Quit Point ?
  • For those who subscribe to Walter's methods (which I do) I'd like to ask something about the quit points. I usually stay religeous about this, changing tables after 4 losses. But there have been times I've stayed, just to see what happens. A lot of times, the streak continued bad, and a few times it actually turned pretty good. I'm just curious what the actual reasoning is behind the quit points. Specifically, say you had just sat down, new shoe, win one, maybe two hands, and then four losses. That early into the shoe (let's say 6 deck) should you really walk away? Is it better to stay put earlier on in the shoe?

    BTW, I'm not trying to second guess Walter's methods, they've been very good to me! Just trying to get a better understanding. Thanks,

    John
  • Of course Walter would be the one to answer this best, but...
    My understanding of this guideline is that it heads off a losing session before it gets too late, and it takes great discipline to trust this to work for you, especially on the other end of the spectrum when you're winning a lot and lose 4, it allows you to leave a winner, or should I say it reminds you to leave a winner. I think it's like trusting the math of Basic strategy and or not letting the size of your bet determine how you play your hand. I think that discipline is probably the greatest asset in BJ and the downfall of the novice player.
  • John- I think what Walter is trying to do is, identify a bad shoe. One where you lose many more hands, than you win. Of course there will be times, that it will turn, after four losses in a row and wind up being a good shoe. You never "know", but you do "know" that you have lost four in a row and that is a good signal, to not play any more hands that shoe. As for quiting early in the shoe, many shoes that start bad, stay that way. That is just my take on it.
  • midnite said:
    You never "know", but you do "know" that you have lost four in a row and that is a good signal, to not play any more hands that shoe. As for quiting early in the shoe, many shoes that start bad, stay that way.


    Which I guess gives more creedence to the theory of streaks. I wonder if there was ever analysis done as to how frequent really bad shoes are. I guess I'm probably delving too deep there, I'm happy with the system as it is. Just was curious about that "4" cut-off.

    And Mike, I agree, discipline is a tremendous asset, and probably harder to manage than playing perfect BS.

    John
  • In addition to the quit after 4 L, I also quit when I lose 25% of my Session Bank Roll. That has helped with walking away from a shoe with a lot of up/down chop. The 25% is not my idea, have read it in a BJ few books. It does work....... : :wink:
  • I am new at this and waiting for "the book" to arrive but in the mean time, if one quits when down 25% when should a person quit when then are on the upside?
  • Personally, I'll risk 3/8ths to win double, if I'm hot, triple. I tend to quit at triple unless I'm in a winning streak. When that streak ends, so do I. With my progression, losing 1-2-3-3-1 is a third of the table stakes. For other loss strings 2-3-3-1-2, 3-3-1-2-3, and 3-1-2-3-3 this is a little more (11, 12, and 12 units). Overall this averages to 3/8ths. I like the following rule: "If I double, set that as a stop point." Therefore if I am still hot, I can allow the bank to fall back to this point before exitting. On the other hand tripling is very nice, and I want to keep it all.

    JMHO
    N&B
  • On the winning side, once I win double $$, I use a floating stop loss of 1/2 my buy in. So I never lose more than 50% of buy in from the high point of the bank roll. :)
  • For 99% of all Bj players, "history" don't count; it has no value or meaning. It's the same as calling tails four times in a row and has
    no reality for the future. If I were to lose four in a row, I would be
    just as correct in saying that my losing streak has passed and now
    I have a better chance to win. A good shoe for you may be a very
    bad shoe for the Guy next door or just the reverse. Action based on
    the past may calm our nerves and may be a good thing, but it has
    zero effect on expectations.

    If we were at the wheel and we bet black and lose 4 in a row; well,
    I'm not going to do that again. The tendency is to bet red even when
    we know that the four losers have nothing to do with the future.
  • Ray- I don't know if you have read Gambling Wizards by Richard Munchkin, but it is interviews of the top players in the world. Be it sport betting, poker, backgammon, Blackjack, etc. The storys they tell are quite interesting. Traveling the world, getting robbed, winning and losing Big bucks. Anyway this is what just one said : make your decisions before you sit down to play. Not under emotional duress, whether to keep playing or not. Several mentioned a stop loss. It may be money or hours, when losing. No stops were used, when winning. BTW, I do not use the four loss quit point, but I see nothing wrong with it, for most players. Quiting 'that' shoe or 'that' table, may be the right move for them ? They may need to look at how those four losses in a row happened. If your 19's are losing to dealers 20's and your 20's to his BJ's /quit shoe or table. If your stiffs are losing, to the dealer drawing out on his stiff hands, You may want to stick around a while longer. I do quit shoes/decks and change tables.
  • Midnight, You can get most any view you want given enough people
    and that is just a product of human nature. Whatever folks want to
    do is just find with me. It's only the like minded individual that will
    belive anything that I say anyway. You know...to each his own......

    Ray
  • Hi Ray, Suggest you read the book "Take the Money & Run" by Henry Tamburin (Harry is a well know BJ player and author) Chapter 9 is interesting, to quote from it:
    I have taught thousands of BJ players the following techniques to help discipline themselves to walk away a winner.
    Your first objective when you buy-in at a BJ table is to set a quitting milestone.
    First, if I lose a max of 3 or 4 hands in a row, I'm gone from the table. I don't care if the count is plus one zillion. Second, if I find myself gradually losing from the word go, I pick up and leave if I've lost 25% of my starting bankroll.
    It goes on, but you get the theme.
    As you said, to each his own. But I find it pays to listen to advice from experienced people :wink:
  • Ray - You're right. All quit points(except death and a negative count) are artificial and have no basis in fact. But I think they do aid in teaching us new/infrequent/red chip players(I am all three) an important lesson in discipline. It also helps a newbie's confidence when he/she can color up with some of the house's money in their pocket, and when to drag up to "stop the bleeding". I need that "reinforcement" of sticking to my "game plan".

    BTW, do all advantage players only use a negative count as a quit point?
  • As long as we are aware of the facts, that's all that matters. Idividuals
    will adjust as they see fit and that is the way it should be. There are
    lots of playing styles that "seem" to work and anything that gets the
    money can't very well be judge wrong. It's mostly negative counts with
    me or at the end of a shoe, depending on how I'm playing that night.
    I think there are ways that a good B/S,progression player can leave a
    table that is most likely negative and enter a table that is most likely
    positive, especially in shoe games that tend to hover around neutral
    most of the time.
  • Hi Ray, Suggest you read the book "Take the Money & Run" by Henry Tamburin (Harry is a well know BJ player and author) Chapter 9 is interesting, to quote from it:
    I have taught thousands of BJ players the following techniques to help discipline themselves to walk away a winner.
    Your first objective when you buy-in at a BJ table is to set a quitting milestone.
    First, if I lose a max of 3 or 4 hands in a row, I'm gone from the table. I don't care if the count is plus one zillion.


    Now let me make sure I understand Henry correctly. All the knowledge I've gained about counting cards and practicing and identifying when and by how much I have the edge over the house, I should take that and then throw it out the window and leave the table because I've lost a few hands in a row when the count is a zillion. Thats terrible advice in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous. Lets say the count is only +4 and not a zillion, I'm expected to win money on my next hand. Why in the world would I walk away from a bet I'm expected to win?

    Second, if I find myself gradually losing from the word go, I pick up and leave if I've lost 25% of my starting bankroll.


    I guess there's nothing wrong with following this advise if you feel comfortable with it, but it doesn't have any basis for anything meaningful in my opinion... its just an arbitrary, meaningless number.

    I don't think I'm gonna be buying any books from Henry in the near future.
  • I have read a few of Tamburins articles at casinocitytimes.com, but they
    were the usual run of the mill topics, rules,etc. He did not come across
    as a "MYSTIC" there, but from what I'm hearing I'm not so sure.
  • I follow Walters' Positive Progressive Betting System with Quit Points religiously simply because it works. I've heard people say "Man i can't beleive the dealer won ten in a row,ten in a row'!
    Well, the player who uses Quit Points will NEVER experience that horror!
    When I'm comfortavle at a table i really hate getting up and moving to another table but you'd better beleive i do every time!
    Good Luck all!
  • Let's say you decide to get up and leave the table any time you lose 4 straight hands. Why are your chances of losing the next 4 hands at the new table any different than the last table?

    It seems odd to me, to get up and leave (especially if there is a high count). I guess if it makes you comfortable then go for it, but I'll stay put!

    As a wise man once said on this forum "to each his own"
  • Just playing devil's advocate. I sure don't claim to know more than Walter. But let's say you lose those four hands in a row early in a shoe. I'n no counter, but wouldn't it follow that the shoe would PROBABLY now be at least a little in your favor count-wise, the assumption being that the dealer won those hands by taking some of the cards favorable to him.

    Mainly, though, I generally don't like the hassle of switching tables. I get up from them occasionally, assuming there's others available. But here I use the dreaded (and dangerous, I suppose) "hunch" method.

    Just wondering how important the four-loss quit point is to Walter's overall system?
  • How many zero's in a zillion?
  • Studies conducted since my progressions book was published, plus the information presented in the book, make me continue to have faith in the quit point philosophy... but one new factor should be added to my quit point plan: If 4 losses occur within the first 6 hands out of the shoe, you might want to stick around for another hand or two, especially if it's inconvenient to change tables. The differences in win/loss results aren't nearly as dramatic when the losses occur at the start of a shoe.
    If you doubt the value of Quit Points, try this: Next time you leave a table after four consecutive losses, observe what's happening at the table 10 minutes later. Are the players winning or losing? Is the dealer "hot", or is he busting often and drawing lots of stiffs?
    Ray might be correct when he says that there's no "logical" reason to expect losses to follow losses if you aren't counting cards, but there's also no "logical" reason why counters often have hugh losing streaks when the count is very positive.
    Best of luck to all!
  • Walter- Yes, it cuts both ways, but I'll take the path of Insurance companies. I like the stats....they have been in business a long time
    and own half the shopping centers in the USA.
  • Walter: By "sticking around", do you mean playing a hand to see if you win or lose, or sitting back without betting and observe what happens to the others, then try again?

    thanks!
  • Comments for Walter concerning the following statement:

    Ray might be correct when he says that there's no "logical" reason to expect losses to follow losses if you aren't counting cards, but there's also no "logical" reason why counters often have hugh losing streaks when the count is very positive.


    I think you are arguing two entirely different points here, I can't see why there would be a logical reason to say "since I lost the last four hands, I will lose the next one", but there is a logical reason that counters go on losing streaks when the count is high, the reason being "bad luck". Say the counter has a 70% (made up %) to win the next hand, he still has a 30% chance of losing - over time he will win more but why couldn't that 30% happen in 5 or 10 straight hands!

    I guess I am struggling to see the "logical reason" for the quit points. I think your progression is good, for the non-counter. Basically you will win more money than flat-betting, but your system does not predict the future, whereas counting cards in a way predicts the future (sometimes poorly, but nonetheless it predicts what "should" happen).

    I believe the non-counter can play your progression (minus the quit points) and be successful! I guess I just want you to explain your reasons for implementing quit points, so I can have a better understanding of it!
  • jm-
    In his book Walter says not to lean into a pundh. If memory serves me he also says he doesn't know why quit points work but they do and maybe someday some fellow more clever than he will figure out why they work. The player who uses quit points will never experience the horror of losing ten in a row. Maybe not leaning into a punch is just good old common sense.
    Best of luck-
    Prog
  • Prog- You lose 4 in a row, you go to the next table and lose 4 in a row,
    you go to the next table and lose 4 in a row. What did you say about
    never experiencing 10 in a row?
  • simeo: I'd play at the table for a few more hands and see if the trend reverses itself.
  • Ray and others: About 20 years ago, Arnold Snyder, et al determined that losing shoes tended to remain losing shoes, but concluded that "there's no way to exploit this." What they meant was there's no way for a card counter to exploit this fact. I think quit points do exploit this trend.
    Also, from a very practical standpoint, card counters believe that both short and long-term results for non counters are negative. Consequently, the less a non-counter plays, the less he's likely to lose. Non-counters aren't playing when moving from one table to another, so their negative expectation/exposure is reduced by using quit points.... right? :)
  • Ray-
    Interesting point,losing 4 in a row at 3 different tables, in the real world of the casino it just doesn't happen,it could of course but it doesn't.
    Hey I sure don't know why quit points works but I know from personal real world real casino experience it does.
    Best of luck!
    Prog
  • Prog- Stick around! If it can happen, it will happen......But enough of this..
    friends will differ....

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!