Should I leave the table is the RC goes negative

[Bojack1]

It doesn't matter how many different places you play and what rules you play if you are playing a negative game. Negative is negative no matter how you try to spin it. Also your play may vary from session to session, but it should only vary in degrees of positive expectation, not negative.

Duhh! What game in any casino is positive? Yes, we all attempt to garner an advantage so that we are playing in a positive scenario. True. But my point is for everyone to see the fuzzy aspects of the math. You don't enjoy the game because you think of it as a black/white world. I see colors. I would not play the game if I did not derive enjoyment beyond making money. But I would not play if I did not make money.
There are many techniques that can be employed beyond the obvious that most players use to try to catch an edge. Wonging might work but it's no fun and boring. Leaving a shoe every time it goes negative is a pain in the ass. All I have done is developed plays/strategies that suit my style of play and brings home the bacon. How many player can look at their logs and mathematically average a 73.6% win ratio over years???? I can. So although my stlye of play may not be text book perfect, I win.
My point is I am not a Tiger Woods...his swing and play is nearly text book perfect. I'm the rebel who swings his clubs like a baseball bat but some how compensates for that and still plays scratch golf. I never took a lesson, I read and watched and practiced...like blackjack. Get the anology?

And one final question to your post"If you play long enough in a positive scenario you will win"... are you sure? I've lost lots and lots of money during the positive swings...back to my question, when have I reached the long run?

Don't take this the wrong way, but for someone who has played this game for 30+ years you sure seem to have a limited view on advantage play. Complaining that wonging is no fun, boring, and just a pain in the ass sounds more like a recreational ploppy mentality. I agree that wonging isn't the most fun I've ever had, but in terms of playing a winning game, I'll take it over sitting at a table for hours on end playing through negative crap. Thats not my idea of fun either.

As far as finding other ways to find and exploit advantages, there are many besides just counting. My team has employed many, very successfully for years. I will admit we haven't really invented anything new, but we do play the advanced techniques to the highest level available. There are even methods of play with 0 variance and gauranteed money everytime. With any luck that will be something that won't be published for a long time.

So if you are an overall winner, good for you. It just seems out of sorts because you don't understand ROR and claim to be dealing with "fuzzy" aspects of math. The only thing about math that is fuzzy is how its applied, math itself is absolute. Your self described techniques you have developed are more in line with hunches and gut rather than math. As an AP I can't buy into such things.

And to answer your final question, yes I am sure if you play in a positive scenario over time you will eventually win. Of course there will be losses during positive situations, thats just a factor of the short term results that you don't buy into. The problem is not with the positive playing scenario but with not identifying what one is. As far as when you will hit the long term, you'll never know as you don't seem to have a trackable plan on your playing. If your claims of winning in over 30 years of play are true though, why worry about it now?

 

[Sonny]

How many player can look at their logs and mathematically average a 73.6% win ratio over years????

That depends on how often you play each year. I've heard plenty of ploppies who say that they're ahead after several years of play, but they only play 4-5 hours per year. That's no great feat. If a card counter's win ratio (I'm assuming you're talking about winning vs. losing sessions, which most counters don't really keep track of) is 74% then they obviously haven't played long enough to overcome the variance. After enough playing the ratio should approach around 52%. However, your overall advantage should be much more important to you than your session ratio. If your EV is not what you expect it to be, something is wrong.

My point is I am not a Tiger Woods...his swing and play is nearly text book perfect. I'm the rebel who swings his clubs like a baseball bat but some how compensates for that and still plays scratch golf. I never took a lesson, I read and watched and practiced...like blackjack. Get the anology?

I get it. You're Happy Gilmore.

...back to my question, when have I reached the long run?

That's easy! From the Frequently Asked Questions thread:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4891
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5913

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

[.......... It just seems out of sorts because you don't understand ROR and claim to be dealing with "fuzzy" aspects of math. The only thing about math that is fuzzy is how its applied, math itself is absolute. Your self described techniques you have developed are more in line with hunches and gut rather than math. As an AP I can't buy into such things.
......

not meaning to be argumentative here just piping in about something i know nothing about lol. sorry, but here are some links:

http://blog.peltarion.com/2006/10/25/fuzzy-math-part-1-the-theory/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Mathematics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibility_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

i think i'll read them lol.
i for one know nothing about the subject. i just know i'm pretty good at estimating things.
not sure what kind of fuzzy math eandre's refering too.

 

[Kasi]

That's If a card counter's win ratio (I'm assuming you're talking about winning vs. losing sessions, which most counters don't really keep track of) is 74% then they obviously haven't played long enough to overcome the variance. After enough playing the ratio should approach around 52%...

Wouldn't it depend on the length of sessions? If 1 hour sessions then maybe 52%, if longer, then higher.

Guess I'm thinking about Don's 240 hour playing time broken up into 6 40 hour sessions and how much a team should be compensated for after each 40 hours segment. The end result was that one would expect 4 winning 40 hour sessions and 2 losing 40 hour sessions. And you'd win more in the winning sessions than you would lose in the losing sessions.

But I guess, like you say, if the 240 hours were broken up into 240 1-hour sessions, then it would be more like 52%.

Without defining a "session" who really cares what the ratio is anyway?

Just ask Oscar who wins 4999 out of 5000 sessions playing a -EV game with a big roll. Or a 1000 unit roulette player playing red/black with a session goal of 1 unit. Etc.

 

[Sonny]

Wouldn't it depend on the length of sessions? If 1 hour sessions then maybe 52%, if longer, then higher.

Yes, but only to a point. To have a 76% win ratio in the long run would mean that you are playing over 150-hour sessions. That's a long time.

-Sonny-

 

[Kasi]

Yes, but only to a point. To have a 76% win ratio in the long run would mean that you are playing over 150-hour sessions. That's a long time.-Sonny-

Right. I'm with you.

Guess I just meant such a winning ratio may be more consistent with some kind of betting system or some kind of betting pattern different from a more traditional disciplined application of a betting plan.

No big deal either way and quite likely with a largish roll to make the occasional "deviant" bet when perhaps behind a little.

 

[bj bob]

Wouldn't it depend on the length of sessions? If 1 hour sessions then maybe 52%, if longer, then higher.

But I guess, like you say, if the 240 hours were broken up into 240 1-hour sessions, then it would be more like 52%.

Without defining a "session" who really cares what the ratio is anyway?

Kasi, didn't we get into the session thing pretty deeply back in January in the "Let's Define a Session" thread? I thought you had some pretty good ideas in regards to that.