See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 79

Thread: "Preserving The Win"

  1. #1
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    326


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    "Preserving The Win"

    A lot of members here like to give Z shit for his "preserving the win" comments, but this is completely unwarranted and IMHO is a manifestation of their ignorance regarding the value of preserving a win to reduce ROR. Contrary to their misconceptions, it IS important and valuable to know when to stop playing when on a trip. The data provided below is based on a sim I am currently running (now at 6B hands played) and is evidence that "preserving the win" can reduce ROR if based on sim generated empirical data and not on emotion.

    First a caveat, this data is only accurate for a 6 deck S17 LS 3:2 DAS DOA 75% pen head to head game employing a 1:4 spread, ODPs, and the REKO 6 Deck Full playing strategy. Also, the sim was set for a forced shuffle when Wonging out. Each variable that is changed will change the ROR calculations, which illuminates the importance of incorporating the use of CV Data or CVCX to analyze your play. A total BR of 1000 units has a Simple ROR of .28%, but I and many others are not comfortable walking around with my total BR when I play, so I use 80 units or 20 max bets for a TR and consider one day a trip since I primarily play within a couple of hours drive of home. Simple ROR means no constraints such as number of hands played or goal...and a goal is a form of preserving the win.

    A Simple ROR for a TR of 80 units is 62.43%, which is obviously unacceptable. How can that ROR be mitigated? By employing a limit to the number of hands played on the trip, or a win goal, or both. Using just the number of hands played of 430 hands reduces the ROR to 5.869%. Using just a trip goal of +12 units reduces ROR to 10.19%; +8 units = 7.11%; +4 units = 3.73%. If you add in a number of hands played limit of 430 hands with a trip goal, the ROR drops even further; +12 units = 4.26%; +8 units = 3.22%; +4 units = 1.95%.

    Why 430 hands played for this analysis?

    Avg number of cards played per hand = 2.7; 6 decks = 312 cards; 312 x .75 pen = 234 cards; 234 cards / 2.7 cards per hand = 86 hands; 86 hands / head to head game = 43 player hands per shoe; 43 hands per shoe x 10 shoes per trip = 430 hands played.

    I know this will piss off some members, so let the berating begin, but the data is solid and so is the conclusion...when employed based on statistical analysis and not emotion, preserving the win in the form of a trip goal does reduce ROR.
    Last edited by Wave; 01-01-2020 at 02:40 PM.

  2. #2


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    All I'll say is it's nice to see a post with words from you, whether I agree with it or not, rather than just a silly picture.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    limiting your play by "preserving the win" to lower TRIP ROR has an enormous OPPORTUNITY COST. Many hours of lost play that would otherwise be +EV hours.

    I get it, you don't want to carry entire bankroll on trip. Keep another 100 units hidden in your vehicle. As far as getting robbed, the likelihood is about the same with 80 units or 200 units.

    It comes down to RISK VS. REWARD - The average AP with decent table time could get robbed by a thief once per year and still be MONEY AHEAD vs. placing a 4 to 12 unit stop loss to "preserve the win"

    Carry your 80 units on your person. Have another 100 units hidden in vehicle. Is it a risk? sure it is, but a calculated one.

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I don't understand how the cards know when Z's trip is over and when his subsequent trip begins?

    If he plays "X" number of hands and stops to preserve a win during Trip A, and then 3 weeks later begins playing during Trip B, how is that different than if he never stopped playing during Trip A and just seemlessly merged what would have been Trip B's play onto the tail end of Trip A?

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    All I'll say is it's nice to see a post with words from you, whether I agree with it or not, rather than just a silly picture.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Wave View Post

    A Simple ROR for a TR of 80 units is 62.43%, which is obviously unacceptable. How can that ROR be mitigated? By employing a limit to the number of hands played on the trip, or a win goal, or both.

    Why 430 hands played for this analysis?

    Avg number of cards played per hand = 2.7; 6 decks = 312 cards; 312 x .75 pen = 234 cards; 234 cards / 2.7 cards per hand = 86 hands; 86 hands / head to head game = 43 player hands per shoe; 43 hands per shoe x 10 shoes per trip = 430 hands played.
    Speaking of misconceptions: due to all what I have read, we should primarily care of the overall bankroll, not the trip bankroll. The best way to reduce the trip ROR is not to limit oneself by playing few hands, but by choosing a higher trip bankroll. Why should anyone play only 10 shoes on a trip, wasting time and money (e.g. travel costs)? This just would reduce EV and shoot oneself in the foot.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    yep...want my phone #, too?
    Posts
    949


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Wave View Post
    ....data is only accurate for a 6 deck S17 LS 3:2 DAS DOA 75% pen head to head game employing a 1:4 spread....
    Ya better damn well quit when ahead with 1-4 spread on 6d game!!!

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    My “preserving a win” is the value I give to feeling good for the next 24 hours, of feeling good the rest of my trip, while returning my rental car, about 4 hours of waiting at airport, the 3+ hour in the air, the shuttle to my car, drive home and feeling good when family greets me.

    Thus, to me “preserving the win” is simply paying a price (possible additional dollars) for the certainty of feeling good all the way home.

    Where before, I would have won $2k and quit playing, now, I put aside the $500 or so cost of my trip, keep playing with $1500. I am assured of not being on a losing trip. I did this on my last trip, added another $1k, returned home with $3k instead of two.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I never preserve a win. Sometimes I preserve a loss if my win record at a particular place concerns me.

  10. #10
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    326


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    My concept of a trip is much different than most of yours. The biggest travel expense I have is fuel. I have 11 casinos available to me within an hour drive. Rotating my play between them and playing one or two times a month allows me to easily be forgotten. Using the small trip goals often allows me to win in neutral shoes. For example, my last 5 trips were wins but I only had one positive shoe in those 5 trips, which buys the illusion that I'm not counting. Using a 1:4 spread buys me the illusion that if I am counting, I'm not a big threat. IMO the lost hourly EV is buying me longevity and comps. I am retired with a pension and investments and still run my own business. I have no intention of playing full time or using AP as my livelihood. As long as I can play a winning game, that's all I really care about...and the sims have been great at dispelling so many myths some of you guys post regarding stop losses and win goals. You can employ both and still have a winning game if you are willing to accept a lower hourly EV and use CV Data to learn how.
    Last edited by Wave; 01-02-2020 at 12:14 AM.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Wave,

    With your 1:4 spread and your "preserving the win" protocols, what is your IBA?

    Dog Hand

  12. #12
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    326


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Can't tell you. The sim that I used to calculate the RORs provided in the OP was a 7 player sim. I used that data to calculate the ROR examples based on a head to head game to illustrate that the implementation of barriers (# of hands played and win goal) would reduce the trip ROR. To be precise, I would have to do a single player sim and recalculate the ROR, which would still show the effect barriers have on reducing ROR, but probably raise ROR because head to head has a higher ROR than a 7 player table.

    The IBA for the player I used from the 7 player sim to provide the ROR examples was .882, but the forced shuffle after ODP setting was used, so just using a single player sim with no forced shuffle I think will probably lower the IBA.

    If you want the precise IBA I can do a head to head version sim probably tomorrow.

    I did find an old single player sim with forced shuffle at ODP and a 60 unit TR which showed IBA of .937, 430 hands barrier, and win barriers of +4 units (ROR of 4.36%) and +8 units (ROR of 7.73%) head to head game...of course using an 80 unit TR would reduce these RORs.

    01/02/2020 edit: Using an 80 unit TR and just a number of hands played barrier of 430 for the single player sim with head to head play = ROR of 6.31%; 430 hands +12 units = 4.49% ROR, +8 units = 3.48% ROR, and +4 units = 2.03% ROR. TBA = .822 IBA = .937 DI = 6.77 SCORE = 45.06 FACTOR = 1.834 N0 = 21,808 (forced shuffle on ODP used in sim).
    Last edited by Wave; 01-02-2020 at 12:29 PM.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Wave View Post
    My concept of a trip is much different than most of yours.
    Then you say...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wave View Post
    The biggest travel expense I have is fuel. I have 11 casinos available to me within an hour drive. Rotating my play between them and playing one or two times a month allows me to easily be forgotten. Using the small trip goals often allows me to win in neutral shoes. For example, my last 5 trips were wins but I only had one positive shoe in those 5 trips, which buys the illusion that I'm not counting. Using a 1:4 spread buys me the illusion that if I am counting, I'm not a big threat. IMO the lost hourly EV is buying me longevity and comps. I am retired with a pension and investments and still run my own business. I have no intention of playing full time or using AP as my livelihood. As long as I can play a winning game, that's all I really care about...and the sims have been great at dispelling so many myths some of you guys post regarding stop losses and win goals. You can employ both and still have a winning game if you are willing to accept a lower hourly EV and use CV Data to learn how.
    How exactly is your "concept" of a trip different? And what difference would that make to the issue at hand?

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Basic Strategy question regarding "soft" and "hard" hands
    By Letangs in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 08-22-2018, 07:02 AM
  2. The "Sting" vs "Prevailing Wisdom": Limit on Number of Double Downs?
    By SteinMeister in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-14-2018, 03:29 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-12-2018, 02:41 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-15-2015, 11:37 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2015, 08:44 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.