I am interested to know the probability of getting into a similar “bad” shoe after I just quit the last one.
Deviance said:At first it sounds like a case of Gambler's Fallacy. A random event, such as the order of the cards in the shoe of a new table, is unaffected by the type of shoes you have encountered in the past.
It is possible, however, that I misunderstood your post and that you just want the probability of getting a bad shoe in general. To help you here, I'd need your definition of a bad shoe--since you are using a progression, I'm uncertain what that would be.
Deviance said:As it has been stated earlier, past events cannot change the outcome of future random events.
i) Consider the following scenario: Four players sit at a blackjack table that is about to deal from a newly shuffled shoe.
-Player one has just walked away from a bad shoe after losing four in a row
-Player two has just played through a bad shoe without walking away.
-Player three has yet to play a shoe.
-Player four has just finished a good shoe.
For which player will this shoe turn out to be a "good" one? Each player is equally likely to profit or lose from this shoe. I hope this elucidates the point that walking away after you have lost four in a row cannot affect your odds of winning or losing on another shoe.
Thus, unless you are keeping track of the cards that have been used up in your current shoe, the decision to stay or walk is arbitrary at best.
AlexD30 said:1. He will be less likely to continue losing like it did in the previous shoe from where we just walked away in the middle of it. He will be playing in a different environment.
2. This one is more likely to continue losing by the end of the shoe.
3. This new player has 1:18 chance of losing the next 4 hands.
4. This one has no concerns. No reason to quit or change table.
My observations may seem simple logic to you but they are from the combat experience.
Ray said:The idea of Valid quit points is an illusion, they don't exist.
The idea of a good shoe or bad shoe is also illusionary because shoes come in all shapes and forms and at times that lack definition and predictability. What is a good shoe to you may be a very bad shoe to the other player(s) at the table. The reverse is also true.
The very best that you can accomplish is to shift the odds and that is a lot of hard work rather than magic or feel good rituals.....................
Ray said:Alex-The only math/probability that I can think of that may apply in the situation that you have described is much like basic strategy is figured. All cards are available with a new shoe and your chance to win is 47.5. This may be much better than the current situation that you are in. At the start of the shoe, there has not been any card removal that would put you in a negative expectation (less than 47.5). Does that save you money? Well, maybe.
Renzey said:Alex, It sounds as though you believe it should be harder to lose 12 straight hands at one shoe -- than to lose 4 at this shoe, lose your first 4 at the next shoe, then lose the first 4 at the shoe after that. What is it that would make you think these two things are different from each other?
If you believe the first shoe is just a bad shoe after you've lost the first 4, are you saying that the remainder of the shoe is stacked against the player because the beginning was?
If you want to apply pure math to answer these questions, the math will tell you that losing 12 straight in one shoe and losing 4, 4, 4 in three consecutive shoes have essentially the same probability.
To come up with a different answer than that, you have to postulate that bad shoes are predisposed to remaining bad, etc. What would be the reason for this?
Renzey said:Alex, It sounds as though you believe it should be harder to lose 12 straight hands at one shoe -- than to lose 4 at this shoe, lose your first 4 at the next shoe, then lose the first 4 at the shoe after that. What is it that would make you think these two things are different from each other?
If you believe the first shoe is just a bad shoe after you've lost the first 4, are you saying that the remainder of the shoe is stacked against the player because the beginning was?
If you want to apply pure math to answer these questions, the math will tell you that losing 12 straight in one shoe and losing 4, 4, 4 in three consecutive shoes have essentially the same probability.
To come up with a different answer than that, you have to postulate that bad shoes are predisposed to remaining bad, etc. What would be the reason for this?
AlexD30 said:Ranzey,
First, I want to tell you how much I enjoyed reading your Blue Book. Great book, and I mean it!
Now, my logic goes something like this: If I lose 12 hands in a row is probably because I have much less then 47.5%. If I quit after losing 4 in a row and move to a different table where the dealer just finished shuffling a new shoe, I will have a head start of 47.5%. If happens to lose the next four hands from the start again, I move again and start over at 47.5% in a new shoe.
My simulator shows that if you play all, shoe after shoe to the last round, or if you quit after 4 losses in a row and start with a new shoe you have 31% less 12 in a row losing streaks. Another way to put it: For you to lose 4 in a row in the first shoe and then overlap these with the first 4 rounds from the next shoe and again the first four hands from the third one and have all be 12 losses. This scenario will happen 31% less compared with playing all the way regardless. Now, this isnt just the statistical hogwash from the simulator. Those are also part of my experience at the tables.
If you take Bob Hubbys book and run the entire data in a spreadsheet you can see why the card counter is losing. You can also see why if you quit a bad shoe or after 3-4 losing hands in a row and go to the next shoe you are making money.
My experience tells me this: If a card counter wins and if I would have played his hands I would have won regardless if I count or not. But if I lose and a card counter would have played my hands he would have lost much more. Betting by the count in a losing streak a card counter lose huge $$ while I lose only one unit per hand.
If I lose 12 hands in a row is probably because I have much less then 47.5%
Ray said:Alex-If you play enough hands, SD becomes a non factor and all the sims tell us that our win rate is 47.5. Our expectations are always 47.5 no matter where we are at in a shoe, session or life-time because it is an average over time. SD/luck prevents us from viewing the next hand or the next 4 hands as some kind of trend and indication of events that will follow (bad shoe). But, that does not eliminate our expectation or the probability to win the next hand (47.5).
Expectations can not be used as a short-term indication of anything andthat, I think, is the crux of the problem with 4 loss exits and the start of a new shoe as described.
AlexD30 said:Ray,
If you are using a card counting system, you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any worthless system. However, eventually, you will lose much more with card counting than you would have lost by simply playing a no-brainier. If you are being told otherwise, you are being lied to. Card counting systems do not work against today's real world casino conditions! If you have purchased systems, books or computer programs that allude otherwise then you have been deceived with worthless materials.
They have worked for me for over 25 years, though if you go to a bookstore today, you will find more than 75% of the books are full of worthless progressive, stop/loss stuff, and other non mathematical systems that do not work.
Moreover, please note that losers rarely post their losses publicly on the Internet. They are ashamed of their foolishness, and their propensity to purchase systems that purport to beat the casino game. People usually do not admit they traded the cow for a few magic beans.
Most of these people bought the books I wrote about above.
It should be apparent to all, that card counting systems have been designed for the ideal game that was available in the 60s: Single Deck, S17, DAS, with 99% pen. In such game you will make money using card counting. Playing any other game setup you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any other worthless system but you will lose all your money in the long run.
It is unapparent completely. No one I know uses a system as it was designed back in the 60's. Today's good systems are stronger and the advantage percentage you get is the same if 75% or 100% of the cards are dealt. The difference, which is great, is the amount of money (EV) based upon percentage of cards being dealt. A game where the same percentage advantage can give you a $15 per hour edge when 65% is dealt, but $50 when 80% is dealt and perhaps $100 if 100% were dealt. So you would make much more money if they dealt all the cards but that in no way means you can not make money if 2/3 of the cards are dealt. Furthermore, concerning penetration, in many types of games, substainially more penetration is more benificial to a counter than even the dealer hitting soft 17. Also, there have been many teams that have made tons of money by just counting and all (every single one) play shoes!
Card counting is based on the mathematical properties of Blackjack if the game is played all the way down to the last card, and the influence of card removal on such game. But in todays games if you card count and win than you would have won even if you would have used a simple progression based on W/L ratio. Matter of fact, you would win much more and lose much less betting a positive progression then betting on card counting.
Funny that progression players get huge comps from casinos and proficient card counters get tossed. Can you logically think that casinos know absolutely nothing about their own games. Mathematically, as you started this paragraph, progressions can not possibly easrn money in a negative expectation game, which blackjack without counting is.
However, for playing decisions, Yes! Card Counting works! - You deviate from Basic Strategy based on card counting such as I18. But that's about it.
AlexD30 said:Ray,
If you are using a card counting system, you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any worthless system. However, eventually, you will lose much more with card counting than you would have lost by simply playing a no-brainier. If you are being told otherwise, you are being lied to. Card counting systems do not work against today's real world casino conditions! If you have purchased systems, books or computer programs that allude otherwise then you have been deceived with worthless materials.
Moreover, please note that losers rarely post their losses publicly on the Internet. They are ashamed of their foolishness, and their propensity to purchase systems that purport to beat the casino game. People usually do not admit they traded the cow for a few magic beans.
It should be apparent to all, that card counting systems have been designed for the ideal game that was available in the 60s: Single Deck, S17, DAS, with 99% pen. In such game you will make money using card counting. Playing any other game setup you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any other worthless system but you will lose all your money in the long run.
Card counting is based on the mathematical properties of Blackjack if the game is played all the way down to the last card, and the influence of card removal on such game. But in todays games if you card count and win than you would have won even if you would have used a simple progression based on W/L ratio. Matter of fact, you would win much more and lose much less betting a positive progression then betting on card counting.
However, for playing decisions, Yes! Card Counting works! - You deviate from Basic Strategy based on card counting such as I18. But that's about it.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!