's games and conditions. In today's world the unit needs to be a multiple of the minimum wager (or the minimum wager a fraction of the unit) and wagers raised by this unit or multiple, so you get to the higher end of your spread by a TC of +4 or so. Otherwise that max bet occurs too infrequently to do you much good.

JJP · May 30, 2018

A question for some of you veterans. I believe it was in Blackjack Attack, Don mentioned not raising his bet following a loss (even if the TC is rising). Do you utilize that strategy? I like it, and during a recent 5 session run of bad variance, the results were merely bad; not catastrophically horrific (and they very well could have been).

KewlJ · May 30, 2018

JJP said:

I don't recall Don stating that, but I don't have every piece of info memorized. So in what context was he saying this? What was his reasoning? Something along the lines of cover or some mathematical reason?

I don't adhere to that rule. As a matter of fact, I sort of go with the opposite philosophy. Losses are the perfect time to change you wager size as you have to go to your chips anyway. Increasing after a loss mimics players that chase losses. It is after wins that I limit changing my bets. It is kind of unusual for a regular player to reduce their bet after a win. I also limit raising after a win to using the chips in play, meaning in most cases I will only double up my bet, by placing winning wager on top. With double downs and split wins, or a blackjack, you can increase more than double. What I am trying to avoid is going to my chip pile while there are chips, even more than my last bet still in play. That too is pretty unnatural.

How many times do you see someone win a $50 bet and then bet not only their original $50, plus $50 won, but still go to their chips for more of an increase? These are minor things, but most regular players just don't jump from $50 to $300 after a win.

JJP · May 30, 2018

KewlJ said:

I don't recall Don stating that, but I don't have every piece of info memorized. So in what context was he saying this? What was his reasoning? Something along the lines of cover or some mathematical reason?

I don't adhere to that rule. As a matter of fact, I sort of go with the opposite philosophy. Losses are the perfect time to change you wager size as you have to go to your chips anyway. Increasing after a loss mimics players that chase losses. It is after wins that I limit changing my bets. It is kind of unusual for a regular player to reduce their bet after a win. I also limit raising after a win to using the chips in play, meaning in most cases I will only double up my bet, by placing winning wager on top. With double downs and split wins, or a blackjack, you can increase more than double. What I am trying to avoid is going to my chip pile while there are chips, even more than my last bet still in play. That too is pretty unnatural.

How many times do you see someone win a $50 bet and then bet not only their original $50, plus $50 won, but still go to their chips for more of an increase? These are minor things, but most regular players just don't jump from $50 to $300 after a win.

I would have to look it up in the book, but I believe it was a form of cover. It just looks odd raising following a loss (or multiple losses).

KewlJ · May 30, 2018

JJP said:

I guess I just disagree with this.

Most progressive players wager more after losses. Casino's LOVE progressive players.

Players that "chase", bet more after a loss or series of losses, trying to win their money back. Casino's LOVE players that chase losses.

The basic premise is chips already on the felt as opposed to in your stack. After a win you already have double the chips already on the felt, more than double in the case of blackjacks, double downs and splits. But conversely, after a loss there are no chips remaining on the felt. A player must go to his stack, so it is not unusual to play a different amount. Of course there are limitations. You can't throw out $500 after losing a $25 bet regardless of count.

One of my pet peeves is a push. It is very unnatural to bet anything other than the same amount.

stopgambling · May 30, 2018

you only have a 1% advantage and that is very tiny. i hope you realized that . Someone can win playing with a 1% disadvantage for 1000s of rounds .good luck .

stopgambling · May 30, 2018

KewlJ said:

it is just a tell that the casino staff were told to look for , thinking they are smart ( of course as a counter we can not do that ). Just go to a baccarat table any of these bet jumping is not unnatural . it is only in bj that players are considered doing something " abnormal " eg. counting . I have seen big bettor getting away with all sort of thing in baccarat such as yelling / blaming dealers , cussing toward the dealer in the most insulting way, ripping cards , throwing cards at dealers . Nobody(casino staff) dare to say a thing ,yet they give counters /wannabe counters a dirty look if one raise their bets too fast.

JJP · May 30, 2018

KewlJ said:

They are either Martingale-ing, or just on tilt. Those that vastly overbet often end up not coming back. I know a guy who got lucky his first time playing blackjack. I asked him if he counted. "No, but I have a system." His "system" was nothing more than a variation of Martingale. After 3-4 trips, he ultimately got buried (big surprise) and never went back.

21forme · May 30, 2018

KewlJ said:

I do. It had nothing to do with variance "control." It had to do with cover strategy and analyzing how that cover affects EV.

Hell'nBack · May 30, 2018

21forme said:

That was the inference I got as well.

JJP · May 31, 2018

It was about cover. Benefitting from "variance control" was a happy accident. Or somewhat happy accident.

SplitFaceDisaster · May 31, 2018

I`m no veteran, but I agree that I see people increasing bets after losses a lot. Years ago I`m sure that wasn`t the case or he wouldn`t have mentioned anything about it. Some people won`t increase their bet once through a few shoes whether winning or losing, then after losing a bunch, just lose their mind all of a sudden and put all their chips in the circle. Others are really erratic and seem to have no semblance of any kind of game plan, betting random amounts whether they win or lose. The "non-plan" plan, if anyone gets my reference. I guess the reason that I mention these things is that it`s great for counters that there are people that do all kinds of craziness at the table. Not that it makes us undetectable by any stretch, but it does make it at least a little harder in a short session to peg someone as a counter with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. For anyone who wants to simulate any of these scenarios, I have to suggest getting CVData if you don`t have it already. If you want to know the costs of any specific betting strategy it`ll calculate it for you down to the penny.

xengrifter · May 31, 2018

JJP said:

KewlJ said:

Yes, strictly cover...and he later conceded that he didn't realize how costly that sort of rudimentary cover cost.

Remember that Don "patterned his game" after Lawrence Revere - Revere's standard betting was that the ONLY time you increased your bet arbitrarily was from one "UNIT" to two...after which further increases were restricted solely to a win/parlay.

Just lost a massive 100 units

Banned

Well-Known 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

Well-Known 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