Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 59

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

  1. #27
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Hmmm...

    > 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. :-)

    What I think you miss is that each and every one of those sperm have a different genetic makeup! There's a very reasonable probability that SOMEONE is going to be born. Your parents might even name him "Don." But would he have been good at blackjack? More importantly, would he care whether I spelled competantly (competently?)? ;-)

    ETF

  2. #28
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Hmmm...

    > What I think you miss is that each and every
    > one of those sperm have a different
    > genetic makeup! There's a very reasonable
    > probability that SOMEONE is going to be
    > born. Your parents might even name him
    > "Don." But would he have been good
    > at blackjack? More importantly, would he
    > care whether I spelled competantly
    > (competently?)? ;-)

    I appreciate both he humor and the logic, but I still have to disagree. It's always fun when someone receives the perfect bridge hand of 13 spades and comments on the virtually infinite odds against getting that holding.

    But, the poor schlump sitting across the table who has the most pathetic hand imaginable had the very same odds that he'd receive that one, before the deal, no?

    So, yes, getting some specific genetic makeup and stating the odds of receiving that, before the fact, is, indeed, astronomical odds, but then again, you had to receive some genetic makeup, so I guess the actual comment to make is ... so what? :-)

    Don

  3. #29
    C
    Guest

    C: Nausea

    The odds of any specific human being being born (a matter of conscience) is so low that astronomical doesn't even begin to describe it. Every conscience currently active on the planet had a probability of occuring equal to a number as close to zero as possible.

    ETF threw in just the human sperms. A colossal understatement. Realize that the probability of being born Joe Namath and the probability of being born that insect that a soldier of Hannibal crushed when mounting the Alps are side by side in the cosmic roulette.

  4. #30
    Waters
    Guest

    Waters: Qualifying precision

    (I agree with Don here; I am posting more on one aspect of his post. My response is to Sun Runner.)

    1% here, 1% there... no big deal, right?

    If one is talking about performance compared to ev, then a 1% relative difference is inconsequential. If, however, you are building a table of indices, or even a basic strategy card, for a new game or a new count -- then you do not want to be off by 1% here and there, in part due to the compounding of factors required to build a full index table.

    Sims are run into the many millions of hands so that they are precise enough to be used on a smaller scale. "Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe."

    3 out of 2000 is signifigant, of course, to those three unlucky souls. =\ I pity the three, but I think that they are still out there.
    5000 hours is enough to require 5.05-SD to still be behind -- and THAT just ain't gonna happen.

  5. #31
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Subject approaching religion

    > you had
    > to receive some genetic makeup, so I guess
    > the actual comment to make is ... so what?
    > :-)

    The point is, with a different genetic makeup, most people would assume it's a different YOU. Certainly, people wouldn't recognize you as you, if you had a different face, body type, mental faculties, etc., etc.

    Now if you believe there's an undefined something (soul?) that attaches to each preordained birth, regardless of genetics, and makes that person who he is, in some sense, I plead ignorance.

    When I say "you" are lucky to exist, I mean the you that your friends and relatives would recognize -- the slim, svelte, 4'7" native American we all know and love.

    ETF

  6. #32
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Long run -part deux

    [Brick, I am posting this here not in response to you directly. I just feel it would be to presumptuous to post it under Don?s reply ]

    I swear -no more disertations!

    Luck. Gambling

    In the purest sense, if you don?t believe in luck, you are deluding yourself. And for all but a small percentage of BJ players, if you think you are not a gambler every time you place a bet, you are not being honest with yourself.

    I started playing blackjack for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was I hate to lose; at anything. I could never understand the idea of putting my money on a play that overtime had a built in advantage against me. I could just not understand the rationale or the motivation. The idea of screwing off my money on a dice game where I knew that after enough throws the house would have all my money was un-imaginable to me.

    But BJ was different I was told. It could be beaten. Learn the rules, basic strategy, a good count, money management, and if you could get your game on, you could not be beat. Period. The math proved it. Computer science backed it up. Guaranteed. A lock cinch.

    I?m in.

    The first book I ever read on BJ pointed out that by playing perfect basic strategy against single deck LV strip rules, the house edge was reduced to basically zero; leaving all the readers to believe they could show up, flat bet, play perfect basic strategy, and over the long run, breakeven.

    Sounded good to me. I wanted to believe it so bad that I did ?until recently. But something from that statistics class I took in college kept screaming at me trying to get my attention. Something about the bell curve, standard deviations from the mean, and random distributions kept begging me to stop and take stock.

    Then the next book I read seemed to say the same thing as the first, and the third, and the fourth, and the next, and the next. Confusion. What I wanted to believe did not relate to what I had been taught (but what did those pinko-commie liberal professor?s know anyway right? .. this was blackjack .. that stat teacher was talking about light bulbs anyway!)

    Now I?m not saying that those BJ books were not totally forthcoming, for what they said was true. No sour grapes here. Playing perfect basic strategy and flat betting against those particular rules would result in a house edge of zero. What it didn?t say was that of all those who played that game with the same degree of precision [no ploppies, no tourists, no losers, all equally trained and accomplished players] a few would in fact breakeven (the mean), some would win (fall into the area right of the mean) and an equal number would lose (fall into the area left of the mean.) And who decides the winners and losers?

    Call it what you want. Standard deviation. Random distribution. Luck.

    The concept of luck may leave a bad taste in your mouth, but the sooner you warm up to it the sooner you can deal with it. I?m just sorry it took me this long.

    The bell curve is alive and well. Standard deviation lives. The mean is still in the middle. Random distribution has not taken a vacation.

    I imagine it as the old X / Y axis from algebra class. Flat betting perfect basic strategy against the rules stated above centers the bell curve smack over the Y, with an equal number of players falling on either side, those to the left of Y losing and those to the right of Y winning. The cumulative sum of course equaling zero ?the expected edge the books advertise ?with much fanfare I might add! But some do lose!

    So flat betting perfect basic strategy is not such a hot ticket, even against single deck LV rules. Especially if you believe in luck (random distribution) and you hate to lose.

    What to do? Learn to count.

    What does counting do? What it doesn?t do is destroy the statistical concepts referenced above or knock luck out of your vocabulary. What it does do is create a measurable player advantage that simply pushes the whole bell curve to the right.

    Of all the souls in our pool [again, no ploppies, no tourists, no losers, all equally trained and accomplished players] who are still playing the game with perfect basic strategy and now employing a good count and sound bet ramp, they will still be randomly spread underneath the curve, an equal number to the right and an equal number to the left of the mean (middle). No getting around it. Call it what you want. I?m tired of calling it luck because too many people bag on me about it.

    Difference being, since the counting and betting strategy has now established a measurable advantage over the house, the mean (middle) of our curve has now been pushed to the right. Same equal number of people distributed left and right of the mean, but less people now to the left of the Y axis (losers) and more people to the right of the Y axis (winners.)Yea!

    As Don showed earlier, with a proper game and player skills, it may be only 3 out of 2,000 in our player pool [again, no ploppies, no tourists, no losers, all equally trained and accomplished players .. geeez] that now find themselves left of the Y axis (losers).

    But three there are! And how did they get there? Why aren?t they winning? Because they did not practice as hard or play as well? Because their momma didn?t love them very much? Nope. Luck of the draw. Bad cards. Pure and simple.

    Only 3 out of 2,000. Pretty good odds. But somebody, maybe me, is going to be one of those three. Yikes.

    I?m gambling. Yes, I am. I am a gambler, like it or not.

    And so are you.

    I believe the above is undisputable. It can be checked and re-checked with pen, paper, adding machines, and computers. It can be simmed on in to the night and proven true.

    And the naked truth is, as Arnold Snyder said in Blackjack Wisdom, ?You Will Lose.?

    Ok, he was a little over the top. But after all the number crunching is over, of all those playing a good game under good conditions [again, no ploppies, no tourists, no losers, all ? oh forget it ?] some are destined to lose. A small percentage of the pool, yes, but some will lose none the less.

    Even Arnold Snyder, in my opinion, doesn?t even fully come to terms with the fact that some will lose. Reading his Chapter 13 in Blackjack Wisdom he only talks about positive and negative fluctuations. He seems to imply, to me, that if you have enough heart and enough BR to overcome the negative fluctuations, you will eventually win. I say no, some (granted a small percentage) who do have the heart and do have the bankroll will still lose. (Remember those three?!)

    I don?t believe that there is a count system good enough, that can be played well enough and long enough, to push the bell curve far enough to the right to guarantee that every one playing under it will in fact end up a winner. (Maybe there is, and maybe it is out there but I have not seen or heard of it being simmed up from anyone I know.)

    And for a guy like me looking for the guarantee that is all but implied in almost every BJ book I?ve read, that is a bummer.

    But the truth, they say, will set you free and set me free it did. Free to keep thinking.

    There are those guys out there who do win. No kidding, they win. Life to date. Dare I say they are guaranteed to win. Call them what you want but I call them ? advantage players.

    (Hold it ?no, not you ?you?re still a gambler, remember? Still playing under the bell curve that has no chance of getting far enough to the right to guarantee you a net winner. You stand a chance of being one of the three. Sorry.)

    What else are the advantage players doing that the rest of us aren?t?

    Since this has become way to long, I will simply refer to my earlier post and reiterate that the real advantage players do things that can?t be simmed on a PC or a MAC. In addition to playing a technically sound ?A? game (which puts their bell curve way to the right to start) they are playing with their eyes wide-open and taking advantage of the opportunities they see around them.

    The rest of us, those of us only relying on the computer runs and playing a sound technical game, are by definition, gamblers. Because ?negative fluctuations aside ?we all stand an ever so small chance of one day realizing ?we were one of those three.

    [BTW, this is why I am switching back to a balanced count.]

    One last short example to illustrate this point and I?m through.

    I was playing a child?s card game Saturday night at a family party. Next to me was an eleven-year-old kid who also hates to lose. She was a skillful player at this game. She had played it often, she played for keeps, and she usually won.

    I caught her looking at my cards!

    My initial reaction was to call her out as a cheater, but it dawned on me .. she was simply taking advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves.

    That to me is advantage play. Anything less is just hoping to beat the curve.

    Now let me say I have made many statements of fact that I believe to be true. Sadly, I am not educated enough to properly analyze these statements mathematically. Any comments and input will be genuinely appreciated. I know it is long, but I have been wanting to write this for some time.

    SR

  7. #33
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: -Long -

    > 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.

    > 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.

    This is good news, I think. I hope you meant to say I overestimate the length of the long run.

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

    Works for me and thanks again.

    SR

  8. #34
    humble
    Guest

    humble: Re: Long run -part deux

    Yep, you're right.
    That's why this site is called "Advan+agePlayer.com, the positive-edge GAMBLING community".
    And also: while some of our community members may lose, as a community we win. This micro/macro principle is all around, an unescapable fact of life (so recently and tragically underlined by the shuttle accident).

  9. #35
    SOTSOG
    Guest

    SOTSOG: My advice

    Bankroll the 11-year-old.

  10. #36
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: Re: Long run -part deux

    You need to understand what the bell represents.
    This probably would have saved you much time posting useless information about luck.

    If a game has an expection of 0%, then 0% is represented at the top of the bell. The left side represents losers, the right side represents winners,fair enough? As we aproach the long run the results average closer to the top of the bell and have less of an impact.

    Now suppose I have a 1% edge?, then the top of the bell represents 1%,fair enough? The same principals apply as the above except the LEFT side of the bell does NOT represent losers, you are still winning if you fall on the left side, but your win rate might be at .8% instead of 1%.

    " Only 3 out of 2,000. Pretty good odds. But somebody, maybe me, is going to be one of those three. Yikes."

    Yeah yikes, and all the rest are lucky,get real.

    Brick

    > [Brick, I am posting this here not in
    > response to you directly. I just feel it
    > would be to presumptuous to post it under
    > Don?s reply ]

    > I swear -no more disertations!

    > Luck. Gambling

    > In the purest sense, if you don?t believe in
    > luck, you are deluding yourself. And for all
    > but a small percentage of BJ players, if you
    > think you are not a gambler every time you
    > place a bet, you are not being honest with
    > yourself.

    > I started playing blackjack for a lot of
    > reasons, not the least of which was I hate
    > to lose; at anything. I could never
    > understand the idea of putting my money on a
    > play that overtime had a built in advantage
    > against me. I could just not understand the
    > rationale or the motivation. The idea of
    > screwing off my money on a dice game where I
    > knew that after enough throws the house
    > would have all my money was un-imaginable to
    > me.

    > But BJ was different I was told. It could be
    > beaten. Learn the rules, basic strategy, a
    > good count, money management, and if you
    > could get your game on, you could not be
    > beat. Period. The math proved it. Computer
    > science backed it up. Guaranteed. A lock
    > cinch.

    > I?m in.

    > The first book I ever read on BJ pointed out
    > that by playing perfect basic strategy
    > against single deck LV strip rules, the
    > house edge was reduced to basically zero;
    > leaving all the readers to believe they
    > could show up, flat bet, play perfect basic
    > strategy, and over the long run, breakeven.

    > Sounded good to me. I wanted to believe it
    > so bad that I did ?until recently. But
    > something from that statistics class I took
    > in college kept screaming at me trying to
    > get my attention. Something about the bell
    > curve, standard deviations from the mean,
    > and random distributions kept begging me to
    > stop and take stock.

    > Then the next book I read seemed to say the
    > same thing as the first, and the third, and
    > the fourth, and the next, and the next.
    > Confusion. What I wanted to believe did not
    > relate to what I had been taught (but what
    > did those pinko-commie liberal professor?s
    > know anyway right? .. this was blackjack ..
    > that stat teacher was talking about light
    > bulbs anyway!)

    > Now I?m not saying that those BJ books were
    > not totally forthcoming, for what they said
    > was true. No sour grapes here. Playing
    > perfect basic strategy and flat betting
    > against those particular rules would result
    > in a house edge of zero. What it didn?t say
    > was that of all those who played that game
    > with the same degree of precision [no
    > ploppies, no tourists, no losers, all
    > equally trained and accomplished players] a
    > few would in fact breakeven (the mean), some
    > would win (fall into the area right of the
    > mean) and an equal number would lose (fall
    > into the area left of the mean.) And who
    > decides the winners and losers?

    > Call it what you want. Standard deviation.
    > Random distribution. Luck.

    > The concept of luck may leave a bad taste in
    > your mouth, but the sooner you warm up to it
    > the sooner you can deal with it. I?m just
    > sorry it took me this long.

    > The bell curve is alive and well. Standard
    > deviation lives. The mean is still in the
    > middle. Random distribution has not taken a
    > vacation.

    > I imagine it as the old X / Y axis from
    > algebra class. Flat betting perfect basic
    > strategy against the rules stated above
    > centers the bell curve smack over the Y,
    > with an equal number of players falling on
    > either side, those to the left of Y losing
    > and those to the right of Y winning. The
    > cumulative sum of course equaling zero ?the
    > expected edge the books advertise ?with much
    > fanfare I might add! But some do lose!

    > So flat betting perfect basic strategy is
    > not such a hot ticket, even against single
    > deck LV rules. Especially if you believe in
    > luck (random distribution) and you hate to
    > lose.

    > What to do? Learn to count.

    > What does counting do? What it doesn?t do is
    > destroy the statistical concepts referenced
    > above or knock luck out of your vocabulary.
    > What it does do is create a measurable
    > player advantage that simply pushes the
    > whole bell curve to the right.

    > Of all the souls in our pool [again, no
    > ploppies, no tourists, no losers, all
    > equally trained and accomplished players]
    > who are still playing the game with perfect
    > basic strategy and now employing a good
    > count and sound bet ramp, they will still be
    > randomly spread underneath the curve, an
    > equal number to the right and an equal
    > number to the left of the mean (middle). No
    > getting around it. Call it what you want.
    > I?m tired of calling it luck because too
    > many people bag on me about it.

    > Difference being, since the counting and
    > betting strategy has now established a
    > measurable advantage over the house, the
    > mean (middle) of our curve has now been
    > pushed to the right. Same equal number of
    > people distributed left and right of the
    > mean, but less people now to the left of the
    > Y axis (losers) and more people to the right
    > of the Y axis (winners.)Yea!

    > As Don showed earlier, with a proper game
    > and player skills, it may be only 3 out of
    > 2,000 in our player pool [again, no
    > ploppies, no tourists, no losers, all
    > equally trained and accomplished players ..
    > geeez] that now find themselves left of the
    > Y axis (losers).

    > But three there are! And how did they get
    > there? Why aren?t they winning? Because they
    > did not practice as hard or play as well?
    > Because their momma didn?t love them very
    > much? Nope. Luck of the draw. Bad cards.
    > Pure and simple.

    > Only 3 out of 2,000. Pretty good odds. But
    > somebody, maybe me, is going to be one of
    > those three. Yikes.

    > I?m gambling. Yes, I am. I am a gambler,
    > like it or not.

    > And so are you.

    > I believe the above is undisputable. It can
    > be checked and re-checked with pen, paper,
    > adding machines, and computers. It can be
    > simmed on in to the night and proven true.

    > And the naked truth is, as Arnold Snyder
    > said in Blackjack Wisdom, ?You Will Lose.?

    > Ok, he was a little over the top. But after
    > all the number crunching is over, of all
    > those playing a good game under good
    > conditions [again, no ploppies, no tourists,
    > no losers, all ? oh forget it ?] some are
    > destined to lose. A small percentage of the
    > pool, yes, but some will lose none the less.

    > Even Arnold Snyder, in my opinion, doesn?t
    > even fully come to terms with the fact that
    > some will lose. Reading his Chapter 13 in
    > Blackjack Wisdom he only talks about
    > positive and negative fluctuations. He seems
    > to imply, to me, that if you have enough
    > heart and enough BR to overcome the negative
    > fluctuations, you will eventually win. I say
    > no, some (granted a small percentage) who do
    > have the heart and do have the bankroll will
    > still lose. (Remember those three?!)

    > I don?t believe that there is a count system
    > good enough, that can be played well enough
    > and long enough, to push the bell curve far
    > enough to the right to guarantee that every
    > one playing under it will in fact end up a
    > winner. (Maybe there is, and maybe it is out
    > there but I have not seen or heard of it
    > being simmed up from anyone I know.)

    > And for a guy like me looking for the
    > guarantee that is all but implied in almost
    > every BJ book I?ve read, that is a bummer.

    > But the truth, they say, will set you free
    > and set me free it did. Free to keep
    > thinking.

    > There are those guys out there who do win.
    > No kidding, they win. Life to date. Dare I
    > say they are guaranteed to win. Call them
    > what you want but I call them ? advantage
    > players.

    > (Hold it ?no, not you ?you?re still a
    > gambler, remember? Still playing under the
    > bell curve that has no chance of getting far
    > enough to the right to guarantee you a net
    > winner. You stand a chance of being one of
    > the three. Sorry.)

    > What else are the advantage players doing
    > that the rest of us aren?t?

    > Since this has become way to long, I will
    > simply refer to my earlier post and
    > reiterate that the real advantage players do
    > things that can?t be simmed on a PC or a
    > MAC. In addition to playing a technically
    > sound ?A? game (which puts their bell curve
    > way to the right to start) they are playing
    > with their eyes wide-open and taking
    > advantage of the opportunities they see
    > around them.

    > The rest of us, those of us only relying on
    > the computer runs and playing a sound
    > technical game, are by definition, gamblers.
    > Because ?negative fluctuations aside ?we all
    > stand an ever so small chance of one day
    > realizing ?we were one of those three.

    > [BTW, this is why I am switching back to a
    > balanced count.]

    > One last short example to illustrate this
    > point and I?m through.

    > I was playing a child?s card game Saturday
    > night at a family party. Next to me was an
    > eleven-year-old kid who also hates to lose.
    > She was a skillful player at this game. She
    > had played it often, she played for keeps,
    > and she usually won.

    > I caught her looking at my cards!

    > My initial reaction was to call her out as a
    > cheater, but it dawned on me .. she was
    > simply taking advantage of the opportunities
    > that presented themselves.

    > That to me is advantage play. Anything less
    > is just hoping to beat the curve.

    > Now let me say I have made many statements
    > of fact that I believe to be true. Sadly, I
    > am not educated enough to properly analyze
    > these statements mathematically. Any
    > comments and input will be genuinely
    > appreciated. I know it is long, but I have
    > been wanting to write this for some time.

    > SR

  11. #37
    bjdavid
    Guest

    bjdavid: Subjective summary

    I believe what Sun Runner is saying here is that even a competent player is at risk of being at net loser, even after playing many hours. He is of course correct. He calls this bad luck, and that label is OK by me. However, I would also add that this player has been unlucky, and this has no influence on his future results. A streak is just a streak, no matter how long.

    If a blackjack career is limited to a few hundred hours, there will be some good players who are net losers. They have also probably given up!

    For those players who go beyond a few hundred hours, the chance of the competent player being behind eventually becomes so small as to not be very meaningful. If a player has 5000 hours and is behind, (unit-wise) then the best assumption is that the player is not competent. I would not put the blame on bad luck, or just being way outta sight on the left of the curve!

  12. #38
    C
    Guest

    C: You're short-changing Snyder

    "Even Arnold Snyder, in my opinion, doesn?t even fully come to terms with the fact that some will lose. Reading his Chapter 13 in Blackjack Wisdom he only talks about positive and negative fluctuations. He seems to imply, to me, that if you have enough heart and enough BR to overcome the negative fluctuations, you will eventually win. I say no, some (granted a small percentage) who do have the heart and do have the bankroll will still lose."

    In his article "You Won't Win", Snyder directly, rather than implicitly, makes his case that even with the BR and the right playing abilities, one will still be liable to come out a loser. Essentially what you are saying, above.

  13. #39
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Yes, Virginia, there is a thing called luck ;-)

    There's a simple explanation of standard deviation by Richard Reid on www.bjmath.com. I recommend you study it, and then do several examples with a fair coin flip to get a feel for how and why luck predominates in terms of absolute dollars, but becomes less and less important as N increases, in terms of percentages. The standard deviation, in terms of absolute dollars, increases proportional to the square root of N.

    As Don said, it's just about impossible for a decent advantage player to be in the red after half a million hands. That's why Don is the best TEACHER on the boards, bar none. There may be one or two people who understand the normal curve better than him (MathProf and Kim Lee are two names that come to mind), but he knew exactly what to say to quell (some of) your misgivings.

    ETF

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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.