Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 59

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

  1. #14
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Don's "nevers"

    > 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

  2. #15
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: You're implying it's all luck.

    This is nonsense, you're saying after playing hundreds of thousands of hands only the lucky card counters are on the right side of the bell!

    Anyone who is still ahead of the game such as Parker after 175 thousand hands of blackjack is FAR from lucky, he got there from his talented skills of counting and had a bankroll he knew how to use.

    The card counters you speak of that are losers after playing half their life are not unlucky but rather very unskilled and playing a losing game. They often overbet their bankroll, go broke and give up. Then we have the marginal card counter who is skilled enough to at least break even.
    And of course the good card counters, such as Parker and I

    We are the winners, we have past the test and survived.

    Brick

    ps....and it sure is NOT due to luck.

    > First of all ?

    > ? 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

  3. #16
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: -Long -

    Your post is well written and filled with obvious knowledge. But, assuming a player is competent and not making gross mistakes, you seriously underestimate how long the long run needs to be to demonstrate an edge in the game.

    A standard ev/SD to strive for might be something along the lines of a two-unit per hour win with 28 units of SD. That produces a DI of 7.14 and a SCORE of 51, which is an acceptable game.

    Now, play that game for 175,000 hands, or 1,750 hours, and your EV will be 3,500 units while one SD will be 28 * 1,750^.5 = 1,171 units. Now, for all players who play such a game, some will fall short of EV and be to the left of the mean of the curve, while others will exceed EV and fall into the right-hand section. But, it would take a 3,500/1,171 = 2.99-SD loss to actually be behind after that much play. In other words, it ain't gonna happen! Or, more correctly, it's going to happen to roughly 3 players out of every 2,000 who try.

    So, let's not be too hard on players who quote their results, after 175,000 hands. And, for the 500,000 hands that you mention, I'll state unequivocally that if such players are still losing, then they really don't know what they're doing.

    That said, we do sims that comprise hundreds of millions of hands for two reasons: 1) greater precision, and 2) because we can! :-)

    Don

  4. #17
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Long, kinda long

    Don's post answers your post better than I could. All I can add is that I still consider myself toward the beginning of my playing career. I intend to play at least another 20 years, assuming I can still find playable games, and I expect my hours to increase. I think it is conceivable that I could play a million hands before I die.

    If I'm not ahead after a million hands, there is something seriously wrong with my game. :-)

  5. #18
    methodman
    Guest

    methodman: Re: Don's "nevers"

    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.

  6. #19
    bjdavid
    Guest

    bjdavid: Very well said, and right on! *NM*


  7. #20
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: don,what if you win alot fast

    > 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.

    Short answer: yes, I leave. You win a lot because you bet very big and get lucky. Betting small for the next 40 minutes, because the count doesn't materialize again, looks horrible. I play a few more shoes, but if the count doesn't permit any more big bets, I usually quit while saying something to the effect of, "looks like the good run is over; I'm going to make sure I don't give it all back."

    Don

  8. #21
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Confusing some terms

    > This is nonsense, you're saying after
    > playing hundreds of thousands of hands only
    > the lucky card counters are on the right
    > side of the bell!

    We're confusing some terms here. After hundreds of thousands of hands, there is a bell-curve distribution with a mean at the center, and that mean is a large positive number. By definition, those counters whose results fall to the right of the mean are, indeed, the lucky ones. Those who fall to the left are the unlucky ones, but they will virtually all still be winners. They simply won't win their fair share.

    Don

  9. #22
    Cellini
    Guest

    Cellini: Re: A slightly different viewpoint

    Don,
    It brings me great pleasure to add me 2 cents worth in this conversation as I respect both you and Parker alike, thus my input is that you are both right in your own right! Between the two of you, you have managed to cover both angles. An amusing thought to me, a scary thought to the average surveillance observer.

    Your remarks
    >A standard ev/SD to strive for might be >something along the lines of a two-unit per hour >win with 28 units of SD. That produces a DI of >7.14 and a SCORE of 51, which is an acceptable >game.

    I believe that for a player to achieve such results he/she would have to be very competent, allowing very little room if any for any ?real? mistakes and the long run should be reevaluated to a more realistic point with the bell-curve added in for proper measure.
    I?m a big fan of both you and Parker as well. BJA is one of the finest publications in print today (in my opinion) and any advantage player that goes to the tables without this knowledge is, in my opinion, the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
    My numbers on the Desirable Index seem to be a bit off from yours but I?m sure it relates to my side. I tip my hat to two of the best! Don and Parker!
    Don, I will be in touch, soon.

    -Cellini

  10. #23
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: The bouncing bell.

    If you re-read Sun Runners post he says the card counters who have a total "net loss" for their lifetime are "unlucky" and the card counters who are on the right side of the bell are there due to "luck". He is comparing trying to compare winners to losers and basing this on his useless theory of Luck.

    This is nonsense, card counters who have made it to the right side of the bell are there from the skills and the proficient strategies they use. The slight changes of positive standard deviation on the bell is only a small temporary rewarding by-product that will forever bounce on both sides of the bell.

    Brick

    > We're confusing some terms here. After
    > hundreds of thousands of hands, there is a
    > bell-curve distribution with a mean at the
    > center, and that mean is a large positive
    > number. By definition, those counters whose
    > results fall to the right of the mean are,
    > indeed, the lucky ones. Those who fall to
    > the left are the unlucky ones, but they will
    > virtually all still be winners. They simply
    > won't win their fair share.

    > Don

  11. #24
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Not necessarily

    > If you re-read Sun Runners post he says the
    > card counters who have a total "net
    > loss" for their lifetime are
    > "unlucky" and the card counters
    > who are on the right side of the bell are
    > there due to "luck". He is
    > comparing trying to compare winners to
    > losers and basing this on his useless theory
    > of Luck.

    > This is nonsense, card counters who have
    > made it to the right side of the bell are
    > there from the skills and the proficient
    > strategies they use. The slight changes of
    > positive standard deviation on the bell is
    > only a small temporary rewarding by-product
    > that will forever bounce on both sides of
    > the bell.

    It really sounds like you put too much faith in the "fairness" of the bell curve. If you get on the left side of the curve (or the right), it very often can be permanent. There was quite a flap about this when Feller and others published results on the behavior of a coin flip (eg. the number of times zero is crossed for infinite flips). Epstein has a section on this also. Educated people -- even mathematicians -- had a hard time swallowing how unfair it all seems.

    Put simply, some people are lucky, some are unlucky. And the difference often persists through an entire lifetime. In fact, every human being on the planet is INCREDIBLY lucky, since the sperm that reached the egg to create his or her unique genetic blueprint had to overcome incredible odds, beating out many thousands of competing viable sperm.

    It works both ways. There are probably many "counters," who in fact play a negative EV game, yet die believing in their prodigious skill, based on their positive real world LUCK.

    ETF

  12. #25
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Don's "nevers"

    > 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

  13. #26
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Not necessarily

    > In fact, every
    > human being on the planet is INCREDIBLY
    > lucky , since the sperm that reached the egg
    > to create his or her unique genetic
    > blueprint had to overcome incredible odds,
    > beating out many thousands of competing
    > viable sperm.

    Naw, just a Poisson distribution: very small probability for one event to occur, but millions upon millions of trials. Result? A very reasonable probability for success. :-)

    Don

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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.