ok RollingStoned, here we go:Originally Posted by hardin county boy
a counter, a flat-bet-basic-strategy guy and a voodooist walk into a casino and vow not to come out till they have played one million hands.
the voodooist steps up, bets one unit and loses 4 times so he ups it to 2 units, loses 4 more for 8 net losses and 12 units down. he changes to 3 units, gets 5 wins up for a net, momentary "win" of 3 units, though he lost 8 hands and won 5 hands. turns out the basic-strategist-flat-better was playing on the same hands so he lost 3 units. similarly, the counter also played on the same hands and, as chance would have it, the count remained zero in this brief session so he, too, flat bet and lost 3 units.
we will return to voodoo-guy in a minute but first let's check in with the counter after the millionth hand: no surprise to see that he has WON about 1% of every nickle he bet--WELL DONE!
similarly, we find our flat-bet, basic strategy guy LOST about 1/2% of everything he bet--no surprise here either.
now, i bet it has been a really LOOOONG ride for voodoo-boy. (as it was for the other two as well)
when we tell him about the other 2 guys and ask for his million-hand report he explains he is prepared to give only a "sorta million" hands report, explaining that he understands the other 2 were playing a single, long-run game with predictable results but that his game was different and he was not "competing" with them. he protested being called a "voodooist", saying it was a little presumptuous and prejudicial. he requested we call him a "contingency" player and, being fair-minded, we agreed to do that.
we have heard most all of it before so were not surprised with his elaborate explanation of how his approximately million hands were played over 2000 days that had a beginning and end, each day. he said sometimes he only played a few hours, sometimes 12 or more but every day ended whenever he lost 100 units or whenever he arbitrarily declared being even or up X number of units was good enough for him--kinda depended on how many hours were left in each day and how he judged his prospects of risking going negative or giving back too much of a good win--sometimes he was keeping an eye on how he was doing along this "lifetime" of a million hands and that would effect how he chose to quit or keep playing and at what bet size. (we will keep our word and call him a contengencist but it is clear this guy DOES embrace some voodoo.)
we bring up the hands all 3 of them played to start and were trying to explain to him that, though he lost 8 hands and won 5 hands but won 3 units, while his pals lost 3 units, he butted in and reminded us that in no way did that mean he had re-defined gravity nor math--that, in time, such play will come with a price. we appreciated his candor and lack of self-delusion, so far.
he went on to explain that since he was playing 2000 separate games of something like 200-1200 hands each, never know till any given game-day is over, that his entire one-day focus was to be hard as heck to kill and to approach his bet sizing with an eye toward giving an intelligent chance for decent variance to push him into the positive while also keeping a sharp eye to preserving his hundred units. he spent his early hours on the down-side flat betting till almost hopeless then cautiously increasing his bets to where a bit of positive luck would send him to positive and back to really conservative----he knows he cant make it happen but he CAN scramble intelligently in those early hours to preserve his bankroll but allow chances for positive variance to get him even. if the day is getting late and he has been down, he may just have to settle for even and go home.
some days, we all know it is gonna get mighty late in the day and he is gonna be, say, 60 units down and the clock and his bankroll might call for risky, silly-even, 4 unit bets with some kinda, voodoo-like "bet up if winning" progression, hoping to get to even, which will happen by shear luck some times and other times......100 unit loss. it has been a LONG day and he kept his powder dry all day, periodically offering the cards and variance a random, non-advantaged, voodoo opportunity to return him to even or positive--he always knew he couldnt MAKE it happen, he was just putting out plenty of well-crafted chances and, though on most days, his ship WILL come in, no one is surprised he will lose 100 periodically---he chose this "all or none" ending because it is more "fun" and if you think about it long enough, the math of pressing for 100 unit loss or win/breakeven will be similar enough to adding up non-tilt, 20, 40 and 60 unit losses.
we are a little weary with this sincere fellow and his own, personal notions but indulge him when he says, "understand, i am REALLY hard to beat for 100 units---if i played that 1 unit loses 4 hands and the 2 units loses 4 hands = 12 units and it is early enough in the day, i may try flat betting 1 unit again to just get at least some of it back before trying 2 units again---i am just looking for the same positive variance the counter is and if i offer enough chances to bet up, without blindly demanding it with continued high bets while losing, i figure that most days will either find me up or successful at scrambling back to even. sure, if 12 hours of such and my ship does not come in, i toss a hail mary to press for resolution and start over the next day."
we are getting a little ear-fatigue at this point and have really heard nothing new, though his well-thought-out understanding of how preserving flat-betting can be and just when it is that the desperation of increasing the flat bet is justified, does seem to separate this voodooist from some with approaches that ask more than the game is very often going to give---the variance this guy is asking for is reasonable, especially over a disciplined, 12 hour day.
forgive us when we barely hear him detailing the same old stuff about betting up when he is winning and how he sometimes wins a hundred units, 80, 60, 40 or whatever--been there, done that, believe it--lotta voodoo there too, thinks he is playing with "house money" or doesnt realize how much of a good win he sometimes gives back etc.
finally, we say to him, "sounds great, champ--kinda sounds familiar, tell us something new because you really only wound up playing one, continuous round of blackjack, no advantage, so we know how this story ends---you lost 1/2%."
when he tells us he won some kinda boatload of money, we are unsure if he is lying, enjoyed some crazy-variance OR, MIGHT there be something to what he says?
the key to understanding why he is telling the truth is in those first hands they all played. for one moment, his 8 losses and 5 wins = 3 unit win DID "change the math". now, if, like the counter, he just worked this exact same program of flat bet, lose, increase.... for a million hands, i think we can confidently predict that, unlike the counter, he will have lost one half percent. however, this guy is a weasel.
what he did was construct one day in which he elected to end the day when the tally was one of two things: BETTER than he deserved so the little weasel went home to bed with a win or breakeven after being down, even though he LOST more hands than he won. the second outcome was he got EXACTLY what he deserved. some days, he enjoyed positive variance so he had yet another win--"deserved" this time. other days, he absolutely could not catch a 12-hour break of positive variance good enough to get him even--he lost but he absolutely had it coming and all his voodoo machinations cost him was the infrequent day of slightly increased average-bet with a loss--EXACTLY what he deserved.
now, if you are really sharp, you have recognized the 3 questions that must be framed: 1) will his approach DECREASE the win he had coming on days of positive variance? and 2) if we tell him to drop dead and run the tape on his million hands, in a row, as WE know the 2000 days is malarky, it is all just one long run, are we stupid enough to believe he will NOT suffer the same 1/2% loss of any non-advantage player? 3) bottom line, won't his hundred unit loss days exceed his total winnings?
question one answer: some days his approach WILL actually sabotage what could have been a bigger win BUT, since he is generally "betting up while winning and down while losing", he will find SOME "lucky" (but expected) very long run, high-bet days and he will bet less when it is not happening so, NO it will not cost him in the long run.
questions 2&3 answer: end of a million hands, we will find, just like we did in auditing those first few hands, that this guy has done what seems impossible--he has posted a million hands that were not advantage-play but he MADE MONEY off of total dollars bet.
WHY?, HOW? unlike the flat-bet, basic strategy guy and the counter who posted "honest," followed-the-rules data and got expected results, the contengencist posted results that he had worked very hard, every single day, to make represent his "exploitation" of momentary decent variance to post a win for that one day, often in spite of more losses than wins that day. he winds up posting these chosen-when-and-how-by-him data points that, in fact, have more large unit wins than losses and therefore, more net winnings than losings (even taking into account his 100 unit losses)--weird irony that this is how the counter got his win--by winning more of the larger bets. two lifetime winners who came at it by very different routes----i respect both but find the contengencist's approach more relaxing and more like a good hunting trip/football game---you deploy crafty tools and hope for a little luck when needed and every day has an outcome, win or lose, brought home some supper or didn't.
i am trying hard to be clear but if you still dont see it, let me take another run at the assertions that it is all one long run game and when you stop and start does not matter: that is entirely true if one is following any number of approaches but if the approach is that one refuses to post the data point till they have had a chance to weasel out a win, that bet sizing is contingent on the situation needed to set up a little positive variance giving a disproportionate win, even on a day with a lot more losing hands than wins, they will wind up posting hands for the million hand audit that have more larger bet wins than losses. they did NOT blindly, drone-like follow any given approach, they constructed, many times a day, favorable scenarios in which, should a little variance come their way, they salvage a win from a loss and on days variance favors them in the first place, they kick the door down---not a fair fight and not negated by the infrequent enough days when they take the beating of which ugly-variance made them fully deserving.
lemme know.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks