Just wanted to know.

1. Serious. If I don't have +EV then I don't play.
2. Be able to suplement my income and pay for my vegas vacations + some spending money. Love knowing I can walk into any casino and beat the game.
3. MIT Team and this website.
4. Half and Half. Happy w/ the results, but the game can turn into a grind. I've been positive since I started counting (keep very detailed records), but the variance wears on you. I would really like to take my game to the next level and learn hole carding, ace squencing, and shuffle tracking to get a higher EV.
5. Players familiar w/ the advanced techniques mentioned above.

Thanks to all that replied, it has helped make me kind of understand what you guys are thinking concerning advantage play. Anyway I will try to answer the questions posed to me from some of you.

person1125: Yes it does take money to make money in this game if you are talking about large monetary returns. But it doesn't take a huge bankroll just to win if you play a good game. Its really no different in that sense than any other business or investment. As far as my bankroll when I started, it was $5000 shared by me and 1 other person. Two years later when I went full time it was $80,000 and there was 3 other people on the team. I was fortunate enough to start with investment backers so my start isn't really typical of most. As far as succeeding with a $200 bankroll, its possible if you can replenish it everytime you go to the casino.

supercoolmancool: Thanks for the compliment. I'm sure if you keep on pursuing your pro career we will most likely meet. Who knows maybe sooner than later. How I went from novice to pro is a very simple story of knowing people that were attending MIT back in the day and having them convince me this counting thing is for real.

21forme: Glad I could be of some help to you. There may be a chance we have met already at the Borgata and didn't even know it, who knows.

Kasi: To answer my own questions,

1) I am a serious player that really enjoys what I'm doing.
2) Having reached most of my goals, the ultimate goal would be to be when I stop playing, it be on my terms, not being forced to.
3) MIT teams of the 90's was definitely my biggest influence. There have been others since then, but none with as great an impact.
4) Yes I'm very satisfied with my results from playing, but I never rest on past accomplishments so there is always a drive to do more.
5) I will leave this one alone due to the fact I have very different opinions on who and what is "great" in this industry.

Finally, its tough to say why I was questioning why I should post any more. From reading everyone's replies to the questions I get the sense that everybody is fairly serious about making money playing this game. But I was getting the feeling that nobody wanted to believe what it takes to really be successful. There have been some theories that get debated and context of words that get scrutinized, that really don't mean anything when it comes down to the bottomline of winning money. Sometimes it seems some would like to showcase vocabulary instead of discussing the realities of blackjack. I felt I might be out of touch with many of those that are posting here, seeing that I might be playing with more at stake than most. But the realization of it is, to be successful, I mean really successful, you should play like your playing for your supper. That would bring on the edge that alot I read about are lacking. I will tell you this, and believe it or not, I have never had a losing year playing this game, and very infrequently need to endure prolonged losing streaks. That comes from playing as perfect as possible, which in turn will produce your own luck. So thats my way of playing and the way of a lot of the real "greats". To survive in this game without outside money aid, you will not make it playing any other way.

All right then, so let's hear your plan. What would you suggest the players who answered do to improve their chances of success?

Thanks for your reply. I'm not surprised at all that you have never had a losing year. Of course I have a ton of questions but my main one is do you play full-kelly? Less? And what ROR do you accept in deciding unit size?

I'm not sure I understand what playing like you're playing for your supper means. Sounds too desperate to me lol.

Like AM, I would like to hear what you think it takes to be really successful or what you think are the most common deficiencies of beginning counters.

It takes about 12,000-13,000 hands to overcome 1 standard deviation with a 1% average edge, so it's not that hard not to have a losing year.

funny that was one statement Bojack made that i most related with. and what is weird i find myself leaning more towards putting into practice less precise advantage play methods that Bojack recomends and more towards a thoughtful application of those methods during play.
i need to qualify these statements with the fact that i'm planning on playing quite a bit less blackjack in the near future than i've been playing in the last few years with the intent on playing a lot more blackjack later on.

I'm sure that Bojack will come along and verify what i'm saying next time he's on, but i believe what he is talking about is that he, like me, has encountered many people online who seem to be looking for easy cash.
Don't get me wrong, i've spoken to many players online who certainly know what they are talking about when it comes to the theory of the game, but certain aspects of what they say show that when they play they are not as good as they make out. Several months ago, i went back and reviewed my practicle skills, discovering exactly what i was talking about above - that my practicle playing skills were not as good as i thought and not as good as my knowledge of the theory. This was a shock to me, and since then i've really focused on improving my game and cutting out the errors. Every aspect of my play has improved with this practice and has reinforced the view that i held originally, that striving for perfection in the only route to success.
Now i don't want to get back into all the conversations about errors being ok, and you still be a danger to the house even if you overbet your bankroll, but i will say this - if you find yourself thinking that it's ok to be less than perfect, you've already lost. Complacency breeds mistakes and over estimation of your own abilities.
Now having spoken to Bojack before about this issue, i think that he like me gets frustrated with people who claim they are serious about the game, but then show clearly that they are not prepared to put the work in to get there and more importantly, people who are well versed in the theory, giving out advice stating that you don't have to be that good to play seriously. I have advised several teams in my time (i am certainly not claiming to have advised Bojack's team here) and there is a reason that his team have suceeded year after year where very few others do, their commitment to being the very best that they can be, rigorous training and focus of mind. This is a tough game to play on any serious level and for players to be advising those who are new to the game that it's easier than it really is, is wrong.
I don't mean to cause any offence to anyone here and certainly don't like arguing on message boards (something about it being the same as running in the special olympics....), but i have to say that i've been reconsidering the reason i post here too. It's hard to keep fighting a battle that you've already lost - not because you're wrong, but because many have a misconception of the facts and while they want to play seriously, don't want to put in the needed dedication.

RJT.

How do you practice now? What drills do you do?

Well myself and my gf will spend normally between 2-3 hours a day practicing (yes this is a lot of time, but we have more serious goals with blackjack). Normally we'll spend about an hour and a half playing a counting game and we'll spend another hour shuffle tracking.
For counting, one of us will sit a standard Big Player MIT test each day while the other deals. This involves counting through 5 six-deck shoes, estimating remaining decks to the 1/4 deck level, calculating the bet to the nearest 1/4 unit. If you make any BS mistakes or you fail to catch a mis-payment, that's an automatic fail. You are allowed 3 counting or betting mistakes. If you are more than 0.75 of a unit out on your bet, that's a mistake and each unit after that counts as another. If you miss one of the indicies plays or make it at the wrong count that counts as a mistake. We also stack the deck, so that the high running counts that will result in lots of TC conversions happen every shoe. This produces results that you are unlikely to see in the casino, but is far more taxing, making basic play much easier.
For example i failed today. With a very high running count (highest i've seen in practice in the mid 50's) at the end of the first shoe, i made a running count error and was off by a 1/4 deck on my estimation. This caused me to be out by 2 units for my bet. So that was 3 errors (1 RC and 2 bet). I then was out by 1 on the running count at the end of the last shoe.
Probably the most difficult part of this is making quick TC conversions with deck estimations to the 1/4 deck. I use 2 different exercises to help with this (usually done out with the rest of the practice time). Firstly i use the TC calculator on the Blackjack Institute website. You need to have bought the handbook to get access to this (that said i know that Norm and the guys at BI are working together at the moment on developing a new package for CV). To complete the level 3 check out you need to 120 calculations in 15 minutes with no more than 3 betting errors (again with each unit out counting as 1 error). So far i can manage this in under 6 minutes. Really helps improve speed and accuracy - and the tips for easy calculation in the practice mode are completely invaluable.
The second exercise is to take a 6 deck stack with each card numbered in order from 1-312 and have a partner place random amounts into a discard tray and ask you to estimate to the nearest 1/4 deck. Improves deck estimation.
For shuffle tracking, again we use 2 different exercises. The first is to take a half deck with a shaded edge and place it into a 4 deck pile of cards. Then turn the pile around so that the shaded edge is facing away from you and have a partner place plugs at random spots in the shoe (this will take the pile up to the full 6 decks). You then try and cut the shaded packet out as precisily as possible. I count more than 3 cards off as a fail.
The second exercises is just an extension of the first. After the plugs have been placed, the other person completes a full shuffle of thier choice (i.e. it changes every time) and you then have to cut the shaded packet to the top or another identifable position. You can say that the packet has been too badly split to play, but should then try and cut to the best packet. This time we consider more than 5 cards unaccounted for as a fail.

RJT.

RJT - Is that kind of precision necessary, especially after you consider that you may need to deviate your bets for camo purposes?

I'll reffer you back to what i've already written:-

"Now i don't want to get back into all the conversations about errors being ok, and you still be a danger to the house even if you overbet your bankroll, but i will say this - if you find yourself thinking that it's ok to be less than perfect, you've already lost."

If you can't manage it at home you can't do it at the casino.

RJT.

I'm not referring to errors. I'm referring to the degree of precision you are attempting (or have attained) to use in play and the variations necessary to continue play. For example, it could be for camouflage to avoid getting booted or it could be less precise calculations, avoiding fatigue to permit longer play. That's where the Illustrious 18 came from. There are plenty of other index plays that may eke out a few hundreths percent EV more, but is it worth it? Perhaps it goes back to my undergraduate training as an engineer where results were often "ballparked."

If you allow yourself making mistakes while practicing, you will allow yourself bigger mistakes in actual play. For an example, if you tell yourself it's OK to be off 1 unit during practice you will get used to it and maybe during actual play you will be off 2 units. If you tell yourself no mistake is allowed then you will be much better during actual play.

Is it worth it to learn every damn exception in the English language at University even if you know you won't ever use these words and that most of the people don't know these freaking exceptions? Well, if you do learn all these grammatical rules your English will improve, if you think your English is good enough and never study it at school then it won't improve and you will still be making mistakes while writing. It's pretty much the same time with blackjack.

Besides that, it's better to play perfectly with camouflage moves than to play well with camouflage moves :eyepatch:

AF,
Thank you. I don't mean in any way to claim credit for your understanding of this prinicpal, but it does make me feel a lot better to know at least some people here understand.
21f, to play your system perfectly in the casino you have to be better than perfect at home. Remember that as much as i can estimate to 1/4 decks, card thickness changes, so that accuracy is going to waver in the casino. If i can only estimate to 1/2 decks however, then when my accuracy wavers, it reduces to whole decks - a big step.
If you only ever play for second best, the best you'll ever achieve is second place. Always strive for perfection.

RJT.

Can you provide any mathematics to support this very profound statement?


Re: working at home vs. working at the casino- now I'm really curious. Do you think the win rate per hour of flogging Blackjack Institute paraphernalia on message boards from your computer at home will in the long run exceed that of Wonging shoes in casinos?

I mean, don't anybody take this personally, but like all good farmers and card players I call a spade a spade. And we've got two guys who seem to be selling the same system using the same rhetoric. Ye are about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

AM,
Honestly you can think whatever the hell you like. I promote the BI products because i think they are the best advice on playing the game on the market today - unlike yours. They strived for perfection, and became one of the most successful teams in the world to date due to it. I have no contract with them, i have nothing to gain by discussing their proceedures, but do have a lot of respect for both what they achieved and the attitude they took towards playing the game (you're welcome to message anyone at BI and ask if i'm on their payroll). The same way that someone looking to learn about the advanced techniques i'd recommend Arnold Snyder's 'Shuffle Tracker's Cookbook'.
A sloppy attitude breeds sloppy playing.
Honestly, can you claim that you've had half the success playing that they have? If not, then how do you justify your right to question?
Simulations show that a player can win with errors given the right circumstances, however, watching player after sloppy player fail shows the reality of the situation. And that is, if you think that you make a few mistakes in practice, you're making a lot more than that when you actually play.

RJT.

P.S. As to whether my non-existent win rate would exceed yours, yes it would. I'm quite secure in the knowledge that i am what i say i am, are you? Certainly your discussion of certain topics has lead myself and several others to question. Strange how it has to revert to critisim on a personal level from you, but if that's what you want, so be it.

out of curiosity... whats you're $/hr win rate? (not unit per hr) if its too personal just don't reply, no hard feelings.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to levy any personal criticism. I really mean that; getting people upset is not my thing. But I deal in math and logic, and if you are going to make a statement like "you have to play better than perfect at home," please forgive anyone who asks you what the Christ "better than perfect" means. I'm not aware of any such strategy.

The first problem is that you are not providing any math to support the assertions you make, despite being asked, and although I realize you and Bojack are not charlatans, unsupported assertions are indistinguishable from those made by charlatans. "A sloppy attitude breeds sloppy playing" is the kind of thing a basketball coach says to his team in the locker room at halftime. Blackjack players don't need a pep talk, we need proof.

The second problem is that when you are asked to support your assertions, you respond with a disdainful attitude and perhaps an angry rant. This is a classic tactic used by sellers of Amway and similar scams: any question they don't want to answer is met by something between contempt and bellowed rage in an attempt to deflect the question and discourage others from asking similar questions. Those who question the promises of Amway are dismissed as lazy and unambitious; a player here who questioned a statement was dismissed as a "slacker." I can't wait to hear what I am about to be dismissed as.

Oh and regarding my win rate, for counting it's about 0.3 BB/100 in an East Coast shoe game, no more and no less, and I thank God for my good session when I have one and thank God in advance for my good session when I don't. I'm just a guy who grinds away at shoes, and if you have any doubt that I am really that, well that's OK.

I think we've got (at least) three different viewpoints going on here:

1) The "team" mentality that stresses the importance of practice and a high degree of training. (Everyone agrees that practice is important, it's the degree that there seems to be debate about). Anyway, this viewpoint seems to be most vociferously supported by those who play on a team. Not a coincidence.

I would guess this approach would have two benefits specific to teams: a) it would enable a more diverse of outsiders to achieve a baseline skill level, and b) it would engender trust in the skill level of teammates. While the other benefits of practice can help anyone, these two are specific to team play.

2) The "theoretician" mentality. Guys are like the math, the theory, the count systems, the sims, the obscure areas of research. Guys like Qfit, Schlesinger, Dr. Thorp, and AutoMonkey. Not coincidentally, these guys are often very good at the mental gymnastics involved, but this might be due to a surfeit of brainpower, not necessarily the training regimen.

3) The slackers. These people are for whom advantage play is merely a route to some other goal, which could include:
a) comps
b) a sustainable way to get the thrill of gambling
c) the high-roller image
d) the fun of sticking it to The Man
e) the prospect of not having a day job
f) I could go on

(I put myself in the last category.)

These three camps aren't Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. Each brings different perspectives to the table, and there's no need to balkanize. And we can all agree that we're all good at arguing.

heh, heh looks like a perfect time to jump in here and really muddy the waters

let no one think that i'm advising the approach thats described. also the discussion is not meant go against Bojack or RJT's statements regarding precision and perfection. so again consider my earlier post...

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=33969&postcount=26

and consider the ideas i've attempted to put forth below:

been on a blackjack sabbatical following a negative fluctuation that occurred at the same time that i had just increased my bet spread and max bet.
have been thinking a lot about blackjack advantage play and experimenting with a new approach. an approach that i suspect most on this forum shall find lacking in merit.
for lack of a better name i'll just call the approach that i've been experimenting with fuzzy counting. with that monicer in mind consider the excerpt below:

<<<excerpt from ZenGrifter interview>>>
You’ve often stated that precise index numbers are not important.
Can you explain why you feel that way?
While other experts emphasize the top 20 or so index plays, I advocate the use of 60+ indices, and
personally utilize 80+ with my Zen count. The endlessly debated point I’ve been making is that socalled
precision index numbers are a “myth” and offer no significant added gain over extremerounded
numbers! Whether one uses an index “granularity-scale” of 0-1-2-3-4-5-6 or 0-2-4-6 or
even 0-3-6 it will make absolutely no difference in actual casino play spanning three million hands,
which is ten years of full time play. Time is money and ‘extreme-rounded’ index numbers can be
deployed faster in real casino conditions. You gain much more in ease and resultant speed than
you lose in lost precision. This has been pointed out previously by Snyder in his Hi-Lo Lite and
True Edge Zen, in Ken Fuchs’ Hi-Lo Express, in George C’s Extreme Rounded Zen, and by John
Imming, who developed the Universal Blackjack Engine and simulated billions of hands to prove
this very point.
It seems you have broken away from the card counter “orthodoxy” over this and the
related use of intuition?
The hit-stand-double index for basic strategy departure is a wide-border “coin-toss” zone of
perhaps two digits, plus or minus. Therefore, I encourage the use of one’s intuition when the
decision is close. If decision by coin-toss will not reduce our effectiveness for these ever-frequent
wide-border decisions, does it not stand to reason that we can learn to increasingly utilize the
‘meta-awareness’ faculties of our brain and “go with the force,” so to speak, to potentially obtain a
subjective improvement over raw statistical expectation?
Consider for example, that while our conscious mind may not be aware of that extra 4 or 5 still
remaining in the deck, and not evident by our true count of +1 when we face 16 vs. 10, modern
science tells us that our brain did notice the hit-not-stand situation, despite a true count indication
to the contrary.
I once debated this issue with Don Schlesinger, who labeled my approach “sloppy, with no
inherent advantage over precise.” I countered that if he was to replace “sloppy” with “fuzzy,” as in
what computer science calls ‘fuzzy-logic,’ I would opt for the latter.
To summarize, one should strive for 60+ indices, but use a coarser granularity scale of two to four
digits wide, individually tailored for ‘pattern-recognition’ ease. For example, if your index for 12 vs.
2 and 12 vs. 3 is +4 and +2 respectively, you can re-label both at +3 so they’re easier to remember
and faster to utilize. Or by the same token, all indices of -1,0, and +1 can be rounded to 0, and so
<<< end excerpt from ZenGrifter interview>>>
so here is the fuzzy counting approach and thoughts about it that i'm referring to.
it's for six deck play at a near full table. the idea is to employ perfect basic strategy and 'fuzzy' illustrious 18 departures. additionally the idea is to watch the table each round to see which way the round affected the 'percieved' negativity or positiveness of the remaining pack so as to arrive at a 'fuzzy true count'. no actual number is held in mind, just the awareness if the round resulted in a general positive slant for the running count or possibly a true count integral increase. of course the number of decks left in play are kept in mind for these considerations. if the 'fuzzy true goes negative' the rule is to leave the table or sit out for the remaining pack to go back to either positive or at least a non-negative bias. as each round proceeds the relative 'strength' or 'weakness' of the positivity of the remaining pack is 'judged'. part of how this strength or weakness is judged is by the visual intensity of the comming out of the low cards and high cards for a given round. was the round biased way in favor of low cards presenting, high cards presenting or was it more even? then the cummulative results are considered as the next round goes by. so for example a round where in the remaining pack is obviously negatively biased may merit a unit bet increase. and if the next round the remaining pack becomes even more 'significantly 'positively biased there is merit for an even higher number of units to be bet.
the other thing is i'm applying is a more aggressive bet spread. i suppose i end up betting more units this way than i would with a strict bet spread and an accurate true count system such as hi/lo. the idea is though that the actual edge realized even in the rare high true counts such as plus four or plus five is relatively small when you are fortunate enough to encounter it. but the lower edge is more frequent giving you more opportunities to get the money out there. the negative fluctuation experienced may be greater but the edge being there it seems should turn out winner over all.
so if all of the above isn't radical enough the crowning touch is the idea of actually putting forth some thought into the process and heaven forbid even some intuition. i've practiced and played under real casino conditions using the precise orthodox methods advised by experts for nearly two years. i've read and understood the books and disertations of many of the experts. now i intend to use that understanding and experience in a thoughtful manner. my contention is that a player thinking on his feet from the perspective of a knowledge of the expertise in the field holds the potential for advantage that can't be measured by simulation.while employing the methods described above.