Hollywood: HELP:What am I doing wrong?

[Hollywood]

I'm having a problem truly understanding why my winnings are not higher.

I am a blackchip player who only plays 6 decks in AC.

I follow KO to the letter. I can count down a deck in 20 to 30 seconds. I am also (thanks
to the people in here) very well equiped with my indices.
Several months ago I posted explaining that I had several more wins then losses, but my losses were substantially higher then my wins.

For instance, my winning sessions were ranging between 2 to 4 thousand. But, when I sustained a loss it was usually $10,000. I explained that when i'm winning I am real big on leaving and taking my money. By operating this way I would sustain a loss one out of every six times I play. The result had been positive as I did show a positive amount in the plus column.

But, I felt I was not doing my betting the way some of the Pro's in the room explained I should have. So I made adjustments the following way.

I flat bet $100.00.
Using KO, (6 decks starts at -20)
I do not increase my bet until I get to -4 at which time I go to $200.00.
I never increase my bet after a LOSING hand regardless of where the count takes me. I never decrease my bet after a winning hand regardless of where the count takes me.

Typical KO betting is as follows:
RC -5 $100.00

-4 200.00

-3 200.00

-2 300.00

-1 400.00

0 500.00

+1 600.00

+2 800.00

+3 900.00

+4 1000.00

Also I never take chips out of my pile if a count jumps. I only parlay what is already out there.

One of the problems in this is system is that a person has to win multiple hands in a row to be successful. This, at a time when a dealer is just as entitled to good cards as I am.

FOR EXAMPLE: At -4 I bet $200.00 and win. The count drops to +1 for the next hand, and naturally I parlay my winnings and now have up a $400.00 bet. The count goes to +2 so I allow my $800.00 bet to ride. Now I lose the $800.00 bet but the count gets even better and I continue to bet $800.00 a hand regardless of how many in a row I lose, so long as the count remains the same or better. If I should win the $800.00 hand and I go to +4 or better I go to a thousand and then if I win that hand, I go to 2 hands of $1000 if I am playing with other people, or I stay with one hand of $1000.00 (which is my maximum bet) if i'm playing head to head.
I do not deviate from this. I have no opinions. I operate mechanically.
I know Don always said (and I agree with) that we never get killed flat betting 1 unit at a time. It's when we get hammered at high counts.

What i'm trying to understand here, is what it is that i'm doing wrong. I have gone over and over this in my head. I practice and study enough to have the game down pretty pat. Which leads me to believe that it's my money management (as stated above) that is the problem.

If anyone can step up to the plate here and tell me the hole in my system I would appreciate it.
My system is KO.
Much of what I do comes out of BJ ATTACK
I use this room and other books to further increase the KO indices.

Standard AC rules I play under:

I play an averages of 10 hours per week.

6 decks, doa das no surrender split up to 3 times shoe game.

In the past several weeks year to date earnings through last night were $28,700.00. This is down from over $55,000.00 only a couple of months ago.
If i'm leaving out information anyone may need to help me, please post it and I will fill in the blanks.

Any help is sincerely apprecated

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> I'm having a problem truly understanding
> why my winnings are not higher.

You're not alone! Almost 50% of all people who play the game are probably making the same statement. You need to understand that there are two sides to the normal distribution curve, and no one gets a free pass to hang out on the right side for his/her entire lifetime.

> I am a blackchip player who only plays 6
> decks in AC.

Play-all? A lousy game, indeed.

> I follow KO to the letter. I can count down
> a deck in 20 to 30 seconds. I am also
> (thanks
> to the people in here) very well equipped
> with my indices.

Your technical proficiency probably has little to do with your results.

> Several months ago I posted explaining that
> I had several more wins then losses, but my
> losses were substantially higher then my
> wins.

It's because you quit quickly when you win, but not when you lose. That's your fault, not the cards' fault.

> For instance, my winning sessions were
> ranging between 2 to 4 thousand. But, when I
> sustained a loss it was usually $10,000. I
> explained that when i'm winning I am real
> big on leaving and taking my money. By
> operating this way I would sustain a loss
> one out of every six times I play. The
> result had been positive as I did show a
> positive amount in the plus column.

It's all voodoo. counting winning and losing sessions is quite meaningless. Counting profits, per number of hours played, is all that matters. As the old saying goes, statistics can be used to support many things -- mostly statisticians! Number of winning and losing sessions is one of those useless statistics, if your sessions aren't all of the same length.

> But, I felt I was not doing my betting the
> way some of the Pro's in the room explained
> I should have. So I made adjustments the
> following way.

> I flat bet $100.00.
> Using KO, (6 decks starts at -20)
> I do not increase my bet until I get to -4
> at which time I go to $200.00.
> I never increase my bet after a LOSING hand
> regardless of where the count takes me. I
> never decrease my bet after a winning hand
> regardless of where the count takes me.

> Typical KO betting is as follows:
> RC -5 $100.00

> -4 200.00

> -3 200.00

> -2 300.00

> -1 400.00

> 0 500.00

> +1 600.00

> +2 800.00

> +3 900.00

> +4 1000.00

> Also I never take chips out of my pile if a
> count jumps. I only parlay what is already
> out there.

Sounds like a familiar way to play! :-) The camouflage costs you, of course.

> One of the problems in this system is
> that a person has to win multiple hands in a
> row to be successful. This, at a time when a
> dealer is just as entitled to good cards as
> I am.

The last comment is silly. You make it sound like you don't WANT a good count, because, in reality, the dealer may do just as well as you do. So, why bother to count? We've been down this road before: The dealer doesn't get 3 to 2, he can't double or split, he can't take insurance, and he can't stand on 12-16. You can! So, please, don't use that argument any more.

> FOR EXAMPLE: At -4 I bet $200.00 and win.
> The count drops to +1 for the next hand, and
> naturally I parlay my winnings and now have
> up a $400.00 bet. The count goes to +2 so I
> allow my $800.00 bet to ride. Now I lose the
> $800.00 bet but the count gets even better
> and I continue to bet $800.00 a hand
> regardless of how many in a row I lose, so
> long as the count remains the same or
> better. If I should win the $800.00 hand and
> I go to +4 or better I go to a thousand and
> then if I win that hand, I go to 2 hands of
> $1000 if I am playing with other people, or
> I stay with one hand of $1000.00 (which is
> my maximum bet) if i'm playing head to head.
> I do not deviate from this. I have no
> opinions. I operate mechanically.
> I know Don always said (and I agree with)
> that we never get killed flat betting 1 unit
> at a time. It's when we get hammered at high
> counts.

Sounds good to me.

> What i'm trying to understand here, is what
> it is that i'm doing wrong.

It doesn't occur to you that the answer could be "nothing," does it? :-) You can't WILL winning.

> I have gone over
> and over this in my head. I practice and
> study enough to have the game down pretty
> pat. Which leads me to believe that it's my
> money management (as stated above) that is
> the problem.

No, it's standard deviation. Calculate your EV and SD for this style of play, tell us how many hours you've played, and we'll tell you how rare (or not) your results are. Better yet, get John auston's BJRM 2000, simulate your game, do a "Random Walk," and realize how humbling the results can be.

> If anyone can step up to the plate here and
> tell me the hole in my system I would
> appreciate it.
> My system is KO.
> Much of what I do comes out of BJ ATTACK.

So how could it be wrong?! :-)

> I use this room and other books to further
> increase the KO indices.

> Standard AC rules I play under:

> I play an averages of 10 hours per week.

> 6 decks, doa das no surrender split up to 3
> times shoe game.

Lousy game. Lousy results. No surprises.

> In the past several weeks year to date
> earnings through last night were $28,700.00.
> This is down from over $55,000.00 only a
> couple of months ago.

Losing sucks, huh?

> If i'm leaving out information anyone may
> need to help me, please post it and I will
> fill in the blanks.

Yes. Tell us how often you expect to win and how much, on average.

> Any help is sincerely apprecated

Trying.

Don

[Hollywood]

> You're not alone! Almost 50% of all people
> who play the game are probably making the
> same statement. You need to understand that
> there are two sides to the normal
> distribution curve, and no one gets a free
> pass to hang out on the right side for
> his/her entire lifetime.

> Play-all? A lousy game, indeed.

> Your technical proficiency probably has
> little to do with your results.

> It's because you quit quickly when you win,
> but not when you lose. That's your fault,
> not the cards' fault.

> It's all voodoo. counting winning and losing
> sessions is quite meaningless. Counting
> profits, per number of hours played, is all
> that matters. As the old saying goes,
> statistics can be used to support many
> things -- mostly statisticians! Number of
> winning and losing sessions is one of those
> useless statistics, if your sessions aren't
> all of the same length.

> Sounds like a familiar way to play! :-) The
> camouflage costs you, of course.

> The last comment is silly. You make it sound
> like you don't WANT a good count, because,
> in reality, the dealer may do just as well
> as you do. So, why bother to count? We've
> been down this road before: The dealer
> doesn't get 3 to 2, he can't double or
> split, he can't take insurance, and he can't
> stand on 12-16. You can! So, please, don't
> use that argument any more.

> Sounds good to me.

> It doesn't occur to you that the answer
> could be "nothing," does it? :-)
> You can't WILL winning.

> No, it's standard deviation. Calculate your
> EV and SD for this style of play, tell us
> how many hours you've played, and we'll tell
> you how rare (or not) your results are.
> Better yet, get John auston's BJRM 2000,
> simulate your game, do a "Random
> Walk," and realize how humbling the
> results can be.

> So how could it be wrong?! :-)

> Lousy game. Lousy results. No surprises.

> Losing sucks, huh?

> Yes. Tell us how often you expect to win and
> how much, on average.

> Trying.

> Don

Don,
if i'm not doing anything wrong, then I can live with that.
But, it just seems that what you are saying is this. I CAN DO EVERYTHING CORRECTLY AND GET MY ASS KICKED ANYWAY BY VIRTUE OF SD.
If that is the only hole in my losses, then bring them on.
Regarding my early departures when I was winning.
That is what I was referring to. I changed that. And I have been hanging in there. It was when I stopped doing that, that my losses increased.
But, as you say, that is part of SD, and I don't have to be doing anything wrong.
Don, thanks so much for responding to such a long post. It's usually right after I take a big hit that I get fustrated. Especially if it's right after I changed something. Even if in the long run, what I changed will benefit me.
Once again you opened my eyes.

Hollwood

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don,
> if i'm not doing anything wrong, then I can
> live with that.
> But, it just seems that what you are saying
> is this. I CAN DO EVERYTHING CORRECTLY AND
> GET MY ASS KICKED ANYWAY BY VIRTUE OF SD.

It's awfully disappointing that you've read my book, and others, and that this message doesn't come through LOUD and CLEAR, page after page after page.

> If that is the only hole in my losses, then
> bring them on.

Not that it's fun to lose!

> Regarding my early departures when I was
> winning.
> That is what I was referring to. I changed
> that. And I have been hanging in there. It
> was when I stopped doing that, that my
> losses increased.

Naturally. You stay after a point where you would have quit a winner, you now have a chance to be a loser, no?

> But, as you say, that is part of SD, and I
> don't have to be doing anything wrong.
> Don, thanks so much for responding to such a
> long post. It's usually right after I take a
> big hit that I get fustrated.

Know this: YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!

> Especially if
> it's right after I changed something. Even
> if in the long run, what I changed will
> benefit me.
> Once again you opened my eyes.

Make me a promise: Keep them open! :-)

Don

[anon]

> i went through a similar experience

of course there is a distribution and where you fall depends on luck

however, there is another, imho more likely place to look.

i know i overestimated my ev early on. george c. and the donald helped me realize this.

when i looked in bja tables and estimated ev i was very optimistic.

i overestimated penetration (ooo he sed penetration)

i underestimated cost of cover

i underestimated tips (i cannot emphasize this one enough) as a normal person i tip, waiters, cabbies and dealers. how much? well if you tip when winning and losing it really adds up. i found it better to estimate ev, decide tip percentage, double it, tip only when winning in direct proportion to session results.

and you still get the dirty looks when you win a lot and when you lose and stiff em

i understimated costs, travel, misc,

hope this helps

in the words of our host

good luck and good cards

anon

[Hollywood]

> It's awfully disappointing that you've read
> my book, and others, and that this message
> doesn't come through LOUD and CLEAR, page
> after page after page.

> Not that it's fun to lose!

> Naturally. You stay after a point where you
> would have quit a winner, you now have a
> chance to be a loser, no?

> Know this: YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!

> Make me a promise: Keep them open! :-)

> Don

have many human qualities that go way beyond Blackjack.
I wish I had access to my first post to you several years ago. So people could see where you have taken me from.
Every now and then I get pulled outside the circle of belief, and you always in the nicest way reel me back in. And like I said that has nothing to do with BJ.
You are the true count. ALIVE AND WELL IN LONG ISLAND.

Hollywood

[Hollywood]

> of course there is a distribution and where
> you fall depends on luck

> however, there is another, imho more likely
> place to look.

> i know i overestimated my ev early on.
> george c. and the donald helped me realize
> this.

> when i looked in bja tables and estimated ev
> i was very optimistic.

> i overestimated penetration (ooo he sed
> penetration)

> i underestimated cost of cover

> i underestimated tips (i cannot emphasize
> this one enough) as a normal person i tip,
> waiters, cabbies and dealers. how much? well
> if you tip when winning and losing it really
> adds up. i found it better to estimate ev,
> decide tip percentage, double it, tip only
> when winning in direct proportion to session
> results.

> and you still get the dirty looks when you
> win a lot and when you lose and stiff em

> i understimated costs, travel, misc,

> hope this helps

> in the words of our host

> good luck and good cards

> anon

Thanks ANON for the advice.

Hollywood

[illsur5]

>
> You are the true count. ALIVE AND WELL IN
> LONG ISLAND.

> Hollywood

I agree Don is the true count, but you forgot something, He is the POSITIVE TRUE!

[J Morgan]

> I'm having a problem truly understanding
> why my winnings are not higher.

> I am a blackchip player who only plays 6
> decks in AC.

There's your answer.