Brand New Counter - $40,000 bankroll - What should be my bet spread and at what table minimum?
Quote: stabworldSonuvabish - I hear what your saying. I still am not sure how you get a 40% - 20% rate of ruin? With a 40,000 bankroll - a min $25 bet - and $400 max bet - how can this be? Using the calculators - it is telling me around 2% risk of ruin. Remember - I will not be playing these limits until I have almost mastered card counting. I am currently in the practice mode. I am practicing at home - timing myself counting down a deck - 1 card at a time - 2 card pairs at a time - and will do 3 cards at a time soon. I am slowly but surely getting my feet wet at the tables playing a min bet of $10 and not deviating from that $10 bet - unless the true count gets above +12 where I am going up to $20 - $30 $40. I am currently studying the indexes.
The problem is when you say things like this it makes me think you don't really know how card counting works. That being said there is no reason you can't learn.
If you are getting true counts of +12 consistently you are almost certainly doing something wrong. Even in single deck these counts happen about 3% of the time. Rather than indexes your time would be better spent studying betting ramps and practicing actual card counting. If you want to invest in software to really hone your skills pick up Casino Verite. It's somewhat expensive, but nearly essential for the burgeoning counter. You'll also want to read more so here is an excellent free web book (by the creator of Casino Verite) to check out
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/
Quote: stabworldOk - Let me just say I appreciate all feedback and comments from everybody - especially those who have been giving me solid advice with betting spreads - table limits - rate of ruin etc. What is starting to bother me is that this thread has turned into my personal life story and how my bankroll was funded? -
I started this thread - to get advice on a good bet spread - table min - max bet - rate of ruin for my bankroll. Can we please stick to that? Thanks everyone!
I will answer the last question that is not pertaining to blackjack table situations - I have VA health insurance - as I am a veteran.
I am happy to hear that. My question was geared to my conversations with some other AP's who have no health insurance, and thus are not accurately assessing their 'risk of ruin' when considering an AP lifestyle versus a mundane job making a little less money.
The members who replied cannot give you a good answer in a vacuum, that's why these other factors have been brought up. If you want the simple risk of ruin analysis, I believe it was given a dozen or so pages back. But it is never as simple as that.... and that is what the learned forum members are trying to help you understand. If you do not want the advice, of course you need not read on......
And..... thank you for your service to our country....
Quote: geoffThe problem is when you say things like this it makes me think you don't really know how card counting works. That being said there is no reason you can't learn.
If you are getting true counts of +12 consistently you are almost certainly doing something wrong. Even in single deck these counts happen about 3% of the time. Rather than indexes your time would be better spent studying betting ramps and practicing actual card counting. If you want to invest in software to really hone your skills pick up Casino Verite. It's somewhat expensive, but nearly essential for the burgeoning counter. You'll also want to read more so here is an excellent free web book (by the creator of Casino Verite) to check out
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/
I haven't got a true count +12 more than once. I played 1 practice session of an hour and half with 3 shoes. And on the 2nd shoe the count got to +12 and I have increased my bets. I placed these $20, $30, and $40 bets a few times - while I made all my other bets $10. I hope this clarify's my previous post.
Quote: stabworldLemieux66 - You are wrong and making an assumption based on I don't know what. But, I have netted a significant sum over the last few years playing poker and have been running extremely well over the last few months. The reason why I am trying to take up a new venture is explained in my previous posts.
Ok, fair enough. However, I need to know something. Why do you want play less poker and take up a game where the RoR is higher, you assuredly make less money than poker, you get casino heat, and you have to deal with smokers?
Quote: sabreYour risk of ruin is nearly 100% because you don't have a bankroll. A balance transfer off a cash advance is a loan, not a bankroll.
I disagree. If I am not able to profit 20k in the next 25 months from card counting and pay back the loan - I can take out another 0% balance transfer from another card to pay for the 1st one - extending my time to profit from card counting. A 2nd option is I can simply pay it off from other means which is very doable considering I have other ways of making money. Risk of ruin having a 40k bankroll in a given time frame of 15 months is NO WAY near 100%. I don't understand why everybody keeps factoring in the means by which the bankroll was funded. A bankroll is a bankroll regardless of how it is funded or obtained.
bank·roll (băngk′rōl′)
n.
1. A roll of paper money.
2. Informal One's ready cash.
tr.v. bank·rolled, bank·roll·ing, bank·rolls Informal
To underwrite the expense of (a business venture, for example).
bankroll (ˈbæŋkˌrəʊl)
n
1. a roll of currency notes
2. (Banking & Finance) the financial resources of a person, organization, etc
vb
3. (tr) to provide the capital for; finance
Do you think the majority of businesses, big or small are funded through liquid cash assets? Ive worked in finance - specifically in asset based lending - my company lent money to small and midsize businesses to fund their daily operating expenses. The majority of businesses are started though the initial capital or funding though loans. Even when you buy a car or a house - do you pay cash out your pocket for these big purchases or do you finance or take out a home loan? Some do, but the majority don't.
Quote: Lemieux66Ok, fair enough. However, I need to know something. Why do you want play less poker and take up a game where the RoR is higher, you assuredly make less money than poker, you get casino heat, and you have to deal with smokers?
But thats what I am trying to establish a risk of ruin that is 2% or under. I want to take on something that can increase my hourly wage beyond what I am currently getting playing poker at the current limits I play. If I can average over the long term an hourly wage of $50 or higher - then thats why I want to take on blackjack. I do not mind casino heat - as I understand it comes with the territory - the smoke thing - I will try to play in smoke free casinos - or specifically scout out the tables with little or no smokers.
Unsure of why you say I would assuredly make less money than poker? The amount you can make in blackjack card counting is unlimited and all depends on your hourly average bet. Assuming a 1% player edge, you should make per hour what your average bet is, correct? This is what I gathered from researching card counting.
Quote: stabworldBut thats what I am trying to establish a risk of ruin that is 2% or under. I want to take on something that can increase my hourly wage beyond what I am currently getting playing poker at the current limits I play. If I can average over the long term an hourly wage of $50 or higher - then thats why I want to take on blackjack. I do not mind casino heat - as I understand it comes with the territory - the smoke thing - I will try to play in smoke free casinos - or specifically scout out the tables with little or no smokers.
Unsure of why you say I would assuredly make less money than poker? The amount you can make in blackjack card counting is unlimited and all depends on your hourly average bet. Assuming a 1% player edge, you should make per hour what your average unit bet is, correct?
There's a smoke free casino?? I know Revel in AC was like this for a bit but they learned fast people just won't go if they couldn't smoke.
So let me get this right. If you walk by a dealer in the smoking section that's giving insane penetration will you play there or not?
Quote: Lemieux66There's a smoke free casino?? I know Revel in AC was like this for a bit but they learned fast people just won't go if they couldn't smoke.
So let me get this right. If you walk by a dealer in the smoking section that's giving insane penetration will you play there or not?
Yes, the casino I play at - has 4 casino's - 1 of the 4 is smoke free. I would most definately play at a smoking table if it is real good penetration with no other similiar tables with less smoking - I'm saying I would just first look for the smoke free tables and tables where only 1 or 2 people are smoking as opposed to everybody smoking first. Thats all.
Quote: Lemieux66There's a smoke free casino?? I know Revel in AC was like this for a bit but they learned fast people just won't go if they couldn't smoke.
So let me get this right. If you walk by a dealer in the smoking section that's giving insane penetration will you play there or not?
All the casinos in MD are smoke free by law.
Quote: stabworldYes, the casino I play at - has 4 casino's - 1 of the 4 is smoke free. I would most definately play at a smoking table if it is real good penetration with no other similiar tables with less smoking - I'm saying I would just first look for the smoke free tables and tables where only 1 or 2 people are smoking as opposed to everybody smoking first. Thats all.
True true. I did it for a while, but the idea of using my poker time for blackjack is just blah to me.
Quote: stabworldThere is an upfront 4% transfer balance fee - so instead of owing $20,000 in 15 months - I will owe $20,800. The fee's usually vary from 0%-6%. The credit card company's are betting on that you dont pay the loan back on time - so they can hit you with ridiculously high APR interest rates.
Are you sure that there are not minimum monthly payments? I used to pay these games back when interest rates were high and I had more time than money. There was always a minimum monthly payment. If you factor the payments in, the length of the loan is essentially reduced and it turns out that it was not that good of a deal to begin with.
Quote: stabworldSonuvabish - I hear what your saying. I still am not sure how you get a 40% - 20% rate of ruin? With a 40,000 bankroll - a min $25 bet - and $400 max bet - how can this be? Using the calculators - it is telling me around 2% risk of ruin. Remember - I will not be playing these limits until I have almost mastered card counting. I am currently in the practice mode. I am practicing at home - timing myself counting down a deck - 1 card at a time - 2 card pairs at a time - and will do 3 cards at a time soon. I am slowly but surely getting my feet wet at the tables playing a min bet of $10 and not deviating from that $10 bet - unless the true count gets above +12 where I am going up to $20 - $30 $40. I am currently studying the indexes.
There are events that are not counted in that "risk of ruin" that you should probably count as ruin.
For example, suppose that after 15 months, you are down $30k. You are not "ruined", according to the risk of ruin calculation. But you owe the bank $20k and you have $10k left. Now what? Start paying 18% interest? 22%? What does the credit card rate revert to after 18 months? You are completely screwed in this situation. If you keep the $10k and try to make a comeback -- good luck. You are paying $400/month in interest. That is more than you can expect to make with a $10k bankroll. If you pay the $10k you have left to the bank, you are now bankrupt -- you owe $10k and have no money to pay it back, and you can't make money at blackjack without a bankroll.
A loan is not a bankroll, and a loan with an expiration date is ESPECIALLY not a bankroll. You have no idea what you are doing. You are trying to grind out a 1% edge but you are not considering the swings. What are you going to do when you are down $10k? Reduce your max bet? Or play on with a much larger risk of ruin?
The bottom line is that if you are down more than $20k after 15 months you are in ruined. So, your bankroll is in no way $40k.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAre you sure that there are not minimum monthly payments? I used to pay these games back when interest rates were high and I had more time than money. There was always a minimum monthly payment. If you factor the payments in, the length of the loan is essentially reduced and it turns out that it was not that good of a deal to begin with.
Yes there are minimum payments. My first minimum payment is $312, and will decrease every month thereafter until the 15 months ends.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThere are events that are not counted in that "risk of ruin" that you should probably count as ruin.
For example, suppose that after 15 months, you are down $30k. You are not "ruined", according to the risk of ruin calculation. But you owe the bank $20k and you have $10k left. Now what? Start paying 18% interest? 22%? What does the credit card rate revert to after 18 months? You are completely screwed in this situation. If you keep the $10k and try to make a comeback -- good luck. You are paying $400/month in interest. That is more than you can expect to make with a $10k bankroll. If you pay the $10k you have left to the bank, you are now bankrupt -- you owe $10k and have no money to pay it back, and you can't make money at blackjack without a bankroll.
A loan is not a bankroll, and a loan with an expiration date is ESPECIALLY not a bankroll. You have no idea what you are doing. You are trying to grind out a 1% edge but you are not considering the swings. What are you going to do when you are down $10k? Reduce your max bet? Or play on with a much larger risk of ruin?
The bottom line is that if you are down more than $20k after 15 months you are in ruined. So, your bankroll is in no way $40k.
This advice can literally save his life.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThere are events that are not counted in that "risk of ruin" that you should probably count as ruin.
For example, suppose that after 15 months, you are down $30k. You are not "ruined", according to the risk of ruin calculation. But you owe the bank $20k and you have $10k left. Now what? Start paying 18% interest? 22%? What does the credit card rate revert to after 18 months? You are completely screwed in this situation. If you keep the $10k and try to make a comeback -- good luck. You are paying $400/month in interest. That is more than you can expect to make with a $10k bankroll. If you pay the $10k you have left to the bank, you are now bankrupt -- you owe $10k and have no money to pay it back, and you can't make money at blackjack without a bankroll.
A loan is not a bankroll, and a loan with an expiration date is ESPECIALLY not a bankroll. You have no idea what you are doing. You are trying to grind out a 1% edge but you are not considering the swings. What are you going to do when you are down $10k? Reduce your max bet? Or play on with a much larger risk of ruin?
The bottom line is that if you are down more than $20k after 15 months you are in ruined. So, your bankroll is in no way $40k.
Can we please assume going forward - that my bankroll of 40k is not a loan and is replenish-able. I started this thread to get advice on betting spreads - table mins - and rate of ruin calculations with a given bankroll. This thread has turned into financial advice - which I do not need. I am well aware of the possibility of losing 20k before 15 months is up. If that happens I again - WILL BE ABLE TO PAY IT BACK BY OTHER MEANS". I should have never mentioned at any point during this thread how I obtained the 40k bankroll as all the posts are related to it and not the original intentions I wanted this thread to be about (table spreads - min betting..etc.)
Please people - all I am looking for is a solid plan to hit the blackjack tables given a 40k bankroll as far as :
1. Table min bet
2. Max bet
3. Betting spread
4. Risk of Ruin on the above 3.
Quote: stabworldYes there are minimum payments. My first minimum payment is $312, and will decrease every month thereafter until the 15 months ends.
You understand that you paid $12.48 to borrow that $312 for a month, right?
For the sake of giving you a general answer here is one for 6 deck DAS, H17, Surrender, RSA, full indices (this means best case scenario), 75% pen, at half-kelly:
1. See spread.
2. See spread.
3. Spread is 25-400 (1-16 is a pretty general spread for a 6 deck shoe)
4. Risk of ruin is 2.5%
For most counters this is far too high of a RoR if they do not have a replenishable bankroll. If you wanted to do it for a living you would probably want:
10-160 spread at essentially 0 (.03%) RoR. The pay off from that is less than half of the above spread however.
In a casino, if you are given a loss rebate many games with low house edges become player advantageous. A common example is a high roller who is recruited to play at a casino by being given a temporary 20% back on any losses over a certain threshold. A smart player establishes a win quit value, a loss-quit value, and hammers the game for all its worth. In the long run this player makes money.
Playing with borrowed money is the opposite. The money you lose costs you more than it's value to repay. This is like agreeing to play at a casino where you keep your winnings, but your losses are multiplied by 1.05.
The reverse loss-rebate increases the house edge on blackjack.
This is important and needs to be taken into consideration. If you have other funds available, use them, because you will make more money this way.
The loss-rebate advantage has been discussed so frequently that I will let the OP look up the simple mathematics.
Quote: sabreYour risk of ruin is nearly 100% because you don't have a bankroll. A balance transfer off a cash advance is a loan, not a bankroll.
I agree with this. A bankroll is not a bankroll regardless of how it is funded, as the OP keeps stating. If I sell my car and a bulk of my clothing to fund my bankroll, I don't have a bankroll. I have screwed up priorities, because now I need a new car and new clothes. I can't use this money to play cards. I can always choose wrong and do so anyway, but you cannot really analyze that under traditional thinking. It is also extremely true, as the above post indicates, that a loan funding the bankroll increases the house edge.
Quote: geoffThe short answer to all four of your questions is: it depends. What game you are play, where you are playing, and even why you are playing all influence these answers. Spreading 1-4 at the El Cortez has gotten people kicked out for counting before where at some places you can spread 1-30 and no one questions it. I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know what your goal is, but most counters who plan to make a living on blackjack do so with a risk of ruin at essentially 0 so they can live off the proceeds. Remember that most risk of ruin calculations are made based on the proceeds being funneled back into your bankroll. If you take them out to pay living expenses you are using a different calculation.
For the sake of giving you a general answer here is one for 6 deck DAS, H17, Surrender, RSA, full indices (this means best case scenario), 75% pen, at half-kelly:
1. See spread.
2. See spread.
3. Spread is 25-400 (1-16 is a pretty general spread for a 6 deck shoe)
4. Risk of ruin is 2.5%
For most counters this is far too high of a RoR if they do not have a replenishable bankroll. If you wanted to do it for a living you would probably want:
10-160 spread at essentially 0 (.03%) RoR. The pay off from that is less than half of the above spread however.
Thank you!
Quote: stabworldSonuvabish - I hear what your saying. I still am not sure how you get a 40% - 20% rate of ruin? With a 40,000 bankroll - a min $25 bet - and $400 max bet - how can this be? Using the calculators - it is telling me around 2% risk of ruin. Remember - I will not be playing these limits until I have almost mastered card counting. I am currently in the practice mode. I am practicing at home - timing myself counting down a deck - 1 card at a time - 2 card pairs at a time - and will do 3 cards at a time soon. I am slowly but surely getting my feet wet at the tables playing a min bet of $10 and not deviating from that $10 bet - unless the true count gets above +12 where I am going up to $20 - $30 $40. I am currently studying the indexes.
I ran various simulations under varying conditions. The only way I can come up with 2% ROR is by counting perfectly with all indices in optimum conditions such as great deck penetration, wonging a lot, optimum betting, and being completely obvious about it. BJstrat also indicates an ROR in that ballpark based on average bet. When you take away some of the ideal playing conditions, your ROR rapidly deteriorates--and you cannot forget you do not play as well as a computer regardless of conditions. Axiom's advice is quite sound. If you have trouble accepting what I am telling you, then you should also take in what he's telling you. Your 'bankroll' has interest expenses and minimum payments, so it starts off as about a $1000 less than $40,000, and is constantly shrinking. There are other factors involved that you are not accounting for. No matter which way you cut it, 20% is generous. 2% is ridiculously unrealistic. At your current level, you are perfectly safe practicing with max bets of $40. Once you master all indices, aggressively wong, and never lose the count, I think it would be more like 7-15%, rather than 20-40%. If you really plan on doing this, I'd suggest the brazen $5-200 spread. I prefer heat over risk. Getting 86ed might be a little embarrassing, but it won't cost you your retirement. I find it a vastly superior decision to operate with a huge spread than a huge ROR.
Quote: SonuvabishI ran various simulations under varying conditions. The only way I can come up with 2% ROR is by counting perfectly with all indices in optimum conditions such as great deck penetration, wonging a lot, optimum betting, and being completely obvious about it. BJstrat also indicates an ROR in that ballpark based on average bet. When you take away some of the ideal playing conditions, your ROR rapidly deteriorates--and you cannot forget you do not play as well as a computer regardless of conditions. Axiom's advice is quite sound. If you have trouble accepting what I am telling you, then you should also take in what he's telling you. Your 'bankroll' has interest expenses and minimum payments, so it starts off as about a $1000 less than $40,000, and is constantly shrinking. There are other factors involved that you are not accounting for. No matter which way you cut it, 20% is generous. 2% is ridiculously unrealistic. At your current level, you are perfectly safe practicing with max bets of $40. Once you master all indices, aggressively wong, and never lose the count, I think it would be more like 7-15%, rather than 20-40%. If you really plan on doing this, I'd suggest the brazen $5-200 spread. I prefer heat over risk. Getting 86ed might be a little embarrassing, but it won't cost you your retirement.
The problem with spreading $5 to $200 is that he will be lucky to make $20 per hour.
This is why I continue to think that, realistically, to count cards professionally, you need a $100,000 bankroll in addition to living expenses, etc. If you are an amateur with a replenishable bankroll (ie, a job where you make a hell of a lot more than you spend) then it's different; "risk of ruin" doesn't really apply.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe problem with spreading $5 to $200 is that he will be lucky to make $20 per hour.
This is why I continue to think that, realistically, to count cards professionally, you need a $100,000 bankroll in addition to living expenses, etc. If you are an amateur with a replenishable bankroll (ie, a job where you make a hell of a lot more than you spend) then it's different; "risk of ruin" doesn't really apply.
He's not gonna make 20/hr without wonging and indices with his other spread either. I think he'd make about 2/3 as much with that spread, and cut ROR down to less than 5%. This year, I'm making about 6X my expected hourly, which isn't a ton because my expectation is meager (my ROR is bout 0.1-0.3). I wouldn't worry about it. If he makes some extra dough, he can add to the BR and alter his spread. If he loses, betting low is a good thing. The last thing in the world that will ever happen in a short period of time--he will actually win what was expected.
I'd also say you could go 5-400 with two hands, just seems a little ridiculous and obvious. Just get that minimum bet down. ROR is way too high. Look at mine. My bankroll is 100% funded by blackjack winnings.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIf you are an amateur with a replenishable bankroll (ie, a job where you make a hell of a lot more than you spend) then it's different; "risk of ruin" doesn't really apply.
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta :)
Quote: SonuvabishHe's not gonna make 20/hr without wonging and indices with his other spread either. I think he'd make about 2/3 as much with that spread, and cut ROR down to less than 5%. This year, I'm making about 6X my expected hourly, which isn't a ton because my expectation is meager (my ROR is bout 0.1-0.3). I wouldn't worry about it. If he makes some extra dough, he can add to the BR and alter his spread. If he loses, betting low is a good thing. The last thing in the world that will ever happen in a short period of time--he will actually win what was expected.
I'd also say you could go 5-400 with two hands, just seems a little ridiculous and obvious. Just get that minimum bet down. ROR is way too high. Look at mine. My bankroll is 100% funded by blackjack winnings.
Thank you for the advice. I think I am going to go with a 1-20 spread - playing 2 bets if possible - ($200 max bet on each spot $200 + $200).. with a $10 min bet.. What do you all think the risk of ruin is on this?
Quote: stabworldThank you for the advice. I think I am going to go with a 1-20 spread - playing 2 bets if possible - ($200 max bet on each spot $200 + $200).. with a $10 min bet.. What do you all think the risk of ruin is on this?
That seems good. Just master basic strategy and the indices.
JMHO
Quote: 98ClubsSit at a new table, off the top of the shoe. I will presume S17, DAS. DA2, 6-decks with 70-75% penetration. If you don't know what those abbreviations mean, you need a little more reading. When ready, play the Count method you can play FLAWLESSLY.
Considering your 40K, spread 20-80 at first, then 20-100. I don't think your initial bet should exceed 120. You will not be a professional at these levels. To be a professional, you need 10x your bankroll, and spread 100-500.
JMHO
100 minimum is way way too high. 25-500 is better.
Quote: SonuvabishI ran various simulations under varying conditions. The only way I can come up with 2% ROR is by counting perfectly with all indices in optimum conditions such as great deck penetration, wonging a lot, optimum betting, and being completely obvious about it. BJstrat also indicates an ROR in that ballpark based on average bet. When you take away some of the ideal playing conditions, your ROR rapidly deteriorates--and you cannot forget you do not play as well as a computer regardless of conditions. Axiom's advice is quite sound. If you have trouble accepting what I am telling you, then you should also take in what he's telling you. Your 'bankroll' has interest expenses and minimum payments, so it starts off as about a $1000 less than $40,000, and is constantly shrinking. There are other factors involved that you are not accounting for. No matter which way you cut it, 20% is generous. 2% is ridiculously unrealistic. At your current level, you are perfectly safe practicing with max bets of $40. Once you master all indices, aggressively wong, and never lose the count, I think it would be more like 7-15%, rather than 20-40%. If you really plan on doing this, I'd suggest the brazen $5-200 spread. I prefer heat over risk. Getting 86ed might be a little embarrassing, but it won't cost you your retirement. I find it a vastly superior decision to operate with a huge spread than a huge ROR.
Ok..Understood..thank you for your advice and expertise..much appreciated!
Thank you "ALL" for your feedback and advice.. I will take into consideration everything explained in this thread... Much Obliged!
Now moving on from the bankroll that you really don’t have, playing blackjack for a living is not something that you just step into, like starting a new diet. There is a learning process, that is required. Now, I know technically, you are not relying on BJ alone to make a living, but even playing at a serious level, enough to supplement your income, takes a certain level of expertise, of blackjack education and experience that you just don’t have. Frankly the things that you are saying and questions that you are asking clearly indicate you are not prepared.
Next, when a player has reached the point that he has gotten some of this blackjack education and knows a lot about this game, the next thing is experience. You can read in books, or online sites about the extreme variance and long losing periods involved with blackjack, but nothing you read with prepare you mentally for playing day after day, week after week, month after month and losing. Nothing will prepare you for what it feels like to lose half of that 40 grand and keep playing. These are things you can only learn by going through them. I am in my 11th year of supporting myself solely from blackjack play and I still have losing periods, months and months of losing, where I begin to question everything I know and believe. And this is the part where many blackjack careers end.
Now let’s just talk about the level you want to play, $25 spreading to $400. This is actually about the level I play. I have some games that I max bet higher than $400 and some that I max lower than $400, as I base my max bet on the tolerance level of each store rather than my bankroll, but on average, this is about my level of play. But I have a much bigger bankroll, than $40k. You can play these levels on a 40K BR at low single digit RoR, which sound safe enough, but it really is not. Professional blackjack players generally play to a RoR below 1%.
Now playing this same level, I started off last year, 2013, losing over 32 grand over the first 15 weeks of the year. Things did turn and I had a very good year, actually my best to date, but my point is that I lost $32 grand before things turned, playing this same basic level. Would YOU really have been able to continue playing if you had lost 80% of your $40 grand bankroll? So despite that software will tell you that you have a relatively safe RoR, at those level, you don’t. With 40K BR you have to play lower levels.
Lastly, there is a path to becoming a professional blackjack player that works best. That is you start small. Part-time. Low limit. You acquire the education and experience as you build your bankroll. Part of this education and experience is learning about tolerance and comfort levels of the different casinos. What draws attention, and what doesn’t. And by the time you are really ready, all aspects are in place. You just don’t start playing at a high level, even if you do have the funds, which again....you really don't.
To the OP, I would start really really small and get in tons of practice before you consider playing with a 25 dollar unit. spread 10-150 and make a 10 grand before going to a 25 unit. Your psyche will thank me. Not many people could justify losing 32 grand in a few months, as kewlj mentioned above. Especially if you are a winning poker player you will probably give up on blackjack too quickly if you suffer a losing streak that is guaranteed to occur.
Quote: kewljThis thread is disturbing on many levels. A credit card advance as a starting bankroll is probably the worst idea that I have heard on this or any site. I strongly recommend against that. Moving on, you DO NOT have a $40,000 bankroll, because you will quit give up long before you exhausted all $40K. Someone suggested you would quit after losing half of it. I think it would be even earlier. Let’s really examine this. Are you going to continue to play, continue to throw out the same big bets (high end of your bet spread) after you have lost a significant portion of your bankroll. I think not. So figuring any sort of RoR as well as any kind of betting ramp and spread based on this amount is absurd. You are realistically playing to half that amount at best.
Now moving on from the bankroll that you really don’t have, playing blackjack for a living is not something that you just step into, like starting a new diet. There is a learning process, that is required. Now, I know technically, you are not relying on BJ alone to make a living, but even playing at a serious level, enough to supplement your income, takes a certain level of expertise, of blackjack education and experience that you just don’t have. Frankly the things that you are saying and questions that you are asking clearly indicate you are not prepared.
Next, when a player has reached the point that he has gotten some of this blackjack education and knows a lot about this game, the next thing is experience. You can read in books, or online sites about the extreme variance and long losing periods involved with blackjack, but nothing you read with prepare you mentally for playing day after day, week after week, month after month and losing. Nothing will prepare you for what it feels like to lose half of that 40 grand and keep playing. These are things you can only learn by going through them. I am in my 11th year of supporting myself solely from blackjack play and I still have losing periods, months and months of losing, where I begin to question everything I know and believe. And this is the part where many blackjack careers end.
Now let’s just talk about the level you want to play, $25 spreading to $400. This is actually about the level I play. I have some games that I max bet higher than $400 and some that I max lower than $400, as I base my max bet on the tolerance level of each store rather than my bankroll, but on average, this is about my level of play. But I have a much bigger bankroll, than $40k. You can play these levels on a 40K BR at low single digit RoR, which sound safe enough, but it really is not. Professional blackjack players generally play to a RoR below 1%.
Now playing this same level, I started off last year, 2013, losing over 32 grand over the first 15 weeks of the year. Things did turn and I had a very good year, actually my best to date, but my point is that I lost $32 grand before things turned, playing this same basic level. Would YOU really have been able to continue playing if you had lost 80% of your $40 grand bankroll? So despite that software will tell you that you have a relatively safe RoR, at those level, you don’t. With 40K BR you have to play lower levels.
Lastly, there is a path to becoming a professional blackjack player that works best. That is you start small. Part-time. Low limit. You acquire the education and experience as you build your bankroll. Part of this education and experience is learning about tolerance and comfort levels of the different casinos. What draws attention, and what doesn’t. And by the time you are really ready, all aspects are in place. You just don’t start playing at a high level, even if you do have the funds, which again....you really don't.
Post of the year. Outstanding, thoughtful advice. Thanks, kewlj.
Quote: OzzyOsbourneThe one thing I said that you did not is that blackjack variance blows poker variance out of the water as far as how brutal it is on your psyche(in my experience, at least).
I didn't write about BJ vs poker variance, because I am not a poker player so, I have no first hand knowledge of that, although I have heard the far greater variance in blackjack makes it very difficult on players transitioning from poker to blackjack. Seems most players transitioning are going the other way.
I got to tell ya, that it pained me to write that post. I don't like being a nanny-naysayer, and squashing people's hopes. I really like to encourage people when I can. But serious blackjack play is not something you can just jump into without a great deal of preparation. In re-reading my post this morning, I know, I come off as a know-it-all, and I don't like that either, because I am anything but. I still consider myself a student of the game, in the learning process.
I am actually not against people taking a shot in regards to being underfunded. The 'hail mary' bankroll, if you will. I, myself started that way. I began with a bankroll way too small for what I was attempting and got real lucky along the way. I just think if people make that decision to start underfunded, basically taking a shot, they should know that is what they are doing. To go in underfunded, with no idea of what you are doing or legitimate idea of expectation is just giving your money away and I have to speak up and voice my concerns when I see someone about to do that, even if it does make me look like a dick.
Quote: kewljI didn't write about BJ vs poker variance, because I am not a poker player so, I have no first hand knowledge of that, although I have heard the far greater variance in blackjack makes it very difficult on players transitioning from poker to blackjack. Seems most players transitioning are going the other way.
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.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThere 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.
If you're a gigantic fish the variance is much higher in poker. In blackjack your money is constantly under attack.
Quote: Lemieux66If you're a gigantic fish the variance is much higher in poker. In blackjack your money is constantly under attack.
I don't think that you understand the term variance. The variance is the same for the player who has the edge as it is for the player who doesn't.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThere 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.
Quote: kewljVariance 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!)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSorry, 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.
Quote: Lemieux66It'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.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI 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.
Quote: sabreOP should not be playing blackjack.
I'm working my way through this thread. This is the best advice so far.
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"
Quote: HowManyI 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.
Quote: Lemieux66A 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.
(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?
