sam: check me on this: luck/variance

[sam]

> No, actually, if you bet optimally, with the
> same bankroll, and, therefore, the same ROR,
> you will have greater variance in
> back-counting situations. Of course, you
> will have greater expectation as well.

Don,

I have been thinking of a very narrowly focused variance. A + count and I have the advantage and therefore my chance of losing is less than in a - count. A - count and I'm more apt to lose than win. My dad would call this "shade tree math." Nothing is ever as simple as that. In Wong's ProBJ, these things are covered and I need to spend some time with those pages. Thanks for your help.

> But, since ROR is a function of EV/var, by
> definition, if we keep ROR constant and
> raise EV, we will have to be raising
> variance along with it.

> Don

[Parker]

> In Wong's ProBJ,
> these things are covered and I need to spend
> some time with those pages. Thanks for your
> help.

Don is too modest to point this out, but these things are covered in much greater detail in his own book, Blackjack Attack.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don is too modest to point this out, but
> these things are covered in much greater
> detail in his own book, Blackjack Attack.

I made my post, above, just before reading your post! Guess I'm not that modest after all. :-)

Don

[OCD]

Ok here's something that I don't think is covered in any of the books I've read. I've been a gambler and now I think of myself as something as an AP, but I find myself forced to wonder if I ought not apply "smart gambling logic" still. If the count is hot, and I've hit a few of my maximum bets, ought I not hop off the table? Don says(or maybe it was bryce carlson, I don't recall) "If the count is high, you play. period. Or you should put this book down right now and rejoin the gamblers." I paraphrase, but the point is, to many of us, short-term gain matters. Your advantage is at best a few percent, and if you've hit it on the head, take it to the window if you're way ahead of your expected gain per 100 hands. Or at least drop your bet down to less than what the count dictates to preserve some of the gain that short-term variance has given you?
Or is that just putting off the inevitable, that if you're in this to play, you'll just be hoping for another shoe as hot as what you just had, except where you'll experience the nasty downswing of cards you were trying to duck by ditching out of the table after winning two or three big bets. Any thoughts? I predict: "play. have faith in the math." Of course the math makes sense, but... the short term gains can be nice. What about lowering your bet and still playing at the warm table to preserve your little victories?

[Parker]

> Ok here's something that I don't think is
> covered in any of the books I've read. I've
> been a gambler and now I think of myself as
> something as an AP, but I find myself forced
> to wonder if I ought not apply "smart
> gambling logic" still. If the count is
> hot, and I've hit a few of my maximum bets,
> ought I not hop off the table? Don says(or
> maybe it was bryce carlson, I don't recall)
> "If the count is high, you play.
> period. Or you should put this book down
> right now and rejoin the gamblers." I
> paraphrase, but the point is, to many of us,
> short-term gain matters. Your advantage is
> at best a few percent, and if you've hit it
> on the head, take it to the window if you're
> way ahead of your expected gain per 100
> hands.

This only works if you plan to never, ever in your lifetime play the game again. Otherwise, what difference does it make if it is now, tommorrow, or next week? The cards don't know the difference.

> Or at least drop your bet down to
> less than what the count dictates to
> preserve some of the gain that short-term
> variance has given you?

What you are suggesting is to play sub-optimally. If you think of it that way, it does not sound nearly as appealing. If you're going to play at all, you should play your best game.

> Or is that just putting off the inevitable,
> that if you're in this to play, you'll just
> be hoping for another shoe as hot as what
> you just had, except where you'll experience
> the nasty downswing of cards you were trying
> to duck by ditching out of the table after
> winning two or three big bets. Any thoughts?

Again, you're going to play again sooner or later. What difference does it make? There are three reasons to end a session:

1. You are tired, emotionally upset, or otherwise physically and/or mentally able to continue playing your best game.

2. Game conditions have deteriorated. Pen has worsened, other players have joined the game, or something else has caused the game to drop below your pre-determined minimum for an acceptable game.

3. You are experiencing heat and/or you have reached a predetermined session time limit.

> I predict: "play. have faith in the
> math." Of course the math makes sense,
> but... the short term gains can be nice.

NIce, but meaningless in the long run. The true test of an advantage player is when you can go to sleep at night contentedly thinking "I made $500 EV tonight," when the actual result of the session was a $1500 loss (or whatever numbers would be significant to your bankroll).

> What about lowering your bet and still
> playing at the warm table to preserve your
> little victories?

Again, you are suggesting less than optimal play.

Now, all that being said, I will qualify it just a little. Suppose that you are the type of player that only gets to Las Vegas (or Tunica, AC, etc.) once or twice a year. You like to play with an edge, but you are primarily a recreational player.

Further suppose that it is the last day of your trip, and you are way ahead of expectation, with a nice win for the trip.

Do some sightseeing. Sleep late. Enjoy a comped brunch. Do anything you want, except play blackjack.

It will make the flight home a lot more pleasant. :-)

[Sun Runner]

.. and I'll add one more:

4. (while waving a fistful of hundreds' in your hand) "See honey, this counting thing really does work. I'm going back tomorrow, OK?"

[Ouchez]

> .. and I'll add one more:

> 4. (while waving a fistful of hundreds' in
> your hand) "See honey, this counting
> thing really does work. I'm going back
> tomorrow, OK?"

>

........experience!

Regards,
Ouchez.

[gambler]

I have many sessions, where I was ahead with 1000
but finished the session with -2000 or minus 3000.
So I wondered, If it makes sense, to leave always, when ahead with $1000.
But a close look at my records and statistics shows me, that there are also sessions, finished at plus 2500 or +3500. And in summary, it is better to stay and play as long, as possible.
If I would miss all the VERY good sessions, and left early, I would make less money.

[Don Schlesinger]

> In Wong's ProBJ,
> these things are covered and I need to spend
> some time with those pages. Thanks for your
> help.

Actually, they're really not covered in "Pro BJ." But, you might have a look at BJA2 or BJA3.

Don