Money Management
JohnC364
To All:
I'm a fairly proficient BJ player (not a counter, yet, but working on it
<g>) and out of the many books I've read (Thorpe, Revere, Braun, i.e. the
usual suspects) one subject that IMHO is not covered in adequate detail is
money management.
I know the party line about only playing with 1/20 or 1/30 of your
available funds per hand, and win or lose that number of units and then
QUIT. But my question for this group is... can't anyone do better than
this for some real *theory*?
It seems to me that even *without* counting cards, if you have an even
game with the house by playing Basic Strategy, you ought to be able to
make money consistently by simply always quitting when you're up a little
bit! In other words, if you have enough cash to ride out the reasonable
highs and lows of a normal game cycle, and are not greedy, you can more or
less ALWAYS quit a winner.
The question then becomes, "how much money is 'a little bit'...?" What's
reasonable to expect? Personally, I've played this way for about the last
year and overall I've won more than I've lost (about $3000 playing $25
hands) but I'd like to know that it was not just simple luck that helped
make happen...
Thoughts?
Karel Janecek
>I know the party line about only playing with 1/20 or 1/30 of your
>available funds per hand, and win or lose that number of units and then
>QUIT. But my question for this group is... can't anyone do better than
>this for some real *theory*?
>It seems to me that even *without* counting cards, if you have an even
>game with the house by playing Basic Strategy, you ought to be able to
>make money consistently by simply always quitting when you're up a little
>bit! In other words, if you have enough cash to ride out the reasonable
>highs and lows of a normal game cycle, and are not greedy, you can more or
>less ALWAYS quit a winner.
Unfortunately not. You CANNOT influence your winning by jumping in or out
of a game. (Excluding backcounting or alike.)
Actually, the notion money management has only one reason. If you lose,
there are two possibilities:
1) you are unlucky
2) you play badly
In case 1), it has no sense to quit. You don't improve your odds.
In case 2), you should stop playing.
Actually, the idea behind money management is that if you are losing, you
might get distracted, and start doing mistakes. Possibly, they might be
cheating. But that is all.
I personally really don't see much value in money management. If you are
tired, simply don't play.
Two weeks ago I went to casino, lost what I had in cash (when playing only
positive counts). But I felt in a good mood, and felt that I was playing
well. I also got bored, since I was waiting for a friend. So I took money
from a cash machine, and won at least a half back.
Of course, I could have lost again. But as soon as you don't make errors,
it really doesn't matter if you continue, or start again the next day (or
next week, or whatever).
If you can control yourself, money management is of no value.
(Sure you keep records of your winnings/loses.)
>The question then becomes, "how much money is 'a little bit'...?" What's
>reasonable to expect? Personally, I've played this way for about the last
>year and overall I've won more than I've lost (about $3000 playing $25
>hands) but I'd like to know that it was not just simple luck that helped
>make happen...
I might disappoint you, but it was just a simple luck. (I inferred that
you didn't count.) But you see, here the casino had an advantage. Even if
YOU have it, you might be losing after a year of play, even if you play
perfectly. It would be simply a bad luck.
Karel
Mike Taylor
john...@aol.com (JohnC364) wrote:
>It seems to me that even *without* counting cards, if you have an even
>game with the house by playing Basic Strategy, you ought to be able to
>make money consistently by simply always quitting when you're up a little
>bit! In other words, if you have enough cash to ride out the reasonable
>highs and lows of a normal game cycle, and are not greedy, you can more or
>less ALWAYS quit a winner.
You're begging for someone to tell you that your superstitious feelings are
justified, but the fact is they aren't. The "real theory" that you're
looking for is elementary probability, and it says that no matter how
things may "seem" to you, games of chance just don't work like that.
People who use words like "cycle" or "trend" generally believe that they
can predict the future by perceiving imagined patterns, but the universe
just doesn't work that way.
It is true, however, that there are ways to quit a winner most of the time.
You just use a double-till-you-win betting progression like the Martingale
and face the fact that eventually a huge loss will wipe out all of your
small wins. (See the thread, "$$$ Does this method work well??? $$$")
Mike Taylor - (No email please.)
Robert C. Snyderwine
From: john...@aol.com (JohnC364)
>I'm a fairly proficient BJ player (not a counter, yet, but working on it
><g>) and out of the many books I've read (Thorpe, Revere, Braun, i.e. the
>usual suspects) one subject that IMHO is not covered in adequate detail is
>money management.
>I know the party line about only playing with 1/20 or 1/30 of your
>available funds per hand, and win or lose that number of units and then
>QUIT. But my question for this group is... can't anyone do better than
>this for some real *theory*?
>It seems to me that even *without* counting cards, if you have an even
>game with the house by playing Basic Strategy, you ought to be able to
>make money consistently by simply always quitting when you're up a little
>bit! In other words, if you have enough cash to ride out the reasonable
>highs and lows of a normal game cycle, and are not greedy, you can more or
>less ALWAYS quit a winner.
>The question then becomes, "how much money is 'a little bit'...?" What's
>reasonable to expect? Personally, I've played this way for about the last
>year and overall I've won more than I've lost (about $3000 playing $25
>hands) but I'd like to know that it was not just simple luck that helped
>make happen...
Ken Uston's "Million Dollar Blackjack" includes analysis and experience
on money management. His data should help you to see if your $3000 gain
is within expectations. I have not read much else yet by the "usual
suspects". You might try simulating your strategy with a program like
Real World Casino Analyzer.
Basic probability theory says that if you play forever, your wins and
losses will balance out to the payout of the "game". The payout is
determined by the casino's rules, your playing strategy(Hit/Stand,
Double/Split, Betting, and Card Counting), and your ability to
make the right plays with minimal errors.
The flaw in your "I've won a little bit, I'll stop" approach is that there
are no guarantees that you'll always get to your daily goal. Also, some
days you should continue once you've gotten to your daily goal.
I believe that each person decides this issue based on opinions,
experiences, and analysis. I do not expect a widely accepted theory on this
aspect of blackjack. I see only a few widely accepted concepts in BJ.
Each player has to consider if they are looking for a gambling high,
a hobby that they enjoy perfecting, or a job (2,000 hrs/year) of grinding
casinos down by patiently and mechanically executing a solid game.
In Blackjack, I believe that the compulsive gamblers support the
casinos. A certain portion of the hobbyists and grinders also
contribute when they do not have the deep pockets to ride out the
normal series of losses.
Kris Olberg
john...@aol.com (JohnC364) wrote:
>It seems to me that even *without* counting cards, if you have an even
>game with the house by playing Basic Strategy, you ought to be able to
>make money consistently by simply always quitting when you're up a little
>bit! In other words, if you have enough cash to ride out the reasonable
>highs and lows of a normal game cycle, and are not greedy, you can more or
>less ALWAYS quit a winner.
No. It doesn't work this way. What ends up happening is that your wins
are limited to small ones while you suffer some large losses getting
back to even.
As I've said before on this group, BJ is one, long game. (To visualize
this, take your last fifty sessions and mentally "snip" the time in
between.) You don't change your overall expectation by quitting while
you're ahead or by cutting your losses.
Regards...Kris
------------------------------
Robert C. Snyderwine
From: john...@aol.com (JohnC364)
>I'm a fairly proficient BJ player (not a counter, yet, but working on it
><g>) and out of the many books I've read (Thorpe, Revere, Braun, i.e. the
>usual suspects) one subject that IMHO is not covered in adequate detail is
>money management.
>I know the party line about only playing with 1/20 or 1/30 of your
>available funds per hand, and win or lose that number of units and then
>QUIT. But my question for this group is... can't anyone do better than
>this for some real *theory*?
>It seems to me that even *without* counting cards, if you have an even
>game with the house by playing Basic Strategy, you ought to be able to
>make money consistently by simply always quitting when you're up a little
>bit! In other words, if you have enough cash to ride out the reasonable
>highs and lows of a normal game cycle, and are not greedy, you can more or
>less ALWAYS quit a winner.
>The question then becomes, "how much money is 'a little bit'...?" What's
--
------------------------------------
- Bob Snyderwine -
- gy...@cleveland.freenet.edu -
-----------------------------------
Andy Latto
In article <4m9hkm$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> john...@aol.com (JohnC364) writes:
To All:
I'm a fairly proficient BJ player (not a counter, yet, but working on it
<g>) and out of the many books I've read (Thorpe, Revere, Braun, i.e. the
usual suspects) one subject that IMHO is not covered in adequate detail is
money management.
I know the party line about only playing with 1/20 or 1/30 of your
available funds per hand, and win or lose that number of units and then
QUIT. But my question for this group is... can't anyone do better than
this for some real *theory*?
It seems to me that even *without* counting cards, if you have an even
game with the house by playing Basic Strategy, you ought to be able to
make money consistently by simply always quitting when you're up a little
bit! In other words, if you have enough cash to ride out the reasonable
highs and lows of a normal game cycle, and are not greedy, you can more or
less ALWAYS quit a winner.
No. You can't. Rather than give a mathematical proof that no such
Money Management strategy can yield an expected win in a
negative-expectation game, here's a little story that may be more
persuasive than a mathematical proof.
Joe had found the perfect Money Management strategy. He Knew When to
Quit. I can't tell you the exact formula he used, because he never
told it to me, but just by Knowing When to Quit, he always made a
little bit of money each session. The he flew from Las Vegas back to
his home in New York.
After Joe made enough money this way, he quit his day job. After each
session, He Knew When to Quit, and after he quit, he'd fly home to New
York. Then he immediately booked a flight back to Las Vegas for his
next session. After all, since his Money Management strategy made him
money every session, he wanted to start the next session as soon as
possible.
Then Joe got tired of all the air travel, so he moved to Las Vegas.
Then when he quit at the end of a session, always winning, since he
Knew When to Quit, he just had to drive home, turn around, and drive
back to the casino. He had more sessions, and he kept winning every
session.
The Joe got tired of doing all of this driving. So he realized that
there was no need to actually drive home between sessions. So he would
just pick up his chips, cash in, go back to the tables, buy chips
again, and start his next session.
But then one day, when he tried to start his second session of the day
on a crowded day, there were no empty tables, and he had to wait a
long time, which he didn't like. So Joe got another good idea. Now,
when he ends his session (always a winner, because he Knows When to
Quit), he stays at the table, and says "OK, I quit! End of the
session...OK! Time to start the next session!", and continues to
play. He plays several sessions in a row, winning at each session,
since he Knows When to Quit, and over a day, since each of his
sessions makes him money, his day as a whole makes him even more
money.
One day, Joe sees another gambler, Fred, sitting next to him. They
played the cards about equally well. But Fred just plays one 8-hour
long session, straight through the day. Joe plays the whole day, but
at just the right times, when he is a little ahead, because he Knows
When to Quit, Joe says "End of session...New session!". Joe feels
sorry for poor Fred. Joe knew that he will make money, while Fred
will lose money, because Joe knows a Money Management system, and Fred
doesn't.
Will Joe make any more money than Fred? How much is Joe's Money Management
system worth?
The question then becomes, "how much money is 'a little bit'...?" What's
reasonable to expect? Personally, I've played this way for about the last
year and overall I've won more than I've lost (about $3000 playing $25
hands) but I'd like to know that it was not just simple luck that helped
make happen...
You played a bunch of hands of $25 blackjack, and you ended up ahead
by $3000. If you weren't counting cards, this is because you were
lucky. In between hands, you might have turned cartwheels, chanted
your mantra, taken a dinner break, or flown home, waited several
months, and flown back to Las Vegas. You may have done this at random
times, or you may have done it according to a system. But none of that
makes any difference. You make or lose money because of what you do at
the table, not because of what you do in between hands.
If you quit as soon as you have either a small win or a big loss, you
will usually win a small amount, but will sometimes lose a big amount.
If you make your win limit small compared to your loss limit, you
will have more winning sessions, but one losing session will wipe out
more winning sessions. But in the long run, if you play a negative
expectation game, you lose money, and Money Management and Knowing
When to Quit can't change that.
Andy Latto
an...@harlequin.com
JohnC364
Thanks for the long detailed reply, Andy (and to all others as well).
I really figured as much since of course this would have been already
thought thru by others playing the game <g>. But it helps to hear it
specifically clarified again anyway.
So... it's back to learning how to count for *real* for me!
-JC
Bill Vanek
Another thread had some comments on whether a counter has any real
advantage against a BS player in a 100 hand session. I ran some
simulations of 20,000 100 hand sessions with a counter and a BS player
playing the same cards. The counter made no strategy adjustments. The
counters results were about +1.2% and the BS results were about -.75%. In
the three simulations I ran, the counter did better than the BS player
about 60% of the time. Contrary to some remarks, I think betting on the
counter is something more than a marginal bet.
In the interest of full disclosure, the simulator was written by an
idiot and might have some flaws (alright, it _does_ has some flaws, but I
don't know that they would have any substantial effect on this comparison).
Anyway, if anyone has a legitimate handmade simulator, it shouldn't be
too hard to alter the source code to write reults to a database at a given
internal. I'm curious how accurate my results are.
Mike Taylor
an...@harlqn.co.uk (Andy Latto) wrote:
(an amusing story about a guy who "Knew When To Quit".)
That was a great story, Andy. I hope you'll stick around on
rec.gambling.blackjack!
Abdul Jalib M'hall
In article <bilvanekD...@netcom.com>,
Bill Vanek <bilv...@netcom.com> wrote:
I have a legitimate handmade simulator, but this question is better
answered with mathematics, with some of the input parameters obtained
from previously run simulations or other means. We need to pick
a game, so let's try Northern Nevada rule single deck, dealt 70%
heads up, with the counter using a 1-4 spread.
We need to calculate z = (x-uN)/s*sqrt(N), where z is the standardized
normal variable, x is the point of interest (zero, if we want to know
the chance of taking a loss), u is the expected win per hand, s is the
standard deviation, and N is the number of hands.
In this case, N=100. From combinatorial analyses or simulations
we can estimate that u=-.005 for the basic strategist and about
.018 for the counter, and s is 1.1 for the basic strategist and
about 2.3 for the counter.
For the basic strategist, z=+.045 standard deviations, while for the
counter, z=-.078 standard deviations. Consulting a z table in a
stats book, the basic strategist therefore has about a 48.5% chance
of winning after 100 hands, whereas the counter has a 53% chance of
winning in the course of 100 hands, a difference of 4.5%.
It's fair to make this comparison here, because we are comparing
relative to the zero mark (otherwise the magnitude of the units
would matter), and because neither player is modifying his betting
based on his previous results. It would not be fair to bring in
a martingaler, who would have a 99+% chance of being ahead, but
who would be modifying his bets based on his results, thus skewing
the distribution of end results after 100 hands away from the normal
distribution.
--
Abdul | There are two ways that the LA poker scene is worse than the
Jalib | SF Bay area poker scene: 1) No Columbo sourdough bread
M'hall | 2) No Its-Its ice cream sandwiches
dead...@usa.pipeline.com
In article <bilvanekD...@netcom.com>, Bill Vanek writes:
>Another thread had some comments on whether a counter has any real
>advantage against a BS player in a 100 hand session. I ran some
>simulations of 20,000 100 hand sessions with a counter and a BS player
>playing the same cards. The counter made no strategy adjustments. The
>counters results were about +1.2% and the BS results were about -.75%. In
>the three simulations I ran, the counter did better than the BS player
>about 60% of the time. Contrary to some remarks, I think betting on the
>counter is something more than a marginal bet.
What kind of "count" system (i.e. what was high and what was low) was used
for the comparison?
Peace,
Tom
>In the interest of full disclosure, the simulator was written by an
>idiot and might have some flaws (alright, it _does_ has some flaws, but I
>don't know that they would have any substantial effect on this
comparison).
>
>Anyway, if anyone has a legitimate handmade simulator, it shouldn't be
>too hard to alter the source code to write reults to a database at a given
>internal. I'm curious how accurate my results are.
>
"Show me a good loser...., and I will show you a loser"
Tom Goodwin aka Mr. Deadlift
University of Michigan Chemical Engineering and Economics Student
Libertarian, Naturist, Atheist, powerlifter, HIT fanatic, pool shark, and
Black Jack God!
jac...@xmission.com
>In article <bilvanekD...@netcom.com>,
>Bill Vanek <bilv...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Another thread had some comments on whether a counter has any real
>>advantage against a BS player in a 100 hand session.
The answer to this question will be much different depending on how
this is interpreted. I can think of several different comparisons
that lead to different results:
1) Player A plays on table A, while player B plays on table B.
The results seen by the two players will be completely
uncorrelated.
2) A and B play at the same table, at different seats. Their
results are partially correlated because they face the same
dealer hand for each play.
3) A is a seated player at Foxwoods, B is "backlining" player A.
Their wins and losses are completely correlated, since player B
is forced to abide by player A's playing decisions (possibly
with the exception of pair splitting). Results for the two
players are completely correlated.
4) A lone player wishes to compare his/her results to how well
s/he would have done if s/he had been counting cards, when
faced with identical starting hands and dealer outcomes. The
results for the two players will be almost completely correlated,
differing only when one wins while the other loses, or their
outcomes differ in other ways (i.e. one pushes, one wins). Their
results will be almost completely correlated, assuming they are
using reasonable versions of BS and card counting.
>> I ran some
>>simulations of 20,000 100 hand sessions with a counter and a BS player
>>playing the same cards. The counter made no strategy adjustments. The
>>counters results were about +1.2% and the BS results were about -.75%. In
>>the three simulations I ran, the counter did better than the BS player
>>about 60% of the time. Contrary to some remarks, I think betting on the
>>counter is something more than a marginal bet.
>>
>>In the interest of full disclosure, the simulator was written by an
>>idiot and might have some flaws (alright, it _does_ has some flaws, but I
>>don't know that they would have any substantial effect on this comparison).
>>
>>Anyway, if anyone has a legitimate handmade simulator, it shouldn't be
>>too hard to alter the source code to write reults to a database at a given
>>internal. I'm curious how accurate my results are.
>
> I have a legitimate handmade simulator, but this question is better
> answered with mathematics, with some of the input parameters obtained
> from previously run simulations or other means. We need to pick
> a game, so let's try Northern Nevada rule single deck, dealt 70%
> heads up, with the counter using a 1-4 spread.
>
> We need to calculate z = (x-uN)/s*sqrt(N), where z is the standardized
> normal variable, x is the point of interest (zero, if we want to know
> the chance of taking a loss), u is the expected win per hand, s is the
> standard deviation, and N is the number of hands.
>
> In this case, N=100. From combinatorial analyses or simulations
> we can estimate that u=-.005 for the basic strategist and about
> .018 for the counter, and s is 1.1 for the basic strategist and
> about 2.3 for the counter.
These numbers are appropriate for case 1) described above, but are
not appropriate for the other cases because they don't account
for the correlation.
> For the basic strategist, z=+.045 standard deviations, while for the
> counter, z=-.078 standard deviations. Consulting a z table in a
> stats book, the basic strategist therefore has about a 48.5% chance
> of winning after 100 hands, whereas the counter has a 53% chance of
> winning in the course of 100 hands, a difference of 4.5%.
I would expect slightly different results for case 2), and
dramatically different results for case 3) and case 4). When
the players hands are partially or completely correlated, the
effects from card counting will be more pronounced. I would
exect card counting to come out ahead 75% of the time, maybe
more, with case 3) and case 4).
--
Steve Jacobs (jac...@xmission.com) \
"Expectation isn't everything..." \ "... but it's a good start."
Win wayz
Great parable from Andy Latto!
I used to think (read: hope and/or pray) there was some way that ability
to specify the quitting point of a game was an element of advantage for
the player over the casino. Something like a mechanism for ratcheting
yourself upward using a pendulum powered by a falling weight. Epstein
mentions a corollary to some gambling theorem that says it isn't so. And,
if you run a gezillion simulations (for those who don't know, a gezillion
is the number of rounds necessary to get to the long run plus one) with
loss limits and win goals, you end up with exactly the results predicted
on the basis of expectation.
But I wanted it to be true. So I dusted the cobwebs off of things I used
to think I knew about and came up with a model that could make it so. I'm
going to share it with you as a matter of general interest -- although, of
course, I've long since abandoned the fantasy that it bears any
resemblance to fact.
It's based on some work by James Clerk Maxwell in microscopic
thermodynamics, back in the days when people were looking for ways to get
around the "Second Law" and convert heat completely and continuously into
work. There's some further historical significance, because the model was
one of the seeds that sprouted in the mind of Claude Shannon (et al) into
the theory of information and communication. The idea was to somehow use
information to at least partially de-randomize a process. In the most
arcane reaches of thermodynamics, it's known as the "Maxwell Demon."
Maxwell proposed the following.
Fill a cup with hot tea. Put a vertical partition into the cup. Poke a
small hole in the partition. Can you somehow separate the tea molecules so
the fast ones end up concentrated on one side of the cup (the hot side),
while the slow ones are concentrated on the other (the cold side)?
You can do this with what we now call a refrigeration machine. Every
refrigerator and air coditioner does just this. But the process is
inefficient and the amount of work expended in the refrigeration is
greater than the increase in potential energy created by having a hot and
a cold side.
Maxwell suggested, as a hypothetical alternative, that you put a gate on
the hole in the partition and station a tiny being -- the demon -- next to
it. When the demon saw a fast molecule approaching the hole from the left,
he opened the gate to let it through. When he saw a slow molecule
approaching the gate from the right, he opened the gate to let it through.
Eventually, using the information inherent in the observations, the demon
could separate the randomly-moving molecules in the cup so the hot ones
were concentrated on the right and the slow ones on the left. He used
information to de-randomize the (Brownian? -- my memory isn't *that* good)
movements of the molecules and achieve the separation with no expenditure
of work. There may have been some inefficiency of information use, but
that was not relevant because it wasn't generated externally.
The extension to gambling was obvious. A random process -- albeit with
some sort of bias (sometimes in wins vs losses, sometimes in amounts vs
probabilities). If we could somehow remove some of the randomness we could
act in a way that added a bias in our favor. A "mechanic" who can throw
dice to favor or disfavor certain numbers (e.g., make one die always land
on the six, eliminating the possibility of two through six and making
seven through twelve equiprobable). A card counter who knows that the
distribution of what remains in the deck is not that on which basic
strategy is predicated and, in fact, favors the player over the dealer. A
dishonest roulette wheel. A random number generator in a slot machine with
a short cycle. Etc.
So why not use knowledge of the current state of a bankroll as information
that de-randomizes the process? Being ahead. Or having come out of a deep
hole and being behind by a tolerable amount. Somehow, this ought to yield
different results than quitting at the end of every hour, or after some
number of bets, or when the spouse starts nagging you about getting a comp
for the all-you-can-eat buffet. Somehow, a series of games played this way
ought to be different than one continuous game.
Somehow -- but somehow not.
Bottom line. I no longer harbor any hope for salvation by Maxwell's demon.
I know it doesn't work. (And how well I know it!) But I've never figured
out why not.
Alan Krigman, Editor & Publisher, WINNING WAYS newsletter
Check out my weekly online column at Rolling Good Times online
http://www.RGTonline.com/StuffInside8.html
Stephen H. Landrum
Win wayz wrote:
[ ... musings about money management and stop losses ... ]
> Bottom line. I no longer harbor any hope for salvation by Maxwell's demon.
> I know it doesn't work. (And how well I know it!) But I've never figured
> out why not.
It's easy - the dice/cards/wheel/whatever don't care when you make
your next bet. If you stop betting today, but come back in 3 weeks
and start betting, it's exactly the as if you continued betting
today. Stop losses and stop wins may make you feel good, but if they
do, that's all they do.
--
Stephen H. Landrum voice: (415)261-2626 email: slan...@3do.com
3D graphics programmer, console products division
For general 3DO questions email customer...@3do.com
Tarl Roger Kudrick
Stephen H. Landrum (slan...@3do.com) wrote:
: Win wayz wrote:
: > Bottom line. I no longer harbor any hope for salvation by Maxwell's demon.
: > I know it doesn't work. (And how well I know it!) But I've never figured
: > out why not.
: It's easy - the dice/cards/wheel/whatever don't care when you make
: your next bet. If you stop betting today, but come back in 3 weeks
: and start betting, it's exactly the as if you continued betting
: today. Stop losses and stop wins may make you feel good, but if they
: do, that's all they do.
good. I always felt better walking away a winner than walking away a
loser.
This is even more true for someone like me who only gets to visit
a casino twice a year or so.
Let's say I win $400 at LV one month. With that money I buy a new
stereo. Six months later I go to LV again and lose $400. I suppose you
*could* say that it's the same as not gambling at all and spending $400 on
a stereo instead, but if that's the case, how come I had the stereo six
months before I "paid" the $400?
I've given this stuff a lot of thought and I've come to the
conclusion that it's the FREQUENCY of one's gambling that determines if it
makes sense to think in terms of win and loss limits. If you're a pro and
you gamble five days a week, today's $1000 win will go straight back into
your gambling bankroll. You know you could lose it all back tomorrow so it
doesn't really impact your life. But let's say you only gamble once a
year, and you NEVER gamble with money you CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE.
Year one, you win $1,000 and buy a lot of cool stuff that you
wouldn't have just bought anyway. Impact on your life: POSITIVE.
Year two, you lose $1,000, but it was purely money you could
afford to lose, and you knew the risks you were taking, and you were
willing to take those risks. It just didn't pan out this time. But, you
got a vacation out of it. Impact on your life: NEGLIGIBLE.
See, this is where stop losses and win limits come into play. The
stop loss point is where you say "I can't afford to lose any more". The
win limit is where you say "I'm satisfied; I'll go buy something cool". As
I said before, this makes no sense to a professional, full-time gambler,
but I think it's the most intelligent approach you can take if you are NOT
a regular gambler.
So I agree that win limits and the like have no basis in
mathematics or probability, but they have a HUGE basis in psychology, and
as both a statistician and a psychologist, I respect both viewpoints.
--Tarl Roger Kudrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ta...@access.digex.net
"You get what you settle for." |
Thelma, in "Thelma and Louise" |"It is best to avoid the temptation to
|strangle bad players."
| From the rec.gambling.blackjack FAQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jimbo
In article <319A6F...@3do.com>, "Stephen says...
>
>Win wayz wrote:
> [ ... musings about money management and stop losses ... ]
>> I know it doesn't work. (And how well I know it!) But I've never figured
>> out why not.
>
>your next bet. If you stop betting today, but come back in 3 weeks
>and start betting, it's exactly the as if you continued betting
>today. Stop losses and stop wins may make you feel good, but if they
>do, that's all they do.
That's ALL they do? Hey, don't sell out a good time. Life's too short so don't disregard having a good time.
Besides, if you can consistently leave a casino felling good, you're in select company.
Of course, if you can leave consistently with profits in your pocket, you're in even more select company, something not all counters can do.
>
>--
>Stephen H. Landrum voice: (415)261-2626 email: slan...@3do.com
>3D graphics programmer, console products division
>For general 3DO questions email customer...@3do.com
Jimbo
ja...@teclink.net
Win wayz
In article <4ng07v$1...@news3.digex.net>, ta...@access5.digex.net (Tarl
Roger Kudrick) writes:
> The
>stop loss point is where you say "I can't afford to lose any more". The
>win limit is where you say "I'm satisfied; I'll go buy something cool".
As
>I said before, this makes no sense to a professional, full-time gambler,
>but I think it's the most intelligent approach you can take if you are
NOT
>a regular gambler.
Good point. A problem, however, is that occasional gamblers often look for
too big a win based on the game they're playing and the stop limits they
assign themselves. And even in a "fair" (zero-edge) game, the probability
of a successful session varies inversely with the ratio (win goal)/(loss
limit).
Dan Hanson
>That's ALL they do? Hey, don't sell out a good time. Life's too short so don't
>disregard having a good time.
>Besides, if you can consistently leave a casino felling good, you're in select
>company.
>Of course, if you can leave consistently with profits in your pocket, you're in
>even more select company, something not all counters can do.
I'd argue that there are NO counters that can leave the casino 'consistently'
with profits. Over a typical session (a couple of hours), the best counter in
the world is only going to come out with a profit perhaps 60-65% of the time.
I guess the problem would be our definition of 'consistent'.
Dan
Win wayz
In article <dhanson.20...@planet.eon.net>, dha...@planet.eon.net
(Dan Hanson) writes:
>
>I'd argue that there are NO counters that can leave the casino
'consistently'
>
>with profits. Over a typical session (a couple of hours), the best
counter
>in
>the world is only going to come out with a profit perhaps 60-65% of the
time.
>
>
>
Even a non-counter, even a craps player, even a baccarat player, ... etc,
can come out of a casino with a profit *more than* 65% of the time. It's a
function of their betting strategy. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean
they'll somehow defy the laws of math by betting one way or another. But
by accepting small wins and tolerating large drops in bankroll when things
are going badly, a player can balance an arbitrarily high percentage of
modest winning sessions against a complementary small percentage of
correspondingly high losses.
Dan Hanson
In article <4nkr8t$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> win...@aol.com (Win wayz) writes:
>From: win...@aol.com (Win wayz)
>Subject: Re: Money Management
>Date: 18 May 1996 11:44:29 -0400
Sure, through progression bets, stop wins and losses, and the like, a person
can tailor the distribution of wins and losses, if not the amounts of the wins
and losses. But these are not techniques that card counters typically use.
Dan