losing streak update

[mickeymouse]

I played again today, lost a further 1500, propelling me into net loss territory careerwise.

That's my 9th session lost in a row, quite astounding considering that my career chance of losing any session was 43%.

Lost 600 on the last three hands of the first shoe alone, due to ploppy misplaying at third base on all 3 hands.

Having two bottom 2% (statistical) sessions in a row is itself no mean feat, a 1 in 2500 event.

This is definitively the end of my career, I still spent 90% of it in front. There is no longer any thrill in playing a game that feels like a 20% house edge game despite playing perfectly.

I cannot win even individual shoes, and even individual 5-minute stretches anymore.

I have NOT gone on tilt or missized my bets. I see all the cards laid out so this is not cheating.

If I continue playing, I will continue to lose 15% of my turnover every session and my entire bankroll will be gone in two or three weeks.

Thanks for the memories.

[ZeeBabar]

You say this is the end of your career. Well, if you bet on that statement, you will lose that bet too, lol!

Really, this game/career is not for you if you blame losses on ploppy misplays and are as bitter as you seem to be. However, you are probably addicted (since you were not able to take a break after the first bad losing streak) and not going to quit. You will either seek treatment or park cars in Vegas, go back to the tables with the tips and paycheck. Hopefully, you can stay out of casinos for a year.

[SplittingFives]

I remember your last thread and people agreeing that a mental break from the game would be a good thing for a week or two... And you failed to stay away. If I had to guess, your game may have some potholes that need a little asphalt to patch up, and agree that you may be addicted, and may not be a winning player.

Good luck in the future, but if you ever decide to come back, make sure you get tested out by a professional because you may not be as good as you think (not being an ass, just honest).

[Three]

Every time I hit a bad run I slowed down and examined my game. I found areas where mistakes were possible even though I didn't think I was making them and changed mathematical procedures so I never altered the count when making a comparison. I worked the index into a running count barrier. The math is actually easier and almost always intuitive with enough experience. Ot proved much faster to use and more accurate. I also found ways to increase EV while decreasing n0. I had a relatively small BR at the time that most would consider adequate. I also worked on my game selection and exit skillz. By eliminating losing situations or situations that are less likely to end with a good result I made my own luck.

I don't think any one thing did it but I finally got over the BR hump by eliminating procedures that could cause mistakes like division, forgetting the RC as you calculate a TC (I multiplied the index by the number of decks unseen to get a RC that was the decision barrier at the time and took multiples of the decks unseen as a TC boundaries to see what TC bin the RC was in for the number of decks remaining. Integer multiples are basic elementary school multiplication flash cards. We all know them by heart so no thought goes into visualizing the TC barriers as expressed in a RC); I added indices and changed how info was used like breaking a count into a balanced side count and the strongest playing count possible (developing these skillz took some tome and dedication but were well worth it if you didn't want to be one of those in the small percentage of ruin) all of which increased EV while lowering n0 and making games easily beaten with a small enough spread as to not raise any eyebrows; and most importantly I recognized when playing was not worth the exposure and when and where to find games worth the effort alone with modifying wonging style to maximize the use of info I gather to best spend my time in the casino.

BJA3 is a great book and has the best info on wonging anywhere but it is for Hilo. If you use a count significantly different the differences will change the best use of wonging. BJA3 lays out a great blueprint to follow to research your own counts optimal departure point.

The easiest way to blow your BR is to play when you should be looking for a game that is worthwhile. If you don't find good conditions scout and/or attack other AP opportunities besides your chosen game(s).

Those that have taken the trouble to tighten up their game repeatedly after every insanely bad run and look toward any or all of the 3 listed places I chose to spend my time on can attest to the efficacy and of the effort and that it was well with the effort no matter what your approach.

[Tarzan]

Mickey, I've been loosely following this to some extent and feel as if there are missing pieces to the puzzle. I've never seen 9 consecutive playing session losses, ever. I've taken back to back huge losses, such as losing trip bankrolls back to back to the tune of 200 or so units about once a year or so on average, it happens but it's not a regular event. It was mentioned about perhaps stopping to regroup, evaluate your play, etc. rather than continuing with the same methods and expecting a different result. I noticed a reluctance to the notion of adding ASC, changing counts or anything like that in your posts. Another thing is that I've never heard anything good about blackjack in Australia casinos, nothing worth buying a plane ticket for, that's for sure. I'd go to see the Great Barrier Reef but not specifically to play blackjack.

I would have to read back through to know the specifics of the rules and conditions you are playing against, the count you are using, your BR but something is amiss for it to go as badly as you're saying. Going broke before you figure out what that something consists of is not the way to go. I've mentioned about having a working business model along the way, I believe you mentioned you've looked at this though. Maybe it really is just the worst variance imaginable and you haven't played a large enough sample for it to correct out but certainly methods and skill level come to mind when you mention 9 consecutive playing session losses, not impossible but highly unlikely to occur. There are missing pieces to the puzzle and you need to figure out what they are rather than continuing on the same path.

[mickeymouse]

Yes lost 200 units and 150 units on two consecutive sessions, and this was after halving my spread 2 weeks ago.

I bust my trip bankroll barely 1.5 hours through too on both nights.

Of the 9 consecutive trip losses, "only" three were trip bankroll bustouts (150+ units lost in a session, 2% probability). The other six, I lost only less than 30 units on each

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Tarzan,

The rules for BJ "down under" ~ you and I would not play with 98% penetration.

The games are dreadful. Only fit for degenerates and players with weak counts

who have deluded themselves that the game is exploitable with modest spreads.

Factoid:

Gambling Addiction is endemic to Australia; where resides a mere 0.4% of

the world's entire population ~ but 20% of all the slot machines in existence.

[davethebuilder]

Tarzan, I think Mickey is playing Australian Pontoon not Blackjack which has different rules and requires different strategies. It is more complicated but has a lower house edge and similar standard deviation if played correctly. All Australian Blackjack games have house edges >0.5% so there are very few if any solo advantage players any more. As a result of these poor rules the game should only be played for entertainment otherwise you could play for a few years without showing a profit. Teamwork may be an option but there are much better games elsewhere. In all my time playing Australian Pontoon I have only met one other player that plays correctly so I agree that there may be an issue here. Playing Pontoon like Blackjack is a total disaster and will decimate any bankroll very quickly. It is quite difficult to find someone to check your play in this game as so few play Basic Strategy correctly let alone card counting so most players need to figure it out themselves which can be problematic. Also, there are only two or three casinos in Australia that even offer a Pontoon shoe game any more and those that do use 8 decks with reasonable penetration.

There are around 12 casinos in the whole country effectively making them State Government sanctioned monopolies. That does not mean they can do what they want but due to limitations on soft doubling, no surrender and unique hole card rules the house edges are some of the highest in the world. Main floor games are dealt from a CSM and VIP areas use 6 deck shoes with 75% pen, 3:2 payouts and S17. It should also be realised that before licenced casinos illegal private gambling was widespread and usually organised along ethnic lines. Casinos do provide entertainment in a safe environment, they are big employers and pay a lot of tax.

Flash is right about pokies(slots). Most problem gambling in Australia stems from these machines and the people who lose are mainly the ones who can least afford to. The outcome can be very destructive personally and financially. Just stick to the Great Barrier Reef - you can't go wrong there.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

davethebuilder is improperly referencing the Australian BJ House Edge.

It is much worse than the quoted 0.5%

RE: The V.I.P. areas, he failed to note that from all that I have garnered,

from friends who have played there, they are VERY quick to 86' good

players AND are equally quick to renege on promotion deals.

One friend, who played high stakes there, was promised his air fare,

RFB, etc. depending on his rated play. They did not tell him that when they rate

your play and your "theo'" they only count lost wagers - as bizarre as that sounds.

They then DEDUCT from your "earned" comp's rather absurd amounts for RFB

(4 figures daily). They then flat-bet him and reneged on everything, not that he had won.

[Three]

It is much worse than the quoted 0.5%

Read his post more carefully.

All Australian Blackjack games have house edges >0.5% so there are very few if any solo advantage players any more.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

T3,

I infer that I missed something.

Please elucidate.

[Three]

He didn't say that their games have a 0.5% HE. He said the all BJ games have a HE greater than 0.5%. The difference between "=" and ">". These symbols have different meaning and he said >0.5%

[davethebuilder]

He didn't say that their games have a 0.5% HE. He said the all BJ games have a HE greater than 0.5%. The difference between "=" and ">". These symbols have different meaning and he said >0.5%

Thanks T3. If you want the exact house edges, rules and basic playing strategies then I suggest having a look at the Wizard's website. At least we don't have 6:5 or even money games where the house advantage approaches 2%-3%. All house edges and rule sets are available to players on request at the casino. You just have to ask and if you have problem there is a Government Inspector on site 24/7 to adjudicate if you cannot resolve it yourself. In my experience the casinos are very forgiving if you have a dispute with them unless they catch you cheating. I have sat at the tables with plenty of Americans and find they are quite good players but are not familiar with our unique splitting, doubling and no hole card rules and this costs them. If asked to do so I will try and help and generally this lets them last a bit longer which shows the effect skill has on performance. In the VIP areas Baccarat is predominant and is usually played by Asians who may well be members of organised junkets. If playing Blackjack and you are betting big enough it is possible to negotiate more favourable rules along with a rebate deal but the edge will still be with the house. All such deals need to be in writing as this will minimise any misunderstandings. The house may take countermeasures against players which include early shuffling or restrictions on playing style and they can revoke your VIP membership at anytime and for any reason. This action is a last resort though as the house would prefer them to donate at least part of their bankroll rather than restrict their play.