Laughlin Marauder: Huge Ouch

[98%]

> My counting ability and confidence in my
> ability to track a game are imho
> unquestionable. I practice for 2 hours a day
> just continously running through a deck 1,
> 2, and 4 cards at a time....

Right, so I offer you your own words:

"I walked out in a daze, slightly embarassed, slightly shamed, and contemplating if this is such a good idea afterall."

So what is the questionable aspect to your game (or the game) which is making you contemplate whether or not this is such a good idea afterall? There should be no such contemplation going on in your mind if you ever intend to do something like shuffle tracking, which will test you far more than counting will. That was at the heart of my suggesting shuffle tracking is a bad idea for you right now.

Anyway, if you feel your result was about 1 in 1,000, be prepared for something even worse when you've logged thousands of more hours.

You say you don't believe in luck, then you can call it negative variance. Either way, it is no fun, but it is part of the game. And keep in mind the words of "Johnny C" from the 'Blackjack Wizards' interview in the Fall 2002 'Blackjack Forum,' which were in response to being asked his opinion on the prospects for newbies:

I would not be very optimistic about it. You can make some money, but making it a profession is tough. Most of the players who are successful had initial success. They were lucky.

I happen to agree.

[Sun Runner]

> I actually disagree with this statement ...

Not a problem. I've been wrong so many times in my life, I'm used to it by now.
But I don't think I am here.

The concept of investing new capital into a failing venture just perpetuates the 'if you have the BR to play long enough, you are guaranteed a winner' concept.

I don't believe it. Some qualified, capable, and otherwise proficent counters are not only going to lose less than their expected EV -they are going to lose -period. And not because they played poorly. Because of the math.

A year or two ago I wore out my welcome posting on this issue. It may be only 2 out of a thousand -but 2 will lose.

What seperates the 2 from the 998 -luck.

How does it feel to be a gambler?

[John Lewis]

<
Wow. 2^25 = 1 in 130,000 chance

[Don Schlesinger]

> Wow. 2^25 = 1 in 130,000 chance

I'm not sure what this post refers to, but 2^25 is one chance in 33,554,432, not 130,000.

Don

[WallStRunoff]

> Not a problem. I've been wrong so many times
> in my life, I'm used to it by now.
> But I don't think I am here.

> The concept of investing new capital into a
> failing venture just perpetuates the 'if you
> have the BR to play long enough, you are
> guaranteed a winner' concept.

> I don't believe it. Some qualified, capable,
> and otherwise proficent counters are not
> only going to lose less than their expected
> EV -they are going to lose -period. And not
> because they played poorly. Because of the
> math.

> A year or two ago I wore out my welcome
> posting on this issue. It may be only 2 out
> of a thousand -but 2 will lose.

> What seperates the 2 from the 998 -luck.

> How does it feel to be a gambler?

>

Nobody says you need only 800 units bank. Lower the bet to 1/1600 bank and now your ROR drops by 90%. You have some control over how much gambling you want to do and how much mathmatical insurance you want to take. High risk/high reward. But don't think that 2% can't happen to you.

[John Lewis]

Don,

Must we argue over such small discrepancies?

Seriously, I "calculated" it by pen and paper using a "shortcut" involving a (slightly) inappropriate combination of multiplication and exponents that even I can't reproduce now.

I apologize for the poor post.

And, per the correct numbers, this poster was REALLY unlucky.