100 unit buy in!

S

Stevel96a1

Banned
just ran a manual sim with atlantic city rules 1-8 spread the results are in

high +420$
end -54$
hands played 503
blackjacks 19
double down 60
splits 25
ending in a 1,000$ loss
full table

so is this the part i go back next week with another 1k$ and pit boss says no more bj for me?
 
Don't understand your question. At one point, you write: "end -$54." At another, you write "ending in a $1,000 loss."

Not that it matters, but which is it? And what do you mean by your last question? You're worried that, if you did this for real, they'd throw you out? Not that it matters, either, but in A.C., they can't say, "no more BJ for you."

Don
 
maybe they wouldnt but they would shuffle up 50% in on that 8 deck monster.
means i started with a thousand reached 1400ish and lost it all and the game let me down down which lead me to minus 54.


i guess my question is will i double my first 1,000 before or after they start shuffling up on me 1/2 inside the deck?
 
DSchles said:
Don't understand your question. At one point, you write: "end -$54." At another, you write "ending in a $1,000 loss."

Not that it matters, but which is it? And what do you mean by your last question? You're worried that, if you did this for real, they'd throw you out? Not that it matters, either, but in A.C., they can't say, "no more BJ for you."

Don
Click to expand...

Yes, this exercise is very confusing as explained. Near as I can figure, he ran a simulation with a $1000 bankroll, which was 100 $10 units as per thread title (also not the correct definition or use of unit IMO) He was spreading $10-$80. This would be a very high RoR, so it is no surprise the simulation ended in "ruin", or the loss of the $1000 bankroll.

What I don't understand is the final statement about being backed off on his next visit. What next visit? He said he ran a simulation? :oops: Seems like yet another one of these guys that is confusing his simulation play with real life play.
 
Back in the "old days" before everyone had access to software that tells exactly what risk you are playing to, the very general rule was 100 max bets to play safely, that is to play with a small enough RoR. That was 100 max bets not 100 units. So with the numbers you described a 1-8 spread, that would be 800 units. Or if we are talking a $10 -$80 spread that would be $8000 BR, to play reasonably safely, not the $1000 that you used.

$1000 bankroll is only 12.5 max bets. That guarantees disaster.
 
im just trying to figure what to expect when "one" hits the tables and what kind of ups and downs can happen in a typical joint.

from a non gamblers view losing a thousand dollars is really F'ed up imo to lose alot ofcash in such a short amount of time (504 hands) and my gut says thats being more than fair what can really happen at the tables maybe 1 or 2 shoes id be down 800 dollars??? ouch! again all guessestimates/speculations

so it takes 500 hands give or take to lose 100 units does it mean it will take 500ish hands to win back that money? the simple variance of the game over rides my long term edge with a bankroll i can go belly up 3x over? 3,000 over? man if i dont get lucky early in this game wipe anyone out, maybe i will try again tomorrow i just see if im remotely successful the pit boss will just tell dealer shuffle up on me.

and this lady said she was a dealer in sugar house in philly and they can spot a card counter within 15minutes when 1 sits down

i asked a what is a lifespan of a counter in ac and no one answered has anyone ever went in ac with 8grand and counted away? did the house make it unplayable?
 
KewlJ said:
Back in the "old days" before everyone had access to software that tells exactly what risk you are playing to, the very general rule was 100 max bets to play safely, that is to play with a small enough RoR. That was 100 max bets not 100 units. So with the numbers you described a 1-8 spread, that would be 800 units. Or if we are talking a $10 -$80 spread that would be $8000 BR, to play reasonably safely, not the $1000 that you used.

$1000 bankroll is only 12.5 max bets. That guarantees disaster.
Click to expand...
I've lost MORE THAN $1000 within one shoe with a similar spread and amounts, before that shoe was even finished! Naturally, I had the proper BR at the time. For him to think that having ONLY a meager $1000 for a $10-$80 spread shows me enough.

So after reading his numerous posts, I've concluded he's just trolling us and hasn't learned a single thing.
 
That's the typical response when people get the truth spoken about them.

For the record, I wouldn't play that game in A.C. with a that spread unless I had AT LEAST $25,000!
 
LC Larry said:
For the record, I wouldn't play that game in A.C. with a that spread unless I had AT LEAST $25,000!
Click to expand...

I get the point you are trying to make, but this seems a bit extreme. You don't need 25k to play a $80 max bet. ;)

Anyone familiar with me probably already knows my AC experience. I played 5 1/2 years at low limit before I wore out my welcome. I started with $4300 and played an even smaller spread and stakes than mentioned in this thread, which is why it took me several years to begin to grow my bankroll. :rolleyes:

I don't want to rehash those 51/2 years but there are some take-aways related to this discussion. I did not wear out my welcome until I moved up in stakes, spreading green to light black. It has been a decade, so thing may have changed but back then countermeasures were not going to be taken against a player spreading red, like $10-$80 or less. Well maybe if you sat at one table for hours and hours almost forcing action to be taken, but otherwise, not.

For one thing, back then AC was pretty crowded. I don't know how it is today. So back then at $5 and $10 tables there were always 4, 5, 6 players. Since AC can't ban players, if they were to cut the deck (penetration), they are doing 2 things to hurt their bottom line. 1.) reduced penetration means more down time, and less rounds played against those other 4-5 "losing" players. 2.) this same action may piss off those same other 4-5 "losing" players.

So taking any action might just be a cut off your nose to spite your face situation and they most likely just tolerated small level counting (like I was doing at the time), as long as the player wasn't too aggressive or camped out for hours (which I didn't).
 
DSchles said:
Don't understand your question. At one point, you write: "end -$54." At another, you write "ending in a $1,000 loss."
Click to expand...
No, Don. He said -54$ and 1,000$. Those misplaced dollar signs bother me more than extraneous apostrophes. ¿You?
 
21forme said:
You'd play an AC game with a 1-8 spread?!
That's suicide with almost any BR.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is "suicide", especially if you escape at least some of the negative counts (wong out), but it definitely is going to lead to a small win rate and a really long haul to get anywhere.
 
21forme said:
KJ, did you forget that most AC games were S17 at that time?
Click to expand...

Actually not for me. H17 took over especially at lower limits just about the time I started, with the exception being Borgata. They remained at S17 for all of my time in AC, which is why that became my home base, and I overplayed which lead to wearing out my welcome.
 
no im not mad at what you said, just mad on how you harrass and hound me Larry, yes thats reality 12 max bets results in 100% chance of ruin 24 max bets results 90% chance of ruin at ac we need more and not in mood to donate like you do Larry
 
21forme said:
No, Don. He said -54$ and 1,000$. Those misplaced dollar signs bother me more than extraneous apostrophes. ¿You?
Click to expand...

I'm taking it that he is not American. Foreigners tend to write it backwards all the time.

Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top