How quickly it can turn

[Automatic Monkey]

Not to be depressing or dramatic, just a warning to to rookies about how extreme swings can be and how horrifying losses can be.

This past week I was on a BJ road trip. It went acceptably well, short of trip EV (mostly due to weather and crowded conditions) but I fought off the dealers and the heat and had a reasonably profitable time. (My nicest hand was a spectacular one that has a 1 out of 281775 chance of occurring in this particular game. Shhh... that's all the info you need to determine where I was playing!)

Tonight I walked into a New Jersey store, with a nice fat playing stake and anticipation of the usual slow grind and typical modest profits. Four hours later, I walked out crushed and bankrupt. Down 208 units, almost exactly twice my winnings of the previous week.

It started with a weird play. Very high count, the civilian to my right and I had the same soft hand and I had a max bet on it while he had a small bet. It was a marginal double down situation so I got my double up. The civilian was contemplating doubling too, and the dealer flashed the next card, which would have given either of us a 21. I paid the civilian a black to not take the hit, which I did, and both of us ended up very happy that hand, even though I took a beating at that table overall.

At another table, I saw something new. My usual slow-bleed, nothing serious, but the dealer looked sick. I mean, really sick. In the middle of a hand he yells "Floor, emergency!" and runs from the table with his hand over his mouth, heaving. Now I've seen players do that but never a dealer. Some of the other players thought it was funny but I didn't; I don't like deviations from the norm, they always seem to portend a bad experience for some reason. The PC dealt out the rest of the hand and another dealer came in. Couldn't wait to get away from that table.

Wish I did wait. The next table saw a very high count very quickly, and I did my thing. And it all fell apart. Lost hand after hand. Ten BJ's were dealt during that run- 4 to the dealer, 5 to the other player at the table, and one to me, despite my playing two hands. The high cards came out fast and furious- usually two to the dealer, two to the other player and a nice stiff for me. And it was slow and annoying. That shoe took nearly a half hour- ploppies bickering in Vietnamese between every card, blowing smoke in my face, no-English dealer with a smartass snicker after every player loss and even grudged one of my rare wins, trying to pick up the bet instead of pay. Digging and digging until I had no more to dig, and that sickening feeling of playing with the crumbs of your playing stake, dinky little bets on a huge count, unwilling to walk away from a good count but knowing even if you won every remaining hand it wouldn't make much of a difference. And to add insult to injury, I did win the last few hands, with tiny bets, as ploppy and pit boss turned their heads away in pity and disgust at the nauseating spectacle they just witnessed.

No of course I'm not really bankrupt. But when I wake up tomorrow it's not going to be just a dream- the money is really gone. It's a few months' EV up in smoke. I struggled and ground the whole week before just to make half that much- all gone. True, it's also only about a month's salary for me too. But what if it wasn't? This would be devastating, probably turn me off to the game for good, despite there being only a 1% chance of this kind of loss occurring. There will be a 1% chance of it happening again tomorrow. And that would be devastating. Hopefully this story will help everyone prepare for what you most definitely will encounter if you play long enough.

 

[EasyRhino]

Wow, bummer. The most I've managed to lose in one session was about two month's salary. And that was similarly not fun.

(I had a weird thing happen to me the other day, also. I got six 9s on my hand (after splits), in a doubledeck game. I think I also lost every one of those splits.)

The strange thing to me is that you managed to hit this awesome losing trip in AC. Where I presume you were wonging, which supposedly reduces your risk of ruin.

I don't like deviations from the norm, they always seem to portend a bad experience for some reason.

Wow, voodoo from the automonkey? You must really be shaken up, dude.

Good luck on not catching ebola virus.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Wow, bummer. The most I've managed to lose in one session was about two month's salary. And that was similarly not fun.

(I had a weird thing happen to me the other day, also. I got six 9s on my hand (after splits), in a doubledeck game. I think I also lost every one of those splits.)

The strange thing to me is that you managed to hit this awesome losing trip in AC. Where I presume you were wonging, which supposedly reduces your risk of ruin.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you are Wonging around, it does not, because you are seeing a lot more high counts and getting down a lot more big bets. So what it does is compress your results into a shorter time period. As experience shows all of us it's on the high counts where you have your most memorable disasters.

Wow, voodoo from the automonkey? You must really be shaken up, dude.

Good luck on not catching ebola virus.

That's the only kind of voodoo I like, the kind of voodoo that has nothing to do with the cards. I swear, next time I'm playing and the dealer vomits, I'm going home! (After playing out a good count of course.)

With my luck, the guy probably had something contagious and I have it now.:vomit:

 

[toastblows]

I think you will learn a lot from a 200 unit loss, though i feel your pain...that sucks some donkey balls. I learned from horrible sessions to not chase a positive count when your roll is going extinct...despite all logic that says you are in the probability to win, you get to see what long shots really look like....like losing 12, 14, 16 hands in a row. Thats mathematically stunning but not impossible.

The worst part for me is starting over a roll from scratch. I think back on rolls ive lost in 1 day and wish i wouldve stopped at 50% depletion even though the count was good. Easier to build it back up from 50% left....than a pocket full of lint.

 

[creeping panther]

Monkey as I said

in another thread you must play 1, 2 or 4 deckers and have them be very good games and then be heads up or only have 1 other player at the table.

Keep playing the 6 and 8 deckers and you will lose over the long haul and the short haul, heck any haul. You are just wasting your money.

Hate to see you guys make that mistake, or fall for all the BS.

Creeping Panther.

 

[21forme]

Yup, it happens. Last month, I had my biggest single day win and Yesterday I had my biggest single day loss (fortunately last month's win was 3x bigger than the loss.)

On another note, I leaned some PCs have amazing memories. I ventured back into a place that half-shoed me almost a year ago. I didn't notice any familiar faces, but after flat-betting the first shoe (due to the flat count) the PC tells the dealer to cut the next shoe in half. I used no card and nobody alse at the table warranted any action by the pit.

 

[Kasi]

Where I presume you were wonging, which supposedly reduces your risk of ruin.

In theory, one can play with the same roll and same ROR no matter what game you are playing or how you are playing it.

The only thing that changes is you play your roll with different mins and maxes and spread points etc, likely changing your win rate and standard deviation, to achieve the ROR you are comfortable with.

So it's up to the individual to decide how to play one's roll under changing conditions.

Why anyone would, for example, choose to bet exactly the same way with the same spread at the same counts playing-all vs back-counting or wonging-out when the former might be high ROR, say full-Kelly, but the latter small ROR, say 1%, is beyond me.

 

[Doofus]

Tonight I walked into a New Jersey store, with a nice fat playing stake and anticipation of the usual slow grind and typical modest profits. Four hours later, I walked out crushed and bankrupt. Down 208 units, almost exactly twice my winnings of the previous week.

Thanks for your cautionary tale. Might I ask why you persisted in playing when you were down so sharply? Though I am no expert at all, I could never imagine not cutting my losses and stopping long before I reached this point.

 

[sagefr0g]

Thanks for your cautionary tale. Might I ask why you persisted in playing when you were down so sharply? Though I am no expert at all, I could never imagine not cutting my losses and stopping long before I reached this point.

but if you could imagine having such a loss and then recouping that loss in the future and further in the future knowing you would end up far ahead would you still try and cut your losses? for an AP to stop play what it does is lower the number of hands he can get in. but an AP's ultimate gain is correlated to the number of hands he can get in. so in actuality all stopping play does is slow down an AP's winrate.

 

[EasyRhino]

When I had my biggest loss in a single session (turns out, about the same size as automonkey's), I actually went to the ATM to pull out more funds.

If I was just plain gambling, such behavior would have been incredibly self-destructive. Actually, even though I was playing a pretty good game, it was still a bit nerve-wracking. (I ended up basically breaking even for the remainder of the session, btw)

 

[21forme]

A great analogy I heard to explain to non-APs why an AP should never quit (ignoring heat, CTRs, fatigue, etc.) in the face of a big win or big loss is:
Casinos have the overall advantage. Do they ever close when they've reached a certain profit? No. As long as there is an advantage play should continue.

 

[SPX]

but if you could imagine having such a loss and then recouping that loss in the future and further in the future knowing you would end up far ahead would you still try and cut your losses? for an AP to stop play what it does is lower the number of hands he can get in. but an AP's ultimate gain is correlated to the number of hands he can get in. so in actuality all stopping play does is slow down an AP's winrate.

Do you REALLY think that what he did slowed down his winrate? And do you REALLY think that the shoe he sits down to play tomorrow will somehow know about the cards he received on his previous trip and act accordingly? If so, then that's as much Voodoo as anything that's discussed on the Voodoo Board.

Sometimes people talk about The Math as if it's some omniscient entity that's sitting behind the scenes and tallying everything up. This just isn't true. Even the card counter runs into plain old bad luck sometimes.

Consider this. . .

Barry Meadow, author of Blackjack Autumn, started out with an $8,000 bankroll and headed to Nevada to hit every single casino in the state. 192 in all. When he was done, he walked away with a profit of $21,000. However, he admitted that he attributed a good bit of this to none other than LADY LUCK despite his excellent counting skills.

However, Stuart Perry, author of Las Vegas Blackjack Diary, started out with $20,000 and, after 4 months of steady play, walked away with a profit of $2303.

Remember the axiom: I'd rather be lucky than good. There is no math god looking over everyone's shoulder. Even a flat better can win with good cards and if he's lucky he can do it time after time after time.

 

[Kasi]

Four hours later, I walked out crushed and bankrupt. Down 208 units, almost exactly twice my winnings of the previous week.

Well, I'm sorry to hear this, needless to say.

Forgive me in advance if I ask too many questions. Hopefully, you know I, and I think others, appreciate your openess here in sharing unfavorable results with an eye to warning others of what can happen.

So, feel free to tell me to shut up at any time. No problem.

Mostly, as a start, wondering if this loss is total playing roll, trip roll or session roll. If the 200+ units are max or min or avg.

And why you think it's a 1% chance of whichever it is.

Any other details you feel like sharing relating to this four hours of hell, great.

I'm just praying you don't mean max bets, that you play in your mind to a 100max bet lifetime roll, that you doubled your roll the previous week and loss all of that in 4 hours.

 

[EasyRhino]

No, really:

More hands * more advantage = more money

The concept is actually similar to investing in the stock market, often called a "random walk in an upward direction". But, over long investing time periods, the gains still turn out positive. AM just had his own little version of the 2001 tech bubble. Or maybe the Great Depression.

Of course, gambling has much higher short term volatility than stocks. Sort of a like a hedge fund run by crack-addled chimps.

 

[SPX]

No, really:

More hands * more advantage = more money

The concept is actually similar to investing in the stock market, often called a "random walk in an upward direction". But, over long investing time periods, the gains still turn out positive. AM just had his own little version of the 2001 tech bubble. Or maybe the Great Depression.

Of course, gambling has much higher short term volatility than stocks. Sort of a like a hedge fund run by crack-addled chimps.

I understand, but my point is this: Whether or not he wins the next time he sits at the table . . . or the next . . . or the next . . . or the next . . . has NOTHING to do with the fact that he lost this last time. God's honest truth is that he could've sat this last session out and it would have had NO EFFECT on his future results. Don't try to convince me otherwise and please don't try to convince yourself otherwise because if you do then you're not talking about blackjack . . . or math . . . you're talking about metaphysics.

Also, and call this whatever you want, but it has always seemed to be true in my experience that a winning night starts off as a winner or turns that way within a relatively short period of time. Losing nights start off bad and usually don't recover. Losing nights are spent losing early on and then trying to make up lost ground the rest of the night.

You are better off just sitting at home on those nights.

 

[sagefr0g]

Do you REALLY think that what he did slowed down his winrate? And do you REALLY think that the shoe he sits down to play tomorrow will somehow know about the cards he received on his previous trip and act accordingly? If so, then that's as much Voodoo as anything that's discussed on the Voodoo Board.

uhmm, if he stops play when he has an opportunity to bet properly during a positive true count yes that will slow down your winrate. even if you lose lol.
let's not forget that we are bound to lose some of those properly placed larger bets that result in our natural against the dealer's ace up ala our insurance bet and some of our double downs and splits with large bets will go down in smoke. but statistically we will win with more of our naturals, insurance bets, double downs and splits when we have larger bets out in a positive count than we shall lose, hence we win money.
so yes it is wise to play on in a positive count come hell or high water lol.
but does the shoe played tomorrow know about the cards recieved on a previous trip....... hmm well not really but in a strange way they might as well. and this is i think a weird thing because shuffled shoes are independent trials not dependent. but the way an AP plays turns them into dependent trials via how the AP bets according to the count. over a large number of shoes a definate predictable range of true counts will present and the AP can take advantage of this fact by the way he bets as these true counts infact do present. this is a great part of the reason an AP needs to get in a large number of hands in order to realize his expectation.

Sometimes people talk about The Math as if it's some omniscient entity that's sitting behind the scenes and tallying everything up. This just isn't true. Even the card counter runs into plain old bad luck sometimes.

actually i believe there is something very much like that going on behind the scenes lol .
it's kind of better than voodoo lol.
so much of the physical world is ammenable to mathematics.

Consider this. . .

Barry Meadow, author of Blackjack Autumn, started out with an $8,000 bankroll and headed to Nevada to hit every single casino in the state. 192 in all. When he was done, he walked away with a profit of $21,000. However, he admitted that he attributed a good bit of this to none other than LADY LUCK despite his excellent counting skills.

However, Stuart Perry, author of Las Vegas Blackjack Diary, started out with $20,000 and, after 4 months of steady play, walked away with a profit of $2303.

Remember the axiom: I'd rather be lucky than good. There is no math god looking over everyone's shoulder. Even a flat better can win with good cards and if he's lucky he can do it time after time after time.

consider the corollary to the axiom: i'd rather be good and lucky. lol

 

[SPX]

uhmm, if he stops play when he has an opportunity to bet properly during a positive true count yes that will slow down your winrate. even if you lose lol.

Well . . . umm . . . I would argue that it's best to bet properly when you're gonna win . . . and those times when the count is indicative of that then yes, bet HIGH . . . but during those times when the counts high and you're going to lose it's best to go throw $20 in a video poker machine and relax.

But I get what you're saying. My only point is that what's important is playing winning hands and not playing losing hands, regardless of external factors that say we should do this or that.

actually i believe there is something very much like that going on behind the scenes lol .
it's kind of better than voodoo lol.
so much of the physical world is ammenable to mathematics.

Yes, this is a very interesting subject. . . Golden Ratios and all. . .

consider the corollary to the axiom: i'd rather be good and lucky. lol

Truth.

I hear you on that, bro. I'll take them both in whatever proportions I can get them.

 

[sagefr0g]

........ My only point is that what's important is playing winning hands and not playing losing hands, regardless of external factors that say we should do this or that.

........

alas, such foreknowledge is beyond the scope of cardcounting. :cat:
and as you allude in the realm of luck. unfortunately lady luck is fickle.

 

[Kasi]

More hands * more advantage = more money

Or

more hands * any advantage greater than 0 and less than 100%=no money at all

if you bet entire roll on every hand.

Overbetting advantage by too much for too long is always fatal.

 

[EasyRhino]

I understand, but my point is this: Whether or not he wins the next time he sits at the table . . . or the next . . . or the next . . . or the next . . . has NOTHING to do with the fact that he lost this last time.

Agree.

Also, and call this whatever you want, but it has always seemed to be true in my experience that a winning night starts off as a winner or turns that way within a relatively short period of time.

Disagree. Both because of your first point (above), and also anecdotal personal experience. I had a stretch (at one casino, strangely) where I would sit down at the table, hemorrhage a large amount of cash very quickly, and then go on a winning streak and end up with a better-than-EV win.