Locking in Profits???

[aslan]

It's your choice. Only you know what you are capable of psychologically, and if a big win or big loss puts you off your game you are better off "doing what you have to do" than playing for maximum EV. Maybe that $2000 represents something different to you than to me. For some, a 100% chance of being able to pay off $2000 worth of credit card bills is worth more than a 52% chance of walking away with even more. I can't challenge that because it's your money and not mine. Honestly, I've been tempted to do exactly what you did when starting out but I white-knuckled it to the end of the shoe. Walk away at the shuffle, take a drink, take a piss, talk up a chick at the bar, then think about the money.

Now that said, your high and super-high counts are part of this huge probability function and you need to see them and play them to make up for all those crappy hands you play at the beginning of a shoe. Or to pay you for the time you spend waiting and watching for the count to go up so you can sit down. They are part of your paycheck. Which is why I would never do it. See, I remember the huge losses and how they make me feel, and now is my chance to do unto them as they have done unto me, and a big count is what I need to make the ****ers pay. If anything, in that big-win situation now I am going to raise my bet slightly, because I now have a larger bankroll and can afford it.

As usual, I agree with you 100%. You are absolutely right.

Let me ask you a question. Is it beneficial to play two hands. I know it is and more when the count is good, but when it is in neutral territory, it seems like it helps me stand in there. Generally in neutral counts, if one hand doesn't win, the other one does, so instead of speeding up the action in terms of winning or losing as you might think, it seems to slow down the action by keeping the wild fluctuations at bay to some extent. In real negative counts I tend to play one hand, but sometimes two to keep the spot free from invaders and because iven in negative counts it does seem to dampen the fouctuations. What do you say?

 

[HarryKuntz]

If you didn’t use a stop-loss limit you would get through those rough patches sooner.
-Sonny-

I have to slightly disagree with this. Everybody should a have a stop-loss limit. Even if the stop is for just 5 minutes to assess what went wrong.

People have losses due to other reasons than just variance, such as tiredness, mind on other matters, stress, emotion, blah, blah, blah.... If you assess the reason for the loss is simply varience then yes carry on with the session, otherwise come back another day. If your in the middle of a hot shoe when you reach whatever your limit is, then obviously finish the shoe first.

Win stop limits should only be used to avoid heat.

 

[sagefr0g]

i'm in your corner (where it's safe lmao)

.... Totally lucky. If I continue such behavior I will indeed give up more long run profits. Something I don't intend to do.

bob & weave more champ, do the shuffle, come on now dance. that's it!
don't lead with your chin. rope that dope. i wanna see some more jabs.

 

[actuary]

I think it's important to detach yourself from the money you use to play. If you don't look at it as money you can use to buy stuff with, you won't make these kind of mistakes (what you did is a mistake, in my opinion).

Some good advice I received is to not cash in your chips at the end of your session, given that you will be back to that casino again soon. That way, when you have the chips at home, you won't be attached to them and after a while, it won't even feel like money. Once that attachment is gone, you won't feel the need to stop playing or lower your bets at high counts.

 

[21forme]

As usual, I agree with you 100%. You are absolutely right.

Let me ask you a question. Is it beneficial to play two hands. I know it is and more when the count is good, but when it is in neutral territory, it seems like it helps me stand in there. Generally in neutral counts, if one hand doesn't win, the other one does, so instead of speeding up the action in terms of winning or losing as you might think, it seems to slow down the action by keeping the wild fluctuations at bay to some extent. In real negative counts I tend to play one hand, but sometimes two to keep the spot free from invaders and because iven in negative counts it does seem to dampen the fouctuations. What do you say?

If the count is neutral, you're in -EV territory. If playing head's up, it makes sense to play 2 hands at min. bet to eat cards. If playing with others, only play 1 hand until you have the advantage.

Why are you playing "real negative counts?" Wong out and have them hold your spot.

Stop analyzing your play anecdotally. First, it means nothing because you forget most of your play. Second, it means nothing because it's short term results.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

As usual, I agree with you 100%. You are absolutely right.

Let me ask you a question. Is it beneficial to play two hands. I know it is and more when the count is good, but when it is in neutral territory, it seems like it helps me stand in there. Generally in neutral counts, if one hand doesn't win, the other one does, so instead of speeding up the action in terms of winning or losing as you might think, it seems to slow down the action by keeping the wild fluctuations at bay to some extent. In real negative counts I tend to play one hand, but sometimes two to keep the spot free from invaders and because iven in negative counts it does seem to dampen the fouctuations. What do you say?

Regarding the last point, it depends. If your minimum bet is well above the table minimum, you're best off spreading it across as many hands as possible to minimize the number of rounds you have to play at that count (assuming a play-all situation, like double deck. Ref: "Grifter Gambit.") If your minimum bet is the table minimum, there is no point in playing two hands at the minimum.

In general playing two hands is good in a good count and neutral in a neutral count. But again, if your bet in a neutral count is the table minimum there is no EV benefit to playing two hands as it will increase your variance- you could lose both bets.

 

[aslan]

Regarding the last point, it depends. If your minimum bet is well above the table minimum, you're best off spreading it across as many hands as possible to minimize the number of rounds you have to play at that count (assuming a play-all situation, like double deck. Ref: "Grifter Gambit.") If your minimum bet is the table minimum, there is no point in playing two hands at the minimum.

In general playing two hands is good in a good count and neutral in a neutral count. But again, if your bet in a neutral count is the table minimum there is no EV benefit to playing two hands as it will increase your variance- you could lose both bets.

Thanks. It's not intuitive, at least, not to me.

Does playing two hands in neutral territory tone down fluctuations from the average SD--as if I'm even sure what I mean? I think I mean, does it dampen the wideness of swings? Or in other words, playing minimum bet, is it ever justifiable to play two hands in slightly negative/neutral counts? I suspect you a;ready answered my question, but thickheaded as I am, I need to hear it in other words.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Horrible Mistake, It's OK, Don't Do it Again!

Given your example:
Those high counts don't happen often and it is very valuable when they do happen.

If you have high expenses, low spread, poor game conditions or are not a strong player not betting big when appropriate can cause you to become a small winner, break even or even a losing player. The same situations can occur if you stop play early because you are ahead. Again, a very bad idea.

All play is continuous.

If one were to stop play a little early when up but continue playing a little longer when down that would be ok. Especially if you consider if winning maybe you should cut play short and if losing one can play a little longer.

A good way to attempt locking in a win? Play fewer negative/even hands.

Overall consistent underbetting is fine.

How about underbetting those marginal advantages instead of the real ones?:joker::whip:

The game can be tough enough without making very bad mistakes.:joker::whip:

Aslan, I think you asked the question because you knew it was wrong. It was wrong, don't do it again.

 

[aslan]

Given your example:
Those high counts don't happen often and it is very valuable when they do happen.

If you have high expenses, low spread, poor game conditions or are not a strong player not betting big when appropriate can cause you to become a small winner, break even or even a losing player. The same situations can occur if you stop play early because you are ahead. Again, a very bad idea.

All play is continuous.

If one were to stop play a little early when up but continue playing a little longer when down that would be ok. Especially if you consider if winning maybe you should cut play short and if losing one can play a little longer.

A good way to attempt locking in a win? Play fewer negative/even hands.

Overall consistent underbetting is fine.

How about underbetting those marginal advantages instead of the real ones?:joker::whip:

The game can be tough enough without making very bad mistakes.:joker::whip:

Aslan, I think you asked the question because you knew it was wrong. It was wrong, don't do it again.

hahaha I hear you. I was over my estimated EV when I did quit, but I had personal reasons for reducing my wager ($100 a hand isn't all that shabby). If it were my br alone, I would have stuck to my guns and if I went down, at least I would go down fighting. lol I did have the reassurance that I had achieved more than my expected advantage, and that upon resumption of play the odds would be identical as before. You gotta give me that much, but I do agree with you, what's the sense in counting if you refuse to take full advantage of the probabilities--it's gotta break your way over time (almost always anyway). lol

 

[sagefr0g]

.....
The game can be tough enough without making very bad mistakes.:joker::whip:

Aslan, I think you asked the question because you knew it was wrong. It was wrong, don't do it again.

i think he asked the question because he knew what he was doing was right and couldn't understand how even though it was right it was the wrong way according to orthodox AP principles.
the question then becomes is there a way to do what he's been doing in an intelligent way so that the bending of those AP principles doesn't end up incurring ruin or lowering his expectation beyond some line in the sand that is acceptable to him.
the problem is really psychological on both sides of the argument.
aslan's AP brain is telling him "oh no i'm not doing it right"
and his normal everyday life experience brain is telling him "danger, danger Will Robinson proceed with extreme caution be a winner and lock in those profits and walk away from the danger".
both arguments are essentially correct.
so the solution for Aslan's sanity and sense of well being is for him to pull a non-malicious trick on himself. if he finds enough 'wiggle room' in the AP way of doing things he can adapt his actions to satisfy both his AP brain and his common sense brain and will be thus realitively able to play in a euphoric state excepting perhaps when he has a losing trip.

 

[blackjack avenger]

So Situational, No Not Really, It Was Horrible Decision

Can you see where underbetting specific advantages can lead to ruin?

By locking up a short term win he has increased his potential for long run failure. I would think long term failure would be more of an issue.

I mentioned an orthodox AP method of attempting to lock up a win by playing fewer negative/0 expectation hands if ahead. :joker::whip:

Now I can think of a very real reason to stop early. If one is playing in order to win a down payment for a car or house then the second you reach your goal one should stop if a $1 more means nothing but a $1 less is a major problem.

 

[sagefr0g]

Can you see where underbetting specific advantages can lead to ruin?

yes.

By locking up a short term win he has increased his potential for long run failure. I would think long term failure would be more of an issue.

whaaaa?

I mentioned an orthodox AP method of attempting to lock up a win by playing fewer negative/0 expectation hands if ahead. :joker::whip:

:1st::whip:

Now I can think of a very real reason to stop early. If one is playing in order to win a down payment for a car or house then the second you reach your goal one should stop if a $1 more means nothing but a $1 less is a major problem.

we're tawkin aslan's sanity here and or his happyness (what he'd buy with chump change if he won it). if we can save aslan's sanity and find him a way to be a happy AP camper he may not be tempted do something really off the hook, like steam bet a grand on roulette where he ended up winning a bunch of money: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=96594&postcount=30 :joker::whip:

 

[aslan]

i think he asked the question because he knew what he was doing was right and couldn't understand how even though it was right it was the wrong way according to orthodox AP principles.
the question then becomes is there a way to do what he's been doing in an intelligent way so that the bending of those AP principles doesn't end up incurring ruin or lowering his expectation beyond some line in the sand that is acceptable to him.
the problem is really psychological on both sides of the argument.
aslan's AP brain is telling him "oh no i'm not doing it right"
and his normal everyday life experience brain is telling him "danger, danger Will Robinson proceed with extreme caution be a winner and lock in those profits and walk away from the danger".
both arguments are essentially correct.
so the solution for Aslan's sanity and sense of well being is for him to pull a non-malicious trick on himself. if he finds enough 'wiggle room' in the AP way of doing things he can adapt his actions to satisfy both his AP brain and his common sense brain and will be thus realitively able to play in a euphoric state excepting perhaps when he has a losing trip.

D*mn, you have a way with words. I speak in an obfuscatory manner, and you turn around and say it in plain English! Kudos once again to the Green Leaper!

 

[aslan]

By locking up a short term win he has increased his potential for long run failure.
I

Au Contraire! There is no increased potential for long term failure. That is the gambler's fallacy in reverse. The odds are exactly the same from the point of my "victory" on into the future.

 

[aslan]

he may not be tempted do something really off the hook, like steam bet a grand on roulette where he ended up winning a bunch of money: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=96594&postcount=30 :joker::whip:

Do you have to remind me? However---I am now a lifetime winner at roulette, seeing as I will never bet the game again---unless of course I can find an advantage play.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Au Contraire, Contraire - Whatever That Means LOL

Au Contraire! There is no increased potential for long term failure. That is the gambler's fallacy in reverse. The odds are exactly the same from the point of my "victory" on into the future.

If you mean this is a one time horrible mistake and it will never happen again:joker::whip: Then yes, going forward you will be fine.

However!

Let's say you decide to always lock in profits, whenever you get up 5 units you start to flat bet in order to cut down variance. Well, in the long run your bankroll will probably shrink and evaporate if you continue.:joker::whip:

Thus playing poorly increases your chance for ruin! How could it be anything else:joker::whip:

 

[sagefr0g]

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackjack avenger
By locking up a short term win he has increased his potential for long run failure.

Quote: aslan
Au Contraire! There is no increased potential for long term failure. That is the gambler's fallacy in reverse. The odds are exactly the same from the point of my "victory" on into the future.

i guess there is at least one caveat could have to do with not betting properly, perhaps explained by this link:
http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/article/playing-it-smart-does-winning-big-in-a-casino-prove-youre-a-good-gambler-43005
i suppose his scenerio would hold better prospects for an AP but in a sense that's the point to where maybe the betting needs to at least not cross the disadvantge line to the point where more is potentially lost than won. lmao that's a brilliant statement isn't it. :cool2::whip:

Do you have to remind me? However---I am now a lifetime winner at roulette, seeing as I will never bet the game again---unless of course I can find an advantage play.

yes i did. lmao i played roulette for the first time in my life just a few days ago! http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=99294&postcount=80
so i need all the help i can get short of 'just not doin it'. :joker::whip:

 

[sagefr0g]

D*mn, you have a way with words. I speak in an obfuscatory manner, and you turn around and say it in plain English! Kudos once again to the Green Leaper!

thanks, yeah i know. but think maybe i need to work on my prose, grammer, speiling and what not a bit. not really livin up to my potential you know lmao:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=92251&postcount=7

 

[sagefr0g]

If you mean this is a one time horrible mistake and it will never happen again:joker::whip: Then yes, going forward you will be fine.

However!

Let's say you decide to always lock in profits, whenever you get up 5 units you start to flat bet in order to cut down variance. Well, in the long run your bankroll will probably shrink and evaporate if you continue.:joker::whip:

Thus playing poorly increases your chance for ruin! How could it be anything else:joker::whip:

he doesn't have to do something stupid like that and you know it vengeful one!
he could watch his bottom line and play with half a grain of sense lol.
:cow::whip:

 

[aslan]

If you mean this is a one time horrible mistake and it will never happen again:joker::whip: Then yes, going forward you will be fine.

However!

Let's say you decide to always lock in profits, whenever you get up 5 units you start to flat bet in order to cut down variance. Well, in the long run your bankroll will probably shrink and evaporate if you continue.:joker::whip:

Thus playing poorly increases your chance for ruin! How could it be anything else:joker::whip:

When I lowered my bet, I was above my expected win rate, so there is absolutely no problem going forward. If I lowered my bet in a positive count before achieving my expected win rate I would be screwing with my RoR and slowing down the process of achieving my win rate on average. Does that make sense?