Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 59

Thread: Parker: Stop wins/losses, and the "long run"

  1. #1
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Stop wins/losses, and the "long run"

    In threads below, we have been discussing stop wins/losses, and the semi-mythical "long run." Rather than respond to a specific post, I will discuss the topic in general.

    The beautiful thing about blackjack is that it can be reduced to pure mathematics. It is a finite universe - there are only 52 cards in each deck, and there are only so many plays that can happen. With the advent of powerful, inexpensive personal computers, it is possible to precisely determine the benefit or cost of just about anything associated with the game. For any given situation, there is one, and only one mathematically correct answer.

    However, just because a course of action is mathematically correct does not mean it is necessarily the right course of action. The game can be reduced to pure mathematics, but the people playing it cannot.

    Why do we count cards and play this game? The obvious answer is to make money! Of course! But there is more to it than that. As I have often pointed out, anyone who has put together the bankroll required for serious advantage play has almost certainly already found an easier way to make money. So, there must be a reason other than pure profit, and of course there is. We do this because it is fun! We may like the comps, or we may consider it a challenge, but we do it to some degree because it brings us pleasure of some sort.

    So, we play blackjack for fun and profit. However, the proportions will vary widely from one individual to another. For the jaded full time pro, survivor of hundreds of back-offs and maybe a hostile back-rooming or two, the fun moments have become few and far between. The low red chip player, on the other hand, does not expect to make any real money at the game, and plays mostly for the sheer pleasure of beating the casino at their own game, and maybe a free buffet or two.

    Most of us probably fall somewhere between these two extremes. We bet significant money, and blackjack may be a substantial second income. We have put many hours into studying and practicing the game. Still, we get a certain thrill when we cash in a nice win.

    I have yet to meet a single, solitary person who enjoys losing.

    Is there a point here? But of course. As I mentioned in a post below, there are only three reasons to leave a game: Conditions have deteriorated, you are experiencing heat, or you are fatigued or otherwise physically/mentally unable to continue playing to the best of your ability.

    In the long run, it is easy to calculate your winnings: Total amount bet x EV, minus any losses due to errors, cover play etc. Session results are meaningless. We may have big wins and big losses, in the long run it will all balance out - you will earn your EV.

    So, there is no mathematically correct reason to leave a good game simply because you have won or lost X amount. In fact, you are wasting valuable EV by doing so. Will the next game you sit down at be as good? All you are accomplishing is making it so that it will take you even longer to get to the long run.

    However, the mathematically correct answer may not necessarily be the right answer for everyone. As mentioned above, nobody enjoys losing. In fact, as the losses mount, many of us may get downright depressed or angry. Eventually, you may reach a point where this is affecting your judgement and hence, your play. Guess what? It is time to leave the game.

    Not everyone is suited to high high stakes play. Stanford Wong is one of the top experts on the game alive today, for whom I have a great deal of respect. In his book, Blackjack Secrets he writes about what it takes to be a pro player:

    "The most important requirement is that you must be very stable emotionally to be able to handle the monetary swings and the inevitable barrings. Do you ever feel any emotions? That is, do you ever feel anger or fear or love? My encyclopedia says, "A normal healthy individual shows reasonable emotional responses to the situations of everyday life." If you are this sort of normal, healthy individual, you will never make it as a professional blackjack player. If you feel emotional responses to the situations of everyday life, you are too emotional to be a professional blackjack player. If it takes an extreme situation to provoke an emotional response in you, then you might be stable enough emotionally to survive as a professional blackjack player.

    "A professional blackjack player experiences big wins and big losses. Though you have an edge, your bankroll seems to go down fast and build up only slowly. Some losing streaks last for months. You must be able to cope with the losses that invevitably will occur. If you get upset when you lose, if losing makes you suspect that you were cheated, or if losing leads you to suspect that authors of blackjack books have explained playing strategy backwards, then you had better find another way to keep rice on your dining table."

    Of course, most of us do not aspire to be full time pros. Still, the point remains that while leaving a losing game may not be the mathematically correct thing to do, it may be the correct thing for preserving your sanity.

    Okay, but what about a stop-win? This is actually a carry-over from the negative expectation player. Who among us has never heard, "Quit while you're ahead." It is pounded into our heads, often from an early age.

    However, it all changes when we are playing with an advantage. Have you ever been inside a casino and heard them announce, "We've just counted all the chip trays and we are ahead now, so we are closing the casino. Everyone please cash in their remaining chips and leave." You've never heard that? Neither have I.

    The casino has no interest in "quitting while ahead," because they know that they have the edge: In the long ruin, it is inevitable that they will be ahead. As advantage players, we have effectively swapped places with the casinos. The more we play, the more we stand to win. It is just that simple. "Quitting while you're ahead" just to enjoy the feeling of a win is short term physical gratification at the expense of valuable EV.

    I personally use a stop-win, but for an entirely different reason. Large piles of chips in front of a player tend to attract unwanted attention, so I may cut a session short if I jump way out ahead early. Exactly at what point depends on the casino, the game, my cumulative win there, and how soon I plan on coming back.

    Okay, so much for stop-wins and stop-losses. What is this "long run" thing, and when do we get there.

    We never get there, because it is not a destination. It is something we move toward. Think about your worst loss. Think about how you felt at the time. Now think about how you would feel if your bankroll was ten times larger. Probably not as bad, right?

    It is not necessary to play millions or billions of hands to reach the long run. We do that in simulations because we want extreme precision. We want to know that our results are meaningful, and not the result of variance.

    In the real world, there is no need to be so precise. In the ballpark is good enough.

    So, when is the long run? I've personally been keeping good records for about 5 years, playing anywhere from 200-500 hours per year. My earnings in that period are pretty much in line with my expectation. I'm not saying that I've reached the long run, but I don't sweat session wins and losses nearly as much as I used to.


  2. #2
    Adam N. Subtractum
    Guest

    Adam N. Subtractum: Great post, Parker...

    Really, some excellent points in there. As for the "long run", I was wondering, anyone had any thoughts on the (old?) idea of time til expected winnings surpasses 3 SD's to get an idea of the long run?

    ANS

  3. #3
    ZOD
    Guest

    ZOD: Re: Stop wins/losses, and the "long run"

    Hats off to you, Parker. Excellent, thoughtful post on an important topic. Blackjack itself CAN be reduced purely to the math. But, in the casino, "advantage play" is both a science and an art. Human nature can't be discounted (on either side of the table). Best...
    ZOD

  4. #4
    Slowhand
    Guest

    Slowhand: Excellent post, Parker...

    I think most all of us can relate to the real world aspects you discussed as opposed to the statistically correct aspects. You have quantified what many, I am sure, have felt, but could not easily express. Definitely POM quality :>)
    Good Luck,
    Slowhand

  5. #5
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: A slightly different viewpoint

    > there are only
    > three reasons to leave a game: Conditions
    > have deteriorated, you are experiencing
    > heat, or you are fatigued or otherwise
    > physically/mentally unable to continue
    > playing to the best of your ability.

    I disagree with the above statement. For 27 years, I have routinely, without fail, left a game every time I play -- for NONE of the reasons above! Conditions did not deteriorate, I was experiencing no heat that I knew of, and I could have physically and mentally played for hours upon hours more.

    So, why did I leave? Because my hour was up!

    The primary reason for leaving a game -- at a predetermined time -- should be not because you are experiencing heat, but because you AREN'T experiencing heat, and you want to keep it that way! Once you stay until you ARE experiencing heat, it is already too late.

    Ironically, all of the discussions above center around stop losses, wins, and monetary results. The emphasis is misplaced. It should be on TIME.

    There is more to be written, and some of it is in BJA, but I have to go now, so perhaps we can take this up again later.

    Don

  6. #6
    Mr. Ed
    Guest

    Mr. Ed: Fun and Profit

    Thanks so much for a great post!

    At my pc, I love the math.

    In the real world, I love beating the casino.

    I'm just in it for the Fun. I'd rather win $100 playing red chips with NO cover, gloating over my wins and letting on that I know BS, than be that jaded pro, watching my back.

    It's FUN knowing I have the long-term advantage.

    It's FUN knowing I'm an investor, not a gambler.

    It's FUN knowing that 7,7v6 is a better hand than 18v4, or that 20v8 is better than 20v6! It's even FUN knowing that 18 is a losing hand (in a sick kind of way)

    It's fun getting free food and drinks.

    It's fun knowing ploppies are morons.

    Believe it or not, it's actually FUN to talk to pit bosses and dealers!

    It's FUN knowing more than 99% of the people at the tables.

  7. #7
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: No argument here

    I guess I wasn't clear. The post was already getting overly long. There is certainly nothing wrong with setting an arbitrary session length and sticking to it. This is done by many pros and experienced recreational players, (and recommended in BJA), and I too highly recommend it.

    With modern surveillance techniques, "camping out" at a table is no longer really an option (indeed, if it ever was). Give them enough time to look at you and they will figure out what you are up to. Everywhere, one reads, "Keep your sessions short." This is sort of a given in my post, and I should have stated so explicitly.

    My post should be taken in the context of reasons for deviating from this predetermined session limit. When is it a good idea to leave a game before your session time limit is up??

  8. #8
    bond trader
    Guest

    bond trader: Agree, but still another way

    > So, why did I leave? Because my hour was
    > up! The primary reason for leaving a game
    > -- at a predetermined time -- should be not
    > because you are experiencing heat, but
    > because you AREN'T experiencing heat, and
    > you want to keep it that way! Once you stay
    > until you ARE experiencing heat, it is
    > already too late.

    > Ironically, all of the discussions above
    > center around stop losses, wins, and
    > monetary results. The emphasis is misplaced.
    > It should be on TIME.

    First off, an excellent post by Parker, and I certainly agree with Don's additional point. However, I think at least as important as time at the table is the number of min-bet to max-bet cycles you have gone through while at the table.

    With the exception of SD games, in which spreads will be much smaller (or you'll never get close to an hour), I will almost always leave the table after two or three min to max cycles. If it has been 45 minutes or more, I will usually depart after two of them, and if it has been a shorter period of time I'll wait until after the third cycle.

    For example, if I am playing a shoe game for an hour and never get a TC over +2, it is unlikely that my play will have raised even the slightest suspicion. If I am playing DD and just went from 1 unit slowly up to 8 or 12 units three different times in 20 minutes, the phone is probably going to ring quite soon.

    BT


  9. #9
    anon
    Guest

    anon: my 2 cents

    my first post here

    i play as a hobby once a month or so. when i am ahead alot on a trip i often head to the jacuzzi.

    why, because i feel good, and it lasts until i am back in casino land.

    what does it cost me. hours.

    however the long run is a long time and i don't have to get the max hrs per trip. no matter how fast you run the long run takes forever.

    so i have a feel good stop win sometimes.

    irrational yes

    so what

  10. #10
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: Re: Agree, but still another way

    I also prefer not to set an astute time for leaving the table. Many sessions I've played for hours and was never able to make a max bet due to the count refusing to raise to a significant value. Also, I never force myself to play at the same table because conditions are good and very often change tables or pits in search of even better conditions.

    Brick

    > First off, an excellent post by Parker, and
    > I certainly agree with Don's additional
    > point. However, I think at least as
    > important as time at the table is the number
    > of min-bet to max-bet cycles you have gone
    > through while at the table.

    > With the exception of SD games, in which
    > spreads will be much smaller (or you'll
    > never get close to an hour), I will almost
    > always leave the table after two or three
    > min to max cycles. If it has been 45 minutes
    > or more, I will usually depart after two of
    > them, and if it has been a shorter period of
    > time I'll wait until after the third cycle.

    > For example, if I am playing a shoe game for
    > an hour and never get a TC over +2, it is
    > unlikely that my play will have raised even
    > the slightest suspicion. If I am playing DD
    > and just went from 1 unit slowly up to 8 or
    > 12 units three different times in 20
    > minutes, the phone is probably going to ring
    > quite soon.

    > BT

  11. #11
    T-Hopper
    Guest

    T-Hopper: Don's "nevers"


    • Never increase your bet after a loss
    • Never decrease your bet after a win
    • Never change your bet after a push
    • Never change your bet by more than a factor of 2
    • Never play more than one hour at a time
    • Never win ore lose more than 30 units in a session
    • Never play anywhere other than classy carpet joints that don't sweat the money
    • Never play single deck[/list]

      Some of these "nevers" make it much harder to get in hours, others increase variance while reducing EV. Why give up so much? Many players repeatedly break all of these rules every session still manage to find plenty of places to play.

  12. #12
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: -Long -

    First of all ?

    > Have you ever been inside
    > a casino and heard them announce,
    > "We've just counted all the chip trays
    > and we are ahead now, so we are closing the
    > casino. Everyone please cash in their
    > remaining chips and leave."

    ? hilarious.

    The long run. Nobody ever gets there. Nobody.

    People say BJ can be beaten .. in the long run. I am simply not convinced that coupling a good basic strategy with a solid counting system while playing a couple of hundred thousand hands over your lifetime will guarantee the expected long-run outcome .. for anyone individually.

    Parker, based on your post above, you have played roughly 175K hands life to date.

    If I play for the next twenty years, I?ll play a little over 500K hands in my life. Like you, I am $$$ ahead, in fact a little better than what I expected.

    175K hands. 500K hands. If Ouchez were to post a 500K sim purporting to prove his Predator System, the derision would be heard from East to West, and with good reason; the sim wasn't "long" enough.

    So why are you and I willing to rely on our pitifully small number of plays as if it tells us anything meaningful about the future when the 500K sim is worthless? You have played less than 10% , -me less than 1% -of a good 2MM hand sim and yet we are willing to rely on our own personal results as indicative of something reliable?

    Don S. believes it. Presumably so does DD, BT, the Kid, ET Fan, Wildcard, etc, ad infinitum, ad nasuem. Why do we all believe it? Because it has proven true for us.

    What about those poor saps who trained hard, learned a good strategy, learned a good count, found decent games, and have a net loss life to date? Are they out there? I think so. Who are they? I don?t know. Because they never come here and chat. Because they played their little 500K real life sim .. and lost. Because they do not believe in the long run anymore.

    Didn?t Griffin wonder if even he would ever get back to even?

    So here is my point.

    Isn?t it possible that we are all part of the same collective ?long-run.? You, I, and those mentioned above just happen to be on the positive side of the ?long-run bell-curve.? Somebody has to be there. And the unfortunates mentioned above; in spite of their sincere effort, ended up on the negative side. Could it be that the endless run of sims are simply telling us the expected outcome of the collective population of BJ players who play the game as simmed?

    Or could it be something else?

    Could it be that the computer does not know the answer. The real life answer. I agree completely that the numbers don?t lie. If I?m holdin? 4, I?m hittin?. If I?m holdin? 20, I?m stickin?. I believe in basic strategy. I believe in Hi-Lo and KO. I really do. But so, I think did those unfortunates referenced above.

    So what is the difference in them and us. One of two things I think.

    One ?plain old statistical variation. A whole bunch of people play a technically sound game just as the computer indicates they should and some end up on the right and some end up on the left of the collective long-run bell-curve. That?s it. Good old cold hard factual math. Those of us who end up on the right talk about it and postulate about it. Those that end up on the left believe it was all a load of crap.

    Or two ? a whole bunch of people play a technically sound game but some play it with their eyes wide open. They can see what?s going on. The computer can?t.

    In real life ?new deck washes are bad, shuffles are not random, small cards and big cards do tend to migrate to each other [I didn?t use the ?C? word!], I can play a simple top and bottom tracking strategy, I can make an effort to cut cards advantageously, I can watch for bent or damaged cards, in short I can look around at what?s going on around me and use that information to my advantage.

    Learning the rules, the basic strategy, the count, a proper betting ramp is only the beginning, I believe. If that is all you do, some will end up on the left and some in the middle. And some will end up on the right. Good for them.

    But for those that will consistently, and with some degree of assurance, end up on the right ?it will take more than relying on the statistical long-run.

    Just don?t tell me that 175K hands over five years is indicative of anything reliable. If it is, the long run is much much shorter than I imagined.

    Have a good weekend.

    SR

  13. #13
    pat
    Guest

    pat: don,what if you win alot fast

    > I disagree with the above statement. For 27
    > years, I have routinely, without fail, left
    > a game every time I play -- for NONE of the
    > reasons above! Conditions did not
    > deteriorate, I was experiencing no heat that
    > I knew of, and I could have physically and
    > mentally played for hours upon hours more.

    > So, why did I leave? Because my hour was
    > up! The primary reason for leaving a game
    > -- at a predetermined time -- should be not
    > because you are experiencing heat, but
    > because you AREN'T experiencing heat, and
    > you want to keep it that way! Once you stay
    > until you ARE experiencing heat, it is
    > already too late.

    > Ironically, all of the discussions above
    > center around stop losses, wins, and
    > monetary results. The emphasis is misplaced.
    > It should be on TIME.

    > There is more to be written, and some of it
    > is in BJA, but I have to go now, so perhaps
    > we can take this up again later.

    > Don
    if after 20 minutes your win alot,do you leave.thats my biggest beef about counting.i never play more than a hour but when i win alot in a short time i have to leave because the floor starts to watch and/or call the eye as the job description says when someone is winning.it eats away at my hours since there are only so many dd's in town.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

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.