Worst negative variance you have experienced?
- Thread starter Knox
- Start date
What should we assume for the 1-15 spread when u lost 17 max bets? Same game, same number of hours played and betting 3 times as much as u would have at the same TC's as the the 1-5 spread? Except for the 1, I suppose?Knox said:
Or should we assume a different game, played a different way for a different amount of time?
If u want to base all games on only the number of max units lost as a measure of how unlucky u were ... I can't even go on.
Could u tell me why u chose max bets as a measurement instead of minimum bets to measure how bad ur luck may have been? Why not choose $2.5 bets for the 1-5 and $7.50 bets for the 1-15?
Anyway, all I'm saying is u/anyone may at least want to make an effort to measure results over time with a view toward just how unlikley they are so, perhaps, u can review whatever is ur doing makes sense or not.
Rather than just dismiss almost anything as a a little "bad luck" but it'll turn around.
Does no one here ever ask themself at some point, "I've played this same game the same way for thousands of hands now and I'm down what I think is a sh*tload. Am I doing something wrong or is everything cool?"
Does anyone go back to their room and write down I played this game for so long in a certain way and finished up x dollars? And maybe do the same thing if penetration changed, or u switched to backcounting, or the rules of the game changed etc?
Do people here tend to play a lot of different games with different rules and different bet spreads or mostly the same game with the same bet spread most of the time?
That's what standard deviation is for... Here is a sample standard deviation for a bankroll under given conditions (no I did not just type all this stuff in less then two minutes lol, copied it from an earlier message)
Conditions
Count system: Hi-Lo, Ill18 and Fab4
Decks: 2
Rules: S17
Spread: 20
Hands per Hour: 150 (the place is a ghost town)
RoR: 2%
Penetration: 36 cards cut off
Bankroll: $10,000
(check marked two handed play and simplified betting)
(should mention one person can play two hands, and at table minimum if they want as well, bet limits on these two deckers is only $5-$100 unfortunately)
Results
$/HR: 86.72
RoR: 2%
STD dev per hand: 10.9
STD dev per hour: 133.521
...............Bet Strategy.................
....True Count............Optimal Bet....
.......<=0.........................2x$5......
..........1.........................2x$10.....
..........2.........................2x$25.....
.........3,4........................2x$50.....
..........5.........................2x$75.....
.......>=6........................2x$100.....
I figured out three STD deviations under various time frames:
Approx. One hour of play (150 hands)
2% ($12,089 - $11,419)
13.5% ($11,419 - $10,754)
34% ($10,754 - $10,087)
34% ($10,087 - $9,414)
13.5% ($9,414 - $8,749)
2% ($8,749 - $8,079)
Approx. Two hours of play (300 hands)
2% ($13,006 - $12,062)
13.5% ($12,062 - $11,118)
34% ($11,118 - $10,174)
34% ($10,174 - $9,230)
13.5% ($9,230 - $8,286)
2% ($8,286 - $7,342)
Approx. Ten hours of play (1500 hands)
2% ($17,200 - $15,090 )
13.5% ($15,090 - $12,980)
34% ($12,980 - $10,870 )
34% ($10,870 - $8,760 )
13.5% ($8,760 - $6,650 )
2% ($6,650 - $4,540 )
Approx. 30 hours of play (4500 hands)
2% ($23,578 - $19,922)
13.5% ($19,922 - $16,266 )
34% ($16,266 - $12,610 )
34% ($12,610 - $8,954 )
13.5% ($8,954 - $5,298 )
2% ($5,298 - $1,642 )
Approx. 60 hours of play (9000 hands)
2% ($30,730 - $25,560)
13.5%($25,560 - $20,390)
34% ($20,390 - $15,220)
34% ($15,220 - $10,050)
13.5% ($10,050 - $4,880)
2% ($4,880 - $-290)
Approx. 100 hours of play (15,000 hands)
2% ($38,725 - $32,050)
13.5%($32,050 - $25,375)
34% ($25,375 - $18,700)
34% ($18,700 - $12,025)
13.5%($12,025 - $5,350)
2% ($5,350 - $-1,325)
Approx. 250 hours of play (37,500 hands)
2% ($63,412 - $52,858)
13.5%($52,858 - $42,304)
34% ($42,304 - $31,750)
34% ($31,750 - $21,196)
13.5% ($21,196 - $10,642)
2% ($10,642 - $88)
Within one standard deviation=anything within the middle two 34% ranges
Within two standard deviations= anything within either of the 13.5% ranges
Within three standard deviations= anything within the outermost (2%ers)
Within four standard deviations=Anything greater or less then what's shown (the final 1%)
So, in conclusion, if you fall in the 4% outer edges or further, father luck really really hates:whip: you or really really loves you:devil:, or you're doing something wrong. If you keep falling in the negative 2% range (like 2 or 3 hours in a row) you're probably doing something really wrong
Conditions
Count system: Hi-Lo, Ill18 and Fab4
Decks: 2
Rules: S17
Spread: 20
Hands per Hour: 150 (the place is a ghost town)
RoR: 2%
Penetration: 36 cards cut off
Bankroll: $10,000
(check marked two handed play and simplified betting)
(should mention one person can play two hands, and at table minimum if they want as well, bet limits on these two deckers is only $5-$100 unfortunately)
Results
$/HR: 86.72
RoR: 2%
STD dev per hand: 10.9
STD dev per hour: 133.521
...............Bet Strategy.................
....True Count............Optimal Bet....
.......<=0.........................2x$5......
..........1.........................2x$10.....
..........2.........................2x$25.....
.........3,4........................2x$50.....
..........5.........................2x$75.....
.......>=6........................2x$100.....
I figured out three STD deviations under various time frames:
Approx. One hour of play (150 hands)
2% ($12,089 - $11,419)
13.5% ($11,419 - $10,754)
34% ($10,754 - $10,087)
34% ($10,087 - $9,414)
13.5% ($9,414 - $8,749)
2% ($8,749 - $8,079)
Approx. Two hours of play (300 hands)
2% ($13,006 - $12,062)
13.5% ($12,062 - $11,118)
34% ($11,118 - $10,174)
34% ($10,174 - $9,230)
13.5% ($9,230 - $8,286)
2% ($8,286 - $7,342)
Approx. Ten hours of play (1500 hands)
2% ($17,200 - $15,090 )
13.5% ($15,090 - $12,980)
34% ($12,980 - $10,870 )
34% ($10,870 - $8,760 )
13.5% ($8,760 - $6,650 )
2% ($6,650 - $4,540 )
Approx. 30 hours of play (4500 hands)
2% ($23,578 - $19,922)
13.5% ($19,922 - $16,266 )
34% ($16,266 - $12,610 )
34% ($12,610 - $8,954 )
13.5% ($8,954 - $5,298 )
2% ($5,298 - $1,642 )
Approx. 60 hours of play (9000 hands)
2% ($30,730 - $25,560)
13.5%($25,560 - $20,390)
34% ($20,390 - $15,220)
34% ($15,220 - $10,050)
13.5% ($10,050 - $4,880)
2% ($4,880 - $-290)
Approx. 100 hours of play (15,000 hands)
2% ($38,725 - $32,050)
13.5%($32,050 - $25,375)
34% ($25,375 - $18,700)
34% ($18,700 - $12,025)
13.5%($12,025 - $5,350)
2% ($5,350 - $-1,325)
Approx. 250 hours of play (37,500 hands)
2% ($63,412 - $52,858)
13.5%($52,858 - $42,304)
34% ($42,304 - $31,750)
34% ($31,750 - $21,196)
13.5% ($21,196 - $10,642)
2% ($10,642 - $88)
Within one standard deviation=anything within the middle two 34% ranges
Within two standard deviations= anything within either of the 13.5% ranges
Within three standard deviations= anything within the outermost (2%ers)
Within four standard deviations=Anything greater or less then what's shown (the final 1%)
So, in conclusion, if you fall in the 4% outer edges or further, father luck really really hates:whip: you or really really loves you:devil:, or you're doing something wrong. If you keep falling in the negative 2% range (like 2 or 3 hours in a row) you're probably doing something really wrong
Last edited:
letsdothis21
Well-Known Member
I'll try again, lol. You measure it with max bets since when you are betting max there must be a good TC meaning you should have the advantage, and to lose 50 hands at an advantage is much worse than losing 17 hands at an advantage.Kasi said:
You would not lose the minimum bets as a measure of unluckiness since when you bet minimum you probably don't have an advantage, so it doesn't really matter (still bad, but you aren't expected to win the hands).
Basically lets say your max bet occurs at a huge true count and you lose 1,000 hands with a $1 bet or lose $1,000 on 1 bet at the same TC, which one is worse variance?
Clearer?
I think I may have already said this earlier, but I will mention that I typically use Kelly betting from key count to pivot point, increasing my betting units to my max bet, in this discussion, 5. At that point, my advantage is about 2%. I do not increase from the minimum bet until I have an advantage, which occurs at the KO key count.
Now will ya quit pickin' on me Kasi!
Now will ya quit pickin' on me Kasi!
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Oh I believe it. Same thing last night, down 56 units. Walked into the casino with a marginal playing stake of 10 big bets. First shoe was phenomenal, doubled it! Now I have a legit playing stake.Kaiser said:
3 hours later, I was cashing out for 3 big bets, disgusted and demoralized. Can't imagine how a dealer could pull so many hands, so many times in a row. Oh wait, I've seen this before, like in my last 4-5 sessions.
But I'll be back tonight!
Brock Windsor
Well-Known Member
After over-betting for my BR early on I was about 25 sessions getting back to where I started....Then dumped 70 units my next time out after getting signalled in by a partner at a high TC. It's a grind.
BW
BW
Sure is! Dropped 31 units today on 1 shoe (11% of my BR) after winning my last four sessions and making 27 units. You gotta hate loosing insurance and busting both hands with max bet out. On a brighter note, I came across a nice little EV boost. Spotted a black chip laying on the ground. :eyepatch:Brock Windsor said:
Not really lol.letsdothis21 said:
Basically, I think one should take an expected dollar loss over a period of time and express it in units any way one wants. Be they min units, max units or avg-bet units.
While one can and does have a different expected dollar win at different TC's with a different bet out at that count, I generally assume any variances are stated based on an overall betting ramp and an overall result.
I take it that in your example you would call a 1 unit loss your worst variance since you lost one max bet out of one? Assuming even bet in a large positive expectation situation.
Apparently that's more unlucky than losing a net 1000 hands at $1? Assuming even bet is in an overall negative expectation situation.
I'd really have to go with losing 1000 units is much more unlucky than losing one hand out of one hand.
I set a new record for negative variance, losing 24 units of my max or 144 of my min over two days. Fortunately, I had won 14 max or 84 min the two days prior. Finally rebounded with a small win, leaving me down about 8 max bets for the 4-day trip.
The two days of losing, the thing that stood out, BORING. 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, dealer has 10. Over and over and over. Then, dealer pulls 20, again and again and again and again and....again. Then, yet another odds-defying 21 for the dealer. Get a blackjack, dealer has one too. Insurance? Sorry, no blackjack. Double down on 10 or 11? Here have a deuce. YAWN.
The two days of losing, the thing that stood out, BORING. 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, dealer has 10. Over and over and over. Then, dealer pulls 20, again and again and again and again and....again. Then, yet another odds-defying 21 for the dealer. Get a blackjack, dealer has one too. Insurance? Sorry, no blackjack. Double down on 10 or 11? Here have a deuce. YAWN.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Yeah I know that feeling. It seems like if you had half the luck the dealer had, you could retire in a week of play. Dealer luck can be absolutely dazzling sometimes. And at the same time, you will bust every 12.Knox said:
Good thing it's only a perception, and the reason why I think is that unlike gamblers we walk up to that table expecting to win. A +10 count seems enormous to us but in reality we only have a few percent advantage, and we still lose more hands than we win. Playing sufficiently capitalized erases most of that feeling, because you don't feel like you have to win.
SilentBob420BMFJ
Banned
i only play in positive counts, and sometimes i hate it, because my days of winning with 4+ card hands are pretty much over.. sometimes i think, well i know the dealer has to hit, thus tens bust him out, but i have to hit too! the only hand i dont have to hit due to the count is 16 vs 10, and rarely 16 vs 9 and 15 vs 10, so im wondering what the bust % is at different counts (before the cards are dealt).. and im wondering if its more volatile at higher counts, since if you get dealt 16 vs 7-8, 15 vs 7-9, 14 vs 7+, etc, your pretty much screwed since you cant deviate because the count probably isnt that high, and also, i dont know any indexes over +5!! haha
Bob: there is lot a not of point in learning extreme high + count indices for 6D games. DD or SD are a different story. I see plenty of very high + counts in my mostly DD play, and I have incorporated a rounded index value for just those occasions. Off the top of my head, I added 16 v 8 or A, 15 v 9 or A, and 14 v 10. Also doubling 8 v 3-4 and 9 v 8. I think 16 v 7 is still outside the range though. Not too many people know these indices, so they offer good cover and the most accurate play with your biggest bets out.
Once you know your standard system cold, take on the additional challenge of adding the high + indices. It's really not that hard, should be quite intuitive for any experience counter.
By the way, I got back another 24 units back this week playing a mediocre (at least by my standards) 6D game, as that was the only game in town. I am now back where I started about a month ago, even after that awful negative variance run. That puts me at double my starting roll for the year :grin: . I only resumed playing in the past year after a 15-year hiatus brought upon by the difficulty of the Hi Opt I (or was it II?) system.
Once you know your standard system cold, take on the additional challenge of adding the high + indices. It's really not that hard, should be quite intuitive for any experience counter.
By the way, I got back another 24 units back this week playing a mediocre (at least by my standards) 6D game, as that was the only game in town. I am now back where I started about a month ago, even after that awful negative variance run. That puts me at double my starting roll for the year :grin: . I only resumed playing in the past year after a 15-year hiatus brought upon by the difficulty of the Hi Opt I (or was it II?) system.