consecutive winning/loosing sessions

[sagefr0g]

You are not “trapping” the variance, you are only slowing it down. You are not escaping the negative variance by walking away with a win. The only way to escape that negative variance is to quit playing forever. You are not trapping the positive variance either, you are only limiting the size of the wins. Your wins and losses are just a big as mine but yours are spread out over several sessions.
-Sonny-

one minor point of contention here Sonny. my contention is we are both correct on this point. no i haven't escaped negative variance but i have it trapped for however short a duration. the point is and it is a miniscule one but that represents an increase in bankroll. there is potential there for an improvement in risk of ruin hence potential for increased betting which represents an increase in ev (however miniscule) does it not?

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Sonny]

no i haven't escaped negative variance but i have it trapped for however short a duration. the point is and it is a miniscule one but that represents an increase in bankroll. there is potential there for an improvement in risk of ruin hence potential for increased betting which represents an increase in ev (however miniscule) does it not?

Well, maybe. If I understand you correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) then you are saying that a system that produces frequent small wins will give the player more chances to increase their betting levels. Basically, a proportional bettor who is constantly resizing their bets in relation to their bankroll will benefit from small steady wins more than wild swings.

I agree with your logic but I don't know much of an effect such a plan would have. Such a small bankroll increase (one SD above EV for a session) probably wouldn't be enough of a bankroll increase to raise your bets. It would take an increase of at least 100 units or more to trigger a change in a player's betting pattern. By following a stop-win limit you are cutting your chances of having a big bankroll increase during a single session, or even a few consecutive sessions. You'll get that big win just as often, but the journey will take longer.

In general I don't think that such a strategy will have any effect on the win rate. Both a "limit" player and a "free" player will experience the same swings and adjust their bets at the same time. The "free" player will hit those increase/decrease points sooner but the "limit" player will savor their good fortune more often. There is a psychological advantage for some players, but not a mathematical one.

It certainly is an interesting concept though. There might be a gem in there somewhere.

-Sonny-

 

[Sonny]

can you explain in laymans terms how it is that statistical effects follow an individual (ie. a person) instead of getting all co-mingled with other individuals 'personal' statistics?

Who says they don't? Just like your lifetime is really one big "session" divided into individual trips, humans are really one big life form divided into individual beings. Sweet Lady Variance is free to dance with any of us at any time. As you can see from my graph, there have been times when she has been very kind, very cruel, or completely ignored me for days at a time. If you compare the graphs of everyone in the world you would find a common balance. What seem like random events in your life are just a smaller part of Variance's perpetual dance.

Now if that doesn't blow your mind! :laugh:

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

Who says they don't? Just like your lifetime is really one big "session" divided into individual trips, humans are really one big life form divided into individual beings. Sweet Lady Variance is free to dance with any of us at any time. As you can see from my graph, there have been times when she has been very kind, very cruel, or completely ignored me for days at a time. If you compare the graphs of everyone in the world you would find a common balance. What seem like random events in your life are just a smaller part of Variance's perpetual dance.

Now if that doesn't blow your mind! :laugh:

-Sonny-

actually i suspected that your synopsis was how it works. i think i was hoping it might be otherwise. if it were otherwise one could play the identical game on ones home computer wait for the worst run of negative fluctuation one could imagine and then go to the casino and have a good likelyhood of raking in some positive fluctuation or at least experience some sucessful ev.
but on the other hand i wondered really what was the case for reasons as follows. say i'm playing a lot of really nice high tc shoes and i'm not getting blackjacks, my double downs are floundering, splits are faultering, basic strategy is bombing along with the proper departures. well when this happens to me i think in my mind oh well this bodes well for the future. these plays are supposed to work more often than not. so i further think well i've burnt up some negative fluctuation in a positive expectation state of affairs. so good happenings should be comming my way when the next positive expectation state of affairs arises. it doesn't necessarily have to come around my way but the chances are good. well thats how i think as that sort of thing happens but i suppose the really proper way to view it is as i continue to play in positive expectation states that my chances for good things to happen are good and not that the past events had anything to do with it.
thank you for you reply i believe it's helped me to put my thoughts about these matters in better order.
but one last thought on this issue. if the later thinking is the proper way to view the matters that i outlined then wouldn't it also be true that say for instance in my case where i've had an extremely lot of luck and experienced a lot of positive fluctuation on top of a lot of good ev that those past events should not cause me to think that my future play should have a commensorate amount of negative fluctuation that would even things out so to speak.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Mikeaber]

Frog, man, something just isn't ringing logical to me with this discussion. Anyone who counts knows that if you are in, let's say a 6-D game and round after round of low cards hits, bringing the count up, that you can look forward to getting high cards and an advantage over the dealer.

However, I do not think that just because you have experienced a series of negative fluctuation sessions that just as night follows day, you are going to encounter a positive fluctuation in your next session. Fluctuations are not the result of cause and effect as is the advantage you get when a deck of cards has been made rich by removing a lot of the small cards.

Fluctuations are not predictable. I see them more in terms of what happens when betting red or black on a roulette table. It doesn't matter how many consecutive times "black" is hit....black is just as likely to hit the next spin as is red.

Is not the expectation concerning fluctuation on your next blackjack session being positive because the last 5 were negative predictable with the same rate of accuracy as predicting the color that a roulette ball is going to land on?

I think that the negative and positive fluctuations of Blackjack are a factor totally beyond our control and also beyond our ability to predict. They are just a "factor" in our chosen game.

Then again, maybe I'm missing the entire point of this discussion.

 

[sagefr0g]

Frog, man, something just isn't ringing logical to me with this discussion. Anyone who counts knows that if you are in, let's say a 6-D game and round after round of low cards hits, bringing the count up, that you can look forward to getting high cards and an advantage over the dealer.

However, I do not think that just because you have experienced a series of negative fluctuation sessions that just as night follows day, you are going to encounter a positive fluctuation in your next session. Fluctuations are not the result of cause and effect as is the advantage you get when a deck of cards has been made rich by removing a lot of the small cards.

Fluctuations are not predictable. I see them more in terms of what happens when betting red or black on a roulette table. It doesn't matter how many consecutive times "black" is hit....black is just as likely to hit the next spin as is red.

Is not the expectation concerning fluctuation on your next blackjack session being positive because the last 5 were negative predictable with the same rate of accuracy as predicting the color that a roulette ball is going to land on?

I think that the negative and positive fluctuations of Blackjack are a factor totally beyond our control and also beyond our ability to predict. They are just a "factor" in our chosen game.

Then again, maybe I'm missing the entire point of this discussion.

Mike i agree with you totaly except for your thoughts about the possibility of controlling negative and positive fluctuations. i don't think one can predict anything about them except that they will happen (in the post above i was referring to what i believe was some erroneous thinking about the matter that i'm prone to). control is another matter, degree of control is also another matter. as an aside consider an interesting scenerio. you play a slot machine (knowing its a losing proposition in the long run) but guess what you hit it for $1,000,000.99 . (note: the 99 cents :devil: )
well any way you just played a negative expectation game and came up with that poultry sum. what do you think that would do for your ev as a ap ?
you trapped a million if your smart and don't lose it all back to the slots. now play blackjack advantage play. what i'm interested in is attempting to apply the same sort of principle to advantage play. please know that i'm just kicking around ideas here. i don't know how to control fluctuations but i'm definately interested in finding a way. i think Parrando's Parodox may hold a key. for me it's a load of fun and who knows someday maybe there will be a gem of slight advantage found there as Mr. May's article alluded to as far as gleaning advantage ideas from 'voodo' ideas.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[JAXBOY]

Three losing seshs and two winning seshs for me... but I'm just starting out.

Sonny, Sagefrog - how do you guys play? bet spreads, wong in/out, shoes/sd, etc.... thanks for sharing your charts.

 

[sagefr0g]

well damm i mis-spoke my thoughts here:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g
no i haven't escaped negative variance but i have it trapped for however short a duration. the point is and it is a miniscule one but that represents an increase in bankroll. there is potential there for an improvement in risk of ruin hence potential for increased betting which represents an increase in ev (however miniscule) does it not?
i meant to type:
no i haven't escaped negative variance but i have trapped THE RESULTS OF POSITIVE FLUCTUATION for however short a duration. the point is and it is a miniscule one but that represents an increase in bankroll. there is potential there for an improvement in risk of ruin hence potential for increased betting which represents an increase in ev (however miniscule) does it not?
well anyway i think you got my point despite how i stated it.

Well, maybe. If I understand you correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) then you are saying that a system that produces frequent small wins will give the player more chances to increase their betting levels. Basically, a proportional bettor who is constantly resizing their bets in relation to their bankroll will benefit from small steady wins more than wild swings.

that is not exactly what i was getting at but i see what you are saying and the fact of the matter is that this could work equaly well for the 'limit' player and the 'free' player. so probably the 'free' player would do better in the long run as he will probably be getting in more play.
honestly i don't know for sure what the implications are of what i'm saying i was only trying to make the point of the 'limit' player temporaily trapping the results of positive fluctuation. and again i realize that the 'free' player also traps that positive fluctuation only difference between the two being the limit player has it trapped for a longer span of time. at any rate the trapping of the dough is the first step one would want to make to achieve a Parrondo Parodox like achievement.

I agree with your logic but I don't know much of an effect such a plan would have. Such a small bankroll increase (one SD above EV for a session) probably wouldn't be enough of a bankroll increase to raise your bets. It would take an increase of at least 100 units or more to trigger a change in a player's betting pattern. By following a stop-win limit you are cutting your chances of having a big bankroll increase during a single session, or even a few consecutive sessions. You'll get that big win just as often, but the journey will take longer.

thats the problem i see. the bankroll increase doesn't seem big enough to make a differance. but over time those small wins add up and then the proportional betting could come into play. this may give the 'limit' player an advantage in that he can take a lot of time to consider his next move. of course the 'free' player can adjust his bets on the fly according to his bankroll. but i don't think the bankroll issue is the whole story if one wants to achieve a Parrodo's Parodox like sucess. i think the key lay in the nature of the game played next after the trapping is made. that is what seems to me the impossible part to control. however the fact that counters have the advantage in the long run means that what we are looking for in the next step to achieving Parrodo's Parodox like success will happen!
so the outline would look like this:
step one trap the result of positive fluctuation.
step two let nature take it's course as far as advantage play is concerned.
result in time positive expectation.
of course this is really just what happens when we just plain count cards so there must be something else one would have to do to make a Parrodo's Parodox like success be an added advantage to what we already have. i don't think that avoiding negative fluctuation is the answer. the answer must be in enhancing that effect that is already there. what ever it would be should work for the 'limit' player just about as well as the 'free' player excepting that the 'limit' player might have an advantage of plotting his next move over time where as the 'free' player would have to think on his feet.
thinking and creativity may be key here. we already know it is key in advantage play in comparison to ploppy play.
so obviously i don't have the answer. truly i don't fully understand Parrodo's Parodox either. but i do get John May's drift about gleaning knowledge and hopefully advantage from voodo ideas and the like.

In general I don't think that such a strategy will have any effect on the win rate. Both a "limit" player and a "free" player will experience the same swings and adjust their bets at the same time. The "free" player will hit those increase/decrease points sooner but the "limit" player will savor their good fortune more often. There is a psychological advantage for some players, but not a mathematical one.

agreed sort of. saving for a rainy day is a known wise principle. saving has it's advantages. can that advantage be applied to blackjack. i suspect so. i expect you would say "time is money" and i'd have to go along with that especially for advantage play.
i'm one that respects some of the old saws. you know things like your mother used to tell you.... "don't pick your nose" great for avoiding and spreading colds, "wash your hands when you get done in the bathroom" another good one.... "eat your vegtables" heh, heh the list goes on and on.
as far as the psychological advantage that can affect the play which can affect the math :violin: .

It certainly is an interesting concept though. There might be a gem in there somewhere.

-Sonny-

fun too especially if it could help produce benjamins :toast:
oh well back to the drawing board.... i wont say anything about my fantasy thoughts on the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the 'spin' of two 'like' cards occupying a players first two cards. Zengrifter would throw me outta here for sure then.

very best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[sagefr0g]

Three losing seshs and two winning seshs for me... but I'm just starting out.

Sonny, Sagefrog - how do you guys play? bet spreads, wong in/out, shoes/sd, etc.... thanks for sharing your charts.

basicaly i just do what Sonny tells me i should :laugh: except when i'm a bad boy :devil:
and that is hi/lo system, basic strategy, illustrious 18, wong in when i can, definately wong out. my bet scheme is tc=0 0 or 1 unit, tc=1 0 or 1 unit (these are where i actually think strategically while playing ala Schlesinger). then tc=2 2 units, tc=3 4 units, tc=4 6 units tc>=5 8units or maybe 6x6 units. i never ever, ever overbet (ala Zengrifter). i play shoes. i'm guilty of an occasional purposful misplay of basic strategy when trapped in a negative shoe. i try to make that on marginal situations and when it is good for camo. (that ala me)
best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[zengrifter]

7 wins/ 4 losses - each has happened many times. See my recent results below. The blue line is my EV and the red lines are my actual results, both in units. As you can see I'm coming off of a big negative flux (hopefully!). Even during that time I never had more than 4 consecutive losing sessions.

Sonny is due for a BIG upward swing! zg

 

[Sonny]

Sonny is due for a BIG upward swing! zg

That's what I keep telling my teammates! :laugh:

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

By following a stop-win limit you are cutting your chances of having a big bankroll increase during a single session, or even a few consecutive sessions. You'll get that big win just as often, but the journey will take longer.

In general I don't think that such a strategy will have any effect on the win rate. Both a "limit" player and a "free" player will experience the same swings and adjust their bets at the same time. The "free" player will hit those increase/decrease points sooner but the "limit" player will savor their good fortune more often. There is a psychological advantage for some players, but not a mathematical one.

yeah one of the things about my psychology is that i tend to be goal orientated. i know the long run goal is the best perspective for the card counter. i definately want and seek achieving the long term goal. when i attack problems i've always found that breaking the problem up into smaller parts is helpful. i'm happiest when working on a problem if i overcome small obsticles at a time. i also find that when working on a big problem that i do better when i take frequent breaks. but one thing i have a tendency to do is set short term goals as well as long term. if i reach a short term goal quickly i'm always ready to take that break. i realize that in blackjack that isn't going to help my long term goal and infact it will probably stretch out the time it takes to reach the long term goal. well perhaps one of the self discipline aspects of advantage play one needs to keep under controll is the desire to reach the long term goal as quickly as possible .
an example here:
i'm contemplating a road trip. i want to pull down at least a grand or it just isn't going to be worth while for me because of the travel expenses ect.
i'm figuring it is going to take a minimun of 26 hours of play to pull it off judging from my historical record (which i know isn't the best way to judge it) i know this is a optimistic goal but i can live with it if i don't reach it or even end up losing money as i know i've still got the long term good prospects ahead.
this fits fairly well with my win rate if i have some positive fluctuation on the trip. the thing about me though is even though i'd be going with the plan in mind of playing 26 hours or more, if i hit that one grand goal quickly i'd be one to quit play and either head home early or maybe go on a research mission of some sort. it's funny i really enjoy playing blackjack but once i reach a short term goal i'd just as soon stop and do something else.
now if i'm experiencing negative fluctuation it's the reverse for me, i'll hang in there and fignt tooth and nail until i either reach my goal or lose the battle. and that aspect of it is fun for me also, except if i lose the battle. but i know there is always another day for another battle so i get over it and come back another day, and another day after that to hopefully win the majority of the battles as is the best we can expect as card counters i should suspect.
another thing i'm faced with on the psychology side of things is that i mostly am just able to play this one really nice joint and i really need to limit my presence there to some degree. quiting play as soon as i can i think helps that aspect.

best regards
mr fr0g

 

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

***if i'm within one standard deviation above my expected hourly rate i will usually quit for the day or at least take a break for a while and feel the glory.
if i'm within one standard deviation below my expected hourly rate i'll keep on playing until i come out winner or lose my trip bankroll. the way i figure it the only negative affect this has is that i short myself a little bit of that premium playing time but i still get to carry home that high when i have winning sessions***

... You will be enjoying your small wins but your losses will still be quite large. You will often enjoy several winning sessions only to lose most of it back in one disastrous session. Again, there is nothing wrong with this as long as you understand and expect those results. Our graphs will end up in the same place but they will look somewhat different. Notice that yours looks more like a saw tooth (frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss) whereas mine looks more like a wild sine wave (occasional big wins and losses).

yes that is exactly how i percieve the graphs and your analysis is uncannily correct. in my humble opinion you undoubtably have a solid understanding of this issue. i wish i could say the same for myself but i've at least got a layman's understanding of what is going on.
please consider the following thoughts:
here is how i percieve the results of (as outlined above) my exit strategy.
in a nutshell (as you above concurred) ..... frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss.
i've only got my history (as depicted by my graphs) to go by at this point. i intend to simulate (with hopefully millions of sessions) the approach i've outlined above. my hope is that the simulation will bear out what my history points towards. that being that there are frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss. the implication of this would be that if there are significantly more wins than loss's that one would be justified to bet higher proportionately (than traditional ROR allows for) over the course of a string of winning sessions and losing sessions and realize a gain as the result since theoreticaly there are more winning sessions than losing. there would need to be some calculations made as to how such higher proportional betting would be cast with in the framework of minimun bets, maximun bets and ramping. but the concept seems feasable if the more winning sessions to losing sessions phenomenon holds true.
anyone seeing a flaw in my reasoning please let me know and save me the work of setting up these simulations.
hmm couldn't sleep thinking about this. got up and edited the message. it ocurred it might be needed to set a stop loss or time limit the play so as the losing session couldn't eat up the profits. but the trip bankroll would limit it anyway. the winning sessions are usually short sessions hour or less.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Sonny]

…there are frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss. the implication of this would be that if there are significantly more wins than loss's that one would be justified to bet higher proportionately (than traditional ROR allows for) over the course of a string of winning sessions and losing sessions and realize a gain as the result since theoreticaly there are more winning sessions than losing…the concept seems feasable if the more winning sessions to losing sessions phenomenon holds true.

You’ve taken card counting and turned it into a progression system.

We are not concerned with the frequency of our winning/losing sessions, only their net effect. A progression system player may have more winning sessions than losing ones but the magnitude of the losing sessions will overwhelm his small wins. In the long run his expectation will be the same as if he were flat betting the same average bet. Since he cannot predict the outcome of any particular session (that losing session may come at any time! ) he cannot take advantage of the "streaks." A stop-loss player will suffer the same fate. Even though they are altering the frequency of their wins/losses, their end results will not change.

If you were to increase your betting levels then your bankroll fluctuations will be larger even though your advantage is the same. That means you will be more likely to hit an extremely large negative swing which wipes out your bankroll.

Think of ROR as a “worst case scenario” for your bankroll. A player with a 100 unit bankroll will go broke if he loses 100 minimum bets (only about 10-15 max bets!) during a negative swing. Such a small swing is very likely to happen. His “worst case scenario” is actually very common so his ROR is very high. A player with a 1,000 unit bankroll is much safer because a negative swing of 1,000 units is much less likely. He has given himself more of a “cushion” to absorb the short-term variance. Without a big enough cushion, even a smart player will go broke during a fairly common negative swing.

-Sonny-

 

[EasyRhino]

We are not concerned with the frequency of our winning/losing sessions, only their net effect.

To preface, I don't have any actual math to back this up, but it seems reasonable...

If one is an advantage player, capping their trip wins, and allowing unlimited losses, their overall EV is still the same (slightly positive). The idea is that the cumulative units won over lots of small wins will still be more than the occassional monster loss, and there's no reason to expect that it wouldn't. Effectively, the "streaks" where all the money is made wouldn't be during one trip any more, but over several trips.

This requires the same three assumptions necessary for any advantage play:
1) The player is indeed playing with a statistical advantage.
2) They are playing enough hands to approach "the long run".
3) The bankroll is sufficient to absorb the expected catastrophic losses.

The main con of the system seems to be that total playing time would be reduced, lowering total return. The main advantage is the more frequent ego stroking from having winning trips. Which can be priceless.

May I ask a noob question, what software are y'all using to graph your bankroll histories?

 

[Sonny]

The idea is that the cumulative units won over lots of small wins will still be more than the occassional monster loss, and there's no reason to expect that it wouldn't.

You hit the nail on the head, my friend! Any player’s results (AP, ploppy, BS player) will be the same regardless of how they break up their sessions.

The main con of the system seems to be that total playing time would be reduced, lowering total return.

True. It will also increase the time it takes to approach the long run. However, a recreational player probably won’t mind. Some players are happy to reach their expectation in their lifetime while others are looking to hit the long run every year. I imagine that the vast majority of players are satisfied knowing that they will have some extra money to spend somewhere down the line.

The main advantage is the more frequent ego stroking from having winning trips. Which can be priceless.

I can’t argue with that!

May I ask a noob question, what software are y'all using to graph your bankroll histories?

I use Excel or Microsoft Works Spreadsheet (my new laptop only had a 30-day trial of Office…stupid Microsoft!).

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

abstracted from previous post

Again, there is nothing wrong with this as long as you understand and expect those results. Our graphs will end up in the same place but they will look somewhat different. Notice that yours looks more like a saw tooth (frequent small wins followed by a steeper loss) whereas mine looks more like a wild sine wave (occasional big wins and losses).

........

You’ve taken card counting and turned it into a progression system.

lol yes i thought of that and i did see the similarity.:yikes:
but that is not what i'm proposing any more than the martingale like nature of our betting up into an advantage is a true martingale when we are counting cards. keep in mind that i am playing a winning game in the long run as your previous post on top alluded to. i am proposing raising the level of betting above what ROR calls for by what ever amount the net number of win session to net number of loss session hashs out to be in the long run gleaned from a multimillion round simulation. in what manner? i'm not sure about that yet.

We are not concerned with the frequency of our winning/losing sessions, only their net effect. A progression system player may have more winning sessions than losing ones but the magnitude of the losing sessions will overwhelm his small wins.

right. i'm not proposing an orthodox progression. it is not the frequency of wins, loss's that i'm banking on. it is the relative number of winning sessions to losing sessions over the long run. i would be banking on the (hopefuly) fact that the #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.
basicly the same thing the casino banks on with respect to blackjack hands but i would be doing it on sessions.
if i'm playing a winning long run game and i succeed in constricting what i win to a lot of small sessions relative to fewer losing sessions the result should be
#winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run. and yes a typical losing session would constitute a considerably larger capital loss than a typical winning session capital gain. the point would be to raise the overall amount bet above and beyond what your normal ROR calls for across the board so to speak to take advantage of the fact that #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.

In the long run his expectation will be the same as if he were flat betting the same average bet. Since he cannot predict the outcome of any particular session (that losing session may come at any time! ) he cannot take advantage of the "streaks." A stop-loss player will suffer the same fate. Even though they are altering the frequency of their wins/losses, their end results will not change.

exactly and this is in a very real sense what we are banking against when we initially set a ROR that is acceptable to us. we are however playinng a long run winning game even though we still know there is a gamble there. i'm only proposing increasing the ROR by a small amount that would take into consideration the fact that constraining size of a winning session should in the long run make #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.

If you were to increase your betting levels then your bankroll fluctuations will be larger even though your advantage is the same. That means you will be more likely to hit an extremely large negative swing which wipes out your bankroll.

Think of ROR as a “worst case scenario” for your bankroll. A player with a 100 unit bankroll will go broke if he loses 100 minimum bets (only about 10-15 max bets!) during a negative swing. Such a small swing is very likely to happen. His “worst case scenario” is actually very common so his ROR is very high. A player with a 1,000 unit bankroll is much safer because a negative swing of 1,000 units is much less likely
. He has given himself more of a “cushion” to absorb the short-term variance. Without a big enough cushion, even a smart player will go broke during a fairly common negative swing.

-Sonny-

great explaination. i understand the ROR concept even better now!
i'm truley not insisting that i'm correct in what i suspect may be a small advantage here. i think it is worth investigating and i'm going to try and simulate it with my clunky lil simulator if i can.
admittedly a large string of losing sessions could prove a disastor but that is the truth of the matter regardless if your ROR is a few percentage points higher or lower.
thank you very much for responding.

very best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[jimpenn]

Trips not Sessions

I don't keep track of sessions. I keep track of trips. This year (Nov 8th last) I have made 38 trips. In January, 2006 I had a hell of a run in Vegas for 4 days followed by another big run in AC the following week. I was up $6,000.
I lost four consecutive trips playing in the MidWest during February losing what I won and an additional $8,000. Took two weeks off to get head together and hit AC winning four consecutive trips in four weeks. Recovered lost money and was even. Played even for the next 5 months (15 trips) and then brokeout with a Indiana Trip winning $2,200. The last three months I made 11 trips increasing my BR to $14,000. I have an additional 4 out-of-state trips planned for 2007, ending playing Vegas on a 4 casino fully comp'd trip for 15 days. My Vegas home is the Hilton, and it will probably be my last since the wrecking ball will hit it in Feburary. Yep, Good Bye LVH. I'm not a true AP, since I use a simple unbalanced count, but extremely aggressive backcounter and don't waste any time wonging out of shoes after 1 1/2 -2 Decks hitting and run. In addition, I only play in an area with at least three casinos within a 5/50 mile radius. I played Evansville, IN once this year, but never again. I won but I became a bedpost after three days and they started shuffling up on me after second session of trip. I had another day booked and didn't want to travel 100 miles to Chicago so I just played last day wonging out and flat betting with positive count. I won a few hundred after expenses on that trip, but too far from another casino.