Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 27 to 34 of 34

Thread: Wolverine: Play all spread

  1. #27
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Back to basics

    > So, in your first example, heads comes up 75
    > times out of 100 and leads to a windfall of
    > profits. That is 1.56 standard deviations
    > (which equals 16) from the mean of 50. An
    > event that is likely to occur. The *next*
    > trial of 100 coin flips is not more likely
    > to come up 25 heads to balance it out, or
    > any other number. However, over the long
    > haul, in order for the classic bell curve to
    > balance out, IT IS MORE LIKELY that a less
    > than 50 heads result will occur in the
    > future! If it does not, then the mean over
    > the long haul of these 100 flip trials will
    > not equal 50. When that less than 50 heads
    > trial will occur, nobody knows. But it will
    > happen. You can't keep getting 100 event
    > trials that equal 75 heads either, or again,
    > the mean will not come out to 50 over the
    > long haul. If we differ on this basic
    > premise, then I can certainly see where we
    > have a fundamental difference of opinion
    > regarding statistics and how they are
    > interpreted. If someone can point to a
    > fundamental error in this logic, I would
    > love to see an explanation and learn from
    > that explanation.

    There is no "difference of opinion" you simply have not yet grasped the concept of really large numbers. Suppose that, after our initial 100 flips, the remainder of the million flips was exactly half heads and half tails. Guess what? We're still the same. The 75 out of 100 that we started with has now become statistically insignificant. Fred Renzey expressed it well in Blackjack Bluebook II: "Lop-sided results are not corrected; they just fade into the past." The ever-accumulating number of normal outcomes has diluted the impact of those first 100 flips until they've become virtually meaningless. This is the key: there is no "equal and opposite" reaction.

    > Again, I agree that the odds are exactly the
    > same, we have an edge on every coin flip!
    > However, many 100 coin trials have occurred
    > without us participating in the outcome. We
    > have no way of knowing what those trials
    > have been. Will those trials influence the
    > next session of 100 flips we choose to wager
    > on? The coin is still 50-50 and the
    > statistics say that we can get a result from
    > 2 to 98 heads and it would be within the
    > statistical expectation. However, over the
    > long haul, if the trials which have been
    > going on without our knowledge have
    > accumulated on one side of the mean (50)
    > than another, than the long haul pull toward
    > the mean of those 100 flip trials may exert
    > its power on the next 100 flip trial. Since
    > we weren't there to participate in the
    > winning (or losing) streak that has occurred
    > in our absence, we are at the mercy of the
    > long haul average influencing the next 100
    > flips. No?

    NO! These are independent trials. Past results have absolutely no effect on future outcomes. Once an event has already occurred, the probablity of it happening becomes 100% because it has already happened. See above.

    > This is exactly why I am asking the short
    > term question about how to approach playing
    > a given blackjack session. At some point in
    > the 100 flip trial, you are up more than you
    > would expect. Is it a good strategy to
    > pocket your forutnate winnings early and
    > await another trial in the future or
    > continue to bet on the remaining coin flips?
    > In other words, should you pocket your
    > excessive winnings before the trial is over?

    Again, this only works if you plan on never again playing in your lifetime. Otherwise, it makes absolutely no difference (from a mathematic standpoint) whether you continue playing, play an hour later, the next day or a week later. However, the only way to reach the long run is to put in the hours - you have no EV when you are not playing.

    > Similarly, if you are down early (lose the
    > first 5 flips, or something like that)
    > should you take your lumps and walk away
    > before the trial ends, again, to await
    > another trial in the future?

    What causes the trial to end? It's all one trial. The breaks are meaningless, except that you are wasting valuable time.

    > I can see that cutting your losses early
    > makes little sense in this scenario. It is a
    > can't miss proposition when you get a 50%
    > premium over the true odds. Play out the 100
    > flip session and accept your fate.

    > But when your possible advantage is only 1%,
    > and you may never get back to even, let
    > alone a winning position, due to standard
    > deviation: is cutting your losses to
    > minimize them a prudent strategy to allow
    > your winning session a chance of recouping
    > those losses?

    The fact that your edge is smaller and variance is larger is all the more reason to get in as many hours as possible. It simply means that it will take you longer to get to the long run.

    > Additionally, blackjack isn't divided into
    > even trials like we have laid out in the
    > coin example. Each deck presents a different
    > "value" to the advantage player to
    > win. Some are big losers, others big
    > winners, most are in between. You have to
    > "start" and "stop" a
    > blackjack session. Perhaps the best way to
    > describe it is that you are playing the last
    > 25 flips of one trial, and the entire next
    > 100 flip trial, and then 75 flips in the 3rd
    > trial. You have created your own 100 flip
    > trial times two. Perhaps the first
    > "original" 100 flip trial that you
    > only caught the last 25 of, was good early,
    > and bad late. You come out a net loser for
    > that 25 trials. The middle 100 and you play
    > with a "formal" 100 flip trial, is
    > dead even, 50-50. The last 75 you play
    > breaks even as well. You wind up a net lose
    > thanks to the first 25 flips you jumped
    > into.

    No. You are assuming that the outcome of every 100 flips is somehow predestined. It isn't. Streaks exist only in hindsight. Any streak can end (and another streak begin) at any given time. Streaks can continue through breaks and folllow you from one table (or casino) to another. You have absolutely no way of knowing, and certainly no way of controlling this, so you play for the long run.

    > I think I am beginning to see the light. I
    > have to go get dinner, but the light is
    > beginning to go on. Eureka! Thanks. I'll
    > keep working on this. Cool.

    I certainly hope so. :-)

  2. #28
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: S.D. calculation all wrong

    > Okay, I've looked over the post and here is
    > my statistical interpretation, and this is
    > where we keep getting hung up. I look at the
    > example you have given and break it down
    > into an overall expectation of 50 per 100
    > flips will be heads (by definition, it is a
    > fair coin) (the population mean will be 50%)
    > with a s.d. of roughly 16. 50 - (3 x 16) = 2
    > and 50 + (3 x 16) = 98. That way 98% of the
    > "each 100 flips" trials will fall
    > within that 3 s.d. range per statistical
    > analysis.

    Where in the world did you get this calculation for the standard deviation? If you flip a fair coin 100 times, the mean number of heads in 50 and one s.d. is 5, not 16!!! A three-s.d. band-width around the mean is 35-65, and over 99.7% of the time, we'll have the number of heads in that range.

    I have no idea where you got 16 from, but you surely should have understood that thinking you could get 2 or 98 heads out of 100 with a fair coin 2% of the time is patently absurd.

    Don

  3. #29
    Wolverine
    Guest

    Wolverine: Re: S.D. calculation all wrong

    I didn't bother to make the calculations, I just wanted to have a number to use. I figured it would be smaller than that, thanks for the information to complete the statistics!

    It was more the exercise to get me to see the error in my thinking than anything else. I was working through the issue about starting and stopping a session. Still haven't gotten it 100% into my skull, but it is getting pretty close. I still need to ruminate on it some more.

    Thanks for the patience and the examples, they are helping!

  4. #30
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: S.D. calculation all wrong

    > I didn't bother to make the calculations, I
    > just wanted to have a number to use.

    You might have stated that somewhere! :-)

    > It was more the exercise to get me to see
    > the error in my thinking than anything else.
    > I was working through the issue about
    > starting and stopping a session. Still
    > haven't gotten it 100% into my skull, but it
    > is getting pretty close. I still need to
    > ruminate on it some more.

    I haven't read every word of every post, but it seems to me that you have gotten some pretty good explanations about the concept. I'm not sure what's troubling you. If you have positive expectation in a game, would you rather play it for 30 minutes or 60 minutes? Can it get much simpler than that?

    There are 100 reasons for cutting a winning session short and 100 reasons for cutting a losing session short. NONE of them has anything to do with mathematics.

    > Thanks for the patience and the examples,
    > they are helping!

    Glad to hear it.

    Don

  5. #31
    Wolverine
    Guest

    Wolverine: Concepts

    Don, bfb, and Parker,
    Sorry to make it so difficult. I am truly trying to "get it." Being a positive expectation game makes it a different animal than what I was expecting (a 50-50 game), since sessions seem to win or lose, without regard to how + or - a deck was. Anyway... I digress. I never thought of the game that way.

    Don, you stated there are a 100 reasons to end a session of playing. That is what I have been driving at the whole time, but we got sidetracked when my mathematical incompetence came up.

    If the stated goal is to play as much as possible, why quit playing? We have uncovered some of those reasons: If you can't play there again due to getting barred for counting, you don't want to file the $10,000 paperwork, you get tired, you really do need to use the facilities, you need to eat, it is time to leave, the family is waiting for you. What are others besides a negative count (see below)?

    My statement to kick this whole thing off was rather simple in my (simple) mind: If you cut winning sessions short for these stated (good?)reasons, are you cutting off some of your expected win? And if you are limiting the upside of a winning session, should you be concerned with cutting your losses?

    I related it to stock picking where the expected outcome over the long haul is decidedly positive as well. However, people lose money in the market all the time, even over the long haul because they don't have buy and sell rules, or use poor buy and sell rules (many are related to human emotions such as greed and fear). Since we make "buy and sell" rules by deciding when to start to play blackjack and when to quit, they seemed quite parallel to me.

    That is what this entire line of questioning has been about, rules to stop a session of blackjack with a PLAY ALL approach. I realize that I don't have the advantage with an even or negative count. I am willing to make waiting wagers (table minimums) until the count goes positive. It is my hope that placing larger wagers when I have the advantage will overcome the smaller, disadvantaged wagers. (e.g., if I win an 8 unit wager, I would have to lose 8 single unit wagers as waiting bets, albeit eating into my expected profits while I wait for the next advantageous opportunity.) I fully realize that playing with only positive counts is a better way to play and increase the likelihood of leaving a winner over the long haul. Perhaps someday I will have the oppotunity to pursue this method of playing.

    As a recreational advantage player, I am still sorting through a couple of (many?!?) hangups and misconceptions. The discussions, lessons, and site are helping, thank you.

    I will go about my homework that has been assigned and ask questions as they come up in the future. I am truly sorry for being such a blockheaded, ignorant poster.

  6. #32
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Concepts

    > If the stated goal is to play as much as
    > possible, why quit playing? We have
    > uncovered some of those reasons: If you
    > can't play there again due to getting barred
    > for counting, you don't want to file the
    > $10,000 paperwork, you get tired, you really
    > do need to use the facilities, you need to
    > eat, it is time to leave, the family is
    > waiting for you. What are others besides a
    > negative count (see below)?

    Note that most of the reasons for ending a session (you're tired, hungry, getting heat, reached an arbitrary time limit) are applicable regardless of whether you happen to be having a winning or losing session. Another reason would be because playing conditions have deteriorated - that table becomes too crowded, a new dealer is giving inferior penetration, etc. Again, it would make no difference if you happened to be winning or losing at the time.

    > My statement to kick this whole thing off
    > was rather simple in my (simple) mind: If
    > you cut winning sessions short for these
    > stated (good?)reasons, are you cutting off
    > some of your expected win? And if you are
    > limiting the upside of a winning session,
    > should you be concerned with cutting your
    > losses?

    Again, what "expected" win? If we quit during a winning session, we have no way of knowing if we would have continued to win. If we quit during a losing session, we have no way of knowing if we would have continued to lose, or turned it into a winning session.

    All we know is when we are playing, we have a positive expectation. When we are not playing, our expectation is 0.

    If there were an ideal casino somewhere where heat was nonexistant and conditions were always uniformly good, our goal would be to spend every waking hour at the table.

    > I related it to stock picking where the
    > expected outcome over the long haul is
    > decidedly positive as well. However, people
    > lose money in the market all the time, even
    > over the long haul because they don't have
    > buy and sell rules, or use poor buy and sell
    > rules (many are related to human emotions
    > such as greed and fear). Since we make
    > "buy and sell" rules by deciding
    > when to start to play blackjack and when to
    > quit, they seemed quite parallel to me.

    I think you should stop trying to equate blackjack to stock trading.

    > That is what this entire line of questioning
    > has been about, rules to stop a session of
    > blackjack with a PLAY ALL approach. I
    > realize that I don't have the advantage with
    > an even or negative count. I am willing to
    > make waiting wagers (table minimums) until
    > the count goes positive. It is my hope that
    > placing larger wagers when I have the
    > advantage will overcome the smaller,
    > disadvantaged wagers. (e.g., if I win an 8
    > unit wager, I would have to lose 8 single
    > unit wagers as waiting bets, albeit eating
    > into my expected profits while I wait for
    > the next advantageous opportunity.) I fully
    > realize that playing with only positive
    > counts is a better way to play and increase
    > the likelihood of leaving a winner over the
    > long haul. Perhaps someday I will have the
    > oppotunity to pursue this method of playing.

    You want a rule, here it is: Never leave a positive shoe.

    Satisfied? :-)

    > As a recreational advantage player, I am
    > still sorting through a couple of (many?!?)
    > hangups and misconceptions. The discussions,
    > lessons, and site are helping, thank you.

    > I will go about my homework that has been
    > assigned and ask questions as they come up
    > in the future. I am truly sorry for being
    > such a blockheaded, ignorant poster.

    No need to apologize, providing that you're really here to learn something.

  7. #33
    Wolverine
    Guest

    Wolverine: Re: Concepts

    > Again, what "expected" win? If we
    > quit during a winning session, we have no
    > way of knowing if we would have continued to
    > win. If we quit during a losing session, we
    > have no way of knowing if we would have
    > continued to lose, or turned it into a
    > winning session.

    If there is an EV for a period of time (an hour) or decent number of hands (again, can be equated roughly back to time) and you are (signifcantly?) ahead of expectations for that hour or number of hands. I'm not talking being up the first 5 minutes of a playing session and packing up shop and walking away "because I am up." You have repeatedly stated that it makes no difference unless I plan to never play again. If I have lost my buy in stake (roughly 10% of my bankroll), I would like to leave and try my luck at the next table/casino. You are right that it makes no mathematical difference, but MAYBE it makes an emotional one. That was another one of my questions regarding stopping a session that was dismissed.

    I guess I approach each session as my last so I try to make sure I get up from the table even or a winner (if I was able to because I was up). If I buy in for 30 or 40 units, and I am up 10 units at some point, I try to make it a point to leave no worse than even. If I get up 20 or 30 units, I make sure I walk away with a solid 10 units of bank. The only time I have EVER broken this rule is when there was a very positive situation (+4 TC or better) and EVERY TIME I lived to regret that decision as I wound up walking away a loser from where I should have "left the table" under my previously stated quitting rules. Bad luck. But, it has happened enough that after almost 15 years of playing, and the last few using those "stopping a winner" rules, I am trying to find some prescription to help change these disappointing "continuation" outcomes. Your answer to me is going to be "that's the way the cookie crumbles. Nobody can predict what is going to happen in the short run. You had a positive situation, you need to play it."

    I will no longer relate blackjack to investing on this board. We obviously look at things very differently.

    As I said before, I'm off to do my homework. I'm done asking this question here. It is obvious that *my* quest is only getting people upset and tempers to flare. I will return to the woodwork to avoid further tarnishing my reputation here. Thank you for your efforts on my behalf. Adios.

  8. #34
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Concepts

    > If there is an EV for a period of time (an
    > hour) or decent number of hands (again, can
    > be equated roughly back to time) and you are
    > (signifcantly?) ahead of expectations for
    > that hour or number of hands. I'm not
    > talking being up the first 5 minutes of a
    > playing session and packing up shop and
    > walking away "because I am up."
    > You have repeatedly stated that it makes no
    > difference unless I plan to never play
    > again. If I have lost my buy in stake
    > (roughly 10% of my bankroll), I would like
    > to leave and try my luck at the next
    > table/casino. You are right that it makes no
    > mathematical difference, but MAYBE it makes
    > an emotional one. That was another one of my
    > questions regarding stopping a session that
    > was dismissed.

    That's an entirely different issue. The goal is to play like a machine, but we are human, with human emotions, and sometimes that is difficult, especially for non-professional players. It is even possible that getting pounded may have an effect on your play -- after losing a series of max bets, you become "gunshy," reluctant to push out that big bet when the count calls for it. If this happens, you are giving up your edge, so it is definitely time for a break.

    The downside is that, as previously mentioned, you have no EV once you stop playing. In addition, you may be walking away from a game with exceptional conditions and moving on to an inferior one.

    As long as you understand that there is no mathematically valid reason to walk away from a good game, go for it.

    > I guess I approach each session as my last
    > so I try to make sure I get up from the
    > table even or a winner (if I was able to
    > because I was up). If I buy in for 30 or 40
    > units, and I am up 10 units at some point, I
    > try to make it a point to leave no worse
    > than even. If I get up 20 or 30 units, I
    > make sure I walk away with a solid 10 units
    > of bank. The only time I have EVER broken
    > this rule is when there was a very positive
    > situation (+4 TC or better) and EVERY TIME I
    > lived to regret that decision as I wound up
    > walking away a loser from where I should
    > have "left the table" under my
    > previously stated quitting rules. Bad luck.
    > But, it has happened enough that after
    > almost 15 years of playing, and the last few
    > using those "stopping a winner"
    > rules, I am trying to find some prescription
    > to help change these disappointing
    > "continuation" outcomes. Your
    > answer to me is going to be "that's the
    > way the cookie crumbles. Nobody can predict
    > what is going to happen in the short run.
    > You had a positive situation, you need to
    > play it."

    You're starting to catch on. :-)

    The problem is that you will drive yourself crazy trying to micromanage your session results in this manner. You will waste energy needlessly kicking yourself for not "quitting while you were ahead," you will miss out on many advantageous opportunities because you prematurely ended a session, and your long-term EV will be less because you will end up playing fewer hours.

    Believe it or not, I understand where you're coming from because I used to think that way myself, when I first started playing. Once I accepted the math, and started thinking in terms of EV rather than session results, blackjack became a lot more fun and less stressful.

    > I will no longer relate blackjack to
    > investing on this board. We obviously look
    > at things very differently.

    It's not a question of viewpoint. You either understand and accept the math or you don't. Either way, the math remains the same.

    You are free to believe that the earth is flat if you so choose, but the earth will continue to be round.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.