Brand New Counter - $40,000 bankroll - What should be my bet spread and at what table minimum?

I have an idea for Stab. You're up big right now. Uncommonly big. Take that 40 and whatever the interest is to get it now and pay it ALL back. You'll still have several thousand dollars left giving you a sweet poker bankroll. If you can get the 40 back in poker, you can do BJ again as a better and wiser player from this experience.

Quote: Romes

Well remember I was only playing rated 60-70% of the time. When I was unrated I didn't rat hole because there was no point if they weren't tracking my play,

Just so you know, just because you are playing unrated, does NOT mean they are not tracking your play. Depending on what level you are playing, they may very well be tracking you (if you are playing red....probably not). An unrated player is 'assigned' some sort of code name or word, often something descriptive to what you are wearing or even a descriptive tattoo or something. If you are somewhat of a regular at a place and playing unrated, they probably have some sort of more permanent code name for you for purposes of tracking your play (maybe even your real name with a little investigation work).

Quote: kewlj

Just so you know, just because you are playing unrated, does NOT mean they are not tracking your play. Depending on what level you are playing, they may very well be tracking you (if you are playing red....probably not). An unrated player is 'assigned' some sort of code name or word, often something descriptive to what you are wearing or even a descriptive tattoo or something. If you are somewhat of a regular at a place and playing unrated, they probably have some sort of more permanent code name for you for purposes of tracking your play (maybe even your real name with a little investigation work).

Excellent advice kewlj, to anyone playing unrated. Being as I was part time my trips were a little fewer between. To add to that I was mostly spreading a little aggressively with red, so I hoped that would also keep me a little under the radar. I don't believe I have anything distinguishable about me other than being young, and there are actually a lot of young people where I play since it's a newer casino (hope that's not too easy to narrow down).

Quote: Lemieux66

The place with the best rules is the Trop. 6d-S17. Avoid Tom the pit boss(moustache, short hair, white, is just seemingly always there from early evening to deep into the late night). He can count and he actively looks for them. Borgata and Revel have facial recog technology so avoid them. Penetration is mediocre everywhere. Resorts has a 10 min 8d-S17 game but they're pretty quick to make it a no MS game if you Wong out too often and piss off the other players. Ballys has 50 min blackjack that have the same rules as Trop(btw, about Trop again only play the red felt tables) but it's generally empty with pit bosses watching your every move. That's about it.

Lemieux66 - thanks for the info. You are right about the red felt tables at the trop, nice S17 game, for as cheaply as $15 on a 1 table (rest are all $25) at off peak hours, but there's always at least 4 pit critters in that area, and at least 1 or 2 are constantly hovering over the games. A little annoying, but not that bad, I just ignore them, and mind my own card counting business.

Quote: stabworld

Lemieux66 - thanks for the info. You are right about the red felt tables at the trop, nice S17 game, for as cheaply as $15 on a 1 table (rest are all $25) at off peak hours, but there's always at least 4 pit critters in that area, and at least 1 or 2 are constantly hovering over the games.

What days are the red felt games $15? I've never seen it below 25 in my life.

Quote: Lemieux66

What days are the red felt games $15? I've never seen it below 25 in my life.

Out of the 4 red felt tables, 1 out of the 4 was $15, it was yesterday at around 4pm. There was nobody playing a single spot on all 4 tables, I guess thats why they made one table $15.

When I came back later on that night, it was all $25, like 1am about.

side note: , when I sat down at the advertised $15, the dealer immediately asked me, "would you like it to be a $25 table with no mid shoe entry"? I agreed (since I figured no ploppies could sit down in the middle of a shoe in case it was hot), and it winded up being a $25 table anyway.

I have been spreading 1-30 (2X) spots from $10 -$300 (2 spots with $300 out on each spot at +4 or higher) on $10 tables, same on $15 and $25 tables. And have been getting definite attention from the pit. Do you think I am spreading to high? Maybe just sit at $25 tables, so it dosent look like such a big spread? (Im also playing rated)

at one casino, a pit boss, was on the phone, and I overheard him talking about an insurance bet I took on a $300 hand, and the spot next to me I took even money on a blackjack, the dealer winded up having blackjack. He didn't look too happy. I left shortly after - before he had a chance to get off the phone. (He was saying something about, "I didn't check the sheet, or look at the sheet". Does anybody know what he was referring too "the sheet"?)

Advice?

Thanks.

Quote: stabworld

Out of the 4 red felt tables, 1 out of the 4 was $15, it was yesterday at around 4pm. There was nobody playing a single spot on all 4 tables, I guess thats why they made one table $15.

When I came back later on that night, it was all $25, like 1am about.

side note: , when I sat down at the advertised $15, the dealer immediately asked me, "would you like it to be a $25 table with no mid shoe entry"? I agreed (since I figured no ploppies could sit down in the middle of a shoe in case it was hot), and it winded up being a $25 table anyway.

That's dangerous. Playing by yourself, Tom likely watching you, AND being rated is just asking for trouble. I would totally avoid that situation and him completely.

Quote: Lemieux66

That's dangerous. Playing by yourself, Tom likely watching you, AND being rated is just asking for trouble. I would totally avoid that situation and him completely.

Ya, I have been trying to always go to the empty table, so I get more hands and the shuffle starts almost immediately, as opposed to sitting down at a full or half table and I have to wait for the shoe to end. I did see this guy a little short, grey hair, but no moustache, maybe he cut it off, he acts like he's not watching but he always is.

Quote: stabworld

I have been spreading 1-30 (2X) spots from $10 -$300 (2 spots with $300 out on each spot at +4 or higher) on $10 tables, same on $15 and $25 tables. And have been getting definite attention from the pit. Do you think I am spreading to high? Maybe just sit at $25 tables, so it dosent look like such a big spread? (Im also playing rated)

at one casino, a pit boss, was on the phone, and I overheard him talking about an insurance bet I took on a $300 hand, and the spot next to me I took even money on a blackjack, the dealer winded up having blackjack. He didn't look too happy. I left very shortly after before he had a chance to get off the phone. (He was saying something about, "I didn't check the sheet, or look at the sheet". Does anybody know what he was referring too "the sheet"?)

Advice?

Thanks.

If it's busy, you can pretty much spread big. Just know that you won't be able to stay long after your big bets have come out. A sign of counting is if you continuously change your bet. If you can get a good count, put a big bet out there and hopefully the TC stabilizes and you can keep it out there until the shoe ends. If the count goes to hell just color up and get out.

Quote: stabworld

Ya, I have been trying to always go to the empty table, so I get more hands and the shuffle starts almost immediately, as opposed to sitting down at a full or half table and I have to wait for the shoe to end. I did see this guy a little short, grey hair, but no moustache, maybe he cut it off, he acts like he's not watching but he always is.

Just look for his name tag. I was once told about him by another forum member how annoying he is but not to worry because he's a chain smoker and will die soon lol

Quote: Lemieux66

If it's busy, you can pretty much spread big. Just know that you won't be able to stay long after your big bets have come out. A sign of counting is if you continuously change your bet. If you can get a good count, put a big bet out there and hopefully the TC stabilizes and you can keep it out there until the shoe ends. If the count goes to hell just color up and get out.

Ya, I have been taking kewlj's, advice on leaving at the end of the shoe, after my max bets have been exposed.

Quote: Lemieux66

A sign of counting is if you continuously change your bet.

That is not true at all.

another good week for me. Made $3,800 playing 13 hours. Last week made $4,700 playing 14 hours. Made $8,500 in 2 weeks.

Quote: stabworld

another good week for me. Made $3,800 playing 13 hours. Last week made $4,700 playing 14 hours. Made $8,500 in 2 weeks.

That's quite the haul at a $500 an hour average over 27 hours! Welcome to card counting. It may not always be this easy. Were you ever down?

Quote: 1BB

That's quite the haul at a $500 an hour average over 27 hours! Welcome to card counting. It may not always be this easy. Were you ever down?

yes I was down in 2 separate months, and down overall at one point:

here are my records:

March:
hours played: 12
total: +$122
Avg p/ Hour: +$11
---------------------------------------
April:
hours played: 26
total: -$652
Avg p/ Hour: -$25

YTD
Total Hrs Played: 38
Total: -$519
Avg p/ Hour -$14
----------------------------------------------
May:
Total Hrs Played: 38
Total $2,956
Avg p/ Hour $78


YTD
Total Hrs Played: 76
Total $2,438
Avg p/ Hour $32
---------------------------------------------------
June:
Total Hrs Played : 42
Total -$199
Avg p/ Hour -$5

YTD
Total Hrs Played : 117
Total $2,239
Avg p/ Hour $19
-------------------------------------------------
July:
Total Hrs Played : 36
Total $13,344
Avg p/ Hour $369

YTD:
Total Hrs Played : 153
Total $15,583
Avg p/ Hour $102
--------------------------------------------------

It's good that you're keeping records. Do you keep them on your computer or are you old school like me?

Quote: 1BB

It's good that you're keeping records. Do you keep them on your computer or are you old school like me?

I keep them on my computer..

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

That is not true at all.

Nonsense. I mean EVERY time. Like changing every time it depending on the exact TC(even by fractions). You'll be changing your bet every time even if it's with whites or pinks.

Quote: stabworld

Thats the problem.. I don't have a job.. I have been out of work for over a year and a half.. and need to generate income.. poker helps but need more..

Oh Jeez, I'd read the whole thread. Now I just know the OP shouldn't be doing this. Does he not realise that if he suffers a losing streak that halves his, rather dubious, bankroll that there is no expectation of a winning streak with which he will magically cancel it out. Also, if he needs the income, that implies he would spend/consume any winnings and they would not go as an added buffer to that bankroll.
This will end in tears. Good luck: you'll need it.

Quote: Lemieux66

Nonsense. I mean EVERY time. Like changing every time it depending on the exact TC(even by fractions). You'll be changing your bet every time even if it's with whites or pinks.

There are plenty of people who change their bet every hand. Most of them are not counters, nor are they APs.

BTW, you gain almost nothing by trying to be this precise.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

There are plenty of people who change their bet every hand. Most of them are not counters, nor are they APs.

BTW, you gain almost nothing by trying to be this precise.

I think it's people trying to bet their edge. Or something like that.

Quote: Lemieux66

I think it's people trying to bet their edge. Or something like that.

No, most people who jump their bets around wildly are just gamblers who bet on gut feeling or some sort of superstition. A very, very small percentage are trying to gain an advantage based on sound principles, and an even smaller percentage of those people actually have an overall edge.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

No, most people who jump their bets around wildly are just gamblers who bet on gut feeling or some sort of superstition. A very, very small percentage are trying to gain an advantage based on sound principles, and an even smaller percentage of those people actually have an overall edge.

No no I mean some counters try to do that.

Speaking of wild gamblers, saw a guy lose 28.3k at Tropicana today. 3k a hand two handed every time. His double down failure with 10 vs dealer 9 was pretty much the final straw.

Quote: OnceDear

Oh Jeez, I'd read the whole thread. Now I just know the OP shouldn't be doing this. Does he not realise that if he suffers a losing streak that halves his, rather dubious, bankroll that there is no expectation of a winning streak with which he will magically cancel it out. Also, if he needs the income, that implies he would spend/consume any winnings and they would not go as an added buffer to that bankroll.
This will end in tears. Good luck: you'll need it.

It doesn't HAVE to end in tears. BUT, I am concerned about some things as well.

Stabworld, a couple thoughts: Back in April when we were discussing your bet spread and ramp, you posted that you wanted to play below 5% RoR, preferably in the 1-2%. The 5% figure is very problematic for me, but with that in mind, I suggested a spread that would have you 'max beting' about $200 in the TC +5 range. It looks like you are now max betting well above that in the $400 range and even worse 2 hands x $400. With a $40k BR, that is going to put you outside of what would be my RoR comfort level.

Just for clarification and to update where you are right now. What is your current bankroll? And I also want to clarify your situation as far as living expenses/situation? You have no other income? wife/spouse with income? Family/children? Current living expenses? Intent is not to pry into your personal situation, but figure out the finances of playing for an income. I gotta say, I think you have been fortunate (lucky) up till now. But if that enabled your BR to grow, we may be able to take advantage of that and re-set your numbers and get you on a path of a better RoR and long term stability, so that this will not end in tears.

I cosign kjs post. I went on a tear with very slim edges on dollar VP only to lose it back in a matter of a month. Sometimes being humble and reducing ror as much as possible is the best course of action.

The downswings will come someday, and its best to suffer through one with bankroll considerations, instead of hoping to turn it around at your current level.

Quote: kewlj

It doesn't HAVE to end in tears. BUT, I am concerned about some things as well.

Stabworld, a couple thoughts: Back in April when we were discussing your bet spread and ramp, you posted that you wanted to play below 5% RoR, preferably in the 1-2%. The 5% figure is very problematic for me, but with that in mind, I suggested a spread that would have you 'max beting' about $200 in the TC +5 range. It looks like you are now max betting well above that in the $400 range and even worse 2 hands x $400. With a $40k BR, that is going to put you outside of what would be my RoR comfort level.

Just for clarification and to update where you are right now. What is your current bankroll? And I also want to clarify your situation as far as living expenses/situation? You have no other income? wife/spouse with income? Family/children? Current living expenses? Intent is not to pry into your personal situation, but figure out the finances of playing for an income. I gotta say, I think you have been fortunate (lucky) up till now. But if that enabled your BR to grow, we may be able to take advantage of that and re-set your numbers and get you on a path of a better RoR and long term stability, so that this will not end in tears.

kewlj - glad you ask and are keeping things in perspective-

Up until 2 weeks ago, I have been using your suggested spread and max bet of $200 (1 spot) $150 (2 spots) back in April.
2 weeks ago, I have raised my max bet to $300 (1 spot) $200 (2 spots). and
1 week ago, I have raised my max bet to $400 (1 spot) $300 (2 spots). I intend to stay at this max bet going further.

Current Financial Situation:

ASSETS:

$39,000 Roth IRA ($28,000 are contributions, can withdraw without penalty)
$15,000 Cash
$13,000 Savings
$3,000 in balance of an online poker account (can withdraw whenever I want and receive within 1-2 weeks)
$3,000 owed to me by full tilt poker (hope to receive soon)
$3,000 (owed to me by my fiance, probably will take awhile to get payed back on that until she starts working again)
-----------
$76,000
-----------

LIABILITY'S:

(0% Balance Transfers)

7/18/13 - Discover - $4,000 due Feb 2015 – (3% fee – 18 Months)
10/8/13 - American Express - $8,000 due Feb 2015 (4% fee – 15 Months)
1/29/14 - Discover It - $2,900 due July 2015 (3% fee – 18 Months)
2/17/14 - Chase Slate - $3,100 due May 2015 (0% fee – 15 Months)
3/5/14 - Citi Cards - $20,000 due May 2015 (4% fee – 15 Months)

Total balance transfers:
-----------
$38,000
----------

Assets ($76,000) - Liability's ($38,000) = $38,000

Monthly expenses = $2,800
Income is on average $2,500 per month between an online business and poker.

I have a fiance and a 4 month year old daughter. My fiance is currently not bringing any income and staying home with our daughter but does plan on going back to work. All 3 of us do have medical insurance. My fiance and daughter (Medicaid), myself (VA medical insurance).

Technically my blackjack bankroll is $0 and almost everybody on this forum if not all agrees, since all my assets should be used to pay back my credit card debt.

However, If we look at my financial situation a little differently and say I have cash right now, and do not have to pay back my 1st balance transfer until Feb 2015, I would have an immediate $59,000 blackjack bankroll (under time restraints). - ($28,000 Roth IRA, $13,000 savings, $15,000 cash, $3,000 online poker account). Won't include the $3,000 that is owed to me by full tilt and my fiance, because I do not have that in my possession yet.). I also, won't include the $11,000 portion from my Roth IRA, because I have no intentions of ever having to withdraw that at a 10% penalty).

So, as far as I am concerned I will be playing blackjack using a $59,000 bankroll, until feb 2015 comes along.

I know I am playing with fire here, but this is the choice I have made back in April, and continuing to make until I have to pay back my balance transfers. I have dedicated at least 10 hours a week since back in April to blackjack, but intend to raise this to a dedicated 15-20 hours a week going forward.

Using a $400 max bet ($300 in 2 spots) with an assumed $59,000 bankroll. What is my risk of ruin here? (I know this is dependent on a variety of things such as game rules, spread, count and indexes being used) I'll try to fill in most of this:

AC rules, casino edge .67% on low limit games, .43% house edge on $25 table and up games.

$25 game -
-1,0,+1 TC - $25
+1.5TC - $50 or ($50 in 2 spots)
+2 - $100 or ($75 in 2 spots)
+3 - $200 or ($150 in 2 spots)
+4 - $400 or ($300 in 2 spots)

$10-$15 game-
-1,0,+1 - $10 or $15
+1.5TC - $50 or ($25 in 2 spots)
+2 - $100 or ($75 in 2 spots)
+3 - $200 or ($150 in 2 spots)
+4 - $400 or ($300 in 2 spots)

(I have been getting some serious attention from the pit, using this spread/ramp and max bet at the $10 and $15 tables). The problem is usually the big jump from my min bet of $10 or $15 all the way into $100 or $75 in 2 spots. I have been trying to camouflage this by going $50 at a +1.5TC.

Count used Hi-Lo (I currently use 35 index plays).

I'm getting the popcorn ready for the reply on this one.

Quote: Lemieux66

I'm getting the popcorn ready for the reply on this one.

lol

Thx Stabworld, I realise you never had to reveal all that, and these are your life choices, your adventure. I too, look forward to the opinions of the real experts. At least you have the humility to ask. Please take the 'professional' advice on board.
Personally as no expert, I suspect you are overbetting. I suspect that, because, more and more, I suspect that if you experence any +ve variance, you will both spend it on consumables, and at the same time might get even more confident and overbet more. That way would lie ruin for sure.

Quote: OnceDear

I suspect you are overbetting.

I suspect that the earth revolves around the sun.

Quote: stabworld

$3,000 (owed to me by my fiance, probably will take awhile to get payed back on that until she starts working again)

Have you experienced Marriage? You're living in a dream expecting the flow of funds to be back to you. :o)

Quote: stabworld

Technically my blackjack bankroll is $0 and almost everybody on this forum if not all agrees, since all my assets should be used to pay back my credit card debt.

However, If we look at my financial situation a little differently and say I have cash right now, I would have an immediate $59,000 blackjack bankroll (under time restraints). So, as far as I am concerned I will be playing blackjack using a $59,000 bankroll, until feb 2015 comes along.

I know I am playing with fire here, but this is the choice I have made back in April, and continuing to make until I have to pay back my balance transfers.

Wow, stabworld, just WOW!

I give you credit for your honesty, but this IS a disaster just waiting (and won't have to wait long) to happen. I guess, I inquired, hoping you were going to lay out a scenario, with minimal expenses, and responsibilities, where taking a risk or taking a shot would be more practical. But you are so far away from that scenario, that I can't do anything except suggest as strongly as I can that you not play blackjack right now and get some of these other areas under control.

I did quote a couple specific things from your post that I wanted to talk about. Don't say technically.......you have no bankroll.....period. The idea of a bankroll under time restraints does not exist. In blackjack, you can go on negative runs for months, many months, maybe even years (I have not experienced years, but others have) before things turn around. Last year, I started the year on a 15 week losing stretch that saw me 32 thousand dollars in the hole before things turned around. There is no guarantee you would not hit and be in such a stretch, thru spring 2015 when your 'time restraint' kicks in.

I appreciate that you recognize that you are playing with fire. That is your decision to make. But, again, I cannot in good consciousness, advise anything but my strongest disapproval with your plan. Really, best of luck to you though.

Quote: kewlj

Wow, stabworld, just WOW!

I give you credit for your honesty, but this IS a disaster just waiting (and won't have to wait long) to happen. I guess, I inquired, hoping you were going to lay out a scenario, with minimal expenses, and responsibilities, where taking a risk or taking a shot would be more practical. But you are so far away from that scenario, that I can't do anything except suggest as strongly as I can that you not play blackjack right now and get some of these other areas under control.

I did quote a couple specific things from your post that I wanted to talk about. Don't say technically.......you have no bankroll.....period. The idea of a bankroll under time restraints does not exist. In blackjack, you can go on negative runs for months, many months, maybe even years (I have not experienced years, but others have) before things turn around. Last year, I started the year on a 15 week losing stretch that saw me 32 thousand dollars in the hole before things turned around. There is no guarantee you would not hit and be in such a stretch, thru spring 2015 when your 'time restraint' kicks in.

I appreciate that you recognize that you are playing with fire. That is your decision to make. But, again, I cannot in good consciousness, advise anything but my strongest disapproval with your plan. Really, best of luck to you though.

stabworld,

I can't improve on what kewlj said; excellent advice. So +1. I am glad you have some non-gambling income.

Ok I do not mean to discourage the original Poster but I was just reading Arnold Snyder's book where he says"if you're not doing it for the fun as much for the money chances are you're not gonna get there". This is an expert advice if you want. Maybe the best. And it is not to be taken as unimportant. I think he is far more intelligent and experienced about this game than most of us. Yet he states this very clearly. He also says that card counting is a harder way to make money than other classical investments or work. So if it's only for the money, do something else.

He also says that the best way for him to make money from card counting is to open a casino loooooooool. You understand.

Yet as far as the play is concerned, you don't need experts. All strategy is known. If you stick with it 100% of the time, then congractulations. If not, then that's why casinos keep the blackjack game widely available for the players.

Quote: kimura

Ok I do not mean to discourage the original Poster but I was just reading Arnold Snyder's book where he says"if you're not doing it for the fun as much for the money chances are you're not gonna get there". This is an expert advice if you want. Maybe the best. And it is not to be taken as unimportant. I think he is far more intelligent and experienced about this game than most of us. Yet he states this very clearly. He also says that card counting is a harder way to make money than other classical investments or work. So if it's only for the money, do something else.

He also says that the best way for him to make money from card counting is to open a casino loooooooool. You understand.

Yet as far as the play is concerned, you don't need experts. All strategy is known. If you stick with it 100% of the time, then congractulations. If not, then that's why casinos keep the blackjack game widely available for the players.

I agree with this, as long as the fun aspect doesn't overshadow the money. You could still find it "fun" to play blackjack with bad counts.

Quote: beachbumbabs

stabworld,

I can't improve on what kewlj said; excellent advice. So +1. I am glad you have some non-gambling income.

kewlj, beachbumbabs - It seems like both of you have established respect and known for your wisdom by members on this forum. I too respect your opinions.

Maybe, I am being naive, but I purchased this DVD titled "Card Counting - The Definitive Blackjack Course DVD" by Daniel Dravot. In the DVD, Daniel talks about how, you need to play 30,000 - 50,000 hands (300-500 hours) of blackjack for standard deviation to even out and earn what you are suppose to make per hour counting. What should you earn per hour counting? Daniel expresses that you should earn between 20%-30% of your max bet. More towards the low end if playing with slow dealers and/or full tables - more towards the high end if playing with fast dealers and/or heads up or with few players at the table.

Would you say this is accurate?

If what Daniel says is accurate and using the above mentioned and plugging in my own personal numbers: I should reach the 300-500 hours before my first balance transfer is due in Feb 2015 and make a nice return according to my max bet. I fail to see where the risk is here? Also, I am free rolling off of $19,000 that I have accumulated in the last 4 months from my blackjack play.

If I experience some major negative variance along the way, I would adjust my max bet accordingly and work back up to a larger bankroll.

Quote: stabworld

Maybe, I am being naive, but I purchased this DVD titled "Card Counting - The Definitive Blackjack Course DVD" by Daniel Dravot. In the DVD, Daniel talks about how, you need to play 30,000 - 50,000 hands (300-500 hours) of blackjack for standard deviation to even out and earn what you are suppose to make per hour counting. What should you earn per hour counting? Daniel expresses that you should earn between 20%-30% of your max bet. More towards the low end if playing with slow dealers and/or full tables - more towards the high end if playing with fast dealers and/or heads up or with few players at the table.

Would you say this is accurate?

Well, let's see.

Using the numbers for the benchmark game in professional BJ (6D, 5/6Pen, S17, DOA, noDAS, noRSA, noSurr), sing high-lo and all indices between -10 and +10 (!!!) and 2 players at the table (including you), betting $10 at all negative counts, $25 at 0 and +1, $50 at +2, $75 at +3, and $100 at +4, the win rate is $16 and the standard deviation is $416, both per 100 hands (the horrible win rate is why you really need to wong out in shoe-games -- this is what you get with play-all: 1 max bet per 6 hours, even with perfect play)

All those numbers are copied from Professional BJ. What follows are my back-of-the-envelope calculations that I'm doing on the fly.

Standard deviation is the square root of variance, and variance of uncorrelated variables is additive. So if the standard deviation is $416 per 100 hands, then the variance is 173,056 dollars squared per 100 hands (ignore the ugly unit; we will take the square root and get back to dollars later).

Since each set of 100 hands is uncorrelated, the variance over 50,000 hands is 500x the variance of 100 hands, ie, 86,528,000 dollars squared. That means that the standard deviation over 50,000 hands is about $9300 (rounded from $9302.04).

Your win rate over those 50,000 hands is $8000. So, your results over any set of 50,000 hands is (more or less) normally distributed with a mean of $8000 and a standard deviation of $9300. So, here are some interesting stats:

8% of the time, you will be down $5000 or more.
19.5% of the time, you will be down some amount.
50% of the time, you will be up $8000 or more.

So, no, I would say that that is not accurate. The author was most likely talking about n_0, which is the number of hands that you have to play such that standard deviation equals expectation (with these rules, n_0 is larger than 50,000, but with better rules, the range given is reasonable). However, that does not mean standard deviation "evens out" and you can expect to be up by your hourly rate. That is just not how it works. Results one standard deviation or more below the mean are relatively commonplace (16% if the time), which, after n_0 hands, corresponds to being even or down (before expenses!).

This also assumes an infinite bankroll -- it assumes that you can keep playing no matter what, so it doesn't include the risk of busting out. In other words, the actual numbers are worse if you are playing with a small bankroll (like you are)

Basically, you got lucky and ran well when playing with a tiny bankroll. You are not freerolling -- that is your money now! Don't fall for the "playing with house money" fallacy. The house's money is in the tray and at the cage. The stuff in your pocket is yours.

The bet spread in your example is way conservative. My max bet is out at a +4 which is $400 or ($300 in 2 spots). plug in the win rate using the following spreads:

$25 game -
-1,0,+1 TC - $25
+1.5TC - $50 or ($50 in 2 spots)
+2 - $100 or ($75 in 2 spots)
+3 - $200 or ($150 in 2 spots)
+4 - $400 or ($300 in 2 spots)

$10-$15 game-
-1,0,+1 - $10 or $15
+1.5TC - $50 or ($25 in 2 spots)
+2 - $100 or ($75 in 2 spots)
+3 - $200 or ($150 in 2 spots)
+4 - $400 or ($300 in 2 spots)

Quote: stabworld

The bet spread in your example is way conservative.

This is not my example. This is the benchmark used in professional BJ. I just read it off the first page.

You are completely missing the point. Of course you can do better with a larger spread and/or better rules (the games I play all have better rules than this benchmark).

The point is that it is not true that after n_0 hands "standard deviation evens out and you can expect to win your hourly rate". That statement shows a lack of understanding of the mathematics involved.

You got lucky and ran well. Good for you. You can also get unlucky and run bad. If you don't accept this fact and plan for it, it is not going to end well for you when the inevitable bad run happens. Not "if it happens", but "when it happens". Play long enough and it will happen.

Quote: stabworld

kewlj, beachbumbabs - It seems like both of you have established respect and known for your wisdom by members on this forum. I too respect your opinions.

Maybe, I am being naive, but I purchased this DVD titled "Card Counting - The Definitive Blackjack Course DVD" by Daniel Dravot. In the DVD, Daniel talks about how, you need to play 30,000 - 50,000 hands (300-500 hours) of blackjack for standard deviation to even out and earn what you are suppose to make per hour counting. What should you earn per hour counting? Daniel expresses that you should earn between 20%-30% of your max bet. More towards the low end if playing with slow dealers and/or full tables - more towards the high end if playing with fast dealers and/or heads up or with few players at the table.

Would you say this is accurate?

I am familiar with some of Mr. Dravot's work, although not this specific DVD. As for the accuracy of these statements: Maybe. We don't really have all the information necessary to say definitively yes or no. The exact rules of the game, bet spread, bet ramp and penetration would be necessary to determine exactly what you would earn and what percentage of your max bet that would be. But I am, ok with saying yes, that 20-30% figure is reasonable.

Now the number of hands needed to play is a little different. As Axiom said, here you are getting into N0 of each game or n_0 (as axiom writes it...I've always used N0 (0 being the zero key). Similarly to the first part of the answer, there is a N0 for each game you play, but the exact N0 depends on game rules, penetration, bet spread and ramp. This N0, in less technical terms is the number of rounds needed to play, to where your results should be pretty close to expectation. I have often seen a very generic N0 of 50,000 rounds thrown around. In one of the books about the MIT team, someone refers to it as "the law of large numbers".

Personally, I have always thought this 50,000 number of rounds probably sufficient to get to a point that your results should begin to look pretty close to expectation. Until this year that is! I currently am right up against this number for the year (just over 48,000 rounds) and am not where near close to expectation. I am roughly $40,000 short of expectation and just barely in the black.

And frankly this is exactly the kind of negative run, I am concerned about with you. I mean, someone like myself that has the bankroll to withstand the swings and doesn't need to dig into these funds for living expenses, can ride out such a period, even a period longer that the traditional generic 50,000 rounds thought necessary. But when you start putting a time restriction on it, like the situation you are in, you are inviting disaster. That time restriction situation that you are in is frankly very unusual and very problematic for such an unstable type deal like card counting. It is that time restriction issue that I find most problematic for you.

Quote: kewlj

This N0, in less technical terms is the number of rounds needed to play, to where your results should be pretty close to expectation.

No, not at all. It's the number of hands where your standard deviation equals your expectation. So being down 1 standard deviation means being even. Being down 2 standard deviations means being down the amount that you'd expect to be up. These are not particularly unlikely outcomes -- unlucky, for sure, but not outside the realm of possibility.

Note that your results do not draw closer to your expectation (in absolute terms) as you play more. They draw closer in percentage terms, but that is just a result of the denominator being larger.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

No, not at all. It's the number of hands where your standard deviation equals your expectation. So being down 1 standard deviation means being even. Being down 2 standard deviations means being down the amount that you'd expect to be up. These are not particularly unlikely outcomes -- unlucky, for sure, but not outside the realm of possibility.

Note that your results do not draw closer to your expectation (in absolute terms) as you play more. They draw closer in percentage terms, but that is just a result of the denominator being larger.

Yes, I suppose your are right. Personally, I play roughly 80,000 rounds a year and that has always been enough for my results to overcome any major differences and my actual results have always come in pretty close to expectation. I guess last year was my biggest 'difference' when actual results were about 50% higher than expectation. That's a good problem to have, and I sort of shrugged it off as due to a little bit of advanced stuff that I do, like tracking multiple tables, where I am probably undervaluing the expectation.

This year's play is sort of uncharted waters for me as it is the furthest I have gone without things sort of coming together. Although I am a little frustrated with where I am currently at, I am also kind of really looking forward to seeing how the remainder of the year plays out. As my signature states, I believe with every fiber of my being that eventually actual results will come back in line with expectation. I still believe this today and I will still believe it no matter where the rest of the year takes me. What is changing for me, is the time frame. This 'coming back in line' may not happen in the nice, neat little time frame of a calendar year like it always has before. But again, in my case, we shall see what happens.

But back to stabworld's situation. I think we can both agree that it is his time frame issue that opens up the possibility of a whole new set of problems.

Stabworld,

I'm not bowing out of this thread, but I'm also not an experienced counter, and you can't beat the thoughtful advice specific to your situation, really parsing out the details, that the guys are giving you. Your situation is analogous to those many, many people who allowed themselves to be sold ARM's, some with balloon payments in the last decade. Their teaser rates and/or tiny payments during the first 3-5 years got them into things they simply couldn't afford in the long run, even though they could manage fine initially. Then the rates went up and/or the balloons came due, and they couldn't make the terms, and they lost the house, ruined their credit, and the bank had both the payments and the assets in the end.

All of those credit card balances have deadlines, on some you're already paying a teaser rate, and they all come due in roughly the same year or roll into interest rates in the 20's-30's. Some of them probably don't just start the jump then; they back-charge for the ENTIRE period you've had the money if the balance isn't paid in full by the end date. And the balance you owe on them now is roughly your entire asset amount. Your non-gambling income does not meet your basic expenses, so you're also working your bankroll/depending on your winnings for your obligations. Can't think what the movie is, but the quote is, "This has catastrophe written all over it." Today you're fine; next month you're fine; end of next year, you're on the street living in a box, car repossessed, house gone, credit cards maxed and shut off, bankruptcy looming.

Pay back all those outstanding balances - ALL of them - and anything you have left beyond what it takes to keep the three of you going, you can start building a counter career with my blessing.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Stabworld,



Pay back all those outstanding balances - ALL of them - and anything you have left beyond what it takes to keep the three of you going, you can start building a counter career with my blessing.

Believe me, I want nothing more than to pay back those loans looming over my head, and get back to having no debt, (other than my car loan, and a personal loan to my father). Thing is, I could pay back all of those loans right now, but then be left with nothing, just basically my ROTH IRA balance ($39,000). I don't have to make my first payment for the credit card balance transfers until 6 months from now, and then a few months after for the remainder of the loans.

My plan is to use the money I have now, from the credit card balance transfers (38k), and card count and make money doing that. Then when the time comes in Feb 2015 - May 2015, I can not only pay back the (38k) in balance transfers, but then have a nice little blackjack bankroll to continue to card count with no debt hanging over my head. If I give up the fight right now, and pay back all of my loans, I will have NO bankroll to work with, other than my ROTH IRA retirement funds, which I rather not do. Believe me, I know this is a very problematic situation as "kewlj" has described, but I'm willing to take the risk. To date, I have 176 hours of play, earning $21k and some change in just under 4 and a half months. I am very confident in my card counting ability's regardless of my good results that has been happening for me. I do realize you can have the best ability's in the world; counting perfect, and still run into bad swings, but this is the risk I'm willing to take. I'm in it to the end until my credit card balance transfers are due. If I lose my initial $21k I have won up until this point, maybe I will reevaluate the situation and eighter lower my max bet or call it quits completely.

I have never made money from advantage play, neverthless in my opinion to consider that it is free rolling to play with previous winnings is a very unhealthy state of mind about what gambling really is. It is not a bad thing to take calculated risks though someone should have a very realistic number of what the risk really is. It may not only be a mathematical calculation on advantage bets etc, it should also include risks of tilting gambling his "bankroll" when variance strikes really bad.
The strongest point of advantage players mostly casinos is that they barely care about how much they earn on one particular game. Even if they loose money for blackjack for the year it wouldn't be too significant to them.

Quote: kewlj

Now the number of hands needed to play is a little different. As Axiom said, here you are getting into N0 of each game or n_0 (as axiom writes it...I've always used N0 (0 being the zero key). Similarly to the first part of the answer, there is a N0 for each game you play, but the exact N0 depends on game rules, penetration, bet spread and ramp. This N0, in less technical terms is the number of rounds needed to play, to where your results should be pretty close to expectation. I have often seen a very generic N0 of 50,000 rounds thrown around. In one of the books about the MIT team, someone refers to it as "the law of large numbers".

Personally, I have always thought this 50,000 number of rounds probably sufficient to get to a point that your results should begin to look pretty close to expectation. Until this year that is! I currently am right up against this number for the year (just over 48,000 rounds) and am not where near close to expectation. I am roughly $40,000 short of expectation and just barely in the black.
.

kewlj - I was thinking, instead of looking at your results on a yearly basis, (Jan 1st - dec 31) time frame. Look at your results from a 50,000 round rolling period - or even a 365 day rolling period. (jan 1st - dec 31st, jan 2nd - jan 1st, jan 3rd - jan 2nd, etc., etc.). Pick a random day of the year, and add on 365 days to that, and measure your results there, do this a few times, and I'm thinking you will probably fall more into expectation for each measure of results. I know a lot of people measure results by a session, week, month, and/or year, (me included). In actuality, (I learned this from playing poker) it is all just one long session. You mentioned in another post you were up over 50% of expectation last year, but $40,000 short of expectation this year, i'm thinking these two extremes, are interrelated and cancel each other out, even though they fall in 2 separate years, but maybe within the same 50,000 rounds. Did your extra 50% of expectation happen more towards the end of last year?

Just something to think about.

Quote: stabworld

kewlj - I was thinking, instead of looking at your results on a yearly basis, (Jan 1st - dec 31) time frame. Look at your results from a 50,000 round rolling period - or even a 365 day rolling period. (jan 1st - dec 31st, jan 2nd - jan 1st, jan 3rd - jan 2nd, etc., etc.). Pick a random day of the year, and add on 365 days to that, and measure your results there, do this a few times, and I'm thinking you will probably fall more into expectation for each measure of results. I know a lot of people measure results by a session, week, month, and/or year, (me included). In actuality, (I learned this from playing poker) it is all just one long session. You mentioned in another post you were up over 50% of expectation last year, but $40,000 short of expectation this year, i'm thinking these two extremes, are interrelated and cancel each other out, even though they fall in 2 separate years, but maybe within the same 50,000 rounds. Did your extra 50% of expectation happen more towards the end of last year?

Just something to think about.

Ok, here's my BJ results breakdown: 2014 to date: BJ win +$8465, Expected value: $50,130, $42,000 under expectation

Now if I go back 1 year from today through today: BJ win +$29,110, Expected value: $82,200, $53,000 under expectation.
(This combined a subpar second half of 2013 and very subpar 2014 YTD).

Now if I go back to the start of 2013 thru today (19+ months) BJ win +$123,890, Expected value: $128,245, $4300 under expectation. (this period includes a massive run in april-may 2013)

Now if I go back to the start of 2012 thru today (31+ months) BJ win +$204,965, Expected value: $206,395, $1400 under expectation. (pretty darn close)

So the longer time frame (larger sample size) you look at, the closer to expectation I am, and that's the way it should be. This year is part of that equation. Some people might say it is a "correction" for the above expectation period I had the beginning of last year. The 'correction theory' doesn't work for me, because the cards at the table don't know, I was ahead of expectation and a correction is due.

Anyway, thanks for thinking of me, but don't worry about me. I will be fine. You have enough on your plate to worry about, and really I am pulling for you, but I think your situation is problematic because of the time constriction.

I do think sharing my numbers as I reluctantly just did, might help you to realize any kind of specific time frame like you are dealing with is problematic. We just don't know, when we are going to hit that bad period or good period. All we know is that given ENOUGH time, actual results should come close to expectations, if you are playing a strong game. I just would hate to see you stuck in one of those long down periods, when your time frame window closes.

The closer to expectation you should be as a relative amount, not an absolute, right KewlJ. Expectation is just a centre line.

Quote: thecesspit

The closer to expectation you should be as a relative amount, not an absolute, right KewlJ. Expectation is just a centre line.

I prefer to think of it slightly different. The larger the sample size of time period we are examining, the less any one small segment of time, or smaller sample size will (like the 7+ months of results for this year) will matter.