standard deviation

1

1357111317

Well-Known Member
How many standard deviations would losing 200 units in 25 hours of play be (50 hands an hour or 1250 hands)? Assuming rules with a house edge of .22%, 6 Deck and 80% penetration with a bet spread of 1-10 with a standard betting ramp. ( Please don't comment on the spread, I know its not enough but I am just using it since I am trying to simplify things)
 
Last edited:
1357111317 said:
How many standard deviations would losing 200 units in 25 hours of play be (50 hands an hour or 1250 hands)? Assuming rules with a house edge of .22%, 6 Deck and 80% penetration with a bet spread of 1-10 with a standard betting ramp. ( Please don't comment on the spread, I know its not enough but I am just using it since I am trying to simplify things)
Click to expand...

The spread size is nothing to complain about. There are a few other things that, however, are worth complaining about.

1. HE is not really helpful here. Specific rules are more helpful. (Btw, a 6D S17 DAS DOA LS game has a HE .36% so unless there are other rules, I'm not sure where the .22 came from.

2. Are you wonging?

3. "Standard betting ramp"

I checked the canned sim for a 6D S17 DAS LS game playing all with 80% pen spreading with a 5% RoR for a 10k BR, and for a 200 unit loss in 25 hours at that strangely slow rate, I got 1.62 standard deviations
 
SleightOfHand said:
The spread size is nothing to complain about. There are a few other things that, however, are worth complaining about.

1. HE is not really helpful here. Specific rules are more helpful. (Btw, a 6D S17 DAS DOA LS game has a HE .36% so unless there are other rules, I'm not sure where the .22 came from.

2. Are you wonging?

3. "Standard betting ramp"

I checked the canned sim for a 6D S17 DAS LS game playing all with 80% pen spreading with a 5% RoR for a 10k BR, and for a 200 unit loss in 25 hours at that strangely slow rate, I got 1.62 standard deviations
Click to expand...

Alright well maybe the rate is closer to 75 hands an hour. Really depends how full the tables are. Well to be honest the game is H17 DOA DAS but since I am not card counting and shuffle tracking I figured I would try and give some kind of estimate as to how it would compare to card counting. The reason why I gave .22 instead of .66 is because on average I probably cut 5 low cards behind the cut card which would make the initial true count just below 1 and decrease the house edge by roughly .5 percent.

I am just wondering since in 3 days and a total of around 10 hours of play each we have a combined loss of 200 units.
 
1357111317 said:
Alright well maybe the rate is closer to 75 hands an hour. Really depends how full the tables are. Well to be honest the game is H17 DOA DAS but since I am not card counting and shuffle tracking I figured I would try and give some kind of estimate as to how it would compare to card counting. The reason why I gave .22 instead of .66 is because on average I probably cut 5 low cards behind the cut card which would make the initial true count just below 1 and decrease the house edge by roughly .5 percent.

I am just wondering since in 3 days and a total of around 10 hours of play each we have a combined loss of 200 units.
Click to expand...

I see... I recently had a great opportunity (5.1/6 H17 DAS ESvX NSvA) where I lost about 200 units in 20 hours as well :( But yea, I'm not sure how to sim your situation. Sorry.

PS: 10 or 25 hours?
 
W.t.f. ?

" ... on average I probably cut 5 low cards behind the cut card which would make the initial true count just below 1 and decrease the house edge by roughly .5 percent."

I don't understand the above.
You sound very confused.
What are you talking about ?
 
Last edited:
FLASH1296 said:
" ... on average I probably cut 5 low cards behind the cut card which would make the initial true count just below 1 and decrease the house edge by roughly .5 percent."

I don't understand the above.
You sound very confused.
What are you talking about ?
Click to expand...

Shh keep quiet. Maybe he will go away ;)

PS: LOL I totally read that before you edited. Sneaky Mr. Flashy. ;);)
 
1357111317 said:
Alright well maybe the rate is closer to 75 hands an hour. Really depends how full the tables are. Well to be honest the game is H17 DOA DAS but since I am not card counting and shuffle tracking I figured I would try and give some kind of estimate as to how it would compare to card counting. The reason why I gave .22 instead of .66 is because on average I probably cut 5 low cards behind the cut card which would make the initial true count just below 1 and decrease the house edge by roughly .5 percent.

I am just wondering since in 3 days and a total of around 10 hours of play each we have a combined loss of 200 units.
Click to expand...

Are you even playing basic strategy?

When do you split nines, and soft double against a 4?
 
FLASH1296 said:
" ... on average I probably cut 5 low cards behind the cut card which would make the initial true count just below 1 and decrease the house edge by roughly .5 percent."


I don't understand the above.
You sound very confused.
What are you talking about ?
Click to expand...

If you know the count of the cards behind the cut card is +5 then you essentially know that your starting count is +5. From what I have learnt on this site for every increase in true count using hi lo your advatange roughly increases by .5% or your disadvantage decreases by .5% Since I figure that I average cutting +5 behind the shuffle card shouldn't the house edge be decreased since I am removing cards that are advantageous for the dealer?

moo321 said:
Are you even playing basic strategy?

When do you split nines, and soft double against a 4?
Click to expand...

Split 9's on anything but 7,10,A

Double A, 5 6 7 against a 4 and doubule A 4 against a 4 in non negative counts.

And moo since I play on a 3 man team I added up 10 hours each to get 30, the 25 was more of an estimate but now that I think about it it was probably closer to 10 each rather than 8 each.
 
1357111317 said:
If you know the count of the cards behind the cut card is +5 then you essentially know that your starting count is +5. From what I have learnt on this site for every increase in true count using hi lo your advatange roughly increases by .5% or your disadvantage decreases by .5% Since I figure that I average cutting +5 behind the shuffle card shouldn't the house edge be decreased since I am removing cards that are advantageous for the dealer?
Click to expand...

What this does is essentially wongs you in at a +5 RC (Technically also gives you a slightly better game (tiny bit fewer decks and better pen)). This does not lower HE. It does increase advantage though. However, this is if you know there are 5 small cards behind the cut card. Not an avg RC of a pack of cards. But like I said, do not misconceive this as something that lowers the HE.
 
1357111317 said:
...since I am not card counting and shuffle tracking I figured I would try and give some kind of estimate as to how it would compare to card counting.
Click to expand...

Forget card-counting, let's just say a flat-betting BS player couldn't do anywhere near that bad in 1MM hands.

Consider discontinuing your shuffle-tracking.
 
You would be surprised kasi. There have been shoes where there was no profile where we flatbetted and have lost a combined 30 units. I am assuming we are just hitting a streak of bad luck since losing 12 units flatbetting in one shoe seems pretty uncommon. Also keep in mind we are playing at the same table so there are hands where we have 30 units out on the table. It just seems like every single time we have large bets out there we will hit 17,18 or 19 and the dealer shows a ten and flips a twenty. Or the dealer shows a 7 seven and hits a 4 then ten. Now I don't expect to be winning every single time but It just seems like we have hit a streak of bad luck.
 
1357111317 said:
You would be surprised kasi. There have been shoes where there was no profile where we flatbetted and have lost a combined 30 units. I am assuming we are just hitting a streak of bad luck since losing 12 units flatbetting in one shoe seems pretty uncommon. Also keep in mind we are playing at the same table so there are hands where we have 30 units out on the table. It just seems like every single time we have large bets out there we will hit 17,18 or 19 and the dealer shows a ten and flips a twenty. Or the dealer shows a 7 seven and hits a 4 then ten. Now I don't expect to be winning every single time but It just seems like we have hit a streak of bad luck.
Click to expand...

i just think he means how can you shuffle track with out counting. the slug you tracked you must have known it's +5 some how.:confused:
but anyway it's a bit of high loss's to wins, but it happens. that should work it's self out just playing basic strategy. the really thing you want are more snappers and successful double downs.
so friends all at one table sounds like your recreational playing anyway.
 
sagefr0g said:
i just think he means how can you shuffle track with out counting. the slug you tracked you must have known it's +5 some how.:confused:
but anyway it's a bit of high loss's to wins, but it happens. that should work it's self out just playing basic strategy. the really thing you want are more snappers and successful double downs.
so friends all at one table sounds like your recreational playing anyway.
Click to expand...

Well the two guys I play with are on my team, two of us maptrack and one person just straight counts the shoe so that way we know what the count of the unplayed cards are. We are counting the cards but we don't use the count of the cards that have been played to determine bet size which is how normal counting works.
We use the count of next 52 cards that are going to be dealt to determine our bet size. Since we are maptracking we roughly know the count of every packet of 52 cards. That way we always cut the low cards behind the shuffle card and that way we know where the good cards are in the deck.
 
1357111317 said:
Well the two guys I play with are on my team, two of us maptrack and one person just straight counts the shoe so that way we know what the count of the unplayed cards are. We are counting the cards but we don't use the count of the cards that have been played to determine bet size which is how normal counting works.
We use the count of next 52 cards that are going to be dealt to determine our bet size. Since we are maptracking we roughly know the count of every packet of 52 cards. That way we always cut the low cards behind the shuffle card and that way we know where the good cards are in the deck.
Click to expand...
maptrack, is that a new terminology? same thing as shuffle tracking?
 
1357111317 said:
Well the two guys I play with are on my team, two of us maptrack and one person just straight counts the shoe so that way we know what the count of the unplayed cards are. We are counting the cards but we don't use the count of the cards that have been played to determine bet size which is how normal counting works.
We use the count of next 52 cards that are going to be dealt to determine our bet size. Since we are maptracking we roughly know the count of every packet of 52 cards. That way we always cut the low cards behind the shuffle card and that way we know where the good cards are in the deck.
Click to expand...

I'm confused as well.

Are you saying that your team shuffle tracks such that in an 8 deck shoe with 2 decks cut off:

1) You are SURE there are at least 5 more low cards than high behind the cut card, so your starting RC is almost +1

2) you track each 52 card slug of the remaining 6 decks are either + or -

3) During the first deck/slug you increase your bets if those 52 cards are + or decrease your bets of that deck is minus

4) At the next and every other deck of 53 cards repeat #3

While it strikes me as maybe a viable tactic, what if the first "deck" is -6, the second deck is +2, third +2 you would be increasing your bet into a negative count on the second and third deck.



Also, do you mean all three of you lost a total of 200 units or just you?
 
I guess I have some explaining to do
sagefr0g said:
maptrack, is that a new terminology? same thing as shuffle tracking?
Click to expand...

On another thread someone referred to tracking every single section of the deck as maptracking. From what I understand shuffle tracking is just tracking a single slug throught the shuffle, I guess maptracking could be defined as tracking every single slug

callipygian said:
1357111317, the description of your play is more confusing than the "1" at the beginning of your name.

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

See below for an explanation. What is so confusing about the 1 at the beginning of my name?

GeorgeD said:
I'm confused as well.

Are you saying that your team shuffle tracks such that in an 8 deck shoe with 2 decks cut off:

1) You are SURE there are at least 5 more low cards than high behind the cut card, so your starting RC is almost +1

2) you track each 52 card slug of the remaining 6 decks are either + or -

3) During the first deck/slug you increase your bets if those 52 cards are + or decrease your bets of that deck is minus

4) At the next and every other deck of 53 cards repeat #3

While it strikes me as maybe a viable tactic, what if the first "deck" is -6, the second deck is +2, third +2 you would be increasing your bet into a negative count on the second and third deck.



Also, do you mean all three of you lost a total of 200 units or just you?
Click to expand...

1. I am not positive as to exactly how many are cut behind each time however at the end of the shoe the counter at the table lets me knwo what the count of the unplayed cards were so I know exactly how many i cut behind in the previous shoe. I have cut as many as +15 behind the cut card and I have also made some mistakes and cut a total of -3 behind the cut card. I am just saying on average I would say we cut around+5 behind it.

2. I'm not sure what you are saying. We track sections of 26 cards and then add them together at the shuffle so we have 6 sections of 52 cards tracked.
Then we cut the bad cards to the bottom and then proceed to increase out bets when the slug is negative ( More high cards than low cards ) and return to a minimum bet when it is positive ( more low cards than high cards).

3. Then once we have the shoe "mapped" out then we make sure we all know where the good spots are and then bet big in those slugs

4. Repeat step 2 for the next shoe.

The three of us combined have lost 200 units with a spread of 1-10 each.
 
FLASH1296 said:
"... we are playing at the same table."

R.O.T.F.L.M.A.O.

:grin:
Click to expand...

Before you ridicule us Flash please keep in mind that our betting patterns are usually the complete opposite of the betting patterns of a card counter. More often than not we have our max bet on the felt on the first three hands of the shoe since the good cards ususally end up at the top. As well we usually only have one of us making the big bets so we aren't all making similar bets at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top