Bankroll/Buyin Guidelines
- Thread starter Drums5000
- Start date
What he said.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
I like to buy in for a very small amount. I use 8 units. It comes in very handy if you are planning on wong out of negative counts. If you run out and/or the count goes up, buy in for more. That is a very nature thing. Buying in for $1000 and then betting $15 a hand is very unnatural.
Jason - What concerns me about your method is if you have a big count and need to buy in for more to double or split. If the pit didn't notice the big bet, he notices it now. Comments?
Nynefingers
Well-Known Member
This is a pitch game, right? Doesn't have any impact on the buyin, but just wanted to make sure you aren't spreading 15-100 on a shoe game unless is it exceptionally good.
flyingwind
Well-Known Member
I think how much you buy in for depends on the type of game that you're trying to play (single deck, double deck, shoe) and the strategy that you're trying to play. If you are going to play-all, wong in, wong out, or some where in between, and the type of personality/presence you're trying to project at the table - those all affect the perception of how you're betting. And can affect what your buy in is.
SWFL Blackjack
Well-Known Member
I have been thinking, and I think the best way to play low stakes would be to carry all $20 bills, and buy in for no less than $100 at a time. This will make wonging seem more natural. Also keep $ in seperate pockets to allow yourself the "need" to hit the ATM during bad counts. Also, if the count gets bad, pocket your chips, leave, and then you can conveniently use them later at a table when you stumble on a high count. All seems pretty natural without drawing too much attention to yourself. You'll seem like a low-stakes gambler trying to chase a win.
I'm open to any opinions on this.
I'm open to any opinions on this.
Kewl, I have to agree with 21. When you have to buy in for more because you're at a max bet situation, it draws extra attention because first the pit checks the amount you're buying in for and then they check your bet amount to calculate an average bet. Should you lose that hand and have to again buy in for more you're now really going to be attracting attention. I personally from experience, think the benefits of buying in for less are outweighed by the risks involved. Regardless, an argument can be made for both cases and discretion is the better part of valor.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
Most of my play takes play against 6 decks games, therefore the count is unlikely to go that high that quickly that I would be going from say a 1 unit wager to an 8, 12 or 16 unit wager. Especially at the beginning of the shoe, where the count rises slowly (if at all) When I begin increasing my wager, I go from 1 to 3 to 5. (I avoid 4 units because it is a check play call for me and increasing to $75 and then $125 seems a little less rigid). anyway if I throw out 5 unit wager and win, well then no need to buy in for more even if the count has risen. I could still put out 8 units. If I have lost and need to buy in for more, it just seems like you are chasing. A very natural and common occurance. As for doubles and splits, which I know was really your question...:laugh:, yes there is the possibility that buying in more could bring slight addition attention, if the pit had not notice increase in wager previously, but at this early point of the shoe, the count is still likely not have gotten to the point that the increased wager is that significant. $125 isn't grabbing that much attention. Also, because I play unrated quite a bit, the pit person doesn't need to go to the computer to add on the buy in, so it's usually just a quick head nod approval. Nothing really for them to do.
Like everything else it's risk/reward and for me and my style of play, I have determined that quick easy wong outs/table exits without having to color up or grab a double handful of chips, (which isn't natural) is more beneficial to me.
As for thunder's comment about max bet, by the time I get to where I am betting max bet, I most likely have drawn attention and am exiting at the end of the shoe anyway.
Last edited:
flyingwind
Well-Known Member
Reading your post, I buy in and bet very similiar to you.
The only part that I can't figure out how to do is your "quick easy table exits without having to color up or grab a double handful of chips."
I usually end up with a pile of between $300 to $500 in chips in front of me that's a combination of red and green. I always need to color up. I'm not sure how to bet to end up with less chips in front of me so I can quickly leave the table with a single handful of chips - unless 1. I'm losing and it's time to wong out anyway, or 2. only bet green.
How do you do it? * PM if necessary, thanks *
Lonesome Gambler
Well-Known Member
I see KJ's point, but I personally like to buy in a little larger. Usually it's 10-40 units, which is what most civilians buy in for on low-limit games. To me, this is a good balance between buying in so large that your minimum bets become conspicuous ("he bought in for $1K and bets $10 a hand?") and having to constantly rebuy during positive counts. It seems to me that many of the times that I need to rebuy in the middle of the hand are when the count is very high, requiring more money for aggressive double downs and taking insurance—exactly the times when you don't want the floor coming over to check out the transaction. It certainly seems awkward when I buy in for $200 betting nickels off the top and the boss swings by to verify my buy-in of $400 to take insurance.
Another factor to consider is the amount of time needed to change bills. This is especially true in games where you need to maximize your up-time (say, if you're flat betting during the 60 minutes that a "good" dealer is on, you might want to have enough chips handy to avoid doing cash transactions until the 20-minute relief dealer comes on, when you actually want to slow down the game). And in a good counting game where I'll be playing the usual short session, I want to play as quickly as possible, and every time I have to buy more chips (again, usually during good counts), it costs me a couple of rounds, which could be 4-8 hands, depending on how deaf the floor person is.
Another factor to consider is the amount of time needed to change bills. This is especially true in games where you need to maximize your up-time (say, if you're flat betting during the 60 minutes that a "good" dealer is on, you might want to have enough chips handy to avoid doing cash transactions until the 20-minute relief dealer comes on, when you actually want to slow down the game). And in a good counting game where I'll be playing the usual short session, I want to play as quickly as possible, and every time I have to buy more chips (again, usually during good counts), it costs me a couple of rounds, which could be 4-8 hands, depending on how deaf the floor person is.
Lonesome Gambler
Well-Known Member
Not to put words into KJ's mouth, but I believe his minimum bet is green? If you find that your stack is too large to facilitate a quick exit, why not try phasing out the reds by betting them in place of greens at times? If you win, make sure the dealer pays you in green, and if you lose, there go those pesky reds. You want the bulk of your stack to be higher-denom chips (within reason), so that you can continue betting but still pick up and leave if need be. Personally, I find that during a session, anything more than $50 in reds is obtrusive, and I'll start to bet them 5 at a time in place of greens. Ditto on phasing greens out with blacks, depending on where you're playing.
flyingwind
Well-Known Member
Nice... very nice. You have given me a new pearl to add to my collection. Thanks.
Chip management. So obvious. Why have I not thought about this before?
This is a very good point. However, usually on these very good games you will not need a whole bunch of chips to start, because there is a very good chance that you are going to win fairly quickly.
Also for ctr reasons, it might be a good thing to only buy in with say...5x your bet. I find this becomes a problem when you are betting a few blacks at a time. In these cases, having an extra 1000 dollars could put you over the ctr threshold, which could have been money that you could have won instead of buying it. If you are only planning on playing 100 dollar max though, just buy in big and save some time.
On a side note, have you ever sat at a table where your time was of the essence, and there is ploppy after ploppy buying in for 1 bet at a time?:flame:
Not only that, but then making rainbow bets - a few reds, whites, etc., slowing down every payoff, splaying the chips for the camera.
Last edited:
I have actually noticed more and more casinos posting rules about betting 1 dollar chips on top of their bet. A casino near me used to have this problem, all of the ploppies thought it was good luck to play 1's on top of whatever they bet. Now they have a multiple of 5 betting restriction, which is really nice.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
There are times when you win most of your big bets (as you are supposed to...
) and chips pile up fairly quickly. (God, I hate when that happens..:laugh At these times, you will probably need to color up. I am just saying I try to manage the chips as best I can. What I am really trying to avoid is the situation where I buy in for 20-40 units, play 3 hands and when the count suddenly goes south, walk away carrying two handfuls of chips. This is a very unnatural move. I am a very religous wong-outer and this situation happens more often than I would like. Buying in for a small number of units makes for a quicker, easier get-a-way. Buying in for a small amount almost prepares dealers, players and pit, that you may not be playing long. They are much less shocked when you suddenly bolt. 
flyingwind
Well-Known Member
There are times when you win most of your big bets (as you are supposed to...
Sometimes when I try to bolt, even if I'm only carrying away a stack of 7 green chips, the dealers will stop me and insist on coloring up. They explain that it's to maintain their supply of chips, but I think it might be a casino policy to help them track.
Other dealers seem to really hate iwhen a stack of their chips are taken away from the table.