Consistency is a whole different topic that I totally support.blackjack avenger said:
Hey, swing by my place for a bite and some egg nog after you leave Sage and Y's place:grin::grin:Machinist said:
:joker::whip:creeping panther said:
Now,,,who said anything about a WHIM???blackjack avenger said:
I think i have some parallels to that kind of thinking Sagefrog. Your last few sentences, but i am to tired!!!! Just hitting the hay. I will reread in the morning. It has to do with the bonusing systems of slots.....sagefr0g said:isn't it true with simulations, simulations that are billions and billions of rounds of play, that what we see as a whole masks what actually happens over long, long, very long stretches of hands and rounds? need a number? lol, that's not asking too much but i don't have one. i'll just guess and say thousands upon thousands of hands for your typical six deck game say, some number of hands a good bit less than N0 say.
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
heh, heh, at it again huh. i don't blame you i'm wanting to go back and bang those machines some more, lol. it can be hard work crisscrossing back and forth, back and forth between far spaced 'milk' machines, dodging little ole ladies and cocktail waitress's, for hours on end, while trying to figure out the psyche of those feeding the machines.Machinist said:
:whip:
No, the sims don't have to be billions and billions of hands, a couple hundred million can suffice! LOL The more we play the greater our chances of success, so playing more is always a good idea.sagefr0g said:isn't it true with simulations, simulations that are billions and billions of rounds of play, that what we see as a whole masks what actually happens over long, long, very long stretches of hands and rounds? need a number? lol, that's not asking too much but i don't have one. i'll just guess and say thousands upon thousands of hands for your typical six deck game say, some number of hands a good bit less than N0 say.
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
Avenger,blackjack avenger said:
Amen Brother, do I hear a Hallelualalaala, praise BJblackjack avenger said:
:whip::laugh:I completely disagree with this way of thinking. From my poker days over at 2+2, I know that one of the key concepts that is always pounded into everyone's heads is "Results don't matter." If someone says "I called all in with 4:1 pot odds on the flop with the nut flush draw and no pair on the board", you'd say great job, as that's almost always a great place to call. If they then say "But the turn and river were..." you'd stop them and say it doesn't matter. Who cares if you won or lost? You made the right play and if you make the right play consistently, you will eventually get the money. The same is true here.sagefr0g said:isn't it true with simulations, simulations that are billions and billions of rounds of play, that what we see as a whole masks what actually happens over long, long, very long stretches of hands and rounds? need a number? lol, that's not asking too much but i don't have one. i'll just guess and say thousands upon thousands of hands for your typical six deck game say, some number of hands a good bit less than N0 say.
point being, say if that big long stretch of hands or rounds, or some variable series of hands or rounds that took place in a simulation but that was opaque as far as our knowing what transpired, say that stretch or stretches of rounds was in a word, crap. say it was a real horror story (a horror story not unlike those real life horror stories that we so often hear about, experience and see take place). then later on more opaque stuff goes on in the sim and things maybe get better, sort of thing. all that to the point where as we approach N0 or beyond that our bottom line becomes EV for the big picture.
but the point is, it doesn't have to go down that way, i mean it might, but the point is we have some ability to at least try to put a stop to those big long horrendous stretches of crap.
i mean yeah, a simulator does play it on and on and on, regardless of the crap coming down, sort of thing.
thing is we don't have too. i mean a simulation is just a long, long, long series of shoes played out a certain way, sort of thing.
thing is though, shoes are independent events, albeit the true counts, hence advantages fall within a normal distribution.
but we can know and make decisions based upon something a simulator doesn't bother with.
having run simulations, we can know the expectation and the various degrees of standard deviation of a single shoe which is an independent event.
that being the case we can set some range of goals (i know, i know, danger will robinson, lol, voodoo like sounding stuff), goals that we can choose with respect to our comfort zone, and yet still fall within a known range of expectation and standard deviation for a single shoe, or some set number of shoes.
this way, because of the independent nature of each shoe, it is possible that we can avoid the crap and reap the good stuff.
just as an example, first off expectation for a shoe, just a shoe, ain't all that much money for your typical card counter.
keep in mind a shoe is an independent event. but here is the kicker, it's so very, very often a counter will not even get to the point of raising his bets and guess what, he's already made expectation or above, early on in the shoe.
so in those cases, what's the point of even playing one more hand in that shoe if you've made expectation or beaten it?
true the count may be juicy, well ok, lmao, then maybe stick in there and play the juicy stuff.
tell you what though, if at that point there wasn't an advantage, i'd be thinking about hauling a$$.
and by the same token, say you fall some amount below expectation, some degree of standard deviation for a given shoe and no advantage is presenting, it just might be a good time to leave that shoe.
in that light, i find importance in keeping on my toes in the short run.:cat:
Sage, this is the gambler's fallacy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacysagefr0g said:
Nyne,Nynefingers said:
QFIT, could you be more vague?QFIT said:
i'm having a problem finding anything wrong with what your saying, except you fail to mention risk.Nynefingers said:
You post talks about leaving a shoe because you have already made what you would expect to make in that shoe. Basically, the post in its entirety talks about how a human can somehow decide when to leave based on results. That's gambler's fallacy.sagefr0g said:QFIT, could you be more vague?
i mean i am cursed with the gambler's fallacy, doubtless.
just a little more specific critique would help. a lot to ask, i know, so no big deal if it's too much trouble.
edit: like ok, just point to the specific point i was making that involves the gambler fallacy, errhh that would help.
