Hollywood: Why would you say this is so?

[Hollywood]

I have many more winning sessions then I do losing sessions. But, when I win, I win substantially less then when I lose. My average winning session is between 20 to 35 units. When I lose, I usually lose 100 units. So if I didn't have more winning sessions then losing, I would be dead in the water. Ironically enough, almost every time i've had a losing session, I was up 10 to 20 units prior to the downturn.

I'm not complaining, i'm still in plus column year to date and that does not include a very very substantial amount of comps I have received.
But, i'm trying to figure out a way to better attack this monster. I feel I must be doing something wrong.
ANY SUGGESTIONS????????????

Regards,

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> I have many more winning sessions then I
> do losing sessions. But, when I win, I win
> substantially less then when I lose. My
> average winning session is between 20 to 35
> units. When I lose, I usually lose 100
> units. So if I didn't have more winning
> sessions then losing, I would be dead in the
> water. Ironically enough, almost every time
> i've had a losing session, I was up 10 to 20
> units prior to the downturn.

> I'm not complaining, i'm still in plus
> column year to date and that does not
> include a very very substantial amount of
> comps I have received.
> But, i'm trying to figure out a way to
> better attack this monster. I feel I must be
> doing something wrong.
> ANY SUGGESTIONS????????????

Mathematically, your results make no sense. Read pp. 112-16 of BJA very slowly anhd very carefully, and then get back to me.

Don

[BobL]

Mathematically, or if you are a robot, you shouldn't be getting these results.

However, I wonder if human nature isn't turning you into the prototypical gambler at times. Here's what I'm getting at: When you find yourself down most of a session has elapsed, do you tell yourself you'll just play until you dig yourself out of the hole? Then, if you go positive you end the session with a small win, but at least it's a win? But sometimes, while trying to dig yourself out of the hole you lose more and end up with a fairly large loss? If you do these things, you're only being human.

I think that most players probably chase losses at times. This is probably the reason that blackjack literature contains so many instances of barrings that occur when one is losing. We overstay our welcome trying to get even, and the next thing we know, our extended session has given the casino the time to analyze our play and determine that we are counting. If this applies to your style of play, you might consider cutting off your sessions at a pre-planned time, regardless of your result, and your win-loss ratio might more closely resemble the mathematical model.

[Baddog]

100 flips - ever 50/50? - prob not. You make a new high about 2% of the time (no ref to Margaritas) - what happens the other 98% is not really relevant. Good luck - and Bob has good point - Don too - high tolerance fer ambigoosedness is required.

[Don Schlesinger]

> 100 flips - ever 50/50? - prob not.

Yeah, actually 8% of the time.

Don

[Hollywood]

> Mathematically, your results make no sense.
> Read pp. 112-16 of BJA very slowly anhd very
> carefully, and then get back to me.

> Don

Hi Don:

I sincerely appreciate your trying to help me by referring me to the above referenced pages. It's almost quite comical Don. If you only knew how far over my head pages 112 to 116 are. I forgot to mention I was a D- student in math. Trust me, it's way past not being one of my strong points.

Anyway, is there anything you can suggest I read in leiu of those pages, that might get into my thick skull what i'm dong wrong?

If not, I understand.

I just don't get it. I know i'm doing something wrong, but I don't know what.

The last couple of times I played, I got killed when the count was in my favor. I also must make a time adjustment, because I have been playing to long in one sitting.

Anyway thanks for all your help.

Hollywood

[Hollywood]

> Mathematically, or if you are a robot, you
> shouldn't be getting these results.

> However, I wonder if human nature isn't
> turning you into the prototypical gambler at
> times. Here's what I'm getting at: When you
> find yourself down most of a session has
> elapsed, do you tell yourself you'll just
> play until you dig yourself out of the hole?
> Then, if you go positive you end the session
> with a small win, but at least it's a win?
> But sometimes, while trying to dig yourself
> out of the hole you lose more and end up
> with a fairly large loss? If you do these
> things, you're only being human.

> I think that most players probably chase
> losses at times. This is probably the reason
> that blackjack literature contains so many
> instances of barrings that occur when one is
> losing. We overstay our welcome trying to
> get even, and the next thing we know, our
> extended session has given the casino the
> time to analyze our play and determine that
> we are counting. If this applies to your
> style of play, you might consider cutting
> off your sessions at a pre-planned time,
> regardless of your result, and your win-loss
> ratio might more closely resemble the
> mathematical model.

It helped me a bit, because I have been playing to long when I am chasing a loss. After a while i'm tired and my counting is not as sharp. I see myself doing some of the things you mentioned.

I will try to make some adjustments.

Thank you,

Hollywood

[Bob L]

[Baddog]

But not when I bet that way - sigh.

[Don Schlesinger]

Short-term results rarely prove anything at all. But, if you play exactly the same length sessions all the time, and you quit whether you're winning or losing, then a) you should have more winning sessions than losing ones, and b) the average win, when you win should be more than the average loss when you lose.

But, your personal results could deviate from these norms for years!

Don