SplitFaceDisaster question answered

[KewlJ]

This is a little odd, but on another site that I participate at, SplitFaceDisaster asked a question that I am going to answer here. That particular site has deteriorated so much that there is really no reason for legitimate blackjack discussions.

Another thing I was wondering about; even though you don`t do much of it, has your higher stakes play ever made a huge impact (good or bad) on your yearly results? I would think at higher stakes even just one really terrible shoe or a really epic one could have the potential to affect your results in a huge way even with getting a lot of hours in at the lower stakes...

The short answer is yes, playing at difference stakes can/will increase variance and swings. But I rarely do short answers, so I will add that I don't worry about variance very much. In my opinion some on these sites are overly obsessed with reducing variance. Variance is part of the game. I accept it. If you are properly bankrolled there is no reason to fear variance.

My top priority is longevity and to that extent, I do some things that do increase variance in the name of longevity. Playing different stakes, spreads and max bets is one such thing. The spread I choose for different games in my rotation is based on what I have determined is well tolerated for each circumstance and that changes by casino, day and time.

AND it gets even worse than that, because I have some properties that I use multiple spreads and max bets (sometimes significantly different) within the same sessions. This really messes with variance, but is very beneficial for longevity.

To your specific question, I suppose if I were to experience losing sessions on all of those times that I employed my bigger spreads and max bets, while winning the sessions with smaller spreads and max bets, it would really screw with results. But you would sort of have to be the unluckiest person alive for that to happen and since Zenking has already assumed that role of unluckiest person alive, I am free to go about just having 'normal' luck, in which case everything will (and has so far) worked out longterm.

 

[SplitFaceDisaster]

This is a little odd, but on another site that I participate at, SplitFaceDisaster asked a question that I am going to answer here. That particular site has deteriorated so much that there is really no reason for legitimate blackjack discussions.



The short answer is yes, playing at difference stakes can/will increase variance and swings. But I rarely do short answers, so I will add that I don't worry about variance very much. In my opinion some on these sites are overly obsessed with reducing variance. Variance is part of the game. I accept it. If you are properly bankrolled there is no reason to fear variance.

My top priority is longevity and to that extent, I do some things that do increase variance in the name of longevity. Playing different stakes, spreads and max bets is one such thing. The spread I choose for different games in my rotation is based on what I have determined is well tolerated for each circumstance and that changes by casino, day and time.

AND it gets even worse than that, because I have some properties that I use multiple spreads and max bets (sometimes significantly different) within the same sessions. This really messes with variance, but is very beneficial for longevity.

To your specific question, I suppose if I were to experience losing sessions on all of those times that I employed my bigger spreads and max bets, while winning the sessions with smaller spreads and max bets, it would really screw with results. But you would sort of have to be the unluckiest person alive for that to happen and since Zenking has already assumed that role of unluckiest person alive, I am free to go about just having 'normal' luck, in which case everything will (and has so far) worked out longterm.

Thank you for answering, I appreciate that. Having the mindset to accept variance is one thing, but then taking higher stakes shots than what you usually play (even ones you`re bankrolled plenty well enough for) adds a whole other level of complexity to all of it. So that`s why I was wondering if there were any crazy results that ever made you have second thoughts about be willing to play those higher stakes. Sounds like you`re so past being results-oriented that it doesn`t affect you in the slightest though, and you can just see seeking the EV for purely that and not sweat the outcome. Props for that. That`s one of those mental qualities of the game that looks easy on paper, but then when you`re going through it is much more difficult. I think most people have to go through these types of mental challenges with the game for a little while before getting to the point of being cold as ice about it. I`m not quite where I want to be in this aspect of it yet because sometimes I have certain nagging thoughts about the variance that I need to let go of. None of these things affect me much at least so far, but I do want to get to the point where my mind doesn`t even begin to go there. As time passes I think I`m getting better with it though.

 

[KewlJ]

"Past result oriented"?? No I don't think that at all. I am very much result oriented. Aren't we all?

My mission is to build as much EV throughout the year as I can while preserving longevity (my top priority). This means I will play the highest level that I can play that doesn't jeopardize my ability to play in the future play. And unfortunately that level is not universal, it varies by casino and circumstances.

But I didn't get here overnight. Earlier in this thread I said "I accept variance" and "I don't worry all that much about variance". That wasn't always the case. There was a time that I did sweat variance....and complained about it on these very forums, just as some do now. I happen to think this is one of the benefits of these forums, to sound off a bit, and read the experiences of others that have or might be going through similar experiences.

And while do completely accept variance as part of the game at this point, I do have a younger blackjack partner, just finishing his second year as my partner, his third playing the game, who still "frets" variance very much, so in a sense I am still dealing with the issue.

I think a big part of "accepting variance" is being properly bankrolled. Players who are playing smaller bankrolls or are in the process of building their bankroll to desired amount are going to be much more concerned about variance. Maybe top priority.

 

[SplitFaceDisaster]

"Past result oriented"?? No I don't think that at all. I am very much result oriented. Aren't we all?

My mission is to build as much EV throughout the year as I can while preserving longevity (my top priority). This means I will play the highest level that I can play that doesn't jeopardize my ability to play in the future play. And unfortunately that level is not universal, it varies by casino and circumstances.

But I didn't get here overnight. Earlier in this thread I said "I accept variance" and "I don't worry all that much about variance". That wasn't always the case. There was a time that I did sweat variance....and complained about it on these very forums, just as some do now. I happen to think this is one of the benefits of these forums, to sound off a bit, and read the experiences of others that have or might be going through similar experiences.

And while do completely accept variance as part of the game at this point, I do have a younger blackjack partner, just finishing his second year as my partner, his third playing the game, who still "frets" variance very much, so in a sense I am still dealing with the issue.

I think a big part of "accepting variance" is being properly bankrolled. Players who are playing smaller bankrolls or are in the process of building their bankroll to desired amount are going to be much more concerned about variance. Maybe top priority.

I guess I just meant you handle the results way better now than most that are just getting used to the swings. There`s no way to truly escape being results-oriented unless you`re a robot. I`m referring to more of the "how long things haunt you mentally" part of it. For instance, let`s say it`s the last day I`m going to play before taking a day off. I`ve won every session so far and a pretty good chunk of money for my stakes. One last place to play and it`s not the most stellar game, but more than playable. One voice is saying just stop here on a good note, and another is saying to get the hands in and not come up short for the week in hands played. Any other day I wouldn`t be thinking like this, but anyway I do what I should do and go play it to get the play time in that I need to reach my goal. Then proceed to erase all the earnings for the day plus more. I tell myself "it`s all one long session", but still a part of me is pissed off about it. Things have happened like this multiple times and I let it go a little easier as time goes along. Still, I want to get to the point where I don`t even think twice about it. I think you just have to go through these things multiple times before it doesn`t bother you that much. That specific situation is what made me want to ask you the question above, because playing higher stakes than normal is kind of like a twist on what I described, but on steroids since it can make such a huge difference.

 

[KewlJ]

On another blackjack forum before I was banned, I used a signature line that went something like this: "I measure results in accumulated EV rather than actual wins and losses. That way everyday is a winning day and in the end the two will always come back together".

The "that way every day is a winning one" was meant to be humorous (although true) so set that aside. But if you can develop the mindset that the rest of that statement represents, it frees you from any kind of worry about the short-term swings....make that the meaningless short term swings.

 

[Dummy]

The short answer is yes, playing at difference stakes can/will increase variance and swings. But I rarely do short answers, so I will add that I don't worry about variance very much. In my opinion some on these sites are overly obsessed with reducing variance. Variance is part of the game. I accept it. If you are properly bankrolled there is no reason to fear variance.

I often express a different opinion because that is my preference, but I would like to say that if you have KJ's attitude and the BR to back it up there is nothing bad about doing this. Your results will just be much more chaotic on the way to the same long run. If you embrace this and get lots of play in so "time" (rounds) passes faster you will get to the long run where swings should balance out soon enough. When swings don't cooperate, that could happen no matter what approach you take. Penetration and N0 rethinks you can influence to some extent that have the biggest inpact on generating EV and getting to the long run sooner.

My top priority is longevity and to that extent, I do some things that do increase variance in the name of longevity. Playing different stakes, spreads and max bets is one such thing. The spread I choose for different games in my rotation is based on what I have determined is well tolerated for each circumstance and that changes by casino, day and time.

My top priority is longevity as well. And while much of what I do is to limit swings at no cost in EV, the primary reason I pursued the approaches is to increase longevity.

And while do completely accept variance as part of the game at this point, I do have a younger blackjack partner, just finishing his second year as my partner, his third playing the game, who still "frets" variance very much, so in a sense I am still dealing with the issue.

In the same situation. My partner just went through the meat grinder. He puts way too much pressure on himself to earn today. You do what you can to control what you think is wise to control and then let the wins come to you in the long run.

This is a little odd, but on another site that I participate at, SplitFaceDisaster asked a question that I am going to answer here. That particular site has deteriorated so much that there is really no reason for legitimate blackjack discussions.



The short answer is yes, playing at difference stakes can/will increase variance and swings. But I rarely do short answers, so I will add that I don't worry about variance very much. In my opinion some on these sites are overly obsessed with reducing variance. Variance is part of the game. I accept it. If you are properly bankrolled there is no reason to fear variance.

My top priority is longevity and to that extent, I do some things that do increase variance in the name of longevity. Playing different stakes, spreads and max bets is one such thing. The spread I choose for different games in my rotation is based on what I have determined is well tolerated for each circumstance and that changes by casino, day and time.

AND it gets even worse than that, because I have some properties that I use multiple spreads and max bets (sometimes significantly different) within the same sessions. This really messes with variance, but is very beneficial for longevity.

To your specific question, I suppose if I were to experience losing sessions on all of those times that I employed my bigger spreads and max bets, while winning the sessions with smaller spreads and max bets, it would really screw with results. But you would sort of have to be the unluckiest person alive for that to happen and since Zenking has already assumed that role of unluckiest person alive, I am free to go about just having 'normal' luck, in which case everything will (and has so far) worked out longterm.

That is the attitude everyone should have. Especially those that introduce extra variance into the equation for whatever reason made sense to them.

Great post KJ.

 

[Dummy]

For instance, let`s say it`s the last day I`m going to play before taking a day off. I`ve won every session so far and a pretty good chunk of money for my stakes. One last place to play and it`s not the most stellar game, but more than playable. One voice is saying just stop here on a good note, and another is saying to get the hands in and not come up short for the week in hands played. Any other day I wouldn`t be thinking like this, but anyway I do what I should do and go play it to get the play time in that I need to reach my goal. Then proceed to erase all the earnings for the day plus more. I tell myself "it`s all one long session", but still a part of me is pissed off about it.

To an extent the comments that follow are voodoo. In that I mean they are not based in any long term math. But the comments are important considerations to deal with being a pro that pays bills from playing. Mathematically there is no reason not to play more. But you need to withdraw money from your BR periodically as actual time passes. Locking in the profits to let actual time pass increases the certainty that you can withdraw funds while continuing to grow your BR at the cost of that visits EV. You have the math playing against the practical and the right answer may depend on who you are and/or your particular situation at the time.

 

[psyduck]

My top priority is longevity as well.

Longevity on a website or in a casino?

 

[BoSox]

My top priority is longevity as well. And while much of what I do is to limit swings at no cost in EV, the primary reason I pursued the approaches is to increase longevity.

Dummy, you have stated in the past that you often quickly make your session goal and that you are content and not greedy and leave before anyone has a chance to get a good look at your game. Sounds good but let's examine a little further. Say for example last month you played a total of 30 hours "mostly Spanish21" and you averaged $250 an hour win for a total of $7500. In that same month let's say your next door neighbor made $3000 in the same month working 200 hours at $15 an hour at McDonald's. On the surface, it looks like a really poor comparison but we are leaving out the all-important internet time. The neighbor already knows how to do his job and has no need or desire to tell anyone how he does it, so let's give him zero added time.

As for yourself, you like to state that your internet time is your free time but is it actually free time or an obsession? Again in the example, you put in 360 hours, or 12 hours a day for the month "I am being kind" not out of the realm of a possibility. Considering the desire you have to debate and attempt to prove others wrong, and you always include how good you are. Adding in 30 hours of playing time you have 390 hours. Final tally comes out to $19.23 an hour. Of course, your fringe "free" benefits are far greater than the neighbor considering everyone loves you and you are always welcome back. As your only concern is lifetime backoffs for accumulated wins that are far greater than others backed off for the same reason in the same stores.

 

[BJgenius007]

This is a little odd, but on another site that I participate at, SplitFaceDisaster asked a question that I am going to answer here. That particular site has deteriorated so much that there is really no reason for legitimate blackjack discussions.



The short answer is yes, playing at difference stakes can/will increase variance and swings. But I rarely do short answers, so I will add that I don't worry about variance very much. In my opinion some on these sites are overly obsessed with reducing variance. Variance is part of the game. I accept it. If you are properly bankrolled there is no reason to fear variance.

My top priority is longevity and to that extent, I do some things that do increase variance in the name of longevity. Playing different stakes, spreads and max bets is one such thing. The spread I choose for different games in my rotation is based on what I have determined is well tolerated for each circumstance and that changes by casino, day and time.

AND it gets even worse than that, because I have some properties that I use multiple spreads and max bets (sometimes significantly different) within the same sessions. This really messes with variance, but is very beneficial for longevity.

To your specific question, I suppose if I were to experience losing sessions on all of those times that I employed my bigger spreads and max bets, while winning the sessions with smaller spreads and max bets, it would really screw with results. But you would sort of have to be the unluckiest person alive for that to happen and since Zenking has already assumed that role of unluckiest person alive, I am free to go about just having 'normal' luck, in which case everything will (and has so far) worked out longterm.

This is slightly off-topic. I saw a guy splitting every pair of face cards in an unusual setting. The casino is very likely to clump the cards into three groups: small, mid-range and face cards. At least from my observation, small cards are clumped to make dealer easy to make hands. When face cards came out, they came in group of double digits. Most players had 20 to push dealer's 20 except one or two people got the accent card with a face card.

So this guy has unusual way to fight ASM clumping. He splits every pair of face cards. In most cases, he got two or three hands of 20 after the split and re-split. If the dealer got one accent card and one face card, he won all three hands. Besides splitting face cards, he basically play Basic Strategy or Hi-Lo. But in the end, he cashed out a winner after 90 minutes session I saw him at the table. Everyone else at the table are losers and blame him for splitting face cards ALL THE TIME. I wish I could see him again to study his playing style more but I never did.

By the way, that guy split face cards no matter what TC is. Even TC is super negative, he split anyway and is confident that he would get three hands of 20 unless it is the end of a face card clump.

 

[Dummy]

Bosox, I won't bother to point out all the parts you got wrong. You obviously are obsessed with me. That causes perceptions to be way off. Especially concerning any ideas that have already formed in your head. I could spend a year hardly posting and making short posts and your perception wouldn't change. The word for this type of mind set is bigot. You make an assessment and never change. Every time I work on posting more the way the squeaky wheels want posters like you that don't even notice a difference make me feel like I am wasting my time trying to please others so I stop trying. That is the way bigots affect society. Nothing I say or do will ever alter your opinion so why should I even try. That is the nature of bigotry making any attempt to at change a waste of effort.

 

[psyduck]

Every time I work on posting more the way the squeaky wheels want posters like you that don't even notice a difference make me feel like I am wasting my time trying to please others so I stop trying.

So you really think your posts are in great demand?

 

[BoSox]

My top priority is longevity as well. And while much of what I do is to limit swings at no cost in EV, the primary reason I pursued the approaches is to increase longevity.

Dummy, the above quote is the same exact one that I quoted in my previous post, taken from your post number 6. To sum it all up it is all about the above second sentence. I am not going to question what you can or cannot do as your counting methods are truly your own. Such as taming or managing variance at more favorable discretions. What angers the fuck out of me is how is you talking about your own experiences going to help out all of the "eager to learn" new players on two boards that read all of the posts. Psyduck's above quote is right on the money. Unless people can learn to relate and experience for themselves what you are talking about they could give two shits about what you write, regardless of how much you know. Honestly, why would they?

You want some respect in the community start listening and respond to the people who are asking the questions only from their own perspectives period. I do not like this back and forth any more than you do. Hopefully, this will conclude at some point in time.

 

[Dummy]

I am not going to question what you can or cannot do as your counting methods are truly your own. Such as taming or managing variance at more favorable discretions.

Affecting the ride to the long run is simple. You know how ploppy play can she the ride but ends up in the same place. Like a martingale will tend to win for a long period of time and then have a huge drop. Or a positive progression better will lose faster than a flat better for a while but can make more occasionally for a while. Or a negative progression better will have more frequent wins but more severe losses. That AP can shape short term results similarly.

A creative AP can do the same by how he chooses to apply his count system. To some extent you can choose the ride to much the same long run. You can alter bet sizes. You can bet lower when losing and higher when winning. Raising a bet after wins and lowering bets after losses costs EV if the bets aren't optimal, but can be good cover because another reason for bet moves is obvious. What it also does is shift where and how you win and lose money on the way to the long run. All those nightmare shoes where you get a monster count and can't win a hand. guess what you didn't raise your bet. That huge lose is made into a small lose. But that shoe where wins and losses alternated you know lose the difference between your two bet sizes for each TC very other round. And that shoe where you won non stop you may play with even higher bets, if your last round won bet is more than your normal bet and your last round lost bet is less, causing larger upswings. If your winner bet and loser bet average to your optimal bet EV is unchanged but variance is increased. But swings are actually changed in a favorable way. That is a judgment call, but cutting the amount lost in your massive losing shoes and replacing them with even more massive winning shoes and more moderate losers is something I prefer for both longevity and certainty of BR growth.

There are a lot of ways to shift around how you win and lose along the way. Most don't cost much. Nor do they change the long run much. Some add to EV. But you have a smoother ride to the long run and raise fewer red flags from bigs swings, big wins and losses, and big buy-ins. Some actually gain EV. You can change your bet size on your most volatile deck compositions when appropriate. Knowing what extra info to gather and how to use it is a big part of identifying the right times to reduce your bet. You can alter indices for when you add more money to the table when your largest bets are out. Giving up a little EV here helps results a lot. That is the basis for RA indices. To qualify the index must coincide with when you have a big bet out. If your playing count is your betting count that will severely limit this opportunity. Don't worry about moving the index for a small bet. You can surrender when you have a big bet out and it is slightly negative EV to surrender. This conserves cards and is a zero variance play. You would lose a big bet almost 2/3rds of the time and win a big bet a little more than 1/3rd of the time. You trade that for a guaranteed lose of 1/2 the big bet. A little lost EV but card conservation (assuming you would hit your crappy matchup), and a reduction of one of your big downswings. You can insure good hands you will probably win slightly below the index and bad hands you will most likely lose move the index higher. Or you can simply take partial insurance to accomplish much the same thing. This way when you have your biggest bets out you have done everything you can to limit downswing variance while increasing the likelihood of BR growth. You can increase the accuracy of your betting and playing decisions, which is plus EV.

So there is actually a lot you can do to shape the ride to the long run. Much of it is somewhat count dependent but much of it will work for any count. It might be more effective for a stronger count but that is true with most things. Just like the ploppies do with their betting schemes you can influence the ride you have to the long run with every aspect of your game if you structure everything to have that impact. In the process you make the likelihood of BR growth higher and are more likely to stay closer to expectation as you head for the long run. Long term results likely won't change much, but heat and BR growth will be affected noticeably and in a good way.

 

[Dummy]

You want some respect in the community start listening and respond to the people who are asking the questions only from their own perspectives period.

"The community" seems to only want one viewpoint presented. I just present my viewpoint and let the chips fall where they may. Any good researcher reads all opinions whether they agree with his position or not. That is because they want to get the complete picture that all perspectives provide. I do what I do because my perspectives differ from other peoples. They fit me best and I know I have helped many people because they tell me how much better they do after contacting me. I don't tell them what to do. I just make sure they understand all the stuff nobody is telling them either because it is sensitive information or because these people do fine from their narrow perspectives and simply don't know much about broader perspectives because they never felt they needed to. That was their judgement call. I don't care what they decided.

 

[Dummy]

I just think it is hilarious that you know absolutely nothing about me but assume how much I play and all kinds of other things. For your information I played almost 1000 hours a year until recently. Then I figured out I could win more while playing less. I know you can't wrap your mind around that but none the less it is true. There are certain conditions I get a lot more rounds in with the same passage of time. And certain conditions I get a lot more big bets out in the same amount of time. Often these two overlap magnifying each. By playing only when I make 3 times the hourly I can play less and make more money. You may say but you could just play more hours. The problem is two fold. First hours of play is time of exposure to scrutiny.

Second if I accept lesser conditions I can't find what I am looking for. The play for the remainder of the day, where conditions aren't best, seems more like random results because I get in so few rounds per hour. Lots of time passes with little impact on reaching my n0. So now I play 500 hours a year and make a lot more money because I get in a lot more rounds, especially a lot more big bet rounds. I never stop improving my game so some of that could be from improvements. The guys who only use sim results to decide what is best don't necessarily see the benefits of what I have described. They just figure they average 100 rounds per hour. I think it is even less than that but what do I know about what anyone else does. For me I would guess more like 50 rounds per hour for most of the day. I can easily get quadruple that if I pick my spots. The one thing I know is if I am playing at 50 rounds per hour table I can't find a 200+ round per hour table. It is hard to relate time and frustration for hours with not many rounds played and easy pleasing play with a boatload of rounds played in a short amount of time when you look at computer results. I take computer results and realize how actual play impacts it. This allows me to see things that many who just refer to computer results don't. What is best isn't about what is best on a computer, it is about what gets the best results in a casino.

 

[BoSox]

A creative AP can do the same by how he chooses to apply his count system. To some extent you can choose the ride to much the same long run. You can alter bet sizes. You can bet lower when losing and higher when winning. Raising a bet after wins and lowering bets after losses costs EV if the bets aren't optimal, but can be good cover because another reason for bet moves is obvious. What it also does is shift where and how you win and lose money on the way to the long run. All those nightmare shoes where you get a monster count and can't win a hand. guess what you didn't raise your bet. That huge lose is made into a small lose. But that shoe where wins and losses alternated you know lose the difference between your two bet sizes for each TC very other round. And that shoe where you won non stop you may play with even higher bets, if your last round won bet is more than your normal bet and your last round lost bet is less, causing larger upswings. If your winner bet and loser bet average to your optimal bet EV is unchanged but variance is increased. But swings are actually changed in a favorable way. That is a judgment call, but cutting the amount lost in your massive losing shoes and replacing them with even more massive winning shoes and more moderate losers is something I prefer for both longevity and certainty of BR growth.

First off I am not looking for any advice from you, I hope you did not think I did. Last shame on you for posting this above crap about betting trends.

 

[psyduck]

BoSox, why can't you show some appreciation for a free and frequent education? Where else can you get this kind of inside knowledge?

 

[BoSox]

BoSox, why can't you show some appreciation for a free and frequent education? Where else can you get this kind of inside knowledge?

The man is unbelievable he does not realize that not everyone can use camo to the extent that he thinks. Not everyone can beat a six-deck game with a 1 to 2 spread as he does.

 

[psyduck]

You can bet lower when losing and higher when winning.

Wow! How many people know that?