Losing Streak

[DannyOcean]

Ignore it. I was at first getting excited after decent wins and getting flustered after booked losses. Then I realized it's a big waste of emotional energy. Look at the whole game as just temporary depositing money back and forth with the house, knowing over the long term you'll be skimming some betting units from these back and forth temporary deposits. This has been my new mental outlook, but I guess the real test comes when I experience a 60% drop in bankroll.

I also wanted to share the worse beatings I've taken were the rare times I had extreme TC's of say +15 or so at the end of the shoe. When this happens that big edge you see on paper in this scenario never materialized. This means all those 10's are behind the cut. Try to track that slug behind the cut during the shuffle procedure. Don't bet big when first practicing this. I've been trying hard to master this, but I've yet to hit that money slug when I thought I would. I really think this skill is what separates the big boy AP's versus juniors in training like myself.

I bet if you look back at your best sessions you'll notice it was when you were getting TC's fluctuating between +10 and +6 not +18 or whatever (An extremely high TC number for your count method might be different than mine, but you should get the basic idea). This has been my experience anyway.

This is incredibly accurate with my experience. I do not understand what you mean by after the cut or what money slug means in relation to making money, but I will look into it. I would appreciate a point in the correct direction. My biggest sessions are when I lived in that +6 +10 range. My biggest losses were when I was max bet at that high +18 or whatever. I am a finance major and can't help but think law of diminishing return occurs at a high enough tc.

[refinery]

This is incredibly accurate with my experience. I do not understand what you mean by after the cut or what money slug means in relation to making money, but I will look into it. I would appreciate a point in the correct direction. My biggest sessions are when I lived in that +6 +10 range. My biggest losses were when I was max bet at that high +18 or whatever. I am a finance major and can't help but think law of diminishing return occurs at a high enough tc.

Once again, people are steering new players in directions that aren't appropriate for their experience and level of play.

Danny: 22 hours is fuck all. It's nothing. It's a rounding error. Go out and play. Don't even start thinking about more advanced methods until you're comfortable understanding that your 22 hours means absolutely zero.

Also, the last part: you're saying your biggest losses come at the highest counts? You don't say! Think about it, Mr. Finance.

EDIT 1:

For the sake of accuracy, there are true counts so high that there are diminishing returns, however the frequency of them and the fact they are so high makes it largely theoretical and meaningless.

EDIT 2: Norm or someone -- I thought I saw something on blackjackincolor.com that backed up my assertion in Edit #1, but I can't seem to come up with it. Can someone tell me if I'm correct or if I imagined this? The Win/Loss/Push data appears to indicate the win% always climbs, the lose% always drops, and the push% always rises as the TC increases.

[Freightman]

EDIT 1:

For the sake of accuracy, there are true counts so high that there are diminishing returns, however the frequency of them and the fact they are so high makes it largely theoretical and meaningless.
.

True, but a bit off topic, but worthwhile to say. The worst thing is finishing a shoe dealt 4.5/6 with RC 19 (halves) at cut card, roughly true 12.75. Most people will blow their brains out on this one.

In other words, if the count kept rising, there was never an advantage to be had.

[PinkChip]

To me, the law of diminishing returns says that at higher counts, an additional increase of the count means less increase of advantage, but still an increase. Which means that at TC 18 the advantage must be greater than at TC 6 or 10. So you only had bad luck at your highest counts.

[UncleChoo]

To me, the law of diminishing returns says that at higher counts, an additional increase of the count means less increase of advantage, but still an increase. Which means that at TC 18 the advantage must be greater than at TC 6 or 10. So you only had bad luck at your highest counts.

Yeah, but I don't think anyone is saying don't max bet extreme high TC's. Just when the shoe ends at +18 and you're stuck several max bets after watching the dealer miraculously draw to 5 card 21's you know what happened. You just never know until after the fact whether or not the count skyrockets and stays there when the cut card comes, or will come crashing back down to earth the last couple rounds. I think it would definitely be foolish to avoid max bets at extreme high TC's.

[Freightman]

I think it would definitely be foolish to avoid max bets at extreme high TC's.

Not necessarily. Think about a “waiting” big bet where you’re simply not sure.

[DSchles]

EDIT 2: Norm or someone -- I thought I saw something on blackjackincolor.com that backed up my assertion in Edit #1, but I can't seem to come up with it. Can someone tell me if I'm correct or if I imagined this? The Win/Loss/Push data appears to indicate the win% always climbs, the lose% always drops, and the push% always rises as the TC increases.

There is no tendency for edge to decrease as the count gets progressively higher. However, the steepness of the slope levels off somewhat due to marked increase in 20-20 pushes at extremely high counts.

The downside is different. Rules, number of indices used, etc., play a role, but, in general, to the downside, you reach a point (TC = -13?) where progressively lower counts do NOT impart lower player edges. But who cares? It's -13, for crying out loud!

Don

[Sharky]

I.. Any advice or support would be appreciated! Thank you

Danny
[email protected]

Danny boy (sorry...big fan of Nicholson & the shining).....your results are per your sim...so you are in tune, even with such a niniscual sample size.....enlightened me to your game and spread

[UncleChoo]

Not necessarily. Think about a “waiting” big bet where you’re simply not sure.

Unfortunately, the only thing I'm sure about is that I'm accurately counting. Other than that I feel like I'm floating in the ocean. It never fails, when I think I'm getting the hang of things I do something extremely stupid and cringe hours later when mentally reviewing my play. Like asking for a new shoe when only 20 cards in discard and penn is already over 80%. I minds well of said, "Hey pitboss, I'm a newbie counter here. I don't have adequate bankroll to play green chips so I'm trying to grind this nickel game for all I can. Could you please give me a new shoe?"

[refinery]

There is no tendency for edge to decrease as the count gets progressively higher. However, the steepness of the slope levels off somewhat due to marked increase in 20-20 pushes at extremely high counts.

The downside is different. Rules, number of indices used, etc., play a role, but, in general, to the downside, you reach a point (TC = -13?) where progressively lower counts do NOT impart lower player edges. But who cares? It's -13, for crying out loud!

Don

Always appreciate your responses, Don.

[DannyOcean]

Once again, people are steering new players in directions that aren't appropriate for their experience and level of play.

Danny: 22 hours is fuck all. It's nothing. It's a rounding error. Go out and play. Don't even start thinking about more advanced methods until you're comfortable understanding that your 22 hours means absolutely zero.

Also, the last part: you're saying your biggest losses come at the highest counts? You don't say! Think about it, Mr. Finance.

EDIT 1:

For the sake of accuracy, there are true counts so high that there are diminishing returns, however the frequency of them and the fact they are so high makes it largely theoretical and meaningless.

EDIT 2: Norm or someone -- I thought I saw something on blackjackincolor.com that backed up my assertion in Edit #1, but I can't seem to come up with it. Can someone tell me if I'm correct or if I imagined this? The Win/Loss/Push data appears to indicate the win% always climbs, the lose% always drops, and the push% always rises as the TC increases.

Refinery, I'm sorry if I offended you. I only said this because I appreciated his post. I am at 50 hours overall (I am aware this is still not enough, I'm only posting to try and learn quicker from more experienced players). I could explain how my sample does relate to finance, but I do not think you would be interested nor care for my opinion from your previous comments. I am very open if I play something wrong or misinterpret something. Obviously when watching professional athletics, every athlete is fundamentally an expert, but that does not stop people from appreciating the advanced skills they do.

[Freightman]

Refinery, I'm sorry if I offended you.
do.

Not possible.

[DannyOcean]

Danny boy (sorry...big fan of Nicholson & the shining).....your results are per your sim...so you are in tune, even with such a niniscual sample size.....enlightened me to your game and spread

as in the rules to the game I am playing? My spread is at a 1-5 playing at $25 minimum. However, the tables I play at are 10-15 tables so I play the minimum and start ramping my bet on tc 1. This is a major question mark in my strategy rn as I do not know if this lower bet is a contradiction to my plan.