Winning hand after hand during negative counts can be frustrating because that is when one is betting the table minimum. I went back to play all for a couple of shoes and bet the minimum during negative counts, and went on a little winning streak. It is frustrating after a good shoe (winning despite the negative counts) when you just made min. bets the whole time.
> Winning hand after hand during negative
> counts can be frustrating because that is
> when one is betting the table minimum.
You must be the first AP in recorded history to be frustrated -- when you win.
So, let me see if I have this straight; you'd be less frustrated if you lost?
You were in a negative expectation situation,and you won. Thats excellent news...
Stop thinking like a ploppie with "good shoes" and "bad shoes"...What you had is a situation where you were a big underdog to win, and you did...
Rejoice.
D
> You must be the first AP in recorded history
> to be frustrated -- when you win.
> So, let me see if I have this straight;
> you'd be less frustrated if you lost?
frustrated because of winning with min. bets out. You must be the first AP in recorded history who is happy with winning min. bets all day.
If newtobj is new to bj, then he's not gotten completely past the idea of progression betting a positive variance during a negative count. Habits die hard. Bad habits..............
Sam
> You must be the first AP in recorded history
> to be frustrated -- when you win.
> So, let me see if I have this straight;
> you'd be less frustrated if you lost?
> Winning hand after hand during negative
> counts can be frustrating because that is
> when one is betting the table minimum. I
> went back to play all for a couple of shoes
> and bet the minimum during negative counts,
> and went on a little winning streak. It is
> frustrating after a good shoe (winning
> despite the negative counts) when you just
> made min. bets the whole time.
it happens to me often in the dd games I play, and yes it does make you think, WTF!!.
But I always bet according to the count and I am the one at the table that walks up at the end. Not the hunch bettor or the progression bettor. It does take discipline and steely nerves, but that is why we are the -Feared BJ Warriors- that we are.
We are the players that the casino dreads, always playing by the math and taking only the best bets, it does pay off in the end.
A sniper will lay in the grass waiting hours for that one shot to take down his target, you be the sniper.
Regards,
Ouchez.
> Winning hand after hand during negative
> counts can be frustrating because that is
> when one is betting the table minimum. I
> went back to play all for a couple of shoes
> and bet the minimum during negative counts,
> and went on a little winning streak. It is
> frustrating after a good shoe (winning
> despite the negative counts) when you just
> made min. bets the whole time.
Don't get frustrated - think of it as a bonus. After all, you're "supposed" to be losing most of these hands.
What I find much more frustrating, is when you finally get that killer mega-count shoe that you've been waiting all day for, you start shoving out the max bets, . . . . and then you find that you cannot win a hand to save your life!
Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do about either situation. It's just the nature of playing with a 1% advantage and a lot of variance.
> Don't get frustrated - think of it as a
> bonus. After all, you're
> "supposed" to be losing most of
> these hands.
Actually, if the count gets more and more negative, when you think about it, you realize that, in fact, you're supposed to be winning those hands! It's just that you have no way to know about it ahead of time.
On the contrary, there's nothing worse than a positive count that gets more and more positive. That's where the big money is lost.
Don
> frustrated because of winning with min. bets
> out. You must be the first AP in recorded
> history who is happy with winning min. bets
> all day.
I realize what you're trying to say, but think about your last statement. Unless I've missed a memo somewhere in the last 20 years, the object of advantage play is still to win money. If you play well, in good games, you'll make maybe 2 of those minimum bets you care so little about each hour. Does it really matter where those 2 bets come from? Or, in what manner you win them?
If it does, you're playing to satisfy your craving for action rather than to win money. Sure, it's more fun to crush the casinos with well-timed max bets and perfectly played hands, but the fact remains, winning a 12-unit bet is no better than winning 12 1-unit bets.
So, in response to your last statement, yes, I'd be perfectly happy to win minimum bets all day. I'd be way ahead of my EV, my variance would be held to an absolute minimum, and I'd never have to worry about getting barred. All highly desirable circumstances for an AP, wouldn't you say?
I understand exactly what he's trying to say. Let's face it we lose more hands than win,so they may as well be the minimum bets. Winning 12 minimum bets is not the same as winning one 12 unit max bet. The minimum bets have a negative expectation where as the max bet has a positive expection. In essence the negative bets were won by luck,the max bet was won by skill.
> I realize what you're trying to say, but
> think about your last statement. Unless I've
> missed a memo somewhere in the last 20
> years, the object of advantage play is still
> to win money. If you play well, in good
> games, you'll make maybe 2 of those minimum
> bets you care so little about each hour.
> Does it really matter where those 2 bets
> come from? Or, in what manner you win them?
> If it does, you're playing to satisfy your
> craving for action rather than to win money.
> Sure, it's more fun to crush the casinos
> with well-timed max bets and perfectly
> played hands, but the fact remains, winning
> a 12-unit bet is no better than winning 12
> 1-unit bets.
> So, in response to your last statement, yes,
> I'd be perfectly happy to win minimum bets
> all day. I'd be way ahead of my EV, my
> variance would be held to an absolute
> minimum, and I'd never have to worry about
> getting barred. All highly desirable
> circumstances for an AP, wouldn't you say?
> Actually, if the count gets more and more
> negative, when you think about it, you
> realize that, in fact, you're supposed to be
> winning those hands! It's just that you
> have no way to know about it ahead of time.
> On the contrary, there's nothing worse than
> a positive count that gets more and more
> positive. That's where the big money is
> lost.
I often wondered about this phenomena. My ev is slightly higher than what sims show. Of course this could be due to variance or may it be due to leaving the shoe after making minimum bets and the count drops...rook to bishop 3!!?
What's about betting 2 units on the first hand of a shoe?
I mainly do it for cover reasons. If I lose it I go back to one unit until the count calls for a bigger bet. If I win I continue with those two units until I lose the bet or the count is high enough for the next level.
Doing this I realize that I lose a lot of this first hands or the second hand (which makes it even) but there are several times were you run into this counts that go down, and down and down...and you are winnning, winning, winning...
Has there ever been make a calculation about the cost of this off-the-top unit? Might there be even a slight advantage by running into some positive situations that can't be found by cardcounting?
Don't understand me wrong - that is no progression scheme! Just a cover play that makes me think more and more that it at least may be without any additional costs.
Thanks
Shadow
> I realize what you're trying to say, but
> think about your last statement. Unless I've
> missed a memo somewhere in the last 20
> years, the object of advantage play is still
> to win money. If you play well, in good
> games, you'll make maybe 2 of those minimum
> bets you care so little about each hour.
> Does it really matter where those 2 bets
> come from? Or, in what manner you win them?
> If it does, you're playing to satisfy your
> craving for action rather than to win money.
> Sure, it's more fun to crush the casinos
> with well-timed max bets and perfectly
> played hands, but the fact remains, winning
> a 12-unit bet is no better than winning 12
> 1-unit bets.
> So, in response to your last statement, yes,
> I'd be perfectly happy to win minimum bets
> all day. I'd be way ahead of my EV, my
> variance would be held to an absolute
> minimum, and I'd never have to worry about
> getting barred. All highly desirable
> circumstances for an AP, wouldn't you say?
Yes, they are highly desirable circumstances for any AP. I see your points. There is a positive side to winning during negative counts. No pun intended. Winning anytime is a victory and my main objective is to win money versus craving the action. It seems variance has no respect for the count. I wish there was a way to reach the long run quicker and make variance less of a factor.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks