Lucky BS player?

[Kasi]

But however much it might be, there IS an amount of money that you could theoretically take to the tables and then proceed to win indefinitely with the Martingale if there were no betting limits.

Probably not. But certainly an amount of money that would win an extremely high percentage of the time.

Everybody always says you will lose but they never say how likely over how many hands betting how much and when.

For a guy who may never play 100,000 hands, or even 500,000, in his lifetime, it's a whole different question like you say.

I mean how many people will actually play that much in a lifetime?

 

[Cardcounter]

Statisics nut!

Have you ever heard of standard deviation? It states that one outcome is just as likely as another. For instance in a years time playing one hour every rwo weeks a basic stragedy players is as likely to lose $8,000 as she is to win $1,000. That is what is called standard deviation. Or maybe you are an advantage player so your chance of winning $5,000 is just as good as your chance of losing a $2,000! I'm not very good at caculating standard deviation so don't ask me how to caculate it.

 

[shadroch]

If you play one on one,and average 100 hands an hour,or 1,000 hands a day,you will be 100,000 in about 100 days of gambling.In my case,thats about three years.Tops.
Most Pros must play that in a year.

 

[SPX]

Probably not. But certainly an amount of money that would win an extremely high percentage of the time.

Everybody always says you will lose but they never say how likely over how many hands betting how much and when.

For a guy who may never play 100,000 hands, or even 500,000, in his lifetime, it's a whole different question like you say.

I mean how many people will actually play that much in a lifetime?

There is eventually a number of blackjack losses in a row that simply will not happen. I mean, do you really think that 100 losses in a row would EVER happen? As I myself said, nothing is impossible . . . but that's probably impossible.

 

[Kasi]

Have you ever heard of standard deviation? It states that one outcome is just as likely as another. For instance in a years time playing one hour every rwo weeks a basic stragedy players is as likely to lose $8,000 as she is to win $1,000. That is what is called standard deviation. Or maybe you are an advantage player so your chance of winning $5,000 is just as good as your chance of losing a $2,000! I'm not very good at caculating standard deviation so don't ask me how to caculate it.

Huh? Where in the world did u get this from?

Obviously u can't calculate it, so please don't talk about it.

 

[Kasi]

that's probably impossible.

That's a good one :grin:

That's OK - I'm with you lol.

 

[ScottH]

Thank God for credit

I've never quite figured out if one would end up $1 ahead with a Martingdale and infinite bankroll with no table limits.

But I think the infinite losses would outweigh the infinite bankroll

It's completely useless to think about, but if you had an infinite bankroll winning a dollar wouldn't do anything, so the martingale is useless.

 

[shadroch]

It's completely useless to think about, but if you had an infinite bankroll winning a dollar wouldn't do anything, so the martingale is useless.

WINNING IS EVERYTHING. The money thats involved is meaningless.

 

[positiveEV]

Even if you had a 1 billion dollars bankroll (enough to cover 30 consecutive looses, splits/double downs excluded), considering you never reach that negative variance and loose your bankroll, you would make $1 on every trial and you would play on average 3 hands per trial, excluding splits. At 100 hands per hour, you would make $33.33 per hour. By investing that money in a portfolio with a good broker, you would make $10,000 an hour, 24 hours a day. Even theoretically the situation is ridiculous!

 

[halcyon1234]

Not sure I understand that.

I was trying to figure out exactly where the "long term" was. From the best I can calculate (which may be wrong but looks about right), the long term should be when your expected value is equal to the "plus/minus" range. Hence, the lowest you should be at is $0, and from that point on, your expected value will always be greated than the "plus/minus" range.

The Math:

Let U = your unit
Let E = your edge
Let n = number of hands played
Let s = standard deviation

Let EV(n) = your expected value for n hands
defined as: n*U*E
Let sd(n) = your standard deviation for n hands
defined as: sqrt(n) * U * E * n * s

Long term is achieved at the value of n where EV(n) = sd(n), and n > 0.

Turns out this factors out to n = (s/E)^2. For a good counter, with s=1.1 and E = 1%, this means that the "long term" should hit at hand 12,100.

As with all statistics, the exact point is still a bit fuzzy-- there's the chance that one will be within two standard devs or three-- but if you're at 12,000 hands and you're down waaaaaaay more than you should be, you're doing something wrong.

 

[halcyon1234]

I understand . . . I am simply saying that nothing is impossible.

It's impossible to say that nothing is impossible, since it is impossible to prove that anything is impossible, including this statement. (editor's note: The previous statement is far more enjoyable with substances banned by law)

In reality, every session is just that: a session. My only point is that there is no supernatural force known as The Math which is going to follow her around and MAKE SURE that it all evens out.

Actually, there is. It's called The Math, and it doesn't demarcate by sessions. If you don't believe me, ask the owner of any casino on the face of the planet. They absolutely do not care if someone wins $1000, because someone had to have lost over $1000 for that to happen.

A casino wouldn't open their doors, have one table, and have one player sit down, make one gi-fracking-normous bet, then close their doors. Why? Because there is no guarentee of profit. They have the house edge, but the variance could kill them.

So instead of one table, they have many tables. Instead of one player, they have many players. Instead of one bet, they have several bets. The same amount of money gets passed through them, but their house edge becomes clearly visible. Why? Because of variance. It balances everything out.

(Note: This is why it's better to play 2 hands of ~75% than 1 hand of 100%. More trials lowers the variance).

She can walk into a casino and, against the odds, sit down to an unreasonably good shoe more often than not and walk away a winner. Is it likely? No. But the Spirit of Standard Deviation isn't going to stop it from happening either.

No, but the Spirit of Standard Deviation could just as easily have her sit down at a bad shoe and lose way more than she should. And the more times she sits down at a shoe, the more she'll draw the ire of TSoSD, unit it runs its ghastly fingers through her bankroll.

That's just how TSoSD rolls.

 

[halcyon1234]

Okay, then you're saying the EDGE is a supernatural force who ALWAYS gets his man. All I am saying is that the edge/the math/the statistics only say what is LIKELY to happen . . . not what WILL happen.

Pretty much. Except the Edge is a sniper, and The Standard Deviation is the wind that blows about the folliage that you are using for cover. You can hide form The Edge over the short term. The wind might even blow some extra cover your way. But given enough time, those tumbleweeds get blown away, and The Edge will put an ace in your hole. Or a hole in your ace. I'm not sure exactly how the analogy works.

If I go and win today (without counting) then I will have beaten the edge.

Nope, you haven't. You've been on the positive side of standard deviation. If you go and win one hand of $5 blackjack using BS only, you haven't beated the edge. You're EV at that point is -$0.0025, and always will be. BUT your standard deviation is +/- $5.50. So being up $5 is perfectly reasonaly, since it is within the stdev.

If I go and play tomorrow and just happen to sit at the right table, then that table has no knowledge of my playing yesterday and therefore will not seek to even things out, and it's possible I will win again.

That table doesn't, but your "bankroll" does. After that play, your bankroll will once gain fluctuate up or down (more likely down). And if you say "I won", anyone worth their EV will ask you "how did you do with your other sessions?"

You can't base your success on one session, or a few of your sessions, or a select selection of your sessions. It must include all of them.

I remember reading about a story of a guy who, because of an ungodly winning streak and doubling up on his wins, he turned $40 into something like $14 million in one night at the baccarat table. Fiction? I don't know, but even if it's apocrayphal I think it proves that sometimes life beats all odds.

It's not outside the realm of possibilities. BUT given the extreme odds of it occuring (16 wins in a row, full bankroll bet each time), if it did happen, there were enough losers to pay for it. Take the blackjack pit during a busy night at a casino:

20 tables. $10 average bet. 100 hands per hour per table. Perfect BS players at every spot.

100 * 8 = 800 hands/shift * $10 = $8000 * 20 tables = $160,000 * 0.005 house edge = $800 per shift generated.

That number just goes up up up for the increase in average bet (we've all seen someone betting $100 / hand, right?), deviation from BS (we've all seen someone splitting 4's vs. a dealer 10, right?), and speed of the dealer (we've all seen 150 hand/hour tables, right)?

Imagine a $50 average bet with a 2% average house edge due to bad players. That's $16,000 per shift!

And with 100 * 8 * 20 = 16,000 hands being dealt per shift, the casino has hit the long term IN ONE SHIFT!

I'm not saying that, over the course of their playing career, most basic strategists won't lose more than they win. I am only saying that nothing is impossible and making definitive, absolute statements--i.e. this WILL happen undoubtedly--doesn't leave room for the simple reality that sometimes crazy sh*t happens.

One last time: "crazy ****" = standard deviation. Or more specifically, it goes something like this:

lucky = 1 standard dev
card rack = 2 standard dev
horseshoe anal-beads = 3 standard devs
crazy **** = 4 standard devs
you're ****ing lying = 5+ standard devs

 

[Kasi]

you would make $1 on every trial and you would play on average 3 hands per trial

Interesting - only 3 hands per trial? Do u mean only if u have entered a Martingdale after a loss?

Or are u including any wins or win streaks in that average?

It's late and I don't even know what I'm asking but I'll believe whatever u tell me lol.

It sounds like ur $33/hr means all u do is lose every hand after a win and enter a Martingdale?

 

[Kasi]

I was trying to figure out exactly where the "long term" was. From the best I can calculate (which may be wrong but looks about right), the long term should be when your expected value is equal to the "plus/minus" range. Hence, the lowest you should be at is $0, and from that point on, your expected value will always be greated than the "plus/minus" range.

The Math:

Let U = your unit
Let E = your edge
Let n = number of hands played
Let s = standard deviation

Let EV(n) = your expected value for n hands
defined as: n*U*E
Let sd(n) = your standard deviation for n hands
defined as: sqrt(n) * U * E * n * s

Long term is achieved at the value of n where EV(n) = sd(n), and n > 0.

Turns out this factors out to n = (s/E)^2. For a good counter, with s=1.1 and E = 1%, this means that the "long term" should hit at hand 12,100.

As with all statistics, the exact point is still a bit fuzzy-- there's the chance that one will be within two standard devs or three-- but if you're at 12,000 hands and you're down waaaaaaay more than you should be, you're doing something wrong.

Ok thx - I wasn't thinking about a positive house edge (player has the advantage I mean) since I was thinking about a BS player only (the guy's wife) with negative expectation.

 

[halcyon1234]

Ok thx - I wasn't thinking about a positive house edge (player has the advantage I mean) since I was thinking about a BS player only (the guy's wife) with negative expectation.

Just take out 1% in the formula and put in -0.5% for a BS player. (1.1/-0.5%)^2 = 48400 hands. The closer to 0 edge (either way), the more hands it takes to get to the long term.

 

[SPX]

Halcyon. . .


I simply don't have the energy to reply to every point, but I want to say a couple of things. . .

1) You're last two replies have entertained me immensely and you have catapulted yourself to the ranks of my favorite posters.

2) I agree with most everything you said, just making a point that luck can take you far.

3) I think a word needs to be said about "sessions." Card counters look to the long run, but not everyone does. Some people play once or twice a month and it's far more important to optimize their chances of winning something specific on THAT particular night, even when the risk is relatively high. Sometimes people have a goal to make a specific amount of money for a specific purpose. Not a lot is said about what I would call guerilla play . . . hit and run tactics. And while such techniques could not be called advantage play--as it doesn't literally give you an advantage--they could be called skilled play, as there are both stupid and intelligent ways of attempting to double your bankroll in a night.

 

[halcyon1234]

Halcyon. . .

That's me (larger than life... or at least larger than size="4")

I simply don't have the energy to reply to every point, but I want to say a couple of things. . .

1) You're last two replies have entertained me immensely and you have catapulted yourself to the ranks of my favorite posters.

I'm either flattered or have sarcasm going over my head. Either way, thank you. =)

3) I think a word needs to be said about "sessions." Card counters look to the long run, but not everyone does. Some people play once or twice a month and it's far more important to optimize their chances of winning something specific on THAT particular night, even when the risk is relatively high. Sometimes people have a goal to make a specific amount of money for a specific purpose. Not a lot is said about what I would call guerilla play . . . hit and run tactics. And while such techniques could not be called advantage play--as it doesn't literally give you an advantage--they could be called skilled play, as there are both stupid and intelligent ways of attempting to double your bankroll in a night.

I agree with you about session goals. I don't have my bookmarks handy, but I'm sure someone will post the link to the CVCX calculators that give you the odds of starting with X, playing Y hands of Z, and winning Q before you go broke/time runs out/etc. If someone isn't a counter, but plays optimally and with a full understanding of their odds, then while they aren't an advantage player, at least they are smart/not delusional.

(Reading what I'm writing, and your quote, I think it's suffice to say we agree on the the point completely)