longest period of negative variance

[TheBalanceOfJudgement]

Wow. Some stories here :-(
It is truly a dismal edge we have while counting and I can understand how easy it is is to give up, especially with long term negative variance.

Overall, I`m still up though- even though my hourly sucks.

Sometimes I wonder how the shuffling may affect it though. Maybe its ploppy thinking but there are shoes I can never seem to win- be it spread to 1, 2 or 3 hands. The `house` shuffle. Does anyone have any information on this and how to combat it? Or am I deluding myself into thinking a `house ` shuffle can in fact very much favor the house?

This was the subject of one of the recent chats. I can't get to the links at the moment but they are here in this forum very recently, search for "preferential shuffling." Yes, the house can (and does) choose a shuffle they feel gives them the greatest edge. Yes, the shuffle can affect the effectiveness of your play, and some shuffles can outright defeat counting. Since that chat I've been paying attention to the shuffles used around here and a couple of the worst ones are in use here, a subject I was wholly unaware of before that (and I think it partly explains why it was so hard to win there).

Pay attention to when the dealer shuffles differently than normal. What just happened in that shoe? We think they're just passing out the cards and comparing their total to the players. Turns out alot of the dealers are doing alot more than that and following house instructions on how the shoes should be paying out, and shuffling accordingly. One of the most common changeups I have seen is that when a shoe absolutely massacres the players, they'll shuffle differently than they did the last N shoes. They wouldn't do that without a reason. Shuffling is muscle memory, you only change it when you have a reason to.

Sims would show that over the "long term", bad shoes don't matter as they get balanced by good ones and the long term behavior would be that you played as though all shoes were perfectly shuffled. While I don't doubt that's true, I would say that the presence of bad shoes certainly extends how "long" the "long term" ends up being, as it's just an arbitrary point at which you get within an arbitrarily defined margin around your EV limit anyway.

[tezzadiver]

Very informative post Judgement. Thanks. I`ll have a look for that link to preferential shuffling.
Looking at my playsheet, there are certain clubs I play at that I can barely seem to win. And others where it is exactly the opposite. And both clubs shuffle differently.
The first one has this bizarre shuffle where they don`t split the decks evenly. And what tends to occur- If you have had a rubbish shoe in the previous round- the trend seems to continue. I`ve tried to combat this by splitting to multiple hands, but not much joy. You would think though that the cards would still be randomly shuffled, but possibly the high cards are getting shuffled to a certain place in the shoe, hence juicy positive counts but no high cards coming out. Most players cut in the middle, so I can see how this can affect play, with a dealer who is sharp. Is this even legal? Certainly the house edge on a preferentially shuffled shoe must be significantly higher than a thoroughly randomised shoe?
And imagine the player that tends to play most sessions at this particular club without prior knowledge? The long term will probably never arrive....

[tezzadiver]

Around here people rarely cut in the middle. There is a saying that I keep hearing people say, "Cut thin to win". I hear it every time I play.

True. I remember that from playing in Vegas. A sharp dealer would probably be able to pick up on that though and exploit that, if the player cuts regularly in the same area. I`ve seen some pretty quick croupiers there, and would`nt be surprised if I`ve been dealt `seconds` in one particular handheld game. Pretty obvious when a dealer makes too many accurate guesses about what the next card will be... How to prove it is something else...... In any case, I`m learning the hard way to move along if something does not feel right. And will start learning to train my eye more carefully on shuffles.

[tezzadiver]

Yep I felt like a clown too. (mainly after) It`s like you know you are being played, but for some `inexplicable` reason I decided to play on. I think it`s also built on the belief that cheating generally only happens to the other guy. :-)
We don`t have handheld games here in the UK so we don`t get that type of cheating here, but I`m becoming more convinced that some clubs are using `special house shuffles`.

Just realised you said shoe game. I`ve heard of `prism` shoes, apparently rare but who knows hey.

[Freightman]

I had a winning a fairly significant winning streak of approx 1600 hours -then the **** hit the fan. My negative streak is about 300 hours right now. Regardless, my bankroll is very healthy, and ironically, I have had a couple of super sized weekend wins,and if I could duplicate one, would get me out of the hole for this year. My results this year are totally against my statistical norms.

I have confidence in my game and just need to play hours.

[Bella]

The longest negative variance I've had lasted about 360 hours of play and about 5 and a half months. And this was all in
some really gravy single deck games. Actually, over that period of time I was winning, but at only about one-fourth
my EV. I estimated this to be about a negative one standard deviation.
I think telling about losing streaks can be construed as being akin to a poker player telling bad beat stories; some
people just don't want to hear about them. Although, I think in blackjack, such tales can serve a purpose. Specifically
for those new to the game, as it can give them an idea of what can, and does, happen in the game. Ken Uston said it
best in his book Million Dollar Blackjack that fluctuations, both positive and negative, can last a lot longer than one
would think reasonably possible. I think, armed with this knowledge, it can give a player reason to not get discouraged
and to persevere.
At this stage in my blackjack life, after cycling through many up and down swings, I view the down swings as a
golden opportunity to make the casino think I'm losing more than what I actually am. By so doing, I lay the foundation
for a future time when the worm turns and I start winning at a precipitous rate. Then my job is to make them think
I'm winning less than what I really am. It all falls under the heading of attitude.

[bigplayer]

This was the subject of one of the recent chats. I can't get to the links at the moment but they are here in this forum very recently, search for "preferential shuffling." Yes, the house can (and does) choose a shuffle they feel gives them the greatest edge. Yes, the shuffle can affect the effectiveness of your play, and some shuffles can outright defeat counting. Since that chat I've been paying attention to the shuffles used around here and a couple of the worst ones are in use here, a subject I was wholly unaware of before that (and I think it partly explains why it was so hard to win there).

Pay attention to when the dealer shuffles differently than normal. What just happened in that shoe? We think they're just passing out the cards and comparing their total to the players. Turns out alot of the dealers are doing alot more than that and following house instructions on how the shoes should be paying out, and shuffling accordingly. One of the most common changeups I have seen is that when a shoe absolutely massacres the players, they'll shuffle differently than they did the last N shoes. They wouldn't do that without a reason. Shuffling is muscle memory, you only change it when you have a reason to.

Sims would show that over the "long term", bad shoes don't matter as they get balanced by good ones and the long term behavior would be that you played as though all shoes were perfectly shuffled. While I don't doubt that's true, I would say that the presence of bad shoes certainly extends how "long" the "long term" ends up being, as it's just an arbitrary point at which you get within an arbitrarily defined margin around your EV limit anyway.

Unless the dealer is cheating or intentionally preserving bigs with bigs and smalls with Aces I think this is superstitious nonsense. If the casino believes this they are being superstitious and there are plenty of casino floor people that believe in luck and don't understand the math behind their own games. The best shuffle for the player is no shuffle at all. Heads up an incomplete shuffle will actually reduce the house advantage. If the dealer is doing a false shuffle to keep bigs with bigs and smalls with aces that is cheating and not just a procedural thing.

[brh]

Hi Guys,

This is why I disagree with Don and insist that N0 should be given along with SCORE when analysing any game. Since N0 is the number of rounds played where a player will have a 16% of still being below zero (1 sdev)', it also crops up as the order of magnitude for many different targets. A fixed better shoud have an EV equal to the equivalent Kelly Bankroll (EKB) after N0 rounds. Remember the (EKB) is the bankroll which gives a 13% ROR. If some silly sod played with this sort of ROR, ruin will happen typically after about 1/2 N0 rounds. So a really good game with high SCORE and low N0 a player who is overbetting their bankroll will paradoxically go to ruin really quickly. The opposite situation with a large N0 of the order of 50000 rounds could keep a good player below zero for over 200000 rounds.

Just to remind people SCORE is the EV per 100 rounds with an EKB of $10000 for a given optimal spread. Since the win rate is EKB/N0 per round, we have

SCORE = ($10000/N0) x 100 or turning it around N0 = ($10000/SCORE) x 100 .

So a SCORE of $50 works out to have an N0 of 20000 rounds.

For a refresher go to http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...eads-howto.pdf
which is an exerpt from my book.

By the way, what were the SCORE and N0's from Don's example?

Brh.

[zengrifter]

User is banned, content deleted.

[Norm]

Welcome to the forum Brett. Anything you write is well worth reading.

[muffdiver]

dr. Harris, how about a new tweak, a more accurate rating based on some conjoinment of no and score : Harris equivalent assessment designation (head)
head beats score? Or 'nohead'?

well said!!

[blackjack avenger]

How one bets has a lot to do with the roller coaster of bank flux, full Kelly bettors have bank flux that amounts to recklessness compared to fractional Kelly bettors

[Kat]

Death to negative variance...