The cost of Bad Plays!

[Cardcounter]

The basic stragedy is there for a reason but not all mistakes will affect your EV equally so here is some stats on what bad plays will cost you what. I will base the cost on off the top of the deck. For a lot of these figures the rules of the game will not effect them.

Stand on 8,8 vs a 7 cost is $68 to a $100 bet
Stand on 16 vs a 7 cost is $11
Stand on 13 vs a 7 cost $17
Stand on 16 vs an 8 cost $10
hitting 16 vs a 5 cost $30

Standing on soft 17 vs any up card cost ranges from $12 to $32 on a $100 bet assuming doubling is restricted on soft 17 the cost is even higher if you can double down. Highest gain is hitting against a dealer up card of 8 lowest against an up card of 2 or 4 all of them are huge gains for the player though.

Standing on soft 18 vs a 9 cost $9 to a $100 bet.
Standing on soft 18 vs a 10 cost $4 to a $100 bet.

Marginal plays that can change with the count!

Stand on a 13 vs a 2 cost is $1 to a $100 bet in stand on soft 17 cost less in hit soft 17 game.
Stand on a 16 vs a 10 cost is $3 to a $100 bet

Hitting a 12 vs a 4 $2

 

[shadroch]

How is it that even when you are obviously copying something,you stll mangle the English language?

 

[Kasi]

The basic stragedy is there for a reason but not all mistakes will affect your EV equally so here is some stats on what bad plays will cost you what. I will base the cost on off the top of the deck. For a lot of these figures the rules of the game will not effect them.

Stand on 8,8 vs a 7 cost is $68 to a $100 bet
Stand on 16 vs a 7 cost is $11
Stand on 13 vs a 7 cost $17
Stand on 16 vs an 8 cost $10
hitting 16 vs a 5 cost $30

Standing on soft 17 vs any up card cost ranges from $12 to $32 on a $100 bet assuming doubling is restricted on soft 17 the cost is even higher if you can double down. Highest gain is hitting against a dealer up card of 8 lowest against an up card of 2 or 4 all of them are huge gains for the player though.

Standing on soft 18 vs a 9 cost $9 to a $100 bet.
Standing on soft 18 vs a 10 cost $4 to a $100 bet.

Marginal plays that can change with the count!

Stand on a 13 vs a 2 cost is $1 to a $100 bet in stand on soft 17 cost less in hit soft 17 game.
Stand on a 16 vs a 10 cost is $3 to a $100 bet

Hitting a 12 vs a 4 $2

I have no idea where ur numbers are coming from.

Don't forget your EV is effected by total dollars bet, although I don't even think I understand it based on only one bet.

 

[shadroch]

Thats okay,neither does he.

 

[Cardcounter]

My numbers!

My numbers came out of the book playing blackjack as a business. The numbers are how much expected value you will lose if you don't make certain plays.

 

[Kasi]

My numbers came out of the book playing blackjack as a business. The numbers are how much expected value you will lose if you don't make certain plays.

I see - probably a single-deck game then? If so, I'd say greatly effected by the rules of the game. Definitely not used to single deck numbers lol.

I just wanted to make the point that, since some hands happen more frequently than others, the cost to ur overall EV is alot less than the cost of the one hand at the time u play it.

So it's good to know the cost at the time u play it and also the cost if u play it all the time.

 

[sagefr0g]

.......
So it's good to know the cost at the time u play it and also the cost if u play it all the time.

that's an interesting point. goes back to the ole long term, short term realm.
question.... what does it cost when you make the wrong play but win the hand? some negative ev i suspect. but does that hurt your cummulative ev assuming you play correctly on the rest of those same type hands. i wouldn't think so.

 

[Kasi]

what does it cost when you make the wrong play but win the hand? some negative ev i suspect. but does that hurt your cummulative ev assuming you play correctly on the rest of those same type hands. i wouldn't think so.

What the heck makes u think I have a clue lol.

I'd guess if u won a hand playing it wrong, it would increase your EV. SInce, after a billion hands later, u still won once more than was expected!

Is that what u think too?

 

[Canceler]

Don't confuse EV with actual results. Expected value is what you expect to get. Your actual results are in the past, and have no bearing on what you expect to get in the future.

That's my theory, anyway.

 

[sagefr0g]

What the heck makes u think I have a clue lol.

heh, heh i dunno just threw the question out there hoping maybe some one might know. question just landed on your post as it was your post that made me realize i'd been wondering about that.

I'd guess if u won a hand playing it wrong, it would increase your EV. SInce, after a billion hands later, u still won once more than was expected!

Is that what u think too?

lol, well at first i was going to say no, that i thought it would have a miniscule negative contribution to your EV but that seems dumb as you actually realized a positive cash flow even though you did the wrong thing.
you realized some positive fluctuation in a negative EV situation.
but this sort of thing interests me. i mean we all know how to get positive EV but no one seems to have a clue as to how to extract value from negative EV unless one uses hole carding or shuffle tracking. this has always interested me but of course i haven't a clue as to how it could be done. many times i've wonged out of a shoe when it was hopelessly negative only to return expecting to find that my fellow table mates are lammenting the fate i just knew that had befallen them only to have them telling me how great the shoe turned out after i left.

 

[Kasi]

lol, well at first i was going to say no, that i thought it would have a miniscule negative contribution to your EV but that seems dumb as you actually realized a positive cash flow even though you did the wrong thing.
you realized some positive fluctuation in a negative EV situation.

See now I'm confused too lol.

I guess the EV and HA is predicated on that u play all hands correctly.

Or playing one hand wrong would just change EV and HA if u defined the game that way?

All I know, when it happens, I'm really happy

I try to extract value out of negative EV with bet variation. Mostly anyway.

 

[Kasi]

Don't confuse EV with actual results. Expected value is what you expect to get. Your actual results are in the past, and have no bearing on what you expect to get in the future.

That's my theory, anyway.

And it's a good one

I guess we were just being silly and having a little fun here wondering how misplaying a hand, but winning, effects all that if u never misplay that hand again.

So I intentionally play the first 100 hands wrong but win every one of them, where am I 2 trillion hands later having played every one of them perfectly? lol.

A lucky ploppy for the rest of my life lol?

But, if I won the first 100 hands playing perfectly, even though those results are now in the past, I think I can expect that it will balance out a trillion hands later and, in that respect, maybe does have a bearing on what I can expect in the future.

 

[sagefr0g]

Don't confuse EV with actual results. Expected value is what you expect to get. Your actual results are in the past, and have no bearing on what you expect to get in the future.

That's my theory, anyway.

makes sense. so another question comes up. does making negative EV plays hurt your prospects for what positve EV you may play in the future with regards to your actual winning real dollars potential? i would guess not as those negative EV moves were made in the past and have no bearing on what you expect to get in the future. reason it's confusing for me is i tend to think that since not all positive EV moves payoff as expected that you need to make as many as possible as consistantly as possible so that you will experience some that do payoff.

 

[Canceler]

I guess we were just being silly and having a little fun here wondering how misplaying a hand, but winning, effects all that if u never misplay that hand again.

I knew you guys were just messing around, and after I posted I was debating the wisdom of having jumped in. But since I did jump in...

Planning to play hands incorrectly reduces your EV. Cardcounter's purpose in starting this thread was to show by how much. Having played a hand incorrectly, but winning anyway, is good for your actual results, but I maintain it has no effect on your future results.

Side note: Kasi, your point about the frequency of the hands was a good one.

So I intentionally play the first 100 hands wrong but win every one of them, where am I 2 trillion hands later having played every one of them perfectly? lol.
A lucky ploppy for the rest of my life lol?

Yes, whatever you've won so far is yours to keep. Or to frivolously risk on games of chance, whichever seems appropriate.

...since not all positive EV moves payoff as expected that you need to make as many as possible as consistantly as possible so that you will experience some that do payoff.

Well, sure. If playing the hand according to the best EV does not affect our actual results, then we all need to throw away our books and give up!

The rest of this is a bit off-topic, but since we're talking about the past affecting the future...

Some time ago we had a thread where we were telling about the most consecutive winning and losing sessions we had. Sagefr0g had strung together some huge amount of winning sessions. At the time I said that while you're never "due" for anything, I didn't think he could escape negative variance forever. That seemed paradoxical then, and it still does.

While I've not been following Mr. fr0g's exploits closely, I understand he was finally forced to grab the wrong end of the variance stick.

Now, in another thread, 21forme says he's had only two losing sessions after a year of playing weekly sessions. He admits that the gods of variance have probably been smiling upon him. He does not end a session simply because he's ahead. Be interesting to see what the next year brings.

 

[Cardcounter]

EV vs actual results

You are playing with your your friend and you bet him that he can't predict the outcome of the flip of a coin and you say to him I will bet you a $100 to your $100 that you can't predict the outcome he says your on. You flip the coin and he calls heads and it lands on heads you just lost a $100 when your expected value was $0. The next flip he calls tails and it lands on tails. The next flip he calls tails and it lands on tails. In 3 flips of the coin you are down $300. You then say to your friend you are unusually good at predicting how the coin will land so if you win I want a 5% commision. Now you have a 2.5% edge so you are expected to make $2.50 cents for every flip of the coin. On the first ten toss he predicts the correct one 9 out of 10 times and he wins 870 dollars. You got to collect $30 in commisions from the last 6 tosses. Even though your expected value on the last 7 tosses was $17.50 you lost $570 overall. On the next 10 toss of the coin he loses 6 out of 10 netting you a profit of $220 on those 10 tosses. 6 times he loses a $100 and 4 times he wins $95.
In blackjack making the wrong play would be like being the person how has to pay the 5% commision everytime he wins I'm not saying that he can't win a hand or two but after you play at 100's of hands you will more than likely lose money.

 

[sabre]

I don't take advice from people who habitually misspell the word "strategy".