Backcounting Question
- Thread starter SPX
- Start date
Sonny
Well-Known Member
It will depend on how aggressively you are backcounting. Some people will wait for +1, others might wait for +2, still others might sit down at the shuffle and only leave if the count drops to –1 or –2. Obviously the more lenient you are the more you will play. For someone who waits until +1 to play, they will probably play about 25 hands per 100. That would be about 200 hands per 8-hour shift if they can count 100 hands per hour. If they can count more then they will be in better shape.
Certainly the majority of time is spent watching, but it sure beats losing.
-Sonny-
Certainly the majority of time is spent watching, but it sure beats losing.
-Sonny-
Some days are good and others can be bad. I once circled the floor for over an hour and a half looking for a good count, but couldn't find anything. One of the players actually said to me "I see you just walking around and not playing a single hand..." I was kinda pissed cuz the PB overheard so I had to sit down and the count actually went + but I blew it all. Other times it seemed like every shoe I went to, the count was getting positive. And on this day I was wonging in at +2.
Mimosine
Well-Known Member
that happens to all of us. on average ~20-25% of shoes will go positive. last weekend i walked around for one hour and played nothing. i've been at a few places where i literally played 1 hand in an hour, and at another joint recently EVERY single shoe i counted went positive within 1 deck of play, so i played a lot. Don said you would play roughly 25 hands an hour in a wong game, as opposed to 100 in play all. the results for the wonging game were far superior given the same spread. BJA is at home, so i can't quote the specifics, the 25/100 details are verbatim though.
golfnut101
Well-Known Member
Certainly the majority of time is spent watching, but it sure beats losing.
Which is what I'm thinking. But seeing as how it takes thousands and thousands of hands/hours to reach "the long run," how the hell are you ever going to get there like that?
200 hands per 8 hours is only 25 hands/hr. Even if you're AVERAGE bet is $50--which takes a relatively large bankroll--you're only looking at a profit of about $12.50 per hour, assuming an average edge of 1%.
Right?
Man, that kind of sucks.
Last edited:
Well, not really. 8 hour+ casino sessions can be pretty common, but not really 8 hour+ blackjack sessions. Also, you have to keep in mind that I don't count, so there's a lot less mental strain.
But then again, look at the MIT guys. I think they were going for more like 12+ hour sessions.
Ferretnparrot
Well-Known Member
Im pretty sure when your backcounting the AVERAGE edge is higher at around 2-3% since yor only playing hands at an advantage.
I do a mix of backcounting and wonging, and when i figure how much time i play while backcounting i include all the time i am at a table watching the cards weather i am playing or not. And view it as if i was table hopping to begin with, it much easier this way and you dont have to worry about adding and keeping track of your ten minute playing sessions scattered throughout your evening.
I once played for 25 hours straight, order redbulls instead of alchohol
I do a mix of backcounting and wonging, and when i figure how much time i play while backcounting i include all the time i am at a table watching the cards weather i am playing or not. And view it as if i was table hopping to begin with, it much easier this way and you dont have to worry about adding and keeping track of your ten minute playing sessions scattered throughout your evening.
I once played for 25 hours straight, order redbulls instead of alchohol
Last edited:
I certainly have a lot to learn as far as counting goes, but I think an average of 3% is a little high. Maybe you can expect 2% is you're only playing pretty choice games, but not 3% on average.
I could be wrong though. Someone with more experience than myself will have to chime in.
mjbballar23
Well-Known Member
backcounting
3% is probably high but in certain situations it is definitely achievable. The way i view backcounting is instead of betting table minimum in shitty counts, you are betting $0 and the variance is also $0. thats the miracle of backcounting. As long as you are counting down a table, you are essentially playing but you are betting $0.
3% is probably high but in certain situations it is definitely achievable. The way i view backcounting is instead of betting table minimum in shitty counts, you are betting $0 and the variance is also $0. thats the miracle of backcounting. As long as you are counting down a table, you are essentially playing but you are betting $0.
Yeah, I understand that 3% is definitely achievable as an advantage at any given time or in a given situation, but not as an overall AVERAGE edge when all your play is factored in.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
That's true. The backcounter won't be playing as many hands but he also won't require nearly as many hands to approach the long run. The variance will be smaller so there will be less of it to overcome before he achieves his EV. He'll have a bigger advantage, less risk and a shorter wait for the long run (given the above conditions).
-Sonny-
mjbballar23
Well-Known Member
But still, it sounds like to me that you're referring to that particular game. Do you believe that throughout the course of your blackjack career, when all is factored together, that you have played with an AVERAGE edge higher than 2%?
And I 'm not factoring in comps . . . just cash in hand.
mjbballar23
Well-Known Member
Of course alot of things depend on game, when you enter and leave, etc but in alot of back-counting scenarios one's min bet might be 10 to 20 times one's min bet in a playall situation. So it's very possible a 100 min-unit roll would be quite playable and have an average bet 5 times higher than a playall situation, all with the same risk and bankroll.