Losing streak rant PART TWELVE

[mickeymouse]

Tthree, I know my hourly thourly theoretical EV, or rather, "EV per 100 hands", to within the nearest dime, and it is based on conservative estimates and assumptions. I also know where my long term results over a year stand. It is in the bottom 10-15%. It is not four standard deviations below expectation; it is just disappointingly poor.

If you don't want to sound helpful and rather be a patronizing and condescending professor, then don't post at all. I'm not here to listen to your holier-than-thou lecturing.

[mickeymouse]

And, as far as "minor advantage" counts go, as soon as EV goes above zero I start losing just about every hand. Recent sessions show all +EV counts to have negative returns, if grouped by rounding TC to the nearest integer.

[Three]

If you don't want to sound helpful and rather be a patronizing and condescending professor, then don't post at all. I'm not here to listen to your holier-than-thou lecturing.

I based my comments on what I remember from your posts and how you answered questions. My memory may be confusing you with another who likes to complain about his losing streaks (it certainly wouldn't be the first time my memory got things confused a little). If so I apologize but from my recollection what I said was right. The other one that does this a lot is Zee. It is easy to not just believe this is true with his lack of motivation to know anything about what he is doing.

I assume you're comment about 4 SD's means you know the math of where that 1 in 10,000 player lies. That shows you have done a lot of homework. My apologies.

[Three]

Recent sessions show all +EV counts to have negative returns, if grouped by rounding TC to the nearest integer.

Most AP's I know Floor. If you are rounding and your indices and bets are for flooring that could explain a lot. Rounding is fine as long as your bets and indices were derived using the same technique. Most AP's feel flooring is better so it is more common to find shared info in the flooring format. You should always check what method was used when getting info from another.

[mickeymouse]

Tthree I might want to add that I just had a look at the analysis of EV at every TC; about half my total EV derives from the few hands where the true count is greater than or equal to +6. This is partly because at the penetration I am getting at my venue (typically 90-95%), the bell shaped curve of TC distribution is a lot less steep and there are greater proportion of hands at the tails. The very deep penetration, while resulting in a better EV/100 hands overall, also increases the standard deviation, and therefore the swings are also expected to be wilder. The end of shoes is where sessions are typically won or lost - and in my case, generally lost. If the penetration here were only 75% it is unlikely that I would ever play at all.

In terms of attempting an ace neutral count with an ace side count, one would have to develop indices for the new count - as attempting to apply indices on my old count would be counterproductive and loss producing. It is already WAY more difficult to attempt a Level 2 simple balanced count vis-à-vis basic Hi-Lo. Practising and drilling counts should be counted as time consumed when it comes to calculating EV. If my EV per 100 hands were to TRIPLE by using a side count then I might consider trying it (remembering here it is H17 and no draw on split aces), otherwise in my case, it is simply not worth the effort or the increased error rate. And how do we develop indices and formula for sizing bets? It would be a massive undertaking which would be incompatible with my day job.

[Three]

It is already WAY more difficult to attempt a Level 2 simple balanced count vis-à-vis basic Hi-Lo.

No doubt it takes some practice to get used to cancellations differences for high and low cards with a level 2 count. And some need a transition period for side counting. While these skills are of limited use in BJ they are almost essential skills for carny games. I recommend people try to develop them before they need them. It is hard enough to learn a new game without having to learn a bunch of new skills.

[mickeymouse]

I think given enough time, and practice, at my intelligence quotient, I could do it. After all, I did nearly make the national math Olympiad team, and I was better at probability than any other single branch of math.
The stumbling block is going to be developing the indices of the new count. How do you do that?
Is there enough functionality in the existing software to play around with that to produce a Sp21 game with no hole card and automatic win on 21?
Any suggestions would be kindly appreciated.

Oh, a short note on N0. People keep mentioning the sooner you get to N0 the better. But your prior results - no matter how bad - have no influence on future results. If you have played 0.95 N0 hands and remain in the hole, chances are that you'll probably still be in the hole after 1x N0 hands. It just makes you have a shorter time before concluding that you are the unluckiest person in the Western World*.