Blackjack variance by the numbers

[kewlJ]

The whole attack on me by former member Moses and current sockpuppet member UCFX stems from the discussion involving the 29k losing week that I had last September or October.

I want to say this about Moses. I have known for quite a while that he could not be the professional blackjack player that he claimed. Not playing a small rotation, home base of Reno and the limits they will allow, especially to a regular or frequent player. I just never felt the need to call him out as his claim wasn't really hurting anyone. Until he started attacking me, with his complete lack of understanding about blackjack variance. THAT is the point that his attacks about my variance became misleading to other players and I have a problem with that same as I did with T3 misleading other players with phony math on Norm's Site and Singer misleading video poker players with alternative or phony math on this site.

The math is the math. There is no grey area or alternative math. Impossible mathematical claims should be called out....PERIOD. 18 y.o's in row. Earning a million dollars over 10 years playing -EV video poker, using progressions and stop limits. T3's ridiculously mathematical impossible blackjack claims and now Moses misleading and false statements about variance, designed only to discredit me.


So let's talk about blackjack variance. Every blackjack player and team using the method of card counting experiences variance, sometime pretty extreme. The larger the spread a player/team uses the larger the variance and actually the better conditions, especially penetration, the larger the variance. That last statement may seem odd but it is very true. Deeper penetration will result in a higher win rate (higher EV rate) but at the expense of higher variance.

Let's look at some of the better known teams and some of their variance issues. One of the MIT teams suffered $200,000 losses before they turned it around and won over half a million. One of the other pretty well known teams (I think the church team) was at one time 60 grand in the hole, before variation turned in their favor and the caught up to EV (expectation) and make 6 figures and broke the bank. Both Tommy Hyland and one of his players who used to participate on various forums used to talk about their extreme variance on losing 10's, even 100k before things turn. THAT IS JUST THE WAY THE GAME OF BLACKJACK WORKS. A big spread equals large (short-term) variance. Eventually as you play enough rounds and get through the short term, the math will take over and results will come in line with expectation, but in the short term variance is a bitch. This is EXACTLY why blackjack card counting requires a significant bankroll of 100's of times your largest or max bet. Not your unit bet, your MAX bet!

And this variance isn't anything that is guessed at. There is a mathematical formula, having to do with your average bet and square root of number of hands played. This formula will result in a number known as standard deviation. Results for any number of rounds played should be within 1 standard deviation 67% of the time, within 2 standard deviations 95% of the time and within 3 standard deviations 99. something percent of the time.

So I want to go back to my week last fall where I lost 29k, that one of the ex-members here, a ploppie, who has no clue, began attacking me about and Moses, who appears also to have no clue of this math or discussion despite his claims of professional blackjack play, jumped on and continued.

Ok so back to my results for my worst week ever in 750 week (15 years). Using my average bet of about $200 and 2000 rounds played for the week (I average 80-100 thousand rounds a year, I get 1 standard deviation of $10,285. That means my results should be within (1 standard deviation) $10,285 of expectation 67% of the time for that amount of play. My results should be within (2 standard deviations) $20,570 of expectation 95% of the time for that amount of play. And within (3 standard deviations) or within $30,855 of expectation over 99% of the time for that amount of play.

So again, my results: My expectation was roughly $2000 and my results were -$29,000. That is almost exactly 3 standard deviations below expectation, which should occur less than 1% of the time. This is the second time I have been 3 standard deviations below expectation in 750 weeks, which is less than the 1% expectation for this occurrence.

In other words, my results while disappointing (obviously) were not that unusual for my level of play. A player playing my limits is going to have a week like that 1% of the time or so. THAT is the road to reaching expectation and maximum profits.

So I don't know what Moses big thing with this result was about, other than clearly showing he has little or no understanding about variance as it relates to professional blackjack play.

You people that seem to dislike me based on all sorts of things...that is fine. But the math is the math. Let's not pervert the math, because there is no such thing as alternative math.

[Bob21]

Okay, you can’t make this stuff up if you tried. Moses now has 6 out of the top 11 channels on this site. I’m sure redietz is steaming because he hasn’t been able to get even one channel started in his honor.

Kj’s obsession with Moses is obvious. It wasn’t till I went back and read some old threads on BJTF from before my time that I realized just how far back these two went. Anyway, should be interesting.

[kewlJ]

Okay, you can’t make this stuff up if you tried. Moses now has 6 out of the top 11 channels on this site. I’m sure redietz is steaming because he hasn’t been able to get even one channel started in his honor.

Kj’s obsession with Moses is obvious. It wasn’t till I went back and read some old threads on BJTF from before my time that I realized just how far back these two went. Anyway, should be interesting.

Funny how you glossed over the important fact that your hero, the guy you worship and get so excited about his trolling, has gone on this months long agenda to discredit me based on phony or alternative math, and the obvious fact that he just doesn't understand the math involved about what he is attacking, proving what I have known all along but didn't bother calling him out on.

Your hero, that you have your nose so far up his ass...is a fraud about his claims of professional blackjack play. He doesn't understand basic math involved. He likely is a fraud as far as his claims about sports-betting for a living as well, but I'll leave that to others to decide as it isn't my arena.

You turning a blind eye and supporting him as enthusiastically as you do, exposed you as well. You are either an complete idiot or somehow tied in.

[redietz]

I don't know much about blackjack variance, but I know a little about gambling variance, and what kewlJ reported is not really outlier stuff. Results that have a 1% chance happen all of the time. I've lost eight games in a row on multiple occasions. I had the good fortune to win 17 in a row once while in a public competition. The odds against that are ostensibly two to the 17th, which yields roughly the same odds (according to actuarial tables) as "death by reptile." I made public note of my goal to match "death by reptile" after I'd won the 13th in a row.

If you participate in enough events, you get to see the occasional seemingly impossible. Two such events that make kewlj's story seem tame happened this week. Golden State blew a 31 point lead in a playoff game, a third-quarter lead no less. This had never occurred in the NBA playoffs before. And the Tampa Bay Lightning, with the best regular season record in many years in the NHL, were swept in a first round playoff series. Such a sweep had never occurred before.

Kewlj's variance event report is mild in comparison. Not freakish at all.

[UCFX]

The whole attack on me by former member Moses and current sockpuppet member UCFX stems from the discussion involving the 29k losing week that I had last September or October.

I want to say this about Moses.

You people that seem to dislike me based on all sorts of things...that is fine. But the math is the math. Let's not pervert the math, because there is no such thing as alternative math.

KJ rant. Who gives a rip? This is all that was read.

Okay, you can’t make this stuff up if you tried.

Moses will write on Variance again at Zen Zone.

[kewlJ]

Moses will write on Variance again at Zen Zone.

No doubt. Here is the interesting thing. You just signed on here and Moses signed on at ZZ 1 minute apart. But you are not the same person. lol

Go ahead give us an excuse. the two of you went out to dinner and upon returning home went to opposite corners of the card board box to post at the same time.


I mean you are not even good at this sock puppet troll thing.

[kewlJ]

Moses will write on Variance again at Zen Zone.

And here is Moses response to the discussion on blackjack variance, in it's entirety, word for word:

"I'm only speaking to the single deck straight up game. I know now or care about the rest. But I do KNOW THIS GAME.

It was derived from my basketball background was spanned over 4 decades of playing, coaching, officiating.

High school. Suppose you win a game 100-88. There are several runs positive and negative during the course of that game. Plus most games are played on Friday and Saturday nights. So tired legs become a problem on the 2nd game. A 50-38 win achieves the same objective. The idea is ball control which reduces negative runs significantly. Keeping the other team on defense make it easy on the offense. Suppose you have a clear 20 foot jumper at the 7.13 mark. A high percentage shot for a good shooter. However, suppose you have a layup at the 6.05 mark. Almost a slam dunk by any player on the floor. Plus PLUS we kept the pressure on the defense for an additional 1.08. That is a long time to be playing man to man defense. Now, the opponent rushes their offense".


I gave you mathematical formulas generated by the top blackjack math guys with the use of computers to back up everything I said and my results. Moses responded with a story of some high school basketball player taking a jump shot at the 7 minute mark of a basketball game. Nonsense from the twilight zone that has nothing to do with nothing.

UCFX: please thank your friend Moses for the wisdom he shared and someone please share with Moses THE clip from Billy Madison, because we are all dumber now thanks to Moses.

I am done with you now Moses and all your sock puppets, alter-egos and various multiple personalities. Enjoy your life and all your ahhh...friends.

[Bob21]

I am done with you now Moses and all your sock puppets, alter-egos and various multiple personalities. Enjoy your life and all your ahhh...friends.

Kj, I think I’ve seen these exact words from you 254 times. Question: Do you type this out each time; or do you have it saved on your commuter where you can just hit one key and it populates the end of your post?

Second question: When are you going to start your next Moses thread? I hope you wait more than a day. Right now there’s quite a few Moses channels going on here. I’m having a hard time keeping up on all of them.

I’ve noticed redietz likes these channels too since he’s always posting on them. And to think, he wanted to get them moved to their own section.

As far as Moses’s basketball analogy with blackjack, I can tell you missed it. You think the guy took the jump shot at the 7 minute make. He didn’t. He passed it up for a better shot at the 6 min mark and made the other team play defense longer, thus, reducing variance.

Moses also explicitly states he’s “only speaking to the single deck straight up games.” It my understanding you don’t play those games. So there. That’s probably why you missed the points Moses was making about variance.

[Bob21]

Moses, I just finished reading the rest of your variance post on Zenzone. Even before you finished it, I figured this is where you were going. Well done!

[Keystone]

Just finished up my coffee and was reading this nutjobs latest rant over at the Cuckoos Nest...looks like he had a pretty bad night...could be he lost $4.77 on a basketball game or snagged his lip on Tater’s zipper again...either way, a very bad night indeed lol

[kewlJ]

I see the total meltdown post by UCFX that was made late last night after I posted Moses response word for word, was deleted. Smart move UCFX.

[redietz]

Since I have also played and coached basketball, I just want to say that if the Moses basketball quote is correct, he's just flat out wrong. He has it backwards for a number of reasons.

Let's go through it:

1) Blackjack is not basketball. Specifically, counting cards in blackjack does not relate to basketball in general because "spreading" in blackjack has no real basketball equivalent. There are free throws, two-point shots, and three-point shots in basketball. Nothing in basketball enables three-point shots to increase the likelihood of being made in the manner that a blackjack count makes winning the next hand more likely.

2) Reducing the number of possessions in basketball does not reduce variance if by variance you mean the outcome of the single event (the "game in basketball or "session" in blackjack) as compared to 100 such events or a "game" that continues in perpetuity (the "long term"). The more possessions in a game between teams of unequal ability, the more likely that the superior team will win. Consider the superior team the one with the "edge."

3) This was why, in part, the shot clock was introduced to college basketball. It was a way to facilitate the brand names winning more games and forcing the inferior teams to play high-possession games.

4) The discussion about passing up a 20-foot jumper at seven minutes for a layup at six minutes is just silly. If a team or coach knew a layup was coming at six minutes, nobody would ever take the jumper, as the two words (layup/jumper) define different percentage shots. The problem is that no layup is ever guaranteed to present itself, obviously, no matter how many times you pass up jumpers. And there's no guarantee you won't turn the ball over. While I am a fan of "pass the ball four times" from Hoosiers, that's a way of playing, not a guarantee that a team will be able to do it. I played on a team (pre-shot clock) that held the ball 11 minutes one game because we were in foul trouble. It took us three possessions, however, as it's a difficult thing to hold the ball when the other team knows you're trying to hold the ball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.


I'm sure Bob21 knew all of this, of course. He was just testing the rest of us.

[kewlJ]

As far as Moses’s basketball analogy with blackjack, I can tell you missed it. You think the guy took the jump shot at the 7 minute make. He didn’t. He passed it up for a better shot at the 6 min mark and made the other team play defense longer, thus, reducing variance.

Moses also explicitly states he’s “only speaking to the single deck straight up games.” It my understanding you don’t play those games. So there. That’s probably why you missed the points Moses was making about variance.

Bob21, you can NOT reduce variance from the blackjack card counting game by any significant measure. There are thing a player can do that will help a tiny bit, but nothing significant. The facts are that blackjack card counting gains the player the very tiniest of edges. Even at the high, max bet counts the player is only playing with a very slim edge. That means he is going to lose almost as many max bet opportunities as he wins. Actually even at those high counts the card counter will lose more hands than he wins. The edge comes from slightly more blackjacks at the 3-2 payout.

And anytime a player is going to lose just as many or more of his largest bets, there is going to be huge variance, because there will be little streaks that these losses occur in bunches. These are the facts of the game as it relates to card counting. No advanced count, column count or other is going to change that, No stop limits will change that. No one, not the greatest math minds and certainly not the likes of Moses can change that. Anyone that doesn't understand the variance should not be attempting to card count. PERIOD!

I don't play single deck. The reason is it is unplayable. I have been to Reno. I have friends that play Reno more than I do. Reno is almost unplayable at the green chip and higher level except for a very short time, during crowded weekends. If a regular tries to play green to black for more than a day or two, he is done in Reno...ALL of Reno. Reno is too small of a rotation to play as any kind of home base. Best you can do is roll into town for a couple days, maybe twice a year.

As a matter of fact, similarly to how double deck is a counter trap in Vegas, and serious players avoid double deck or play very sparingly, Single deck is the counter trap in Reno. If a player is going to attempt to play any serious money in Reno he has to avoid the single deck. These are the facts. And Moses can't change them by his wishing.

If a player really wants to play blackjack with any kind of significantly less variance, he needs to find much larger edges than card counting.

So spare us with you bullshit that you have no clue about. And spare us the nonsense that you are an aspiring card counter. Everything you say and do proves you are not. If you were you would learn the mathematics of the game and ground yourself in the reality of the game and stop the hero worship of someone that is full of bullshit. Anyone new player who is serious about card counting aligns himself with real players who play the game and are successful and soaks up everything they have to say. That's what I did and those relationships continue to be beneficial today. Because that is how you really learn from experiences shared from real players, not from books, not from boot camps...real players sharing their experiences and most tend to be somewhat tight lipped.

[UCFX]

As far as Moses’s basketball analogy with blackjack, I can tell you missed it. You think the guy took the jump shot at the 7 minute make. He didn’t. He passed it up for a better shot at the 6 min mark and made the other team play defense longer, thus, reducing variance.

Moses also explicitly states he’s “only speaking to the single deck straight up games.” It my understanding you don’t play those games. So there. That’s probably why you missed the points Moses was making about variance.

Bob21, you can NOT reduce variance from the blackjack card counting game by any significant measure. There are thing a player can do that will help a tiny bit, but nothing significant. The facts are that blackjack card counting gains the player the very tiniest of edges. Even at the high, max bet counts the player is only playing with a very slim edge. That means he is going to lose almost as many max bet opportunities as he wins. Actually even at those high counts the card counter will lose more hands than he wins. The edge comes from slightly more blackjacks at the 3-2 payout.

And anytime a player is going to lose just as many or more of his largest bets, there is going to be huge variance, because there will be little streaks that these losses occur in bunches. These are the facts of the game as it relates to card counting. No advanced count, column count or other is going to change that, No stop limits will change that. No one, not the greatest math minds and certainly not the likes of Moses can change that. Anyone that doesn't understand the variance should not be attempting to card count. PERIOD!

I don't play single deck. The reason is it is unplayable. I have been to Reno. I have friends that play Reno more than I do. Reno is almost unplayable at the green chip and higher level except for a very short time, during crowded weekends. If a regular tries to play green to black for more than a day or two, he is done in Reno...ALL of Reno. Reno is too small of a rotation to play as any kind of home base. Best you can do is roll into town for a couple days, maybe twice a year.

As a matter of fact, similarly to how double deck is a counter trap in Vegas, and serious players avoid double deck or play very sparingly, Single deck is the counter trap in Reno. If a player is going to attempt to play any serious money in Reno he has to avoid the single deck. These are the facts. And Moses can't change them by his wishing.

If a player really wants to play blackjack with any kind of significantly less variance, he needs to find much larger edges than card counting.

So spare us with you bullshit that you have no clue about. And spare us the nonsense that you are an aspiring card counter. Everything you say and do proves you are not. If you were you would learn the mathematics of the game and ground yourself in the reality of the game and stop the hero worship of someone that is full of bullshit. Anyone new player who is serious about card counting aligns himself with real players who play the game and are successful and soaks up everything they have to say. That's what I did and those relationships continue to be beneficial today. Because that is how you really learn from experiences shared from real players, not from books, not from boot camps...real players sharing their experiences and most tend to be somewhat tight lipped.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit.

[redietz]

Yeah, I think there may be a reason Bob21 doesn't go into much detail regarding gambling or math. The last few posts pretty much exposed him. He sounds like he has no idea what he's talking about.

Maybe the real Bob21 has been kidnapped and an imposter is posting in his place. As president of his fan club, I can only hope.

[UCFX]

No doubt. Here is the interesting thing. You just signed on here and Moses signed on at ZZ 1 minute apart. But you are not the same person. lol

Go ahead give us an excuse. the two of you went out to dinner and upon returning home went to opposite corners of the card board box to post at the same time. :

As a matter of fact, I did have dinner with both of them. So what's your point? Moses said to write slow because it's clear you're simple minded and uneducated.

Dan doesn't give a fuck about your accusations anymore. You leave and the forum air smells fresher without your ranting bullshit. Few even now your gone not why the air is of better quality. Moses gets getting and is still the main topic on interest TWO months later. He doesn't want to be. So don't say it's him.

I mean you are not even good at this sock puppet troll thing.

In the words of Monet. Shut up queer!

[UCFX]

I see the total meltdown post by UCFX that was made late last night after I posted Moses response word for word, was deleted. Smart move UCFX.

Dumbass. HE wanted to be sure you read it. HE's in your head that early in the morning? LOL You two are pathetic.

[kewlJ]

1) Blackjack is not basketball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.

You could, maybe should have stopped with these first 4 words of point #1. Seriously.

But #5 is somewhat relevant because it is not only wrong, it is completely 180 degrees wrong and backwards. Card counting is a grind. A player is grinding out the slimmest of edges. So slim that most advantage players want nothing to do with it.

Any kind of game where the player is grinding out a paper thin edge it is about volume. You have to get to the long-term, whatever than math says it is for that venture. Literally the more play you put in, the more you will win in the end, the longterm. So anything a player does that shortens his play or number of trials is only reducing his overall win in the end.

This is something non-AP's simply don't, won't or can't understand....I don't know which. Not to pick on Alan, but he is the perfect non-AP mentality and that is why I could not get through to him. Bob21 and Moses arguing these ploppie points is just proof of who they are.

Someone once said "it doesn't take all that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". .

I repeat this over and over, but it is the truth. Some trolls or frauds have gotten pretty good at deceiving, deflecting, muddying the water, attacking people as a deflection, but eventually, knowledge or lack of knowledge comes through exposing them.

Of course in order to see, a person has to have their eyes open. What this means is a person like Bob21 supporting Moses, or some of the members of this site that made up their mind to support Singer's mathematically impossible claims, see only what they want to see, not what is really there. We will call that "selective vision".

[Bob21]

1) Blackjack is not basketball.

5) The idea that reducing number of possessions in a game reduces variance in the game outcome is just flat-out incorrect. It's completely ass backwards.

You could, maybe should have stopped with these first 4 words of point #1. Seriously.

But #5 is somewhat relevant because it is not only wrong, it is completely 180 degrees wrong and backwards. Card counting is a grind. A player is grinding out the slimmest of edges. So slim that most advantage players want nothing to do with it.

Any kind of game where the player is grinding out a paper thin edge it is about volume. You have to get to the long-term, whatever than math says it is for that venture. Literally the more play you put in, the more you will win in the end, the longterm. So anything a player does that shortens his play or number of trials is only reducing his overall win in the end.

This is something non-AP's simply don't, won't or can't understand....I don't know which. Not to pick on Alan, but he is the perfect non-AP mentality and that is why I could not get through to him. Bob21 and Moses arguing these ploppie points is just proof of who they are.

Someone once said "it doesn't take all that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". .

I repeat this over and over, but it is the truth. Some trolls or frauds have gotten pretty good at deceiving, deflecting, muddying the water, attacking people as a deflection, but eventually, knowledge or lack of knowledge comes through exposing them.

Of course in order to see, a person has to have their eyes open. What this means is a person like Bob21 supporting Moses, or some of the members of this site that made up their mind to support Singer's mathematically impossible claims, see only what they want to see, not what is really there. We will call that "selective vision".

Here’s the thing kj. You missed the whole point of Moses analogy. You said: “ Moses responded with the story of some high school basketball player taking a shot at the 7 minute mark of a basketball game.” That’s incorrect. Please reread Moses post.

That guy passed up this shot (it was a jump shot) at the 7 minute mark to get a better one (a layup) at the 6 minute mark.

You thought the key part of the basketball game was at the 7 minute mark, when it was really at the 6 minute mark. Now that I clued you in on your mistake, does that change your view on how this basketball analogy relates to blackjack?

[RS__]

Don't waste your time on the retard that is Moses and/or UCFX.