London Colin
Well-Known Member
No.sagefr0g said:
The rollercoaster that is card counting
- Thread starter KewlJ
- Start date
London Colin
Well-Known Member
No.sagefr0g said:i know it would be impractical, but how about if the number rounds per session were precisely the same?
I've explained why at great length. I don't know what else I can say.
London Colin
Well-Known Member
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
head spinning, lol.London Colin said:
so, by the process of elimination, just about the only part of post #60 that wasn't refuted was the following:
the ATH 'frequency' value that one expects should converge ever closer to circa 1.6%, actual result-wise, the more rounds one plays
or have i missed the boat again?
patience my friend, i might actually land up learning something here!
London Colin
Well-Known Member
I'm saying that my words, which you quoted in post #60 are the best summary of what I've been trying to get across!sagefr0g said:head spinning, lol.
so, by the process of elimination, just about the only part of post #60 that wasn't refuted was the following:
the ATH 'frequency' value that one expects should converge ever closer to circa 1.6%, actual result-wise, the more rounds one plays
or have i missed the boat again?
patience my friend, i might actually land up learning something here!
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
ahhh k, yes, i missed that you referred to the quote i made.
so ok, i also reviewed some of your other explanations in the thread, summarized below (out of context):
“It looks like part of the confusion here is that you have shifted the focus from hands to sessions. ATH, as we have been discussing it, applies to the result of each and every hand. While, as a practical matter, it may only be possible to keep track of changes in bankroll when you cash in your chips, if you want to define ATH in terms of these end-of-session snapshots, then the probability of being at an ATH will go up with the length of your sessions.”
&
“Mathematically there is no such thing as a session. Your gambling is just one long sequence of individual events. You can think about sessions for psychological reasons (and because you necessarily have session-based records to look back on). But when thinking about a game in the abstract, analysing what you can expect to happen in the long run, it's just one hand after another.”
&
“E.g., if you record a series of end-of-year results, the probability that each and every one will represent a profit for the year (i.e. you will have a series of ATHs, ignoring fluctuations within the year) must surely be higher that doing the same thing for a series of end-of-day results. And, similarly, it will be higher for end-of-day than hand-by-hand.”
so anyway, perhaps rereading the above and thinking about those explanations, perhaps i'll better understand how to properly apply the concept put forth by Peter Griffin per Stanford Wong:
"at most 1.6% of the time your present hand puts you at an all time high. the other 98.4% or more of your playing time, your current bankroll is lower than it was at some time in the past.”
thank you for hanging in there London.
so ok, i also reviewed some of your other explanations in the thread, summarized below (out of context):
“It looks like part of the confusion here is that you have shifted the focus from hands to sessions. ATH, as we have been discussing it, applies to the result of each and every hand. While, as a practical matter, it may only be possible to keep track of changes in bankroll when you cash in your chips, if you want to define ATH in terms of these end-of-session snapshots, then the probability of being at an ATH will go up with the length of your sessions.”
&
“Mathematically there is no such thing as a session. Your gambling is just one long sequence of individual events. You can think about sessions for psychological reasons (and because you necessarily have session-based records to look back on). But when thinking about a game in the abstract, analysing what you can expect to happen in the long run, it's just one hand after another.”
&
“E.g., if you record a series of end-of-year results, the probability that each and every one will represent a profit for the year (i.e. you will have a series of ATHs, ignoring fluctuations within the year) must surely be higher that doing the same thing for a series of end-of-day results. And, similarly, it will be higher for end-of-day than hand-by-hand.”
so anyway, perhaps rereading the above and thinking about those explanations, perhaps i'll better understand how to properly apply the concept put forth by Peter Griffin per Stanford Wong:
"at most 1.6% of the time your present hand puts you at an all time high. the other 98.4% or more of your playing time, your current bankroll is lower than it was at some time in the past.”
thank you for hanging in there London.
London Colin
Well-Known Member
As far as I can see that figure is just an interesting mathematical curiosity. I can't think of a single way in which it can be 'applied'. I really don't know why people are getting so hung up about it.sagefr0g said:
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
see following post https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/the-rollercoaster-that-is-card-counting.54893/page-2#post-491382London Colin said:
i spend a lot of time off road
xengrifter
Banned
Yes get into it. This is your thread and you are still FROGGY on the concept.sagefr0g said:
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
yep, i’m fr0ggy on the concept, lol. ok, i’ll try.xengrifter said:
from Peter Griffin per Stanford Wong:
"at most 1.6% of the time your present hand puts you at an all time high. the other 98.4% or more of your playing time, your current bankroll is lower than it was at some time in the past.”
i think my error in understanding was thinking that the ATH ‘frequency’ should be ascertainable in conditions other than from the present hand perspective. conditions such as from a sessions perspective. well, one can easily determine the number of all time highs that occurred in a session, or from a number of sessions, but the computed frequency from such data likely won’t turn out to be 1.6% . so that makes me think the 1.6% ATH frequency is simply a fact with regards to ones present hand perspective only and isn’t applicable to computation from sessions as i erroneously thought it could be.
from that perspective, too me at least, London's explanations make perfect sense.
xengrifter
Banned
Thank you, Professor Corey!
Ryemo
Well-Known Member
Continuing the Roller Coaster discussion...
I recently had a trip to a destination that is not known for having very good games (bad pen). Short trip with only 9 or 10 hrs of play. My trip-win was coincidentally the same amount as the gigantic loss I took back in Dec and posted about at the beginning of this thread. I ran a pretty generalized sim to figure out the probability of this occurrence; 0.0% chance of occurring and +4 standard deviations! Unreal...
This is by far the best trip I've experienced. I just couldn't lose... literally. I didn't have a single losing session. It's probably good to look back on these types of moments when experiencing long or severe losing streaks. Needless to say, 2017 has been off to a great start.
I recently had a trip to a destination that is not known for having very good games (bad pen). Short trip with only 9 or 10 hrs of play. My trip-win was coincidentally the same amount as the gigantic loss I took back in Dec and posted about at the beginning of this thread. I ran a pretty generalized sim to figure out the probability of this occurrence; 0.0% chance of occurring and +4 standard deviations! Unreal...
This is by far the best trip I've experienced. I just couldn't lose... literally. I didn't have a single losing session. It's probably good to look back on these types of moments when experiencing long or severe losing streaks. Needless to say, 2017 has been off to a great start.
Last edited:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Congrats to your positive start to 2017, Ryemo.Ryemo said:
I too am running real well in 2017. On the one hand, I am basically where I was back in early October.....so that does not seem like progress. But, from that point in early October through the end of the year I feel backwards about 35 grand. And now I have 'recovered' from that in the first 8 weeks of the year.
So it's all a matter of perspective. If I am measuring from early October, I am +2k in 5 months. That seems like a real stuck in the mud scenario.
BUT, measuring from the first of the year, which IS the way I keep my books and the way the government requires it, I am up 30-some thousand and that's a real nice start to the year. I love the big, fast starts! Even knowing that things will even out at some point, it's always better to be playing from in front (of expectation) than playing from behind and hoping to catch up.
Last edited:
Ryemo
Well-Known Member
Good to hear you're off to a good start as well! Sounds like we're in the same boat almost. I was at an ATH in early December, but I dumped 30K in the last 3 weeks of the year. I'm up a little over 40K for 2017, but my BR is pretty much in the same spot as it was in early December, due to eating into the BR for expenses.KewlJ said:Congrats to your positive start to 2017, Ryemo.
I too am running real well in 2017. On the one hand, I am basically where I was back in early October.....so that does not seem like progress. But, from that point in early October through the end of the year I feel backwards about 35 grand. And now I have 'recovered' from that in the first 8 weeks of the year.
So it's all a matter of perspective. If I am measuring from early October, am +2k in 5 months. That seems like a real stuck in the mud scenario.
I love the big, fast starts! Even knowing that things will even out at some point, it's always better to be playing from in front (of expectation) than playing from behind and hoping to catch up.
I agree though, much nicer to start off ahead of EV, as opposed to trying to catch up to EV.