Losing one out of three days?

[aslan]

According to Matt Wilder, from a study performed in 1990, a card counter who plays a thousand hands a day (if that were possible) for three days is likely to lose one day in three. That's a far cry from the concept of slowly grinding out winnings little by little, day by day, in one continuous session, although it does agree with the concept of winning in the long run. Is his interpretation generally accepted among professional players? Has there been any more up-to-date study done with different results or interpretation? His report is at the following URL. I have included two paragraphs from this report below:

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/2009/archive/bj-count-comparison.html (Archive copy)


Another interesting aspect of the probability of card counting is the
fact that, at higher counts, the player's probability of winning a hand
is only slightly changed and still below 50%. The player's edge over the
house on such hands comes not from his probability of winning the hands,
but from his ability to perform certain actions—like doubling down,
insuring, and splitting—that are not available to the house and the
increased probability of a blackjack.

Some blackjack players - especially beginners - don't appreciate the
high level of variance in blackjack. I've noticed that many rec.gambling
craps players think blackjack card counting allows a player to "grind
out" profits, making a few more dollars each hour. Nothing could be
further from the truth. It truly is gambling, it's just that in the long
run you'll win more than you lose. Perfect play with a solid system will
bring you as much as a 1% advantage with the standard deviation of 1000
hands of blackjack at around 3.5%. This means that about 1 time in 3 you
will LOSE while playing 1000 hands. 1000 HANDS IS MORE HANDS THAN YOU
CAN PLAY IN A FULL DAY, SO MORE THAN 1 DAY IN 3 YOU WILL LOSE WHILE
PLAYING BLACKJACK WITH A SYSTEM THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE!

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Actually he's thoroughly misunderestimating the frequency of losing sessions. A 1000 hand session is nothing, especially in shoe games. Think in the area of 10-20K hand sessions for 2 out of 3 to be winners.

Depressing, yes I know. Sorry.

 

[Sonny]

Think in the area of 10-20K hand sessions for 2 out of 3 to be winners.

Same here. I would estimate that 10,000 hands would be no better than a 3-out-of-4 shot at best for a card counter. More realistic results would be the 10-20K that you suggest. I don't understand how Mr. Wilder got his numbers.

-Sonny-

 

[aslan]

Actually he's thoroughly misunderestimating the frequency of losing sessions. A 1000 hand session is nothing, especially in shoe games. Think in the area of 10-20K hand sessions for 2 out of 3 to be winners.

Depressing, yes I know. Sorry.

Well, his study does not bear out my results, but I always hesitate to use personal experience as a benchmark, since variance can account for a world of different scenarios. I don't have a clue as to how many hours constitutes 1,000 hands, but my days are often 15 to 20 hours of play long. Sessions on the other hand vary from 1 hour to 20 hours. My experience has been about 5 losing sessions out of 40, exceeding the 1 to 3 ratio probably becasue I tend to hang in there for long periods anticipating my advantage to show up sooner or later. I usually end a long session because I am too tired to play on effectively.

I do hate the sense of "gambling" that 6-deck games lend themselves to with their roller coaster variance, but I can't say I am displeased with the overall results. Personality-wise, I am pretty much adverse to risk, which means my play is characterized by burning ears and a tendency toward apprehensive behavior, a pretty good set of natural behaviors to mimic the average compulsive gambler. At a deeper level, I am always in touch with the mathematical foundation for my play, almost like a religious person's reliance on Divine Providence in the course of a tempest on the high seas.

 

[moo321]

Depends on the games youre playing too. Shoe games with play all are going to have bigger swings. Single deck with a 1-3 spread isn't gonna be so bad.

 

[aslan]

Depends on the games youre playing too. Shoe games with play all are going to have bigger swings. Single deck with a 1-3 spread isn't gonna be so bad.

Right. I play 6-deck shoes, but wong out from time to time when the going get's rough. I probably stay a little longer than I should (it's hard to estimate one deck, two decks, etc. precisely), and if I'm winning or breaking even in negative territory, I stay beyond exit points. So far this has been working out. The roller coaster is more a function of losing in positive counts, and what a ride it can be! Too many losers in positive counts can wreak havoc with a healthy bankroll.