Luck vs. probability theory

#1
I hesitate to write this as many of the contributors to this list will find it contrary to everything they believe in. But some may find it informative as to the role luck ,or lack thereof, plays in these games we love to play.
On Thursday I drove from CA to Carson City, NV with some friends to attend the Nevada State Railway Museum’s annual fund raising events. My friends are interested in steam trains. I’m not. I went to do some gambling.
I’m pretty good at BS but not 100%, maybe 95%. I follow the progressive betting stratigy where I double the last bet if I lose (OK go ahead and vent). I have a bank roll of about $4g’s. Thursday afternoon I go to the Carson Nugget. Tables are $3 to $300, single deck, hit on soft 17, no double after split, etc. Nice people, good atmosphere, I like it there. A couple of hours playing $5 hands and I’m down about $1300. OK fine I’m having some bad luck. I’ll come back Friday and try again. Friday afternoon I’m playing
two spots at $25 each. So I’m betting 25-50-100-200. If I lose the $200 bet I start over at $25. A couple of times I was at the $200 limit on both spots and had to split both at the same time for a total of $800 on the table at once. Several times I lost the $200 limit and had to start over. By dinner time I’m up $2800. After dinner I come back and play a couple hours from 10pm to midnight (I’m an old goat and I need my sleep). I’m up another $1500.
Saturday I spend more time with my friends and we go to Virginia City and look around for old train tracks and things like that. They’re really into that old train stuff. That only leaves less than an hour till dinner so
I’m not real serious about winning anything big. I’m playing one spot at $5 a hand to pass the time. I sit down at a table with my favorite dealer (a lady of about 75 years) one on one and proceed to win every hand in the first deck and about 3/4’s of the hands in the next deck. She gets replaced by a gentleman who is a little better at winning. By dinner time I cash out and am up only $102.50 for my last session.
Total winnings for the trip: $3102.50. Lessons learned: While probability theory will accurately predict the outcome over an infinite number of hands, “luck” will determine the winner in the short term. That is why they have horse races.

Good luck to all!

PS- I relate this experience not for the purpose of encouraging anyone to follow my example but merely to show that there is more to this game than theoretical probabilities.
I could have just as easily lost my bank roll given some bad luck.
 

ScottH

Well-Known Member
#3
The long run is just the sum of a whole bunch of short runs. So if something doesn't work in the long run it doesn't work in the short run either. Think about that...
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#4
Of course there is a degree of luck in BJ,just as there is some in life.
A rumor floating around the internet says that the woman who owned the apartment that Cory Liddles plane crashed into was the same woman who was struck on the head by a lightpole knocked over by one of the giant floats during the Macys Thanksgiving Parade a few years back.
That would be quite a stroke of luck,but was it bad luck that she had to endure two such frightful incidents,or good luck that she survived and will collect quite a bit of money in the settlements?
 
#5
Luck vs Probabilities

greyghost said:
PS- I relate this experience not for the purpose of encouraging anyone to follow my example but merely to show that there is more to this game than theoretical probabilities.
I could have just as easily lost my bank roll given some bad luck.
Actual play results tend to gravitate towards theoretical probabilites as play continues. During this play variance (luck) occurs. This is why simulations are run on large populations (tens of thousands of hands).

In any trip to a casino you are dealing with a small subset population, and more likely to display large abnormalities (luck/variance). I consider this as an advantage you have over the casino.

The casino must keep dealing - the player has the choice of which subset(s) to play (i.e., the player always has the right to stop at any point)! The player often has the right to choose the starting point of the subset as well. This is most significant in games where mid shoe entry is allowed, and the player uses a back count.

In backcounting the player is trying to choose an optimal point at which to begin the subset (high count). Futher, by continuing the count, the player is attempting to determine the optimal point at which to exit (low count) the subset.

If we could accurately predict the the optimal starting and ending points for our play, we could win with no bet ramp at all! We simply play only those subsets which produce wins. The reality of play (casino rules preventing you from hopping in and out of play at will) makes this more theoritcal than probable.

In fact, though, a successfull overall strategy would then seem to be one which optimally manages the subsets played as well as bet variance (ramping) within the subset.

Further, the difference between a winning and losing player may boil down to their management of which subsets to play. How many times have you seen a player experience a big run up, only to give it all back to the casino? Had the player cashed in on the run up, he would have left in a stronger position with a lower overall risk of ruin. Instead he generally gives it all back chasing the "big score", and loses his entire bankroll.

Recently I watched a player, who didn't know correct basic strategy, begin playing with about $2,000.00. After winning a few hands he decided to "press" his bets. The table experienced a very positive variance where all the players were winning. The player who pressed his bets (ramping his bets to $1,000.00 per hand) soon had accumulated over $30,000. Within hours he lost the $30,000.00 plus any additional bankroll he had in his pocket.

Rather than give it all back, had the player cashed in at $30,000.00, he would then have had 15 starting bankrolls in his pocket! Imagine if he had done this, learned correct basic strategy, and a simple counting method! Even if not wholly successful he could have stretched that bankroll out over a long period of time.

Your "luck", however, may be more than that. You were aware of the fact you had experienced an abnormality. You left the casino with an enlarged bankroll and a lower risk of total ruin for future trips. This alone sets you apart from many players.

Note: No comment on the progressive betting strategy. My response only adresses luck and the fact you left a winner.


-Buzzer
 

kender

Active Member
#6
not arguing with you, just a minor point.

If we could accurately predict the the optimal starting and ending points for our play, we could win with no bet ramp at all! We simply play only those subsets which produce wins.
Isn't this technically a bet ramp from zero to our unit?

Just a thought.
 

supercoolmancool

Well-Known Member
#7
Buzzer said:
In any trip to a casino you are dealing with a small subset population, and more likely to display large abnormalities (luck/variance). I consider this as an advantage you have over the casino.
Maybe but it is still a -EV advantage if you are not counting.

Buzzer said:
If we could accurately predict the the optimal starting and ending points for our play, we could win with no bet ramp at all! We simply play only those subsets which produce wins. The reality of play (casino rules preventing you from hopping in and out of play at will) makes this more theoritcal than probable.
Are you talking about card counting?

Buzzer said:
Further, the difference between a winning and losing player may boil down to their management of which subsets to play.
You are talking about card counting right? or just psychic power? One of the two?





Buzzer said:
Rather than give it all back, had the player cashed in at $30,000.00, he would then have had 15 starting bankrolls in his pocket! Imagine if he had done this, learned correct basic strategy, and a simple counting method! Even if not wholly successful he could have stretched that bankroll out over a long period of time.
I agree. He should have stoped, learned basic strategy and card counting.


Buzzer said:
Your "luck", however, may be more than that. You were aware of the fact you had experienced an abnormality. You left the casino with an enlarged bankroll and a lower risk of total ruin for future trips. This alone sets you apart from many players.
Actually if he had left up 30,000, his 100% risk of ruin would not have been reduced at all.
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#8
Buzzer said:
Actual play results tend to gravitate towards theoretical probabilites as play continues. During this play variance (luck) occurs. This is why simulations are run on large populations (tens of thousands of hands).

In any trip to a casino you are dealing with a small subset population, and more likely to display large abnormalities (luck/variance). I consider this as an advantage you have over the casino.

The casino must keep dealing - the player has the choice of which subset(s) to play (i.e., the player always has the right to stop at any point)! The player often has the right to choose the starting point of the subset as well. This is most significant in games where mid shoe entry is allowed, and the player uses a back count.

In backcounting the player is trying to choose an optimal point at which to begin the subset (high count). Futher, by continuing the count, the player is attempting to determine the optimal point at which to exit (low count) the subset.

If we could accurately predict the the optimal starting and ending points for our play, we could win with no bet ramp at all! We simply play only those subsets which produce wins. The reality of play (casino rules preventing you from hopping in and out of play at will) makes this more theoritcal than probable.

In fact, though, a successfull overall strategy would then seem to be one which optimally manages the subsets played as well as bet variance (ramping) within the subset.
wow Buzzer thats IMHO an accurate analysis of the way it is and whats even more interesting you seem to have employed some real independent thinking to arrive at those statements.

Buzzer said:
Further, the difference between a winning and losing player may boil down to their management of which subsets to play. How many times have you seen a player experience a big run up, only to give it all back to the casino? Had the player cashed in on the run up, he would have left in a stronger position with a lower overall risk of ruin. Instead he generally gives it all back chasing the "big score", and loses his entire bankroll.

Recently I watched a player, who didn't know correct basic strategy, begin playing with about $2,000.00. After winning a few hands he decided to "press" his bets. The table experienced a very positive variance where all the players were winning. The player who pressed his bets (ramping his bets to $1,000.00 per hand) soon had accumulated over $30,000. Within hours he lost the $30,000.00 plus any additional bankroll he had in his pocket.

Rather than give it all back, had the player cashed in at $30,000.00, he would then have had 15 starting bankrolls in his pocket! Imagine if he had done this, learned correct basic strategy, and a simple counting method! Even if not wholly successful he could have stretched that bankroll out over a long period of time.

Your "luck", however, may be more than that. You were aware of the fact you had experienced an abnormality. You left the casino with an enlarged bankroll and a lower risk of total ruin for future trips. This alone sets you apart from many players.

Note: No comment on the progressive betting strategy. My response only adresses luck and the fact you left a winner.


-Buzzer
you have pretty well summed up many of the thoughts that i hold with respect to this issue : http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=19691&postcount=20

here is the thing that gets me. this is really not the way an advantage player would conventionaly approach making loot from the casinos. essentially what the advantage player does is to turn the tables on the casino and use it's own tactics. just as the dealer mindlessly plays on and hits till 17 winning loot hand over fist to the amazement and perplexion of the less knowledgable players at the tables and just as the casino blackjack tables keep mindlessly cranking out lucrative session after session raking in the players loot well the advantage player is supposed to do just that. play on and on and on employing his statistical edge and raking in the loot.
but what sticks in my mind what i have to ponder and consider is the scenerio that you illustrate above. what if an advantage player wins a significant amount of loot in a short term session? surely there must be some advantage in taking a breather and reframing ones tactics for play with respect to such new found fortune. to squander it would in my mind be ludicrous. we speak of Kelly betting and unfortuantely it mostly in referance to the risk of it and what to do when a downward swing in our bankroll rears it's ugly head but rarely have i heard it proposed how to referance Kelly when lady luck smiles upon us. i should imagine the advantage in such ponderings is realitively small but in my mind for one to not try and latch onto these small fortunate events is the hight of folly. the problem becomes at what point do you decide hey it's time to quit, have a party and get some sleep. i'm thinking the standard deviation and desired amount of time spent playing can help one make the decision. how to glean the most advantage out of those fortunate wins is another issue for which it seems almost fruitless to ponder but i suspect there may be a worth while viable advantage.
the question at least qualitatively i believe can be summoned up by this imagination. suppose i win $30,000 in one night. how many nights of normal advantage blackjack play can i expect to play before i reach $30,000 . i mean come on doesn't it make sense to stop play and think a little bit :rolleyes: .
undoubtably we love to play blackjack and want to continue to play blackjack and make even more money but for me certain situations just scream out to me saying stop, think.

best regards,
mr fr0g :D
 

supercoolmancool

Well-Known Member
#9
HAHA you have fallen for the oldest fallacy in the book:laugh:

You win a %^** ton of dough, and then, just like buzzer is afraid to play anymore blackjack, you are too.

Let's say you are playing an online casino bonus and have calculated your EV to be $90. Let's say you lose your first hand. Your EV is no longer $90. You probably think to yourself," I was expected to make $90. If I keep playing then I am expected to go back up."

Wrong you are never expected to back up. You can only expect to lose money.

You if a card counter was to make way more than EV he should not be afraid and be like, "Ok I am expected to be up 2000 after 400 hours of play and am up 50000. That means I am going to lose it all right???"

WRONG

However....in the long run you will still reach EV. If a card counter who starts out losing 50,000 after 200 hours and another card counter us up 50,000 after 2 hours, they have the exact same EV for the next 200 hours. And actually interestingly enough in the long run they will both be expected to have the same amount of money because of limits. The +50,000 may have $50,000 over EV and the -$50,000 may have 50,000 under EV but it will be meaningless in the longrun because we will be talking about millions and billions of dollars so you should not stop playing because you are always expected to make money. You can never expect a huge negative EV fluxuation to wipe out your huge positve EV fluxuation. As I repeat myself over and over. If you are +200 units over EV than you are expect to be up in the long run +200 + EV but only you +200 will be insignificant.

Your point on how being up 30000 screams at you to stop is not that bad of a point though. When you are up a ton of money then you need to adjust your risk of ruin. Generally you are going to want to make that as close to zero as you can because losing it would be so much more devastating. That way you can both guarentee that you will not lose your money, and you can continue card counting.
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#10
greyghost said:
I hesitate to write this as many of the contributors to this list will find it contrary to everything they believe in.
Actually, the math supports your theories very well. I think we all believe in the same things that you do. All good players are very aware of the extreme variance associated with BJ and are adamant about finding ways to minimize it. Here are a few good articles about fluctuations:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/girlfun.html
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/longrun.htm
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/counterstory.html

greyghost said:
Lessons learned: While probability theory will accurately predict the outcome over an infinite number of hands, “luck” will determine the winner in the short term.
That’s true, but it doesn’t take infinite hands to realize long-term results. I think many people don’t realize how short the “long-run” can be if you optimize your play.

-Sonny-
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#11
supercoolmancool said:
Are you talking about card counting? You are talking about card counting right? or just psychic power? One of the two?
Yeah, he means card counting:

BUZZER said:
"In backcounting the player is trying to choose an optimal point at which to begin the subset (high count). Futher, by continuing the count, the player is attempting to determine the optimal point at which to exit (low count) the subset."
supercoolmancool said:
Actually if he had left up 30,000, his 100% risk of ruin would not have been reduced at all.
Good point! :)

-Sonny-
 

ScottH

Well-Known Member
#12
Buzzer said:
Rather than give it all back, had the player cashed in at $30,000.00, he would then have had 15 starting bankrolls in his pocket!
-Buzzer
Much better than having 15 2k bankrolls is to have one 30,000 bankroll. You can play much higher stakes and have a much higher EV.
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#13
supercoolmancool said:
Actually if he had left up 30,000, his 100% risk of ruin would not have been reduced at all.
lets look at this from another perspective. let us suppose he can count cards.
further lets allow him to improve his expertise by 0.1% before he plays again.
how would he do so? i don't know maybe go to another casino with a better game, practice hard, spread higher .... what ever.
that would be about $30 improvement in ev wouldn't it? just from the $30 g's fortune and improved play tactic.

best regards,
mr fr0g :D
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#14
supercoolmancool said:
HAHA you have fallen for the oldest fallacy in the book:laugh:

You win a %^** ton of dough, and then, just like buzzer is afraid to play anymore blackjack, you are too.
not really supercool. i don't subscribe to the gamblers fallacy :eek: .
what i do fear is losing a lot of money for what ever reason. :yikes:
before seeing this post i made the one below which really more well reflects my line of reasoning as you further alluded to below.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=19914&postcount=13

supercoolmancool said:
...........
Your point on how being up 30000 screams at you to stop is not that bad of a point though. When you are up a ton of money then you need to adjust your risk of ruin. Generally you are going to want to make that as close to zero as you can because losing it would be so much more devastating. That way you can both guarentee that you will not lose your money, and you can continue card counting.
i understand the point you was making in the portions deleted as well as in the portion i have left undeleted.
something i believe is pertainent here. fundamentally our fantastic advantage play methodologies not withstanding the really reason we can prevail against the casino's is that it is for us much easier to employ wisdom than it is for the casino to do so. why so? because no matter how you shake it we are not computers, we have limited resources , we are fallable, we are truly gambling and yet we can think whereas the casino blackjack game as it is set up can not think asside from the limited intervention that a pit boss can employ.

best regards,
mr fr0g :D
 
#15
ScottH said:
Much better than having 15 2k bankrolls is to have one 30,000 bankroll. You can play much higher stakes and have a much higher EV.
Sonny said:
Yeah, he means card counting
Everyone else is assuming he is talking about card counting. He did mention it but if you go back it seems that he is not talking about card counting. If he was then everything he said would be true but he seemed to suggest that the players have an advantage because they can choose when to play and when to walk away without counting.
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#16
supercoolmancool said:
Everyone else is assuming he is talking about card counting. He did mention it but if you go back it seems that he is not talking about card counting. If he was then everything he said would be true but he seemed to suggest that the players have an advantage because they can choose when to play and when to walk away without counting.
buzzer is IMHO very unconventional with respect to what one might expect for an advantage player. seems as if he employs some independent thinking that along with research into conventional advantage play has given him a good grasp of how to get at the casinos. from my perspective he is playing with fire when he dabbles with progressions.

best regards,
mr fr0g :D
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#17
supercoolmancool said:
.........
You if a card counter was to make way more than EV he should not be afraid and be like, "Ok I am expected to be up 2000 after 400 hours of play and am up 50000. That means I am going to lose it all right???"
WRONG
agreed! :) ....edit i would like to add that i think reduction in playing time should be a factor one considers when deciding to play on.

supercoolmancool said:
However....in the long run you will still reach EV. If a card counter who starts out losing 50,000 after 200 hours and another card counter us up 50,000 after 2 hours, they have the exact same EV for the next 200 hours. And actually interestingly enough in the long run they will both be expected to have the same amount of money because of limits. The +50,000 may have $50,000 over EV and the -$50,000 may have 50,000 under EV but it will be meaningless in the longrun because we will be talking about millions and billions of dollars so you should not stop playing because you are always expected to make money. You can never expect a huge negative EV fluxuation to wipe out your huge positve EV fluxuation. As I repeat myself over and over. If you are +200 units over EV than you are expect to be up in the long run +200 + EV but only you +200 will be insignificant.
.........
we are in agreement here also. i just want to make one point with respect to this scenerio. the guy who lost $50 grand after 200 hours may be in danger of realizing his worst nightmare ie. where in his ROR he is one of the ones who loses his entire bankroll. the guy who won the $50 grand after playing 2 hours is in much better shape of never being one of the unlucky ones who loses all of his bankroll according to his ROR.

best regards,
mr fr0g :D
 
#18
When to cash in you chips

supercoolmancool said:
Maybe but it is still a -EV advantage if you are not counting.



Are you talking about card counting?



You are talking about card counting right? or just psychic power? One of the two?







I agree. He should have stoped, learned basic strategy and card counting.




Actually if he had left up 30,000, his 100% risk of ruin would not have been reduced at all.
I was referring to card counting and/or any other method (shuffle tracking, seeing the card on the bottom of the deck, etc) that would accurately predict the starting point of any positive subset.

I agree that his total risk of ruin, given tens of thousands of hands, would not be significantly reduced by stopping at the point where he was up $30,000. Given an unlimited bankroll, an advantage player would realize the greatest overall return by continuing to play. Most of us, though, have limited bankrolls, and our goal is to keep increasing the size. Leaving the casino with a larger bankroll than when you started makes you stronger, better prepared to deal with future negative variances.

I constantly see players have a nice run up and give it all back, plus their starting bankroll. Are you suggesting that this is the proper method?

I play a lot of short sessions with a goal of leaving the casino with more cash than when I started. I often skip the last session if I am up nicely. My logic is that if I experience a negative variance I won't have time to recover.

Isn't the goal for the trip a subset of your total goal? I understand what you all are saying, which is basically that if you have an advantage - continuing to play only increases the probability of more returns.

My position comes from a fear of losing all or a large part of my bankroll. What I am doing may not maximize my returns, but it sure makes me feel better on the drive home!

One other note:

The only progressions I've ever dabbled with have been count modified. In this case it could just as easily be referred to as a bet ramp as a progression. Continuing a progression only in the face of positive counts versus increasing bets in the face of positive counts uses very similar logic.

-Buzzer


-Buzzer
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#19
Buzzer said:
................
One other note:

The only progressions I've ever dabbled with have been count modified. In this case it could just as easily be referred to as a bet ramp as a progression. Continuing a progression only in the face of positive counts versus increasing bets in the face of positive counts uses very similar logic.

-Buzzer
maybe i'm off base about this and how you go about it. i didn't get the impression that you considered the optimality of the progression bets with respect to the advantage (precisly), the associated risk with respect to your bankroll and Kelly betting implications. point being that progressions can go disasterously bad with variance as can optimal betting also but at least with optimal betting the disaster should be minimized.
best regards,
mr fr0g :D
 

traynor

Active Member
#20
luck and probability

Publisher Lyle Stuart (a VERY serious bettor, with a "normal" bet of $2000) wrote a similar description of his experiences with baccarat, and in one of his books, with blackjack. He considered his mood and mental state of more significance than the probabilities involved.

Specifically, he studied what and how he thought/felt/behaved during sessions in which he won, and in sessions in which he lost. By identifying the difference, he was able to "predict" when his playing sessions would be very positive, average, or negative. By avoiding the "negative sessions" (his mood, not count), and leaning into the "positive sessions" he ran a quarter mil in the black over a couple of trips to Vegas. And wrote a fascinating book about it.

All bull, right? Not so fast in the judgement call. Consider, if you are counting, and you find a particularly advantageous situation, is there a change in your mood? Conversely, when the count goes sour, is there a corresponding change in your mood? The question becomes, which comes first?

In short, is it possible that Stuart "knew," from watching the shuffle, that he was more likely to win the next few hands, increased his bets, and won? Perhaps not consciously, but sufficiently "conscious" to feel a touch of elation, and one of those "I am unbeatable" moments that come all to rarely?

I have seen some uncanny events in time dilation experiments in psych research, in which the subject believes that "time" is slowed down. If you are interested, you might look for the time dilation references in Charles Tart's "Altered States of Consciousness" that involved Aldous Huxley and Milton Erickson. If such things can be done in time dilation experiments, it is obviously a capability of normal human function that can be applied to other situations.

Was Stuart "psychic"? Not at all. He just discovered that in particular states--relaxed, confident, and focused--he was "luckier." While some counters may feel threatened at the notion, I think it is more threatening to ignore a possible advantage that can be fairly easily gained with a little introspection.

Of course, all this can be blown off in a flash by recalling those situations in which you felt poorly, broke, busted, never-gonna-win-another-hand, and had an incredible run of cards that was better than anything you have experienced in a "positive" state, and finished the session 50 units up.

I think for most bettors, there is a very strong correlation between self-confidence, mood, and winning. Whether it is an uptick in mood because you realize the count strongly favors you, which in turn increases your confidence that you will win, or some other scenario, the bottom line is that emotional states and winning are often correlated. Perhaps not cause-and-effect, but definitely correlated.

Good Luck :)
 
Top