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

[Norm Wattenberger]

Assume the Universe is 15,000 million years old. Assume you have a 100 year life span. What is the probability that you are alive at this moment. Worse, assume time is infinite. In that case, there is a 0% chance that you are currently alive.

Of course the above doesn't follow if you believe in reincarnation or believe that all instances of time coexist.

[Sun Runner]

> 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.

Your point is well taken; I'm sure it is just my tunnel vision thought process. If any author I have read has tried to alert BJ players they might lose it certainly is Snyder. Even Don makes a passing reference to Arnold's attitude in BJAII.

But here is my thought on that Chapter specifically, and BJ books generally.

Snyder states "You Won't Win." Obviously that is a gross exageration because he knows those who have.

So I take it as such.

After several paragraphs of talking about -you won't win -he gives the answer why ... "negative fluctuations." [page 202]

"That cold and lonely place at the far left tail of the Gaussian Curve."

Continuing to read his article, he goes on to say that he, and ... "EVERY PROFESSIONAL CARD COUNTER I KNOW has been there." This, I assume, includes the winners he spoke about knowing earlier.

He goes on to talk about heart, soul, and BR as if to state [IMO ] that it is possible to work your way out of that cold and lonely place; as some of his associates apparently have.

And the point he is making, again IMO, is that you lose only because you do not have the requisite heart, soul, and BR.

True some may not win -indirectly -because of negative fluctuations (they run out of heart, soul, or BR) -but some will not win -guaranteed -because of the math. Because of the curve.

Ever read any BJ book that states no matter how hard you try, how good you get, how much money you have, some will not/can not win?

Me neither. And truthfully I don't hold it against them. It's a small small number I am carving out -it's just the point.

Don states unequivocally that if a counter is behind after 5,000 hands he really does not know what he is doing.

I say -except for the 3 of 2,000 that "bad luck" chose to bounce -he is correct. Don seems to imply in that statement "you will win" if you know what you are doing. Again, ask the 3 that lost what they think.

[Maybe he is in fact making my point #4 below. I don't know but I don't think so. Don seems like a successful strictly numbers guy to me and probably does not shuffle track or watch for clumps, etc.]

Now ....

Parker's post about the "Long Run" and the posts that followed helped me solidify my thoughts on this subject.

What I come away with is this:

1. The Long Run is most likely not as long as I thought it needed to be.

2. A huge % all of the properly BR'lled competent players will win.

3. Some poor saps that by all rights should win at this game, those that are playing a technically sound game, will lose in spite of themselves. And it was not because they lacked the ability, heart, soul, or BR.

4. That it may be possible to bring other efforts to bear on the game (in addittion to BS, proper counting, proper BR mgmnt) to guarantee you a winner -at least a minimal one at worst.

Anyway, the above ephiany for me was very liberating.

I can't prove any of it you understand because I am still way in to the Short Run!

Thanks Parker, and all, for a forum to live and learn from.

[Epiphany? I can't believe I used that word.]

SR

[ET Fan]

> Don states unequivocally that if a counter
> is behind after 5,000 hands he really does
> not know what he is doing.

You're off by a factor of 100. The actual quote: "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." 500,000 hands represents about 4 years full time play for an industrious pro.

I'll go further and say that competent low stakes counters can cut that number in half, if they ruthlessly target dealer error -- choosing tables primarily based on the INcompetence of the dealer.

> Ever read any BJ book that states no matter
> how hard you try, how good you get, how much
> money you have, some will not/can not win?

Because it isn't true! See above. Let's not waste our time worrying about a one in million shot.

ETF

[Sun Runner]

> "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."

So, statistically, no competent player ever loses, long term? It's simply not true.

> I'll go further and say that competent low
> stakes counters can cut that number in half,
> if they ruthlessly target dealer error --
> choosing tables primarily based on the
> INcompetence of the dealer.

Exactly! -my point #4. Dealer error and incompetence are among those areas that can not be simmed and that make all the difference in the world.

> Because it isn't true! See above.

What's not true? That statistically you can't lose? -you can.

> Let's not waste our time worrying about a one
> in million shot.

I have already admitted to not being competent to simm the answer, but I am sure it is larger than 1 in a million. Maybe as large as 3 out of 2,000.

BTW, my intent is certainly not to waste your time.

SR

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Exactly! -my point #4. Dealer error and
> incompetence are among those areas that can
> not be simmed and that make all the
> difference in the world.

Of course they can.

[ET Fan]

> So, statistically, no competent player ever
> loses, long term? It's simply not true.

The quote you are disputing comes directly from the DS post you earlier deemed "good news." No matter. It all depends on what you mean by "long term." Most rational gamblers (and to be competent, you almost have to be rational) would quit after experiencing a losing streak that put them 3 or more standard deviations to the left.

> I have already admitted to not being
> competent to simm the answer, but I am sure
> it is larger than 1 in a million. Maybe as
> large as 3 out of 2,000.

Technically, I never said it was 1 in a million. But it's no where near 3 out of 2,000, either.

We don't need a sim. Take the following game: 4.5/6 S17 DAS no surrender backcount. I chose this game because it has a DI of 6.25 -- slightly above average but not spectacular. Take the figures right out of BJ Attack II, p. 201. EV per 100 hands = 1.35 units, Standard Deviation per 100 hands = 21.61. After 500,000 hands, the EV will be 5,000 x 1.35 = 6,750 units. The SD will be 21.61 x SqRt(5,000) = 1528.058. So to have a result of -1 units or less after 500k hands, you have to be 6751/1528.058 = 4.418 standard deviations to the left of the mean. Most tables of the normal distribution don't give the required accuracy (cause no one seriously TALKS about P values so small!), but here is the URL of a normal curve calculator that provides the answer: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experim...sis/zCalc.html

Put 4.418 into the box marked "z" and click "calculate." You will see this result has less than a 1 in 200,000 chance of occuring by chance.

Note I could have pulled a fast one by claiming I was talking about 500k hands actually played, in which case the result would indeed be (far) less than a one in a million shot. The above is for 500k hands observed or about 5,000 hours of play.

> BTW, my intent is certainly not to waste
> your time.

What I said was: "Let's not waste our time worrying about a one in million shot." Let's not waste our time worrying about a 1 in 200,000 shot either, OK? :-)

ETF

[Sun Runner]

> The quote you are disputing comes directly
> from the DS post you earlier deemed
> "good news."

What was good news for me was the realization that the long run was much shorter than I previously imagined.

> Technically, I never said it was 1 in a
> million. But it's no where near 3 out of
> 2,000, either.

3 of 2,000 was Don's number, not mine.

> What I said was: "Let's not waste
> our time worrying about a one in million
> shot." Let's not waste our time
> worrying about a 1 in 200,000 shot either,
> OK? :-)

OK. I'm ready to move on. Besides, I'll be awhile absorbing your example above.

Thanks for your input.

SR

[bjdavid]

A lot of the discussion here seems to be saying the same thing in different ways. Sun Runner focuses on the reality of those 3 people who fail, and perhaps imagines it could be him or someone he knows. Others (and Don) look at those 3 people as "the other guy", which in fact would be the experience of almost everyone who meets the criteria.

A comment on the following:

> 4. That it may be possible to bring other
> efforts to bear on the game (in addittion to
> BS, proper counting, proper BR mgmnt) to
> guarantee you a winner -at least a minimal
> one at worst.

You are implying that increasing your edge can guarantee the win. Only a 100% edge will theoretically do that. All it does is increase your chances, potentially. Your basic premises are still intact. By the way, skilled tracking will increase your edge, but it also increases variance, which is another counter killer.

[Count of Montecristo]

Great post ETF! That really puts it all in perspective and should put all fears to rest.

> The quote you are disputing comes directly
> from the DS post you earlier deemed
> "good news." No matter. It all
> depends on what you mean by "long
> term." Most rational gamblers (and to
> be competent, you almost have to be
> rational) would quit after experiencing a
> losing streak that put them 3 or more
> standard deviations to the left.

> Technically, I never said it was 1 in a
> million. But it's no where near 3 out of
> 2,000, either.

> We don't need a sim. Take the following
> game: 4.5/6 S17 DAS no surrender backcount.
> I chose this game because it has a DI of
> 6.25 -- slightly above average but not
> spectacular. Take the figures right out of
> BJ Attack II, p. 201. EV per 100 hands =
> 1.35 units, Standard Deviation per 100 hands
> = 21.61. After 500,000 hands, the EV will be
> 5,000 x 1.35 = 6,750 units. The SD will be
> 21.61 x SqRt(5,000) = 1528.058. So to have a
> result of -1 units or less after 500k hands,
> you have to be 6751/1528.058 = 4.418
> standard deviations to the left of the mean.
> Most tables of the normal distribution don't
> give the required accuracy (cause no one
> seriously TALKS about P values so small!),
> but here is the URL of a normal curve
> calculator that provides the answer:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experim...sis/zCalc.html

> Put 4.418 into the box marked "z"
> and click "calculate." You will
> see this result has less than a 1 in 200,000
> chance of occuring by chance.

> Note I could have pulled a fast one by
> claiming I was talking about 500k hands
> actually played , in which case the result
> would indeed be (far) less than a one in a
> million shot. The above is for 500k hands
> observed or about 5,000 hours of play.

> What I said was: "Let's not waste
> our time worrying about a one in million
> shot." Let's not waste our time
> worrying about a 1 in 200,000 shot either,
> OK? :-)

> ETF

[Sun Runner]

> Most rational gamblers (and to
> be competent, you almost have to be
> rational) would quit after experiencing a
> losing streak that put them 3 or more
> standard deviations to the left.

And the point of quitting then would be what?

Normal fluctuation would finally drag them back to the positive -if they had the heart, soul, and BR -and were not one of those destined to remain on the left.

But, as BJ David said below, that's probably the "other guy".

And that was my point many posts ago -the other guy dosen't come here anymore because either he got two or three SDs to the left and quit on his own or luck, chance, random distribution [call it what you want] bounced him out for good.

We are, so far, those still residing on the right.

And I agree -the probability says we will all but be insured of staying here and chatting it up for years to come -if we continue to play well.

SR

[Don Schlesinger]

> We are, so far, those still residing on the right.

You continually confuse "being to the right" with simply winning one's fair share. I have played the game for 27 years. I don't think "I'm to the right," but I don't think I'm to the left, either. I think I've won very close to my fair share.

And, I have no complaints about being in the middle, where I should be! :-)

You seem to think that there's something "insufficient" about winning one's expected value. If you play long enough, that isn't the bad thing you make it out to be.

People who have played successfully for long hours are not "living proof" of being to the right, and you should stop expressing the thought that way.

Don

[AsZehn]

> You continually confuse "being to the
> right" with simply winning one's fair
> share. I have played the game for 27 years.
> I don't think "I'm to the right,"
> but I don't think I'm to the left, either. I
> think I've won very close to my fair share.

> And, I have no complaints about being in the
> middle, where I should be! :-)

> You seem to think that there's something
> "insufficient" about winning one's
> expected value. If you play long enough,
> that isn't the bad thing you make it out to
> be.

> People who have played successfully for long
> hours are not "living proof" of
> being to the right, and you should stop
> expressing the thought that way.

> Don

I think SunRunner is saying that being ahead no matter how small the amount is to the right of the curve and anyone having a cumulative loss is to the left (IMHO) The argument seems to be that if you have the correct amount of BR, use a legitimate counting system and bet optimally is it still possible that you may not be ahead in the long run?

AZ

[Sun Runner]

> You continually confuse "being to the
> right" with simply winning one's fair
> share.

I always meant for it to mean anywhere to the right of zero.

> ........... and you should stop
> expressing the thought that way.

I will.

SR