vpFREE2 Forums

Church Team's results might meet statistical expectation

#1

While the N0 for flatbetting blackjack is low, for card counting and spread betting, it is not.

For a team that is under N0 (1/3 negative results due to chance alone), statistically one would expect the middle third to be +1EV, the bottom third to be -1EV, and the top third to be +3EV, for a net +1EV mean. Colin said his middle third broke even, which leads me to suspect the middle and top third were skimming an EV, so their results were 0 for the middle and only +2EV for the top third, for a net +1/3 EV. Ironically blame was probably placed on the losing bottom third when in reality they were probably the most honest group. Now, someone might say this is a Church Team, aren’t Church Team’s highly ethical? My observations lead me to believe that Church Team’s are the least ethical.

World Game Protection Conference Presentation (The Surveillance Conference)

image

World Game Protection Conference Presentation (T…
An overview of the talk Colin Jones gave at the WGPC in Vegas on February 25, 2014 Read more at: http://www.blackjackapprenticeship…

View on www.yout…

Preview by Yahoo

#2

What are you blabbering about??? Perhaps some context is needed before you start rambling things in your post???

···

On Jun 20, 2014, at 1:55 PM, “nightoftheiguana2…@…com [vpFREE]” <vpF…@…com> wrote:

While the N0 for flatbetting blackjack is low, for card counting and spread betting, it is not.

For a team that is under N0 (1/3 negative results due to chance alone), statistically one would expect the middle third to be +1EV, the bottom third to be -1EV, and the top third to be +3EV, for a net +1EV mean. Colin said his middle third broke even, which leads me to suspect the middle and top third were skimming an EV, so their results were 0 for the middle and only +2EV for the top third, for a net +1/3 EV. Ironically blame was probably placed on the losing bottom third when in reality they were probably the most honest group. Now, someone might say this is a Church Team, aren’t Church Team’s highly ethical? My observations lead me to believe that Church Team’s are the least ethical.

World Game Protection Conference Presentation (The Surveillance Conference)

image

World Game Protection Conference Presentation (T…
An overview of the talk Colin Jones gave at the WGPC in Vegas on February 25, 2014 Read more at: http://www.blackjackapprenticeship…

View on www.yout…

Preview by Yahoo

#3

Why did they need a bankroll of $1.5 million when they split their
wins up after every $100,000?

#4

007 asked?: “Why did they need a bankroll of $1.5 million when they split their
wins up after every $100,000?”

I assume the $1.5 million was appropriate for the type of gambling they were engaged in. Which leads me to believe their edges were too tight, and as a consequence their N0 was too big. With most modern casinos, counting typically doesn’t produce reasonable edges, that’s basically why someone wrote a book called “Beyond Counting”.

books.google.com/books?isbn=0910575177

#5

Almost every statistical measure for gambling assumes 100% reinvestment of all profits. Risk of Ruin and maximum possible downswings are highly dependent on the
frequency of win distributions. Distribute profits too quickly or frequently and the investors are basically getting free-rolled by their players in the current bank and by the investors in the previous banks. The key to success in any team banking arrangement is having relatively infrequent final distributions to assure that the team gets very solidly into the long run so that at least 50% of the downswings occur while the team is substantially ahead rather than only while even or behind.

The solutions are always one of two: 1> Very infrequent distributions of profits and/or 2> Playing to a virtually 0.0% risk of ruin either through gigantic bet to bank ratio OR very frequent proactive downsizing of betting during downswings. (rather than waiting to lose 50% of the bank you should downsize after 25% and then not resize back up until at least 66.7% of the loss has been recovered).

While this is more of a blackjack off-topic, the problem with VP is that going to a lower denomination and still playing the desired game for achieving coin-in and theoretical targets can be problematic.

#6

NOTI wrote: “While the N0 for flatbetting blackjack is low, for card counting and spread betting, it is not.”

NO for flatbetting blackjack will obviously depend on the EV, and the NO can be large for someone trying to play a small edge game.

NO for card counting is not necessarily large, especially not by VP standards. An 1-8 spread in a double-deck game with good rules will have NO of about 27,000 hands, even if you bet 8 units off the top after every shuffle.

–Dunbar

···
#7

The solution to the “when to distribute profits” problem is the Kelly system. You can break the bank and do a full distribute whenever you want, then reform a bankroll the next time you go out. Play Kelly on the current bankroll, everytime. Of course you can’t just leak off some bankroll during the play, for example if your win rate is say $100/hour and your bankroll leak rate is $100/hour, your net bankroll feed rate is 0, and your optimal Kelly bet would be 0, in other words it’s a no go. But you can break and distribute the bank after the play, and reform a new bank for a new play, probably a good idea if you have to transport a lot of cash by plane or car. The Kelly system is based on your current bank, which of course often changes with each play. And if there is some leakage, and there usually is, you have to subtract that from the win rate to get your true feed rate. Don’t forget to try to get a good handle on your error rate also, it’s usually more than anticipated.

True Edge = Theoretical EV - error rate - bankroll leak rate

In the Kelly system, you always bet LESS than your current bankroll times your True Edge divided by your variance. (For the nitpickers, that’s approximate Kelly, but it’s a close approximation.)