"A day at the ranch"

[Tarzan]

I sit here recuperating from my "day at the ranch", lurching about the casinos of Atlantic City and preparing to go back in swinging for the fences again tomorrow. I took a day off... sort of... more drills, play a bit at home, the usual. My daily foraging is usually uneventful with all the usual suspects and trappings of living this life, the fluctuations, the bouncing around, the stress and frustrations, those few sweet windfalls that pick it all up and make up for lost time...

This trip was different and had an interesting twist. When you are there and at it day in and day out you see things and gain understandings of things that your typical recreational or infrequent gambler cannot grasp the concept of. One of these things is the typical flow of gamblers at their game with the game remaining constant and the players changing around constantly, often like lambs to the slaughter at the hands of the casinos. The lambs brutally die one by one or in groups but a fresh batch of succulent meat falls right in to take their place like clockwork, maintaining the typical flow. You get used to this and become numb to it. You feel sorry for them but know their fate.

By chance I engaged a conversation with self-professed supposed "AP" that used the typical hi/low count. The more I talked to him, the more I realized that regardless of being a counter, he is another lamb to the slaughter! Why?--- Because he crosses the line and becomes a "gambler" rather than an advantage player. He made claims such as, "Oh, I love playing single deck 6 to 5" with my response being, "Gee, isn't that sort of long-term unbeatable compared to other games with that 1.4% casino advantage due to a 6 to 5 blackjack payout?". He went on to talk about many things, such as "superfun21" in Vegas (which I have heard is NOT all that super fun (because of an added casino advantage) with a few twists on a single deck game to make it a tough way to go. I am unfamiliar with this game and read about it a little someplace. He went on to talk of his bet spreads and betting, which left me thinking, "Holy CR*P! You need about a million and a half backing you to bet like that without running ridiculously high risk of busting out.", but I said little, just letting him talk. He was a young man in his late 20's and although I didn't bother to ask I seriously doubted he had a million or better backing him as a bankroll.

I have worked with my counting system for the last 25 years or more, which is more elaborate than basic high/low and play low base bets with a very large, however non-replenishable bankroll. I play tight and conservative, gauging every nickel. I have huge fluctuations back and forth even with a very low base bet and ultimately bang out $15-60 an hour or so (gross before expenses) if I broke it down by the hour of play time not counting idle time, commuting and travel time, etc. I have seen just how it can go and I know that I am not invincible. So you must see how I look at this cocky young man, full of bravado and with a sense of invincibility that in concert with his foolhardiness will be his ultimate demise.

He was the walking, living proof that you can be a counter and still not be an "AP". He is another lamb, waiting to be slaughtered.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by Tarzan

I...preparing to go back in swinging for the fences again tomorrow. ...
I play tight and conservative,.....
I have huge fluctuations back and forth even with a very low base bet and ultimately bang out $15-60 an hour or so ...
Because he crosses the line and becomes a "gambler" rather than an advantage player.
He was the walking, living proof that you can be a counter and still not be an "AP". He is another lamb, waiting to be slaughtered.

You swinging for the fences, yet tight, conservative-betting, hugely fluctuating yet with a very low bet while somehow banging out 1X or 4X/hr or so, non-gambling, living-proof of the difference between card-counting and an AP player, you.

Allow me a moment to weep with you for the soon to be slaughtered lambs

[Blue Efficacy]

Originally Posted by Kasi

You swinging for the fences, yet tight, conservative-betting, hugely fluctuating yet with a very low bet while somehow banging out 1X or 4X/hr or so, non-gambling, living-proof of the difference between card-counting and an AP player, you.

Allow me a moment to weep with you for the soon to be slaughtered lambs

It seems like the more somebody deviates from the standard typeface, the less respectable their posts are.

[Tarzan]

Sorry, Kasi. The other day my wife said to me, "Hit the light on the way out.", so I punched the light with a solid left hook...(This is a dramatization and never actually occurred).

Perhaps you took the "swinging for the fences" phrase in too much of a literal sense and for future reference I shall try to refrain from making any commentary that can be so easily twisted or misconstrued in some way. Better yet... you can come with me on my next typical "day at the ranch" and YOU write up the narrative as obviously you are more qualified to do so than I.

Perhaps in dissecting each word or phrase of it all the whole point of the post was missed even-- (Remember Aesop's fables? The tortoise and the hare--The moral of the story IS:..."). The primary point of this post was to note that even at a very low base bet huge amazing fluctuations occur that only deep, full pockets can withstand. I know this for a fact and have lived it for many years now. This knowledge has kept me profitable and kept me from going broke. Had I played more crazy, more frivolously, played poor rules blackjack games or other games that I can't possibly have any edge at, I would not be where I am now.

My other observations and in comparing the masses of gamblers to "lambs off to the slaughter" is merely my personal insight from what I see on a daily basis of roaming Atlantic City. The inexperienced, the unknowledgeable, the "lucky hunch" players... are destined to be slaughtered, it's only a matter of time. A player that is a counter but is willing to take unwarranted risks and even gamble away at other games? Well, in my humble opinion, it's only a matter of time for them also.

[creeping panther]

I guess I am a little bit with Kasi on this. You seem to quick to judge others, to take a certain joy in their stupidity, maybe you come across as "Holier Than Tho' ". Just my opinion.

You seem to deride Hi-Lo, ok...but I will tell you that many of the most well known, highly skilled PRO's, the true BJ Machines... employ this count, with many indices, and have done very well.

You play the AC games...great games EH'. I know of the 4 decker, an anomaly for sure. If I were doomed to only play in AC I think I would not play at all, except the very new 4 decker, if the rules were right. So I guess in a way I wonder whether you Have a Gambling Jones with AP skillz and what comes first, maybe the Jones?

I have known many BJ AP's through the years that were very intelligent but have disappeared like ghosts. I find that sad, nothing I take joy in or gloat about. You need many skill sets to last as an AP, if you lack any of them you are doomed. I have witnessed this many times.

I do wish to congratulate you on your 25 year career as an AP.

Best to you,
CP

[Slick Vic]

Originally Posted by Tarzan

The inexperienced, the unknowledgeable, the "lucky hunch" players... are destined to be slaughtered, it's only a matter of time. A player that is a counter but is willing to take unwarranted risks and even gamble away at other games? Well, in my humble opinion, it's only a matter of time for them also.

In defense of those "lambs"-

Sometimes it's not about avoiding the "slaughter." For probably most people in casinos, it's about the game. Don't feel sorry for those "lucky hunch" players. Sure, they are playing against the odds, but they are enjoying themselves. Hell, sometimes that "lucky hunch" pays off and they walk out of that casino with thousands more than they entered with, while the AP walks out with thousands less. It happens. The only thing that keeps us APs going in the face of events like these is skill. Between the lucky hunch and the educated, skillful play, I'll go with the skilled play, even if the lucky hunch player is on a hot streak. When the hunch is finally defeated, (and it will be defeated) skill remains.

In the same way, don't feel so sorry for the counter who plays at 6 to 5 tables. Unless he hasn't done his research, he probably knows that 6 to 5 is a bad game. You said he stated "oh, I love playing single deck 6 to 5." He plays because he enjoys himself playing that game. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. (although I do wish people would stop playing at those 6 to 5 tables, but that's another subject)

Consider it a "blissful slaughter" of sorts. And besides, if every player were an AP, there would be no casinos. Always be thankful for those lucky hunch players!

[SystemsTrader]

Originally Posted by creeping panther

If I were doomed to only play in AC I think I would not play at all, CP

CP you are spoiled! You lucky bastard

[Martin Gayle]

Originally Posted by Tarzan

...play low base bets with a very large, however non-replenishable bankroll...ultimately bang out $15-60 an hour or so (gross before expenses) if I broke it down by the hour of play time not counting idle time, commuting and travel time, etc. I have seen just how it can go and I know that I am not invincible.

How much is very large when you refer to your bankroll? With a large BR you should be making much, much more than $60/hr.

What form of Kelly betting are you using to avoid ruin on a non-replen bank but still make AP worth your while?

[Tarzan]

You try to put something out there that will help people and give them understanding, put out useful information that is based on the tried and proven. You try to explain why you think you have been successful for a very long time because there are a few people that may benefit. In addition to pointing out specific data you may also throw various "broad brush" analysis and general concepts to give a better overall understanding of what you are saying, which will hopefully clarify an overview.


I’m a little horrified at the “gloat” comment or idea that I may take any joy in others failing comment, Panther. It is quite the contrary. I hope that anything I write here will help others achieve a reasonable measure of success or at least increased success. To look at cold, hard facts of the matter objectively and have them “on the table” in order to put up those “red flags of caution” in people’s minds is not meant to be any form of “gloating” or referencing anyone as incompetent. It is meant to reinforce or establish a sense of caution. It’s not like I am any whizbang of success or “know it all”; In all these years and all this time I have an average profit of .60-1.5 betting units per hour, so I am not exactly what you can call anyone able to “gloat”. If I truly “knew it all”, I wouldn’t be here avidly reading everyone’s posts to try and become a better player!


The post is talking about my rather long conversation with one individual and my assessment that this poor soul is doomed to failure. I go on to point out specifically why he is doomed to failure in my opinion. I am not telling you something that is some new revelation in saying that someone that is or has the potential to be a winning blackjack player can make bad decisions, such as playing other games that offer no conceivable advantage that will more than likely make them a loser in the long run. Although this common concept that is agreed with, accepted and understood by and large in the majority of the professional blackjack community... it is critiqued and ridiculed here in (my original) post?



Let's put this in perspective to YOUR money on the line. Your money is backing some team play. They over bet on their given bank and oh, what the heck, play a little 6 to 5 blackjack, play a little craps and 3 card poker with the team's money! Even if they achieve some sort of fantastic results in the short term... would you leave your money banking on these clowns? Am I wrong in stating that common sense and staying in control are critical factors in overall long term success and that a cocky sense of invincibility and bravado, particularly if fueled by monumental short term results, can lead to long run disaster? All of the books, forums and media on this subject say all the same things... I talk about it from my personal perspective and I am wrong?

I tutored math and English for many years, with many of them being advanced students that were 4.0 to begin with. I had some huge successes in producing a few valedictorians and salutatorians that went on to be engineers, doctors, etc. Their minds were an open vessel... they were eager to learn and understand with little in the way of outside motivation. Along the way I also tutored a few from the other end of the spectrum that were considered "special needs". This was a world of difference from teaching someone that is already a highly motivated self-starter to say the least. With these students just getting through to explain abstract conceptualization and getting them to being receptive to assimilating concepts such as scientific method for the purpose of problem solving skills was a ridiculously difficult task but with time I accomplished it. They were motivated to learn and truly wanted to achieve success, despite anything that had held them back previously.

I taught the academic top 10% and also the bottom 10%! What about the middle 80%? Well, this category neither wanted nor needed my services, obviously. Providing your basic public school education was quite enough for them and the motivation to go anything beyond what they absolutely had to do was not there. What does this show? This indicates nonreceptiveness to any learning process, a lack of desire to evaluate new concepts (or even old concepts for that matter) and perhaps a complete disregard for the "tried and proven" even if it is beneficial to them in some way. This lends toward a saying that I often think of when dealing with people in general, which is----You can't teach someone that already "knows it all". This is a statement that holds true in education, academia and in our daily lives on a constant basis. This is apparently human nature.

In my life I have always enjoyed learning new things and being open to gaining understanding that is beyond what I have learned previously. That being the case, I read through all the posts here and seek to gain further knowledge from them and to understand not only the statistical data aspects of things but also other individual’s personal perspectives. If I do not find what I read to be in some way educational or enlightening, I do not proceed to do some sort of critique in which I "hack and slash" their every word to the greatest extend possible. I look for the redeeming characteristics of it and what is beneficial to me. When it gets to the point that I am no longer receptive to learning anything new or looking at others perspectives... when I shut out any concept that is in any way foreign to me and can only berate and criticize is the point that I obviously "know it all" and should try to get on the "Jerry Springer Show".

[EasyRhino]

Tarzan, as you noted, there's a lot of losing players in the gambling universe.

Sometimes, when people are writing stuff on a message board, you can parse out warning flag comments of similar players, ones who think they're winners, but they're just not. Your post had a couple of these flags, which was, of course, super-ironic.

Also, introductions are in order. Tarzan, meet Kasi. Kasi doesn't think that anyone knows what they're doing