Question about SNGs and fluctuation

pearljam · #1 08-27-2005, 01:24 AM

6% ROI over 5,000 tournaments at 200+15's is very good.

citanul · #2 08-27-2005, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
6% ROI over 5,000 tournaments at 200+15's is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

response 1 for this thread:

no, it's not.

it's making an ok amount of money, it's not even close to "very good"

citanul

Chaostracize · #3 08-27-2005, 01:31 AM

That, both player in question and I, agree with.

pearljam · #4 08-27-2005, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6% ROI over 5,000 tournaments at 200+15's is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

response 1 for this thread:

no, it's not.

it's making an ok amount of money, it's not even close to "very good"

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

But I read in the FAQ that 6% was the highest a good player could sustain over a long period of time in the 200+15s.

Myst · #5 08-27-2005, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
6% ROI over 5,000 tournaments at 200+15's is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not. It really is not. The variance alone would make any sane man want to jump out the window.

But then again, people play blackjack with worse edges for a living. Meh. Its all perspective.

citanul · #6 08-27-2005, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But then again, people play blackjack with worse edges for a living. Meh. Its all perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

i haven't read any literature/empirical work on BJ, and am actually looking to do so. have you got any to recommend? i have this feeling in the back of my head that because good blackjack play involves putting more money out when you believe yourself to be at an advantage, the swings aren't that terrible (though they clearly exist).

also wondering if anyone knows the edges for the scenarios:

1) playing perfect blackjack w.r.t. counting without varying your bets

2) playing basic strategy, no counting, with varying your bets on some reasonable spectrum

3) playing perfect counting strategy with varying your bets on some reasonable spectrum

if anyone has any reference to that that'd be great.

haha, i'm wrong forum / hijack man.

citanul

jon462 · #7 08-27-2005, 02:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But then again, people play blackjack with worse edges for a living. Meh. Its all perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

i haven't read any literature/empirical work on BJ, and am actually looking to do so. have you got any to recommend? i have this feeling in the back of my head that because good blackjack play involves putting more money out when you believe yourself to be at an advantage, the swings aren't that terrible (though they clearly exist).

also wondering if anyone knows the edges for the scenarios:

1) playing perfect blackjack w.r.t. counting without varying your bets

2) playing basic strategy, no counting, with varying your bets on some reasonable spectrum

3) playing perfect counting strategy with varying your bets on some reasonable spectrum

if anyone has any reference to that that'd be great.

haha, i'm wrong forum / hijack man.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

good sng strategy also involves putting your chips out there when you have an advantage, why do you think there would be less variance with blackjack?

To answer your question, house edge is 2% on #2 (you cant beat BJ w/o counting), and I imagine your edge would be so incredibly small on #1 it wouldnt be worth it.

There's a 2+2 book on blackjack, its designed to be simple enough to be practical to non-rainmen.. but DS does recommend some books with more complicated strategies..

citanul · #8 08-27-2005, 02:16 AM

ty.

i own, and have on my desk, sklansky on bj, but hte light is off, and i don't think he answers the exact question i asked.

i didn't mean to compare the variance of bj to that of sngs, just to what some may perceive the variance in bj to be.

/hijack

citanul

Mr_J · #9 08-27-2005, 02:19 AM

"To answer your question, house edge is 2% on #2"

No it's not. Basic strategy usually get you down to 0.5% or less (depends on rules).

"you cant beat BJ w/o counting"

There are some games that are beatable with perfect basic strategy, but these games are rare.

"There's a 2+2 book on blackjack, its designed to be simple enough to be practical to non-rainmen.."

Card counting isn't hard at all. Just takes practice. BJ21.com

jon462 · #10 08-27-2005, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"To answer your question, house edge is 2% on #2"

No it's not. Basic strategy usually get you down to 0.5% or less (depends on rules).

"you cant beat BJ w/o counting"

There are some games that are beatable with perfect basic strategy, but these games are rare.

"There's a 2+2 book on blackjack, its designed to be simple enough to be practical to non-rainmen.."

Card counting isn't hard at all. Just takes practice. BJ21.com

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression it was 2% with perfect play, Ill assume you are right though and stand corrected. My point is you arent getting an edge. By "some games" I assume you mean non-blackjack games? There have been table games that are beatable in casinos before, but they dont last very long before some donk posts the game on the internet and people come from all over until the casino figures it out <g>

Card counting is easy for me in a 1-2 deck shoe with grandma dealing.. any faster or more cards involved I get lost <g> Sklansky recommends basic +1 -1 (face cards, cards 6 or under), but he recommends some books with much more complicated strategies that are supposedly more accurate.