Female Player

[RJT]

However, as long as you have enough chips to split and double down a couple of times, you're not really over betting as much, or giving up much of an advantage (you might have to cut your play short in a hot shoe, which would hurt a little at the edges).

I agree to a point. And that point is that if you blow everything you've got right now, you may have to wait for a month or 2, maybe even longer and that is all time that you can no longer play. Size your bets appropriately and this bust out shouldn't happen. You are right it is more difficult to define with a replenishable bankroll, but down time needs to be taken into account.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

....

So, if the casino had a choice of black-chip card-counters, either one with a bankroll of $100,000, or ten with a bankroll of $10,000 (not playing in a team), they're going to pick the ten short-stacked loners each time. Because some of them are going to lose their money and be knocked out of action.

The casino can afford to ride out the winning streaks of civilians, for all but the very largest whales. It can also afford to ride out underbanked advantage players. But once you've got a player who has legitimite enough skills to gain an advantage, and enough money to stick with it, then they become a legitimate threat.

Well wait now, some of those short-stacked guys are going to have very good variance to begin with, reach "escape velocity" and never look back. The more there are of them, the more this is going to happen. Plus, some of the short-stacked players are going to be winning at their casino and losing at other casinos. So from the casino's perspective, unless they are applying ploppy math, it shouldn't make a difference.

A lot of the math that applies to online bonus hustling also applies to this kind of problem, just with different terms and conditions.

 

[RJT]

Well wait now, some of those short-stacked guys are going to have very good variance to begin with, reach "escape velocity" and never look back.

True, but as more of them won't reach this 'escape velocity' by being under funded in this way you are essentially no better than any other gambler pissing away your money.

RJT.

 

[Sonny]

If this were true the casino would be very smart to hire models to play blackjack and to talk to the male players and let the male players give them advice because men love to solve women's problems especially beautiful women.

That explains why they have "Pussycat Doll Pits" and "Bikinin Pits" at some casinos. It really makes you wonder why Hooters Casino went under. You've got to have REALLY bad accountants to mess that up! :grin:

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

True, but as more of them won't reach this 'escape velocity' by being under funded in this way you are essentially no better than any other gambler pissing away your money.

RJT.

Close. An individual player is in bad shape playing like this, but the casino is the one actually gambling.

You can compare it to a casino offering $10 slot machines with a 1.5% player edge and a N0 of 20,000 pulls. Most slot players will be ruined playing these machines, but the casino will ultimately be bankrupted by them, without question. "The players" as a collective will be the winners but no individual player is likely to be. Therefore when playing as an individual it is an unwise choice, unless properly funded.

 

[RJT]

Close. The fact that you are underfunded, depending on how dramatically means that even though the casino is playing at a disadvantage, as it has an essentially inexhaustable bankroll, it can afford to wait for that near inevitable negative swing that will put all your money in their coffers.
It doesn't matter that a tiny % of people will take off, you are still gambling that you'll be in that tiny %. As it's certainly no where near 50%, you are not playing
with an advantage, you're just waiting for the wipe out.
So despite the fact that if you combined all such players bankrolls they would win in the long run, they don't as they are not playing off a combined bankroll and each bankroll then has to suffer varience individually, not as a collective.

RJT.

 

[shadroch]

That explains why they have "Pussycat Doll Pits" and "Bikinin Pits" at some casinos. It really makes you wonder why Hooters Casino went under. You've got to have REALLY bad accountants to mess that up! :grin:

-Sonny-

Its my understanding that Hooters didn't go under at all.Didn't they simply sell out and make a very nice profit on the sale?
The CEO said the offer to buy it was unsolicited and was a very nice return on investment.If I recall correctly,they recieved almost 100,000 million in cash and the new guys took over the notes on the place.

 

[rogue1]

Hello Coz

It's hard to believe that we still think like this in 2007-use their thinking to your advantage. In Ben Mezrichs' great book Bringing Down The House a female team member is counting and winning big. While she's playing she's saying things like "I hope my husband finishes at the craps table soon,I want to go home." Bottom line: Use their sterotypes against them!

 

[ihate17]

Currently, very little cover

Just out of curiosity IH17, does your niece play fairly textbook when she's counting, or does she use much cover?

When she played and lived in Vegas she used more cover than she does today because most of her play is now in various California casinos and she does not play as often as she did a few years ago. Thing is, being a woman is still somewhat a form of cover at the start because the stereotype still exists.

ihate17

 

[ihate17]

I am getting into trouble here

Guess you guys will have to 86 me from the board because I think posting pictures would get me into trouble with the family, and if you knew how my family works, you might capitalize the word family.

Anyway, no AP would expect a real picture to be posted on the board unless you are into promoting yourself and not playing.

ihate17

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Close. The fact that you are underfunded, depending on how dramatically means that even though the casino is playing at a disadvantage, as it has an essentially inexhaustable bankroll, it can afford to wait for that near inevitable negative swing that will put all your money in their coffers.
It doesn't matter that a tiny % of people will take off, you are still gambling that you'll be in that tiny %. As it's certainly no where near 50%, you are not playing
with an advantage, you're just waiting for the wipe out.
So despite the fact that if you combined all such players bankrolls they would win in the long run, they don't as they are not playing off a combined bankroll and each bankroll then has to suffer varience individually, not as a collective.

RJT.

I was phrasing it from the perspective of a casino. If it were possible for casinos to offer high limit games with a player advantage off the top and high variance and make money, they would. But they would lose money. Being both the house and the players can't lose money, the players will definitely make money.

All I'm trying to say is that a casino cannot let an unlimited number of even underfunded advantage players run amok in their blackjack pits and not consider them a threat, expecting to make money off them. It can't happen; the casino doesn't have an advantage on their bets.

 

[EasyRhino]

I think the only way the casino would have a shot is if the underfunded players were continuously overbetting, to the point of increasing their bets as their bankroll grow to where they were still betting too much (a Kelly-based anti-Martingale?). But even then, the occasional very rare chucklehead is going to grow the bankroll to a point where his bankroll expanded past the point where he can support the maximum bet possible at the casino, and then this very lucky player would be able to just suckle at the teat of the casino all day.

 

[Kasi]

I think the easiest part about card-counting is counting the cards. Any 12 year old could do that and memorize index plays.

The hard part, to me anyway, is bet sizing, bankroll requirements, ramping etc.

If you're really an advantage player you will not be underfunded because you will know your risk of ruin and size your bets according to the bankroll you do have and the risk that is acceptable to you. You will not overbet your advantage because you know that's suicide. If you do not have the bankroll to support the proper bet unit and ramp and ROR, you will not play.

I have read being off by 1 on True Counts might not cost you that much.

Triple-Kelly - are u nuts?

 

[ScottH]

To anyone who has replied to my theory that being undercapitalized DOES NOT DECREASE YOUR ADVANTAGE. You disagree with me, and are trying to explain why I'm wrong. That's great, but please show me mathematically how you lose your advantage by overbetting. I have a pretty good HUNCH that noone can do this. Why? Because the size of your bet does not affect the advantage. You guys are talking like progression players. They think changing your bets can increase your advantage, and you guys say the size of your bets can decrease it.

So Shadroch, if I am on the wrong side like you say, PROVE IT. Using math, not words. Unless I'm being way off base in thinking math is useful in this game.

 

[Kasi]

To anyone who has replied to my theory that being undercapitalized DOES NOT DECREASE YOUR ADVANTAGE. You disagree with me, and are trying to explain why I'm wrong. That's great, but please show me mathematically how you lose your advantage by overbetting. I have a pretty good HUNCH that noone can do this. Why? Because the size of your bet does not affect the advantage. You guys are talking like progression players. They think changing your bets can increase your advantage, and you guys say the size of your bets can decrease it.

So Shadroch, if I am on the wrong side like you say, PROVE IT. Using math, not words. Unless I'm being way off base in thinking math is useful in this game.

If you do not understand why overbetting is bad deal 100 hands to yourself and pretend bet, say, one-fourth of your capital on each round. Recalculate your capital after each round. Your capital goes down fast even if you win more hands than you lose.

I do believe it can be mathematically proven that betting more than twice Kelly (optimal bet) will eventually bust you.

 

[ScottH]

If you do not understand why overbetting is bad deal 100 hands to yourself and pretend bet, say, one-fourth of your capital on each round. Recalculate your capital after each round. Your capital goes down fast even if you win more hands than you lose.

I do believe it can be mathematically proven that betting more than twice Kelly (optimal bet) will eventually bust you.

That just means you have a close to 100% ROR. It DOES NOT mean you don't have an advantage.

You never have a 100% ROR, even betting it all every single hand. You just have a really high ROR, but your advantage is still there, even though you are overbetting.

ROR and advantage are completely different things that people are getting confused. It really isn't that difficult. What a bunch of ploppies. At least I now know you don't need to know that much about blackjack to be considered a "pro". Good grief.

 

[RJT]

At least I now know you don't need to know that much about blackjack to be considered a "pro".

LMAO, seems to be very true as you consider yourself a budding one. Now wipe the drool off your chin child and try to keep up.
Advantage is something that manifests itself in the long run, not the short run.
Technically you have some sort of point, in that the likely hood of you winning that one particular hand does not change.
Unfortunately what your missing is that in the long run we talk about playing a game with x% advantage, and this is based on an how much you should expect to gain as a function of the overall amount that you have bet once you have reached what can statistically considered 'the long run'.
I know i know, this could be referred to as a 'win rate' rather than advantage, but when someone asks what advantage they should expect to gain over a particular game, this is what they're looking for.
Now Kelly is a function of your bankroll that is specifically keyed to cause maximum bankroll growth. When you over bet Kelly (or underbet to a lesser extent) you decrease rather than increase the speed at which your bankroll will grow. Counter intuitive i know, but the facts of the matter. So in the long run, you've won less and bet more compared to following Kelly, hence your advantage has actually decreased. Any pro when assessing their results after several years of play would say at that point that they are not playing with as high an advantage as they thought they were and look to find the reason.
Let me say this another way. Advantage is something that can only be assessed over millions of hands. This is not actually being confused with ROR, as you can slow your bankroll growth without reaching a point of bankroll ruin.
It is however taking into account varience as that is actually a factor, being that you have to play through it to get a long term advantage.
To sum up, the advantage on any given hand does not change but advantage over a large number of hands (the important advantage) does. Even if you survive flux when over betting, your bankroll will grow more slowly than someone who was sizing their bets correctly.
And from now on Scott you can patronize to someone else. Everyone has tried to show you why you are wrong, and you've been contemptful of them all. I'm done caring about your misguided views. Have a nice day.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

If you do not understand why overbetting is bad deal 100 hands to yourself and pretend bet, say, one-fourth of your capital on each round. Recalculate your capital after each round. Your capital goes down fast even if you win more hands than you lose.

I do believe it can be mathematically proven that betting more than twice Kelly (optimal bet) will eventually bust you.

Betting at Kelly will bust you 13% of the time too, if you never resize your bets relative to your current bankroll. Then again betting at any fraction won't bust you if you continually resize.

The Kelly fraction being a "magic number" that will protect you from bankruptcy is a myth popularized by gamblers. Full-Kelly is actually considered too risky by most full-time pros and investment managers who are in big trouble if they lose their bankrolls, and it's too conservative for part-timers with replenishable bankrolls for whom time is a more precious commodity than investment capital. There's no point in screwing around at a blackjack table for an hourly rate that someone would be willing to pay you to work at with no risk to you.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I think what Scott is trying to express is that the advantage of any bet is a function of the parameters of the gaming device and not the amount of money in the player's pocket. When you are a theorist and calculating a game's advantage, you don't consider the amount of money being wagered because you aren't wagering any- this is theoretical. RJT is looking at it from the perspective of a professional advantage player where the advantage is defined as how much advantage you can bring to bear on your own bankroll thus it is bankroll dependent. No need for anyone to get upset.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Yah, and I'm saying that from the perspective of the casino that it is bad to let card counters who are undercapitalized, bad, or both count cards.