Conversation about math and edge and such with a cynical ex-AP turned recreational

[ZeeBabar]

The other day, I ended up having a conversation with an ex-Card Counter/AP. I was telling him that Math supported Card Counting and the discussion went something like this. He says, that if a casino has an off the top edge of .5 and you have come up with a great count and a spread and you run a sim of a billion hands and the results show that you now have the edge on that game of .5. A positive edge according to the math. However, he says the simulator played a billion hands perfectly and came up with a .5 edge in the card counters favor. People see this result and say that the math is on their side. How many folks can play a billion hands perfectly, he asks?

You are at a table playing your min. bet of $15 with three other folks playing blacks. They have doubled their 9,2, their Ace7 and 8,3 before you and you are sitting on third base with a 12, the dealer shows a 6. Your count shows a TC of -6 and you should hit. In the simulation the computer hits. In real life, you don't want to hit because you could possibly screw up the other folks at the table who do not want you to take what they think is the dealer's bust card so you let it slide.

He rattled off situations where in real life you deal with realities (heat, difficult situations where you do not make the optimum play or bet optimally) and stated that just because the math shows you have a .5 edge does not mean you really have that edge, that the edge needs to be significantly more for anyone to be consistently successful and that it aint happening!!! When I pointed to successful AP's, his comment was that because there is a LeBron or other pro players making millions does not mean you can do it, no matter how much you practice basketball. In the case of basketball, you can see that you do not have the physical skills and he thinks far too many of us cannot see that we do not have the mental skills or fortitude. He also says that a top professional athlete's career only lasts 4-5 years with a very few lasting 10-12 years and the same is the case with being an AP. He says you can see physical skills declining but you cannot see that your mental skills decline too.

He says that the forums make him feel sad, reminds him of kids who do not want to study or work hard at conventional jobs because they think they will become the next American idol, get a contract and play music all their life when they will more likely end up strumming a guitar in some seedy empty bar for $20 a night with two customers who are not paying any attention.

[mushin]

Well... I'll be the first.

There is honestly nothing wrong with the view and statements of this individual. Still there is an edge and it is up to the player to make that edge work for them. Just as it is up to an athlete to maintain their skill and body to remain competitive as long as possible. In all honesty there is often a fine line between an expert and a novice as it does not always take that much more effort to rise above 90% of the population. I feel dedicated counters fall into this category... with just a bit of extra effort they can rise above 90% of all other Black Jack players. Once in that 10% what they do is up to them... but it sure is enough to scare the casinos to such a degree that they feel the constant need to back off even the marginal counters.

[terry0222]

The cynical ex-AP really sounds like someone who didn't want to put in the time/effort to become truly proficient.

And by-the-way, you described a situation in which the player at 3rd base was supposed to take a hit, but does not because you might be taking the dealer's bust card. REALLY? Anyone who changes their play because of heat from the other players at the table is an idiot. They do NOT know what the next card will be, until after it is delivered from the shoe. If they don't like your style of play, they can find another table. I absolutely NEVER deviate from what I think is the appropriate play in any given situation.

Everything else sounds like a guy who wanted to be an AP---but never was. I think the only appropriate comparison to athletics is that there are many gifted individuals who don't want to put in the time/work/effort to truly excel. Same with blackjack.

[Lamb]

This sounds like "peaked in high school Rob Lowe"

[Three]

In real life, you don't want to hit because you could possibly screw up the other folks at the table who do not want you to take what they think is the dealer's bust card so you let it slide.

You hit. You could help them as easy as hurt them. You never let it slide unless the reason is selfish. Blamers will blame someone. Wo cares if it is you. mature card players will not say anything.

I can see why he is an ex-AP. He found out e couldn't play as he needed to to be successful.

[Jabberwocky]

You don't need to play a billion hands to obtain that or any edge. You have the edge each and every round played.** You do need to play a large number of rounds for the advantage to fall closer to expectation and that is where N0 joins the conversation. But N0 for different games run into the ten's of thousands, not millions and billions. The millions and billions of trials are what is necessary (by simulation) to take things to an exact point, several decimals in.

I suspect the former counter/AP was just expressing his frustration with how the game has changed from when he likely played and had access to far better games with a higher advantage and lower N0's. I see a lot of that right here in our community among players that began 'some time' ago when there were better conditions.

**edit: I feel like I need to clarify here, before someone jumps on me. Obviously you don't have an advantage 'each and every' round played. That is not how card counting works. But you do experience the advantage from card counting over the short term, even if your short term results don't reflect it. I am not expressing myself well (as usual), but I suspect most know what I was driving at.

Strong games+strong bankroll+uncrowded conditions=long term advantage with many fat tails mixed in.

[SiMi]

Hey, ZB

Your first paragraph shows a misunderstanding of the theory of card counting by the ex-Card Counter/AP. As I've written before, I strongly suspect most people who CC don't understand the probability and statistics underlying the theory of card counting because these topics are simply not intuitive and, in many cases, they are COUNTER (pun) intuitive.

The billions of rounds run in Monte Carlo computer simulations are done to generate an accurate edge calculation. You can do it with Combinatorial Mathematics and a hand-held calculator or a calculating computer program if you are a very sharp mathematician a la Peter Griffin and you won't need to do any Monte Carlo computer simulations at all. Most people aren't that sharp/patient so we rely on Monte Carlo computer simulations to get the same results. But, as Peter Griffin wrote, working things out "by hand" will often reveal subtle issues that can help generate new, helpful ideas.

If the math or the sims show a 1.5% edge, then you have that edge every time you play that way. You don't need to play billions of rounds because you START with the edge. Because it's a THEORETICAL edge, you won't see it every round you play just as you don't expect a coin toss to always go back and forth between heads and tails on each successive flip. But, the math underlying the theory of card counting tells you that you will begin to see that edge assert itself as you play more and more rounds. This is the same way you expect a fair coin toss to generate closer and closer to 50/50 results the more you do it. (The theory underlying N0 is that you can calculate the probability of being even or ahead after N rounds of AP play.)

I think it's a bit unfortunate that many people seem to learn how to count cards without understanding the theory underlying what they are doing. Without that understanding, you are just trusting others. That may work fine for a while but, if/when you hit a rough patch, the lack of knowledge tends to cause people to quit even though nothing is wrong. Or, you can have a case where someone is not playing the game they think they are and they don't recognize it until their bankroll is gone because they didn't understand the theory underlying card counting well enough to check what they were doing.

Once you truly understand the theory, there is a MUCH lower anxiety level as you play because you KNOW there will be wild fluctuations that will work out over time. An individual session is just a drop in the bucket compared to the Long Run and there's no point in getting worked up about ANY short term result as long as you're playing correctly. Even looking at yearly results doesn't matter because the Long Run doesn't keep a calendar. The days, weeks, months and years are human constructs that have no bearing at all on the way the Universe works in the realm of probability.

If this person wants to continue to play Blackjack for fun, why not play with an advantage as much as possible? If s/he finds CC too difficult, then they definitely should NOT be trying to card count and that's fine but that says nothing about whether CC is, in theory and in fact, profitable or not.

Young people who want to CC need to educate themselves to the realities of CC as much as older folks who start CC. The realistic edge for typical CC is about 1% or so and either that's worth it to you or not. Because of the math, it's a "guaranteed thing" if done properly, unlike being the next American Idol. Either you have the bankroll and the skills to do it properly or you do not regardless of your age. I'd rather play with an edge than without the edge. I enjoy playing so it's a no-brainer for me.

Best
SiMi

[ZeeBabar]

Hey, ZB

Your first paragraph shows a misunderstanding of the theory of card counting by the ex-Card Counter/AP. As I've written before, I strongly suspect most people who CC don't understand the probability and statistics underlying the theory of card counting because these topics are simply not intuitive and, in many cases, they are COUNTER (pun) intuitive.

The billions of rounds run in Monte Carlo computer simulations are done to generate an accurate edge calculation. You can do it with Combinatorial Mathematics and a hand-held calculator or a calculating computer program if you are a very sharp mathematician a la Peter Griffin and you won't need to do any Monte Carlo computer simulations at all. Most people aren't that sharp/patient so we rely on Monte Carlo computer simulations to get the same results. But, as Peter Griffin wrote, working things out "by hand" will often reveal subtle issues that can help generate new, helpful ideas.

If the math or the sims show a 1.5% edge, then you have that edge every time you play that way. You don't need to play billions of rounds because you START with the edge. Because it's a THEORETICAL edge, you won't see it every round you play just as you don't expect a coin toss to always go back and forth between heads and tails on each successive flip. But, the math underlying the theory of card counting tells you that you will begin to see that edge assert itself as you play more and more rounds. This is the same way you expect a fair coin toss to generate closer and closer to 50/50 results the more you do it. (The theory underlying N0 is that you can calculate the probability of being even or ahead after N rounds of AP play.)

I think it's a bit unfortunate that many people seem to learn how to count cards without understanding the theory underlying what they are doing. Without that understanding, you are just trusting others. That may work fine for a while but, if/when you hit a rough patch, the lack of knowledge tends to cause people to quit even though nothing is wrong. Or, you can have a case where someone is not playing the game they think they are and they don't recognize it until their bankroll is gone because they didn't understand the theory underlying card counting well enough to check what they were doing.

Once you truly understand the theory, there is a MUCH lower anxiety level as you play because you KNOW there will be wild fluctuations that will work out over time. An individual session is just a drop in the bucket compared to the Long Run and there's no point in getting worked up about ANY short term result as long as you're playing correctly. Even looking at yearly results doesn't matter because the Long Run doesn't keep a calendar. The days, weeks, months and years are human constructs that have no bearing at all on the way the Universe works in the realm of probability.

If this person wants to continue to play Blackjack for fun, why not play with an advantage as much as possible? If s/he finds CC too difficult, then they definitely should NOT be trying to card count and that's fine but that says nothing about whether CC is, in theory and in fact, profitable or not.

Young people who want to CC need to educate themselves to the realities of CC as much as older folks who start CC. The realistic edge for typical CC is about 1% or so and either that's worth it to you or not. Because of the math, it's a "guaranteed thing" if done properly, unlike being the next American Idol. Either you have the bankroll and the skills to do it properly or you do not regardless of your age. I'd rather play with an edge than without the edge. I enjoy playing so it's a no-brainer for me.

Best
SiMi

Thanks Simi. I finally get it. If the edge of 1.5%, it is an edge every time you play the game and not a sum total. Thus, if you are playing a session with a 1.5% edge but in that session, you make a few mistakes and/or bad variance hits you, and you come out a loser in that session, it does not take away the edge or your chance of success the next time you play a session.

[SiMi]

Hi, again, ZB

Yes, the edge of, say, 1.5%, is an overall figure that reflects your edge EVERY TIME YOU PLAY THAT GAME THAT WAY. The edge tells you how much of your total wagers to date in this particular game you EXPECT to win. For example, if you have bet $100,000 total in a given game over the last week where your edge is 1%, then you will have expected winnings of:

$100,000 x .01 = $1,000 expected winnings

After you have played long enough to have wagered $500,000 in a given game, you will have expected winnings of:

$500,000 x .01 = $5,000 expected winnings

and so on. It's theoretical because you can't play the exact same game in the exact same way all the time. (The edge and N0 can be used to see if you are performing as expected. If not, you might want to investigate.) But, if you always play with SOME edge, you are always playing with an edge and that's a damn sight better than the typical gambler.

Because most of us use Monte Carlo computer simulations to determine the edge, we need to run crap tons of rounds in order to be CERTAIN we know the edge. The edge will assert itself in the fabled Long Run with certainty but not in the short run. So, to remove any question as to whether the result we got is reliable and not some weirdo fluke, we run billions of rounds in the computer sims. At that point, we're comfortable saying, "Yep, this is my edge."

Those who understand combinatorial math do not need to do this but there are damn few people walking around who truly understand the math well enough to do these calculations. Peter Griffin, the author of "The Theory of Blackjack" was one of those people. That's why Bodarc's recent comment about recommending "The Theory of Blackjack" as a "beginner's book" to a loud-mouth know-it-all is so funny.

Take care
SiMi

[Norm]

You can do it with Combinatorial Mathematics and a hand-held calculator or a calculating computer program if you are a very sharp mathematician a la Peter Griffin and you won't need to do any Monte Carlo computer simulations at all. Most people aren't that sharp/patient so we rely on Monte Carlo computer simulations to get the same results.

Actually, this is not true. The edge from card counting is an intractable math problem. That is why we use Monte Carlo methods. They are more accurate.

[SiMi]

Hi, Norm

Great point. Thanks for noting that. I over-stated the power of the maths involved. Individual hands can be computed but OVERALL edge requires more time than a human has. How is that?

Thanks for your help!
SiMi

[Norm]

Yep. Things like cut-card effect really mess up the math. And, advanced techniques are worse.

[Stealth]

You are at a table playing your min. bet of $15 with three other folks playing blacks. They have doubled their 9,2, their Ace7 and 8,3 before you and you are sitting on third base with a 12, the dealer shows a 6. Your count shows a TC of -6 and you should hit. In the simulation the computer hits. In real life, you don't want to hit because you could possibly screw up the other folks at the table who do not want you to take what they think is the dealer's bust card so you let it slide.

It is simply irrational to not make the correct decision when you have the information. Do you really believe you are going to "screw it up" for the table? Why would you let them control how you feel or act? I have no interest in their bets or their superstitions. Not going to be outspoken about it, but I am going to do what I know is correct given the information I have. It is their presumption that it is a team game that is fatally flawed, not me hitting 12 Vs 6 at -6.