The honeymoon may be over…

[sagefr0g]

Wow.

I figured u were the type to be analyzing lol. Twin sons of different mothers

i can be incredibly dense and slow. but i'll probably figure that one out eventually

Such low ROR's to begin with. I assume u were betting way less than full-Kelly crap?

Somewhat mystifying on the face of it.

right with such low ROR's i didn't really subject the bet scheme to a Kelly analysis. but yeah i figure i was betting less than full Kelly. i figured my optimal bets from simulations and used Sonny's bet spread sheet. explained in the link below:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=15578&postcount=6
also used some of the analysis tools available on QFIT's cvbj site.

None of my beeswax but by what percentage had ur total roll increased?

well at the point where i increased the bet spread from 1:8 where my max bet was $40 to 1:10 where my max bet was $50 my bankroll had increased to $7000.00. i had originally started with $300 . lucky guy huh? i think it took me nearly 30,000 hands to reach the seven grand. like i say i believe i was near my N0. thats what i esitmate anyway.

It sounds like u took a break before losing entire roll? If so, again none of my beeswax, what % did u lose?

right, i lost about a $1000 of the $7000 when i put the brakes on my play.

U ever put a # on how unlikely ur results were? Like more than 2 standard deviations or even 3?

no i haven't done that. i just wrote it off as negative fluctuation because it was such a big loss relative to what i had ever experienced. i should really figure that out though shouldn't i? that was a 220 unit loss out of a total of 1,400 units.

Like u say, and I don't know, going from 1-8 to 1-10 doesn't sound like a lot but................

yeah it really is a significant increase in action relatively speaking.

At some point I guess it becomes an act of faith that u r playing right and it was neg flux and not u.

Still, it can be difficult to believe u were that 1 in 5000 to experience it.

well truthfuly i believe it was a combination of those factors. negative fluctuation and errors on my part. at that time i was playing while i was fatiqued but just didn't realize it at the time. i also lost my cool at one point and steamed a bit but i think those actions kind of cancelled each other out for both positive and negative results.
not sure if i understand your 1 in 5000 figures.

I was once down almost 4 standard deviations from expected over 10,000 hands at Intercasino. God I hated that game. I almost believed it was rigged.
But after 40000 hands I was actually 0.2 SD to the good!

U just never know in this damned game!

yeah i played Intercasino for a while. i won so much money i figured i was making more than a brain surgeon. then i lost it all. i never really figured out how to win online with bonus's and all until after the govt killed the online action.

 

[Kasi]

i can be incredibly dense and slow. but i'll probably figure that one out eventually

I just meant we are kind of alike in that I like to analyze alot too. Not to mention "fuzzy bet" lol.

right with such low ROR's i didn't really subject the bet scheme to a Kelly analysis. but yeah i figure i was betting less than full Kelly. i figured my optimal bets from simulations and used Sonny's bet spread sheet. explained in the link below:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=15578&postcount=6
also used some of the analysis tools available on QFIT's cvbj site.

I thought optimal bets (Kelly) would always have a ROR around 13%

no i haven't done that. i just wrote it off as negative fluctuation because it was such a big loss relative to what i had ever experienced. i should really figure that out though shouldn't i? that was a 220 unit loss out of a total of 1,400 units.

Doesn't sound out of this world improbable but I don't know how many hrs u played, when u betted how much, penetration, etc. And, if I did, I probably still wouldn't know

yeah it really is a significant increase in action relatively speaking.

well truthfuly i believe it was a combination of those factors. negative fluctuation and errors on my part. at that time i was playing while i was fatiqued but just didn't realize it at the time. i also lost my cool at one point and steamed a bit but i think those actions kind of cancelled each other out for both positive and negative results.
not sure if i understand your 1 in 5000 figures.

It probably almost is a combination of what u mention lol. Lord knows how many times I blew $600 at 2 in the morning suddenly finding myself $100/hd llol. More mistake than neg flux lol.

I just made up the 1 in 5000 approximating say a 3.5 standard deviation event. When it happens to u it just doesn't help much anyway knowing exactly how unlucky u are. About where I was with Inter after the 10000 hands.


yeah i played Intercasino for a while. i won so much money i figured i was making more than a brain surgeon. then i lost it all. i never really figured out how to win online with bonus's and all until after the govt killed the online action.[/QUOTE]

See while u were winning, I was losing my ass and then it switched lol. Believe me u would have made a fortune if u had started in 1998 or so.
I suddenly just thought - hey I actually recognized a +EV situation and acted on it lol.

And I'm glad u chose to preserve so much of ur winnings. Retire a winner - nothing wrong with that.

 

[sagefr0g]

I just meant we are kind of alike in that I like to analyze alot too. Not to mention "fuzzy bet" lol.

yeah i finally figured that out. musta been using some fuzzy thinking as it took me so long

I thought optimal bets (Kelly) would always have a ROR around 13%

yes i think thats accurate. but as i understand it one can lower ones ROR and then achieve optimal bets for that ROR. so i guess one sacrifices some of the Kelly optimality for a lower ROR.

It probably almost is a combination of what u mention lol. Lord knows how many times I blew $600 at 2 in the morning suddenly finding myself $100/hd llol. More mistake than neg flux lol.

yep i've had similar experiences. i really do think fatique plays a role at those times. http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=37382&postcount=1

See while u were winning, I was losing my ass and then it switched lol.

hey i can really believe that when you figure how statistical blackjack results are.

And I'm glad u chose to preserve so much of ur winnings. Retire a winner - nothing wrong with that.

yea i don't believe in money management schemes with respect to advantage play but i can't see just roboticaly playing on just because i believe i have the advantage when things are going radically wrong. to me thats a prompt to go back to drawing board and start analyzing again.