Continuing to lose and probabilities

[mickeymouse]

I played again tonight and lost a further $1,400.

I played a mix of BJ and Pontoon, and it was a familiar story. Virtually no blackjacks, virtually every split/double lost, multiple miracle draws from the dealer to 21 and backdoor blackjacks.

The last few sessions I have played, in sequence, ~ 3 hours each, have yielded the following results:

- lost $2500
- won $1100
- lost $1200
- lost $1900
- won $1000
- won $1000
- lost $2500
- lost $1400

Of these eight sessions 3 of them have been among the worst 4 losses of my 160 session career.

Plugging in the numbers, the probability of losing $6400 over 24 hours (2400 hands) is 0.55% or -2.54 standard deviations below the mean.
Since my last ATH, in August, I have lost in excess of $10k to reach an unprecedented losing streak.

When I play simulations on my laptop, I consistently win. Not every shoe, but I manage to generally stay in front over the long run.

I believe that God is trying to teach us a lesson here. I now believe that if I play another time the same result will occur.
And it will only take a few sessions, perhaps a couple of dozen for me to lose all my remaining bankroll of 27k.
The house edge is 25% whenever the true count is +4 or higher and it seems to be an immutable theorem. I dare you to disprove it.

[mickeymouse]

A few issues:

- You mention that an ace neutral count and a balanced aced side count are "essential". But how do I go about it? I would have to calculate new indices for this count, not use my original indices for what I am using at the moment. I am not aware of any published data available either free or for a fee to this effect. Maintaining two counts would be scope for a massive increase in counting errors, not to mention I would play much slower, resulting in an EV that was probably lower than before. As for other expert Pontoon players, the game has been removed from every single mainland capital city casino, even the VIP rooms. Apart from my venue, there is now no realistic option for anyone to play Pontoon medium-to-long term in Australia - at any degree of "advantage". Besides, the EOR for aces in H17 Pontoon is likely substantially lower than in S17. It is just not practical for me to attempt such a strategy - if you can provide the indices or suggest a way of deriving them, good luck to you.

At present I am using the Secret Monkey Count, generally with KW's indices with an adjustment of 4 added. Firstly Pontoon
It is tiring enough just to make a -2 count for Aces compared to Hi-Lo. I feel far more mentally fatigued playing Pontoon than regular BJ after four hours simply because of the added complexity of the count and the number of deviations that are inherently present in Pontoon basic strategy.

- Of course I don't want to play the low counts heads up. But they don't shuffle. What do you do if the count is poor, you are heads up there are 2 decks left in the shoe and all the other tables are crowded and therefore not worth playing? At any given time we generally have 2-3 shoe dealt games of Pontoon and/or BJ at best so you play out the rest of the shoe and start a new one. It is the only way not to kill your /100 hand rate. Of course if there is a second person playing with you, you can leave while he or she eats up the bad cards.

- Regardless of the playing efficiency and the relative strength of each count, the house edge is low and in theory, if the true count is +5 or higher, it should be a +EV game. But it isn't. I am consistently losing hand after hand at these counts, I am having stretches of greater than ten hands (split into two) in which I don't net-win any of them. Even if I get dealt a blackjack on one hand (extremely rare of late), the other hand often becomes a failed double, leading to me net-losing the hand. The dealer has just stopped busting when the strategy forces me to split to multiple hands and subsequently double. Yes I do win a few hands here and there but it is more than cancelled out by me just getting dealt stiffs and busting. I could Wong out and not Wong in until +5 and I would still incur massive losses - and probably in the long run as well.

Moses - I play by hand count too. I calculate my theoretical win by EV per 100 hands. Therefore I prefer to play heads up or with one other player only. However, theory is very different from practice. The practical win rate is more like -$400/hr.

[BlackAce]

Hey Mickey, I have A Couple Questions you might be Able to Answer. Please send me a msg or Rely to me on here. Thanks I Appreciate it.

[Three]

Maintaining two counts would be scope for a massive increase in counting errors, not to mention I would play much slower, resulting in an EV that was probably lower than before.

Obviously you are one to always race to a casino way before you are ready. That may be your entire problem. You don't go to the casino until you can do whatever count you will be using error free. Your comments seem to indicate that you are not there yet for the count you are using. After enough repetitions you will be not just error free but fast at whatever count you use. Your conception of the amount of time and practice that will take is obviously far less than it actually is. Your problem is probably also due to the fact that your count must compromise between a strong betting count and a strong playing count. The result is usually a count that is not great at either task or great at one and really weak at the other. My suggestion will allow you a counting system that is great at both BC and PE.

It is tiring enough just to make a -2 count for Aces compared to Hi-Lo. I feel far more mentally fatigued playing Pontoon than regular BJ after four hours simply because of the added complexity of the count and the number of deviations that are inherently present in Pontoon basic strategy.

Well if that is how you feel maybe counting just isn't for you and that is the root of your problem. At least you can be honest with yourself that you don't have the counting chops to be successful and don't seem willing to develop them before you enter a casino as every AP should. To master the system I use, which may be one of the hardest ever designed, I practiced for 6 weeks and still couldn't count 1 deck down without a mistake. I almost gave up but I knew how ridiculous the gain would be from what I had in mind. It wasn't that I was bad at counting as I had been using Hiopt2 with a straight ace side count for years flawlessly and had always kept an ace side count since I started counting about 40 years ago. It was just that the count required your brain to do 2 dimensional cancellations where you adjusted a level 2 and a level 3 balanced counts simultaneously in order to be fast enough to keep up with the fastest dealers with about 25% of the cards counted in both counts in opposite directions and different magnitudes. Then I counted down my first deck without a mistake. I knew then it was just a matter of time and 2 weeks later I was counting down every deck perfectly. Speed came after enough reps and 2 or 3 months later I was fast enough to keep up with the fastest dealers at any casino without any mistakes. I can do the count in my sleep and after taking a well earned break after a year to date that exceeded even my wildest expectations I started counting down decks after not doing any counting for weeks. It took 4 hours of non-stop practice counting down decks before I made my first mistake and I was 1 off in the RC. It was taking about 20 seconds per deck on average.

I would say you have rushed to play when you weren't ready and your results reflect that. If you don't think so read my tale again and think about how hard you worked to be ready to play and how long it took compared to what I did. I didn't play until I knew I was ready. It took about 6 months to switch to my new system and be ready to play it in the casino. I already had been a counter for decades so I didn't need to learn the game just to count.

[mickeymouse]

Congrats to you, but I have a day job and I simply do not have the time or the patience for that kind of project, OR patronizing and condescending people like you.

[mickeymouse]

I have a 140 IQ and three degrees and a 6-figure income day job. You may have double that but just don't post on this forum to denigrate or belittle me. I don't care whether you're Einstein or Ben Carson or Jennifer Lopez. I have zero tolerance for people who dare to look down upon me.

[Bodarc]

I have come to the conclusion from all the talk everyone on here has at least 140 IQ. I feel neglected with my 85.

[mickeymouse]

Anyone with a three digit IQ can play 21 or its variants at a profit given enough time and instruction. We are lucky that few of them ever bother. Having a 200 IQ will get you a bit more, but it would also get you a bit more in terms of day job pay as well.

[Three]

Congrats to you, but I have a day job and I simply do not have the time or the patience for that kind of project, OR patronizing and condescending people like you.

Nobody was being patronizing or condescending. I was just contrasting the serious work ethic successful counters have to whatever you did. I have no idea how you prepared so I don't know what my post meant to you. You seem to be entering with the preparedness of most of those that fail and you see it in your results. You even predict it after playing for a while and your solution is not to take a break and better your game or search for weak points but just keep doing the same thing until you lose everything. Those that have been successful are advising you to take a break to check you play for leaks and practice and learn more about the games you play after you ask for help and bemoan either normal variance or normal results for one that is not ready to play in a casino. Why even ask the questions if you don't listen to those that are trying to help you and attack them instead of being grateful for their attempts. We are only doing our best to guess what the problem is. You know how applicable the guesses are to you and your situation.

but I have a day job and I simply do not have the time or the patience for that kind of project

The comment quoted above indicates I probably hit the nail on the head. You expect to win without putting in the necessary preparation for being a long term winning player. Probably the early success you had was the worst thing that could have happened to you. It made you feel you were ready when you were not.

I have a 140 IQ and three degrees and a 6-figure income day job. You may have double that but just don't post on this forum to denigrate or belittle me.

The intent of my post was not to denigrate but to show you the kind of dedication and preparation the successful AP's do so you could honestly ask yourself if you did what was necessary to prepare or did you learn just enough to be your own worst enemy. You talk of your IQ and degrees which I don't doubt but your comments indicate you don't understand the nature of what you are trying to do at all. Get the chip off your shoulder and learn what is necessary before you lose the rest of your money. You believe that is what is going to happen and I think you are convincing everyone else that will happen as well. Why? Not because we don't trust the math. You figure it out.

[mickeymouse]

TThree, what you have just posted was as predictable as the sun rising from the east.

I may not be able to spend 80 hours a week slaving away at your precious little Verite or whatever secret simulation software you have (which, incidentally, is probably eating into your per hour rate just as much), but I do know enough about the game that in theory, I have the advantage when the true count is +4 or more.

And my long term results, while poor, are not out of statistical improbability. I am less than two standard deviations down on expected. I would have to lose a lot more before I completely gave up, and that may occur. I have endured a 1-in-200 stretch of bad luck in my past 8 sessions. But if you play long enough that will occur.

Now close your mouth, stop wasting your energy condescending on me like a wannabe John von Neumann and leave us alone so we mortals can get on with our miserable lives.

[Three]

As you wish. I hope your results turn toward expectation but you may have to do something to make that happen and it doesn't seem like you are willing to do anything.

One of the many people that are referred to me for help recently didn't want anything handed to him on a silver platter. He came asking the questions to develop his own count and listened to the advice I gave him. 2 weeks later he had developed a count stronger than anything he had been working on on his own. I am sure he will be successful because he has what it takes to prepare himself properly and is willing to do just that. He didn't ask for me to hand him a fish. He asked me to teach him how to fish for himself. Unlike most people he actually listened and acted on what he was being taught. Believe me many of those that ask me for help do not. That is fine and I hope they will do well but I know they could have benefited far more from our interaction by trying to understand what I was telling them and use it to improve their game rather than look for a quick fix or a system to be handed to them. I can tell you it was nice to instruct someone that was hungry to learn rather than looking to be given a system to plug and play.

[mickeymouse]

When I suggest you to close your mouth I really truly mean close it, not spewing forth another thousand characters of your condescencion.

[Stealth]

The house edge is 25% whenever the true count is +4 or higher and it seems to be an immutable theorem. I dare you to disprove it

That is the most defining statement I have ever encountered by a card counting blackjack player.

Enough said.