boy 1935: leaving, when ahead

[boy 1935]

All the math people (including me) say, that your longterm profit is not affected, if you decide, to go home, when you are ahead. This is correct. But there is a reason, (a very important one)why leaving, when ahead, gives you an advantage. The point is, that everybody of us is playing with a ROR. I assume, that everybody of us has a chance of having a "super wipeoff". So the fact is, that if you leave the session with a win, you have one additional day BEFORE the wipeoff. An example:
If you have the "super wipeoff" after 100,000 hands and you leave at a certain day the casino after 30 minutes, winning $150, you have one more day, feeling as a winner. If the extreme case of playing the 100,000 hands in 1 minute would be possible, you dont`t have this winning day.
So, keep in mind: Leaving a session as a winner
stretches the time to the wipeoff. This is important, because the number of days we are playing is limited.

Good cards.

[JLP]

> All the math people (including me) say, that
> your longterm profit is not affected, if you
> decide, to go home, when you are ahead. This
> is correct. But there is a reason, (a very
> important one)why leaving, when ahead, gives
> you an advantage. The point is, that
> everybody of us is playing with a ROR. I
> assume, that everybody of us has a chance of
> having a "super wipeoff". So the
> fact is, that if you leave the session with
> a win, you have one additional day BEFORE
> the wipeoff. An example:
> If you have the "super wipeoff"
> after 100,000 hands and you leave at a
> certain day the casino after 30 minutes,
> winning $150, you have one more day, feeling
> as a winner. If the extreme case of playing
> the 100,000 hands in 1 minute would be
> possible, you dont`t have this winning day.
> So, keep in mind: Leaving a session as a
> winner
> stretches the time to the wipeoff. This is
> important, because the number of days we are
> playing is limited.

> Good cards.

That brings up another point.

Does going into session with a positive [after a win session] attitude effect the overall outcome of the session?!

Negative thinking sometimes attracts negative results.

Just a thought.

[Don Schlesinger]

Suppose you measure time by hours, rather than by days?

Don

[boy 1935]

> Suppose you measure time by hours, rather
> than by days?

> Don

Hallo Don,

I feel fine, that you answered me, may be other players have an opinion to this theme,
too. Concerning the measure: An advantage player wants longevity.And most players will record the results of sessions=days
I suppose we measure the time in days. So I repead: The key point is, that we are living a limited number of days. Eyery day, we decide to leave as a winner(when ahead), stretches the time to a possible ruin.

[Parker]

> This is
> important, because the number of days we are
> playing is limited.

Very true. Which means we should concentrate on playing as many hands as possible, so we can get into the long run and be a long-term winner, rather than wasting time with silliness like "feeling like a winner."

Session results are meaningless - it's all one long session, with breaks. The only way you accomplish anything by "quitting while ahead" is if you plan on never in your life playing the game again.

Play the best games you can find, stick with your game plan, and don't overbet your bankroll.

All that being said, I've been known to cut play short on the last day of a trip so I can return home a big winner.

But I realize that it's a foolish pleasure. :-)

[Parker]

> Hallo Don,

> I feel fine, that you answered me, may be
> other players have an opinion to this theme,
> too. Concerning the measure: An advantage
> player wants longevity.And most players will
> record the results of sessions=days
> I suppose we measure the time in days. So I
> repead: The key point is, that we are living
> a limited number of days. Eyery day, we
> decide to leave as a winner(when ahead),
> stretches the time to a possible ruin.

If we carry your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then we should simply give up the game forever immediately following our first winning session.

Our goal is not to avoid ruin at any cost - we can do that simply by not playing at all.

Our goal is to make money while keeping risk of ruin to an acceptable level.

[Sun Runner]

> But I realize that it's a foolish pleasure.
> :-)

Nothing wrong with those!!

Nobody I knows plays like a cyborg. We can calculate and postulate, but we are all emotional creatures.

You've got to quit sometime, why not quit winners, if posible? Although I have before, there is no valor in quitting losers.

"BOY1935" has a little difficulty with the King's English. Maybe that's all he was trying to say.

[ZOD]

"Play the best games you can find, stick with your game plan, and don't overbet your bankroll." -- Parker

Ah, the distillation of blackjack success. On these pages and others, I've echoed the same words. I've espoused players to put their emotions aside, play properly for the long game, and trust the math. Alway trust the math.

But it's tough isn't it? The cards don't always fall. The pit boss doesn't always smile back. The better games seem to disappear into the mist. So, we resort to short term successes to quench our emotional thirst for victory.

But, as it's been stated fefore, these short term victories and defeats are nothing but illusions on the road to mathmatical certainty. Several years of advantage blackjack play have doubled my bankroll many, many times over. But it hasn't been without anguish, without crushing humilitations, or without visions of grandeur.

Even now, when I think that losing streaks can't get any longer, they do. Even now, when I think I can't extend my streak of five naturals in a row, I do. It's simply the nature of the short term game, and as hardend as I am to it, I still find myself being amazed. Whether I believe it or not, after all these years, I still have not seen everything.

All this boring you? How about some real life results? For the last two months, I have lost every blackjack session I have played. Yesterday, in five hours, I did not win a single max bet. I had a grand total of one blackjack. Even knowing what I know, it pains me. The four months before that, I won every session except one. In one memorable session, I won or pushed every hand for three and a half 6D shoes. I had to keep telling myself that I wasn't invincible, that I hadn't found the "Holy Grail" of winning, that the pendulum would eventually swing back and hit me like a right cross. It did.

But I trust the math and I keep playing. It's a long game.

This isn't an easy game. There aren't that many truly successful players. It requires investment: educational, financial, and psychological. Learn the skills. Don't under estimate bankroll requirements. Understand your emotion limits, both high and low. Ride the swings in the long game. It's the only one that really exists. Best...

ZOD

[Dancer]

[sam bowling]

All the responses seem to suggest that there's some tally being kept of all your sessions that constitute a "long term," that the game knows you won yesterday and the three days before that so today your goose is cooked.

While the game is mysterious, it's not that mysterious. It has the certainty of math (statistics actually) but that math is affected by all manner of conditions that can cause delays and extensions of outcome. Basic strategy seems an attempt to create the most stable (consistent) conditions for players. Who hasn't seen a hunch player kill the straight players at a table? Maybe less often but the opposite happens also. But basic strategy seems to be a player's equation of the game in answer to the house equation of the game. Deviation from basic strategy interrupts the math process.

Counting doesn't guarantee that the math will immediately conform to our expectations. Who hasn't seen the dealer with a string of natural twenties when the count strongly suggests that she/he should be drawing small cards to small cards? If one plays the same place enough, he'll see that some dealers seem more disposed to this than others. The math of the game doesn't explain this phenomenon.

The points of the game are to win and to limit losses. Perhaps I didn't fully understand the responses but one can't reasonably say the long term math works against the player, that one will certainly lose if he plays long enough, and then also reasonably say the player shouldn't leave when he's up. Setting win/loss goals doesn't seem antithetical to basic strategy and counting.

All the math people (including me) say, that
> your longterm profit is not affected, if you
> decide, to go home, when you are ahead. This
> is correct. But there is a reason, (a very
> important one)why leaving, when ahead, gives
> you an advantage. The point is, that
> everybody of us is playing with a ROR. I
> assume, that everybody of us has a chance of
> having a "super wipeoff". So the
> fact is, that if you leave the session with
> a win, you have one additional day BEFORE
> the wipeoff. An example:
> If you have the "super wipeoff"
> after 100,000 hands and you leave at a
> certain day the casino after 30 minutes,
> winning $150, you have one more day, feeling
> as a winner. If the extreme case of playing
> the 100,000 hands in 1 minute would be
> possible, you dont`t have this winning day.
> So, keep in mind: Leaving a session as a
> winner
> stretches the time to the wipeoff. This is
> important, because the number of days we are
> playing is limited.

> Good cards.

[Parker]

> All the responses seem to suggest that
> there's some tally being kept of all your
> sessions that constitute a "long
> term," that the game knows you won
> yesterday and the three days before that so
> today your goose is cooked.

Not at all. In the long run, you will earn your expectation, minus what you give up in mistakes, cover plays, etc. However, in the short term, anything can (and frequently does) happen. This is a difficult concept to grasp. I like the way blackjack author Fred Renzey put it: "Lop-sided results are not corrected, they merely fade into the past."

In othe words, just because you have an extended losing streak does not mean that you are "due" a winning streak (or vice versa). As you accumulate more playing hours, the effect of any individual session on your overall lifetime statistics becomes less significant.

> While the game is mysterious, it's not that
> mysterious. It has the certainty of math
> (statistics actually) but that math is
> affected by all manner of conditions that
> can cause delays and extensions of outcome.
> Basic strategy seems an attempt to create
> the most stable (consistent) conditions for
> players. Who hasn't seen a hunch player kill
> the straight players at a table? Maybe less
> often but the opposite happens also. But
> basic strategy seems to be a player's
> equation of the game in answer to the house
> equation of the game. Deviation from basic
> strategy interrupts the math process.

There is nothing magical about basic strategy - it is simply making the play most likely to win when our only knowledge is the exposed cards for that hand. When we gain additional knowledge via card counting, the correct play may change.

The play of other players has no effect on this.

The mind is an amazing thing. Sure, I've seen times when clueless players mess up the table. The opposite does indeed happen as well, and it happens just as often. We just don't remember it.

> Counting doesn't guarantee that the math
> will immediately conform to our
> expectations. Who hasn't seen the dealer
> with a string of natural twenties when the
> count strongly suggests that she/he should
> be drawing small cards to small cards? If
> one plays the same place enough, he'll see
> that some dealers seem more disposed to this
> than others. The math of the game doesn't
> explain this phenomenon.

It most certainly does. It's called variance.

And I have played enough years to know that the idea that "some dealers seem more disposed to this than others" is superstitious ploppy nonsense.

Since I love a heads-up game, I deliberately seek out those killer dealers, standing behind an empty table because they have run everyone off. If there were any truth to it, I should be a big loser. I'm not.

> The points of the game are to win and to
> limit losses. Perhaps I didn't fully
> understand the responses but one can't
> reasonably say the long term math works
> against the player, that one will certainly
> lose if he plays long enough, and then also
> reasonably say the player shouldn't leave
> when he's up. Setting win/loss goals doesn't
> seem antithetical to basic strategy and
> counting.

You're talking about two different things. Win/loss goals might be acceptable to the basic strategy player because he/she is playing a negative expectation game, and will indeed lose it all if he/she plays long enough.

The counter, OTOH, is (hopefully) playing a winning game. The more hours played, the sooner the results will be in line with expectation.

[Sun Runner]

> Sure, I've seen times when clueless players mess up the table.

Care to expand on this?

[sam bowling]

Parker,

Thanks for your excellent, concise responses. It is difficult for me to accept fully and to understand the certainty of the game as you explain it. The variance in the favor of the house seems more certain and dominant than the results of the correct plays and bets that counting prescribes. For those reasons, I play strict basic strategy and try to hit and run.

A pattern of my play since I began playing in 1998 is reflected in my March records. I had 17 winning sessions with a total win of 2525.00. I had 4 losing sessions with a total loss of 3775.00. Average loss 943.75. (Sometimes I get hit and then I run!) Average win 148.53. 15 of the winning sessions were on an initial buyin of 500. The other 2 winning sessions needed a second buyin of 200. The 4 losses were multiple buyins totaling 1000-1200 each session. As I say, this is a pattern that I've observed in my records of nearly five years. In response I've limited my buyin to 500 and have limited my losses accordingly. This past month's records show similar win/loss session ratio but more positive cash results. I know that my evidence is anecdotal and not truly statistical. It sounds a bit crude as I proofread it. I'm guessing that my records would be considered as evidence of the game's variance. Thanks again for your help and if you run out of those killer dealers to butt heads with, you can find them stacked high at Caesar's Riverboat Indiana.

SB

> Not at all. In the long run, you will earn
> your expectation, minus what you give up in
> mistakes, cover plays, etc. However, in the
> short term, anything can (and frequently
> does) happen. This is a difficult concept to
> grasp. I like the way blackjack author Fred
> Renzey put it: "Lop-sided results are
> not corrected, they merely fade into the
> past."

> In othe words, just because you have an
> extended losing streak does not mean that
> you are "due" a winning streak (or
> vice versa). As you accumulate more playing
> hours, the effect of any individual session
> on your overall lifetime statistics becomes
> less significant.

> There is nothing magical about basic
> strategy - it is simply making the play most
> likely to win when our only knowledge is the
> exposed cards for that hand. When we gain
> additional knowledge via card counting, the
> correct play may change.

> The play of other players has no effect on
> this.

> The mind is an amazing thing. Sure, I've
> seen times when clueless players mess up the
> table. The opposite does indeed happen as
> well, and it happens just as often. We just
> don't remember it.

> It most certainly does. It's called
> variance.

> And I have played enough years to know that
> the idea that "some dealers seem more
> disposed to this than others" is
> superstitious ploppy nonsense.

> Since I love a heads-up game, I deliberately
> seek out those killer dealers, standing
> behind an empty table because they have run
> everyone off. If there were any truth to it,
> I should be a big loser. I'm not.

> You're talking about two different things.
> Win/loss goals might be acceptable to the
> basic strategy player because he/she is
> playing a negative expectation game, and
> will indeed lose it all if he/she plays long
> enough.

> The counter, OTOH, is (hopefully) playing a
> winning game. The more hours played, the
> sooner the results will be in line with
> expectation.