Started with $14k Bankroll

[StandardDeviant]

Do you need to know them in order to state "Mr. M experienced a 8K loss in one week. That is a -3 standard deviations below EV."?

To state with precision, yes, you'd need the game conditions.

Calling that -3 SD from EV just seems possibly way, way extreme to me but I don't know how you arrrived at that conclusion. So I was curious.

I plugged his results into CVCX. I had to make some assumptions about pen and playing system, rules, etc. CVCX can then calculate the probability of a given result.

So, perhaps, a very good BJ player but, perhaps, merely a bad manager of one's roll who made the decision to spend the winnings every time he made some... That very well could be the only mistake he has made. And, I'd say, it's a pretty big one lol. What do you think?

Since positive deviations in winnings offset negative ones (hopefully), spending the winnings practically guarantees that one's BR will decline.

Also, spreading 1-8 with $25 unit and $14K roll is 560 unit roll. Spreading 1-8 with $10 unit and $6k roll is 600 units. The difference maybe does not deserve the moniker of "overbetting" with the former and "a little undercapitalized" with the other. The ROR maybe wouldn't change substantially either way, don't you think?

I get ~20% RoR with 1:8 $25 and 14K. With the same conditions I get ~15% RoR with 1:8 $10 and 6K. "Overbetting" and "undercapitalized" are value judgements I am making, I admit . On a fixed BR, those are pretty risky odds, IMHO. If he can easily replace his BR, they are perhaps not a problem.

 

[Kasi]

I plugged his results into CVCX. I had to make some assumptions about pen and playing system, rules, etc. CVCX can then calculate the probability of a given result...
I get ~20% RoR with 1:8 $25 and 14K. With the same conditions I get ~15% RoR with 1:8 $10 and 6K. "Overbetting" and "undercapitalized" are value judgements I am making, I admit . On a fixed BR, those are pretty risky odds, IMHO. If he can easily replace his BR, they are perhaps not a problem.

Thanks for your reply SD.

I was just curious what assumptions you did tell CVCX. Mostly becasue I don't have the software and am curious to see how different assumptions can maybe effect things and wondered about your "-3SD" thing since it seemed so different from what I assumed lolo. About all I can do is use some table from Don's book and go from there lol.

I assumed Table 10.43 in Don's book - see attached - a 4.5/6 S17 DAS game with a play-all 1-8. In that scenario, to finish net $8K down in one week and have it be -3SD's would mean a very short week - somwhere around 1100 hands (cell B80 maybe).

As you can see from my set of assumptions the $14K roll with a $25 unit gives a 28% ROR lol.

Also, I just enjoy seeing pics of CVCX results to help me figure out what I may be doing wrong in figuring stuff out - if I get close to what he says, I feel better lol.

Sorry about all that "overbetting-undercapitalized" stuff - I think it was the "little" part, I found subjective - I imagine under both our sets of assumptions he was doing both lol.

What a great handle you have - makes me laugh every time I read it.

 

[StandardDeviant]

Thanks for your reply SD...to finish net $8K down in one week and have it be -3SD's would mean a very short week - somwhere around 1100 hands (cell B80 maybe).

Right you are! I think when I read the original post I (mis)read it to be down 8K in one weekend. So, if I remember correctly, I assumed 10 hours of play in the weekend. The parameters (as best as I remember them now) are shown in the picture below.

 

[StandardDeviant]

Crud...I can't seem to make the picture bigger:whip:

 

[Kasi]

Right you are! I think when I read the original post I (mis)read it to be down 8K in one weekend. So, if I remember correctly, I assumed 10 hours of play in the weekend. The parameters (as best as I remember them now) are shown in the picture below.

Thanks SD - much appreciated you hung in with me there - I was hoping all along it was something like the definition of a "week" - that is I assumed alot more "hands in a week" than you did lol.

If I had thougt "weekend" all along as you did, you never would have heard a peep out of me lol.

Believe me, I only pursued the silly question in the first place to the degree I did because just about everything you say usually makes alot of sense to me and, when you say stuff I can't quite get to, I want to figure out where I may be going wrong.

So, thanks again.

I guess the main point might be how finishing down, under a set of assumptions - you had KO preferred it looks like, I had Hi-Lo, net 320 units, in this case perhaps in a "week", depending how many hands a "week" might represent, is just how mundane such a loss might be under a wide range of how many "hands" were played in a week.

Don't you love it when an Orig Poster asks incredibly vague stuff in his first thread but chooses to never to reply to a thing over a week later leaving it to everyone else to assume unknown stuff and yet still try to answer in an intelligent fashion.

I suppose, likely, just so he could forever continue wallowing in his own self-pity party, remaining unaware forever how unjustified his tears actually are, such crying probably all he ever wanted to do in the first place.

 

[Mr.M]

Tell us all about the game you are playing, please. What count? Indice play?

AS has been mentioned by CAA and Pro21 and a few others, they do not even view straight counting as Advantage Play.

What are the table limits at the casinos you play? Why play a $25 min rather than a lower?? Is there something magical about a $25 table?

There is such a fascination, even an ego thing, about playing $25 OR HIGHER TABLES, I see it all the time. Why let the casino psych you into this game. Let me see, $25 to $500 or $5 to $200....you cannot make enough on a $200 especially swinging to max on 2 spots at the great times? You never had the bankroll to take full advantage of the $25 table.

Taking the 9k and spending it was a major mistake with the stakes you are playing.

Mr. M, you need to start thinking for yourself and putting it all together and not buying into all the Bull S*it you read in books and forums.

I cannot believe the amount of aspiring AP's that have come and gone, destroyed playing like sheep rather than becoming innovative.

And the casinos worry, what fools!:laugh:

CP

Mainly DD, 60 TO 70 pen, H17, DAS. I used Hi Lo with full indices. I bet $25 cause from what I read, $25 of my original 14k bankroll was the base bet. Betting $25 is also minimun bet for DD games without all the flees around.

Honestly I thought this was normal, I was winning for 6 months, I was down $2 to 3k at the most but fought back to even my BR. I used the money for living, not for fun.

I never read books or anything. Just tried to stick with my plan.

 

[creeping panther]

M

Mainly DD, 60 TO 70 pen, H17, DAS. I used Hi Lo with full indices. I bet $25 cause from what I read, $25 of my original 14k bankroll was the base bet. Betting $25 is also minimun bet for DD games without all the flees around.

Honestly I thought this was normal, I was winning for 6 months, I was down $2 to 3k at the most but fought back to even my BR. I used the money for living, not for fun.

I never read books or anything. Just tried to stick with my plan.

I think h-17 is a dangerous game without LS. The pen is not the best. That game does not excite me.

So you don't care for "the Fleas"....you should rethink that.

Thanks for the info.

CP

 

[Cardcounter]

IF you need a loan to get your bankroll up and running I can help you out private message me!

 

[StandardDeviant]

Don't you love it when an Orig Poster asks incredibly vague stuff...

I am surprised by some of the questions that arrive here, but then again, I see the same thing on just about any message board. I love the ones on the tech boards that ask the equivalent of "My computer isn't working, what should I do?" I'm inclined to answer, "If you have to ask that, you shouldn't be using a computer."

I will say, about this forum, that as I spend more time here, I have come to really appreciate the depth of skills and experience that are on tap here, more or less for the asking. There are some real experts/pros here who try quite diligently to provide answers to a broad range of questions. You guys/gals are tops!!

I count myself lucky to have stumbled upon blackjackinfo.com and the people here.

 

[psyduck]

The variance is not necessarily higher in shoe games than it is in pitch games. Pitch games often have more frequent high counts, which means the player is making bigger bets more often. The short-term results will be more volatile in that case. Someone playing shoe games can also avoid most (or all) of the negative counts as well, which will lower the variance per unit of time. Shoe games usually offer surrender, which lowers the variance and increases the player’s advantage. Just because you are playing a pitch game does not mean that you won’t have the same swings, or larger, than someone playing shoe games. It depends on how you are playing the game.



Sure. With the tiny advantage of card counting it is very easy to play for hundreds of hours and still not show a profit. Here’s a good link from the Frequently Asked Questions thread that goes into more detail:

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

-Sonny-

Sonny,

You remind me of my graduate school professor: knowledgable, patient, and thorough. Thank you.