You are not kidding when you say wrong in this instance is subjective. Subjective to say the least. In my mind, your two posts belong in the disadvantage forum as I agree with what the Refinery said on this one. You want a correct point of view on this subject read post #21 in this thread even though it was in response to another poster, it also applies to what you wrote. Here it is again:
Now, Don's above quote is right in line with what you always write at the end of each post regarding Don. Repeated again:
Last edited by BoSox; 10-05-2019 at 04:49 PM.
Hold on, now you are saying head to head play? If that is the case you are changing your position from what you previously said. Which is:
"Wrong in this instance is subjective. Loss stops lower your hourly EV, but they also lower ROR, so there is a justification for using them if you choose. But, when I do use them, I do not use them per session, I use them per shoe at >=-1 S.D. (units, not $$$) per shoe for the specific ramp I am using and number of players."
Enough of this back and forth you should explain the following quote you made.
"I believe that ROR was reduced using 1 SD BR because stopping play at that point increased the likelihood of finding “golden shoes”…those shoes where you don’t lose many bets, including your large bets. Sort of like “weeding out” the “beat down” shoes. I think I used a 10B sample size for each sim."
Last edited by BoSox; 10-05-2019 at 06:32 PM.
I am glad someone is kicking your ass, maybe she is the real blackjack player of the family.
No one knows until a shoe is completed how that shoe will all turn out. All the card counter can do is bet by the actual true count each and every hand. Any thoughts by the player that he is playing in "golden shoes or beat down shoes" some kind of predictable pattern is preposterous, to say the least, and his theory does not belong on this board period. What happens when the player reaches a negative SD of one percent for that shoe with eighty cards left before the cut card comes out? Does he just take a break and wongout leaving a high TC opportunity? A true count of +5 is a TC of +5 regardless of when it happens and to even think of walking out of such a situation because you are thinking you are playing into a beat down shoe is not a true AP player but a voodoo player. Players MUST be bankrolled properly at all times to avoid any kind of outlandish superstitious thinking to get into their heads.
Please use your time reading up on having a proper bankroll as I do not want to see your sims thank you.
Last edited by BoSox; 10-06-2019 at 03:48 AM.
None of the above! OK, my turn. I think you guys are talking at cross-purposes. The "traditionalists" see any attempt to employ stop losses (generally, a "voodoo" term) as, well, ridiculous, while the "iconoclast" wants to show a very specific and particular application of using stop-loss to minimize one single parameter, namely ROR for a single shoe. And, I think it does.
Forget about one-, two- or three- s.d. considerations for stopping the play of a shoe. Consider this, instead: Play one hand and quit!! Is there anyone on the board who doesn't understand that I have just enunciated a way to make my ROR ZERO for that shoe? Of course there isn't. So, why should it surprise anyone that ANY procedure or algorithm that would prematurely cause you to stop playing a shoe would lead to reduced ROR for that particular shoe?
I could enunciate 100 different approaches all of which would either reduce my ROR for a shoe or make it zero, including, "when I'm down to my last bet, quit without putting it on the felt." That makes my ROR ZERO for that shoe. If, instead, I keep playing with that one unit, does everyone understand that my ROR is VERY substantial?
So, unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo is about. Over and over, Wave has stated that his approach will hurt his e.v., and that is surely true. But, for a single shoe, it is virtually impossible to be ruined for that shoe if you don't continue to play through all the very high count/high bet situations. And, it seems to me that this is all Wave is claiming. Were he to claim, instead, that his overall, lifetime ROR is lowered by playing this way, then we would yell "Foul" and explain that this is surely a different story and is not the case.
Your turn!
Don
Last edited by DSchles; 10-07-2019 at 08:46 AM.
Bookmarks