Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 33

Thread: newtobj: The backcounter strikes

  1. #14
    sam
    Guest

    sam: Re: when is an advantage an advantage?

    So when one has a high positive count, he doesn't have a greater probability of winning? It's still the .42 win, .49 lose, & .09 push regardless of a high positive count? A large number of 10's & aces coming doesn't mean one will win more hands: more doubles and more blackjacks? More as in more often? Aren't many of the split hands (except 9's) hampered by a large number of 10's to be played? One wants the deuce, trey, four, & sometimes 5's to come with the about the same frequency as 10's. I know logic is sometimes the fool's companion but something doesn't seem quite right here. I'm fairly new to advantage play and need an explanation. Thanks.

    > I say good job Newtobj. It's great when you
    > have those days. I had a day like that and
    > then the next day....ummm....I'd rather not
    > discuss that one. I believe I did learn more
    > on the the bad day, though.

    > Professionals, please answer this. Using
    > CVCX, I did a sim of backcounting at +1 TC
    > with a spread of 1 to 3 and the STD DEV was
    > 9 . That's it, 9 !!!! The standard deviation
    > for playing all was about 46. Doesn't this
    > mean something.

    > Also, Newtobj, take my advice, don't put too
    > much money out at a TC +1. Your advantage is
    > only about .011 % at that point. Wait until
    > about +2 to really get going. That is what I
    > learned on that bad day. Also, I wouldn't
    > flat bet when wonging. Some people advise
    > that but you really increase your gains when
    > you spread a little upon wonging just like
    > if you were playing all.

  2. #15
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Nope

    > Then you can certainly play brilliant and
    > win.

    > I feel that a skilled card counter(such as
    > Iwho avoids negative shoes is a major tool
    > in determining the difference between a
    > winning and losing session. Had NTBJ's
    > strategy been play- all,..he may have lost.

    He may have . . . or he may have won even more.

    Obviously, not playing negative shoes will result in a huge increase in a players EV over the long run.

    However, when we look at the results of any one individual session, EV is simply dwarfed by variance. You have a winning session because you get good cards. You get good cards because you are lucky. End of story.

    Ever had a play-all session in which, despite a series of negative counts, you were still managing to hold your own and maybe even gain a little? Suddenly that monster count you've been waiting for comes along, except that the cards don't fall your way, and in the space of a few hands you go from being comfortably ahead to being in a big hole.

    Or, have you ever seen someone sit down at the table who obviously didn't have a clue? They hit stiffs against weak dealer cards, stand on soft hands, and commit all manner of sins against basic strategy, but through some bizarre twist of fate they cannot lose. You cringe as you watch this person shove out a huge bet, with the count about -10 . . . and get a blackjack. Meanwhile, you are counting and playing perfectly . . . and getting killed.

    Herein lies the problem: If you are going to claim that a winning session is the result of your brilliant play, then a losing session (or worse yet, several losing sessions in a row) must mean that you are doing something wrong.

    And that, my friend, is the path to insanity.

  3. #16
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Yep

    > Using
    > CVCX, I did a sim of backcounting at +1 TC
    > with a spread of 1 to 3 and the STD DEV was
    > 9 . That's it, 9 !!!! The standard deviation
    > for playing all was about 46. Doesn't this
    > mean something.

    In shoes, the nice thing about Wonging is you are betting a lower spread as well as having positive expectation. But, you also have a larger average bet if you are betting with the same risk. So, movement in your bankroll is much quicker while you are playing. You aren't experiencing those long, boring periods of little change in bankroll while betting one unit. Every bet counts.

  4. #17
    sam
    Guest

    sam: Re: Nope

    Parker,

    Your response is a great one for new advantage players like me. We finally begin to believe in the certainty of the math and luck still zaps us as bad as when we were just straight BS players. That causes doubts, frustration, and perhaps crazy
    play. Thanks for putting the whole deal in an understandable perspective. Not that I understand luck, but now I can acknowledge it as an essential of being a successful AP.
    > He may have . . . or he may have won even
    > more.

    > Obviously, not playing negative shoes will
    > result in a huge increase in a players EV
    > over the long run.

    > However, when we look at the results of any
    > one individual session, EV is simply dwarfed
    > by variance. You have a winning session
    > because you get good cards. You get good
    > cards because you are lucky. End of story.

    > Ever had a play-all session in which,
    > despite a series of negative counts, you
    > were still managing to hold your own and
    > maybe even gain a little? Suddenly that
    > monster count you've been waiting for comes
    > along, except that the cards don't fall your
    > way, and in the space of a few hands you go
    > from being comfortably ahead to being in a
    > big hole.

    > Or, have you ever seen someone sit down at
    > the table who obviously didn't have a clue?
    > They hit stiffs against weak dealer cards,
    > stand on soft hands, and commit all manner
    > of sins against basic strategy, but through
    > some bizarre twist of fate they cannot lose.
    > You cringe as you watch this person shove
    > out a huge bet, with the count about -10 . .
    > . and get a blackjack. Meanwhile, you are
    > counting and playing perfectly . . . and
    > getting killed.

    > Herein lies the problem: If you are going to
    > claim that a winning session is the result
    > of your brilliant play, then a losing
    > session (or worse yet, several losing
    > sessions in a row) must mean that you are
    > doing something wrong.

    > And that, my friend, is the path to
    > insanity.

  5. #18
    Dancer
    Guest

    Dancer: It's worse as a counter

    > Your response is a great one for new
    > advantage players like me. We finally begin
    > to believe in the certainty of the math and
    > luck still zaps us as bad as when we were
    > just straight BS players. That causes
    > doubts, frustration, and perhaps crazy
    > play.

    Developing a healthy respect for the dark side of this game is essential if you hope to play it for any significant amount of time. New counters face many daunting challenges. As you mentioned, just when you start believing the math, "luck" goes against you just as it did when you were playing BS -- or perhaps not even that.

    I would submit that it's far worse as a new counter. When you didn't know anything about the game, you most likely didn't play with much, if any, bet spread. By doing this, you (unknowingly) minimized your variance and protected yourself from large negative swings despite playing an overall losing game.

    Armed with a little knowledge, you now proceed to spread 8:1, 12:1 or more and WHAM!! You've now opened Pandora's box of variance and have subjected yourself to far more damaging losing "streaks".

  6. #19
    Brick Waller
    Guest

    Brick Waller: Re: Nope

    Im not sure why you're disagreeing, even the brilliant play of a computer will have negative and positive swings. If a computer has a positive or negative swing it is still playing brilliantly. Just because anyone has a huge positive swing(or negative) does not mean they're not playing a brilliant(or excellent) game of blackjack.

    > However, when we look at the results of any
    > one individual session, EV is simply dwarfed
    > by variance. You have a winning session
    > because you get good cards. You get good
    > cards because you are lucky. End of story.

    This is not necessarily true. A wonger gets a higher percentage of good cards because the ratio is better. This is not luck this is math. A ploppy wins because they are lucky, I think you're trying to compare ev and variance with good and bad luck. Does a casino win because they're lucky too?

    > Ever had a play-all session in which,
    > despite a series of negative counts, you
    > were still managing to hold your own and
    > maybe even gain a little? Suddenly that
    > monster count you've been waiting for comes
    > along, except that the cards don't fall your
    > way, and in the space of a few hands you go
    > from being comfortably ahead to being in a
    > big hole.

    All the time.

    > Or, have you ever seen someone sit down at
    > the table who obviously didn't have a clue?
    > They hit stiffs against weak dealer cards,
    > stand on soft hands, and commit all manner
    > of sins against basic strategy, but through
    > some bizarre twist of fate they cannot lose.
    > You cringe as you watch this person shove
    > out a huge bet, with the count about -10 . .
    > . and get a blackjack. Meanwhile, you are
    > counting and playing perfectly . . . and
    > getting killed.

    All the time.I've had terrible losing sessions and still patted myself on the back knowing I still played a good game of blackjack, likewise for winning sessions. Maybe NTBJ should not get too excited after kicking some a$$ and understand it's not all gravy.

    > Herein lies the problem: If you are going to
    > claim that a winning session is the result
    > of your brilliant play, then a losing
    > session (or worse yet, several losing
    > sessions in a row) must mean that you are
    > doing something wrong.

    No,what I'm simply saying is just because I have a big winning session does not mean I'm NOT playing brilliantly. One can play brilliant and lose just as simple as they can play brilliant and win.

    > And that, my friend, is the path to
    > insanity.

    Only if we expect to never lose*)I'm sorry we have a difference of opinion.

    Have a good weekend.

    Brick

  7. #20
    sam
    Guest

    sam: Re:March taught me you're right, Dancer

    In March I ground out 12 winning sessions averaging +15 units. I lost three sessions averaging -65 units. Net loss for the month. Maybe this my pre-AP mini me working but those losing sessions were as clearly losers at -15 units as they were at -65. I could have walked away with more of my BR left if I'd had more discipline. What's your take on being disciplined or whatever term is acceptable to AP's? Thanks.

    > Developing a healthy respect for the dark
    > side of this game is essential if you hope
    > to play it for any significant amount of
    > time. New counters face many daunting
    > challenges. As you mentioned, just when you
    > start believing the math, "luck"
    > goes against you just as it did when you
    > were playing BS -- or perhaps not even that.

    > I would submit that it's far worse as a new
    > counter. When you didn't know anything about
    > the game, you most likely didn't play with
    > much, if any, bet spread. By doing this, you
    > (unknowingly) minimized your variance and
    > protected yourself from large negative
    > swings despite playing an overall losing
    > game.

    > Armed with a little knowledge, you now
    > proceed to spread 8:1, 12:1 or more and
    > WHAM!! You've now opened Pandora's box of
    > variance and have subjected yourself to far
    > more damaging losing "streaks".

  8. #21
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Nope

    > Im not sure why you're disagreeing, even the
    > brilliant play of a computer will have
    > negative and positive swings. If a computer
    > has a positive or negative swing it is still
    > playing brilliantly. Just because anyone has
    > a huge positive swing(or negative) does not
    > mean they're not playing a brilliant(or
    > excellent) game of blackjack.

    It doesn't mean that they're not playing a brilliant game. It doesn't mean that they're not playing a lousy game. My whole point is that the results of a single session don't mean much of anything. (All these double negatives are making my head spin.)

    I'm not sure that we are really disagreeing. I think it is more of a "failure to communicate," to quote a famous movie.

    > This is not necessarily true. A wonger gets
    > a higher percentage of good cards because
    > the ratio is better. This is not luck this
    > is math. A ploppy wins because they are
    > lucky, I think you're trying to compare ev
    > and variance with good and bad luck. Does a
    > casino win because they're lucky too?

    The casino wins because they have a bunch of tables, usually going 24/7, thus quickly reaching the long run and making variance insignificant. A single table may dump badly for a single shift. Variance is just another name for luck.

    > All the time.I've had terrible losing
    > sessions and still patted myself on the back
    > knowing I still played a good game of
    > blackjack, likewise for winning sessions.
    > Maybe NTBJ should not get too excited after
    > kicking some a$$ and understand it's not all
    > gravy.

    Exactly - this is my whole point. If you can walk away from a session thinking to yourself, "That was a good session, I made $500 EV," when the actual result of that particular session was that you lost $1500, then you have the proper attitude. This is not easy for most people to do.

    > No,what I'm simply saying is just because I
    > have a big winning session does not mean I'm
    > NOT playing brilliantly. One can play
    > brilliant and lose just as simple as they
    > can play brilliant and win.

    Yes - that's my point. Anything can happen in the short term.

    > Only if we expect to never lose*)I'm sorry
    > we have a difference of opinion.

    Our opinions aren't all that far apart. Besides, if we all agreed completely on everything, these boards would be deadly dull. :-)

  9. #22
    Dancer
    Guest

    Dancer: Discipline

    > In March I ground out 12 winning sessions
    > averaging +15 units. I lost three sessions
    > averaging -65 units. Net loss for the month.
    > Maybe this my pre-AP mini me working but
    > those losing sessions were as clearly losers
    > at -15 units as they were at -65. I could
    > have walked away with more of my BR left if
    > I'd had more discipline. What's your take on
    > being disciplined or whatever term is
    > acceptable to AP's? Thanks.

    Discipline is a term that should only describe your willingness to avoid poor games and/or poor counts.

    Your entire BJ career is really just one long session. We humans certainly need to take breaks to avoid fatigue and the mistakes it brings with it, but if the game is good, there is no "right" time to quit (other than a negative count) -- regardless of how much you may have lost.

    There may be a certain psychological advantage to be gained by walking away from a "session" with a win or at worst a minimal loss. But it's important to realize that a 1-session 60-unit loss could just as easily have occured over 3-sessions with a 20-unit loss each. The key is, were you playing well in a good game. If the answer is "yes", there was no reason to stop.

  10. #23
    sam
    Guest

    sam: Re: Discipline

    Thanks Dancer. This is a tough idea for me to absorb but I'll work on it.

    > Discipline is a term that should only
    > describe your willingness to avoid poor
    > games and/or poor counts.

    > Your entire BJ career is really just one
    > long session. We humans certainly need to
    > take breaks to avoid fatigue and the
    > mistakes it brings with it, but if the game
    > is good, there is no "right" time
    > to quit (other than a negative count) --
    > regardless of how much you may have lost.

    > There may be a certain psychological
    > advantage to be gained by walking away from
    > a "session" with a win or at worst
    > a minimal loss. But it's important to
    > realize that a 1-session 60-unit loss could
    > just as easily have occured over 3-sessions
    > with a 20-unit loss each. The key is, were
    > you playing well in a good game. If the
    > answer is "yes", there was no
    > reason to stop.

  11. #24
    newtobj
    Guest

    newtobj: Re: Sure

    > Surely by now NEWTOBJ understands what is
    > being told to him, but ..

    > It certainly was not the result of his bad
    > play. (Well, it could have been, but..)

    > Sure it was, in part.

    > For that he can be certain.

    > But let's give the guy some credit.

    > Good play, good back-counting; good for him.

    Yes, I understand what is being said to me. Basically - bankroll swings can be huge with this style of play (backcounting/wonging) because more money is being put into play even though one is playing fewer hands. But, a point that I tried to make which I am not sure was fully addressed, is that one doesn't always have to put big bets out in these situations, a more conservative betting scheme can be used to keep bankroll fluctuations less drastic.

  12. #25
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Sure

    > But,
    > a point that I tried to make which I am not
    > sure was fully addressed, is that one
    > doesn't always have to put big bets out in
    > these situations, a more conservative
    > betting scheme can be used to keep bankroll
    > fluctuations less drastic.

    Understand that there is no free lunch. If you don't put the money down, you can't pick it up. So, your swings will be less drastic, but your profits will suffer commensurately.

    Your choice!

    Don

  13. #26
    paranoid android
    Guest

    paranoid android: Re: Discipline

    > The key is, were
    > you playing well in a good game. If the
    > answer is "yes", there was no
    > reason to stop.

    Very true. Although you may want to stop to recalculate your betting units to the proper Kelly fraction that you're playing for your now smaller bankroll.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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.