Money management
- Thread starter onedot
- Start date
If you're just a basic strategy player then bet the minimum and size your bankroll based on this article:
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Blackjack_Basic_Strategy_Betting_And_Risk.htm
-Sonny-
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Blackjack_Basic_Strategy_Betting_And_Risk.htm
-Sonny-
I am a basic stragety. I do start at minimums, but I will increase bets to take advantage of streaks pulling "profits" along the way. When the streak it over, I start at the beginning with the minimum. During the streaks I will also start play additional hands using the "profits" earned to fund the new hand. Once the dealer beats all hands, then start over at the beginning with one hand.
Opinions?
Opinions?
But how do you identify these streaks? How do you know when you are in the middle of one? How do you know when they are over? How do you know you're not raising your bets into a losing streak? How do you avoid losing streaks? Does leaving the table allow you to "escape" bad luck?
There are no systems that will accurately identify the beginning and/or end of a streak. using a progression system to parlay your bets will not give you any advantage. Unless you are playing for comps you should bet the minimum and hope for the best. Raising your bets will only cause you to lose more money in the long run.
-Sonny-
There are no systems that will accurately identify the beginning and/or end of a streak. using a progression system to parlay your bets will not give you any advantage. Unless you are playing for comps you should bet the minimum and hope for the best. Raising your bets will only cause you to lose more money in the long run.
-Sonny-
A streak ends with a lose and begins with a win. You can only play it as it happens. It is not simply double your bet each winning hand. If a hand wins twice, I will increase the bet on the third. If it continues to win, then I pull "profits" for the next couple of hands. It is a stair step approach. Once the hand looses then the process starts at the beginning with the original bet. If a second hand is started the same approach is used.
I believe with any system, one needs to know when to leave a table, winning or loosing.
Note: I do not do this as a profession.
1.
I believe with any system, one needs to know when to leave a table, winning or loosing.
Note: I do not do this as a profession.
1.
As long as you don't expect the system to be a long term winner, there's nothign wrong with it.
Such a "positive progression" approach, even (even with an upper cap), will tend to result in more losing sessions that flat-betting, but the winning sessions will probably be really good ones. If you're really looking to "fire it up", then it can be a great way to go.
On the other hand, negative progressions, like martingale, tend to exchange an increased number of winning sessions for a reduced size of those wins. Nothing wrong with that (except if someone is looking for a "defensive" strategy, they're probably best off looking for the smallest possible flat bets, and bringing very little money to the casino)
Actually, if I had used a system like yours last weekend, I probably would have demolished the casino in when a particularly awesome win streak followed a particularly long losing streak. But that's not the point, I'm happy with the win I eked out while counting.
Such a "positive progression" approach, even (even with an upper cap), will tend to result in more losing sessions that flat-betting, but the winning sessions will probably be really good ones. If you're really looking to "fire it up", then it can be a great way to go.
On the other hand, negative progressions, like martingale, tend to exchange an increased number of winning sessions for a reduced size of those wins. Nothing wrong with that (except if someone is looking for a "defensive" strategy, they're probably best off looking for the smallest possible flat bets, and bringing very little money to the casino)
Actually, if I had used a system like yours last weekend, I probably would have demolished the casino in when a particularly awesome win streak followed a particularly long losing streak. But that's not the point, I'm happy with the win I eked out while counting.
I did recently use this on a trip to Vegas. When the streaks were there it increased the bankroll fast. As mentioned before you need to know when to walk away. What I also found is other players and the dealer did not know what my strategy was and were more than will to tell me how to play based on their years of "experience". Dame irritating! I have found that best advice is that which is asked for. If a person is playing their cards correct, then leave them alone.
1.
1.
You won't like this,but it is based on mathmatical fact,not opinion or experiance.
If you are playing BJ without using basic strategy as it is published,you will lose rather quickly.
Even using BS ,as it is known,you will lose,but a bit slower.
Using BS,the house has an edge of anywhere from .017 to about 2.00.
Nothing you do as far as altering your bets will overcome this house edge while using BS.
Nothing.No system of betting more during winning streaks,or betting less on losing streaks will change that.
Leaving the table when you are up a certain amount will not change that.
Leaving the table when you are down a certain amount will not change that.
ANY form of progression will never overcome the built-in House Edge.
BJ can be beat,but not by the way you are trying to do it.
Until you accept this as an absolute truth,forget everything you think you know and learn to approach the game from a whole new understanding,you will learn nothing here,and in the end will lose whatever money you play.
Reality sucks,but thats the bottom line.
If you are playing BJ without using basic strategy as it is published,you will lose rather quickly.
Even using BS ,as it is known,you will lose,but a bit slower.
Using BS,the house has an edge of anywhere from .017 to about 2.00.
Nothing you do as far as altering your bets will overcome this house edge while using BS.
Nothing.No system of betting more during winning streaks,or betting less on losing streaks will change that.
Leaving the table when you are up a certain amount will not change that.
Leaving the table when you are down a certain amount will not change that.
ANY form of progression will never overcome the built-in House Edge.
BJ can be beat,but not by the way you are trying to do it.
Until you accept this as an absolute truth,forget everything you think you know and learn to approach the game from a whole new understanding,you will learn nothing here,and in the end will lose whatever money you play.
Reality sucks,but thats the bottom line.
blackjack can be beat. but not by your current method. no amount of your personal experience, or that of the dealers proves anything whatsoever.
the way to beat blackjack is via cardcounting, keeping track of the high cards (10, J, Q, K, A), and betting high when there are more high cards left in the shoe. this has been shown by simulating thousands of BILLIONS of hands on a computer.
if you want to win at blackjack, let go of all the knowledge you have of the game, and start reading.
the way to beat blackjack is via cardcounting, keeping track of the high cards (10, J, Q, K, A), and betting high when there are more high cards left in the shoe. this has been shown by simulating thousands of BILLIONS of hands on a computer.
if you want to win at blackjack, let go of all the knowledge you have of the game, and start reading.
In math there is no such thing as a streak. Or to put it in another way streak are not identificable events. However in real life we see it all the time.
So call it superstition or something else I always watch for it.
This is the way I myself handle these streaks. I know when the dealer doesn't seem to bust I will change table. I have a pile of chips of 8 bets. I flat bet and when I lose that within 20 minutes I will stop playing on against that dealer. On the other hand if I win and feel I am losing back I will set aside a pile of chips and if that is the only chips I have left then I will leave the table.
Let me say that my results have been mixed so far but I know I wont lose my shirt. Also in stock investments there is the similar instument call stop-lost order.
So call it superstition or something else I always watch for it.
This is the way I myself handle these streaks. I know when the dealer doesn't seem to bust I will change table. I have a pile of chips of 8 bets. I flat bet and when I lose that within 20 minutes I will stop playing on against that dealer. On the other hand if I win and feel I am losing back I will set aside a pile of chips and if that is the only chips I have left then I will leave the table.
Let me say that my results have been mixed so far but I know I wont lose my shirt. Also in stock investments there is the similar instument call stop-lost order.
The thing I don't like about that link is that it would be easy to assume that ROR and the chances of losing x dollars is the same.
like "You would expect to lose $518.00, but your actual result 99.7% of the time would fall between a loss of $11,780.00 and a win of $8,669.00.So, if you can stand the thought of losing somewhere around $12,000 every rare once in a while in 16 hours of play, you can afford to flat bet this game with black chips. "
It makes it sound that with a $12000 bankroll you would only lose it 0.3% of the time when that is not actually the case.
It's true as stated but you would need to have a bigger bankroll than 12000 in order to afford to lose 12000 after 16 hours of play.
What I like about it is that it shows how relatively easy it is to "overcome" the HA in that all one needs to do is win an extra unit every 3 hours.
like "You would expect to lose $518.00, but your actual result 99.7% of the time would fall between a loss of $11,780.00 and a win of $8,669.00.So, if you can stand the thought of losing somewhere around $12,000 every rare once in a while in 16 hours of play, you can afford to flat bet this game with black chips. "
It makes it sound that with a $12000 bankroll you would only lose it 0.3% of the time when that is not actually the case.
It's true as stated but you would need to have a bigger bankroll than 12000 in order to afford to lose 12000 after 16 hours of play.
What I like about it is that it shows how relatively easy it is to "overcome" the HA in that all one needs to do is win an extra unit every 3 hours.
True, but trying to explain Trip RoR formulas to a BS player can be a little overwhelming. The article does a good job of explaining what sort of swings to expect, which is often good enough for recreational players.
Yeah, just one dealer error can erase the house edge for three hours! Or just a few matchplay coupons can make an entire weekend +EV. And maybe some of the ploppies will learn that a S17 table can save them about 1 unit over 5 hours of play! There may be hope for them yet. :grin:
-Sonny-
Yeah, just one dealer error can erase the house edge for three hours! Or just a few matchplay coupons can make an entire weekend +EV. And maybe some of the ploppies will learn that a S17 table can save them about 1 unit over 5 hours of play! There may be hope for them yet. :grin:
-Sonny-
Alright first let me say that I am a novice card counter and not a progression player but I have had friends who play positive progressions explain streaks to me this way. Say their bet is 10 dollars, they will bet that until they win 2 in a row. Then they will increase their bet to $20, if it loses they go back to 10 only losing the profit of the previous 2 bets. If it wins they progress there bets up in 10 dollar increments until they lose. The thinking being you will recognize a streak by the raising of your bets as its happening. Once you lose during a multi hand win streak you are still up more than when the winning streak started. And then after the loss you go back to your minimum bet, and during a losing streak you will only be betting your minimum. I tell them its still a losing deal but they say its not much different than betting with the count. They lay out bigger bets when the cards are good for them, and flat bet when they're not. Its also been pointed out to me how many times as a counter do I find myself winning in bad counts with no money on the table, and losing with good counts and more money out. They don't believe counting can assure you of good hands, maybe some at the table might get them but its no sure thing its going to be you so they tell me that the numbers are too generic to bank on. I don't have any solid answers for them as to why their wrong. They have been playing much longer than me and probably wouldn't listen anyway. Does any one have a good way to explain the error of their ways? By the way they claim to win much more than they lose.
You could explain how they are often raising their bets when the house edge has increased, but they won’t understand that. They need to hear a logical explanation, not a mathematical one. Here’s what I would say:
The difference is that card counting identifies the opportunities right away while “streak” systems are too vague. They have to win two hands in a row before they realize that a streak is happening. That’s two missed opportunities right there! Plus if they lose the third bet then they have lost back all of their profit. They are worse off than if they had flat bet! And the only way to know that the streak is over is to lose that final big bet, which wipes out most (if not all) of the profit they have made. They are missing too many good opportunities and throwing away most of their money on bad ones that they didn’t see coming. Also, by flat betting through the bad sections they are "bleeding" too many minimum bets while waiting for the next streak.
By counting cards they would know exactly when to raise their bets and when to drop back to the minimum before the hands are dealt. They would even know when to walk away from the table to avoid losing all those minimum "waiting" bets. That is a huge advantage.
That’s what all gamblers say!
Ask to see their written records for the past year. They’ll say “I don’t write it down, but I’m pretty sure I’m ahead.” They’re usually wrong.
-Sonny-
The difference is that card counting identifies the opportunities right away while “streak” systems are too vague. They have to win two hands in a row before they realize that a streak is happening. That’s two missed opportunities right there! Plus if they lose the third bet then they have lost back all of their profit. They are worse off than if they had flat bet! And the only way to know that the streak is over is to lose that final big bet, which wipes out most (if not all) of the profit they have made. They are missing too many good opportunities and throwing away most of their money on bad ones that they didn’t see coming. Also, by flat betting through the bad sections they are "bleeding" too many minimum bets while waiting for the next streak.
By counting cards they would know exactly when to raise their bets and when to drop back to the minimum before the hands are dealt. They would even know when to walk away from the table to avoid losing all those minimum "waiting" bets. That is a huge advantage.
That’s what all gamblers say!
Ask to see their written records for the past year. They’ll say “I don’t write it down, but I’m pretty sure I’m ahead.” They’re usually wrong.-Sonny-
"They lay out bigger bets when the cards are good for them"
No,actually what they are doing is laying out big bets when they've won a few hands in a row.There is a very good possibility they won because they were getting the good cards from the deck. Now,those cards are out of play but they have a big bet out.
An example
Player-ten,ten Dealer ten,nine
Player ten,ten Dealer ten,eight
Player ten,nine Dealer ten,six,ten
pllayer nine,eight Dealer ten, six,nine
You have won four hands in a row,will have a bigger than average bet out,but the deck is heavily stacked against you.
Player,eight,six,nine Dealer shows a Six
Player eight,five,three Dealer six,five,three,two,five
Player eight,nine Dealer, nine,six,six.
Player Ten,nine Dealer five,six,four,six
You've lost four hands in a row,will make a minimum bet and the deck is so stacked in your favor,it might lean over.
Not the same thing at all.
No,actually what they are doing is laying out big bets when they've won a few hands in a row.There is a very good possibility they won because they were getting the good cards from the deck. Now,those cards are out of play but they have a big bet out.
An example
Player-ten,ten Dealer ten,nine
Player ten,ten Dealer ten,eight
Player ten,nine Dealer ten,six,ten
pllayer nine,eight Dealer ten, six,nine
You have won four hands in a row,will have a bigger than average bet out,but the deck is heavily stacked against you.
Player,eight,six,nine Dealer shows a Six
Player eight,five,three Dealer six,five,three,two,five
Player eight,nine Dealer, nine,six,six.
Player Ten,nine Dealer five,six,four,six
You've lost four hands in a row,will make a minimum bet and the deck is so stacked in your favor,it might lean over.
Not the same thing at all.
I'd say this mistaking their effect for their cause.
It's everyone's goal to bet more when "the cards are good", and that's fine.
But let's say you win three hands in a row. There could be three different reasons for that:
1) Dumb luck.
2) The cards were good, but you've used them up.
3) The cards are now better than they were before.
In other words, despite having three wins, the "goodness" of the cards could be better, worse, or unchanged. All in all, that leaves the cards just as good as they were when you won your first three bets. So doubling your bet now is the same as doubling at any other time (i.e. just gambling).
It's everyone's goal to bet more when "the cards are good", and that's fine.
But let's say you win three hands in a row. There could be three different reasons for that:
1) Dumb luck.
2) The cards were good, but you've used them up.
3) The cards are now better than they were before.
In other words, despite having three wins, the "goodness" of the cards could be better, worse, or unchanged. All in all, that leaves the cards just as good as they were when you won your first three bets. So doubling your bet now is the same as doubling at any other time (i.e. just gambling).