Autoground: Keep going?

[Don Schlesinger]

> This news Don stated about my negative flux
> being 1 in 77 is mind-blowing.

Sorry if you misunderstood. I pointed out several errors in your post. One was about the rarity of a 2.4-s.d. loss. But, the other was about how to calculate that s.d., where I commented that you were greatly underestimating your s.d., when spreading is involved.

So, your situation wasn't anywhere near as rare as you may have thought it to be. In essence, your mistakes tended to offset one other: your s.d. was too small, which made your z-statistic (2.4 s.d.s) too big, and then you underestimated the rarity of that too large z-statistic!

> I don't know
> what to say. I kept the count, kept it well,
> and divided it by the number of half-decks
> remaining, and bet accordingly. I know this.
> And I had no more than one winning session
> in 2 weeks. 1 in 77, gawd, even I think it
> must be my fault; and I am ashamed.

You don't lose because you play poorly. You lose because it's part of the game. You lose regularly and often. That's just the nature of the beast.

Don't beat yourself up about it.

Don

[Parker]

> Frustratingly, even as I was losing, I was
> backed off from one of those red chip
> tables. So, there's another red chip tip
> gleaned: PCs sure do care about that kid
> trying to make $7 an hour.

Yep, some pit critters really have nothing better to do, or so it seems. However, red chippers still cannot afford cover plays. If you get backed off occasionally, then you get backed off.

Think of it as preparation for higher stakes play. :-)

> Check Trackjack if you want. more than 60%
> pen for 2Deck is rare.

Rare, yes. Unheard of, no. There is no substitute for legwork. A casino listed as 55%, with most of the dealers doing exactly that, may have a "gem" or two that does better.

This can also be frustrating. You just get settled in with that "good" dealer, and he/she goes on break -- and of course is replaced by a 50% clone.

You must have the discipline to walk immediately when conditions go bad. Or not play at all.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I have walked into a casino, watched cuts at nearly every table . . . and left without playing a single hand.

> it was either play those games or not at
> all.

See above. You were lured into a trap. A low-stakes underbankrolled player must be extremely discriminating, and play only the best games. Playing mediocre games with a conservative spread is a recipe for disaster. Life is too short to play bad blackjack.

> Yeah, I was focusing on 2Deck only.

Why? Consider this: You play shoes with a strict wonging policy. You never play a negative-EV hand. The only bet you will make is your max bet, or something close to it. This way, you can play those good shoe games with S17, LS and $25 min.

It takes a lot of discipline to play this way. You will spend a lot more time watching than playing, and it is hard to earn much in the way of comps. You must be ready to leave the table the moment the count drops.

Contrary to popular opinion, the double deck game behaves a lot more like a shoe game than a single deck game. It takes a big spread, and lots of creative excuses for leaving the table when the count tanks, in order to beat these games.

> This news Don stated about my negative flux
> being 1 in 77 is mind-blowing. I don't know
> what to say. I kept the count, kept it well,
> and divided it by the number of half-decks
> remaining, and bet accordingly. I know this.
> And I had no more than one winning session
> in 2 weeks. 1 in 77, gawd, even I think it
> must be my fault; and I am ashamed.
> I don't know what I did wrong. While the
> monetary loss stings, it's really not
> entirely the money.

Losing sucks. No question about that. That you're down is not too surprising (you were playing to a 5% ROR), but to be down that much that fast is indeed quite an accomplishment. But stranger things have happened.

> If any upstarts with small bankrolls want to
> read about a similar storyline, have them do
> a post search for Autoground. Otherwise I'll
> be off saving up a 10k bankroll. This little
> excursion is, for the time being, over.

Probably a good idea. With what is left of your BR, you're now looking at about 18% ROR if you continue playing the same games with the same spread.

> Thanks for everyone's help and info. I'll
> continue soaking up every bit of info I can
> from the forum -- it's a great resource. I
> wish everyone good cards.

It is impossible to learn too much. I've been playing this silly game for 30 years and I'm still learning.

[Sun Runner]

Parker's post was very well put; I'd like to add, maybe highlight again, a few points.

> it was either play those games or not at all.

Then don't do it! You are now to educated to sit down at a bad game. If you do, besides putting your BR at risk, win or lose you will walk away from that game cursing yourself, damn, I should not have played that or, whew, I was lucky. Give yourself more respect than that. Quit gambling.

> Yeah, I was focusing on 2Deck only.

Why!? Focus on doing what ever it takes to win.

> If any upstarts with small bankrolls want to
> read about a similar storyline, have them do
> a post search for Autoground.

The 'upstarts' with small bankrolls either get lucky, parlay their BR, learn something along the way, and stick around or, don't get lucky, lose their small BR, think all this is crap, and don't come here anymore.

Your lucky -you know the 'SCORE' (pun intended.)

You have a $2K BR now I guess. Saving up a $10K BR is fine; but then what? Go play those same bad DD games?

Save that $10K; it's always a good idea to save. But you don't have to exclude yourself from play along the way.

Find the best opportunity you can, be it SD, DD, 6D, or 6:5.

(Yes, 6:5. If a dealer is having a bad day, exposing her hole card everytime, making payoff errors everytime, etc, I'd play her game. I said the best opportunity, not game. You have limited resources but a lot of time to find the best opportunity. I've never played 6:5 mind you, but I would.)

(Tonight I am going to check out a new local place that opened recently. I don't expect to play a single hand. I'm going to see what kind of game they have and if opportunity presents. If an opportunity is present, I know in advance it is one I will have to return home and give some quick study to before returning. It's OK. I'm fine with that. I don't have to play. Neither do you.)

Play that game very carefully. Back count, only enter on high counts, only play high counts, don't play all, get up off your butt when the count gets anywhere near zero.

If you walk by a SD or DD table, see an obvious high count, make a bet if you can, then book.

> This little excursion is, for the time being, over.

That's fine. Take some time to devise a plan to protect your money and make some well timed bets.

Spend some time finding a game that is beatable, do alot of leg work, don't plan on playing everytime you walk in the door.

If you can't do that, I have a twelve step program I'll mail you; you're gonna need it.



Seriously, good luck to you.

[Autoground]

> Sorry if you misunderstood. I pointed out
> several errors in your post. One was about
> the rarity of a 2.4-s.d. loss. But, the
> other was about how to calculate that s.d.,
> where I commented that you were greatly
> underestimating your s.d., when spreading is
> involved.

> So, your situation wasn't anywhere near as
> rare as you may have thought it to be. In
> essence, your mistakes tended to offset one
> other: your s.d. was too small, which made
> your z-statistic (2.4 s.d.s) too big, and
> then you underestimated the rarity of that
> too large z-statistic!

> You don't lose because you play poorly. You
> lose because it's part of the game. You lose
> regularly and often. That's just the nature
> of the beast.

> Don't beat yourself up about it.

> Don

this information is comforting. thank you.

[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

[VerdugoJohn]

Auto

I admire your courage to ask for help about your results for your game...

I think it takes a certain strength of self to admit there may be problem and seek help publically...I too have taken a risk in trying to answer your question and have had to suffer some embaressment about the errors I made...but to make progress one must take some risk...i hope you will take a look at my attempts to correct my previous analysis.

Keep playing and studying the game...it is a fun pastime!

Best wishes.

[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

[Autoground]

Verdugo,

Your kind words are appreciated and I thank you.
And yes, I think I've resigned myself to the fact that my play was weak -- I'm just glad this happened when i was learning as a red chipper! In retrospect, I think this was one of the intended goals of my beginnings, but that knowledge was quickly forgotten when the money started flowing away away.
You know that you do deserve credit for your estimation of all this info. Yeah, man, kudos to you!
But it brings up one last question for me: does one need to fully understand all of this math to be a successful AP?

Thanks, and the this East-Coast Southerner, trapped in a state without one single Casino, wishes everyone good cards.

[Sun Runner]

> But it brings up one last question for me:
> does one need to fully understand all of
> this math to be a successful AP?

All of this math? Absolutely not.

All about the game? Absolutely yes.

Maybe this will help. When I first got started I was like you in that I didn't have access to good games. I had access to bad games and thought, well, this BJ thing is so good, even though these conditions are poor I just won't win 'as much' as others.

Ha. No kidding. You don't have to know the math to be able to apply the math, and the math don't lie.

Bad games, played badly, achieve bad results.

Use what you have learned to find good games or don't play that day.

You don't need to be a mathmatician but you do need to be smart about what you do.