Myths in the Movie 21

[Kasi]

one point they seemed to want to stress was that card counting was in no way gambling. just my opinion but i believe that's a myth.

He's taking a risk of course but since he's playing a +EV game he can manipulate that risk by how he bets. In a negative EV game the risk is always 100%. That's gambling to me lol. But I mean maybe a CC is unlucky enough to play a $50K roll with a 1% ROR and lose it all but 99 times out of a hundred, he'll win money forever.

Even the house would go broke with certainty on BJ if they allowed every player to play at +EV.

I guess they could even go broke, despite an advantage, if they let Bill Gates come in a place a billion or two on 17 at the roulette table.

But we know they wouldn't have the cahones for that because then they'd actually be gambling

 

[sagefr0g]

He's taking a risk of course but since he's playing a +EV game he can manipulate that risk by how he bets. In a negative EV game the risk is always 100%. That's gambling to me lol. But I mean maybe a CC is unlucky enough to play a $50K roll with a 1% ROR and lose it all but 99 times out of a hundred, he'll win money forever.

Even the house would go broke with certainty on BJ if they allowed every player to play at +EV.

........

long term a negative EV game has 100% ror. short term it's not so certain. but granted card counters don't normally operate that way nor do they just play under negative EV conditions unless maybe your wvbj who never could seem to find a decent TC. lol.
it's nice to think your playing say a 1% ROR or what ever and it is nice in principle to operate on that belief. i'm still mired in the belief i learned in quantitative analysis years ago in school. where the professor told us it was best to operate under the assumption that our measurements were subject to about 13% error due to human error and the limitations of our measuring devices. well we all know that it's certainly possible to make measurements better than ones with a 13% error. but in the long term, i don't really know. certainly all aspects of life are full of all kinds of nifty little suprises. i do know that. i also know that if the price of gas keeps going up it may be that my original assumptions about what i considered a reasonable bankroll to lose (three hundred dollars) may become less reasonable lol. to where the way i viewed my ROR may need to be re-evaluated.
i just hope those casino's that got blowed out of the water by hurricane katrina had good insurance or they might have come close to ruin.
but isn't remotely possible that the player who lost fifty grand on the 1% ROR shot, well say if he tryed again he might lose another fifty grand?
but i wouldn't have it any other way. besides if the uncertainty principle was done away with probably the physics of the universe wouldn't function correctly as far as i know. but truth is i don't know. lol. doubt if any one else really does either. just seems to me that there is no way around the fact that a card counter is taking a chance with his bankroll no matter how infinitesmal that chance may be. i mean isn't the bell curve sort of tend off towards infinity on those two lower sides of it?
so anyway in my version of my movie card counting is gambling otherwise it wouldn't work.

 

[zengrifter]

In a negative EV game the risk is always 100%.

Is that an accurate statement? zg

 

[mdlbj]

That was a beautifully written post.

 

[la_dee_daa]

you can never escape the gamble!!

long term a negative EV game has 100% ror. short term it's not so certain. but granted card counters don't normally operate that way nor do they just play under negative EV conditions unless maybe your wvbj who never could seem to find a decent TC. lol.
it's nice to think your playing say a 1% ROR or what ever and it is nice in principle to operate on that belief. i'm still mired in the belief i learned in quantitative analysis years ago in school. where the professor told us it was best to operate under the assumption that our measurements were subject to about 13% error due to human error and the limitations of our measuring devices. well we all know that it's certainly possible to make measurements better than ones with a 13% error. but in the long term, i don't really know. certainly all aspects of life are full of all kinds of nifty little suprises. i do know that. i also know that if the price of gas keeps going up it may be that my original assumptions about what i considered a reasonable bankroll to lose (three hundred dollars) may become less reasonable lol. to where the way i viewed my ROR may need to be re-evaluated.
i just hope those casino's that got blowed out of the water by hurricane katrina had good insurance or they might have come close to ruin.
but isn't remotely possible that the player who lost fifty grand on the 1% ROR shot, well say if he tryed again he might lose another fifty grand?
but i wouldn't have it any other way. besides if the uncertainty principle was done away with probably the physics of the universe wouldn't function correctly as far as i know. but truth is i don't know. lol. doubt if any one else really does either. just seems to me that there is no way around the fact that a card counter is taking a chance with his bankroll no matter how infinitesmal that chance may be. i mean isn't the bell curve sort of tend off towards infinity on those two lower sides of it?
so anyway in my version of my movie card counting is gambling otherwise it wouldn't work.

i agree with what you said here..

regardless how low your ror it will always be there and since it is always there someone will have to fall into it. Everyone will fall onto the bell curve including those parts the strech to "infinity" including the negative part which i think we all would like to ignore. Regardless how many trials, runs, what ever you do your standard divation will lessen but will will never = 0.

for every big winner there will be a big loser to ( actually slightly less ), even in the AP world

 

[Sonny]

A few more myths from the movie:

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/21movie.html

-Sonny-

 

[blackjack avenger]

Not So Sure

i agree with what you said here..

regardless how low your ror it will always be there and since it is always there someone will have to fall into it. Everyone will fall onto the bell curve including those parts the strech to "infinity" including the negative part which i think we all would like to ignore. Regardless how many trials, runs, what ever you do your standard divation will lessen but will will never = 0.

for every big winner there will be a big loser to ( actually slightly less ), even in the AP world

We have a limited lifetime, so one can reach the point where you cannot lose everything. At some point there are not enough hands left in your lifetime for you to lose all.

 

[la_dee_daa]

We have a limited lifetime, so one can reach the point where you cannot lose everything. At some point there are not enough hands left in your lifetime for you to lose all.

well you may have a limited life time i dont, im my world.. its hypothetical, we figure out our ROR through an almost infinite amount of hands which we would never reach in general. There is a certain amount to lose and when you stop you stop because there is no more to lose but in the eyes of infinity we can play infinity hands and have enough money to extent to infinity. But this isn't practical in play since we do have restriction in life and time and money.

In a perfect math world there still will always be a the element of risk in these types of things its just hard to escape.

 

[Kasi]

just seems to me that there is no way around the fact that a card counter is taking a chance with his bankroll no matter how infinitesmal that chance may be.

Well if you're really worried about that professor, then view that 1% ROR somewhere between 0.87% and 1.13% lol.

As to the above couldn't agree with you more - exactly the point I was trying to make.

Sure the guy would have a 1 in 100 chance of losing his roll the next time he played it. If he knew he would take the chance of playing it twice, it's 1 in 10,000 he'd lose it twice in a row lol.

 

[Kasi]

Is that an accurate statement? zg

If he plays enough. I hope you're not getting into that infinity stuff again if that's your point lol.

 

[Kasi]

regardless how low your ror it will always be there and since it is always there someone will have to fall into it. Everyone will fall onto the bell curve including those parts the strech to "infinity" including the negative part for every big winner there will be a big loser to ( actually slightly less ), even in the AP world

Those negative parts that stretch to "infinity" are included in the 1% ROR.

In the AP world, you'd eventually up with 99% of the people who haven't lost their bankroll most of whom would likely be way way ahead and 1% who lost his bankroll.

 

[la_dee_daa]

Those negative parts that stretch to "infinity" are included in the 1% ROR.

In the AP world, you'd eventually up with 99% of the people who haven't lost their bankroll most of whom would likely be way way ahead and 1% who lost his bankroll.

yes. agreed.

as long as that 1% losesing everything or if they decide to play on credit maybe more then everything . i should restrain myself with "limits" in the real world where once its gone its gone!

:cow:

 

[la_dee_daa]

so i guess we can just say ( to get back on topic ) the movie shows the 1% that win everytime but unsuspecting victims will think this is the norm.

is the myth busted now?

 

[Kasi]

But this isn't practical in play since we do have restriction in life and time and money.
In a perfect math world there still will always be a the element of risk in these types of things its just hard to escape.

I think you're both right. But once you get a certain amount ahead, of course there is still risk, but it might be very very small. 5 standard deviation events don't happen often but they happen. From a practical point of view you could be pretty darn safe in alot fewer hands than I think you may think.

The good news is, in theory lol, you can always figure out your chances at any point in time.

 

[Kasi]

as long as that 1% losesing everything or if they decide to play on credit maybe more then everything . i should restrain myself with "limits" in the real world where once its gone its gone!:cow:

well all that 1% lost was their original bankroll which hopefully was something they could afford to gamble with in the first place.

I mean at some point, you're probably better off just flat-betting or using some system that increases short-term odds of winning simply because that roll might just be too small to count with.

You're only gonna lose one betting unit every 3 hours anyway if you flat bet at a full table. Make a 2 unit bet at some point and if you win you're back to even lol.

 

[sagefr0g]

Well if you're really worried about that professor, then view that 1% ROR somewhere between 0.87% and 1.13% lol.

As to the above couldn't agree with you more - exactly the point I was trying to make.

Sure the guy would have a 1 in 100 chance of losing his roll the next time he played it. If he knew he would take the chance of playing it twice, it's 1 in 10,000 he'd lose it twice in a row lol.

well the dear old professor said 13% error. i guess that's the standard error of the measuring device added to the standard error that a human tends to make. what ever it's pretty darn high. kind of hard for me to accept that figure and i'm just regurgitating what he said. so i don't really know how you would figure standard error into the risk of ruin equation. i guess you just gave me the results though. that's not nearly as bad as i imagined it would be. and i'll just accept your 1 in 10,000 about him losing it twice in a row as well since i figure you've got the math on that one as well. but it still doesn't convince me card counting isn't gambling. i mean so what the guy keeps getting better odds the more he keeps failing and trying again. but that could go on for infinity couldn't it? sounds like gambling to me.

 

[sagefr0g]

Those negative parts that stretch to "infinity" are included in the 1% ROR.
.......QUOTE]

that makes sense. i mean i didn't know that. but it makes sense because well that curve is a standardized sort of deal that can be used for a lot of stuff.
but you can fit it to a card counter and his situation. then come up and see what his risk of ruin is. thing is he always has some risk of ruin no matter how small. if it's not gambing why does a card counter have to have a risk of ruin?

 

[Kasi]

Well, like you say, his risk can never be 0. As close to zero as he wants to make it, but never zero.

I can't even play golf without the risk I might get a hole in one and have to spend $1000 buying the house a drink.

Or get struck by lightning.

Crazy gambler that I am, I have a tee time Sat to go gambling lol.

But that lifetime ROR stuff sort of works like this. Once you begin, that's what it is. But once you've doubled your roll, you're a heck of a lot safer. Like if you started with a 5% ROR, 1 in 20, and double your roll, now your lifetime risk from that point forward is 0.5^2 or only 1 in 400. Still could lose it, alot less likely. If you do lose it from there, you're still just one of those 1 in 20 players who will lose their original roll because 400 of them will double their roll but 1 of these will be unlucky enough to still lose twice their original roll from that point forward.

Not even counting that of course you'd always in real life have the option of re-sizing along the way. Or re-size to a 20K roll and go back to another 5% ROR and begin again.

And, needless to say, maybe most important of all, it assumes you always play the same way. Suddenly be afraid to make the max bet, or start going crazy, or using the same bets on a totally different game, even play with high-risk trip rolls too often, don't blame your original plan because you're not playing it anymore.

The 1 in 10000 is just .01*.01 - I guess the chances you could pick that 1 white marble out of 99 other black ones. Twice in a row - after you put the first black one you picked back.

 

[sagefr0g]

I see your point but ...look at it from the other direction -- is the "house" gambling? No, because of three things; advantage, bankroll and time.

So I guess I'd say I agree with that assessment (counting != gambling) but only if the word "correctly" is inserted. =)

vQ

just an addendum to some previous admittedly off base thoughts.....
check this link:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=74997&postcount=1

 

[aslan]

Nice post Sage.

However.....

Discipline and a "BJ Warrior" mentality are essential for a true AP to beat the evil casino. A good example of this is the Movie 300....you PICK your ground and your fight and nothing short of that, AND you PREPARE just as the 300 did, for battle, and you will win. "BJ WARRIORS" (!) give the casino nothing (!) and take all they have!! HUAAAH!!

Creeping Panther

In the long term. huahhh!