Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: ArkieMD: Bell Curve of life and blackjack

  1. #1
    ArkieMD
    Guest

    ArkieMD: Bell Curve of life and blackjack

    OK, after never gambling in my life other than the 2 dollar windows at the horse races Im giving BJ a try over on the Tunica barges. I have learned BS for the different decks, and have a conservative betting progression that keeps me at less than 1% disadvantage, which has allowed me to play as much as I want so far, until I figure out if this counting thing is doable in my brain. Am I right or wrong that at this point you are at the top of a statistical Bell Curve, 1% either way, 1% negative with BS, 1% positive with the count. Can not there be some way to recognize variables that allow you to surf the side the casino would rather you not be on? Is it 'the conditions' I have been reading about? I have left a few tables now just based on gut instinct, and stayed at tables for the same reasons, and seemed to do well. So far the only variable I've heard about over and over, is always leave after 4 losses in a row, is this real? I made it out of medical school surfing that sweet z score of life, and I really was able to depend on that curve, but the more I look into this game the less handle I get that there are tangibles on that side of the graph, although I don't mind the intangibles that much, thats what makes the casinos fun. Any help?

  2. #2
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Free your mind

    > OK, after never gambling in my life other
    > than the 2 dollar windows at the horse races
    > Im giving BJ a try over on the Tunica
    > barges. I have learned BS for the different
    > decks, and have a conservative betting
    > progression that keeps me at less than 1%
    > disadvantage, which has allowed me to play
    > as much as I want so far, until I figure out
    > if this counting thing is doable in my
    > brain. Am I right or wrong that at this
    > point you are at the top of a statistical
    > Bell Curve, 1% either way, 1% negative with
    > BS, 1% positive with the count. Can not
    > there be some way to recognize variables
    > that allow you to surf the side the casino
    > would rather you not be on? Is it 'the
    > conditions' I have been reading about? I
    > have left a few tables now just based on gut
    > instinct, and stayed at tables for the same
    > reasons, and seemed to do well. So far the
    > only variable I've heard about over and
    > over, is always leave after 4 losses in a
    > row, is this real? I made it out of medical
    > school surfing that sweet z score of life,
    > and I really was able to depend on that
    > curve, but the more I look into this game
    > the less handle I get that there are
    > tangibles on that side of the graph,
    > although I don't mind the intangibles that
    > much, thats what makes the casinos fun. Any
    > help?

    Okay doc, since you made it through med school, you should have no difficulty learning to count cards. It isn't rocket science.

    First, you have to free your mind from some common misconceptions. For starters, betting progressions have no effect on the house advantage. In the long run, you will lose your average bet times the house edge. It's that simple, and any short-term variations are simply that, variance.

    We count cards to determine when we have an advantage, and bet more when that occurs. We also make certain deviations from basic strategy based on the count, but more of our advantage is determined from bet variation, especially in shoe games. So, our bets must be based on the count, not a progression.

    You've essentially got the right idea with the bell curves. Just remember that any individual session can land just about anywhere on that curve. Over the long run, your cumulative results will gravitate toward the center.

    Sadly, there is no way to stay on one side of this curve. We can shift the curve slightly, but variance remains. This is why large bankrolls are required, and why more people aren't doing it.

    Another concept that is difficult for many people to grasp is that you cannot base any conclusions on personal experience. Playing a certain way and winning (or losing) several sessions means absolutely nothing. Your database is simply too small. Fortunately, we can use computer simulations to play billions of hands in a relatively short period of time, and get accurate information in that manner.

    "So far the only variable I've heard about over and over, is always leave after 4 losses in a row, is this real?"

    Wake up Neo, the Matrix has you. You certainly haven't heard that "over and over" on this website.

    Streaks mean absolutely nothing. We can only know when they begin and end in hindsight. Losing four hands in a row is meaningless. It happens to me, and anyone who plays a lot, all the time. If playing conditions are good, it is silly to leave a game simply because you lose a few hands.

    This advice may help those playing a losing game (progressionists, for example), simply because they will spend more time hopping from one table to another, buying in, etc., than actually playing the game. So, they will lose more slowly.

    I suggest that you read some of the basic texts on card counting and advantage play. Consider Blackjack in the Zone (Revised and Expanded) by Rick "Night Train" Blaine, or Professional Blackjack by Stanford Wong.

    Be careful. A lot of garbage has found its way into print.

  3. #3
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: Bell curve

    The doc is implying a deviation from the bell of plus or minus 1% have the same results of wins and loses. This is incorrect,the bell is at -.5% if he uses basic strategy. So adding 1% to the bell curve will result in a positive deviation of .5%. Adding -1% will show a negative deviation of -1.5%. Therefore if he has a negative bell deviation of 1%,he will be losing 3 times more than the winnings of a 1% positive deviation on the bell. A huge difference in results.

    Does this make sense? Maybe Don could clear it up if I'm wrong.

    Brick

    > Okay doc, since you made it through med
    > school, you should have no difficulty
    > learning to count cards. It isn't rocket
    > science.

    > First, you have to free your mind from some
    > common misconceptions. For starters, betting
    > progressions have no effect on the house
    > advantage. In the long run, you will lose
    > your average bet times the house edge. It's
    > that simple, and any short-term variations
    > are simply that, variance.

    > We count cards to determine when we have an
    > advantage, and bet more when that occurs. We
    > also make certain deviations from basic
    > strategy based on the count, but more of our
    > advantage is determined from bet variation,
    > especially in shoe games. So, our bets must
    > be based on the count, not a progression.

    > You've essentially got the right idea with
    > the bell curves. Just remember that any
    > individual session can land just about
    > anywhere on that curve. Over the long run,
    > your cumulative results will gravitate
    > toward the center.

    > Sadly, there is no way to stay on one side
    > of this curve. We can shift the curve
    > slightly, but variance remains. This is why
    > large bankrolls are required, and why more
    > people aren't doing it.

    > Another concept that is difficult for many
    > people to grasp is that you cannot base any
    > conclusions on personal experience. Playing
    > a certain way and winning (or losing)
    > several sessions means absolutely nothing.
    > Your database is simply too small.
    > Fortunately, we can use computer simulations
    > to play billions of hands in a relatively
    > short period of time, and get accurate
    > information in that manner.

    > "So far the only variable I've heard
    > about over and over, is always leave after 4
    > losses in a row, is this real?" Wake
    > up Neo, the Matrix has you. You certainly
    > haven't heard that "over and over"
    > on this website.

    > Streaks mean absolutely nothing. We can only
    > know when they begin and end in hindsight.
    > Losing four hands in a row is meaningless.
    > It happens to me, and anyone who plays a
    > lot, all the time. If playing conditions are
    > good, it is silly to leave a game simply
    > because you lose a few hands.

    > This advice may help those playing a losing
    > game (progressionists, for example), simply
    > because they will spend more time hopping
    > from one table to another, buying in, etc.,
    > than actually playing the game. So, they
    > will lose more slowly.

    > I suggest that you read some of the basic
    > texts on card counting and advantage play.
    > Consider Blackjack in the Zone (Revised and
    > Expanded) by Rick "Night Train"
    > Blaine, or Professional Blackjack by
    > Stanford Wong.

    > Be careful. A lot of garbage has found its
    > way into print.

  4. #4
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Bell curve

    > The doc is implying a deviation from the
    > bell of plus or minus 1% have the same
    > results of wins and loses. This is
    > incorrect,the bell is at -.5% if he uses
    > basic strategy. So adding 1% to the bell
    > curve will result in a positive deviation of
    > .5%. Adding -1% will show a negative
    > deviation of -1.5%. Therefore if he has a
    > negative bell deviation of 1%,he will be
    > losing 3 times more than the winnings of a
    > 1% positive deviation on the bell. A huge
    > difference in results.

    > Does this make sense? Maybe Don could clear
    > it up if I'm wrong.

    For a typical shoe game, you would be correct. Perhaps the writer imagined an ideal-rules, breakeven SD game.

    Don

  5. #5
    feepness
    Guest

    feepness: Re: Free your mind

    > "So far the only variable I've heard
    > about over and over, is always leave after 4
    > losses in a row, is this real?" Wake
    > up Neo, the Matrix has you. You certainly
    > haven't heard that "over and over"
    > on this website.

    Actually one thing I have heard that I think is good advice is "don't lose more than 10 (or 15) bets to one dealer" (not necessarily in a row). While this is statistically possible, at that range it also moves into the realm of potential dealer cheating. IE, it has nothing to do with the cards or the odds, just with the fact that losing that many in a row may mean something else is involved. Why bother sticking around to find out?

    Losing four in a row? Seems to happen once a shoe to me... especially at high counts...

  6. #6
    BJ Student
    Guest

    BJ Student: Re: Free your mind

    Now now, Parker, don't be so quick to judge. In his book, "Blackjack", he mentions on pg. 166 "If you ever run into a dealer who remarks that he is 'hot'... don't play with him.. probability is a funny bird..."

    I'm not saying he's right or you're right, but there is still some conflicting information about this issue. Some authors say that even if it's psychological, it's probably best to cool it if you're on a losing streak. In any case, streaks ARE part of the game and so are psychological up's and down's.

    As with your Neo analogy, what if you only dreamed you woke up?

  7. #7
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Free your mind

    > Now now, Parker, don't be so quick to judge.
    > In his book, "Blackjack", he
    > mentions on pg. 166 "If you ever run
    > into a dealer who remarks that he is
    > 'hot'... don't play with him.. probability
    > is a funny bird..."

    What book? By whom? If there were any truth to this bit of superstitious nonsense, I should be the losingest player on the planet, because I seek out such dealers.

    I love it when a "hot" dealer has managed to chase all the players away from the table, leaving me with a delicious heads-up game.

    Sure, streaks happen, but they can only be predicted in hindsight. The "hot" dealer can abruptly cool off, and the dealer who has been emptying the chip tray can start suddenly making 6 card 21's.

    There is absolutely no way of predicting it. As they say on Wall Street, past performance is no guarantee of future profits.

    So, we go with the math and play for the long run.

    > I'm not saying he's right or you're right,
    > but there is still some conflicting
    > information about this issue. Some authors
    > say that even if it's psychological, it's
    > probably best to cool it if you're on a
    > losing streak. In any case, streaks ARE part
    > of the game and so are psychological up's
    > and down's.

    True. And not everyone has the psychological makeup to do this.

    But think about it. Suppose you were to find that rare dealer who is giving really outstanding penetration. With deep pen, you will see a lot of high counts, and be putting out a lot of max bets. It is entirely possible that you may hit a streak where the cards are not falling your way, and you may lose a large amount of money in a very short time. (It has happened to me on several occasions.) Does this mean that you should leave this exceptional game and go play an inferior game somewhere else, simply because you are losing? I think not.

    There is no "conflicting information." A strategy is either mathematically correct or it is superstitious nonsense.

    > As with your Neo analogy, what if you only
    > dreamed you woke up?

    No, this is more like "Welcome . . . to the real world."

  8. #8
    BJ Student
    Guest

    BJ Student: Re: Free your mind

    Oops, I seemed to have omitted the author. It's "The Gambling Times Guide to Blackjack" by Stanley Roberts, with contributions by Ed Thorp, Lance Humble, Julian Brown, Jerry Patterson, Arnold Snyder, Ken Uston, and D. Howard Mitchell.

    I don't mean to imply that I buy into superstitions. What I do buy into is the psychological factor. If I'm feeling negative because I just lost 10 hands in a row, You can be sure I'll be sitting out for a while until I get my wits back, even with a dealer dealing 80% in a SD game.

    What were the 10 commandments again?
    1) don't announce you're a counter
    2) don't fight being barred
    3) don't play when you're tired or in less than adequate mood
    4) don't play with scared money
    5) don't play under-bankrolled
    6) don't overtip
    7) don't play on superstition
    8) don't don't play bad games
    9) don't draw attention
    10) don't drink when playing

    > What book? By whom? If there were any truth
    > to this bit of superstitious nonsense, I
    > should be the losingest player on the
    > planet, because I seek out such dealers.

    > I love it when a "hot" dealer has
    > managed to chase all the players away from
    > the table, leaving me with a delicious
    > heads-up game.

    > Sure, streaks happen, but they can only be
    > predicted in hindsight. The "hot"
    > dealer can abruptly cool off, and the dealer
    > who has been emptying the chip tray can
    > start suddenly making 6 card 21's.

    > There is absolutely no way of predicting it.
    > As they say on Wall Street, past performance
    > is no guarantee of future profits.

    > So, we go with the math and play for the
    > long run.

    > True. And not everyone has the psychological
    > makeup to do this.

    > But think about it. Suppose you were to find
    > that rare dealer who is giving really
    > outstanding penetration. With deep pen, you
    > will see a lot of high counts, and be
    > putting out a lot of max bets. It is
    > entirely possible that you may hit a streak
    > where the cards are not falling your way,
    > and you may lose a large amount of money in
    > a very short time. (It has happened to me on
    > several occasions.) Does this mean that you
    > should leave this exceptional game and go
    > play an inferior game somewhere else, simply
    > because you are losing? I think not.

    > There is no "conflicting
    > information." A strategy is either
    > mathematically correct or it is
    > superstitious nonsense.

    > No, this is more like "Welcome . . . to
    > the real world."

  9. #9
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Free your mind

    > Oops, I seemed to have omitted the author.
    > It's "The Gambling Times Guide to
    > Blackjack" by Stanley Roberts, with
    > contributions by Ed Thorp, Lance Humble,
    > Julian Brown, Jerry Patterson, Arnold
    > Snyder, Ken Uston, and D. Howard Mitchell.

    Some odd ideas occasionally pop up in older books. For example, in Playing Blackjack as a Business, Lawrence Revere cautions against playing at a table with unskilled players.

    > I don't mean to imply that I buy into
    > superstitions. What I do buy into is the
    > psychological factor. If I'm feeling
    > negative because I just lost 10 hands in a
    > row, You can be sure I'll be sitting out for
    > a while until I get my wits back, even with
    > a dealer dealing 80% in a SD game.

    One of the legitimate reasons for leaving a game is because you are no longer physically or mentally able to play the game to the best of your ability. This could be due to anything from a bad case of heartburn from the casino buffet to being upset over an exceptionally bad run of cards.

    Ideally, of course, it shouldn't happen. Indeed, getting upset over losing may be an indication of an inadequate bankroll and/or playing above one's "comfort zone."

    > What were the 10 commandments again?
    > 1) don't announce you're a counter
    > 2) don't fight being barred
    > 3) don't play when you're tired or in less
    > than adequate mood
    > 4) don't play with scared money
    > 5) don't play under-bankrolled
    > 6) don't overtip
    > 7) don't play on superstition
    > 8) don't don't play bad games
    > 9) don't draw attention
    > 10) don't drink when playing

    Sound advice indeed.

  10. #10
    ArkieMD
    Guest

    ArkieMD: Re: Bell Curve of life and blackjack

    Thanks for all the responces. First, in my initial message I didnt mean to imply that a my betting progression had anything to do with the house advantage, just the BS, I just think of my betting progression as a quicker way of getting to the inevitable on any one game, winners or losers, is this a fair way to see it? And, I have to believe now that even with all the complicated variables the game of Blackjack is very similar to heads or tails played with a built in edge to one player, ie the dealer. In fact after playing in Tunica this weekend, the dealers game seemed even more robust, I found myself wondering where this less than 1% advantage was as in 3/5 games the dealer just dominated, and in the other two it was a constant battle. My empirical mind was just having a hard time with a game which seemed more complex than a flip of the coin, but the newtonians win, I guess 'counting'--- She Is The One.

  11. #11
    Magician
    Guest

    Magician: Re: Bell Curve of life and blackjack

    > I just think of my betting progression as a
    > quicker way of getting to the inevitable on
    > any one game, winners or losers, is this a
    > fair way to see it?

    No. Progressions are a way of manipulating session results. You can win more often but have the occasional huge loss, or lose more often but have the occasional huge win. To an advantage player who is looking to the long run, session results are meaningless.

    In order to get a big win or loss more quickly (which I think is what you meant), you just have to increase your average bet - not necessarily vary your bet.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.