sam: check me on this: luck/variance

[sam]

There was a recent long thread on BJ21 about luck/variance with the usual lack of agreement. Am I correct in thinking that any gain in excess of the math is a positive variance and any loss in excess of the math is a negative variance? If this is so, then it seems to me there's no sense for an AP to play in a negative count(even flat betting) because he's hoping for a positive variance just as the BS-progression bettor is hoping for a lucky run. The suspicion of that similarity of play-all AP and luck-dependent BS-prog was a distressing thought for me. Could be the losing streak I'm presently on is shaking my confidence in the math. Seeing non-AP's winning while I'm losing....Well you know the story. All those postings attempting to distinguish AP variance from non-AP luck didn't help either.

Thanks as always for explanations and help.

[Charlie_t_jr]

I'm most likely not the guy to give you a technical answer to this...but he's my crude attempt at few things.

> There was a recent long thread on BJ21 about
> luck/variance with the usual lack of
> agreement. Am I correct in thinking that any
> gain in excess of the math is a positive
> variance and any loss in excess of the math
> is a negative variance?

The "gain" your asking about, I assume is $$ gained over a session, and not the advantaged gained. So, I suppose if you play 4 hrs, and your EV is $25hr, but you win $300, you've experienced a pos variance, but next session you might drop $500 (neg variance). So as you no doubt know and have read, looking at short term win/loss results are pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

>If this is so, then
> it seems to me there's no sense for an AP to
> play in a negative count(even flat betting)
> because he's hoping for a positive variance
> just as the BS-progression bettor is hoping
> for a lucky run. The suspicion of that
> similarity of play-all AP and luck-dependent
> BS-prog was a distressing thought for me.

Could be your asking about 2 different things? "Gain" in $$ and "Gain" in advantage? Regardless if you are betting only in pos counts, you're still going to experience variance, pos & neg on each bet, you'll just have different EV, depending on the count.

When you "play all", thats where your bet spread comes into action. You have to spread from min to max, to "gain" an advantage...even when you back count and wong in at pos count your still "spreading" your bets (0 to whatever your wong in bet may be).

> Could be the losing streak I'm presently on
> is shaking my confidence in the math. Seeing
> non-AP's winning while I'm losing....Well
> you know the story. All those postings
> attempting to distinguish AP variance from
> non-AP luck didn't help either.

> Thanks as always for explanations and help.

Once again that short term results thing...I'm sure I've made all this as clear as mud.

Good luck
Charlie_t_jr

[Sun Runner]

> Am I correct in thinking that any
> gain in excess of the math is a positive
> variance and any loss in excess of the math
> is a negative variance?

I would agree that's correct.

> If this is so, then
> it seems to me there's no sense for an AP to
> play in a negative count(even flat betting)
> because he's hoping for a positive variance ..

Again, would agree except that sometimes there are reasons to stay and flat bet a negative count. You would only do that if you thought the positives in doing so would eventually outweigh the known negative EV you were buying it to.

Also, it's hard (impossible, really) to avoid the negative counts in pitch games; you just play through them knowing that the higher EV is worth the wait.

And finally, if no MSE is allowed, your going to be forced to play in some negative counts.

> The suspicion of that
> similarity of play-all AP and luck-dependent
> BS-prog was a distressing thought for me.

No need for depression. There is no similarity to play-all AP play and BS play. BS play alone, if winning, is almost always simply 'good luck'.

Some define good luck as short-term positive variance. That's fine, but I swear I have known people who experience 'short term positive variance' continually!

> Could be the losing streak I'm presently on
> is shaking my confidence in the math.

Probably.

> Seeing
> non-AP's winning while I'm losing....Well
> you know the story.

Yes; it's a bummer man.

But follow them around one afternoon if the depression gets overbearing. Usually, you can restore your faith in their pre-disposition to lose fairly quickly.

[Sonny]

[Sonny]

> Am I correct in thinking that any
> gain in excess of the math is a positive
> variance and any loss in excess of the math
> is a negative variance?

Yes, anything above or below your expectation is your variance.

> If this is so, then it seems to me there's no
> sense for an AP to play in a negative count
> (even flat betting) because he's hoping for a
> positive variance just as the BS-progression
> bettor is hoping for a lucky run.

The "play-all" player is not hoping for positive variance. He knows that his is playing through a losing situation, but he knows that his big bets in positive situations are going to overcome the losses of his small bets. He knows that he will lose, but he is using his bet spread to minimize his losses and maximize his wins.

> The suspicion of that similarity of play-all AP
> and luck-dependent BS-prog was a distressing
> thought for me.

The big difference is that luck-dependent BS-prog players are praying for luck, while APs are praying for expectation! We have an advantage over the casinos, the BS players don't. If it were up to us we would pray for NO LUCK AT ALL, that way we would ALWAYS earn our expectation every hour!

Although positive variance is nice, if you completely rely on it you are not playing a winning game. The "play-all" players are able to win despite the negative variance. Of course, if you don't play through negative hands and only play positive situations you will reduce your variance quite a bit. However, it is up to the player to decide what strategy will work best for the chosen game.

> Seeing non-AP's winning while I'm
> losing....Well you know the story.

I sure do. Next time, follow the non-AP to his next table. You will feel much better after you see reality set in.

> All those postings attempting to distinguish AP
> variance from non-AP luck didn't help either.

Even ploppies experience positive variance, but an AP doesn't rely on it. Like I said, we can win without any luck at all.

-Sonny-

[Sun Runner]

> If it were up to us we would pray for
> NO LUCK AT ALL, that way we would ALWAYS
> earn our expectation every hour!

I never thought of it that way.

... if it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all ...

[sam]

Thanks for the responses. Charlie, I guess I lose sight of the long term when the short term is so damn miserable. Sun Runner, I play the 6d game at my casino. The DD is unplayable there: 50% pen, rotten rules. The 6d game has been hanging in the -12(KO) zone and if it drops to the key or slightly below for a hand or two I've been losing the bumped bets. I still gets stiffs regardless the count. Tired of hearing me whine? Your comments on luck and variance always seem grounded in actual play. Sonny, I'd take that no luck at all, bad and good, just to get a shot or two in. In fact, as soon as I'm off here, I'm praying like an altar boy for just that. Thanks again.

> I never thought of it that way.

> ... if it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no
> luck at all ...

[Don Schlesinger]

> Of course, if you don't play
> through negative hands and only play
> positive situations you will reduce your
> variance quite a bit.

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.

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

[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. :-)