your telling me a person needs 200,000 dollars to play black.what a joke!you should probably learn basic strategy first before you comment on anything that has to do with bj.
> your telling me a person needs 200,000
> dollars to play black
Pat, congratulations. You have provided the basis for a great discussion on the game. Your irreverant attititude is surprising, refreshing, and perplexing all at the same time. Generally, when one attempts to learn a new job, game, or field of study, one listens to people who have accomplished success in that area. Most of the responders to your posts, excluding myself, have done just that. The general rule of thumb for a bankroll that will survive the invariable negative swings in this game is 100 times your maximum bet. If your maximum bet is a black chip, then $10,000 is your recommended bankroll. Now, with supreme confidence and ability, could you succeed with $8,000? Yes. However, with that same confidence and ability, you could hit the "Mother of all losing streaks" and go broke with a $12,000 bankroll playing the same maximum black chip. Perhaps the best way to put this is to say that there are negative swings in this game that even the best players cannot avoid. These negative swings are killers. They make you question your sanity. Optimism is a great attitude. All we are trying to do is combine your optimism with reality.
"Variancy" is a real word although it's rarely used. Check the Oxford English Dictionary. But you miss the point. Pat stuck by his contention in the face of the math and that rankled many of the responders. So they explained his success as luck or that he was lucky to have been successful with a short bankroll. Of course, the smart money is on the math. Pat is basing his contention on a small amount of anecdotal evidence. What he's done has worked for him so far. He has ridden a positive variance. He was bucking the experts, and most responders dismissed him as lucky. That word has a negative connotation.
Word choice does reflect motive whether one is conscious of it or not. You attempt to dismiss my argument as being based on my feelings. "Feeling" or "emotion" has a negative connotation in the context of this site which is based on "thought." I'm certain you're good at what you do, but language, like math, is a special pursuit also. Sometimes we get ourselves in trouble when we assume authority when we may not have as much as we need. For example, you stated with great certainty that "there is no such word as 'variancy'" when in fact it's quite a nice, legitimate word. You simply didn't know that.
Sam
> The word 'lucky' was used because there is
> no such word as 'variancy.' Also because a
> non-mathematician can understand the term.
> You are reading your own feelings into the
> motivations of others. Motivations that do
> not exist.
> Pat, congratulations. You have provided the
> basis for a great discussion on the game.
> Your irreverant attititude is surprising,
> refreshing, and perplexing all at the same
> time. Generally, when one attempts to learn
> a new job, game, or field of study, one
> listens to people who have accomplished
> success in that area. Most of the responders
> to your posts, excluding myself, have done
> just that. The general rule of thumb for a
> bankroll that will survive the invariable
> negative swings in this game is 100 times
> your maximum bet. If your maximum bet is a
> black chip, then $10,000 is your recommended
> bankroll. Now, with supreme confidence and
> ability, could you succeed with $8,000? Yes.
> However, with that same confidence and
> ability, you could hit the "Mother of
> all losing streaks" and go broke with a
> $12,000 bankroll playing the same maximum
> black chip. Perhaps the best way to put this
> is to say that there are negative swings in
> this game that even the best players cannot
> avoid. These negative swings are killers.
> They make you question your sanity. Optimism
> is a great attitude. All we are trying to do
> is combine your optimism with reality.
i am not a rookie.ive been playing bj for 10 years.went pro almost 2 years ago.wasted my time with red for many years because of all the cautious authors who said i needed 50 billion dollars to play green.i dont want some guy telling me and the board that we need 2000 units.he is 100% WRONG!i have no problem with you saying we need 100 max bets.thats fine.nice low risk of ruin.i just like to think of the positive not the negative.i guess im just a no talent who just happened to avoid every negative flux for 2 years.im just a lucky bastard.im sure i will lose it all by next month.
> i just
> like to think of the positive not the
> negative.i guess im just a no talent who
> just happened to avoid every negative flux
> for 2 years.im just a lucky bastard.im sure
> i will lose it all by next month.
If you're primarily focused on the positive and discounting the negative, then you're certainly not thinking like a pro. The fact that you haven't encountered a significant negative run in 2 years of play is absolutely meaningless.
Don't make the mistake of believing your skill level has somehow saved you from the cold, hard mathematics of the game. Even if you're playing full-time, perhaps 500 hours a year, you've only got 100,000 hands or so under your belt. That's spit in the ocean. As Parker said, you've been lucky, pure and simple.
My losing streak is now fast aproaching 500 units in the last 2 weeks so dont kid yourself pat I have been playing a lot longer then 2 years and more then 500 hours a year LOSING DOES HAPPEN that is why we are bankrolled and also why casinos shouldn't fear counters so much too many of us over bet or steam or play bad games etc it take a different breed of man to get kicked in the nuts day after day and keep going back out there. SM
> About two weeks ago I suffered a 260 unit
> loss in a day about 8 hours total play time
> ( I have managed to climb more then halfway
> back out) this was playing good pitch games
> with decent pen and wonging out on negative
> counts. I play the Uston APC (yes I know
> don't hound me ) with an ace side count and
> all the index plays in case you are
> wondering. I rely on BJ for 90% of my income
> and while I agree that it would be easy to
> get stuck in red chip hell your whole life
> you are most likely over betting. From
> reading your posts it sounds like you are
> partly aware of this and are wiling to take
> that risk for the chance of building your
> bankroll fast this is your choice and if you
> are wiling to go back to a "real"
> job to replenish your bank then this may be
> a good idea for YOU however I am one of
> those guys who hates a job so bad I would
> not play to a ROR that high also with your
> small bank it would really pay to only play
> in the best games you can find and never
> settle for "average" games. By the
> way if you think a 260 unit loss was not a
> common thing let me tell you a month and a
> half ago I dropped 200 units in less then an
> hour and there was another 200 unit losing
> day betwen those two. Trust me these are not
> even as bad as it can get. Good luck and
> good cards SM
Your unit can be 1 Dollar or 1000 Dollars.
The number of units required will depend on your own personal aversion(or not!)to risk.
Even spreading 1-4 playing sd I would not suggest a Br of less than 100 max bets.
Of course if you choose to play double Kelly that is your decision!
As I play mostly shoes,I try to maintain a BR of 200 max bets but then again I am in this for the long run!
Most players with a reasonable bankroll will play only a fraction of Kelly with re-sizing adjustments.
Perhaps you can purchase some risk software.
The results may surprise you.
The Cv series should do nicely.
Pedantry is in volume VII, page 606 of the OED.
The purpose of language is communication. Using a rare word not found in American dictionaries would not serve that purpose, even if the word existed. But, there is no existence of the word 'variancy' that can be used in this form. You cannot say that you have been variancy. We are attempting to communicate something to someone that appears to lack the math background needed to understand his place on the curve and the dynamics of variance. That is the purpose of the word luck. It can, and has, been used to describe either side of the curve. The form 'lucky' is simply short for having good luck. I do not believe that it is a fair statement that the word 'luck' is used when criticizing a thought and 'variance' used to justify a thought. I have seen both used in both manners.
I'm certain you're good at what you do, but language, like math, is a special pursuit also.
Actually, my training in language is equal to my training in math and greater than my training in computers.
> It take a
> different breed of man to get kicked in the
> nuts day after day and keep going back out
> there.
I've seen it expressed perhaps more eloquently, but never more succinctly.
> My losing streak is now fast aproaching 500
> units in the last 2 weeks so dont kid
> yourself pat I have been playing a lot
> longer then 2 years and more then 500 hours
> a year LOSING DOES HAPPEN that is why we are
> bankrolled and also why casinos shouldn't
> fear counters so much too many of us over
> bet or steam or play bad games etc it take a
> different breed of man to get kicked in the
> nuts day after day and keep going back out
> there. SM
what games are you playing and what is your spread.how long have you been playing?
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks