Dan deleting posts and threads ?

[Keystone]

Just ignore Rob. Practically everyone else in the gambling world does.

Really?

What makes more sense: someone using $57,000 to win $2500 and calling it a success....

Or...

Someone losing $29,000 in a week but claiming to have been +EV the entire time?

LOL

Alan rips off his own flesh and blood

LOL

[RS__]

Just ignore Rob. Practically everyone else in the gambling world does.

Really?

What makes more sense: someone using $57,000 to win $2500 and calling it a success....

Or...

Someone losing $29,000 in a week but claiming to have been +EV the entire time?

LOL

You focus too much on results at the end of a short period of time and don’t look at the big picture. I know what it’s like to have a bad run, but every time it’s turned around and I have not only made the money back but also ended up ahead. Might take hours, days, weeks, or in a perfect storm - months. But it always happens. Really, it’s just simple math.

KJ will be back to and then above his pre-29k loss.

[Moses]

KJ will be back to and then above his pre-29k loss.

But suppose he learned to ducked. Wouldn't he be that much further ahead in the comeback? I wish him the best.

[Rob.Singer]

Just ignore Rob. Practically everyone else in the gambling world does.

Really?

What makes more sense: someone using $57,000 to win $2500 and calling it a success....

Or...

Someone losing $29,000 in a week but claiming to have been +EV the entire time?

LOL

KJ will be back to and then above his pre-29k loss.

In other words, you believe he's "due".

Must be the same logic that got Shack into needing to beg for funds.

AP's really know their stuff.

[Alan Mendelson]

"Being due" is exactly what kewlj's "accumulating EV" is all about. Now, where is the sacred math in being due?

Ironically kewlj had criticized Rob's play as "being due" when Rob is criticized for moving up to higher denominations to wipe out previous losses.

Frankly kewlj does a good job of doing exactly what he accuses Rob of doing.

[Alan Mendelson]

KJ will be back to and then above his pre-29k loss.

I've been thinking about RS's statement that kewlj will come back from his $29,000 one week loss. I've given it a lot of thought.

I recall kewlj calling blackjack a grind. If it is a grind, which indicates small changes in your bankroll, how did he happen to have such a loss in one week? And what about that +EV he was playing with?

But that's history. Now I'd like to know just how he's going to "come back"?

Again, blackjack is a "grind" so unlike video poker there is nothing like a royal flush that will deliver a lot of cash quickly. He's got to grind it out.

Can he grind out $29,000 in a week? In two weeks? In two months? What if all that accumulated EV still doesn't deliver?

But putting the rhetorical questions aside, does he "come back" by BETTING LARGER AMOUNTS? If he does resort to betting larger amounts it would strike me as being ironic since he's criticized Rob Singer for betting larger amounts when he's behind.

[RS__]

I can damn near assure you kewlj is not going to start betting more simply because he had some losses.

BJ is a grind because you have a small advantage. Imagine, for instance, you have a coin that has a 50.2% chance to land on heads and 49.8% to land on tails. In the short term, results are going to be all over. But in the long term, results will get closer and closer to what they should be (as a %). Over his career, that $29k losing week amounts to a grand total of practically nothing. $1,000,000 or $971,000? Come on now.

[Alan Mendelson]

But how is he going to make up $29,000? If he has won $1-million over 15 years, he's averaged $67,000 a year or $1280 per week. If he resumes winning at his previous rate it will take him about 23 weeks to win back his $29,000 but he'd have to win twice that amount -- $2560 pet week -- to be back where he should be had the $29.000 loss not happened.

So how do you grind out a double win rate without betting more?

[MaxPen]

But how is he going to make up $29,000? If he has won $1-million over 15 years, he's averaged $67,000 a year or $1280 per week. If he resumes winning at his previous rate it will take him about 23 weeks to win back his $29,000 but he'd have to win twice that amount -- $2560 pet week -- to be back where he should be had the $29.000 loss not happened.

So how do you grind out a double win rate without betting more?

IIRC he was already experiencing variance significantly above expectation. That loss took him back to slightly below expectation for the year. An AP can formulate a plan to generate 10K in expected value for the month and follow it. Depending on the edge and variance of the designed play there will be a possible range of results.
Whether the AP wins 20K or loses 10K is irrelevant over many months. The results will converge with the expectation at some point. This is the same way the casino pays its payroll and comps you sugar water that you think is juice. Only degenerate gamblers focus on the day to day.

[Dankyone]

There is positive variance as well as negative variance. He isn’t capped at winning $1280/week, Alan. He might well win $30,000 one week, betting the exact same stakes he does now.

[Alan Mendelson]

There is positive variance as well as negative variance. He isn’t capped at winning $1280/week, Alan. He might well win $30,000 one week, betting the exact same stakes he does now.

That's my question. How do you win MORE betting the same stakes at blackjack which has no jackpot hands or pays? Doesn't he have to INCREASE his bets to win more?

[Dankyone]

No. Playing the same stakes, with a tiny advantage, he might average $1280/week. There will be no week when that is his exact result.

One week out of 100, he might lose $29,000.

One week out of 100, he might win $30,000.

The other 98 weeks will fall somewhere in between. That is what variance means.

[Alan Mendelson]

No. Playing the same stakes, with a tiny advantage, he might average $1280/week. There will be no week when that is his exact result.

One week out of 100, he might lose $29,000.

One week out of 100, he might win $30,000.

The other 98 weeks will fall somewhere in between. That is what variance means.

So the variance is in his win rate (the number of hands won) while the pays stay the same? Okay then I hope he gets a huge win rate because without it he'll never make up what he lost.

[Dankyone]

No, The counter wins the same exact number of hands over time...(Btw he loses more hands than he wins, he just bets more when he has the advantage.)

[Moses]

There is positive variance as well as negative variance. He isn’t capped at winning $1280/week, Alan. He might well win $30,000 one week, betting the exact same stakes he does now.

Perhaps one can get away with these type of winnings if they live in Vegas. But if you read (and believe) some of the posters at BJTF, they win far less than this amount and get axed from their local casinos. You could easily knock off a zero, and then some.

[Moses]

No. Playing the same stakes, with a tiny advantage, he might average $1280/week. There will be no week when that is his exact result.

One week out of 100, he might lose $29,000.

One week out of 100, he might win $30,000.

The other 98 weeks will fall somewhere in between. That is what variance means.

So the variance is in his win rate (the number of hands won) while the pays stay the same? Okay then I hope he gets a huge win rate because without it he'll never make up what he lost.

Alan. My advice is to let it go. IF you try to put logic to some of this stuff it will drive you coocoo.

[Moses]

No, The counter wins the same exact number of hands over time...(Btw he loses more hands than he wins, he just bets more when he has the advantage.)

Not being able to recognize the difference between an advantage and a threshold is what creates these large swings. You lose you part with your money. You win you part with your time.

[mickeycrimm]

"Being due" is exactly what kewlj's "accumulating EV" is all about. Now, where is the sacred math in being due?

Ironically kewlj had criticized Rob's play as "being due" when Rob is criticized for moving up to higher denominations to wipe out previous losses.

Frankly kewlj does a good job of doing exactly what he accuses Rob of doing.

Alan, you are back stuck on stupid. "Being due" is your idea, not KJ's. It's Rob's idea, not KJ's. Thinking that moving up in denomination will wipe out losses is what "being due" is all about. Get a clue.

You are so focused on the short term that it makes you a long term loser.

Where did you get the idea that someone with a proven track record of making a million dollars playing blackjack over an extended period of time cannot recover from a short term 29K loss?

[Moses]

Mick. There is a poster named Freighter I always liked reading at BJTF. As he put it, "we are all wired differently." It mainly comes down to a lifestyle choice. For instance, I doubt I'd want to drive all over the US in my motor home and play slot machines. But I enjoy hearing about your travels. I'd throttle my son (not really) if he followed KJ's "shoes." After his wife throttled him first.

Now, if I lost $29k in week and then won $30k the next week? I can't even imagine all the shit I would stir. For one thing, I would not be at all pleasant to be around. They'd probably throw me in the clink for going upside some guys head that was popping off. I'd never reach the $30k the next week because I'd burn myself at the remaining casinos I'm still allowed to play. So I make $1K in 2 weeks, get thrown in jail, post bail far more than $1k, and now have to travel in order to play just 1 hand of blackjack. Shrewd!

[Spock]

Mickey, you better find a pic with a longer nose. Robbochio has gone off the rails with this Whopper. Maybe too much BurgerKing.

This better?