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

[Parker]

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.

[Adam N. Subtractum]

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

[ZOD]

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

[Slowhand]

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

[Don Schlesinger]

> 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

[Parker]

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??

[bond trader]

> 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

[Brick]

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

[T-Hopper]

• 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.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Why give up so
> much? Many players repeatedly break all of
> these rules every session still manage to
> find plenty of places to play.

And most of those players are either not high-stakes players or are and have their pictures in every casino pit in the country, if not the world. I don't. Just a matter of preference.

And, I write about how to violate several of the above rules in Chapter 8 of BJA. I don't apologize for any of them.

Don

Don

[methodman]

We are advised to play like the amateur,and following this logic it should be noted that many of these players play alot longer than 1 hour. Many gals I've seen recently play have stayed 24 hours non stop,at one table.

So perhaps playing more time,is more advantageous if you are not giving them the scare tactics.

[Don Schlesinger]

> So perhaps playing more time is more
> advantageous if you are not giving them the
> scare tactics.

Try several hours at a time and report back to me how it worked for you. :-)

But, don't say I didn't warn you.

Don

[pat]

> 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.