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.

Phil Ivey Falls Victim to Clueless "Justice System"

So yesterday I saw that Phil Ivey lost his case against the Crockfords Club.

The club said Mr Ivey had broken its rules by using an "edge-sorting" technique to spot advantageous cards.

Mr Ivey had consistently argued that he had merely used a legitimate advantage...

The club said Mr Ivey had broken its rules by using an "edge-sorting" technique to spot advantageous cards. Mr Ivey had consistently argued that he had merely used a legitimate advantage.

However, Mr Ivey contended that the technique was not a form of cheating because it did not involve dishonesty. He said that he had merely exploited Crockfords' failure to take proper steps to protect itself against a gambler of his ability - and he was therefore entitled to his full winnings, rather than just having his initial £1m stake returned to him.

A little bit over a year ago I would have had no clue what edge sorting was or what "advantaged play" was and just taken the casino's word for it. Today I know a whole lot better and this case should have never gone against Ivey.

The casino's argument in a nutshell is that a player cannot use all available information that is readily observable by any player AND dealer in order to "win". In other words, the Casino argued that the court should find that a Casino is the only party allowed to "stack the deck" in their own favor. This decision shows that the court had no clue about what advantaged play is vs what cheating is.

Lord Hughes saying it was essential that punto banco remained a game of pure chance with neither the casino nor the player being able to beat the randomness of the cards that were dealt.

This statement in and of itself shows that the judge had no clue as to how card based games work and how casinos work. Casinos "beat the randomness" of cards dealt by doing things like changing penetration of shoe games (in Blackjack). They do things like "preferential shuffling". In addition the casino's edge is modified by the rules they impose at a table. In the case of Blackjack, they do shit like pay 6/5 instead of 3/2 for a natural. This increases their edge by over 800%. Casinos use things like continuous shuffling machines (CSM) in order to stop people from counting cards. When one counts cards, one is observing the flow of cards to determine when the advantage has passed from the casino to the player (or vice-versa). This isn't cheating because any and every player (and dealer) can see the cards. Cards aren't modified in any way. no outside device is used. There is no third party relating information. There is no cheating. There is simple observation. That only a few people have the intellect and/or motivation to do it doesn't make any difference. The player is simply using his powers of observation and his knowledge of mathematics to make a more informed play. That is what is meant by "Advantaged players". This information in no way guarantees that a player will win a particular hand or even win a particular session. Just like even though a casino has a mathematical edge, players still "win" in the short term. So back to Phil.

Ivey and his companion who has perhaps the best eyesight on the planet used the physical properties of cards used by casinos in which cards of a certain value (I'm assuming the higher ranked cards) are thicker at the edges than cards of lower rank. Because they could observe this difference during play, they could make bets that corresponded to the likely hood that either they or the dealer would get the "desired" card and therefore win the hand. Edge sorting is not an unknown phenomenon. A casino that fails to secure it's game to guard against such an observation is negligent of protecting it's game. That's not cheating and that's not Phil's problem. The casino's claim that by asking for the deck to be turned a certain way, Phil was cheating. I disagree wholeheartedly. At no time was Phil in control of the deck of cards. The house was. The house should have had a blanket rule that said that the cards will not be turned for any client. They did not do so. Why not? Because the casino was hoping to get Phil for a couple million. It was the casino's greed that caused them to lose to Phil. All the dealer had to say was "no" and that would have been the end of that.

Let's examine one important part of the decision process here:

There was no doubt, she added, that the actions of Ivey and another gambler, Cheung Yin Sun, interfered with the process by which Crockfords played the game of Punto Banco with Ivey. Stephen Parkinson, head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Napley, the law firm that represented Crockfords, said: “This is one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation. The concept of dishonesty is central to a whole range of offences, including fraud.

“For 35 years, juries have been told that defendants will only be guilty if the conduct complained of was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people, and also that they must have realised that ordinary, honest people would regard their behaviour as dishonest.

How did Phil "interfere" with the process? He made a request that could be denied. Crockfords acceded to his request. How is that interference?

Secondly this "ordinary, honest people" part shouldn't be a part of the proceedings. most "ordinary" people have no idea what the casino edges are. Most ordinary people are happy to be raped at button push by the casino in order to get "comps" or "have fun". Most ordinary people have no idea that many slot machines take nearly 5 cents of every dollar they feed it or how fast that 5 cents adds up. Most ordinary people do not understand the amount a casino with 6/5 or 1:1 Blackjack makes off a player. Ordinary people have no clue and therefore are a bad standard. You know what else an "ordinary person" would do? If they found a slot machine that was miss-programmed and was paying out every 5 spins, they would sit there and spin like mad until someone made them stop. In other words, the ordinary person would take advantage of a broken machine without thinking they were cheating. Why? Because they would say that the casino should have either programmed the machine correctly or turned it off. They would say that they saw and opportunity to win and took it. When was the last time you saw an "ordinary person" complain to a casino when a machine appeared to be paying out too much?

Right.

I understand that casinos need to protect their business interests. I get that. Matter of fact, I want them to protect their business model so that other people lose their money so I can continue to get paid off Blackjack. But they should be required to take responsibility when they fail to secure their games. And this case could have been avoided with a simple "no." This decision could mean that a casino could grant a request to turn cards knowing that if they player wins any large amount of money, they could just deny the payment knowing the court will side with them.

But if the courts are so interested in 'honesty" how about outlawing 6:5 and 1:1 Blackjack?

Stories From The Field

Long time no post. Wanted to share some of the foolishness I have encountered at the tables. First up: Splitting 5s.

I remember when I first started playing Blackjack. All I knew was that 21 won. Get a 17 or better and you can split like pairs and double down. While I split 10s left right and center it never occurred to me to split 5s. Well in late August I ran into someone who it occurred to. I know, I know, other people's play doesn't affect your overall EV. Maybe. Maybe not but when you have a large bet out and the dealer doesn't break because the person who misplayed "took" the cards, the loss is the loss. Personally, I don't mind losing to the house, I DO mind losing to another player. Anyway, here's how it went down:

Count is high. I go for it. I get an 18. Not the best hand, but it's against a dealer 5. Dealer MUST draw regardless of what the hole card is and this is a stand 17 game. The odds are very much in my favor. I see the pair of 5s to my right. "Double down" I say to myself. One card out. Nobody else needs to draw. Next thing I know the 5s are split. First card out is a 3. Then an Ace. OK 1 -1 card out. Count is still high. next card is a 10. Here comes mistake number 2. This MOFO hit a 15 against the dealer 5. Next 10 card is out. Bust. what does the dealer flip? an 8, next draw 7. 20 stand. This was the dealer's hand to lose. Going by basic strategy, the 3 was coming out anyway. The dealer would have gotten the ace for a 6-16 and then the 10 for a 16 and then the next 10 to bust. Instead everyone on the table lost money.

Mind you, the count was still high, so I bet high again only to get a surrender hand with lots of 10s on the table, which effectively ended the player advantage. I left after that. Of all my losses to date, THIS lost has affected me emotionally the worst because it didn't have to happen. So a note to you newbies out there. You might be playing against people trying to make a living playing Blackjack. You may want to experiment and "have fun" with your low bets, but you could be costing people money.

Story 2: Standing on a 4.

Since I am now playing hours at a time I get to observe a lot of people with questionable skills come and go at the tables. I now play at places where their play has a negligible but not totally zero impact on my outcomes so I don't stress about that. A lot of people are playing short games. I get it, I did that for a time too. And no, they aren't Wonging either. This week we had the guy who sat down and bet 25 bucks with his first hand. On a $10 minimum table. Here I was thinking he had serious bankroll and the sense to go with it. He gets dealt an Ace 3. He makes a lot of negative noise, mainly about how he didn't get a Blackjack and then stands. I felt myself beginning to ask him why, but I have learned that what people do with their money is their business.

The Astounding Fail of Astana

So as usual I'm following the Tour De France and I have never seen such a spectacle as the one that is team, and I use that term VERY LIGHTLY, Astana. Fabio Aru brought the pain and stuck it to Team, and I use the term STRONGLY, Sky and grabbed the Yellow Jersey off Chris Froome. Where were his teammates? somewhere down the mountain having a leisurely ride. Aru was fortunate to not have a flat or any other mechanical.

Then the next day Team [sic] Astana was nowhere to be seen as Aru valiantly defended the yellow. And these are professional cyclists? Today after the finish, one of Astana's riders [sic] was asked about Aru and he looked like a fucking 10 year old kid with a smirk on his face. "Well he couldn't keep my wheel so...". Umm Aru single handedly. Single. Handedly. Put Astana in podium position and this guy was talking like Aru was just being lazy. Aru is beat. He's beat because the other riders for Astana are having a leisurely ride around France, perhaps taking in the sights and flirting with women on the sidelines. Who the fuck knows.What we do know is that they weren't riding up front giving 110% for the man in fucking yellow. At this point everyone but Aru should be sent home, where they can chill and relax on their own time, because clearly they haven't come to France to win any races.

At this point Aru has to do what got him this far: Pretend he's on team Sky and ride (or die) with them wherever they go. All of his victories have come by treating team Sky as his personal lead out train. It's his only hope. It's going to hurt but this is Le Tour. Here's the deal: The race is so close that Sky has to respond to anyone who is within striking distance so all Aru has to do is follow Sky. If the rider is a threat to Froome he is also a threat to Aru, Sky will respond to any threats to Froome so no one important is going free. Follow the Sky train and don't get unhitched.