New link about setting "quit points" and "targets"

[Sonny]

I've added a new link in the sticky thread at the top of this forum. It is a study of how using stop-loss and stop-win limits (aka quit points or targets) affect your results.

http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/index.html

As you can see, a card counter who uses these techniques will be losing a lot of his profit. A basic strategy or progression player, who is already playing at a disadvantage, will not gain any advantage from using these techniques. The only benefit is that they will be playing fewer hands and therefore giving away less money.

-Sonny-

 

[nightspirit]

The link is only to the main page. If it's a post you must first open the post and then link it.

 

[Sonny]

Oops, it should be this link:

http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=18995 (Archive copy)

-Sonny-

 

[nightspirit]

It's a bit tricky, I realized it a while back. I too was on the search to this study a few weeks ago. Good idea to post it here. Their archive has a wealth of information.

 

[Guynoire]

The only reason the player with no stop loss won more is because he played more hours. A stop loss limit has no effect on the expected profit per hour, and only changes the results by limiting the number of hours played.

However, if you lose a substantial amount of money you might be steaming and maybe you don't want to play those extra hours.

 

[Sonny]

The only reason the player with no stop loss won more is because he played more hours.

It's worse than that. For a card counter the effect is much more damaging because you will often be walking away from positive counts. Those are the times when you are most likely to win a lot and hit your “target” or lose a lot and hit your limit. As the graph shows, walking away from even a few positive counts can be very damaging.

-Sonny-

 

[Mr. T]

Sonny,
I am a BS player using the stop loss and stop win play.
When you gamble there is such a thing as getting lucky or unlucky.
The maths be dammed sometimes as it doesn't capture this. But you will feel better as there is such a thing as a winning or losing streak. Or have you never experience this.
Incidentally in stock investing you hear about stop loss order all the time so you must know when to cut your losses.

 

[Sonny]

But you will feel better as there is such a thing as a winning or losing streak. Or have you never experience this.

I have experienced times when I lost (or won) several hands in a row. I have also experienced times when my overall win/loss ratio was not average. Is that considered a “streak?” I call that variance, and the maths capture this very well.

I have heard numerous people talk about streaks but nobody seems to have a clear definition of one. And, despite thousands of claims, I have yet to find someone who can accurately predict or control them. I certainly don’t deny that they exist, only that they can be used to one’s advantage.

Incidentally in stock investing you hear about stop loss order all the time so you must know when to cut your losses.

Stop loss orders happen in the stock market because the rules of the game change. Prices and payouts change, companies change, products change, supply and demand changes, economic conditions change, social climates change, etc. The game of blackjack always stays the same. The rules and payouts that applied to the last hand will still apply to all other hands you will play.

The short-term stock market is more like sports betting. The odds are always changing and they will be different from bookie to bookie. Often times you can find an advantageous situation if you look hard enough or wait long enough. The short-term stock market is dynamic. The long-term stock market, however, is not. If you invest wisely then there is often no benefit to constantly buying/selling. That is where most day traders fail. They rely on “trends” and “indicators” just like gamblers rely on “streaks” or “hunches.” They both use systems that try to correlate unrelated past events with future events.

Now obviously many people could come along and say “Sonny, you’re wrong. I’ve had great success with my system and so have lots of other people.” As I said before, it is possible to win while playing at a disadvantage, you just shouldn’t rely on luck to pay the bills.

-Sonny-

 

[Guynoire]

Incidentally in stock investing you hear about stop loss order all the time so you must know when to cut your losses.

A stop loss order is one of the worst ways to invest in the stock market. If you buy a stock because you think it is a good buy and undervalued, then when the stock goes down it becomes an even better buy. If you follow buy low sell high then the stock is more attractive and you should buy more if possible.

 

[Mr. T]

Is that considered a “streak?” I call that variance, and the maths capture this very well.

-Sonny-

Sonny you don't know exactly what is a "streak". Yet you say the maths capture this very well.
Please explain.

 

[nightspirit]

I think what he meant is that variance is well captured by the math. Your ups and downs are part of the game in sense of standard deviation.

 

[Sonny]

Sonny you don't know exactly what is a "streak". Yet you say the maths capture this very well.
Please explain.

The math can describe the variance of the game. I believe this is what most people are talking about when they refer to "streaks" although I have never heard a definitive definition of what a streak is in gambling terms. I think people may have different opinions of what a streak really is.

-Sonny-

 

[Mr. T]

We are talking about apple and oranges.

They are two different things.
I kwow about variances and standard deviation as much as most people.
The maths there is common knowledge.
But as Sonny describle in his earlier posting he clearly implied that the math of streaks are captured very well. When you don't know exactly what a streak is how can you then make a statement like that.
The maths doesn't capture it for streaks. In maths a streak is a non identifiable event because of the randomness and lack of memory of prevoius cards in the game.
So Sonny would you give us your latest position on this and perhaps clarify that you meant that for variances and standard deviation it is captured in the maths but not for streaks which is what I am talking about and not about variance and standard deviation.

 

[Sonny]

But as Sonny describle in his earlier posting he clearly implied that the math of streaks are captured very well. When you don't know exactly what a streak is how can you then make a statement like that.

As I said, the math describes the variance. When most people talk about “streaks” or “luck” they are actually talking about variance. Until someone can give a better definition of what a streak is, I will assume that they are talking about variance.

-Sonny-

 

[Mr. T]

As I said, the math describes the variance. When most people talk about “streaks” or “luck” they are actually talking about variance. Until someone can give a better definition of what a streak is, I will assume that they are talking about variance.

-Sonny-

Not me. I am not talking about variance but I am talking about streak. You have misunderstood me. Variance and streak are two completely different things.

 

[Sonny]

You have misunderstood me. Variance and streak are two completely different things.

Please give us your definition of a streak.

-Sonny-

 

[Mr. T]

Please give us your definition of a streak.

-Sonny-

There is no definition. So let us not get into another arguement.

 

[aslan]

There is no definition. So let us not get into another arguement.

If there is no definition, forget about any discussion. To discuss anything, we have to at least be agreed on the definition of what we are talking about, otherwise, you'll be talking apples, and I'll be talking grapefruits.

By streak (in the positive sense) I assume you mean a longer than usual series of wins, or at least a longer than usual series of "more wins than losses." WWWWWWWWWW would be an example of the former, and WWWWLWWLWWWW would be an example of the latter. I think what Sonny is talking about is that these occurrences, or "streaks," are all contained in variance.

Variance isn't equal to streak, but it does describe all the things that are likely to happen in real life play, including streaks, both positive and negative.

I take from this that all that can happen to a player in the course of play is already described in variance, and that the only sure way to come out ahead (using a system; i.e., holecarding, shuffle tracking, etc. aside) is by the mathematics of counting. Streaks always even out over the long haul, and since there is no way to predict them, counting is the only reliable "system" approach to winning at BJ, although the variance does allow for you to get lucky trying other methodologies.

That being said, am I missing something?

 

[Preston]

I don't really follow win goals but I do keep loss limits. I do think they can have their places.

My basic limit is $1000 in either direction before stopping.

If I manage to win $1000 I wait until the count neutralizes and that's when I go get food and take a break. I don't want to start overbetting because "i'm into the houses money" I want to make sure I can keep playing a solid game. I know if I leave a postiive count I am robbing myself of EV.

However, if I lose $1000 that is where I would get into the "chasing losses" mode and I know I am not going to be playing right, I might overbet and steam raise. If I continue symptoms of being a compulsive gambler will show up and I have to leave the casino at that point.

One of the hardest things I've had to learn is money management and I think no two people are alike in what works for them.

 

[aslan]

I don't really follow win goals but I do keep loss limits. I do think they can have their places.

My basic limit is $1000 in either direction before stopping.

If I manage to win $1000 I wait until the count neutralizes and that's when I go get food and take a break. I don't want to start overbetting because "i'm into the houses money" I want to make sure I can keep playing a solid game. I know if I leave a postiive count I am robbing myself of EV.

However, if I lose $1000 that is where I would get into the "chasing losses" mode and I know I am not going to be playing right, I might overbet and steam raise. If I continue symptoms of being a compulsive gambler will show up and I have to leave the casino at that point.

One of the hardest things I've had to learn is money management and I think no two people are alike in what works for them.

You should be able to come to the point where you can lose $1,000 and continue to play without chasing your losses. It's all one continuous session. I always keep that in mind. I have steam bet before, and it taught me a good lesson. I am not likely to do that again. Mistakes make us wiser. You already seem to know that, so what's wrong? Are you perhaps a compulsive gambler? If so, you picked a heck of an avocation (or vocation, as the case may be).