Wolverine: Play all spread

[Wolverine]

I am sorry if it seems I am looking for an argument, I am merely looking for some sunlight on a subject I find fascinating. I have homework to do, and I will look into the posts you are talking about and the Renzy book as well. I know I need software as well to work on sims, indexes, etc...

But your post brings me right back to my initial point I started to harp on: you limit your wins due to time and or amount won (for whatever reason). Why wouldn't you try to limit your losses as well? And I will not fire back about sessions being small samples of the statistical population of blackjack until I do more homework. Let's just say, nothing said here has given me EVIDENCE that my statistical thinking of each session as a sample of the population is incorrect. You just keep pointing to the long haul, and asking me to believe that each session will regress to the long haul mean on faith. I have a wholly different interpretation of session statistics. But I will hold my fire until I find someone who wants to discuss them, AND I have done the homework you have suggested.

I have been playing BJ using BS since at least 1990, so 14 years isn't nearly a lifetime, but it is longer than many. I have only been interested in counting for the last 4 years or so. Don, on this site and his book, has helped with my bet ranging and understanding what I am trying to do with my wagers. I have about a dozen books in my BJ library. Some are complete crap and I saw through them quickly. Others make sense and have added valuable insight into playing strategies. Thank you for your patience and discussion.

[bfbagain]

Limit your losses that is. What seems to be missed, or maybe the concept of 'talking past people" is in play here, is still your persistence that there is a money management type of strategy that can be successfully used.

You have said, something to the effect, "if you lose 12 hands in a row, even in large positive counts, why wouldn't you stop?", or something similar. The reason is you don't stop when you have an advantage, as that's what you're playing for. Again, the money management issue is only relevant if these were independant trials, with negative expectation.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but is that concept difficult? It's not about sample size, it's about what is mathematically correct.

Is it possible that counters, even when playing mathematically perfect, can lose? YES!

Is it possible that a counter will NEVER see the day that the LONG RUN exists in a positive way? YES.

If the fear that one day you will never get there, i.e., that your "edge" will never manifest itself, then this is not the game for you. And despite your reticence to simply "take people's word for it", of which no one is asking that of you, you will start to dangerously take on the similarity of an internet, a.k.a., blackjack troll.

One last time. Limiting your session wins and losses have nothing to do with money management. They are strategically based. Kelly betting is what constitutes money management.

Sorry, but this is why respected people try not to get engaged in this type of discussion. I said I'd bite, fully knowing, that this is exactly the type of conversation that has taken on lives of their own all over the internet, for years, on many web sites, including the old newsgroups, e.g., rec.gambling.bj.

So, if you continue to, and believe me, the information is out there -- and yes, it'd be highly advantageous to you to buy the necessary software, IMMEDIATELY -- so you can confirm to yourself what the majority of people have already learned is true, you'd be doing yourself a tremendous favor.

Good Luck to you
cheers
bfb

[Wolverine]

bfb, I appreciate your input. I see what you mean by the long run. I have said that already. And if I could possibly play 20M hands of blackjack over a lifetime, then the long haul should manifest itself. [Simple aside here, skip if you wish: If I play 150 hands an hour (straight up vs. the dealer) and play for 10 hours over a weekend, that is 1500 hands per weekend trip. If I do that 4 times a year, I'll play 6000 hands a year. It will take 20 years to get to 120,000 hands at that pace. Is that enough trials to get to the long haul? I don't know, I have to work with a simulator to discover that for myself, which I will do!]

My question(s) are not about the long haul, they are about the short haul, aka "a session."

> You have said, something to the effect,
> "if you lose 12 hands in a row, even in
> large positive counts, why wouldn't you
> stop?", or something similar. The
> reason is you don't stop when you have an
> advantage, as that's what you're playing
> for. Again, the money management issue is
> only relevant if these were independant
> trials, with negative expectation.

I said something similar to that, and I'm sorry if it was confused with what you are trying to point out. I summarize what you are saying as: If you have been counting, and the count is positive (wildly positive even), that is exactly what you are looking for. Counters would LOVE to plunk down a big, fat bet given the positive count (aka, advantage) the count indicates. And if you were walking by and *knew* that the count was wildly positive, you WOULD plunk down a big fat bet. Did I capture what the concept is? I hope so. Because that is something I understand. You put more money on the table when you have the advantage.

> Maybe I'm missing something here, but is
> that concept difficult? It's not about
> sample size, it's about what is
> mathematically correct.

If I summarized your concept correctly above, then NO, that concept is not difficult. You want to put money out on the table when you have the advantage any time you can.

> Is it possible that counters, even when
> playing mathematically perfect, can lose?
> YES!
> Is it possible that a counter will NEVER see
> the day that the LONG RUN exists in a
> positive way? YES.

I need to do some sims and research to understand what the expected win rate and the standard deviations are in order to formulate any thoughts on why that outcome could happen.

> you will start to dangerously take on
> the similarity of an internet, a.k.a.,
> blackjack troll.

What is that. It doesn't sound good though.

> One last time. Limiting your session wins
> and losses have nothing to do with money
> management. They are strategically based.
> Kelly betting is what constitutes money
> management.

Yes, that is what I am driving at. Strategy based wins and losses. This site uses different terms than my past BJ education/reading. I consider money management to be anything that deals with: overall bankroll, session bankroll, optimal wagering, actual wagering, camoflauge (sp?), comps, limits on winning, limits on losing, when to leave, when to sit down, etc...

Many limits on sessions have been pointed out: time, hunger, being tired, facility breaks, being tabbed a counter, winning too much, etc... I'm merely asking the converse question as well, when should you limit your losses. So far, everyone says that limiting your losses isn't necessary. But *I* haven't uncovered the piece of information that confirms that playing strategy. I would like to! I know, I know, I still "don't get it." That is why I will do my homework and try to discover an answer that will satisfy my curiosity about this. I just need to stop looking at this and do my blackjack homework. We keep getting off the track I am trying to work on regarding short haul results.

Thanks again for your time and patience.

[Parker]

Perhaps the concept will become clear if we reduce it to it's most basic form: A coin toss. Assume that we are betting $1 per toss on a simple coin flip. It is an unbiased coin, the odds are exactly even that it will come up heads or tails on any toss. However, the person offering us this game is math-impaired and has agreed to pay us $1.50 every time the toss comes up heads. If it comes up tails, we merely lose our original bet. Obviously, we have an edge.

So, suppose we start playing, and after 100 tosses, the coin has come up heads 75 times. We expected it to come up heads 50 times, but we have experienced some short-term variance -- positive variance in this case. We have won well in excess of our expectation. Does this mean that we should now quit playing? Of course not. We have exactly the same edge as we did before we started. We still have the same positive expectation.

Since we are ahead of expectation, does this mean that the coin is somehow now more likely to come up tails? Can we now expect to lose 75 of the next 100 tosses so that we will return to expectation? Of course not. The odds of each individual toss are still exactly 50-50. The next 100 tosses (or any 100 tosses) are no more or less likely to end up tails 75 times (or any other combination) than our original 100 tosses.

Will the numbers somehow change if we stop playing for 10 minutes, a week, or a month? Of course not. The odds remain exactly the same.

Contrariwise, suppose we only win 25 of our first 100 tosses. Will we accomplish anything if we stop playing now? Of course not. The only way to recoup our losses is to continue playing. The odds will be exactly the same, now or later. Every toss is still a 50-50 proposition, and we are still playing with the same edge as when we started.

Since we have a positive expectation on every toss, our strategy should be to play as many tosses as possible. The only "money management" we need is to start with enough cash on hand so that an early negative swing will not wipe us out. We cannot predict the outcome of the next toss, or the next 10, or even 100 tosses, but we know that if we hang around for a million tosses, we will make pretty close to a quarter-million bucks. Furthermore, it makes no difference at all if we make those million tosses all at once, or in groups of 1000 or 10,000 or any other combination.

See how simple this is? Blackjack is no different. Each shuffle is like a new coin toss.

We're not asking you to accept anything "on faith." The math is the same, whether you believe it or not. You can choose not to believe in the law of gravity, if you wish.

But don't go jumping off any tall buildings. :-)

[Wolverine]

Thank you Parker, I will take your advice and look into this example to more clearly understand your thoughts about blackjack expectations and the long haul. It is very well worded: clear and concise. I would think an archive of this post would be helpful to point "newbies" to when someone asks for the 1001st time about what I am asking about.

That way you can save yourself from becoming frustrated with them. ;-) Thanks for your continued help.

[Wolverine]

> Since we are ahead of expectation, does this
> mean that the coin is somehow now more
> likely to come up tails? Can we now expect
> to lose 75 of the next 100 tosses so that we
> will return to expectation? Of course not.
> The odds of each individual toss are still
> exactly 50-50. The next 100 tosses (or any
> 100 tosses) are no more or less likely to
> end up tails 75 times (or any other
> combination) than our original 100 tosses.

Okay, I've looked over the post and here is my statistical interpretation, and this is where we keep getting hung up. I look at the example you have given and break it down into an overall expectation of 50 per 100 flips will be heads (by definition, it is a fair coin) (the population mean will be 50%) with a s.d. of roughly 16. 50 - (3 x 16) = 2 and 50 + (3 x 16) = 98. That way 98% of the "each 100 flips" trials will fall within that 3 s.d. range per statistical analysis.

You are 100% correct that *each* coin flip is an individual event with 50-50 odds of coming up heads or tails.

By definition, the overall population average of ALL flips will be 50% each. a.k.a., the long haul. How many flips, 1 M, 20M, 100M, etc... Big number.

Each trial of 100 coin flips however, is a different animal. The number of heads (or tails, doesn't matter which one you count) in each 100 event trial will average 50, but each event can range from roughly 2 up to 98 with the numbers closer to 50 being represented more often thanks to the classic standard bell curve. This is basic, Statistics 101 stuff, but thought I would outline it for anyone that hasn't been in that class.

So, in your first example, heads comes up 75 times out of 100 and leads to a windfall of profits. That is 1.56 standard deviations (which equals 16) from the mean of 50. An event that is likely to occur. The *next* trial of 100 coin flips is not more likely to come up 25 heads to balance it out, or any other number. However, over the long haul, in order for the classic bell curve to balance out, IT IS MORE LIKELY that a less than 50 heads result will occur in the future! If it does not, then the mean over the long haul of these 100 flip trials will not equal 50. When that less than 50 heads trial will occur, nobody knows. But it will happen. You can't keep getting 100 event trials that equal 75 heads either, or again, the mean will not come out to 50 over the long haul. If we differ on this basic premise, then I can certainly see where we have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding statistics and how they are interpreted. If someone can point to a fundamental error in this logic, I would love to see an explanation and learn from that explanation.

> Will the numbers somehow change if we stop
> playing for 10 minutes, a week, or a month?
> Of course not. The odds remain exactly the
> same.

Again, I agree that the odds are exactly the same, we have an edge on every coin flip! However, many 100 coin trials have occurred without us participating in the outcome. We have no way of knowing what those trials have been. Will those trials influence the next session of 100 flips we choose to wager on? The coin is still 50-50 and the statistics say that we can get a result from 2 to 98 heads and it would be within the statistical expectation. However, over the long haul, if the trials which have been going on without our knowledge have accumulated on one side of the mean (50) than another, than the long haul pull toward the mean of those 100 flip trials may exert its power on the next 100 flip trial. Since we weren't there to participate in the winning (or losing) streak that has occurred in our absence, we are at the mercy of the long haul average influencing the next 100 flips. No?

This is exactly why I am asking the short term question about how to approach playing a given blackjack session. At some point in the 100 flip trial, you are up more than you would expect. Is it a good strategy to pocket your forutnate winnings early and await another trial in the future or continue to bet on the remaining coin flips? In other words, should you pocket your excessive winnings before the trial is over? Similarly, if you are down early (lose the first 5 flips, or something like that) should you take your lumps and walk away before the trial ends, again, to await another trial in the future?

I can see that cutting your losses early makes little sense in this scenario. It is a can't miss proposition when you get a 50% premium over the true odds. Play out the 100 flip session and accept your fate.

But when your possible advantage is only 1%, and you may never get back to even, let alone a winning position, due to standard deviation: is cutting your losses to minimize them a prudent strategy to allow your winning session a chance of recouping those losses?

Additionally, blackjack isn't divided into even trials like we have laid out in the coin example. Each deck presents a different "value" to the advantage player to win. Some are big losers, others big winners, most are in between. You have to "start" and "stop" a blackjack session. Perhaps the best way to describe it is that you are playing the last 25 flips of one trial, and the entire next 100 flip trial, and then 75 flips in the 3rd trial. You have created your own 100 flip trial times two. Perhaps the first "original" 100 flip trial that you only caught the last 25 of, was good early, and bad late. You come out a net loser for that 25 trials. The middle 100 and you play with a "formal" 100 flip trial, is dead even, 50-50. The last 75 you play breaks even as well. You wind up a net lose thanks to the first 25 flips you jumped into.

I think I am beginning to see the light. I have to go get dinner, but the light is beginning to go on. Eureka! Thanks. I'll keep working on this. Cool.

[Parker]

> So, in your first example, heads comes up 75
> times out of 100 and leads to a windfall of
> profits. That is 1.56 standard deviations
> (which equals 16) from the mean of 50. An
> event that is likely to occur. The *next*
> trial of 100 coin flips is not more likely
> to come up 25 heads to balance it out, or
> any other number. However, over the long
> haul, in order for the classic bell curve to
> balance out, IT IS MORE LIKELY that a less
> than 50 heads result will occur in the
> future! If it does not, then the mean over
> the long haul of these 100 flip trials will
> not equal 50. When that less than 50 heads
> trial will occur, nobody knows. But it will
> happen. You can't keep getting 100 event
> trials that equal 75 heads either, or again,
> the mean will not come out to 50 over the
> long haul. If we differ on this basic
> premise, then I can certainly see where we
> have a fundamental difference of opinion
> regarding statistics and how they are
> interpreted. If someone can point to a
> fundamental error in this logic, I would
> love to see an explanation and learn from
> that explanation.

There is no "difference of opinion" you simply have not yet grasped the concept of really large numbers. Suppose that, after our initial 100 flips, the remainder of the million flips was exactly half heads and half tails. Guess what? We're still the same. The 75 out of 100 that we started with has now become statistically insignificant. Fred Renzey expressed it well in Blackjack Bluebook II: "Lop-sided results are not corrected; they just fade into the past." The ever-accumulating number of normal outcomes has diluted the impact of those first 100 flips until they've become virtually meaningless. This is the key: there is no "equal and opposite" reaction.

> Again, I agree that the odds are exactly the
> same, we have an edge on every coin flip!
> However, many 100 coin trials have occurred
> without us participating in the outcome. We
> have no way of knowing what those trials
> have been. Will those trials influence the
> next session of 100 flips we choose to wager
> on? The coin is still 50-50 and the
> statistics say that we can get a result from
> 2 to 98 heads and it would be within the
> statistical expectation. However, over the
> long haul, if the trials which have been
> going on without our knowledge have
> accumulated on one side of the mean (50)
> than another, than the long haul pull toward
> the mean of those 100 flip trials may exert
> its power on the next 100 flip trial. Since
> we weren't there to participate in the
> winning (or losing) streak that has occurred
> in our absence, we are at the mercy of the
> long haul average influencing the next 100
> flips. No?

NO! These are independent trials. Past results have absolutely no effect on future outcomes. Once an event has already occurred, the probablity of it happening becomes 100% because it has already happened. See above.

> This is exactly why I am asking the short
> term question about how to approach playing
> a given blackjack session. At some point in
> the 100 flip trial, you are up more than you
> would expect. Is it a good strategy to
> pocket your forutnate winnings early and
> await another trial in the future or
> continue to bet on the remaining coin flips?
> In other words, should you pocket your
> excessive winnings before the trial is over?

Again, this only works if you plan on never again playing in your lifetime. Otherwise, it makes absolutely no difference (from a mathematic standpoint) whether you continue playing, play an hour later, the next day or a week later. However, the only way to reach the long run is to put in the hours - you have no EV when you are not playing.

> Similarly, if you are down early (lose the
> first 5 flips, or something like that)
> should you take your lumps and walk away
> before the trial ends, again, to await
> another trial in the future?

What causes the trial to end? It's all one trial. The breaks are meaningless, except that you are wasting valuable time.

> I can see that cutting your losses early
> makes little sense in this scenario. It is a
> can't miss proposition when you get a 50%
> premium over the true odds. Play out the 100
> flip session and accept your fate.

> But when your possible advantage is only 1%,
> and you may never get back to even, let
> alone a winning position, due to standard
> deviation: is cutting your losses to
> minimize them a prudent strategy to allow
> your winning session a chance of recouping
> those losses?

The fact that your edge is smaller and variance is larger is all the more reason to get in as many hours as possible. It simply means that it will take you longer to get to the long run.

> Additionally, blackjack isn't divided into
> even trials like we have laid out in the
> coin example. Each deck presents a different
> "value" to the advantage player to
> win. Some are big losers, others big
> winners, most are in between. You have to
> "start" and "stop" a
> blackjack session. Perhaps the best way to
> describe it is that you are playing the last
> 25 flips of one trial, and the entire next
> 100 flip trial, and then 75 flips in the 3rd
> trial. You have created your own 100 flip
> trial times two. Perhaps the first
> "original" 100 flip trial that you
> only caught the last 25 of, was good early,
> and bad late. You come out a net loser for
> that 25 trials. The middle 100 and you play
> with a "formal" 100 flip trial, is
> dead even, 50-50. The last 75 you play
> breaks even as well. You wind up a net lose
> thanks to the first 25 flips you jumped
> into.

No. You are assuming that the outcome of every 100 flips is somehow predestined. It isn't. Streaks exist only in hindsight. Any streak can end (and another streak begin) at any given time. Streaks can continue through breaks and folllow you from one table (or casino) to another. You have absolutely no way of knowing, and certainly no way of controlling this, so you play for the long run.

> I think I am beginning to see the light. I
> have to go get dinner, but the light is
> beginning to go on. Eureka! Thanks. I'll
> keep working on this. Cool.

I certainly hope so. :-)

[Don Schlesinger]

> Okay, I've looked over the post and here is
> my statistical interpretation, and this is
> where we keep getting hung up. I look at the
> example you have given and break it down
> into an overall expectation of 50 per 100
> flips will be heads (by definition, it is a
> fair coin) (the population mean will be 50%)
> with a s.d. of roughly 16. 50 - (3 x 16) = 2
> and 50 + (3 x 16) = 98. That way 98% of the
> "each 100 flips" trials will fall
> within that 3 s.d. range per statistical
> analysis.

Where in the world did you get this calculation for the standard deviation? If you flip a fair coin 100 times, the mean number of heads in 50 and one s.d. is 5, not 16!!! A three-s.d. band-width around the mean is 35-65, and over 99.7% of the time, we'll have the number of heads in that range.

I have no idea where you got 16 from, but you surely should have understood that thinking you could get 2 or 98 heads out of 100 with a fair coin 2% of the time is patently absurd.

Don

[Wolverine]

I didn't bother to make the calculations, I just wanted to have a number to use. I figured it would be smaller than that, thanks for the information to complete the statistics!

It was more the exercise to get me to see the error in my thinking than anything else. I was working through the issue about starting and stopping a session. Still haven't gotten it 100% into my skull, but it is getting pretty close. I still need to ruminate on it some more.

Thanks for the patience and the examples, they are helping!

[Don Schlesinger]

> I didn't bother to make the calculations, I
> just wanted to have a number to use.

You might have stated that somewhere! :-)

> It was more the exercise to get me to see
> the error in my thinking than anything else.
> I was working through the issue about
> starting and stopping a session. Still
> haven't gotten it 100% into my skull, but it
> is getting pretty close. I still need to
> ruminate on it some more.

I haven't read every word of every post, but it seems to me that you have gotten some pretty good explanations about the concept. I'm not sure what's troubling you. If you have positive expectation in a game, would you rather play it for 30 minutes or 60 minutes? Can it get much simpler than that?

There are 100 reasons for cutting a winning session short and 100 reasons for cutting a losing session short. NONE of them has anything to do with mathematics.

> Thanks for the patience and the examples,
> they are helping!

Glad to hear it.

Don

[Wolverine]

Don, bfb, and Parker,
Sorry to make it so difficult. I am truly trying to "get it." Being a positive expectation game makes it a different animal than what I was expecting (a 50-50 game), since sessions seem to win or lose, without regard to how + or - a deck was. Anyway... I digress. I never thought of the game that way.

Don, you stated there are a 100 reasons to end a session of playing. That is what I have been driving at the whole time, but we got sidetracked when my mathematical incompetence came up.

If the stated goal is to play as much as possible, why quit playing? We have uncovered some of those reasons: If you can't play there again due to getting barred for counting, you don't want to file the $10,000 paperwork, you get tired, you really do need to use the facilities, you need to eat, it is time to leave, the family is waiting for you. What are others besides a negative count (see below)?

My statement to kick this whole thing off was rather simple in my (simple) mind: If you cut winning sessions short for these stated (good?)reasons, are you cutting off some of your expected win? And if you are limiting the upside of a winning session, should you be concerned with cutting your losses?

I related it to stock picking where the expected outcome over the long haul is decidedly positive as well. However, people lose money in the market all the time, even over the long haul because they don't have buy and sell rules, or use poor buy and sell rules (many are related to human emotions such as greed and fear). Since we make "buy and sell" rules by deciding when to start to play blackjack and when to quit, they seemed quite parallel to me.

That is what this entire line of questioning has been about, rules to stop a session of blackjack with a PLAY ALL approach. I realize that I don't have the advantage with an even or negative count. I am willing to make waiting wagers (table minimums) until the count goes positive. It is my hope that placing larger wagers when I have the advantage will overcome the smaller, disadvantaged wagers. (e.g., if I win an 8 unit wager, I would have to lose 8 single unit wagers as waiting bets, albeit eating into my expected profits while I wait for the next advantageous opportunity.) I fully realize that playing with only positive counts is a better way to play and increase the likelihood of leaving a winner over the long haul. Perhaps someday I will have the oppotunity to pursue this method of playing.

As a recreational advantage player, I am still sorting through a couple of (many?!?) hangups and misconceptions. The discussions, lessons, and site are helping, thank you.

I will go about my homework that has been assigned and ask questions as they come up in the future. I am truly sorry for being such a blockheaded, ignorant poster.

[Parker]

> If the stated goal is to play as much as
> possible, why quit playing? We have
> uncovered some of those reasons: If you
> can't play there again due to getting barred
> for counting, you don't want to file the
> $10,000 paperwork, you get tired, you really
> do need to use the facilities, you need to
> eat, it is time to leave, the family is
> waiting for you. What are others besides a
> negative count (see below)?

Note that most of the reasons for ending a session (you're tired, hungry, getting heat, reached an arbitrary time limit) are applicable regardless of whether you happen to be having a winning or losing session. Another reason would be because playing conditions have deteriorated - that table becomes too crowded, a new dealer is giving inferior penetration, etc. Again, it would make no difference if you happened to be winning or losing at the time.

> My statement to kick this whole thing off
> was rather simple in my (simple) mind: If
> you cut winning sessions short for these
> stated (good?)reasons, are you cutting off
> some of your expected win? And if you are
> limiting the upside of a winning session,
> should you be concerned with cutting your
> losses?

Again, what "expected" win? If we quit during a winning session, we have no way of knowing if we would have continued to win. If we quit during a losing session, we have no way of knowing if we would have continued to lose, or turned it into a winning session.

All we know is when we are playing, we have a positive expectation. When we are not playing, our expectation is 0.

If there were an ideal casino somewhere where heat was nonexistant and conditions were always uniformly good, our goal would be to spend every waking hour at the table.

> I related it to stock picking where the
> expected outcome over the long haul is
> decidedly positive as well. However, people
> lose money in the market all the time, even
> over the long haul because they don't have
> buy and sell rules, or use poor buy and sell
> rules (many are related to human emotions
> such as greed and fear). Since we make
> "buy and sell" rules by deciding
> when to start to play blackjack and when to
> quit, they seemed quite parallel to me.

I think you should stop trying to equate blackjack to stock trading.

> That is what this entire line of questioning
> has been about, rules to stop a session of
> blackjack with a PLAY ALL approach. I
> realize that I don't have the advantage with
> an even or negative count. I am willing to
> make waiting wagers (table minimums) until
> the count goes positive. It is my hope that
> placing larger wagers when I have the
> advantage will overcome the smaller,
> disadvantaged wagers. (e.g., if I win an 8
> unit wager, I would have to lose 8 single
> unit wagers as waiting bets, albeit eating
> into my expected profits while I wait for
> the next advantageous opportunity.) I fully
> realize that playing with only positive
> counts is a better way to play and increase
> the likelihood of leaving a winner over the
> long haul. Perhaps someday I will have the
> oppotunity to pursue this method of playing.

You want a rule, here it is: Never leave a positive shoe.

Satisfied? :-)

> As a recreational advantage player, I am
> still sorting through a couple of (many?!?)
> hangups and misconceptions. The discussions,
> lessons, and site are helping, thank you.

> I will go about my homework that has been
> assigned and ask questions as they come up
> in the future. I am truly sorry for being
> such a blockheaded, ignorant poster.

No need to apologize, providing that you're really here to learn something.

[Wolverine]

> Again, what "expected" win? If we
> quit during a winning session, we have no
> way of knowing if we would have continued to
> win. If we quit during a losing session, we
> have no way of knowing if we would have
> continued to lose, or turned it into a
> winning session.

If there is an EV for a period of time (an hour) or decent number of hands (again, can be equated roughly back to time) and you are (signifcantly?) ahead of expectations for that hour or number of hands. I'm not talking being up the first 5 minutes of a playing session and packing up shop and walking away "because I am up." You have repeatedly stated that it makes no difference unless I plan to never play again. If I have lost my buy in stake (roughly 10% of my bankroll), I would like to leave and try my luck at the next table/casino. You are right that it makes no mathematical difference, but MAYBE it makes an emotional one. That was another one of my questions regarding stopping a session that was dismissed.

I guess I approach each session as my last so I try to make sure I get up from the table even or a winner (if I was able to because I was up). If I buy in for 30 or 40 units, and I am up 10 units at some point, I try to make it a point to leave no worse than even. If I get up 20 or 30 units, I make sure I walk away with a solid 10 units of bank. The only time I have EVER broken this rule is when there was a very positive situation (+4 TC or better) and EVERY TIME I lived to regret that decision as I wound up walking away a loser from where I should have "left the table" under my previously stated quitting rules. Bad luck. But, it has happened enough that after almost 15 years of playing, and the last few using those "stopping a winner" rules, I am trying to find some prescription to help change these disappointing "continuation" outcomes. Your answer to me is going to be "that's the way the cookie crumbles. Nobody can predict what is going to happen in the short run. You had a positive situation, you need to play it."

I will no longer relate blackjack to investing on this board. We obviously look at things very differently.

As I said before, I'm off to do my homework. I'm done asking this question here. It is obvious that *my* quest is only getting people upset and tempers to flare. I will return to the woodwork to avoid further tarnishing my reputation here. Thank you for your efforts on my behalf. Adios.