Beautiful Boy

Saw Beautiful Boy over the weekend. Wanted to see it in theatres but the opportunity didn't present itself before it was tossed out. I suppose the depressing nature of the film was the primary cause. Unlike Flight which covered the same topic, "Boy" was far darker with little in the way of ambiguity. In Flight one could debate whether Flip's alcoholism was a proximate cause of the accident while following the storyline. In "Boy" you basically know the kid's toast. You just get to see how it happens.

The preview had the most poignant line of the movie and perhaps the only real reason to watch it: Nik, during a group session tells how when he OD'd he was asked by another patient what his problem was. He replied that he was an alcoholic. The patient told him that his alcoholism and drug abuse was how he was treating his problem. The real problem was the hole/emptiness/whatever that was driving him to use alcohol and everything else.

I think that's one of THE conversation pieces from the movie. And it doesn't just apply to drugs. A lot of us do things and develop habits that are responses to "holes" in our lives. These things can be foods, relationships, TV, a lot of things. Sometimes those "compensatory behaviors" are very destructive and sometimes they are benign. Only the person doing them will know. One of the problems with these behaviors, depending on what they are, is that they can cost us the one thing we don't get any more of:

Time.

When we are younger most of our lives are ahead of us so we don't view missing a year or even 5 as a big deal. But as we go forward, the time ahead of us eventually becomes less than the time behind us. And that's when the cumulative effects of "compensatory behaviors" make themselves known: Bad health, Bad or non-existent relationships, etc. So even if the druggie (in this case) gets off the drugs, they have still lost the time. I guarantee you that the regret from THAT loss hurts as much as the recovery.

The second discussion point from the movie was watching the father try to help his son. The very real lesson being that you cannot help those who do not want to help themselves. If they haven't kicked the habit it is because they do not want to. In the end the father had to say no to his son. We see the pain he felt in having to do that. Of course his son thought he was the meanest mofo in the world. That's typical of those who we have to say "no" to. They only see what it is they want from the other person, rather than the hurt they are putting on the other person.

The father was only able to get himself together when he let go and stopped trying to "fix" his son and "fix" their relationship. He finally understood that there was nothing he could do. Nik, the son, after what I assume was a suicide by drug attempt, realized he was going to lose everyone he loved (including himself) and did what he had to do. When he did, he found his father there for him.

Lesson(s)? If you're hole filling with behaviors, address the hole and the behaviors will eventually cease. If you're trying to help the "hole filler", there's nothing you can do for them and they'll probably hurt you in the process. You'll have to let them go until they figure it out. Don't be collateral damage. The sooner you figure that out the better.

"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.