thanks RollingStoned. you and i know blackjack well so lets stick with it. we are both VERY confident of a counter's prospects in a million hands. the reason he will almost surely win is he will vary his bet size upward when his prospects are better. they are just BARELY better and as a consequence, sometimes he experiences some of the BREATHTAKING losses documented elsewhere in Blackjack: The Forum----he will, correctly, bet straight into what ultimately will sometimes pan out to be a buzz saw of destruction. in time, not to worry, as he will almost surely, ultimately, LUCK into more large bet wins. (really skill, not luck, except he does have to enjoy the positive variance which he does not always get when the count is good enough to increase bet size. also, make a mental note that in a million hands, he does not increase his bet size so many, many times compared, say, to the contingency bettor)Originally Posted by RollingStoned
a contingency bettor is seeking what i need to go ahead and call a spade----he IS seeking to join the ranks of "advantage" players----lets see if he can: first, look slightly broadly while focusing on just one day: our contingency-guy takes his hundred units and bets modestly, with no idea whether he has a tiny advantage at that moment, like the counter might, (you dont have to be counting to be accidentally betting in a high count) or a tiny disadvantage which is more likely most of the time. when he tosses out larger bets, for whatever reason, he may win due to the count being good at the moment (SHEER luck) or he might win in spite of a bad count. if he wins, he might keep going, with no rational expectation to win more and with the reasonable expectation he will more likely lose. he is just "gambling." we both know that, whether lucky, good-count or lucky variance, sometimes he will win these larger bet sizes.
in pursuit of his advantage we know he is pursuing the same thing as the counter, more wins at higher bet sizes that outweigh all losses. in a day and in a million hands, his actions will be different than the counter in ways worth looking at. FIRST, HE WILL ENDEAVOR TO POST A WIN EACH DAY--we all know such happens all the time---my first seventeen trips as a basic strategy guy were all winners--it would be a bit silly to suggest that was all "luck" but not silly at all to observe it involved some luck and to wonder just how ugly the price might be when the inevitable losses begin to come due. my 200 or so trips are not a GIANT sample but the pattern of many wins and far fewer losses has held and, more like teams in a basketball season, there is no real basis for figuring my experience at this point is "luck" or the sample size too small-----winning one, single day or trip is a skill set and, played the way i describe, we should be able to come up with a math model that expresses likelihood of win/ break-even vs 100 unit ruin.
some will want to force the contingency bettor into the same box as the counter and that is nonsense. focusing on winning a single day, by preserving his capital (no buzz saws, NEVER), while cautiously giving lady-sheer-luck MANY chances in a day to kiss his cheek (again, not better than the counter but DIFFERENT than the counter who may not enjoy a high count so much in a day and therefore is not betting higher as many times a day as our rather-more-hapless, contingency-buddy).
so, in this first difference between him and the counter we see this guy playing all day, or maybe only briefer, not grinding the same prescribed path but rather always with an eye to balancing preserving his bankroll while tossing out enough higher-bet opportunities that he eventually "lucks" into the win column EVERY, SINGLE, DAY and, depending on how that is going, he may knock a home run, bag a modest win, be lucky to come from behind and break even or, count on it, he will sometimes drop his entire 100 units. somehow, i think, when he infrequently runs to his counter-pal, whining about dropping 100 units, i doubt he will get a lot of boo-hoo, sympathy.
lets do some math without doing the math because i cannot--if you can, help me out. such an approach very frequently gives our clueless luckster MANY days of posting a win. (if he skips basic strategy or doesn't take care to not needlessly risk his bankroll or is TOO cautious with only flat bets while losing too deeply to likely recover, THESE frequent casino guests are, indeed, NOT gaining an advantage.) remember, the reason our contingency bettor wins MOST days is because he provided so many opportunities for sheer luck to get him into the win column at some point, any point, and he valued posting a win so much that, depending on the clock, he "guaranteed" he would not risk going into the lose column THAT ONE DAY. as luck would have it, a few of these wins easily match his inevitable hundred unit losses and lesser wins are more frequent than that, with "lucky to break even" more frequent still. given the house edge and fair expectation, most of these MANY, MANY posted, win/break-even days represent our contingency-guy OVERCOMING the fact he actually lost more hands than he won--same as the counter's win, just arrived at an entirely different way.
now, how about those hundred unit loss days? turns out, besides being somewhat rare, they also came via rather modest bet sizes AND they came from "couldn't-catch-a-break" variance that is to be expected in his 2000-separate-days-to-play-a-million-hands.
so, as i said before, we have this weaselly, contingency bettor, refusing to post data till he has lucked-out and overcome more hands lost with a win on most days or he will post his 100 unit losing day on days he just couldnt buy any luck.
platitudes about one long-run game are entirely tone-deaf. the data posted was "rigged" by being selected to be posted only when a favorable post could be made or, less often, when our slippery contingency-yapper was forced to admit he lost 100 units, albeit along a modest path. when you run the long-run tape on such "tainted" data, you find that, indeed our contingency-hero has, also, gained an advantage--- he used the advantage granted him by the casino of allowing him to choose the bet size depending on his needs and they did this for a measly 1/2% "advantage" for themselves. he used the advantage they gave HIM to powerfully, carefully, overcome their pittance.
my hope is talented math guys will take a second look at: if one approaches blackjack without counting, what would be the optimal approach for giving a high probability of a one day win and low probability of 100 unit loss BUT also optimizing win amount? this has enough variables that it does not lend itself to figuring out as easily as a million hands of basic strategy nor counting but everything can be figured, i figure--just not by me.
lemme know.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks