Is beating the game subjective?

[Jack_of_Tirades]

New poster here.

BJ is often referred to as a beatable game. What makes it beatable according to the experts is knowledge. Without counting, it is impossible to have the requisite knowledge. Those facts are not subject to change. That said, counting requires a certain degree of concentration that is not present in play that is more casual.

If we broaden the definition of beating the game to include beating the casino that is still a positive assertion. Beating the casino may be defined as leaving the establishment with the house's money.

For non-counters who employ perfect basic strategy both ignorance of the count and variance are married. A NC player does not raise their bet based upon the count. In real life play if you flat bet $5 over a four-hour period what do you notice? Generally, you will float in and around the break-even point many times. You may drop down perhaps -$40 or +40 but in general, you will return to that break-even point. When you are in positive territory the ability to risk more units becomes possible. Increasing (or decreasing) the units will be based on variance and the results will be variable. It is noticeable though that within a 4 hour period the NC player, betting a $5 minimum, employing a 1-4 spread will experience repeatable instances where they are in +$80 territory.

Perhaps you may disagree with my analysis--that's fine b/c I admit it's subjective. What I'm interested though (in this post) is the impact of player discretion upon the notion of BJ being a beatable game. I frequent the casinos often. The biggest mistake that I see is rampant greed-namely not knowing when to leave. The simplest rule that I know, is to leave when you're ahead. My premise is that BS and variance commonly offer that opportunity without counting. If the player chooses not to exercise proper discretion than that is their fault. Thus, to my original query--is beating the game subjective?

 

[eandre]

Leave when your are a head...Let's break that down. Are you coming back tomorrow,next week,next month? Will you be risking your bank roll again? In my opinion, if the game rules were acceptable when you started and no counter measures occcur to change it, and you are winning, then you only stop when you reach your time limit-win or lose. Then move on to the next session/sessions until you are the following: tired, hungry, drunk(shouldn't be drinking), hit time limit for day, family/friends insist on quiting, something has mentally effected you(maybe a ploppie?) or you are broke.(bathroom breaks included) Remember, blackjack is just one long game and doesn't know or care who gets the cards. An advantaged player knows that he/she has the potential to win now as well as later. Sure it feels better to win and we all had your thought and in theory it sounds good. In fact that is partially how I built my bank roll. The problem is when you are bitten by the bug, eventually you move from red to green to black and maybe purple play. Heck, if you use Oscar's Grind and quit when you are a head then many days you play you will have a nice shiny chip.

 

[Jack_of_Tirades]

Good answer eandre. I think a distinction for the NC player is a recognition that the rules are unacceptable--ergo unable to predict success via any repeatable model. Still success is often achievable-consequently, positive results are a paradox (though not aberrational).

As for being bitten by the bug. The inability to play within a rational context complimenting one's real life feeds into the gambler's fallacy. "I will get rich without counting." The more appropriate statement for a NC would be despite the odds I can make a profit at the game. Many small victories repeated over time is a good strategy for a NC casual player (IMO). It's a sustainable way to play the game (if you play approx 1x per week).

 

[rukus]

"leaving while ahead" is not a valid approach to winning the game as a non-counter. all you are doing is taking advantage of the positive part of the game's variance. what about when the pendelum swings the other way? EVENTUALLY, as a non counter, you WILL lose more than you win in total. All the strategy you suggest does is create many small winning sessions and few, but much larger, losing sessions. In the end, the larger, but rarer, losing sessions will overcome the amount you have won in the oft-occurring smaller win sessions.

 

[Canceler]

Some people say leaving while you're ahead is a winning strategy. I've never heard that taking a break is a winning strategy. But they're the same thing.

 

[InPlay]

Some people say leaving while you're ahead is a winning strategy. I've never heard that taking a break is a winning strategy. But they're the same thing.

So when do leave? Do you keep playing for hours and days at a time? Remember it's one big session. Right ?

 

[la_dee_daa]

either you play with an advantage and can beat the game or the casino has the advantage and they beat you.

if you do win with a disadvantage you didn't beat the game the casino just didn't beat you.

so is beating the game subjective? i think not. but can someone with a disadvantage come out ahead sure why not, feel free to

:cow:

 

[Jack_of_Tirades]

either you play with an advantage and can beat the game or the casino has the advantage and they beat you.

if you do win with a disadvantage you didn't beat the game the casino just didn't beat you.

so is beating the game subjective? i think not. but can someone with a disadvantage come out ahead sure why not, feel free to

:cow:

That begs the question whether variance in a CSM game can be a player friendly tool that may be manipulated--while still remaining untamed?

Is the efficacy of individual discretion underestimated?

How do we plainly define consistency (winning) without resorting to abstraction?

 

[eandre]

How do we plainly define consistency (winning) without resorting to abstraction?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure where you are heading with your posts,but I'm more of a "steak & taters" kind of guy. It's very simple for me to define winning. Track your play at the very least daily. Some people track sessions. I don't. Log it. Be honest. If your bank roll grows over a monthly/yearly time frame, are you not winning? Don't fool yourself into saying, "well I just haven't played enough to smooth out the negatives." Here's my elemetary rule. If I could not consistenly win 70% of my trips ( some lasting 7 days ) and I ever have to bet $1.00 of my earned income other than gambling wins...I would quit cold. I think Ken Smith once said that the best counters/players you never heard of and they don't write books/articles.
I will play as long as my bank roll allows and I'm winning. I don't focus on the stats/theories(although I have studied intently) but rather on techniques that I use that work for me. It's like golf. Have you ever seen a golfer who is way out of shape, has a terrible swing and crap equipment but is still very good? He doesn't worry about theories/abstracts but rather through real world play he has developed a winning strategy. Makes mistakes but some how compensates. I would suggest that everyone should take an introspective look at their game because in my experience there really are not very many blackjack winners. I watch them come and go, I see very few players with staying/playing power over the years. Would anyone just quit if they were winning? Heck, most won't quit until the pain of losing forces them. There is no shame in playing recreationally and winning.

 

[Jack_of_Tirades]

I'm not sure where you are heading with your posts,but I'm more of a "steak & taters" kind of guy. It's very simple for me to define winning.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is this. I can play KO adequately with a medium paced dealer. I usally don't though for a couple of reasons--namely I'm playing low stakes, it's not a lot of fun and I hate the feeling that I might be on their radar. I want to take their money w/out the hassle.

So for shits and giggles I play CSM games. Now I know all the math adds up to one thing--they have the advantage--and I can't do a friggin thng about it. Still, I contemplate the notion of applying variance to betting schemes. Is there such thing as reasonably random betting? Also, How much control do I have over maintaining a positive position from which I can attack. In short, it's my personal voodoo science that has utterly no basis in math or probability.

So in 2008, I've been able to get to the casinos about once very other week. It's all Indian gaming around me and I'll spend a max of 4hrs playing. After 14 visits my record stands at 12 wins and 2 evens. My average win is $200--so I'm up approx $2400. Certainly not a hell of a lot of money but I'm playing nickle games employing a 1-3 spread. My bankroll for each session is just $200 and the lowest I''ve been down is $140

I really don't know how much significance to give to these results. I try to stay in positive territory for as much of my play as possible. I'm very patient, very conservative (with units) and rarely panic. It's strange, as a kid I played in AC when the casinos first opened up--but had no idea what I was doing. Then Indian gaming came to where I live now and slowly I started to understand the hidden game underlying the visible game (if that makes any sense).

I just wonder whether you can ever say well "I have been consistently winning at CSM ganes." It sounds ridiculous--no?

 

[eandre]

Again,I'm not one of the slide rule jockeys but your results against a csm are incredible. You won't be able to perform at this level long term. Blackjack is just too difficult to beat even with advantaged play...you are playing all hands without any information except maybe table sensitive composition plays that will not usually offer much in the way of a substancial edge. Get off the csms. If you can count via any real method (simpler the better) and be casual enough and not appear to be counting then you just won't get backed off. You don't need camo bets if your "act" is good enough and your shelf life as a counter can span decades. Don't let conversation from the pit supervision be misconstrued as heat. Most times it's not. They are humans with a need to be liked and most times want a favorable experience like we do. Shake their hands and act like you respect them. Be smart about your spreads...don't sit at third base,sit 1 seat in, buy in small, buy in often, look like a loser, cover all big bets with a red chip, act like you are chasing loses via steaming. After 3 or 4 losing hands in a row as the count climbs with your base bet up, try the routine "it's my turn, you can't beat me every hand." If you lose and the count warrants it try the old "all in, steaming approach." All the while knowing that it's a game, trust the odds. Don't give table advice and don't try to play anyones hand. Talk sports,weather, anything except gambling. If you are an A/P, then many of your plays will look stupid...like hitting 12 against a 4. Most people think surrender is dumb too. At times you won't double an 11...are you stupid? For me the fun is not playing,but winning, and knowing that I beat them at their own game. Winning at a csm could be compared to a golf analogy. Even the worse player hits a great shot once in awhile(not that your play is bad,just that you beat the odds) and that's what keeps bringing him back. You just hit 14 of them. Heck, I think someone, sometimes, wins at keno too...just not long term.

 

[Jack_of_Tirades]

Yeah, I know it can't continue. So this morning I had business 30 minutes out of town. Had 90 minutes toi kill before heading back. The casino there offers surrender and they deal at a real mellow pace. Took them for $115 before I left. The counts were pretty favorable. Still it was too quiet in there for my liking.