Big Swing in Detroit

[MrPill]

Played twice this week in Detroit.

First day I was about 20 units ahead after a couple hours of play and came into an extremely high count in the second half of a shoe. Everyone around me was winning hands and I was being given a ton of double down hands. Ended up loosing 25 units before the shoe was over. Ended this sessions down 5 units.

Had the chance to play at the same place 3 days later and ended up having many neutral to slightly positive shoes. It was as if I could not loose a hand. After 3 hours of play I ended up 44 units.

Good thing for me the table minimum was higher on my second outing and resulted in my best one time $ win to date!

I love this game!

Pill

 

[Rob McGarvey]

It makes you crazy don't it? I mean we study so hard to get our counting perfect and then you play into a nice flat game and can't stop for winning. Don't fall in love with those chips. You'll be kissing them goodbye and hello so many times your lips will get sore! ;>

PS Thought you were mentioning Calgary kicking Det's ASS in hockey. What a 2.4:1 payoff that was.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Good show! But don't call that a big swing. Last time I played, I was down 60 units in one hour. Almost seems impossible, doesn't it? Three hours later i walked out of this place 12 units up. My units are green. It's so painful, but I've gotten used to it finally. Trips like yours are helpful, build up confidence.

 

[CanKen]

A few days ago I wonged in at a decent count at a table with only two others. Count quickly rose to the max; I bet my max - and lost 80 units in about 12 minutes. Couldn't even win an insurance bet. Those are the ones that are hard to take. Everything is right except the dealer gets the good cards and you get stiffs. I seem to be getting used to it. It doesn't ruin my day the way it would have a couple of years ago.
(P.S.- Got most of it back yesterday.)

CK

 

[The Mayor]

Swing anecdotes

Playing a shoe max bet is about 12 units, so you only swung throug 3 or 4 max bets, which can happen in a single hand with DAS.

Here are a few swings I've encountered ...

...I had my largest one shoe win ever followed by my largest one shoe loss ever. Consecutive shoes. A 200+ unit swing in 2 shoes.

...After years of play, I had my largest one-day loss ever (to that point) followed on three consecutive days by even larger losses.

...A few years back, I made more in one 4 hour session than I made in the next three years that followed that session.

If you're not getting huge swings, then you're not putting enough money out there at the good counts.

--Mayor

 

[suicyco maniac]

Sounds familiar

Sounds very simiar to the day I had last month. First shoe I sit down at the count skyrockets and I start firing away and lose 83 units in one shoe...managed to get back to almost even but made sure to leave while I was still down a little over 2K

 

[Stealth Bomber]

Re: Swing anecdotes

If you're not getting huge swings, then you're not putting enough money out there at the good counts.

Thanks for the reminder. I've been playing a little tentative for a few months.

Good time for the following question:

Does anyone ever use the 'let it ride' act to the end of a shoe while the C is a monster? In other words; Does anyone ever try and pull off a big win with just letting their bets parlay until they either lose all the earnings of the shoe or maybe pull off a big win and clean out the entire tray?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Re: Letting it ride at the end of the shoe

I've been tempted, and one day I might. One thing that holds me back is that I don't know all the playing indexes on the huge counts. If I ever do it it will be in a game that has LSR so I can bail on a stiff. All the LSR indexes I know because they do wonders for your standard deviation.

This is something I'd do at the end of a big winning night. Just imagine, you are up $2500, and on your last hand of the night you have a TC=+10, so you put out two hands of $1K each, knowing even if you lose them both you will leave a winner up above your EV. What's the worst that can happen? I'll tell you. Dealer shows A, you take insurance and lose. You were dealt two 11's, you dig deep to DD on both. Stiff and stiff. Dealer rolls a 9. Best night of your life to worst night of your life in one hand.

 

[Stealth Bomber]

Re: Letting it ride at the end of the shoe

Best night of your life to worst night of your life in one hand

There are much better odds it will be just the opposite.

 

[The Mayor]

Bad idea

>There are much better odds it will be just the opposite.

No, that's false. You have a better than 50% chance of losing your initial bet, probably closer to a 55% chance of losing your initial bet. Remember, the way we make money in BJ is by splitting, doubling down, and blackjacks. That is what brings us back to the advantage.

If you overbet your bankroll consistently, then there is a 100% chance you will go broke. If you overbet yoru bankroll once in a while, you are introducing a huge amount of variance for very little EV.

I strongly discourage the move you posed. If you are up $2500 at the end of the night, that is your money, add it to your bankroll, resize your bets using the Kelly criterion, and make the proper bets next time around. Do not risk it all on a few monster counts.

--Mayor

 

[Stealth Bomber]

Still a little uncertain, need more please

You have a better than 50% chance of losing your initial bet, probably closer to a 55% chance of losing your initial bet.

I believe this to be true. However, given the benefit of extra aces & faces there is a better chance of hooking a BJ especially with two hands, which of course pays 3 to 2. Prior to your post above, I assumed the power of the aces are so much more in favor of the player that the pay-out advantage is there in behalf of the player even though the win rate is less than 50%. Also, if the D happens to show a bad card, we can split and double 'til the cows come home. Face cards included.

Based on what you said though, I can assume the pay advantage must still not be good enough to over bet our bank roll.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Re: Bad idea indeed

"If you overbet your bankroll consistently, then there is a 100% chance you will go broke. If you overbet your bankroll once in a while, you are introducing a huge amount of variance for very little EV."

I agree with most of what you said which is why I will probably do this move only in my sick and kinky fantasies. But I don't believe that there is a 100% chance of going broke if you consistently overbet. Nothing is 100% in this game.

There's a point well below the Kelly criterion where the chances of you increasing your bankroll to a proper Kelly level are greater than your risk of ruin, and that's what I shoot for.

 

[The Mayor]

Re: Bad idea indeed

>But I don't believe that there is a 100% chance of going broke if you consistently overbet. Nothing is 100% in this game.

People often mistake 100% with certain. They are not the same thing. Here is an example:

Play a game with a friend tossing a fair coin. If the coin is heads, pay him $1, if it is tails, he pays you $3. Every 2 tosses you expect to win $2, so you have an EV of 100%. Now toss the coin once. Even though your EV is 100%, you have a 50% chance of losing!

Likewise, pick a number at random between 0 and 1. It is 100% certain that you will pick an irrational number (the rationals have measure 0). That does not mean there are no rational numbers.

Don't confuse 100% with certain. They are not the same thing.

If you overbet your bankroll consistently betting 2 x kelly (or larger), chances are 100% that you will go broke.

--Mayor

 

[Stealth Bomber]

Still puzzled a little???

If you overbet your bankroll consistently (emphasis added) betting 2 x kelly (or larger), chances are 100% that you will go broke.

Mayor, thanks for the mathematical clarifications. I'm just not sure how you and A.M. are using the word 'consistently' though. Does it mean constantly?

I guess I'm still wondering how many bets and hands have to be played for there to be a 100% chance of going broke if an A.P. were to bet 2 X Kelly with a TC of +10?

 

[The Mayor]

Re: Still puzzled a little???

2xkelly depends only on the current count (which generates a current EV), and your current bankroll.

For example, if you have a $10,000 bankroll, and you have a TC of +10, for about a 4.5% advantage, full kelly would have you bet $450. 2xkelly would be a $900 bet in this situation.

I don't want to discuss voodoo, and betting absurdly large amounts at the end of a shoe for some strange reason is patently voodoo.

-Mayor

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Re: 100%, got it

Ah OK, as in "100% increase in profits". Different than the colloquial use of the number. Last fall I started counting $15 and $25 games with $1000 in my pocket. Last night I walked out of the casino with $8K. Lucky as hell, yes I know. Confucius say: better lucky than good. Best of all to be both!

 

[Inskipp]

Re: Still puzzled a little???

Mayor, sometimes really smart people skip steps in their explanations because it is obvious to them, but it is not obvious to us.

I believe you that it is voodoo but I don't understand why it is voodoo. When the count is very high, any bet has positive EV. And while CONSISTENTLY betting too high for the bankroll leads to ruin, an occasional bet too big for the bankroll, at +EV, wouldn't, would it?

 

[The Mayor]

Re: Still puzzled a little???

>an occasional bet too big for the bankroll, at +EV, wouldn't, would it?

If you are an advantage player, there is NEVER a time you should overbet your bankroll. There are NO circumstances under which it is ok to do so. If you are doing it once in a while it is still NOT ok.

Sorry to sound preachy. This is just the truth. There are no exceptions.

Now, if you are happy to play without an advantage, you are welcome to play and do if you like.

Betting too large is as sure are path to ruin as progressions or other flim-flam systems. Don't do it.

These are my last words on this. Maybe someone with more patience can continue.

--Mayor

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Re: Still puzzled a little???

OK Mayor I have patience, let me see if I can clarify. The use of the word "advantage" here and saying you don't have an advantage if you overbet your bankroll is misleading because when our simulators tell us we have a +1.8% initial bet advantage at TC+7 we have that advantage whether we are overbetting our bankrolls or not. In the big picture, you put yourself at a disadvantage as a gamer when you overbet because once you run out of money you have to stop playing, and the variance in blackjack is so high that we need a large ratio of bankroll to bet in order to be reasonably sure we will not have to stop playing. If the house was willing to extend you unlimited credit this wouldn't be an issue because your bankroll would be in effect unlimited.

There's this rule I have I call the rule of eight- I do not place a bet unless I have 8 times the amount available either in chips or cash right at that moment, enough for four splits and four doubles. I adopted this rule as a result of an unpleasant experience that caused me to have a losing night. Now if I have a good count I'm willing to bet 1/8 of the money I have in my possession because for that hand, the odds are in my favor, providing I have enough to split and double which is necessary for the odds to be in my favor. And if I lose it's not like I will be out of blackjack, this is just a part time job for me and I have enough regular income to easily fund another BJ bankroll should disaster strike. Let me clarify this- I am not 'consistently' overbetting the way the Mayor is admonishing against- I'm betting at the same level now as I was when I had 1/4 of the funds available, and I will probably be betting at the same level until I have a proper Kelly bankroll. So every time I have a winning night, which I and all counters do more often than not, a little bit of my problem goes away. Strict adherence to the Kelly criterion is a good idea for professionals who have no other source of income and who will be hitchhiking back to Mom's house should they lose their money but for the rest of us I'm a proponent of betting a little less conservatively to maximize the leverage we get from good counts.

 

[Rob McGarvey]

Interesting Thread

I have had this discussion in other forums with some amazing people, with excellent math skills, excellent table talents, you name it. The bottom line is you THINK you have a 1.8% advantage, so you apply that to your bankroll and place your bet. Half Kelly as is favored by many, full Kelly, but you are using what you know to make that bet. What if I am sitting there and have been watching the shuffle for the last few hours and I know what the count is but also know you are casting your net where there are no fish?? A little later you see the count go down to -TC and I push my black pawns into battle position. You think I have lost my marbles (always a good bet, take it! ;&gt but I know otherwise. You can have two professional sports capers going against each other, both betting whale loads of greens on their team. Who has the advantage? How big is that advantage? Do you really KNOW? Which guy is dealing voodoo and which guy actually using his brains? Well, maybe after the game we will know. Probably not. Why not? Variance, another thing we can quantify with a bag of numbers and a bowl of alphagetti.

Much of what we do is based on an approximation of what we think our edge is. I have been so sure of myself at times that I have stated "bet the farm on it," or just bet all your cattle, pigs, etc. I'm not talking about betting a portion of the bank here, I'm talking all of it. When I am so sure about the opportunity I will trust my calcs, even if there seems to be no advantage what so ever. I'll bet you everything that after the night time falls, the day will follow type of bet, even if the odds are -9900. I STILL have a 1% edge.