Even at a 5 dollar table that's only 40 units. That could easily be lost in the first session!
Card Counting for the Recreational
- Thread starter kwality
- Start date
Even at a 5 dollar table that's only 40 units. That could easily be lost in the first session!
With conservative play, I believe a skilled counter on a $5 table stands a good chance of winning with $200. I'll try that next week in Indiana and let you know. My stop loss will probably be $500 for the trip. I expect to win. I won't range my bets more than 1-8 or so.
For a crappy player, sure you could easily lose 40 units. A skilled player tends to hang around and hang around during bad streaks, and then bam! The lucky run comes and you turn it around.
One time I was about wiped out, I went all in. The dealer thought I was done. I won everything back.
Another time I lost $200 or so. The count was really high. I zipped over to the ATM, got back into the favorable shoe, and went on a tear. I think I ended up winning $150 when I left. I knew the game was beatable since it was S17, DAS, replit Aces, double any two cards.
I am still small stakes but watch out for me, I ain't going to go away.
For a crappy player, sure you could easily lose 40 units. A skilled player tends to hang around and hang around during bad streaks, and then bam! The lucky run comes and you turn it around.
One time I was about wiped out, I went all in. The dealer thought I was done. I won everything back.
Another time I lost $200 or so. The count was really high. I zipped over to the ATM, got back into the favorable shoe, and went on a tear. I think I ended up winning $150 when I left. I knew the game was beatable since it was S17, DAS, replit Aces, double any two cards.
I am still small stakes but watch out for me, I ain't going to go away.
Doesn't matter how good you are, you can easily lose 40 units in a session. I can tell you are fairly new to counting. Keep playing and it's pretty much guaranteed you will lose 40 units in a session. It has nothing to do with how good you play, it's just variance. That's why a 40 unit bankroll has a VERY high chance of going broke.
If I had $200 to spend on Blackjack, I would spend $100 on books and cards and PRACTICE. You will not get anywhere without a BANKROLL, DISCIPLINE or PRACTICE. If you lack any of these, or any of the other various factors, your tiny edge on the casino will disappear. Study, practice, save some money and then go kill that casino. This is my honest advice.
:cow:
:cow:
jetace
Well-Known Member
Your risk of ruin is very high with that small of a bankroll. I know the feeling of not wanting to be patient, waiting for your bankroll to grow before playing live casino play. We all know it is fun, or else we wouldn't be in this forum.
But let me tell you from personal experience :cry: , 200 bucks will disappear real quick. Especially if you are new to counting. It is easy to overlook small errors, and have your betting scheme thrown completely off. The most money I've lost is when my bankroll has been way too small, and the rules flat out sucked (I live in a part of Oregon where the Indian Casinos offer the worst rules that can be found in the U.S.).
If you just want to play for fun and don't really want to invest time/money, go with your $200, flat bet, and go with the impression that you'll probably lose it. Then if you happen to win, you can add it to your bankroll for next time, and have fun while doing so.
Its not fun to lose, and if you go with a small bankroll, it is more likely. It can turn you off of card counting really quick if you're not careful.
And my last piece of advice, listen to the guys who have posted above me, especially those with a lot of posts under their belt, they have experienced the highs and lows of advantage play, and can help you play a better game.
But let me tell you from personal experience :cry: , 200 bucks will disappear real quick. Especially if you are new to counting. It is easy to overlook small errors, and have your betting scheme thrown completely off. The most money I've lost is when my bankroll has been way too small, and the rules flat out sucked (I live in a part of Oregon where the Indian Casinos offer the worst rules that can be found in the U.S.).
If you just want to play for fun and don't really want to invest time/money, go with your $200, flat bet, and go with the impression that you'll probably lose it. Then if you happen to win, you can add it to your bankroll for next time, and have fun while doing so.
Its not fun to lose, and if you go with a small bankroll, it is more likely. It can turn you off of card counting really quick if you're not careful.
And my last piece of advice, listen to the guys who have posted above me, especially those with a lot of posts under their belt, they have experienced the highs and lows of advantage play, and can help you play a better game.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
you should only play $5 tables if you are willing to lose the $200. if you are not willing to lose it you should not play at all.
to have any real hope of comming out ahead in the long run you need to learn how to count cards. even if you do learn to count cards it would be advisable to have a far larger bankroll and be willing to lose that bankroll. it is possible to start out with a small bankroll and build it up. i started with $300. i played very conservatively and tended to quit a session when ever i made $40 or more. (note: there is no statistical advantage to quiting when you are ahead but it does give you a chance to analyse your session experience and plan for the next session.)then i'd practice and study the game between sessions honing my skills for my next foray. i experienced one heck of a lot of luck as i climbed the learning curve. still am learning a year and a half later.
best regards,
mr fr0g
Last edited:
I wish I had that luxury. I'm a little more than 3 hours from AC, and when I go I plan to stay for at least two days. I have to admit I've been very tempted over the past few days to say "#$%& it!" and start throwing greens out there to bump up my EV and get free rooms out of my play, but I know my bankroll can't support it at the moment. Maybe in a year through dilligent saving and smart play will I have enough to support my green chip aspirations.
As for the $200 bankroll poster, I would definitely suggest a bankroll of at least 1000 units, though preferably 1500 units, to have a satisfactory RoR. Some might even suggest a bankroll of 2000 units, and that is definitely safer than either total I mentioned.
One other thing I'd like to say/ask. Do some of you guys play just BS or very minimal spreading at one casino to get a room comp but not draw heat, and then try to take it to other places with your regular betting patterns?
As for the $200 bankroll poster, I would definitely suggest a bankroll of at least 1000 units, though preferably 1500 units, to have a satisfactory RoR. Some might even suggest a bankroll of 2000 units, and that is definitely safer than either total I mentioned.
One other thing I'd like to say/ask. Do some of you guys play just BS or very minimal spreading at one casino to get a room comp but not draw heat, and then try to take it to other places with your regular betting patterns?
Mikeaber
Well-Known Member
Starting with 40 units is courting disaster. On a 6-deck shoe, you are going to need to spread 1 to 20 if you plan to 'play all hands'. That means $5 to $100 on a $5 table. If you play only positive count hands, then we use a 1-8 or 1-10 spread. Either way, you are very likely going to be betting 1/4 of your bankroll at 1-20 or 1/8 at 1-10. You definitely do NOT win all of those hands. Remember, you only have a 5% advantage at best and that leaves a lot of room for the cards to fall in a way you do not desire. As has been stated before on this forum, you really still make your money from the doubles and splits at high counts, so in reality, with a 1-20 spread, you could be wagering your entire bankroll on ONE HAND!
Your risk of ruin in a double deck game spreading 1-5 would be close to 45% (45% of the time you'll go broke before doubling your $200)
If I were you, I'd try to get by on having some fun and flat betting $5 a hand and just hoping that you get a good share of doubles and splits that will keep you in the game.
Your risk of ruin in a double deck game spreading 1-5 would be close to 45% (45% of the time you'll go broke before doubling your $200)
If I were you, I'd try to get by on having some fun and flat betting $5 a hand and just hoping that you get a good share of doubles and splits that will keep you in the game.
I have played enough to know that you can easily go broke with 40 units, especially if you do something silly like spread 1-20 without a large bankroll. If you spread 1-20 on a $5 table, you better have about $5000 with you, minimum.
I don't buy into this bankroll concept though. So what if I only want to lose $200, $300, or maybe $500 on a session or playing trip? That does not define my bankroll. The bankroll correlates to how much I willing to tolerate, over my lifetime, being down on BJ. As I play with advantage, I know being down is only a temporary situation.
But I don't get to play that often, and I don't enjoy losing sessions. So it makes sense to me to be conservative. That means carrying less cash to the casino and more reasonable betting spreads than 1-20. If you system only provides an advantage when you spread 1-20, you need a better system!
I don't buy into this bankroll concept though. So what if I only want to lose $200, $300, or maybe $500 on a session or playing trip? That does not define my bankroll. The bankroll correlates to how much I willing to tolerate, over my lifetime, being down on BJ. As I play with advantage, I know being down is only a temporary situation.
But I don't get to play that often, and I don't enjoy losing sessions. So it makes sense to me to be conservative. That means carrying less cash to the casino and more reasonable betting spreads than 1-20. If you system only provides an advantage when you spread 1-20, you need a better system!
Mikeaber
Well-Known Member
There is a better system...it's a 1-10 spread playing as few negative hands as possible in a 6-deck game. I'm not saying that you do not have an advantage when you play them all, but your risk of ruin is much greater and you need those higher spreads to maximize.
I do understand your frustrations. Believe me! You've worked hard in developing the skill or you are comitted to developing the skills necessary and then find that to employ it successfully, you need a larger "trip roll" (if you wish to call it that.) Other threads in this forum discuss "replenishable" bankrolls such as you describe. It does make a difference but still, I would be cautious were I you, in playing for an advantage on a $5 table with what you are considering.
An option (or maybe it's not an option) is to find a double deck $5 game. A good spread for that would be 1-5...but even with this, pay particular attention to getting away from the table in negative counts. You might not be able to join mid-shoe, but you can leave mid-shoe in these games!
Or find a better game!
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
i don't have the exact results but i've run some simulations for a 6D s17 das nrsa lsr game with around 76% pen using I18 & Fab 4 where a 1:8 spread was employed. the simulator was set to wong out at tc=-1 . the results as i recall were a little better than 1.1% advantage.
i use a 1:8 spread in order to keep my ROR down. so far it's been working for me.
best regards,
mr fr0g
i don't have the exact results but i've run some simulations for a 6D s17 das nrsa lsr game with around 76% pen using I18 & Fab 4 where a 1:8 spread was employed. the simulator was set to wong out at tc=-1 . the results as i recall were a little better than 1.1% advantage.
i use a 1:8 spread in order to keep my ROR down. so far it's been working for me.
best regards,
mr fr0g
How might that advantage change if there was no lsr, and the penetration was a little closer to 70%? Also, what's your RoR for your numbers?
i don't have the exact results but i've run some simulations for a 6D s17 das nrsa lsr game with around 76% pen using I18 & Fab 4 where a 1:8 spread was employed. the simulator was set to wong out at tc=-1 . the results as i recall were a little better than 1.1% advantage.
i use a 1:8 spread in order to keep my ROR down. so far it's been working for me.
best regards,
mr fr0g
Thanks for that also. I think $40 is a great max bet for beginning players which is 1-8 on a $5 game. I am with you 100% on that strategy. We need to play together sometime.
I wonder about that wong out effect though. I normally sit through at least two decks before wonging out. I have seen the count turn too quickly. If the assumption is wonging out after one deck at TC -1, then that advantage would be overstated for me. What counting system is that?
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
your welcome. i intend to make use of a larger spread in the future when my bankroll is large enough to justify it. perhaps sometime when we are both in the Indiana area we can hit the tables since it appears we both frequent the area from time to time.
i believe you are correct that the advantage is a bit overstated. probably since in real play i wong out if the true count is zero or less after two decks helps push it up some though.
my simulator is a bit limited especially for wonging in and out. because of the constraints of the simulator i had to set it up to wong out at true counts of minus one inorder to approximate my playing methodology as closely as possibe. my actual wong out strategy is if tc<-1 before two decks are dealt then wong out and if tc=-1 or 0 at two decks or greater then i wong out.
i use the hi/lo count an I18 departures.
best regards,
mr fr0g
Last edited:
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
i believe the advantage would decrease to about 0.9% if the late surrender was not allowed. the improvement in penetration to 70% would probably put the advantage right back up to around 1.1%.
i haven't determined my ROR rigorously recently. i just tryed to determine it using Sonny's spread sheet and came up with a ROR of less than 1% . i'm not really sure i set all the parameters correctly though. my goal has allways been to keep my big bet (currently $40) to be 1/150th of my bankroll (which is $6000) .
best regards,
mr fr0g
i believe the advantage would decrease to about 0.9% if the late surrender was not allowed. the improvement in penetration to 70% would probably put the advantage right back up to around 1.1%.
i haven't determined my ROR rigorously recently. i just tryed to determine it using Sonny's spread sheet and came up with a ROR of less than 1% . i'm not really sure i set all the parameters correctly though. my goal has allways been to keep my big bet (currently $40) to be 1/150th of my bankroll (which is $6000) .
best regards,
mr fr0g
What about when you can only find $10 tables? Do you live with the 1-4 spread or just not play? It seems to me that would cut the advantage 30-40 basis points.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
i just don't play them unless wonging in.
but i've on rare occasion played a ten dollar table and increased my spread and trip bankroll. i think i used a $60 max bet on those occasions. probably not enough but thats what i did.
best regards,
mr fr0g