We lose one-third of the time?

[Dopple]

A brief accounting of my records confirms that I lose about 1/3 of the time but what factor is time.

I know it waits for no-one.

Would this be the same for 2 hour sessions as well as 10 hour sessions?

 

[FLASH1296]

The longer the sessions the more valid your conclusion.

Ditto for the number of sessions.

Experienced Card Counters will, over time, win between 60% and 70% of their sessions;
and of course the mean winning sessions will be larger than the mean losing session.

 

[paddywhack]

and of course the mean winning sessions will be larger than the mean losing session.

Would you mind explaining this statement?

 

[apex]

Mean = average. Our average wins will be bigger than our average losses. Say our expected hourly rate is $100 per hour. If we play 10 hours our expected win is $1000. That is the middle point and our results are just as likely to be on one side as the other. If we are going to miss our expectation by $3000, we are just as likely to win $4,000 as we are to lose $2000. So our losses should be smaller than our wins on average, unless we have some sort artificial limit on our sessions such as stop wins or losses.

 

[FLASH1296]

IF you have an advantage at the game my statement is true.

Your results along a normal curve will have a distribution with a center point to the right (positive direction) of ZERO.

Your wins will average X dollars per session, but your losses will be, perhaps, .8X dollars per session.

Even simpler is to say that when you win you will, on average, win more dollars than you will lose, on average,over the long run.

e.g. After many may sessions you may have an average winning session of $290 and an average losing session of $220.

 

[paddywhack]

IF you have an advantage at the game my statement is true.

Your results along a normal curve will have a distribution with a center point to the right (positive direction) of ZERO.

Your wins will average X dollars per session, but your losses will be, perhaps, .8X dollars per session.

Even simpler is to say that when you win you will, on average, win more dollars than you will lose, on average,over the long run.

e.g. After many may sessions you may have an average winning session of $290 and an average losing session of $220.

So to have the opposite be true, ave loss being greater than average win, but still winning 65% of your sessions and being near ev means that the data set is too small?

 

[shadroch]

A brief accounting of my records confirms that I lose about 1/3 of the time but what factor is time.

I know it waits for no-one.

Would this be the same for 2 hour sessions as well as 10 hour sessions?

Counters win 70% of their sessions. Progressive Martingale players win 99% of their sessions. Neither statistic means very much in and of themselves.

 

[BrianCP]

Counters win 70% of their sessions. Progressive Martingale players win 99% of their sessions. Neither statistic means very much in and of themselves.

True, both facts are based on a non fixed amount you have to gamble with over a certain amount of time.

Let us say, you have a re loadable bankroll of only 20 units. Buy in for all of it at a table with a 1 unit minimum, play double your money or bust. You win a little over half of your sessions, resulting in a net profit over time. Now let us say you have 1000 unit bankroll and you can re buy as much as you need to, but you play for a fixed amount of time. Then you generally win 70% of your sessions based on the amount of time spent. The more hands you see, the less luck matters. Luck is the only way a good counter loses money in the short run (or gains any significant amount as well), and as that is eliminated the losing sessions vanish. Therefore, the longer your sessions, the less luck is involved in the final result of that individual session. This means that if you could play for a non fixed amount of time with a non fixed bankroll, you could play until you showed a certain amount of profit.

Obviously, this is not practical, but it shows that keep tracking of your results in the real world should matter more than your projected win/loss ratio over a given session.

Both strategies (non fixed bankroll, non fixed time) (20 unit BR, double or bust) result in a net profit over time as each bet you place averages out to the same advantage in the long run. However, the later method produces more losing sessions overall due to the wildly increased variance.



I have no idea if this post ended up pertaining to anything, but I just had to keep typing. I was in the groove.

 

[shadroch]

I have many more losing sessions than I used to, and I believe it has greatly helped my overall game.
In the past, I'd find myself down 20-30 units and keep plugging away, knowing that the variance curve should swing back towards me. I'd often grind away for another hour or two and either break even or greatly reduce my loss. Now, down 20 units- I end my session and walk away, making sure the loss is recorded by the pit boss. I walk to another pit or casino and start my new session. I fully understand that life is one long session but thankfully the casinos don't. My losing session is part of my player history in that casino and hopefully will convince them I'm the type of player thay want- a losing one who occasionally gets very lucky and just happens to get his BJs with a big bet out there.

 

[zengrifter]

Mean = average. Our average wins will be bigger than our average losses.

"Moderately heavy losing streaks followed by winning streaks of dazzling brilliance." -Ed Thorp BTD​

 

[blackjack avenger]

The Long and Short of It

An accounting of my records confirms that I lose about 1/3 of the time. Would this be the same for 2 hour sessions as well as 10 hour sessions?

The longer the session the more likely you are to be ahead; conversely, the shorter the session the higher the variance. For shorter and longer session's it's about 2/3 of the time you will win.

I believe we all know that all play isssss continuous, breaks are just artificial pauses. It does not mean we can't use pauses to our advantage as Shadroch does.

good cards
:joker::whip:

 

[Renzey]

So to have the opposite be true, ave loss being greater than average win, but still winning 65% of your sessions and being near ev means that the data set is too small?

Most gamblers, even many AP's hate to go home a loser. It's just plain unfulfilling. Since this is true, most players stick around when they're losing, but "lock up" the win when they've come out of the gate ahead. This tends to produce a higher percentage of winning sessions than if all sessions were the same length.

That's because when you're down, if you extend your stay, some of your losers will become winners. But it will also do something else. Namely, turn some of your small losers into big losers.

That's why if booking a winner for the day is paramount, you could book over 80% winners just by flat betting in a 50-50 coin flip game. You'd have some huge losses though, and you'll still die about a break even coin flipper. Lots of days you'll go 1 & 0, and other days you'll go 30 & 40. In the end though, you still stand to be 50-50.

 

[moo321]

Longer sessions will result in more % winning sessions. Wonging should help this as well.

 

[bj bob]

"Moderately heavy losing streaks followed by winning streaks of dazzling brilliance." -Ed Thorp BTD​

Excellent and accurate reference, Zgman.

 

[paddywhack]

Most gamblers, even many AP's hate to go home a loser. It's just plain unfulfilling. Since this is true, most players stick around when they're losing, but "lock up" the win when they've come out of the gate ahead. This tends to produce a higher percentage of winning sessions than if all sessions were the same length.

That's because when you're down, if you extend your stay, some of your losers will become winners. But it will also do something else. Namely, turn some of your small losers into big losers.

So generally it's typical to have larger wins than loses. Those that, for one reason or another, shorten or lengthen a session to achieve the desired result, can usually expect wins to be larger than loses. Those that play for a desired number of hours, eg: putting in the time, could have results all over the board?

 

[Gamblor]

Longer sessions will result in more % winning sessions. Wonging should help this as well.

moo321 basically summed it up.

Or think of it this way, if you only play one hand per session, your win rate is approx 43% (tie 9%, lose 48%). If you were to play a trillion hands per session, your win rate would pretty much be guaranteed at 100%.

So of course your win % is a function of time, you can assume your win rate percentage goes up uniformly the longer your session.

 

[tribute]

The longer the sessions the more valid your conclusion.

Ditto for the number of sessions.

Experienced Card Counters will, over time, win between 60% and 70% of their sessions;
and of course the mean winning sessions will be larger than the mean losing session.

Do you mean win 60 to 70% of the number of hands out of a session, or do you mean come out ahead 60 to 70% of the time? It's my understanding a card counter and non-counter both win approx. the same number of hands.

 

[MangoJ]

It's about sessions. You will win a session if you come out ahead. Although this figure shouldn't mean a lot. You can increase your winning sessions (even without counting) by a simple martingale system, and win 99% of your sessions. Of course you still lose everything in that remaining 1% session