Those long losing streaks

[xengrifter]

And further, the two articles in question were somewhat disingenuous, owing that Grosjean deflects on the issue of negative volatility all together, even as relates to his own purported higher edge play...
... On the one hand, even high-gain hole card play - many of us have experienced mind-boggling negative volatility at that - and when it comes to lower edge things like HCing 3card poker, which might provide a 3 + percent edge with significantly higher variance than blackjack, Grosjean nonetheless gives the impression that future major-negative variance events can somehow be ameliorated significantly by engaging in some kind of ongoing learning feedback loop.

 

[BoSox]

Don't take my musings out of context...
... The context was KJ and part of the Grosjean meanderings linked above were intended swipes at KJ and card counters in general who publicly bemoan a large negative variance while finding comfort in existential surrender to the underlying math.

"
And further, the two articles in question were somewhat disingenuous, owing that Grosjean deflects on the issue of negative volatility all together, even as relates to his own purported higher edge play...
... On the one hand, even high-gain hole card play - many of us have experienced mind-boggling negative volatility at that - and when it comes to lower edge things like HCing 3card poker, which might provide a 3 + percent edge with significantly higher variance than blackjack, Grosjean nonetheless gives the impression that future major-negative variance events can somehow be ameliorated significantly by engaging in some kind of ongoing learning feedback loop."

Why are you quoting and comparing James Grosjean methods of AP play with straight counting? Do you have a mind of your own? If yes, does zengrifter think that card counting alone should be nothing but a smooth ride ahead?

Zengrifter, pertaining to me taking your so-called musings out of context, ok but what about what you are doing using Grosjean's meanderings "your words" on this board, one he most likely does not read? In my opinion, Grosjean's name should not have come up in this thread regardless if someone agreed with him or not.

 

[xengrifter]

Grosjean's name should not have come up in this thread regardless if someone agreed with him or not.

You are saying that someone should never quote or otherwise refer to a James Grosjean article irrespective of relevancy?

 

[BoSox]

You are saying that someone should never quote or otherwise refer to a James Grosjean article irrespective of relevancy?

No, I am not saying that, I just do not see the connection for relevancy in this case. Even Dopple wrote in post #1:

" I know it is all new math fresh in every game"

 

[xengrifter]

No, I am not saying that, I just do not see the connection for relevancy in this case. Even Dopple wrote in post #1:

" I know it is all new math fresh in every game"

Maybe you are right...
.... I am thinking of requesting admin here to spin some of this off to a new OP thread to allow its own discussion.

In my opinion, the relevancy of the two Grosjean articles are that they both address exactly what this OP was intending to examine, and whether there is anything to ameliorate the statistically reliable violent downward swings - or must we stoically surrender to the existential math reality.

 

[xengrifter]

Zengrifter, pertaining to me taking your so-called musings out of context, ok but what about what you are doing using Grosjean's meanderings "your words" on this board, one he most likely does not read?

Oh yes, you can be sure that he is reading this one.

 

[KewlJ]

In my opinion, the relevancy of the two Grosjean articles are that they both address exactly what this OP was intending to examine, and whether there is anything to ameliorate the statistically reliable violent downward swings - or must we stoically surrender to the existential math reality.

Hasn't this stuff been examined and discussed a million times for decades.

Blackjack advantage play via card counting involves variance...period! And that is a good thing. That is what allows casinos to offer beatable games. If there was no variance and players just won along the lines of expectation as people like T3 and more recently the nut job that resides on your forum claim, the casinos could not offer even the games we have now. But they know that many players will play under funded and the variance will "get them". Other will be unprepared mentally to handle the variance and will "tilt" when losing.

Despite what a few of these goofballs claim with their super-duper counts, there is no way to eliminate variance. There are a few things you can do to lessen it. The most extreme would be to wong in and only play +EV situations. But that is going to result in few rounds per hour and will quickly be obvious to everyone what you are doing.

Less extreme is to seek and play the best conditions. The best games you can find, deep penetration. That and aggressive exiting of negative counts (sort of the cousin of the "pure wong in") is about as good as you can hope for as far as reducing variance from card counting.

If you are a player that can't stand the variance, then move on to other AP techniques with a bigger advantage. But these guys running around like the two I have mentioned selling people a load of crap about how they eliminate variance and down swings with their super-duper counts, really irks me. They are flat out full of crap. As soon as a player like these two starts down that road, I know they are completely full of crap and they have zero credibility with anything they say or claim. It's THAT simple.

 

[BoSox]

Less extreme is to seek and play the best conditions. The best games you can find, deep penetration. That and aggressive exiting of negative counts (sort of the cousin of the "pure wong in") is about as good as you can hope for as far as reducing variance from card counting.

I have to politely disagree with some of that above quote. The better the conditions, rules and the deeper the pen the higher the variance. Meaning more opportunities to make larger bets always adds to the risk factor. As another player will not possibly lose his shirt making many one unit bets while also Wonging out and playing poor games. Yes we all want the positive EV opportunities, but, the added risk cannot be overlooked.

 

[BoSox]

In my opinion, the relevancy of the two Grosjean articles are that they both address exactly what this OP was intending to examine, and whether there is anything to ameliorate the statistically reliable violent downward swings - or must we stoically surrender to the existential math reality.

Since this thread is specifically about the game of blackjack, I believe that roughly 87% of all the EV gain obtainable from card counting is from bet variation alone it is what needs to be examined. Of course, we should have plenty of knowledge on index play, but, what good is it if a player is not properly bankrolled, to begin with. Playing a strong game is not possible if a player is always worrying about possibly losing a max bet, he will never be any good. Be properly bankrolled while playing well within your means is having a good foundation for starters.

 

[xengrifter]

I have to politely disagree with some of that above quote. The better the conditions, rules and the deeper the pen the higher the variance. Meaning more opportunities to make larger bets always adds to the risk factor.

That must explain why my biggest losing sessions have been with the best conditions.

 

[JohnCrover]

But they know that many players will play under funded and the variance will "get them".

I don't think it matters if someone is playing with a high RoR when it comes to booking action from the casino's perspective. They're still losing EV to that player. Sure, that underfunded player might tap out, but the next one might go on a nice run.

 

[xengrifter]

I don't think it matters if someone is playing with a high RoR when it comes to booking action from the casino's perspective. They're still losing EV to that player. Sure, that underfunded player might tap out, but the next one might go on a nice run.

You are correct, the other theory is fallacy.

 

[KewlJ]

You are correct, the other theory is fallacy.

The other theory is not fallacy. To be successful a player has to have the skill (not that hard to master), be properly funded, and mentally prepared and able to handle the swings and variance without tilting or playing scared. While none of it seems that difficult, it is relatively few players that put all that together. And without ALL of these pieces, the player is just gambling. The casinos are in the business of gambling and count on this.

Without all these pieces in place, the player is no more a long-term threat than say a progressive wagering player. He might win that session (short term) but he just is not a longterm threat.

 

[xengrifter]

Most casinos are not equipped to do a proper risk assessment on every large and small counter... But seen as a whole, 5000 newbie card counters, though even if each one of them is undercapitalized and over betting, taken as a weighted-whole they are a risk... More than a risk per se, they are a leak in the casino boat.

 

[BoSox]

The other theory is not fallacy. To be successful a player has to have the skill (not that hard to master), be properly funded, and mentally prepared and able to handle the swings and variance without tilting or playing scared. While none of it seems that difficult, it is relatively few players that put all that together. And without ALL of these pieces, the player is just gambling. The casinos are in the business of gambling and count on this.

Without all these pieces in place, the player is no more a long-term threat than say a progressive wagering player. He might win that session (short term) but he just is not a longterm threat.

Most casinos are not equipped to do a proper risk assessment on every large and small counter... But seen as a whole, 5000 newbie card counters, though even if each one of them is undercapitalized and over betting, taken as a weighted-whole they are a risk... More than a risk per se, they are a leak in the casino boat.

In this instance, KJ answer should be the appropriate "I also agree with him" one and not zengrifter's because, some of our strongest strengths is using the casinos' superstitions, paranoia, and stupidity to our advantage. We should not be the ones educating them. Christ the last thing we need is to have them even think that there could possibly be 5000 newbie card counters ready to hit the tables.

 

[DSchles]

That must explain why my biggest losing sessions have been with the best conditions.

For an experienced player, this surely should not come as a surprise. In any event, see BJA3, p. 384, "On very high counts." And, of course, the better the conditions, the more frequently you get the high counts.

Don

 

[xengrifter]

Hasn't this stuff been examined and discussed a million times for decades.

Yes, but then you have Grosjean writing two or three bulshit-baffles-brains articles suggesting that card counters should be more proactive about ameliorating significant downward swings.

 

[xengrifter]

For an experienced player, this surely should not come as a surprise.

Surely not.
I have many times over the years underscored this as a paradox - our biggest losses occur in our best most profitable games.

 

[KewlJ]

Yes, but then you have Grosjean writing two or three bulshit-baffles-brains articles suggesting that card counters should be more proactive about ameliorating significant downward swings.

James like to put card counters down and remind everyone that he employs much more advanced techniques playing much higher edges. That is all this is. Sadly this need to continually tell everyone that he is better, smarter than others is not one of his better qualities. That is the behavior of a rather insecure person.

 

[LC Larry]

There's nothing "advanced" to most of it. It's rather simple. The hard part is leaving the casinos when you don't find these opportunities.