Newbie looking for advice...

[Biggins]

Hello all,

I have just learned how to count and have been lucky most times in my trip to the casino. Now, I am not the best gambler but I can usually come out with around $200 dollars going into a casino with $40. But here is my question. In my trips I find that I can either use two different strategies that seem to both work pretty efficiently.

The first being I find a table that has a $10 minimum (usually a 6-deck) and play hands that have a true count usually greater then 2.

The second being I go to a table that has $25 minimum (2-deck or single) and wait for a true count greater then 4 before I bet my whole bankroll. Now, I have definitely lost money quicker using this strategy and usually leave with nothing but I have also had my biggest gains in a single night.
(One being when I walked out with $2,000)

Both seem to work the same amount but I was wondering what some of your guys' strategies would be in my situation, or if I am doing the totally wrong thing and have just been getting lucky, which is what it feels like. Anyways, any advice or input would be greatly appreciated.


P.S. - I was also wondering since I have just started learning and don't know the game and the atmosphere that well if there was anyone in the San Diego area interested in actually meeting up. If you are either a pro looking for a someone to teach or someone learning like me it would be cool to find someone else interested. Anyways, thanks again.

 

[positiveEV]

You should never bet your whole bankroll on a single hand because you won't be able to split or double down, and not being able to do so will completely destroy your advantage. If you bet 50% of your bankroll you won't be able to resplit or double after split.

 

[ScottH]

You should never bet your whole bankroll on a single hand because you won't be able to split or double down, and not being able to do so will completely destroy your advantage. If you bet 50% of your bankroll you won't be able to resplit or double after split.

I don't think that not being able to double after betting your entire bankroll is takes away any advantage. In a double-down situation you want to double to get more money on the table in the good situation, but in this case you already have as much money down as possible. It's even better than betting half your bankroll and then doubling, because if you bet your entire bankroll you will not be limited to one card like you are after a double down.

Let's say you have a 9 vs a dealer 6. If you double and get a 2, you can't hit again. If you bet your entire bankroll you can hit your 11 again, but you could always stay after one card if you wanted to. You have a better chance of winning the hand by hitting rather than doubling.

You're right that not being able to split can be a big deal in some cases, like having 8,8 vs a dealer 6 or something like that. I just don't think not being able to double down kills any advantage at all. It's actually a tiny benefit of the all-in move, since it's like you can double for more (then bet your entire bankroll) and not be limited to one card like a normal double.

 

[positiveEV]

I don't think that not being able to double after betting your entire bankroll is takes away any advantage. In a double-down situation you want to double to get more money on the table in the good situation, but in this case you already have as much money down as possible. It's even better than betting half your bankroll and then doubling, because if you bet your entire bankroll you will not be limited to one card like you are after a double down.

Let's say you have a 9 vs a dealer 6. If you double and get a 2, you can't hit again. If you bet your entire bankroll you can hit your 11 again, but you could always stay after one card if you wanted to. You have a better chance of winning the hand by hitting rather than doubling.

You're right that not being able to split can be a big deal in some cases, like having 8,8 vs a dealer 6 or something like that. I just don't think not being able to double down kills any advantage at all. It's actually a tiny benefit of the all-in move, since it's like you can double for more (then bet your entire bankroll) and not be limited to one card like a normal double.

You will get crap like hard 16 much more often than you will get situations to double down, the house advantage is from the total amount you bet and when you double down it will cause you to bet 2x an amount in a situation where you have an advantage. If you bet your bankroll 1,000,000 times you will get a hard 16 (worse hand you can get) 4.1% of the time so if you bet half of it instead and double down on situations like getting a hard 11 you will increase your expected value by a lot.

 

[Renzey]

I am not the best gambler but I can usually come out with around $200 dollars going into a casino with $40.

I want to burn all my books and read yours!

 

[ScottH]

You will get crap like hard 16 much more often than you will get situations to double down, the house advantage is from the total amount you bet and when you double down it will cause you to bet 2x an amount in a situation where you have an advantage. If you bet your bankroll 1,000,000 times you will get a hard 16 (worse hand you can get) 4.1% of the time so if you bet half of it instead and double down on situations like getting a hard 11 you will increase your expected value by a lot.

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. It's obvious if you bet less at a disadvantage you will lose less. You lose more by betting your entire bankroll, but it's due to not being able to split, not your loss of ability to double down.

 

[Cardcounter]

You need a bigger bankroll!

You go into a $10 or $25 table with only $40? That's a joke. On one hand you could split up to 4 times. If you are playing with a shoe you might be able to double after a split. I have seen people get as much as 6 or 7 times there orginal bet out there on a single hand with 8 times the bet being theoritcally possible. Doubling down has a big advantage for the player. There is no such thing as being all-in on blackjack you can always buy more chips. It's not like poker where you play for table stakes and can not buy more chips in the middle of the hand. You need to have enough chips to at least triple your bet that will not cover all situations but it will cover 99.9% of them.

 

[Biggins]

Thanks so far...

Thanks to everyone replying. I appreciate all the input you guys give me and wanted to respond to a few of them.

You should never bet your whole bankroll on a single hand because you won't be able to split or double down, and not being able to do so will completely destroy your advantage. If you bet 50% of your bankroll you won't be able to resplit or double after split.

Sorry, I should have made this more clear when I wrote my original post. I only use $40 dollars to bet, but I do carry enough with me to make a double down bet or to split if I believe I have a good enough hand. It is just I don't wish to lose more then $40 while I am just starting out card counting.

I don't think that not being able to double after betting your entire bankroll is takes away any advantage. In a double-down situation you want to double to get more money on the table in the good situation, but in this case you already have as much money down as possible. It's even better than betting half your bankroll and then doubling, because if you bet your entire bankroll you will not be limited to one card like you are after a double down.

Let's say you have a 9 vs a dealer 6. If you double and get a 2, you can't hit again. If you bet your entire bankroll you can hit your 11 again, but you could always stay after one card if you wanted to. You have a better chance of winning the hand by hitting rather than doubling.

You're right that not being able to split can be a big deal in some cases, like having 8,8 vs a dealer 6 or something like that. I just don't think not being able to double down kills any advantage at all. It's actually a tiny benefit of the all-in move, since it's like you can double for more (then bet your entire bankroll) and not be limited to one card like a normal double.

Totally understand what you are saying and am wondering more what you would do in my situation???

I want to burn all my books and read yours!

Hahaha, you probably know a helluva lot more then I do. I have so far made 16 trips to Barona casino. 8 times I have made $200 with $40 I used my first strategy. 4 times I have made $200 using my second strategy, with one very big winning. And I have lost $160 so far on 4 trips, my last two trips being loss trips which is kind of why I was hoping for some advice.

You go into a $10 or $25 table with only $40? That's a joke. On one hand you could split up to 4 times. If you are playing with a shoe you might be able to double after a split. I have seen people get as much as 6 or 7 times there orginal bet out there on a single hand with 8 times the bet being theoritcally possible. Doubling down has a big advantage for the player. There is no such thing as being all-in on blackjack you can always buy more chips. It's not like poker where you play for table stakes and can not buy more chips in the middle of the hand. You need to have enough chips to at least triple your bet that will not cover all situations but it will cover 99.9% of them.

Heh, yeah I know I am pathetic with how much I am walking in with, but I just don't wanna lose to much just starting out learning. I completely see where you are coming from with your post, but I am just hoping I can learn how to count with losing the least amount of money.


Thanks again everyone.

 

[dacium]

Seriously if you start with just $40 and walk away with $200 betting at +2, you are still getting extremely lucky. Some of my friends have played $10 bets with hundreds of dollars and they have constantly won without counting. Other times I have counted and come in at +4 only and lost $100 to $200 from $10 bets.

Just remember at +2 you have an edge of about 0.5%, in other words for every 200 hands, you should win $10. What will happen in real life is that you it will go like this: win $190 loose $200 win $210 loose $150 etc. Just remember it takes discipline and along time. Back betting +2 with $10 is a very slow way to make money. As I said its about 200 hands, or probably $2 to $3 per hour, if you are lucky.

 

[positiveEV]

If you come in a casino with $40 and bet $10 at a count of 2+ on a 6D show (and don't ramp up your bet), your chances of going broke are of 89.97% for each session, your EV would be $2.67 per hour and your standard deviation per hour would be around $45. Your standard deviation per hand would be $11.53.

 

[positiveEV]

For a DD with double after split allowed, by coming in the casino with $40 and betting $40 at every TC of 4+, you would go broke about 95% of the time, your standard deviation per hour would be around $145 and your SD per hand would be around $46. Your EV would be $11.36 per hour.

 

[ScottH]

Totally understand what you are saying and am wondering more what you would do in my situation???

I would bring more than 40 dollars. If you can only bring 40, then I would wait until a good count like you are and bet 10 dollars, so then you have the option of splitting, doubling after split, etc. If you get on a good run and get up to 200 or more, then you could go for the 25 dollar table, since you would now have 8 table minimums. Then when you go into the 25 dollar table and bet 25, you also have enough to split if you need to. If you have 8 bets, (200 dollars for a 25 dollar bet) then you can cover 4 splits and 4 double downs in the same hand so you are ready for anything, and can't lose any advantage by not being able to split.

That is only if you can only bring 40. I would bring a lot more than that and wong into whichever game you can afford. The reason I would bring more money is because if you bet all your money in one hand you will lose it all more than half of the time and have to go home and waste your time.

 

[NDN21]

Newbie

$10 table and you only have $40?

How is possibly playing only four hands (and probably around ten hands max) a session going to teach you to count?

You are not being exposed to tactics and situations often enough to actually learn anything that you can use.

If you want to lose the least amount of money while ACTUALLY LEARNING to count (not just sitting at a table going through the motions for a few hands) then you would do well to buy some blackjack software. It would cost you more than $40 now but is well worth it, in the long run.

Betting all your money on one hand is a bad habit to form. It may lead to going on-tilt when you do know how to count and have the bankroll to do it.

You are going to lose some money, even after you learn to count cards. Not every session can be a winner. Learn it, know it, live it.

You have been just getting lucky.

 

[Arctapodema]

yeah, youre probably the ploppy sitting next to me.

ive been spreading 1-10 units ($5-50) and had a double down/split situation.
Even with a 3 unit bet out, theres situations where you sweat what you have out. Ive had a 3 unit bet and that turned into a 18 unit bet, which happens more often than youd like to think.And you know what? you lose them more than you win them.