Autoground: Keep going?

[Autoground]

3 weeks into a 6 week 'session', I'm down a whole friggin' lot. Here's the specifics:

Double Deck, h17, DA2, DAS, NS, ~65% pen
Spreading 1 - 6, where one unit = $5, max bet at +3
I've had about 75 - 85 hours of play, and am now down around 350 units. Btw, starting bankroll was $4k, so, 800 units.

I know that card-counting is not about trying to "leave without a loss." I understand that it's all about just sticking in there all the time and weathering it out, and eventually having some profit. That said: at this point in time, I just want to break even.
I have about 2 1/2 weeks left allotted to playing, and I'm wondering if it's worth continuing. What are the odds that I will rebound, and what are the odds that after these 2 1/2 more weeks I'll have a rejuvenated Bankroll?
Here's some more than I understand: having lost so much, I am most definitely not 'due' for a win. This losing streak could continue for the next bazillion trillion years.
But I've burnt myself out. I am appalled at how every high count results in my losing big. I am not well. And I am prepared to curl into a ball and roll off to battle another day. But if the odds say I have a decent chance of recouping my losses, then I'd like to know if it's worth it to keep going for 2 1/2 weeks, which equals roughly 60 more hours.
Perhaps my having lost heart is what makes me ask this question while knowing that the math i used in the past is still correct. I mean, yeah, i know I'm going to get all this back in the long run, but my despair makes me say: if i don't have a good chance of coming back soon, then I want to stop right now. Any guidance at all is appreciated. Thank you.

[email protected]

[Shaggy18VW]

I am not going to give you any math in this post, maybe just some tips.

Have you been experiencing much heat in your venture thus far. If not, you may want to increase your bet spread. Possibly being more aggressive by jumping bets up to the appropriate amount (this is assuming you are currently parlaying winnings). This aggressiveness unfortunately comes at a price, an increase in variance (you will be placing more big bets).

Some tips to decrease variance:
wong out more aggressively. Drop bets in negative decks more aggressively. Play with fewer other players (this will also increase your win rate). Tip Less (this may not decrease variance, but it will save you money).

Take more breaks. The worst thing to be is burned out. Plan your days so you will play at the best times and plan relaxing, enjoyable activities when the games will be bad.

All in all, I would recommend that you keep on pluggin' away. It can turn around. This is all assuming you are not making mistakes that are costing you money.

[VerdugoJohn]

It is an interesting problem you present...and I'll take a first pass at it...i don't have all of my library here with me in the office, so I will add a little later unless others beat me to the other points I have...undoubtedly others will add more and better.

All the experts say the toughest part of the game is the negative flux that will happen dispite your playing soundly.

Using Chapter 10 of BJA 2 to get some benchmark stats on your game, @ 62 cards pen you would have 1.41 units won per 100 hands with a standard dev of 26.48 units per 100 hands. And @ 70 cards the stats are 1.82 and 21.58. I believe those stats can be used to help evaluate how likely is your being behind after 75-85 hours, presuming that you were able to play at the level of the simulation. (That may not be fair as the computer does not have a pit critter to contend with).

Anyway, the game and spread you are playing, has a Hi-Lo I18 SCORE of 30.36 @ 62 cards and 44.13 @ 70 cards of pen per BJA 2 Chpt 11, p 276. I believe most experts prefer a SCORE above 50...the SCORE of your game indicates a marginally profitable game.

To increase your SCORE spread to 1-8 or better still, 2 hands of 6 on your top bets. 1-8 raises the I18 SCORE to 39.38 @ 62 cards and 56.20 @ 70 cards...I do not have the numbers, but two hands of 6 should be above both of those numbers...Other things, learn more indexes than I18, or use a stronger count than Hi-Lo.

Please don't be upset at the following, as these are the questions I ask myself when I am on a bad streak...

I also suggest review your ability some...are you a sure judge of the penetration? Have you practiced estimating deck depth at home? How sure are you of your ability to keep track of the count? Have you used any practice software for a time? Any problems with converting to True Count? Are you modulating your bet changes or are you varying your bets strictly by the count? Those may suggest actions you can take to strengthen your game.

Anyway, I will check my other materials and see if I can find some more points to add...

Keep at it...the law of large numbers should come around to your side eventually.

[VerdugoJohn]

I think some number crunching is needed to let you know how much negative flux you've had...
I've made some assumptions below, and you might redo the calculations using more accurate inputs in place of my assumptions.

You need to know the number of hands you've played and amount you've bet to get a standard deviation...for both you can make some estimates.

Per Schlessinger's BJA 2 a double deck game with 2 other players ought to average about 95 hands per hour, but for each additional player you would have 10% fewer hands per hour. You said you played between 75-85 hours, thus using 80 hours, you would have played 80*95 or 7,600 hands.

The dollars (or units) of standard deviation is 1.1 times the square root of the number of hands played time the average bet. (see BJA chpt 2)Thus, the 1.1 times the square root of 7,600 (87) times average number of units bet.

Your average bet depends upon your betting spread and ramp up. If you were using the one offered by Schlessinger in BJA II edition for your game, you would make an average bet of 1.8 units. Thus your standard deviation would be 87 * 1.1 * 1.8 or 178 units.

Your expectation per BJA II would be .86% times the number of units bet...I would suggest you use a lower EV than .86% to allow for errors, wongers-in and cover bets...so, I assumed 75% of that or .65 as your EV...thus 7600 * .65% * 1.8 or 89 would be your expected value.

Your result, -350 is 350 + 89 less than expectation or 439, which is -2.4 standard deviations (439/178)....that means the probability of the event happening is less than 1 in 20, assuming your skill was such that you played with an EV of .65%...

It's possible that you have had tough luck, but its seems just as possible that your play is not so strong that you play with that EV...

I believe a check out of the game, your betting ramp and your playing skills would be in order.
And the way to look at your losses to this point is as just the cost of learning your playcraft.

Indeed, if you have Blackjack Attack, or software such as BJ Risk Manager, you could do this analysis for yourself to alert yourself to skill improvement opportunities.

[Don Schlesinger]

> The dollars (or units) of standard deviation
> is 1.1 times the square root of the number
> of hands played time the average bet. (see
> BJA chpt 2)Thus, the 1.1 times the square
> root of 7,600 (87) times average number of
> units bet.

No, not quite true. The 1.1 figure (actually 1.13) is for flat betting. When you spread, as mentioned in the chapter you cite, the s.d. can be considerably larger, and you can't use the average bet to figure it out.

> Your average bet depends upon your betting
> spread and ramp up. If you were using the
> one offered by Schlessinger in BJA II
> edition for your game, you would make an
> average bet of 1.8 units. Thus your standard
> deviation would be 87 * 1.1 * 1.8 or 178
> units.

See BJA3 for much more accurate values.

> Your expectation per BJA II would be .86%
> times the number of units bet...I would
> suggest you use a lower EV than .86% to
> allow for errors, wongers-in and cover
> bets...so, I assumed 75% of that or .65 as
> your EV...thus 7600 * .65% * 1.8 or 89 would
> be your expected value.

Ditto.

> Your result, -350 is 350 + 89 less than
> expectation or 439, which is -2.4 standard
> deviations (439/178)....that means the
> probability of the event happening is less
> than 1 in 20,

Actually, it means 1 in 77.

> Indeed, if you have Blackjack Attack, or
> software such as BJ Risk Manager, you could
> do this analysis for yourself to alert
> yourself to skill improvement opportunities.

Yes, good idea!

Don

[VedugoJohn]

Again, I appologize to all for any confusion, shock that my previous post may have caused...

Here are corrections to my previous analysis I submit for review by all...

In the below tables I calculated the expected value and standard deviation using a betting spread of 1-6 that I think Auto may be using.
(I wish I knew how to get the columns to line up...I inserted a : as a field delimiter if you wish to download to excel and use data>text to columns feature to align the data into columns)

The tables used BJA3 Chpt 10 data for the 2 Deck H17 DAS game with shuffle card at 62 cards, p. 262. The table was patterned after the one found on pg 20 of that same book. (I used Excel and to test its calculations I plugged in the bet ramps for 1-4 & 1-6 optimal as well as 1-4 & 1-6 practical...i came close, within .20 on ev per 100 hands and within 1 for SCORE, to getting the published number.)

I would believe that anyone that has BJ3 can construct a similar table for any game/bet ramp to calculate EV, Std Dev & SCORE.

I believe the correct EV & Std Dev for Auto's play was 1.37 units EV per 100 & Std Dev of 26.22 per 100. Thus, the DI is 5.23 and SCORE 27.4.

2 Deck, H17 DAS NS Shuffle Card at 62

Exp Value Calculation

Count: Bet: Freq.: EV %: Wgt Av: EV Bet:
<0: 1: 0.3871: -1.73: 0.3871: -0.67:
0-1: 1: 0.3175: -0.27: 0.3175: -0.09:
1-2: 1: 0.0869: 0.44: 0.0869: 0.04:
2-3: 2: 0.0738: 0.94: 0.1476: 0.14:
3-4: 4: 0.0378: 1.47: 0.1512: 0.22:
4-5: 6: 0.0418: 2.03: 0.2508: 0.51:
5-6: 6: 0.0185: 2.66: 0.111: 0.30:
6-7: 6: 0.0136: 3.26: 0.0816: 0.27:
7-8: 6: 0.0077: 3.88: 0.0462: 0.18:
8-9: 6: 0.0067: 4.43: 0.0402: 0.18:
9-10: 6: 0.0035: 5.06: 0.021: 0.11:
10+: 6: 0.0051: 6.37: 0.0306: 0.19:

Ave Bet/EV per 100 hands: 1.6717: 1.37:

EV per hand 0.821

EV = Bet * Freq * EV%
Freq & EV% are per BJA3 pg 262.

2 Deck, H17 DAS NS Shuffle Card at 62
Standard Deviation Calculation

Count: Bet: Freq.: StDev: Product:
<0: 1: 0.3871: 1.156: 0.52:
0-1: 1: 0.3175: 1.148: 0.42:
1-2: 1: 0.0869: 1.147: 0.11:
2-3: 2: 0.0738: 1.148: 0.39:
3-4: 4: 0.0378: 1.151: 0.8:
4-5: 6: 0.0418: 1.155: 2.01:
5-6: 6: 0.0185: 1.157: 0.89:
6-7: 6: 0.0136: 1.155: 0.65:
7-8: 6: 0.0077: 1.152: 0.37:
8-9: 6: 0.0067: 1.148: 0.32:
9-10: 6: 0.0035: 1.143: 0.16:
10+: 6: 0.0051: 1.133: 0.24:

1.0000: sum 6.879:

Sq Rt(6.879)= Std dev/hd 2.62

Std dev/100 hds 26.23

Note:
Product = Freq * (Bet)^2 * (Std Dev)^2

(^2 means squared or raised to 2nd power)

Freq & Std Dev are per BJA3 pg 262.

If the above is okay, then it can be used to evaluate the probability of Auto's result of -350 units after 80 hours or so of play.

Estimate of hands played and $ bet as per previous post:

Number of Hands per Hour: 95
Number of Hours : 80

Hands Played : 7600
Sq Root of 7600 : 87.17

2.62

St Dev for 7600 hands: 228.64

Exp Win per 100 sim Hands: 1.37
Casino to Sim factor: 0.75
Expected Win per 100 casino Hands: 1.0275
Number of Hands / 100: 76
Expected Win: 78.09
Actual Win: -350
Variance Actual < Win: 428.09

Variance / Standard Deviation: 1.872323962

(standard devs from norm)

Per Table 8.9 in BJA 3, p 147
Var/Std Dev Probability
% chance or result occuring: 0.030580835

If the numbers hold, the there is only a 3% chance that Auto would have had these results if the assumptions were correct...his being a new player though, I would suspect strongly that assumptions are wrong and he should indeed review his play to improve performance.

Again, my appologies to anyone upset by the previous analysis...I appreciate the opportunity to have your review/critique of the above as this has been a real learning experience for me, plus an opportunity to apply that materials in BJA3...I must say that before this project I was impressed by the amount of thought that went into the writing of the book, now a more appropriate word would be amazed (how thoughtful to include table 8.10!).

I do have additional questions for the book's author that build on the above work, but I will defer those until the above is judged.

Sincerely,

Verdugo

[Don Schlesinger]

Very nice job.

One suggestion: Where you write,
"Variance Actual Win: 428.09
Variance / Standard Deviation: 1.872323962,"
don't use the word "Variance," which is the square of standard deviation and clearly not what you mean here. You're using "variance" in the more general sense of "deviation from the mean result." When that value (rather than your "Variance") is divided by the standard deviation (your second line, above), then the result is referred to as the "z-statistic," equal, in this case, to 1.87.

But, your math seems correct to me.

Don

[VedugoJohn]

,
> "Variance Actual Win: 428.09
> Variance / Standard Deviation:
> 1.872323962,"
> don't use the word "Variance,"
> which is the square of standard deviation
> and clearly not what you mean here. You're
> using "variance" in the more
> general sense of "deviation from the
> mean result."

Indeed that is just what I meant by that phrase & I will use that in the future. Thank you for your review of my work, I appreciate your attention.

Now, I have a couple of follow up thoughts I hope you would also respond to.

From the work done, we now know how to calculate expected value and standard deviation for a game/betting pattern...

Thus, I guess one could use that information to the Risk Of Ruin tables in Chapter 8?

And also, following the example of Table 2.1 on page 20, one can calculate the Standard Deviation when more than one hand is played...it requires using the frequency distribution information per Chapter 10, plus the co-variation values as per Stanford Wong's book, Professional Blackjack? I believe per Wong that for game with DAS, the covariation co-efficient is .48 (that would be the value of COV used for your construction of table 2.1, yes?)

Another follow on thought, if more than one hand is played, what would the Expected Value be for the round..the sum of the expected value for each hand played?

Why I ask these question is because I did just that, recalculated the standard deviation and expected values using .48 as the value of COV. I assumed more than two hands are played when the true count is above +2, and I used ramp ups similar those in my previous post...the result was SCORE went way, way up! What's going on? And does this indicate the superiority of playing two hands due to covariance, or is it just merely that more money is on the table?

Thanks.

When that value (rather
> than your "Variance") is divided
> by the standard deviation (your second line,
> above), then the result is referred to as
> the "z-statistic," equal, in this
> case, to 1.87.

> But, your math seems correct to me.

> Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> From the work done, we now know how to
> calculate expected value and standard
> deviation for a game/betting pattern...

> Thus, I guess one could use that information
> to the Risk Of Ruin tables in Chapter 8?

Sure, that's what they're there for. Find the e.v., find the s.d., and plug them in!

> And also, following the example of Table 2.1
> on page 20, one can calculate the Standard
> Deviation when more than one hand is
> played...it requires using the frequency
> distribution information per Chapter 10,
> plus the co-variation values as per Stanford
> Wong's book, Professional Blackjack? I
> believe per Wong that for game with DAS, the
> covariation co-efficient is .48 (that would
> be the value of COV used for your
> construction of table 2.1, yes?)

Yes. But, I have a vague recollection of using the more approximate 0.50, as per Griffin.

> Another follow on thought, if more than one
> hand is played, what would the Expected
> Value be for the round..the sum of the
> expected value for each hand played?

Yes. E.v.s are additive, but s.d.s aren't.

> Why I ask these question is because I did
> just that, recalculated the standard
> deviation and expected values using .48 as
> the value of COV. I assumed more than two
> hands are played when the true count is
> above +2,

More than TWO hands, or more than ONE hand??

> and I used ramp ups similar those
> in my previous post...the result was SCORE
> went way, way up!

If you were betting optimally, and playing alone, playing two hands shouldn't produce a larger SCORE than playing one hand. The total wager, and hence, the e.v. increases roughly 50%, but the card consumption also increases 50% per round. Thus, dollars won per cards used remains the same.

> What's going on?

Don't know. You figured something wrong. Maybe you continued to use 100 ROUNDS per hour for SCORE, even though that would produce many more hands per hour than 100.

> And does
> this indicate the superiority of playing two
> hands due to covariance, or is it just
> merely that more money is on the table?

See above. You don't win more playing two hands alone. You win more playing two hands when others are at the table.

Don

[Ouchez]

> 3 weeks into a 6 week 'session', I'm down a
> whole friggin' lot. Here's the specifics:

> Double Deck, h17, DA2, DAS, NS, ~65% pen
> Spreading 1 - 6, where one unit = $5, max
> bet at +3
> I've had about 75 - 85 hours of play, and am
> now down around 350 units. Btw, starting
> bankroll was $4k, so, 800 units.

> I know that card-counting is not about
> trying to "leave without a loss."
> I understand that it's all about just
> sticking in there all the time and
> weathering it out, and eventually having
> some profit. That said: at this point in
> time, I just want to break even.
> I have about 2 1/2 weeks left allotted to
> playing, and I'm wondering if it's worth
> continuing. What are the odds that I will
> rebound, and what are the odds that after
> these 2 1/2 more weeks I'll have a
> rejuvenated Bankroll?
> Here's some more than I understand: having
> lost so much, I am most definitely not 'due'
> for a win. This losing streak could continue
> for the next bazillion trillion years.
> But I've burnt myself out. I am appalled at
> how every high count results in my losing
> big. I am not well. And I am prepared to
> curl into a ball and roll off to battle
> another day. But if the odds say I have a
> decent chance of recouping my losses, then
> I'd like to know if it's worth it to keep
> going for 2 1/2 weeks, which equals roughly
> 60 more hours.
> Perhaps my having lost heart is what makes
> me ask this question while knowing that the
> math i used in the past is still correct. I
> mean, yeah, i know I'm going to get all this
> back in the long run, but my despair makes
> me say: if i don't have a good chance of
> coming back soon, then I want to stop right
> now. Any guidance at all is appreciated.
> Thank you.

> [email protected]

you are in a precarious mental state.

It would be best to play with a seasoned veteran who could examine your play....but in the mean time, just step back for a while. No shame in that.

Ouchez.

[Titan5]

I would add a couple more points.
1. Although casino cheating is rare, it does happen especially in small casinos or foreign casinos. So I would try different casinos nearby just in case.
2. H17 and NS is not a good rule. Maybe you can find another table or another casino with better rules.
3. If your long losing streak upsets or depresses you, you probably need a break. You can win on BJ only when you are in good shape, physically and mentally.
Just my opinion.

[Parker]

You are playing mediocre games with a conservative spread. According to CVCX, your EV is $7.86/hour. This assumes 100 hands/hour, no cover plays, and perfect play, using the I-18 including splitting 10's whenever the count calls for it.

Toss in an occasional mistake, cover play, dealer toke, and the fact that you're probably not averaging 100 hands/hour, and I am left wondering if you're even playing a positive EV game.

So, if you're not playing in order to make money, you must be playing for fun, right?

You don't sound like you're having much fun.

[Autoground]

With my bankroll, I cannot increase my bet spread without initiating an unacceptable (to me) RoR. This answers the question as to why my spread is already conservative. Somewhere along the line I read that one could make a run at this game with a $3k bankroll. I went with 4k, and still, with acceptable RoR parameters i cannot seem to make this work.
As a red chipper, though, I have not had to parlay my bets unless the PC was watching. That, essentially, has been my only cover play. So I've already been aggressive with betting the perfect amount.

For the $5 min. bettor at DDeck, there is no penetration past 65% that I've seen, sans one casino. In the Vegas area. Trackjack reports one casino that had 75% but that is, unfortunately, no longer true. There's only one casino i know of with around 75%, and I only discovered it recently. Maybe I'll just pummel it, but right now I have to take a break. Cause since yesterday I kept going for awhile and lost 60 more units.
In terms of the math of the game (read: 'aside from my constantly losing'), this penetration issue is my main problem. I've seen no pen. above 65%. I don't know what to tell you. Yes, yes the pen does suck.
Same goes for H17 and NS. Show me a $5 DDeck with LS and 75% pen and I'll write you a check for my soul.

As far as cheating goes -- that I just have to sit and wonder. Fact is, in order to get good pen and rules and everything else, I pretty much have to play at those casinos you mentioned what might possibly cheat. But mostly I still have confidence in the establishments. Unless more people mention certain names to me.

And I have confidence in my count and deck estimation. Yeah, I probably make mistakes. Why am i playing? Well, I didn't think $7 an hour + comps was something to scoff at.
But the lesson I think I've learned is that while in the past it may have been possible to make a go at this game with $3k, that's not really the case anymore. More like 6k, these days. With the state of penetration and rules in this city, not even 5k is enough to produce a safe enough spread and still make a decent amount of money.
Maybe I should turn in and wait until I have 10 grand to try again. I dunno, I dunno. But yeah, for the moment, at least, I'm going to stop.

Seasoned Veteran to examine my play? I don't expect it, of course. But I am, as always

[email protected]