First vegas trip as a beginner card counter

#1
I have logged about 150 ish hours of at home practice, i know my count (omega 2) and can do it accurately at home 95% of the time (should be 100% before stepping into a casino i know but this trip was free through work so i had to take it) i know the true count conversions down to double deck when using 1/4 decks im not too good at that yet. I came to vegas with a 1200$ starter bankroll that i expected to lose it all but in the name of getting real world experience. I lost almost all of it but gathered some good experience and now know where my weaknesses are. I need to get better at 1/4 deck t.c. conversions when i do find good double and single deck games, but i played perfect basic strategy and was able to keep a good running count except on a few games i knew i lost it and left. I also learned how to stop a pit or another player from insisting you drink when your at the table only drinking water, i told him im a recovering alcoholic and after that he never asked again. Learned a lot on this trip, wish i could've came back a winner but with 20 hours of play and realistically only playing basic strategy as my true count conversions weren't fast enough to tell me which playing deviations i need to make, and only spreading my bets on a few occasions. It was a good trip overall, need to practice more but i am not deterred by this trip one bit. What are some tips or advice you learned on your first few trips of a.p. play that you think could help a beginner counter like me? Thanks for the replies and this community, may the odds always be in your favor.
 
#3
Midwest Player said:
Think you need a simpler count like Hi-Lo. Heck, you can win with just running count in a double deck game.
Ive thought about switching to hi-lo after i heard it id still a winnable strategy but at this point i have so many hours into omega 2i don't want to throw all of that away when I'm so close to getting it down. But im not 100% opposed to hi-lo i flip flop between the strategies, how can you win with just the running count on double deck? When i played in vegas i was basically just using the running count of omega and playing/ occasionally upping my bet according to that as my double deck conversions weren't 100%.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#4
I wouldn't switch to hi-lo. If you know and play another (reasonable) count and play efficiently, there is no need to switch to anything esle. Keep doing what you are doing. The argument for hi-lo, is that there is no longer much advantage to learning and playing something else. But if you have already learned and play that something else, doesn't un-learn it and switch.

The except would be if you feel you aren't as accurate with your current count, or maybe if you anticipate some team play in your future than may correlate better with hi-lo (since that is what most teams play), but even that, I don't think is really an "obstacle".
 
Last edited:
#5
KewlJ said:
I wouldn't switch to hi-lo. If you know and play another (reasonable) count and play efficiently, there is no need to switch to anything esle. Keep doing what you are doing. The argument for hi-lo, is that there is no longer much advantage to learning and playing something else. But if you have already learned and play that something else, doesn't un-learn it and switch.

The except would be if you feel you aren't as accurate with your current count, or maybe if you anticipate some team play in your future than may corelate better with hi-lo (since that is what most teams play), but even that, I don't think is really an "obstacle".
Since i only have maybe 100 hours of practice with this count between at home and in casinos i am 95% on point with keeping the count but mess it up occasionally so I'm assuming that's something that with more time will correct itself right? Its only a level 2 count and switching between +1, and +2 really isn't that hard for me in practice. I know that i forget to update the count occasionally when hit cards are played and that's where my count can get skewed, as far as just plain counting goes im accurate with it.
Won't be doing any team play, probably ever so i don't think that will be an issue.
 
#6
you are way better off not playing at all with a 1200$ bankroll unless its a 2$ table. 5$ table would need 2-4 grand easy.
use the KO it gets the job done.
from what i read and what i know and experience that experience excuse is just that. play as you are an expert not like an expert
you knew dam well 1200$ would't cut it in 5$table or higher and yet you proceed.
i recommend you to learn the KO save 10 grand be prepared to lose 1/3, 1/2 or all of it and followed by a banned/face flyered

now if you can kick off the game with positive variance dont get caught within your first 15min of counting and double your roll you are a winner
the casinos already have the game mapped out and inside a 1990s j.c pennnys catalog and so should you!
 
#7
Stevel96a1 said:
you are way better off not playing at all with a 1200$ bankroll unless its a 2$ table. 5$ table would need 2-4 grand easy.
use the KO it gets the job done.
from what i read and what i know and experience that experience excuse is just that. play as you are an expert not like an expert
you knew dam well 1200$ would't cut it in 5$table or higher and yet you proceed.
i recommend you to learn the KO save 10 grand be prepared to lose 1/3, 1/2 or all of it and followed by a banned/face flyered

now if you can kick off the game with positive variance dont get caught within your first 15min of counting and double your roll you are a winner
the casinos already have the game mapped out and inside a 1990s j.c pennnys catalog and so should you!
I know that with that small bankroll i was not going to make much if anything at all, i went into it more as a real world practice as ive been able to get things down at home i needed to log some hours in real time to see where my weaknesses are and now i know what i need to work on.
 

Midwest Player

Well-Known Member
#8
Stevel96a1 said:
you are way better off not playing at all with a 1200$ bankroll unless its a 2$ table. 5$ table would need 2-4 grand easy.
There is a difference between trip bankroll and total bankroll. I do believe $1,200 would be enough for a short trip at a $5 table most of the time. I very seldom need more than $1,000 for a 6 to 8 hour play session. It is almost always enough. However, I always have $3,000 or $4,000 with me, but just don't need it.

I went back and looked at my records thru 2016. During that time period I played 147 times and only twice did I have a loss more than $1,200 in one day. My biggest losses in that time period were $1,287 in 2017 and $1,391 in 2016. Of course during the heat of the battle I might have bought in for more as I always like to have at a min $400 or $500 in chips available.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#9
Midwest Player said:
Of course during the heat of the battle I might have bought in for more as I always like to have at a min $400 or $500 in chips available.
Can I ask why? Having a large stack of chips in front of you is a negative for a number of reasons in my opinion. First it is an indication that the player intends to bet bigger at some point, sort of giving away your intent to spread before you ever do so. I mean a player sitting with $400-$500 and minimum betting $5 or$10 isn't natural. You are tipping off that you are going to be betting bigger at some point, now all they have to do is watch for it.

I try to play with as few chips in front of me as possible. You can always buy in for more. One of my favorite things is when the count starts to go positive and I have limited chips in front of me, but maybe just a bit more than the count calls for, I just go bet everything...all in. Helps make you look like a gambler, and your spread not so uniform. And like I said, if I lose that or a double down/split opportunity presents itself, I can buy in for more. But if I win, I have actually gotten a little cover as I accelerate into my spread. :cool:

But probably my biggest issue is that when I win a significant amount, I want to get the H*** out of there. That is one of those times I am exposed, because if I win a significant amount, I almost have to color up, rather than my quick 'non-color up' exit. Having extra chips...more than needed, just makes that exposure greater. Now I realize you likely aren't playing the short session, hit and run style that I play, but it just seems a real bad idea. You win, and you are forced to color up and practically announce, "look at me, this is what I won". Just unnecessary attention, in my opinion.
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#10
Midwest Player said:
Of course during the heat of the battle I might have bought in for more as I always like to have at a min $400 or $500 in chips available.
MWP, for many years I have bought in for $500 but that was for a $50 minimum bet shoe games. You mostly play double deck is that correct? For me, it is all about perception. Put in another way I want to appear as just another overbetting ploppy who is no threat. Actually rooting harder to win "at times" on my single unit bets. Plenty of table/pits changing for me but when I sit down again I only put at most ten minimum bets on the table. Hell, most of the time now I rarely go to the cage to cash out I just go home and return the next time with some amount of those chips. Anyway, listen to KJ on this one, as he is right.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#11
I certainly have seen players play the way MWP is talking about, buying in for what I consider excessive amounts. Maybe that was a popular thing to do years ago. It showed you were there for the evening so you pulled out your whole playing stakes. :oops: I don't know. It is just a little out of the norm now-a-days. Most players playing red, at either a $5 or $10 players buy in for a Benjamin. Players playing a $25 minimum usually buy-in for around $500, some $300. So I think anyone buying in for much more looks a little odd. Not that it doesn't happen, but I just don't like to do anything that even draws a second look. And if it requires a pit person's attention. That is a second look.

Like I said, when I buy in, I like to go the other way. At a $25 min table I will buy in for $100. That is 4 minimum bets. That is equivalent to buying in for $20 at a $5 table. :D Know what that gets? NOTHING. If the pit has to ok, they do so from a distance. Small buy-ins actually sends a message. "I'm not going to be here long and I have no money and am no threat" That is the first impression and it takes some doing you reverse that first impression. But to each his own. ;)
 
#12
Midwest Player said:
There is a difference between trip bankroll and total bankroll. I do believe $1,200 would be enough for a short trip at a $5 table most of the time. I very seldom need more than $1,000 for a 6 to 8 hour play session. It is almost always enough. However, I always have $3,000 or $4,000 with me, but just don't need it.

I went back and looked at my records thru 2016. During that time period I played 147 times and only twice did I have a loss more than $1,200 in one day. My biggest losses in that time period were $1,287 in 2017 and $1,391 in 2016. Of course during the heat of the battle I might have bought in for more as I always like to have at a min $400 or $500 in chips available.
With regards to your $1000 bankroll sessions, what bet spread did you use with that amount that you found was a profitable spread?
 
Top