Man, this "counting" stuff is hard.
- Thread starter EasyRhino
- Start date
Heck, that makes the two of us, I love reading Rhinos posts, very informative and I can literally picture the feelings he feels and the wild swings of emotions that come with these good and bad streaks. Cold steel nerves are required for this game and I am still learning how to get those nerves.
I can really relate to waiting around backcounting for an hour waiting for a count to get playable. I am finding out that even an hour isn't enough on some days. Had a strange weekend playing thru -1 - -2TC counts and winning. Was getting Rhinolike BJ's on -2TC's and felt like I was cheating the table. Best shoe during the whole weekend was +4TC and I wasn't even excited with that.
I can really relate to waiting around backcounting for an hour waiting for a count to get playable. I am finding out that even an hour isn't enough on some days. Had a strange weekend playing thru -1 - -2TC counts and winning. Was getting Rhinolike BJ's on -2TC's and felt like I was cheating the table. Best shoe during the whole weekend was +4TC and I wasn't even excited with that.
Last edited:
Two quick updates from last weekend:
Phew: Went back to the joint where I thought I had gotten "The Call" a few weeks ago... and everything was normal, I wasn't on their blacklist or anything. Nice to know I haven't burned myself out, yet. I took it fairly easy, played with a small spread, accepting that I was playing very maginal (at best) game.
Met a couple of "the guys," that was cool. Also thing I spotted a stranger who was bopping around, backcounting tables. That makes 4 in the store at one time... pretty ridiculous. I began to wonder if there was a convention going on or something.
Groan: I lost nearly $1900 in the session. I decided to leave when I had only one semi-big bet in my pocket, so that makes the session my first "virtual tap out". But it gets better: I lost $975 on one hand. Definitely my biggest swing on a single hand to date.
But in bankroll terms, that one afternoon left a 8.6% dent in the bankroll. A bummer, but by no means fatal, not even enough to force a change in my max bet. I guess here is where the mantra about not overbetting your bankroll proves itself once again.
Phew: Went back to the joint where I thought I had gotten "The Call" a few weeks ago... and everything was normal, I wasn't on their blacklist or anything. Nice to know I haven't burned myself out, yet. I took it fairly easy, played with a small spread, accepting that I was playing very maginal (at best) game.
Met a couple of "the guys," that was cool. Also thing I spotted a stranger who was bopping around, backcounting tables. That makes 4 in the store at one time... pretty ridiculous. I began to wonder if there was a convention going on or something.
Groan: I lost nearly $1900 in the session. I decided to leave when I had only one semi-big bet in my pocket, so that makes the session my first "virtual tap out". But it gets better: I lost $975 on one hand. Definitely my biggest swing on a single hand to date.
But in bankroll terms, that one afternoon left a 8.6% dent in the bankroll. A bummer, but by no means fatal, not even enough to force a change in my max bet. I guess here is where the mantra about not overbetting your bankroll proves itself once again.
glad to hear that you are still able to play in that joint and sorry to hear about the negative fluctuation.
yeah, i've been wanting to comment on this phenomenon. unfortuanately i don't fully understand it. after all overbetting in a very real sense is subjective because it is dependent upon risk of ruin. the point being ROR allows for us to make a decision about what percent risk of losing our entire bankroll are we willing to live with.
but for the sake of discussion let us say we come up with some ROR = x% .
then yep according to Wong in Professional Blackjack it is a proven mathematical fact that if you overbet by over twice your optimal bet you will definately go broke in the long run even if you are playing at an advantage.
the salient point being our bets need to be genuinely optimal.
it's interesting to take Wong's advice in that chapter which is to go ahead and try overbetting to see the effect. you can try it out with a program such as cvbj. it's a real eye opener to experience it. you get a very real sense of the mathematical law with respect to overbetting playing out right before you.
yeah, i've been wanting to comment on this phenomenon. unfortuanately i don't fully understand it. after all overbetting in a very real sense is subjective because it is dependent upon risk of ruin. the point being ROR allows for us to make a decision about what percent risk of losing our entire bankroll are we willing to live with.
but for the sake of discussion let us say we come up with some ROR = x% .
then yep according to Wong in Professional Blackjack it is a proven mathematical fact that if you overbet by over twice your optimal bet you will definately go broke in the long run even if you are playing at an advantage.
the salient point being our bets need to be genuinely optimal.
it's interesting to take Wong's advice in that chapter which is to go ahead and try overbetting to see the effect. you can try it out with a program such as cvbj. it's a real eye opener to experience it. you get a very real sense of the mathematical law with respect to overbetting playing out right before you.
interesting thought. i'm not really sure but i believe even with Kelly oriented betting you could get down so far (bankroll-wise) that you wouldn't be able to continue play properly ie. actions such as doubling and splitting could become impossible as well as max bets for a given TC.
point being (if i understand correctly) ROR is really risk of ruin even with Kelly betting for real world advantage blackjack play. i may be way off on this hopefully someone who thoroughly understands Kelly betting will follow up.
but to me ROR means the possibility of losing one's entire bankroll exists.
it would seem though that Wong's warning regarding overbetting with respect to optimal betting may not be so ominous for a half-Kelly or third-Kelly better unless one was to get really carried away with the overbetting
point being (if i understand correctly) ROR is really risk of ruin even with Kelly betting for real world advantage blackjack play. i may be way off on this hopefully someone who thoroughly understands Kelly betting will follow up.
but to me ROR means the possibility of losing one's entire bankroll exists.
it would seem though that Wong's warning regarding overbetting with respect to optimal betting may not be so ominous for a half-Kelly or third-Kelly better unless one was to get really carried away with the overbetting
yes that's the theory and i guess the mathematical reality. problem in reality you could end up adjusting your bets down so low that they are below the table minimun or you could end up not being able to split, double down when your supposed to. in other words you might end up with still some money but not enough to play.
Just a quick update. I got two PMs from people wondering if I was still alive. I am, I just didn't play any last week. I was pretty busy with other things. But to be honest, I think I was a little bit spooked.
Anyways, got a call on Saturday night from a couple of buddies who wanted to get their gamble on. We went to a local place where I had previously determined that their shoe games were the worst things ever (they still are). But I was able to afford a playable double deck game this time, so I got in a short play session (like 45 min) at an uncrowded tqable (on a Saturday night!), caught some good cards, and won $300. Yay.
It was hard managing things with a group of civilians in tow. They kept playing roulette. Then they wanted us all to play hold'em, until we realized that we'd just be pushing money between ourselves, with a rake. They wouldn't wait while I was backcounting a table, and would jump in right away. One of them asked me what the count was when I mentioned we should take a break from the table. We got in arguments over whether they should split 9's or take insurance when they have two tens. I asked one to explain the Martingale to me while I was doubling my losing bets in a rising count.
... It was actually pretty fun.
PS: I think I'm still feeling a little bit of unease about my play. Discomfort. Angst. I think it's the transition to a green-chip bankroll.
Anyways, got a call on Saturday night from a couple of buddies who wanted to get their gamble on. We went to a local place where I had previously determined that their shoe games were the worst things ever (they still are). But I was able to afford a playable double deck game this time, so I got in a short play session (like 45 min) at an uncrowded tqable (on a Saturday night!), caught some good cards, and won $300. Yay.
It was hard managing things with a group of civilians in tow. They kept playing roulette. Then they wanted us all to play hold'em, until we realized that we'd just be pushing money between ourselves, with a rake. They wouldn't wait while I was backcounting a table, and would jump in right away. One of them asked me what the count was when I mentioned we should take a break from the table. We got in arguments over whether they should split 9's or take insurance when they have two tens. I asked one to explain the Martingale to me while I was doubling my losing bets in a rising count.
... It was actually pretty fun.
PS: I think I'm still feeling a little bit of unease about my play. Discomfort. Angst. I think it's the transition to a green-chip bankroll.
Last edited:
I always have alot of fun with civilians in tow. First I lecture them until they are bored with the whole AP idea and then they stand behind me and watch my play. Its one of the only ways I can make a layman understand the value of mathematics in a casino. Also, they sit and listen to my stories and watch me act like a moron while I beat the house. It makes believers out of skeptics.
You know easy, I think I will write about this subject, thanks for the inspiration.
You know easy, I think I will write about this subject, thanks for the inspiration.
Ah, now that is risky business. Using civilians you meet in the casino as props is lower risk because if you have a problem with one of them, you can always walk away from him. Doing it with your friends is harder. You can't as easily abandon them, and being they know what it is you are doing, they can give it away with something they say or do.
You're not going to get civilians to backcount. It's hard enough to get counters to do it! They're there to gamble, not watch.
By "civilians" I think he meant friends he brought to the casino.
Either way, working with civilians you meet in the casino has lots of +EV. You never want to get anyone to make a bad play for your benefit, there's too much negative karma in that. But the hand interaction plays are some of the most profitable plays you'll make.
Either way, working with civilians you meet in the casino has lots of +EV. You never want to get anyone to make a bad play for your benefit, there's too much negative karma in that. But the hand interaction plays are some of the most profitable plays you'll make.
There are a few things you can do. One of them is encourage civilians to eat up cards in bad counts. It's worth pennies. Or there are techniques invovling splits- where you can encourage them to split and play one half yourself, or encourage them to take one half of your defensive split.
This is not a good idea. You're better off teaching them legit basic strategy, and putting money on their hands when the time is right. Make no enemies in a casino.
This is not a good idea. You're better off teaching them legit basic strategy, and putting money on their hands when the time is right. Make no enemies in a casino.