"Small" Mistakes Can Cost You A Lot

A few months ago curiosity got the better of me and I investigated video poker. That curiosity was spurned by a losing streak at BlackJack. These happen and when you lose your head, you should step away for a bit. So I did. I'd listened to Bob Dancer over at Gambling with An Edge and his discussion of video poker. I settled on Double Bonus Poker because of the higher payouts for various 4 of a kind hands which come up around 2x per 1000 hands. I learned from Blackjack that going into a game where there is optimal play as opposed to "pull and hope" as is with "reel" slots, without knowledge of how to play would be costly. I had no idea just how costly.

I ruined 10x out of 10. Never experienced anything like that. Even posted to GWAE about it. Asking the dumb, in hindsight question as to whether this was normal.

Ha!

The reason I thought this might be normal is that Double Bonus Poker less than 10/7 pay is a net loss game. BlackJack without a continuous shuffler or other shenanigans is not. So I figured that since my EV was negative and wins and losses vary around EV in the long run I should *expect* to lose many more times than I win. Still, though, I didn't think ruining every. Single. Session. would happen.

When I started playing Blackjack I did not know Basic Strategy but I was learning it. I had an idea that it was a bad idea to hit when the dealer had less than a 7 showing, but I was unawares or all the double down plays outside of 10 and 11, so I gave up quite a bit to the casino on those plays. Still though, with a poor understanding of BS and using Martindale double up strategy I won money more than half the time. Of course I would get wiped out on those losing streaks. But I had a good chance that I would double my buy in. Video Poker was having none of that.

I figured that a game in which you essentially flat bet could not regularly ruin a player. I forgot that if a casino is offering a game it is because it expects to make money off of it. If it doesn't it doesn't put it out. At least not on purpose. The thing with VP is that you can play for houuuuuurs before ruining. Some find that entertaining. Me, not so much. Maybe if I made a long trip to play, but sitting for hours to lose all I brought and to have never been up is not my idea of "fun".

So I did some research and confirmed that I had indeed brought enough so that my risk of ruin was below 10%. So if I was ruining every time, I was definitely doing something very wrong. Well I discovered my mistake. It was one that a beginner or even someone who is thinking but doesn't quite understand the game would do. I won't say *what* I was doing wrong but lets just say that that those plays between low pairs and high pairs are quite significant. The 4 changes I made to my play, which seemed "wrong" but now that I understand the game are obviously right, changed "ruin every time" to 1 ruin in 10. That's a HUUUGE difference in outcome.

So the lesson here for anyone looking for more than entertainment and to not just hand money to casinos is quite clear. Theose "small" mistakes add up and will cost you a whole lot of money. No, the machine is not rigged. Yeah, you may have simply had a bad streak, which are going to happen, but if you are playing a game where there is any strategy or optimal play, you should learn it as much as you can (perfect would be best but we all make mistakes) before putting down the large money. And with the availability of games on IOS and Android, there really isn't a reason to part with your cash until you are proficient.

Why Are You Throwing Money Away

So over the weekend I watched two players lose a combined 1k in the space of 10 minutes. The worst thing about it was that they each were up at least 40% before losing it all. Against my better judgment I tried to convince each of them to get up while they were significantly up to no avail. So this post is for anyone who may be willing to listen.

If you're not playing Blackjack to win but rather for the "thrill" of the risk (which I really don't get but fine...) then this is not for you. Carry on, but please keep the noise down. Thanks.

For the rest of you, if you're not counting cards then there is absolutely NO REASON whatsoever to double your bet after a win.

None.

Stop.

Why? Statistically speaking, you win only 48% of the time. And THAT assumes you are playing perfect basic strategy. As I've shown in previous posts, the *probability* of you winning 2 hands in a row are low. As in a 60% chance of losing. 3 in a row is also quite rare. Statistically speaking. Hence if you are going to saunter up to a table and bet $100 bucks and win. Betting $200 the next time is asking to lose it. The onliest reason to double up a bet on Blackjack is if you have an edge that calls for such a play such as the count shooting up because during the previous round a whole bunch of low cards were dealt.

I'm not even going to discuss the guy who stood on a soft 15. Not even.

Lets Talk Quintana

So just watched stage 11 of the TDF and have come to the concluseion: Quintana is not a contender. Sorry. It's true. He needs to be made into a domestique for someone else on Movistar or some other team.

I remember his virgin appearance at the TDF. He was unknown and went off and climbed up the mountain. Since nobody knew him, they let him go. Once it was known that he could climb, that was the last time he was given a long leash. Now he is some 4minutes behind the leader. He couldn't keep up with Froome. Couldn't keep up with Thomas. Couldn't keep up with any of the other people ahead of him. This isn't the first time either. Last time, the excuse was he did the Giro. Oh, he fell during a flat stage. Now what? He had a mechanical. Ok. Well that explains THAT day. That doesn't explain today. Valverde ran up ahead and got caught. At that point Quintana should have been able to jump and keep the pressure on Sky. Didn't happen.

It's time to admit it, Quintana is a good climber but he's not winning the TDF. Time for a re-org at MoviStar.

And no, I don't expect anything different tomorrow or in the Pyrenees.

Just Say No To Hand Fees

So as I was exiting the casino yestarday I saw a table with two fellows on it. Looked to see what the conditions were by reading the plaque on the table. Well that was after noticing that the minimum bet was $2.

Yes, $2.

I have not seen anything that low that was not a Game King machine so I read further. Apparently if you bet between 2 and 5 Dollars you get the privilege of paying a "hand fee" of 50 cents.

Ummm.No.

If that wasn't bad enough, they had a continuous shuffler in use. So the negative expectation on the table was quite high, even if you're bleeding out 2 bucks or so a hand. Of course there were two victims of this cesspool wagering. I laughed out loud as I walked away.

Look, I've done a lot of negative EV moves as I've learned this game, but I never, ever did no shit like that. OK I did accept even money for Blackjack but I KNEW BASIC STRATEGY! Note that it didnt take long for me to figure out just how much I was losing on that BUT it was a learning experience...that I suggest you not follow. But really. Say no to "hand fees'

Rubbing The Screen Is Not A Winning Strategy

So this weekend, aside from wild swings in bankroll (boo) I got to observe some interesting ploppy plays which I'll comment on here.

1) Rubbing the screen for luck: So I play on what I call "Fusion" machines discussed in earlier posts. I have developed a strategy that has an EV (expected value) of around 1.8 x unit/hour. So if you're playing $5 units, you should expect something like $9/hour. But that's another story, the point here is that I play against a computer and everything is on screen. Apparently there is this thing where people rub or tap the dealer's hand in hope of influencing what the dealer has. At first I thought it was just the one person but I noticed a stream of players doing this so it is apparently a thing. I suppose this comes from the same habit of rubbing slot machines (Fusion tables are considered slot machines in many jurisdictions). All I have to say is, this is not a winning strategy.

2) Surrendering non-bustable hands: This is another thing I've seen a few players do, particularly against a 10. Often done with pairs of low cards. I don't understand why one would surrender a 4,5 or 6. You cannot bust these hands. OK so you don't want to split and put out another minimum bet (it's always a minimum bet), Hit the hand then. Look, the point of surrender is to "retrieve" a high dollar (and supposedly high EV) bet when the odds are against you. In any other situation it is the equivalent of taking a lighter to your money. This is not a winning strategy.

3) Insuring a minimum bet: Like the surrender of non-bustable hands, this one is a "Light the money aflame" move. Why are you insuring your minimum bet? The point of the minimum bet is to give the house as little money as possible while the odds are against you. When you volunteer another 50% of your money during a hand with negative EV you're not doing it right. This is not a winning strategy.

Even if you are not counting cards these plays make no sense. I did all manner of progressions and never, ever made these kinds of plays. It was simply obvious that they made no sense. Lastly let me mention this one:

4) The "You Can't Lose More Than 3 Times" Strategy: I've written up the percentages of wins and losses in a row. Yes, there is a percentage associated with times in a row you can/will lose. Yes, you can use this to make money in the short run. How long that short run is, I cannot say because I stopped using that strategy, but I've had a decent 3 month unbroken winning streak with it, so I'm not going to totally dismiss this particular strategy. CV Data says that it is a loser in the long run but very slightly so depending on your unit size. That said, thinking that you cannot lose more than 3 times in a row is, well, dumb. I have sat through 10x losses in a row both live deals and computer deals. It is why Martindale systems lose. If you couldn't lose more than 3x in a row casinos would be out of business in short order.

If you're going to do some "in a row" method, my suggestion would be to pick a large unit size relative to your bankroll and pick a target that is 10% of whatever your session bankroll is. So for example, if you have 1000 you should use something along the lines of a $25 unit. CVData consistently shows that you have a 95-99% probability of winning 1 unit over a very short session. When you win that unit. Cash it and start over until you've made 10% of your session bankroll. Then go home. If you stay (perhaps because of a long distance trip), start again at the next shuffle. The longer you play, the longer you are exposed to the house edge and the more likely it is that you will lose your money. So for example, given the 1000 BR/25 unit size, you only need to win 4 units to make 10% of your session bankroll. This is generally doable within an hour (often, BUT NOT ALWAYS). The usual pattern with flat betting is starting up and then falling down or falling down and then creeping up. The pattern is generally that of a sine-wave. The objective is to catch the upward part of the wave and avoiding the downward part. Again, I warn the player considering this that overall it is a loser, you WILL hit a patch where you will lose your session bankroll. Generally (but by no means guaranteed) though you should have many multiples of it before that happens.

Don't Be Sam

So there's this series called Humans. It's in it's 3rd season. On a recent episode there was a very interesting, at least to me, event.

One of the androids in the series is a "boy" named Sam. Long story short, Sam finds himself in the home of a human family headed by a woman who has made it her business to get equal rights for androids. Sam is told that he is "special" and he is one of the family. In a later episode Sam explains that for a bit of time (or from time to time) he forgot that he was an android and thought he was a 'real boy'.

In the episode of interest, the state provided protector, new style orange eye android is in fact a greed eye (conscious) android who has been given orders to kill the human family who has taken in Sam. However, because the family has been so kind to this protector, and Sam, the android finds that he is unable to carry out his orders. As a result the "second in command" leader of the androids, who gave the order, comes to the human home.

During the encounter an old man is brought in and the woman who is for "equal rights" for androids has to choose who dies: Sam or the human man she has never met. In a teary and weepy exchange she chooses Sam for death. The androids let the human go and declare they had no intention of harming either one of them. The point was to show the android who didn't do his duty that for all the talk of equality even the human who most claims to want equality would never betray her kind.

Before Sam leaves with the other androids he says: "you told me I was special."

Ultimately this story line went to show the whole "blood thicker than water" thing. Sam had been told and had convinced himself that he had as much value to the humans as any of the other humans in the house. But the real deal was that he was only there because he provided some utility to them. He provided some means of entertainment. He provided a way for the humans to feel they were being moral. Did Sam put a roof over their heads? Did he put food on the table? Put money in their pockets? No. No and no.

In short, Sam was disposable.

Sam was not equal. He was not loved equally. To those who had promised to take care of him, he was of less value than a stranger on the street. Yet he wanted to belong so badly he was blind to the reality of his situation.

Soon after Sam's departure there was a little griefing "oh how could you choose Sam?" But then life went on. Sam was gone but their life continued as it had before Sam arrived. Soon it would be: "Sam? Oh, I remember Sam."

A lot of times in life we are shown our true status. An event or series of events will show us that things are not as we thought or hoped they were. However; if we are smart, we see the signs and act appropriately.

This Really Isn't Good

So last week I was playing blackjack and between hands I was looking around at the slot machines and noticed a sign that was similar to the one above. "That's not good", I said to myself. There are, generally speaking, two kinds of people that frequent casinos: Those that expect to win and those that hope to win.

The former usually knows that every game in the casino is a long term losing proposition with the exception of Blackjack (and maybe Baccarrat but I'm not sure). The latter doesn't know this but hopes to leave with more than they came in with. The former is not swayed by any amount of flashing lights and animations. As a matter if fact, they probably find it annoying and would rather not have to deal with hearing it. The latter succumbs to the dopamine hits and plays anyway.

This struck me as I was playing with 2 other persons. One of them said something to the effect that "I always lose my money but WOOOO I won the Royal match!" Maybe it's me, but I don't find much comfort in knowing that I'm steady losing my money but "looky here 25 bucks!"

Another player asked why I didn't play the Royal Match (I do, but only under certain circumstances). When I was done I explained card counting to her and explained that at high counts I expect for high cards to drop and that 3 of the 4 10 value cards were face cards and therefore I was expecting to get a pair. Under any other circumstances I would be hoping for a pair. There is a difference between expected value and hoped for value. As an aside, the problem with Royal Match with high counts is that the pairs don't tend to fall out for the player (at least in my observation) as often as they fall out for the dealer (which I do not understand) and the 10's you expect are usually found on the draw.

So I also explained to the woman that when you see a "97% return" you should read "we take 3 bucks of every hundred". A lot of people think this means that they will literally lose 3 bucks. No, it is an average. The "3 bucks" may be taken from the previous player who has what we'll call "disastrous luck". And then the next person who sits gets lucky and wins 10,000 bucks. Trust me, barring a machine mis-program or malfunction, that machine has taken in far more than 10k over it's service life.

I say all that to say this: It's not that you won't win. It's not that you can't win. It's that it's better for you to find something where you expect to win. Or as the folks at LasVegas Advisor say: Gamble with an Edge.

What Can We Learn From Expert Gamblers?: Dylan Evans at TEDxWestlake

The Counter And The Ploppy

Nope You're Not Crazy

So have you been playing and noticed that the dealer gets an "inordinate" number of 20s? Well you're not imagining things. From CV Data:

What you're seeing here is the frequency that the dealer gets a 20 when they have a 10 card up. The simulation is 400 million rounds. Notice that 40 million times? That's almost 3 times the number of 19s, 18s or 17s. Matter of fact it is more than 17-19 combined. Dealer 20s are by far the most frequent single hand the the dealer gets. That face up 10 is deadly indeed.

In terms of parent, the dealer gets a 20 10% of the time that a 10 is showing, that's 3x more than any other hand over 16.

What Were The Odds of That?

So two nights ago I had a mini-epic loss that ended a three month winning streak. I've had "epic losses" before. So unlike that time, which I took a vow of silence for two weeks because it was the only thing I could speak of, this didn't phase me all that much. No doubt it still hurt the bankroll but still, It wasn't as emotionally devastating as before, and definitely not on the level of the loss I sustained due to Mr. I Split Fives.

However; what did make this noteworthy was one particular phenomenon. I had an entire "shoe" where I got no 10 pairs. I've never played a round of Blackjack where I never received at least 1 pair of 10 value cards (not including an Ace-9). Not only that, but during this "shoe" I had a true count way above +4 because i had nothing but low or neutral cards falling out the deck. Yet I missed every 11 double down opportunity (2 of them) and one 10 double down opportunity and had exactly 1 Blackjack to the dealer's 3. But the lack of a 10 pair, that's what stood out to me. What were the odds of that? I really don't know but lets look at a deck.

One deck of cards has 52 cards containing sixteen 10 value cards (four each of 10, J, Q, K). a 6 deck shoe has 6 times that or 96 ten value cards. To get a true 4 count, you had to have at least a running count of 16 with 4 decks left. If the count was zero with 4 decks you could guess that there were 64 ten value cards available. However with a +4 count, there is a high probability that there are more than 64 ten value cards remaining (hopefully in front of the "cut card"). Knowing this, how did I not get a single ten pair? How did both 11-double down's not pull a 10 or neutral card (7,8,9)?

One answer would be variance and "bad luck". It certainly was bad luck. For the time being I'll accept "variance" but I have to seriously consider something else. I play in a "racino" because I simply will not sit in a smokey casino. I tried it for months and decided I wasn't willing to risk lung cancer, emphysema or other illnesses (I had a nasty respiratory infection during this time, the likes I never had before) in order to make money. The nearest live dealer blackjack where there is no smoking is 3 hours away. Not something I can do on a regular basis. So that leaves racinos with Bally's Fusion tables which are hooked into the state lottery computers. These computers are "bingo" machines. With bingo machines you are either set to win or lose. The implications of this, which I discussed in other posts, is that it *may* not matter how you play, if you're to win, you'll win (I had a 7 card charlie once and was SHOCKED) but if you're to lose you'll lose. I've had people say how can that be since the computer doesn't know if you'll stand, hit, split, etc. My response is that it doesn't have to. If you're to lose, you'll either bust when you hit or the dealer will get whatever hand it needs to beat you (including a push, since pushes aren't wins).

My understanding is that such a thing is illegal in Nevada and New Jersey. I'm not playing in either location and I've been to AC and not seen these machines, so there's that. So I'm not going to say that I was a victim of the bingo machine (I play perfect basic strategy) but that no 10 pair was certainly eye raising to me.

Why You Mad Son?

So while earning my pay at the Blackjack table I was entertained by a person who took a seat to my left. He started complaining straight away as he lost hands or won hands. Why? Because apparently he was playing the side bets. Apparently I had a couple of matches that he had noticed and asked me if I play the side bets. I told him I didn't because the odds are pretty bad. He said "but you got a few".

OK.

Well he "got a few" but played the main game so badly that he ended up losing his buy in. An example was his surrendering of a hard 18 against an Ace. I asked him why he did that and he said "oh fuck it."

Look if you're going to voluntarily hand your money to the casino when the odds don't call for it, why be mad when you lose money on side bets where the house edge is an order or magnitude higher than the main bet?

As I left I asked the player, who had left and returned, still complaining, whether he had ever been to the wizardofodds website. He had not. I told him, if he's serious about making money he should. I don't expect that he will but it couldn't hurt to give him a tip.

When I just want to entertain myself and don't care about losing, I'll throw money into a slot machine. I hit the button and don't expect much. If I find myself up a decent amount, I'm surprised, cash out and go, but I don't get mad at the losing because I know I'm playing a losing game. But Blackjack is beatable so I take that game seriously and I don't expose more of my bankroll than I have to in order to make ev (expected value) and that means staying off side bets that have a negative expectation.

Why You Get Burned Playing With Mr. Martindale

So you wanna play blackjack. You haven't learned to count cards and you're deathly afraid of losing your money. You start playing and soon notice that you there is a "back and forth" with winning and losing with you "rarely" losing more than 4 in a row. So what do you do? You do what most rational people will do, you start doubling up after every loss. It works! you're making money until that day you hit "the drop". You have that 5-10 loss in a row and get wiped out of all your money and go home with that "I can't believe that happened" look on your face. What happened?

I did this. I wouldn't accept the math of playing with Mr. Martindale because I did not want to believe it could happen to me. Let me say up front that you are NOT imagining things. There are many professionals who will laugh at you and tell you that you are falling into some "fallacy" in regards to Mr. Martindale. You are not. Indeed if you graph the number of losses and wins in a row, a pattern does in fact emerge (and must emerge in a truly random game).

The above chart was generated using BJ Apprentice Trainer on IOS. Please note that the random number generator on IOS tends to make this app "Streaky" in that you will notice an either extremely negative variance (lots of losses) or extremely positive variance (a whole lot of winning), but this pattern shows up in actual card games both electronic and live (I have 6 months of win-loss records to prove it).

This one is from another IOS Blackjack app. Same notes as BJ trainer.

What this chart tells you is that your probability of winning a hand after losing a hand increases by about 50% at each step. It's actually less than that but that's not important here. The issue here is that while your probability of winning goes up, the odds of winning are independent of this probability. In a shoe game with a cut card, the odds go up and down depending on what cards have come out (how card counters play). In a game with a continuously shuffled deck (shuffled after every game, particularly electronic ones) the odds are static from hand to hand and you only have the odds presented at a particular hand as to whether stand, hit, split or double.

Therefore you can be in a situation where though the probability of wining a hand is high (near 98% in some long losing streaks), you can be raising your bets while the odds of winning are particularly low such as a deck with an extremely low count or a continuous shuffled deck in which you got a 16 (not an 8 pair) to a dealer 8.

If you're lucky (have positive variance) your probability of winning will align with the odds of winning or you're beating the odds of losing. On very bad days you end up on the losing side of both probability AND odds.

Now lets look at why a full out Martindale system is so dangerous to your bankroll and why it doesn't even make psychological sense. So in a Martindale progression you start with the table minimum, lets say $5. Each time you lose you double up. At best you have no splits or doubles. so you're doing 5,10,20,40,80,160.320,640,1280... On most $5 tables I've played on you hit table max at $500 so you're effectively cut off after $320. But wait it gets worse for some. Say during this ramp up you end up with a split and double? This happened to me once. I was at the table max had to split and double and ended up with all my money on the table and was beaten by the dealer. It could (and does) happen with card counting as well, but a card counter wouldn't have gotten that high without a seriously favorable situation. However; as discussed earlier with Mr. Martindale I was betting probability and could still be hit by odds (though to be fair the probability of winning doubles, when playing basic strategy is over 50%). Anyway, so you're doing the 5,10, 20...thing and you end up doubling that 20 and losing so you now need to double the 40 ahead of schedule Now you're window has narrowed considerably, say you have to double that $80, you see where this is going.

Lets look at what you risked. You're playing table minimum whenever you're not losing. $5. Say you brought enough money to survive a losing streak that take you to table max and you "give up" at that point and start again at minimum. How much have you lost on a "no split-doubles" situation? At a minimum, before hitting table max you've lost $635. If you played the $500 max on that table as your next hand and lost you're out $1135. And even if you hit it, you would still be behind.

Think about it though, you are willing to risk $1100 for a $5 gain? Not a good look. And if you were willing to part with that much money, why did you sit at a $5 table? Better you went to a high minimum table and flat bet. Really. This is the psychological issue with Mr. Martindale. The person using this, particularly a low roller has a fear of loss mentality yet they risk an outlandish amount of money in order to get a very, very small return. It is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Stop doing that. A professional gambler understands that you risk short term [small] losses to get long term gains afforded by the math.

So now you're $1100 in the hole and you're back to betting table minimum: $5, do you know how long it will take you to recover an $1100 loss at $5 a pop? 220 straight wins. That's about 1 hour of play. And that assumes you don't have anymore drops or run out of money. Of course you're hoping that doubling, splitting and BlackJacks on the higher bets will get you there faster. It might, odds and probability are against it though. I know. Trust me.

Lets go back to the charts above. Since we see about a 50% increase in probability that you'll win a hand after losing, lets take that out to 5 hands. Even though the probability of any one win streak is actually about 42% we'll round that up to 50% for easy math purposes. So you have 50% probability of winning that first hand. 75% probability of winning the hand after that loss. An 85% probability of winning after that loss. 95% probability of winning after that loss. 97% probability of winning after that loss. Lets look at what that looks like over 100 hands (roughly half hour of play): 50 losses at one win streaks
25 two losses in a row
15 three in a row losses
5 four in a row losses
3 5 losses in a row.

For 200 hands or an hour's play:

100 one hand losses
50 two losses in a row
30 three losses in a row
10 four losses in a row
6 five losses straight.

That's a lot of losses. Put some splits and doubles in there and the losses can mount.

Now lets go back to the psychology. What most people get from this is that when they play, the 3 five losses in a row per 100/hands will happen sometime near the end of 100 plays. They think that they can play 50 hands and therefore avoid "the drop". It doesn't work that way. If you're lucky (that's positive variance) you'll never see five losses in a row during a session. If you're unlucky the 3 five losses in a row will happen at the top of your play and wipe you out in the first 10 minutes of play. I've had both happen to me. Worse still, since these numbers are averages, when you account for variance you may well end up with 60 two losses in a row, 20 four losses in a row and 15 five losses in a row. Something that can be particularly devastating to a session bankroll if one uses pushes as a reset.

A note on pushes. How do you account for pushes in a loss in a row scenario. A push is neither a win or a loss. Strictly speaking, the hand after a push is no different than the first hand played in a session. Why? because when you started, there were no wins or losses prior to your hand. This is particularly true in continual shuffle games where odds do not change as cards are dealt. In cut card shoe games this is not as true. We know this because card counting tells us that when the counts are high, pushes happen more often than in low counts. So if you are unlucky, you lose three times in a row, hit a push, and are sent back to your minimum bet. Since pushes account for around 10% of events, in a 100 hand game you're going to have your progression stopped cold by a push and you'll be eating that loss. And if that loss is high enough, your minimum bets will not be enough to recover, even with a win streak and you'll slow bleed your bank.

I hope this helps anyone out there who is starting out and thinking of playing with Mr. Martindale.