You won't win

Quote from Achiever:

Arnold Snyder, a Blackjack expert talking about how impossible it is for most people to win at Blackjack using a Card Counting system with a proven long-term advantage, because it's too devastating to live through the short-term negative fluctuations. Everything he says applies perfectly to trading the markets, and explains why the majority of us will lose even with a proven "edge."

http://www.bjfonline.com/Library/wontwin.htm

You won’t win.

Do I really need fifteen articles to say those three words? I don’t think so. Though it occurs to me that all blackjack books should have at least one chapter titled: “You Won’t Win.”

The message delivered by most blackjack books and systems has always been the same baloney. Stanley Roberts’ Winning Blackjack was once advertised with the slogan: “Make every casino in the world your personal bank account!” Ken Uston’s Million Dollar Blackjack was promoted with: “Make $500 per day any time you want!” And these aren’t phony systems; these books contain legitimate card counting strategies.

You can’t always tell the real systems from the phonies by looking at the advertising. Promotion is promotion. Authors of blackjack books, like authors of all “self-help” books—from weight-loss systems to multi-level marketing programs—are reluctant to deliver the message:

You won’t win.

Nobody wants to hear it.

When I self-published my first book, The Blackjack Formula, in 1980, and advertised it in Gambling Times magazine with the catchy, upbeat slogan: “Card Counters Beware,” stating in the ad that most of the blackjack games available in the casinos of the world were unbeatable with any card counting system, the publisher of Gambling Times, Stan Sludikoff, told me bluntly that I would never make any great amount of money trying to sell books with that type of pessimistic advertising.

Stan was right. Seventeen years later, I’m still just scraping by, still delivering that vastly unpopular message:

You won’t win.

Of course, there are a few players who do win. Professional card counters exist; they’re not entirely mythical. It’s just that I know that these professional players are so exceptional, so obsessed, so dedicated, such gluttons for punishment, so terror stricken by the concept of working a nine-to-five job, so few and far between in every sense of few and far between, that, honestly, you are highly unlikely to be one of these human anomalies. And the most honest thing I can say to you, if you tell me that you really want to become a professional blackjack player, is:

You won’t win.

And the reason is: fluctuations.

If you are anything like the masses of humanity, if you like to be rewarded for your efforts within some reasonable time frame, you won’t be able to take the fluctuations. Those negative downswings will be bigger, and harder, and longer lasting, and more upsetting, and more unbelievable, than your level of toleration. Your losses will tear at your heart, and fill you with emptiness, and leave you in a state of quiet desperation. I hear this from players over and over again. I hear this from players who claim to have studied diligently, and practiced for hours on end, for weeks and months with a singular dream—to beat the casinos.

And they don’t win.

And they ask me why.

And I say, “Oh, it’s just normal standard deviation. A negative fluctuation. It could happen to anyone.”

But it happened to you.

Your money.

Your hours.

Your months of dreaming.

And you didn’t win.

So, over and over again, in my books, and my columns, and my magazine articles, I feel compelled to deliver the message I have been delivering since my very first book in 1980:

You won’t win.

Some card counters will win, but not you. Some card counters will actually experience inordinate positive fluctuations! Wow!

But not you.

You won’t win.

Other card counters will be having champagne parties in their hotel rooms, celebrating that marvelous life of freedom and money and adventure that just seems to come naturally with the lifestyle of a professional gambler. But not for you. You will be among the unfortunate few who, statistically speaking, will be located in the far left tail of the Gaussian curve. Someone has to be there. It will be you.

I have been in that tail; it is a cold and lonely place. I suspect many of those who write about this game have been there, and they know what a cold and lonely place it is. Every professional card counter I know has been there. And if they have played blackjack professionally for many years, they have been there many times. These players have hearts stronger than mine, and I suspect, stronger than yours.

This much I know: it is easier to make a living writing about this game than it is playing it. I have tried both, and I much prefer the keyboard to the cold green felt.

In any case, instead of filling an entire chapter of this book with some fifteen articles, written over a period of seventeen years, every one of which simply says, you won’t win, I’ve tossed the whole chapter out in favor of leaving you with just those three words of blackjack wisdom:

You won’t win.

What about poker?
 
There can be no proven long-term advantage of any martingale when the casino has an edge over you except in one case: when your capital is infinite (or in practice above the capital of the Casino but then you would open a casino yourself no ? :D). This is a hard strong proven statistical theorem.

That doesn't mean that the martingale cannot "work" sometimes but it will still be by chance. Martingale is like leverage it amplifies so the greed when it seems to work. As I said it doesn't mean it is worthless it is rather that if you are "obliged to play" a martingale can be a good strategy... but the best - if you are not obliged - would not to play at all since the God Odds is against you by Design :).

So what oblige you to play at Casino huh ? :p

Quote from Achiever:

Arnold Snyder, a Blackjack expert talking about how impossible it is for most people to win at Blackjack using a Card Counting system with a proven long-term advantage
 
Poker is not played against a bank ? Also if they are among the richiest players themselves and are of course acting rationallylike a casino is acting rationally then they are like the bank and it is not astonishing that there are at the finals ... like casinos are assured to be at the "finals".

Poker is not a pure luck game here.

Quote from Covertibility:

"Why do you think the same 5 guys are at the finals of the world series of poker EVERY year? They're the luckiest guys in Vegas?" - Rounders
 
Quote from harrytrader:

Poker is not played against a bank ? Also if they are among the richiest players themselves and are of course acting rationallylike a casino is acting rationally then they are like the bank and it is not astonishing that there are at the finals ... like casinos are assured to be at the "finals".

Poker is not a pure luck game here.

As I understand it requires a great sense of bluff !
I like this guy BRUNSON:

http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/interviews/interviews-brunson02.htm

DALLA: You won poker's biggest prize -- the world championship back-to-back in 1976 and 1977. You have won nine titles at the World Series of Poker, which ties you for the all-time career record. You have made millions of dollars playing poker and could retire and live comfortably. Are there still things you hope to accomplish (as a gambler)?

BRUNSON: I think by this time, I've lost most of my ego. I'm a bottom-line guy now. Maybe it's because some other critical events that have happened in my life. I now see what the really important things in life are and they don't relate to what I do for a living. My wife Louise and I -- we lost a daughter several years ago (Doyla was a freshman at UNLV, and died suddenly at age 18). That made me came to the realization that I was fooling myself with some things.
 
Quote from PuffyGums:

You do think that successful traders are trading so that out of 50 trades they are winning one more trade than by chance?

for the most part, yeah. i doubt there are more than 6 regular posters on ET who even have an idea how often "by chance" wins - though there are some who seem to have an empirical feel for it (which is a super thing to have).
 
Quote from harrytrader:

Poker is not played against a bank ? Also if they are among the richiest players themselves and are of course acting rationallylike a casino is acting rationally then they are like the bank and it is not astonishing that there are at the finals ... like casinos are assured to be at the "finals".

Poker is not a pure luck game here.

If you can win in poker, why not in Black Jack? I suppose you can win in poker, even if you play against a bank?
 
Quote from Baruch:

If you can win in poker, why not in Black Jack? I suppose you can win in poker, even if you play against a bank?

Because playing blackjack is like playing a machine. The Bank must follow certain rules, no emotion comes in (on the Banks side).
Playing poker you are playing against people who will make errors, take wild risks etc. If you can be the machine in poker you can maybe make a little over time.
 
That's a dangerous analogy to use. No wonder people don't trade better.

Blackjack and trading are very different animals. In blackjack, the absolute best you can have is what, 1/2%, maybe 1% over the house.

The odds in trading are completely different. Most people lose, not because of strategy, but because of mindset. Guys like Rogers, Soros, Buffet, Neiderhoffer, these people do not have 1% advantages over the house.

Jim Rogers has one of the best performing funds in the world right now, his Rogers Commodity fund is up over 160% since starting in 1998. I'd rather be a contrarian than to be a card counter.
 
A MUCH fatter edge will give you drawdowns that are EASY to
survive and sit through unlike blackjack.

Poor analogy.

peace

axeman
 
Back
Top