Successful, Conservative Play

[Automatic Monkey]

Why is it that so many posters feel the need to be insulting? I believe a forum should be a place to discuss different strategies - without fear of being insulted!

I did note that the senior members at least are respectfull in their responses. That is as it should be.

I'm not a mathmetician but I do have an advanced degree and have taken courses in Calculus and Probabilities & Statistics. I refrain from throwing out unsupported numbers. I've noticed a number of posters throw out percentages which are obiviously opinions and guesses.

In this thread someone stated they did not expect to win until they've played 18,000 hands. Seems to me that if you are playing at an advantage it would begin to show results long before 18,000 hands.

I did run a binomial probability on my results. Even with a 50% chance on each hand (would actually be a 49.67% chance), the probability of my results is 0.00%. If I'm just lucky - I'm damn lucky!


-Buzzer

The sarcasm is due to two facts: 1) Issues like this come up all the time in blackjack fora, really the same issues over and over again and eventually we get a little tired of it. That's our weakness, don't take it personally and 2) Losing your money through gambling has caused tremendous pain to many people, and we don't want to see that happen to anybody. Even playing with an advantage, every advantage player here has experienced devastating swings. Every one of us has felt like giving up. Gambling is hell, which is why most advantage players don't even call it gambling, to differentiate ito from what we do.

The number of 18,000 I gave you is called the N0 (that's a zero) of a particular game with a 1.3% advantage. It is a function of the advantage and the standard deviation of results of a particular game. It doesn't mean it will always take me 18,000 hands to show results, just that it could. After 18,000 hands there is a 1 standard deviation chance of me being ahead. All this tells me is how much money I have to be prepared to lose before I get back ahead.

Think of it like a biased coin flip- suppose I gave you a trick coin that is 1.3% more likely to come up heads than tails, and you were to bet heads on it. Sure, you have an advantage. But are you going to bet every dollar in your pocket on that advantage? If it comes up tails, you have no money to place another bet. Calculating these statistics is just as important as calculating your advantage, because no matter how big your advantage is, if your bet is too big, play long enough and the casino will eventually "get lucky" and take all your money.

 

[Buzzer]

Must we go big?

The sarcasm is due to two facts: 1) Issues like this come up all the time in blackjack fora, really the same issues over and over again and eventually we get a little tired of it. That's our weakness, don't take it personally and 2) Losing your money through gambling has caused tremendous pain to many people, and we don't want to see that happen to anybody. Even playing with an advantage, every advantage player here has experienced devastating swings. Every one of us has felt like giving up. Gambling is hell, which is why most advantage players don't even call it gambling, to differentiate ito from what we do.



The number of 18,000 I gave you is called the N0 (that's a zero) of a particular game with a 1.3% advantage. It is a function of the advantage and the standard deviation of results of a particular game. It doesn't mean it will always take me 18,000 hands to show results, just that it could. After 18,000 hands there is a 1 standard deviation chance of me being ahead. All this tells me is how much money I have to be prepared to lose before I get back ahead.

Think of it like a biased coin flip- suppose I gave you a trick coin that is 1.3% more likely to come up heads than tails, and you were to bet heads on it. Sure, you have an advantage. But are you going to bet every dollar in your pocket on that advantage? If it comes up tails, you have no money to place another bet. Calculating these statistics is just as important as calculating your advantage, because no matter how big your advantage is, if your bet is too big, play long enough and the casino will eventually "get lucky" and take all your money.

Part of what prompted my original posting, it seems that betting as much as 25% of your session bankroll on a single hand can easily spell disaster. I see it happen all the time. I've also seen negative counts which produced dramatically positive results. I've seen positive counts which did not produce a single win. If I bet large sums on positive counts and minimum amounts on the others I could be seriously behind even though I had won the majority of the hands!

Over the weekend I played a number of sessions. Things started out fine - won $425.00 on my first round. Started out the next morning at a doubledeck game and lost 9 straight hands, down $1,000 before I could finish a cup of coffee. Had I ramped my bets any more than I did I would have bombed before seeing the cut card finally appear (not that it mattered as I busted out my $1,000 buy-in as the card appeared). Not to be easily discouraged, I went and had breakfast and waited for the card change (I know the schedule). Next round I was down $600 more before the shuffle - stopped (Wonged out as you say) right there. Came back in the next few rounds to where I was ahead $700. Played some more, going up and down a few hundred at a time. Did finish the weekend with a small positive (up $475.00).

I know a single example is not sufficient to generalize, but had I played a more aggressitive betting stategy I know I would have busted out my entire $2,000 for the weekend. The difference + 475 vs -2,000 is almost a $2,500 swing. I'd be playing for a week or two just to get back to where I was. It's hard to make a comeback once you've lost your bankroll!

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that unless you're extremely well funded, and very experienced you should be careful with your betting strategy. I read of some Vegas casinos who welcomed what they called "would-be card counters" because they had bigger than average bankrolls and increased the casino's take.

I'm sure the casino wouldn't bet 25% of their value on a single hand of blackjack - even if their take was increased to 1.30%.

Ten times your minimum bet probably does work for knowledgable, experienced players, who know how to size their bets and manage their money.

For someone like me, my methods seem to work. I analyse my play after every session and continually work to improve it. The past 6 months has been a great education and a fun time.

-Buzzer

 

[Buzzer]

Must we go big?

The sarcasm is due to two facts: 1) Issues like this come up all the time in blackjack fora, really the same issues over and over again and eventually we get a little tired of it. That's our weakness, don't take it personally and 2) Losing your money through gambling has caused tremendous pain to many people, and we don't want to see that happen to anybody. Even playing with an advantage, every advantage player here has experienced devastating swings. Every one of us has felt like giving up. Gambling is hell, which is why most advantage players don't even call it gambling, to differentiate ito from what we do.



The number of 18,000 I gave you is called the N0 (that's a zero) of a particular game with a 1.3% advantage. It is a function of the advantage and the standard deviation of results of a particular game. It doesn't mean it will always take me 18,000 hands to show results, just that it could. After 18,000 hands there is a 1 standard deviation chance of me being ahead. All this tells me is how much money I have to be prepared to lose before I get back ahead.

Think of it like a biased coin flip- suppose I gave you a trick coin that is 1.3% more likely to come up heads than tails, and you were to bet heads on it. Sure, you have an advantage. But are you going to bet every dollar in your pocket on that advantage? If it comes up tails, you have no money to place another bet. Calculating these statistics is just as important as calculating your advantage, because no matter how big your advantage is, if your bet is too big, play long enough and the casino will eventually "get lucky" and take all your money.

Part of what prompted my original posting, it seems that betting as much as 25% of your session bankroll on a single hand can easily spell disaster. I see it happen all the time. I've also seen negative counts which produced dramatically positive results. I've seen positive counts which did not produce a single win. If I bet large sums on positive counts and minimum amounts on the others I could be seriously behind even though I had won the majority of the hands!

Over the weekend I played a number of sessions. Things started out fine - won $425.00 on my first round. Started out the next morning at a doubledeck game and lost 9 straight hands, down $1,000 before I could finish a cup of coffee. Had I ramped my bets any more than I did I would have bombed before seeing the cut card finally appear (not that it mattered as I busted out my $1,000 buy-in as the card appeared). Not to be easily discouraged, I went and had breakfast and waited for the card change (I know the schedule). Next round I was down $600 more before the shuffle - stopped (Wonged out as you say) right there. Came back in the next few rounds to where I was ahead $700. Played some more, going up and down a few hundred at a time. Did finish the weekend with a small positive (up $475.00).

I know a single example is not sufficient to generalize, but had I played a more aggressitive betting stategy I know I would have busted out my entire $2,000 for the weekend. The difference + 475 vs -2,000 is almost a $2,500 swing. I'd be playing for a week or two just to get back to where I was. It's hard to make a comeback once you've lost your bankroll!

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that unless you're extremely well funded, and very experienced you should be careful with your betting strategy. I read of some Vegas casinos who welcomed what they called "would-be card counters" because they had bigger than average bankrolls and increased the casino's take.

I'm sure the casino wouldn't bet 25% of their value on a single hand of blackjack - even if their take was increased to 1.30%.

Ten times your minimum bet probably does work for knowledgable, experienced players, who know how to size their bets and manage their money.

For someone like me, my methods seem to work. I analyse my play after every session and continually work to improve it. The past 6 months has been a great education and a fun time.

-Buzzer

 

[sagefr0g]

Part of what prompted my original posting, it seems that betting as much as 25% of your session bankroll on a single hand can easily spell disaster. I see it happen all the time. I've also seen negative counts which produced dramatically positive results. I've seen positive counts which did not produce a single win. If I bet large sums on positive counts and minimum amounts on the others I could be seriously behind even though I had won the majority of the hands!
-Buzzer

betting twenty five percent of your session bankroll may or may not spell disaster. it could mean your session may end abruptly. but whether it spells disaster depends greatly on what your overall bankroll is. if your overall bankroll is sufficient then it is not disasterous and if your overall bankroll is not sufficient for that level of betting then it could well be disasterous.
with respect to the phenomenon you describe about winning in negative counts and losing in positive counts you are correct this does happen in the short term. but in the long term the reverse occurs with greater frequency.
it is upon this statistical fact that counters raise their bets when the true count turns positive and reduce their bets when the true count turns negative or zero. the point is the long run results overcome the short term results. most people tend to pay more attention to what happens now in the short term but in blackjack advantage play the secret is to understand what happens in the long term. being able to do that is about as close as you can come to being able to predict the future. needless to say if we can predict the future on a gambling game we have the edge.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Part of what prompted my original posting, it seems that betting as much as 25% of your session bankroll on a single hand can easily spell disaster. I see it happen all the time. I've also seen negative counts which produced dramatically positive results. I've seen positive counts which did not produce a single win. If I bet large sums on positive counts and minimum amounts on the others I could be seriously behind even though I had won the majority of the hands!

Over the weekend I played a number of sessions. Things started out fine - won $425.00 on my first round. Started out the next morning at a doubledeck game and lost 9 straight hands, down $1,000 before I could finish a cup of coffee. Had I ramped my bets any more than I did I would have bombed before seeing the cut card finally appear (not that it mattered as I busted out my $1,000 buy-in as the card appeared). Not to be easily discouraged, I went and had breakfast and waited for the card change (I know the schedule). Next round I was down $600 more before the shuffle - stopped (Wonged out as you say) right there. Came back in the next few rounds to where I was ahead $700. Played some more, going up and down a few hundred at a time. Did finish the weekend with a small positive (up $475.00).

I know a single example is not sufficient to generalize, but had I played a more aggressitive betting stategy I know I would have busted out my entire $2,000 for the weekend. The difference + 475 vs -2,000 is almost a $2,500 swing. I'd be playing for a week or two just to get back to where I was. It's hard to make a comeback once you've lost your bankroll!

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that unless you're extremely well funded, and very experienced you should be careful with your betting strategy. I read of some Vegas casinos who welcomed what they called "would-be card counters" because they had bigger than average bankrolls and increased the casino's take.

I'm sure the casino wouldn't bet 25% of their value on a single hand of blackjack - even if their take was increased to 1.30%.

Ten times your minimum bet probably does work for knowledgable, experienced players, who know how to size their bets and manage their money.

For someone like me, my methods seem to work. I analyse my play after every session and continually work to improve it. The past 6 months has been a great education and a fun time.

-Buzzer

OK man you seem to have the right idea about bet sizing, and you know that no matter who you are or what you do, if you bet too much you will be bankrupted.

There's one thing though about perceptions of winning and losing. That N0 I have of 18,000 is based on my advantage. Well the casino has an N0 against a basic strategy player too. If you're playing solid BS then the casino has an N0 of about 50,000 against you, which means you have to play 50,000 hands using Basic Strategy before you can expect to lose money.

Pretty amazing, no? Makes you wonder how the casinos can make money dealing blackjack. But let me assure you it is real, and the way they get away with it has to do with human perception. You can't remember 50,000 hands. I like to use this analogy: suppose I had you drive a half mile down a straight road, and then have you guess if you elevation was higher or lower at the end than where you started. Pretty easy no? You'd probably notice a change in elevation of about 20 or 30 feet. Now let's say I had you drive from Maine to California, over mountains and valleys and then have you guess if you were higher or lower at the end than you were at the beginning. No way, you wouldn't have a clue! But you could drive from Maine to California and back several times before you could play 50,000 hands of blackjack.

So now you understand bet sizing and how long it takes to be sure of seeing a profit with such a small advantage, all you have to do now is use legitimate counting to tell the difference between when you have the advantage and when the casino does, and you'll be all set.

 

[Cass]

Over the weekend I played a number of sessions. Things started out fine - won $425.00 on my first round. Started out the next morning at a doubledeck game and lost 9 straight hands, down $1,000 before I could finish a cup of coffee. Had I ramped my bets any more than I did I would have bombed before seeing the cut card finally appear (not that it mattered as I busted out my $1,000 buy-in as the card appeared). Not to be easily discouraged, I went and had breakfast and waited for the card change (I know the schedule). Next round I was down $600 more before the shuffle - stopped (Wonged out as you say) right there. Came back in the next few rounds to where I was ahead $700. Played some more, going up and down a few hundred at a time. Did finish the weekend with a small positive (up $475.00).

I know a single example is not sufficient to generalize, but had I played a more aggressitive betting stategy I know I would have busted out my entire $2,000 for the weekend. The difference + 475 vs -2,000 is almost a $2,500 swing. I'd be playing for a week or two just to get back to where I was. It's hard to make a comeback once you've lost your bankroll!

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that unless you're extremely well funded, and very experienced you should be careful with your betting strategy. I read of some Vegas casinos who welcomed what they called "would-be card counters" because they had bigger than average bankrolls and increased the casino's take.

I'm sure the casino wouldn't bet 25% of their value on a single hand of blackjack - even if their take was increased to 1.30%.

Ten times your minimum bet probably does work for knowledgable, experienced players, who know how to size their bets and manage their money.

For someone like me, my methods seem to work. I analyse my play after every session and continually work to improve it. The past 6 months has been a great education and a fun time.

-Buzzer

What do you mean by you know the "card change" i'm not familiar with that term? Why did you come back after that? Also it sounds like you must be betting `$100 a hand. I would recommend bringing a lot more than 2k with you. Even if you aren't playing with a advantage, you should have at least 60 average bets on you for a typical playing session. The player who goes bust once in awhile will lose a lot more than the player with a "unlimited" (meaning you have near 0% ROR for the TRIP) bankroll.

 

[mickpk]

Well the casino has an N0 against a basic strategy player too. If you're playing solid BS then the casino has an N0 of about 50,000 against you, which means you have to play 50,000 hands using Basic Strategy before you can expect to lose money.

And in reality they actually need a lot less hands than that because of ploppies and people who play 85% BS. I have been at casinos which publicise their expected edge at each game (perhaps it's a legal requirement in some jurisdictions) and at the blackjack tables they post that they make up to 1.5%. And they don't make that from 100% BS players nor from card counters so you get an idea just how much ploppy play is worth to them.

 

[Buzzer]

Card Change

A card change is when the casino replaces the cards in play.

It happens more frequently in single and double deck games. Some casinos even change the cards after someone has a big win on a single or two deck game.

This probably falls under VooDoo blackjack, but it seems that the cards are sometimes in certain configurations that produce losses or wins for the player. The only support for using this as part of your playing/betting stratagies is casino must believe in it or they wouldn't change cards after a player has a big win (unless they do it because they fear the cards may have been marked).

-Buzzer

 

[Buzzer]

Bankroll Size for Trip

What do you mean by you know the "card change" i'm not familiar with that term? Why did you come back after that? Also it sounds like you must be betting `$100 a hand. I would recommend bringing a lot more than 2k with you. Even if you aren't playing with a advantage, you should have at least 60 average bets on you for a typical playing session. The player who goes bust once in awhile will lose a lot more than the player with a "unlimited" (meaning you have near 0% ROR for the TRIP) bankroll.

Card change is a replacement of the decks in play - see previous post.

I agree that $2,000 is a slim trip bankroll for $100 play, which is exactly why I've chosen this amount. It forces me to play at the top of my game - no room to be too loose with bets or complacent about wonging out.

Prior to using a $2,000 bankroll I was using a $3,000 bankroll. My high limit play had gotten to 18,000+ in wins, but I lost two $3,000 trips in a row (actually one was $3,000 and the other was very close to it). One $3,000 loss occurred in under an hour - I just sat and gave away $3,000 without once wonging out. This was the point at which I lowered my trip bankroll.

Surprisingly, my largest trip win ($4,525) occurred with a $2,000 bankroll. Since switching to $2,000 I have played 35 sessions (session ending when I left or returned to my room - may include playing at a number of different tables), nine times I have gone into my second half of my trip bankroll, meaning I was down $1,000 or more at one point. Largest loss since using $2,000 bankroll is $1,600. I didn't play the last $400 of my trip bankroll because the "count" was negative, decided to cut my losses.

I agree that going bust is very discouraging. After my $1,600 loss it took four winning sessions to recover and achieve a $525 total win for the five sessions. My average for these five sessions works out to a win of $105 per session. This is far below the $404.49 average for for the last 35 sessions.

The decision to switch to a $2,000 trip bankroll was based on an analysis of my play. I'm not suggesting that $2,000 is the correct bankroll for anyone else. Besides the mathmatical bankroll (which you put at 60 units), maybe there should also be a personal adjustment.

For someone else it may take a 100X bankroll to give them the comfort level necessary to risk their maximum bet when the cards call for it.

The 60X bankroll is a good figure to know. Without a history of play I would use that figure.

I believe that your bankroll should be sized to that which makes you play at your best!

 

[ScottH]

Card change is a replacement of the decks in play - see previous post.

I agree that $2,000 is a slim trip bankroll for $100 play, which is exactly why I've chosen this amount. It forces me to play at the top of my game - no room to be too loose with bets or complacent about wonging out.

Prior to using a $2,000 bankroll I was using a $3,000 bankroll. My high limit play had gotten to 18,000+ in wins, but I lost two $3,000 trips in a row (actually one was $3,000 and the other was very close to it). One $3,000 loss occurred in under an hour - I just sat and gave away $3,000 without once wonging out. This was the point at which I lowered my trip bankroll.

Surprisingly, my largest trip win ($4,525) occurred with a $2,000 bankroll. Since switching to $2,000 I have played 35 sessions (session ending when I left or returned to my room - may include playing at a number of different tables), nine times I have gone into my second half of my trip bankroll, meaning I was down $1,000 or more at one point. Largest loss since using $2,000 bankroll is $1,600. I didn't play the last $400 of my trip bankroll because the "count" was negative, decided to cut my losses.

I agree that going bust is very discouraging. After my $1,600 loss it took four winning sessions to recover and achieve a $525 total win for the five sessions. My average for these five sessions works out to a win of $105 per session. This is far below the $404.49 average for for the last 35 sessions.

The decision to switch to a $2,000 trip bankroll was based on an analysis of my play. I'm not suggesting that $2,000 is the correct bankroll for anyone else. Besides the mathmatical bankroll (which you put at 60 units), maybe there should also be a personal adjustment.

For someone else it may take a 100X bankroll to give them the comfort level necessary to risk their maximum bet when the cards call for it.

The 60X bankroll is a good figure to know. Without a history of play I would use that figure.

I believe that your bankroll should be sized to that which makes you play at your best!

Even if you play perfect blackjack only in positive counts, you will still go home early with 2000 betting 100 dollar units. It's not due to lack of skill, it's due to variance. And like cass said, you will be missing out on the chance to win your money back plus profit if you bust out too soon.

Using Cass' recommendation to bring a decent sized trip bankroll, I have saved a lot of money. I started counting with some serious negative swings. I was getting a couple 50+ unit negative swings, even 80+ once. I was playing really long sessions, but it still happens in short sessions. Now had I only brought what I normally brought (40 untis), I would be stuck 40 units and had to have left. But most of those times I was down over 50 units I keep playing and won it all back.

 

[Doktorhook]

And in reality they actually need a lot less hands than that because of ploppies and people who play 85% BS. I have been at casinos which publicise their expected edge at each game (perhaps it's a legal requirement in some jurisdictions) and at the blackjack tables they post that they make up to 1.5%. And they don't make that from 100% BS players nor from card counters so you get an idea just how much ploppy play is worth to them.

Well mick,

That 85% BS I use nets me an extra 14 wins out out 33 whereas otherwise I would have lost or pushed if I had of played 100% BS. That's 42% wins I wouldn't have had. A win of another 2 deals & it would have been 50/50. I'de say I'm doing something right. But since it's all voo doo maybe I should throw on my bone necklace & conjure up that extra 2 wins. Bs may put you on roughly even territory with the house in the long run but it can put you at a disadvantage in the short term. I guess that extra 14 wins means I'll continue conjuring up more voo doo!

 

[sagefr0g]

Well mick,

That 85% BS I use nets me an extra 14 wins out out 33 whereas otherwise I would have lost or pushed if I had of played 100% BS. That's 42% wins I wouldn't have had. A win of another 2 deals & it would have been 50/50. I'de say I'm doing something right. But since it's all voo doo maybe I should throw on my bone necklace & conjure up that extra 2 wins. Bs may put you on roughly even territory with the house in the long run but it can put you at a disadvantage in the short term. I guess that extra 14 wins means I'll continue conjuring up more voo doo!

Doktor what you say above is i believe quite plausable. also what is possibly happening here is that you may be guessing the proper basic strategy departures at the proper indices. but the crux of the issue is what is more important profitwise? ie being ahead in the short term or the long term? statisticly proper basic strategy play versus 85% proper basic strategy play will yield less loss in the long run and with counting and optimal betting will yield more profit in the long run.


best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Doktorhook]

Doktor what you say above is i believe quite plausable. also what is possibly happening here is that you may be guessing the proper basic strategy departures at the proper indices. but the crux of the issue is what is more important profitwise? ie being ahead in the short term or the long term? statisticly proper basic strategy play versus 85% proper basic strategy play will yield less loss in the long run and with counting and optimal betting will yield more profit in the long run.


best regards,
mr fr0g

Sagefr0g,

So far I have quite a bit of respect for both you & Mike H. Mike was a little abrasive but he was just telling it as he sees it. I appreciate that. I don't mind if someone is curt with me infact I would rather have it that way as opposed to beating around the bush. Anyway I do see what you mean about long term profit but I play about once a month for roughly an 45 min. to an hour and a half, maybe up to 230 hands or thereabouts. I think it was this thread that I saw that you have to play something like 18,000 hands before a card counter can really start seeing a solid edge over the casino? I'm not sure about this by any means as I didn't go back over the thread to find out. But if this is correct how long is it going to take me to run out 18,000 hands playing 230 hands a month? I think that's like 6 & a half years! I could die in that amount of time.

I did want to address what you said about guessing the proper departures for BS indices. I think this is correct for the most part & I'll admit that thesymptom effects we talked about before interfere with when I should lay down a bet of higher units thus causing me to loose more money than I should have. It's not a perfect system by any means. But I guess those proper departures from watching the cards, a sort of pseudo count if you will, plus just common sense when playing the game.

 

[ScottH]

Sagefr0g,

So far I have quite a bit of respect for both you & Mike H. Mike was a little abrasive but he was just telling it as he sees it. I appreciate that. I don't mind if someone is curt with me infact I would rather have it that way as opposed to beating around the bush. Anyway I do see what you mean about long term profit but I play about once a month for roughly an 45 min. to an hour and a half, maybe up to 230 hands or thereabouts. I think it was this thread that I saw that you have to play something like 18,000 hands before a card counter can really start seeing a solid edge over the casino? I'm not sure about this by any means as I didn't go back over the thread to find out. But if this is correct how long is it going to take me to run out 18,000 hands playing 230 hands a month? I think that's like 6 & a half years! I could die in that amount of time.

I did want to address what you said about guessing the proper departures for BS indices. I think this is correct for the most part & I'll admit that thesymptom effects we talked about before interfere with when I should lay down a bet of higher units thus causing me to loose more money than I should have. It's not a perfect system by any means. But I guess those proper departures from watching the cards, a sort of pseudo count if you will, plus just common sense when playing the game.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because you are winning you must be doing something right. Mistakes CAN make you money, but in the end they only cost you money.

Let's say you see a guy double down his hard 19 vs a 6. I think we can all agree that is a dumb play. Let's say the guy hits a 2 and wins the hand and says, "I won more money then I would have by standing, so I made the right move." Did that guy really make the right move? No. It worked out for him that one time, but it was clearly still the wrong play. If he does that enough times it will only cost him money. This is an exaggerated example, but I think you get my point.

It's not too late to come over to the good side! (counting cards)

 

[sagefr0g]

Sagefr0g,
So far I have quite a bit of respect for both you & Mike H. Mike was a little abrasive but he was just telling it as he sees it. I appreciate that. I don't mind if someone is curt with me infact I would rather have it that way as opposed to beating around the bush.

i appreciate that. i'm a serious player but recreation is an important aspect for me as well. i've learned a lot from the people on sites such as this one. one aspect of these sites is that i just plain enjoy conversing with other advantage players. thats something many of us lone wolf players dont get an opportunity to do much of otherwise. learning new stuff, fun and picking up a few nickles and dimes pretty cool in my book.

Anyway I do see what you mean about long term profit but I play about once a month for roughly an 45 min. to an hour and a half, maybe up to 230 hands or thereabouts. I think it was this thread that I saw that you have to play something like 18,000 hands before a card counter can really start seeing a solid edge over the casino? I'm not sure about this by any means as I didn't go back over the thread to find out. But if this is correct how long is it going to take me to run out 18,000 hands playing 230 hands a month? I think that's like 6 & a half years! I could die in that amount of time.
..........

i see what your saying and it is true that the more advantage situation play you put in the more your going to see positive results. so playing a lot is key if you want to realize the full fruits of advantage play. here is what i think with respect to your methodology and your level of play time. i think it would still benefit your results in the short term by employing more accurate intel (ie counting) , betting (optimally according to the count) and playing strategy (basic strategy & departures according to indices). achieving proficiency in these areas with the small amount of play that you enjoy would still provide you with the affect of a positive expectation for each session. point being yes you will still lose some win some as you have been doing but for each session you will experience a positive expectation added in on those sessions. so each and every session will in reality be a more positive one for you than it would have been otherwise.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Sagefr0g,

So far I have quite a bit of respect for both you & Mike H. Mike was a little abrasive but he was just telling it as he sees it. I appreciate that. I don't mind if someone is curt with me infact I would rather have it that way as opposed to beating around the bush. Anyway I do see what you mean about long term profit but I play about once a month for roughly an 45 min. to an hour and a half, maybe up to 230 hands or thereabouts. I think it was this thread that I saw that you have to play something like 18,000 hands before a card counter can really start seeing a solid edge over the casino? I'm not sure about this by any means as I didn't go back over the thread to find out. But if this is correct how long is it going to take me to run out 18,000 hands playing 230 hands a month? I think that's like 6 & a half years! I could die in that amount of time.

I did want to address what you said about guessing the proper departures for BS indices. I think this is correct for the most part & I'll admit that thesymptom effects we talked about before interfere with when I should lay down a bet of higher units thus causing me to loose more money than I should have. It's not a perfect system by any means. But I guess those proper departures from watching the cards, a sort of pseudo count if you will, plus just common sense when playing the game.

Sorry if you find the math discouraging, but it is what it is. 18,000 is a pretty good N0 for a shoe game. If you want faster action, find a good RO7 SD game and you can get that down to 4500 hands.

Anybody who tells you making money at blackjack is easy is a God-damned liar, and you can tell him I said that. A few hundred or a few thousand hands worth of results tell you exactly nothing. We simulate hundreds of millions to billions of hands on our computers to determine our strategy, and we use math to come up with numbers like 18,000 to tell us how long, following that strategy, we will have to play to reasonably expect to be ahead. This is what you have to deal with if you want to play blackjack profitably. If you don't want to deal with it, continue to do as you do and you will probably lose all your money. And I won't care.

 

[mickpk]

Well mick,

That 85% BS I use nets me an extra 14 wins out out 33 whereas otherwise I would have lost or pushed if I had of played 100% BS. That's 42% wins I wouldn't have had. A win of another 2 deals & it would have been 50/50. I'de say I'm doing something right. But since it's all voo doo maybe I should throw on my bone necklace & conjure up that extra 2 wins. Bs may put you on roughly even territory with the house in the long run but it can put you at a disadvantage in the short term. I guess that extra 14 wins means I'll continue conjuring up more voo doo!

Well, then, just keep playing and playing and playing. There are two possible posts you will make the longer you play; one to tell us you've made your first million and we were all wrong (I've never read that post by anyone, ever, btw), or the one that your luck ran out and your system busted. The chances are almost 0% for the former and almost 100% for the latter. As Automatic Monkey said "If you don't want to deal with it, continue to do as you do and you will probably lose all your money."

 

[Buzzer]

Blacklisted Non-Advantaged Player

I used to post on here occasionally but stopped because many people were very rude.

I just wanted to note that despite my being a "non-advantaged" player the casino did finally blacklist me. They must have a hard limit of $50,000 total winnings for anyone playing over an extended period.

It took them years to finally blacklist me and I had a lot of fun in the mean time!

 

[sabre]

casinos screw up sometimes ... the old Barbary Coast clearly hated money

I'm sure there are hundreds of other casinos that will salivate over your action

 

[Kasi]

They must have a hard limit of $50,000 total winnings for anyone playing over an extended period....

I hope you send them a "Thank-you" note for forcing you to stop while you're ahead.