Thread Rating:

kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
March 29th, 2014 at 5:10:40 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

There is no way that the variance in blackjack is higher than it is in poker. Without doing any sims or anything, one is a game where most of the payouts are 1-1 and you win almost as many as you lose, and the other is a game where payouts can be many times your investment and you lose many, many more than you win. The 1-1 game is clearly lower variance.

Of course, when counting cards, most of your results are dictated by a few max bets, but that is really no different than poker. If you get all-in a few times in big pots and lose all those, it doesn't really matter what happens during the rest of the night.



Variance was a bad choice of words for what I was trying to express, so I apologize, and yes I do know what variance is. lol

I do not play poker, nor have much knowledge about playing poker, so I am going by what I have been told. What I was trying to say is that I have been told the swings, the losing periods, are not as drastic for a decent poker player. That a decent poker player, can play off a much smaller bankroll and make decent coin, while a decent BJ player needs a much larger bankroll. So variance really wasn't the right choice of words.

Again, these smaller swings and smaller total funds necessary, along with deteriorating BJ conditions, is why there was such a migration of skilled BJ players towards poker over the last 15 years. It is much less common for players to be transitioning the other way from poker to blackjack as the OP is doing and I think the bigger bankroll necessary to cover the longer and massive down swings, is difficult for players transitioning from poker.

But I will leave it to you more knowledgeable and experienced poker guys to correct me, if this is not so. I am only going but what I have been told.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 29th, 2014 at 5:23:47 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

Variance was a bad choice of words for what I was trying to express, so I apologize, and yes I do know what variance is. lol



Sorry, that comment was aimed at Lemieux, who said that the variance (in poker) was higher for a fish. My point there was that if I am heads up against another player in a pot, our variances are identical, regardless of which one of us has the edge.

Quote:

I do not play poker, nor have much knowledge about playing poker, so I am going by what I have been told. What I was trying to say is that I have been told the swings, the losing periods, are not as drastic for a decent poker player. That a decent poker player, can play off a much smaller bankroll and make decent coin, while a decent BJ player needs a much larger bankroll. So variance really wasn't the right choice of words.



I think that the variance determines the swings. I believe that the swings in poker are far larger than in blackjack, precisely because the variance is so much higher.

However, I believe that a good poker player plays with a larger edge than a good blackjack player, so the swings might not hurt as much (because you are a lot further above 0 to start with, so the down swings don't take you as far past zero. And of course no one ever wants to talk about variance during the upswings!)
Lemieux66
Lemieux66
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1226
March 29th, 2014 at 6:59:51 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Sorry, that comment was aimed at Lemieux, who said that the variance (in poker) was higher for a fish. My point there was that if I am heads up against another player in a pot, our variances are identical, regardless of which one of us has the edge.



I think that the variance determines the swings. I believe that the swings in poker are far larger than in blackjack, precisely because the variance is so much higher.

However, I believe that a good poker player plays with a larger edge than a good blackjack player, so the swings might not hurt as much (because you are a lot further above 0 to start with, so the down swings don't take you as far past zero. And of course no one ever wants to talk about variance during the upswings!)



It's tough to put the variance of poker into words. But what I do know is that if you keep a level head, constantly play well, table select, and be cheap with tips you WILL come out ahead. It's a lot more safe than the volatile nature of blackjack.
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 29th, 2014 at 7:19:27 PM permalink
Quote: Lemieux66

It's tough to put the variance of poker into words. But what I do know is that if you keep a level head, constantly play well, table select, and be cheap with tips you WILL come out ahead. It's a lot more safe than the volatile nature of blackjack.



I don't think that you have the blackjack knowledge to make that comparison.

If you can find very weak players to play against, I do agree that your edge can be much larger in poker than in blackjack, which can make it seem less volatile (it's not actually less volatile, but it seems that way)

The main problem in poker is that the games get tougher as you move to play for higher stakes. I find high-stakes blackjack easier to beat than low-stakes. In poker you often get a bit of a Peter principle... people keep building bankrolls and moving up until they get to a game that's too tough for them to beat. Most people are simply unwilling to admit that there is a game that they cannot beat.
Lemieux66
Lemieux66
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1226
March 29th, 2014 at 7:33:14 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I don't think that you have the blackjack knowledge to make that comparison.

If you can find very weak players to play against, I do agree that your edge can be much larger in poker than in blackjack, which can make it seem less volatile (it's not actually less volatile, but it seems that way)

The main problem in poker is that the games get tougher as you move to play for higher stakes. I find high-stakes blackjack easier to beat than low-stakes. In poker you often get a bit of a Peter principle... people keep building bankrolls and moving up until they get to a game that's too tough for them to beat. Most people are simply unwilling to admit that there is a game that they cannot beat.



You just have to avoid the urge to move up. My mentality is that if I can grind out a steady wage in poker I am happy. My dreams of the big money "jackpot" consists of hoping I hit the bad beat. Find a poker level you can beat and stick with it.
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
HowMany
HowMany
Joined: Mar 22, 2013
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 482
March 30th, 2014 at 3:45:18 PM permalink
Quote: sabre

OP should not be playing blackjack.



I'm working my way through this thread. This is the best advice so far.
HowMany
HowMany
Joined: Mar 22, 2013
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 482
March 30th, 2014 at 3:57:07 PM permalink
I know lots and lots of "poker pros" that tried blackjack. Complete disaster.

And I know these "poker pros" very well. They deliver pizza to my house 3-4 days each week.

sabre nailed it several pages ago:

"OP should not be playing blackjack"
Lemieux66
Lemieux66
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1226
March 30th, 2014 at 4:34:10 PM permalink
Quote: HowMany

I know lots and lots of "poker pros" that tried blackjack. Complete disaster.

And I know these "poker pros" very well. They deliver pizza to my house 3-4 days each week.

sabre nailed it several pages ago:

"OP should not be playing blackjack"



A really good poker player shouldn't play blackjack. They don't seem to realize it's not easy money like the fucking Hangover portrays it as.
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4299
April 2nd, 2014 at 3:44:09 PM permalink
Quote: Lemieux66

A really good poker player shouldn't play blackjack. They don't seem to realize it's not easy money like the fucking Hangover portrays it as.


Ugh. Don't get me started on "media portrayals of card counting." The best (worst) part of the card-counting in The Hangover was the dude sitting there mouthing the count as he was playing.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
stabworld
stabworld
Joined: Mar 10, 2014
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 297
April 9th, 2014 at 5:21:24 PM permalink
Hello Advantage Players -

(An update to my play) - I have been playing $10 and $15 tables (8 deck) with depending on the game some H17 and others S17 but all: DAS - Late surrender allowed - no resplit aces or double down on aces. penetrations ranging from 70%-75% - 75% -80% and 80% -85%. (mostly $10 tables - <I only play $15 tables if there are no $10 tables>) using a 1-10 spread - So far I have put in roughly 15 hours with 8 separate sessions using the Hi-Lo system and have been using a few indexes - still don't know the whole table but studying.

(Results) - I'm in the positive earning $652 total - averaging $43 an hour. (I do realize this is a extremely low sample size and is not realistic long term results)

I need some advice on when to increase my bet. Currently I'm using a 1-10 spread only because the count has never gone over a true count of +10 as I'm playing. I would like to use a 1-20 spread but the count never got high enough for me to go over a $100 bet from the way I have been spreading. Basically I increase my bet by 1 unit every time the TC goes up by a +1 (starting at a TC of +2).

example:
-3 TC - wong out
-2 TC - bet $10 or wong out
-1 TC - bet $10
0 TC - bet $10
+1 TC - bet $10
+2 TC - bet $20
+3 TC - bet $30
+4 TC - bet $40
+5 TC - bet $50
+6 TC - bet $60
+7 TC - bet $70
+8 TC - bet $80
+9 TC - bet $90
+10 TC-bet $100
etc.
etc. up to:
+20 TC - bet $200 (which never happened)

Does anybody think the above spread is too conservative? Or should I raise my bets more aggressively? Say like incrementally raise my bets 1.5X unit bet for every time the TC goes up by a +1 TC or 2X unit bet for every time the TC goes up by a +1? Using the 2nd option (2X unit bet for every time the TC goes up by a +1) - I can achieve reaching a max bet of $200 at a +10 TC)

Thoughts? Humble opinions?

Feedback is appreciated as always! Thanks in advance....

P.S. I am still in practice mode and getting more and more comfortable and confident at the tables with every session I play. I have no fear of raising my bets when the situation calls for it.

I also always try to sit as close to the end seats of the table as possible as it gives me more time to compute the count as the cards are being dealt before it comes up to me to take action on my hand. I notice its harder to keep the count at a table when sitting at one of the 1st to act seats - because I haven't completed the computation of the count yet and I have to act on my hand. When this happens I usually have to act then hurry up and compute the count after I acted on my hand.

Does everybody usually do the same as far as sitting close to the end seats when not playing heads up?

  • Jump to: