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

Quote: kewlj

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.

Not really. On a percentage basis, yes. On an absolute basis, not at all. If you are $10k below expectation after your first weekend, then you expect to be $10k below expectation after a million hours. The difference is that $10k might be 1000% of your expectation over the first weekend, but might only be 0.001% of your expectation over 1,000,000 hours. So you have gone from -900% of expectation to 99.999% of expectation, but the absolute difference ($10k) is unchanged.

You are actually more likely to be further away (in absolute terms) from expectation over a long period of time than a short one (the standard deviation is higher). The key is that the standard deviation rises slowly with the amount played (square root of x, vs x) but your expectation rises linearly so after a lot of play your expectation starts to dominate the standard deviation.

You guys are getting too technical. The object is to show stabworld that a very short time frame window COULD be very problematic.

Quote: kewlj

You guys are getting too technical. The object is to show stabworld that a very short time frame window COULD be very problematic.

Yeah that's obvious.

But I think that it's also important not to fall into the trap of thinking that if you play longer, your results will get closer to expectation. That's not true.

Quote: kewlj

You guys are getting too technical. The object is to show stabworld that a very short time frame window COULD be very problematic.

Kewlj - I appreciate you sharing your personal stats with the me and the rest of the forum. I believe you mentioned in a previous post that you play roughly 80,000 rounds of blackjack a year and usually fall within expectation in those 80,000 rounds, (except for the last 12 months, going back a year from today (or Aug 11th from your post), but you still were +29k).

Personally, I say I play around 150 rounds of blackjack per hour. I almost always play 3 or less players at a table (always seeking out heads up play with empty dealers as a preference to 1 or 2 players already at a table), and always am playing 2 spots when the count calls for it, thereby even adding more hands of blackjack per hour. I would honestly say I am more in the 160-180 range of hands per hour. I have dedicated myself to playing 60-80 hours of blackjack in the last month and also going forward. My 2 balance transfers are due feb 2015 (6 months from now) in the amount of 12k, thereby still leaving me a nice bankroll, and then 3 months after that is when the remaining bulk of the balance transfers are due.

Now, in the next 6 months, I will have played 360-480 hours of blackjack or 61,200 - 81,600 (I'm using an average of 170 hands per hour) hands of blackjack. That is roughly the amount of rounds you play in a year if you use the top end of hands. However, when you say 80,000 rounds, I'm assuming that is 1 hand per round, but you may play 2 spots often or not often, so I really couldn't say on that.

I think my time frame is not all that bad with the amount of hands I will play in that time frame. What do you think?

Based on stabworld's finances which consist of a borrowed bankroll with interest, combined with being an amateur card counter, I find it amazing that anyone here professional or not would give any suggestions or advice to any person who obviously doesn’t have their priorities in order first.

This man has a 4 month old daughter to raise. That changes things in a very big way. His assets (bankroll) would be considered in the broken down shoe category by most, and especially when you consider using it in the hard gambling world.

I wish him nothing but the best for the sake of his daughter, but it would be better if the alleged successful counters would explain how hard and rare it is to be in that 1% success bracket club, which would take years to prove your even temporarily in that 1% club.

Quote: 4ofaKind

Based on stabworld's finances which consist of a borrowed bankroll with interest, combined with being an amateur card counter, I find it amazing that anyone here professional or not would give any suggestions or advice to any person who obviously doesn’t have their priorities in order first.

This man has a 4 month old daughter to raise. That changes things in a very big way. His assets (bankroll) would be considered in the broken down shoe category by most, and especially when you consider using it in the hard gambling world.

I wish him nothing but the best for the sake of his daughter, but it would be better if the alleged successful counters would explain how hard and rare it is to be in that 1% success bracket club, which would take years to prove your even temporarily in that 1% club.

Did you have an epiphany? You were also giving him playing advice at the beginning of this thread. Advice on penetration, bankroll and table minimums. Now, it looks like you're taking a swipe at some here by using the term "alleged" successful card counters.

The guy asked for advice on blackjack and that's what he was given. I'll speak for myself and say that I am not a life coach, financial adviser or psychologist. Time after time I've harped on the importance of bankroll, preparation, and other unglamorous things involved with card counting. Some listen, many just want to run to the tables after reading half of a book or article. Time after time I have said that straight counting is going the way of the dinosaur. Time after time I have told would be counters to really think it through, that this is not the life portrayed by Hollywood.

Kewlj has bared his soul to this forum and others. He has repeatedly laid it out step by step that card counting is not for the faint of heart, the ill prepared or the under funded. It's not up to me to tell someone what to do in their personal life.

Quote: 1BB

Did you have an epiphany? You were also giving him playing advice at the beginning of this thread. Advice on penetration, bankroll and table minimums. Now, it looks like you're taking a swipe at some here by using the term "alleged" successful card counters.

I think you have me mistaken for someone else. Please quote where I gave advice at the beginning or anywhere else in this thread other then the one post I did make.

As far as the term alleged successful card counters being used by me, is exactly what I meant. This is the internet ... isn't it?

Quote: 4ofaKind

Based on stabworld's finances which consist of a borrowed bankroll with interest, combined with being an amateur card counter, I find it amazing that anyone here professional or not would give any suggestions or advice to any person who obviously doesn’t have their priorities in order first.

This man has a 4 month old daughter to raise. That changes things in a very big way. His assets (bankroll) would be considered in the broken down shoe category by most, and especially when you consider using it in the hard gambling world.

I wish him nothing but the best for the sake of his daughter, but it would be better if the alleged successful counters would explain how hard and rare it is to be in that 1% success bracket club, which would take years to prove your even temporarily in that 1% club.

Have you completely read ALL of the posts in this thread?

Initially, there was no question raised when Stab said he had a 40k bankroll. He asked some counter/AP questions, and received some answers. A bit later on, it became apparent that Stab did not really have a 40k bankroll, and to his credit, he explained exactly where the 40k was coming from. At that point, almost EVERY member posting here advised Stab that this was a bad plan and it was extremely likely to end in disaster.

Stab has had success up to this point, and has indicated that he is not going to abandon his plan, no matter how many people point out how unlikely this is to end well. Once it became clear that there was no talking Stab out of this plan, members have continued to answer his questions, as they should. After all, they have experience and can offer answers. I am purposely not saying they are offering ADVICE, because I do not consider the answers to be advice. The members ONLY ADVICE has correctly been 'abandon this plan'.

I'm not sure you meant to be critical of the members who are responding, but the way your sentences are worded that is exactly how I read it. If you did mean it as criticism, then I believe you have made a poor judgement on the members responding, and would suggest you go back and the read the pages and pages of posts where the members are saying "Don't do this."

This is also a good time to offer up this statement to Stab.
Make sure that you fully understand you are doing this all on your own! If this ends badly, you have NO ONE to blame, but yourself. I doubt anyone on here agrees with what you are doing, but they are answering your questions so that you have the best possible chance to succeed. I suspect all, or most, everyone on here wants you to succeed, but they know how much of a long shot this will be.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Not really. On a percentage basis, yes. On an absolute basis, not at all. If you are $10k below expectation after your first weekend, then you expect to be $10k below expectation after a million hours. The difference is that $10k might be 1000% of your expectation over the first weekend, but might only be 0.001% of your expectation over 1,000,000 hours. So you have gone from -900% of expectation to 99.999% of expectation, but the absolute difference ($10k) is unchanged.

This... and many people seem to get this wrong and expect a 'reversal of fortune' (and I'm not talking about nuggets) either way, not realizing they just espoused the Gamblers Fallacy in a different way.

Quote:

You are actually more likely to be further away (in absolute terms) from expectation over a long period of time than a short one (the standard deviation is higher). The key is that the standard deviation rises slowly with the amount played (square root of x, vs x) but your expectation rises linearly so after a lot of play your expectation starts to dominate the standard deviation.

For me, it was worth the time mapping these results over different session lengths (using a crude VP simulator). I learned a lot about the difference between expectation and variance, and the effects of time.

Quote: 4ofaKind

I think you have me mistaken for someone else. Please quote where I gave advice at the beginning or anywhere else in this thread other then the one post I did make.

As far as the term alleged successful card counters being used by me, is exactly what I meant. This is the internet ... isn't it?

I'm so sorry. I confused you with Kickass. I guess I was too focused on your use on the word alleged. If I erased the first two sentences of my post, it would be exactly as I want it. I would never do that, unlike others here, because it was quoted.

I'm not offended in the least by your use of alleged, if fact I know exactly where you're coming from. You hit the nail right on the head, this is the internet.

Quote: 4ofaKind

Based on stabworld's finances which consist of a borrowed bankroll with interest, combined with being an amateur card counter, I find it amazing that anyone here professional or not would give any suggestions or advice to any person who obviously doesn’t have their priorities in order first.

This man has a 4 month old daughter to raise. That changes things in a very big way. His assets (bankroll) would be considered in the broken down shoe category by most, and especially when you consider using it in the hard gambling world.

I wish him nothing but the best for the sake of his daughter, but it would be better if the alleged successful counters would explain how hard and rare it is to be in that 1% success bracket club, which would take years to prove your even temporarily in that 1% club.

I estimate that approximately 1% of results are in the top 1%.

We have all pointed out how lucky he has been, and that it's unlikely that his luck will continue. He doesn't seem to care. He will probably have to go broke a few times before he understands.

Ok, had my worst and best session within a 48 hour period in the last 5 months. In 1 session, out of 15 max bets, lost 13, pushed 2 and won 1 with a blackjack -$2,900 in 20 minutes. That hurt. But the next day, had an extremely good session, won 70%-80% of my max bets, with a lot of double downs and a few blackjacks, made 4k in 20 minutes: was heads up with the dealer, the shoe stayed between a +4 and +5 for over 40% of the dealt shoe. Crazy, the swings in this game.

Was wondering if anybody had some insight, into typically how many hours would a casino realize your a counter and label you an advantage player and "flat bet" or "ban" you, by the amount of "hours" of logged play one would have; and compare it with your win rate? I have been trying to rathole as many chips as possible to keep my win rate down, but its hard to do on the graveyard shifts, when I'm the only player in the whole pit playing, I do it mostly on the day and night shifts, with more people playing.

I ask the above question, because, I have been playing rated so far at just about 95% of my play in the last month and half I have been playing down in AC. I got free rooms in just about every casino hotel (with some weekends) other than the Revel, which is nice, but I want to have longevity there without getting identified as an advantage player.

I remember a pit boss explaining to me: something they take into consideration when issuing comps is: taking your average bet, and calculating your "theoretical loss" according to the game. I would imagine they use the same formula to determine if you are a card counter over a certain amount of time or hours played.

Also, something that has been running through my head, is if properties who have multiple casino's or sister properties, like the "total rewards" or "trump casinos" communicate with each other, and tally your results as a whole in "ALL" their casino's.

Very interesting reading. Thanks for sharing and being honest.

I'll add to the unwanted advice, but from the poker side.

The only way you could have maxed your potential playing at these levels is if you were an idiot. It's clear that you are not an idiot.

If you need stimulation, I'd subscribe to a training site. It will sort of turn your poker brain back on. I highly recommend Crush Live Poker. Also, you are giving up a lot of ev playing in small tourneys. As bad as tourney players are, your edge is still much bigger in cash. And the juice is really hard to overcome in small tourneys. If you need more money, that's a very big and super easy leak to plug.

Assuming you have reasonable emotional control, you should be able to beat 2/5 for $30/hr with some work. Maybe more. If you play a very focused, tight aggressive style, you'll have a lot less chance of going broke than with BJ, based on what all these experienced, smart BJ players are saying. I've gone through lulls too when the game is just boring to me. The solution is to reengage it on fresh terms, thinking about stuff you didn't used to consider. For example, you could just focus on getting great at physical reads or in perfecting your 3betting. Have you tried all of the good material on mental game? Some of that stuff will improve your whole life.

I get the desire to branch out. I do some sports betting on the side but, it's kind of the same deal. I don't have the BR to really attack sports, even though I can beat it. So, for now, it's just a little hobby.

I know I can grind NL, pay the bills and slowly build my roll as I gain experience in other areas. That way, I can ease into sports and, by the time I'm betting big, I'll be ready to do so.

Since you know you are "playing with fire" why not use this approach and not play with fire? Especially since you were lucky enough to capture 10 2/5 buy ins on this adventure.

Quote: stabworld

Was wondering if anybody had some insight, into typically how many hours would a casino realize your a counter and label you an advantage player and "flat bet" or "ban" you, by the amount of "hours" of logged play one would have; and compare it with your win rate? I have been trying to rathole as many chips as possible to keep my win rate down, but its hard to do on the graveyard shifts, when I'm the only player in the whole pit playing, I do it mostly on the day and night shifts, with more people playing.

I ask the above question, because, I have been playing rated so far at just about 95% of my play in the last month and half I have been playing down in AC. I got free rooms in just about every casino hotel (with some weekends) other than the Revel, which is nice, but I want to have longevity there without getting identified as an advantage player.

I remember a pit boss explaining to me: something they take into consideration when issuing comps is: taking your average bet, and calculating your "theoretical loss" according to the game. I would imagine they use the same formula to determine if you are a card counter over a certain amount of time or hours played.

Also, something that has been running through my head, is if properties who have multiple casino's or sister properties, like the "total rewards" or "trump casinos" communicate with each other, and tally your results as a whole in "ALL" their casino's.

There's really no set hours on a casino flat betting or backing you off. Basically when they find out you're a counter, if you were using your card, you can't use it anymore. They'll flag your account and either get flat bet or backed off non stop, at all of that card's properties. I would assume from your previous post about losing 13 BB resulting in ~-$2800 losses that you're a red chipper? If you're spreading like 1-16 (10-160 for example) that would be in the ballpark. Thus, if you're a red chipper you have less to worry about. Note that I did not say you have nothing to worry about, but none the less a lot of casino's aren't that hell bent on catching red chip card counters.

Being that you play mostly rated, it's a good thing you're ratholing as much as possible. If you do this properly/enough you can keep yourself under the radar fairly well. I'm part time but the main casino I play at (100% rated) had me down for a slight loss last year when I was actually up ~1,000 units! That was actually quite a surprise to me because I knew they'd be off, but I did not expect them to be off that much (and my records show they are =p). Again, at the red level if you're ratholing properly you should get 'some' longevity. A big help is to check you win/loss statement at the end of the year to see how each casino evaluated your rated play. This is huge because it's your way of finding out something important they know! If you win every year for a few years in a row with regular weekly play, 'maybe' they'll notice that and do something about it even if you're a red chipper. However, even with this you have several years and the added benefit that they may or may not even be concerned with anyone's average bet under $25.

The PB was actually telling you correctly. Usually for comps it's something like 20-30% of your theoretical losses. Most places I've seen/heard they round up to ~1% because so many people don't even play basic strategy. This is one reason why this system doesn't flag you necessarily as a counter. Also, this leverages your average bet, not your spread, so again I wouldn't think this would be an accurate way to 'catch' a counter. So if you know your average bet, their theoretical ~1% disadvantage, and your hours of play, you should be able to figure out your 20-30% comp rate per hour =).

Finally, as I kind of hinted towards earlier, yes, all of the casino's and their 'sister' properties share information. When you have a Total Rewards card, for example, you can play in AC, Vegas, etc, and as long as you're at a property where you're using the same card, it's all stored in a centralized database separate from the individual casinos. Essentially it doesn't matter where you're playing when you're playing within the same network. So don't think that when you take a road trip and still use your card they don't know anything about you. They know whatever notes are associated with your card.

Hope this helps.

Quote: Romes

There's really no set hours on a casino flat betting or backing you off. Basically when they find out you're a counter, if you were using your card, you can't use it anymore. They'll flag your account and either get flat bet or backed off non stop, at all of that card's properties. I would assume from your previous post about losing 13 BB resulting in ~-$2800 losses that you're a red chipper? If you're spreading like 1-16 (10-160 for example) that would be in the ballpark. Thus, if you're a red chipper you have less to worry about. Note that I did not say you have nothing to worry about, but none the less a lot of casino's aren't that hell bent on catching red chip card counters.

Being that you play mostly rated, it's a good thing you're ratholing as much as possible. If you do this properly/enough you can keep yourself under the radar fairly well. I'm part time but the main casino I play at (100% rated) had me down for a slight loss last year when I was actually up ~1,000 units! That was actually quite a surprise to me because I knew they'd be off, but I did not expect them to be off that much (and my records show they are =p). Again, at the red level if you're ratholing properly you should get 'some' longevity. A big help is to check you win/loss statement at the end of the year to see how each casino evaluated your rated play. This is huge because it's your way of finding out something important they know! If you win every year for a few years in a row with regular weekly play, 'maybe' they'll notice that and do something about it even if you're a red chipper. However, even with this you have several years and the added benefit that they may or may not even be concerned with anyone's average bet under $25.

The PB was actually telling you correctly. Usually for comps it's something like 20-30% of your theoretical losses. Most places I've seen/heard they round up to ~1% because so many people don't even play basic strategy. This is one reason why this system doesn't flag you necessarily as a counter. Also, this leverages your average bet, not your spread, so again I wouldn't think this would be an accurate way to 'catch' a counter. So if you know your average bet, their theoretical ~1% disadvantage, and your hours of play, you should be able to figure out your 20-30% comp rate per hour =).

Finally, as I kind of hinted towards earlier, yes, all of the casino's and their 'sister' properties share information. When you have a Total Rewards card, for example, you can play in AC, Vegas, etc, and as long as you're at a property where you're using the same card, it's all stored in a centralized database separate from the individual casinos. Essentially it doesn't matter where you're playing when you're playing within the same network. So don't think that when you take a road trip and still use your card they don't know anything about you. They know whatever notes are associated with your card.

Hope this helps.

Cool. Thanks for your input. I spread 1-30, 1-20, 1-12, and 1-6 (2 spots) respectively (depending if i'm playing a $10, $15, $25, or <$50 double deck> table.) $300 max bets (2 spots) regardless of table. I guess my average bet would be between $25 - $50.

I have already been flat-betted at 1 casino after roughly 80 hours of rated play. (not a casino in AC)

Quote: stabworld

Cool. Thanks for your input. I spread 1-30, 1-20, 1-12, and 1-6 (2 spots) respectively (depending if i'm playing a $10, $15, $25, or <$50 double deck> table.) $300 max bets (2 spots) regardless of table. I guess my average bet would be between $25 - $50.

I have already been flat-betted at 1 casino after roughly 80 hours of rated play. (not a casino in AC)

Those are some nice healthy spreads =p. Only you can sense the heat you get from each of them live though. As long as you can get away with it, with little heat, then spread away! You're probably about spot on for your average bet. If you're mostly betting min at any table you're at when TC < 2 then most casino's "probably" would have your average bet near the table min. So for a quick average (which isn't exactly accurate because what if you don't play all these diff levels at all the diff casinos) it would appear your average bet is ~(10+15+25+50)/4 ~= $25. Again, if a PB see's you spreading bigger and actually records it, you might be higher.

I hope your average bet isn't over 1-2% of your bankroll (Kelly) =).

Quote: stabworld

Ok, had my worst and best session.

So Far!... It's early days in your BJ career. There will be days and weeks when it will be far, far worse. Maybe not an unusual run of successive losses, maybe a relentless but steady stream of them. If you end your year significantly lucky and ahead, I suggest your bravado will destroy you, because you will have SO much faith in your skill.

Mind you, spreading your bets so wide, I suspect you will see the opportunities slip away soon.

Good luck to you and to your family. They will need it.

Quote: OnceDear

So Far!... It's early days in your BJ career. There will be days and weeks when it will be far, far worse. Maybe not an unusual run of successive losses, maybe a relentless but steady stream of them. If you end your year significantly lucky and ahead, I suggest your bravado will destroy you, because you will have SO much faith in your skill.

Mind you, spreading your bets so wide, I suspect you will see the opportunities slip away soon.

Good luck to you and to your family. They will need it.

I actually think that you can get away with an absolutely massive bet spread if you have the right act (this may be easier at higher limits). I have seen more than one player jump from one or two black chips on one hand to several thousand dollars on the next. One guy in particular comes to mind -- his betting was all over the place. The thing is, it fit. The guy was an erratic high roller. Everything about him was erratic. His betting fit right in with his personality. He was also a bit of a jerk and was breaking rules left, right, and center. Touching the (face-up) cards, for example -- no admonition from the dealer or the pit. Saved me a large bet, too, but that's another story.

He was definitely not betting based on the count. As far as I could tell, he was not an AP (although he may have had some play that I did not catch). I think he just had more money than sanity.

You are definitely right about the over-confidence though. It is easy to think that running well will continue forever. It will not. There will be times when you would kill just to have a session that matches your EV. Save your money from the good runs; you will need it when you start to run bad.

" I don't have the BR to really attack sports, even though I can beat it. " gee, that sounds familiar !

Quote: Buzzard

" I don't have the BR to really attack sports, even though I can beat it. " gee, that sounds familiar !

lol...

The thing about sports is that you can bet whatever you want. You get the same odds on a $10 bet as you get on a $10k bet. It all scales perfectly. You don't need a bankroll to beat it; you just need to scale your bets accordingly.

Give me a 58% hit rate on the -110 bets, and I'll take $500 to the moon. To the Moon, Alice!

Quote: thecesspit

Give me a 58% hit rate on the -110 bets, and I'll take $500 to the moon. To the Moon, Alice!

Wow, another old memory! Anybody?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TC3kqFUmqQ

Jackie Gleason insisted on long shots so people could see him actually make the shots. He was a pretty good player. Newman never held a cue before this pix. The stake holder in the movie named Willie was Willie Mosconi. He made Newman's shots. I racked for Willie Mosconi 2 years before this pix 1959. Could bought his book for $1.99 and had him autograph it. I was just a dumb kid, I guess

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

lol...

The thing about sports is that you can bet whatever you want. You get the same odds on a $10 bet as you get on a $10k bet. It all scales perfectly. You don't need a bankroll to beat it; you just need to scale your bets accordingly.

True, as I believe I observed on my other post.

However, you do need a relatively large BR to live off sports betting (I've heard $50k at an absolute minimum), which, according to other posts, is also true of BJ. Also, the main sport I bet on is not always going, or offering something I like, which also seems to effectively happen in BJ.

My nlhe hourly is much higher than my sports betting hourly. If I ever get to the point where I can bet 10k a game, that will no longer be the case. Obviously, poker gets harder as you move up so you will hit your ceiling at some point. On the other hand, poker opportunities are pretty much constant, so you can put in as many hours as you want at about the same rate.

Therefore, if you are a winning poker player and can beat sports or BJ or something, it makes sense to do so on the side for small money, so that you will have lots of experience should you build the BR needed for betting big money.

You can play 2/5 with a 20k BR pretty safely if you are good and use the right style.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Therefore, if you are a winning poker player and can beat sports or BJ or something, it makes sense to do so on the side for small money, so that you will have lots of experience should you build the BR needed for betting big money.

The blackjack part of this statement can be problematic. Starting small, playing low limit, while building your bankroll at the same time, is the natural progression. It is the way I did it. You gain that education or experience that is so important as you go and by the time you have the bankroll to bet bigger, you have the knowledge to go along with it. I have seen players jump in with a bigger bankroll, and just not know what they are doing, nor be able to handle the swings involved, because they didn't get that experience required.

But, there is a very real negative to this path. Blackjack is different than poker and sport betting because you can wear out your welcome. If you start small, playing low stakes, by the time you raise the bankroll necessary to play higher stakes, you may have 'burned out' your name and face. This is especially true if you only have limited games in your rotation.

The usual way this will play out is that the casinos you are playing at low stakes, are tolerant of your low stakes action, especially early on, when your game wasn't very strong. So then you build your bankroll and move up in stakes expecting that same tolerance, but all of the sudden they are no longer tolerant at this higher level. They already know you and your game, so they just close the door. You lose out on that 'getting to know you' period, when you try to hide what you are doing or fly under the radar.

This is exactly what happened to me in Atlantic City, where I played red level for 4 years, before moving to green to black. As soon as I moved up to green things changed. I started receiving much more heat from the same pit folks that had been very tolerant of my play for years. Half-shoeings and bet restrictions, which Atlantic City style (at least at that time) was to pull out a card stating minimum bet $5, maximum bet $50, which applied only to you. Didn't matter that it was a $25 or $50 table....You had your own special minimums and maximums. I quickly realized I needed to start over some place else, with a much larger rotation of stores than I had in AC to preserve any kind of longevity.

Quote: kewlj

The blackjack part of this statement can be problematic. Starting small, playing low limit, while building your bankroll at the same time, is the natural progression. It is the way I did it. You gain that education or experience that is so important as you go and by the time you have the bankroll to bet bigger, you have the knowledge to go along with it. I have seen players jump in with a bigger bankroll, and just not know what they are doing, nor be able to handle the swings involved, because they didn't get that experience required.

But, there is a very real negative to this path. Blackjack is different than poker and sport betting because you can wear out your welcome. If you start small, playing low stakes, by the time you raise the bankroll necessary to play higher stakes, you may have 'burned out' your name and face. This is especially true if you only have limited games in your rotation.

The usual way this will play out is that the casinos you are playing at low stakes, are tolerant of your low stakes action, especially early on, when your game wasn't very strong. So then you build your bankroll and move up in stakes expecting that same tolerance, but all of the sudden they are no longer tolerant at this higher level. They already know you and your game, so they just close the door. You lose out on that 'getting to know you' period, when you try to hide what you are doing or fly under the radar.

This is exactly what happened to me in Atlantic City, where I played red level for 4 years, before moving to green to black. As soon as I moved up to green things changed. I started receiving much more heat from the same pit folks that had been very tolerant of my play for years. Half-shoeings and bet restrictions, which Atlantic City style (at least at that time) was to pull out a card stating minimum bet $5, maximum bet $50, which applied only to you. Didn't matter that it was a $25 or $50 table....You had your own special minimums and maximums. I quickly realized I needed to start over some place else, with a much larger rotation of stores than I had in AC to preserve any kind of longevity.

kewlj - did you play rated when you played in AC? I notice 50% of the casino's in AC, will restrict you to playing 1 spot and 10X the table min as a bet. Was this the playing conditions back when you were playing in AC?

update to my play:

Just had a horrible week in AC. -$8,000 in 12 hours of play. Had multiple $1,000 - $2,000 session losses, with 2 winning sessions, neighter of them over $200. Plus I ran into a situation where I didn't have enough max bets left in my immediate bankroll at the table (I left 5k in the car) so instead of putting out my max bets at a high count I had to lower my bet to around half that to allow for backup double down and split bets. It cost me money because I won the majority of those half bets, about 5 or 6 of them. Probably cost me between $500 - $1,000. That is going to be the first and last time this happens, I'm gonna keep my back up money in my sock from now on. down 5k for the month of August. Not a good feeling when on the downswing. But, emotionally I'm handling it ok.

Quote: stabworld

update to my play:

Just had a horrible week in AC. -$8,000 in 12 hours of play. Had multiple $1,000 - $2,000 session losses, with 2 winning sessions, neighter of them over $200. Plus I ran into a situation where I didn't have enough max bets left in my immediate bankroll at the table (I left 5k in the car) so instead of putting out my max bets at a high count I had to lower my bet to around half that to allow for backup double down and split bets. It cost me money because I won the majority of those half bets, about 5 or 6 of them. Probably cost me between $500 - $1,000. That is going to be the first and last time this happens, I'm gonna keep my back up money in my sock from now on. down 5k for the month of August. Not a good feeling when on the downswing. But, emotionally I'm handling it ok.

Let me get this out of the way first. Atlantic City is not the best place to play blackjack. It just isn't. Although it stings to lose, 12 hours of play is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It's such a small sample.

At the beginning of this thread, less than six months ago, you said you were new to counting so I have to ask. How is your counting? Are there any leaks that have to be plugged? Do you drop the count? You don't have to answer but please give it some thought. This is you being honest with yourself.

Counting is more than plus 1 minus 1. That's the easy part. Game selection is important. Even among all the poor games in AC, some will be better than others. Good penetration can overcome a lot and finding it can require some leg work, not to mention patience. How's your index play? Wonging? Do you seek empty tables?

I realize that you've heard all this before but it's important to reiterate. AC blackjack can be beaten but you must know what you're up against and you must always bring your A game, especially to this city. You need every tool in your arsenal.

Here's wishing you much better cards!

Quote: stabworld

kewlj - did you play rated when you played in AC? I notice 50% of the casino's in AC, will restrict you to playing 1 spot and 10X the table min as a bet. Was this the playing conditions back when you were playing in AC?

I did play at least 50% of my play rated. I needed the comped rooms, so I didn't have to travel back and forth from Philadelphia everyday. I stayed overnight in AC 3 nights a week for 5 years.

When I was playing AC, and it wasn't that long ago, there wasn't as much difficulty playing unrated. They didn't have betting or number of hand restrictions for unrated play as they do now.

Quote: mcallister3200

If you want to take this seriously, and it sounds like you do, you need to purchase Norm Wattenberger's CVCX software to answer your questions. It will tell you your expected return, risk of ruin, etc. for whatever game (rules, penetration) you choose to sim. and the count and indices you use. It will tell you at what counts you should be ramping, etc. Your bankroll will thank you in the long run for the investment, there is not a better tool we have.

This question is for anybody uses the Norm Wattenberger CVCX software:

Specifically on the "CVCX Online Viewer".

After typing in the count used, bet spread, risk of ruin, etc.:

when you get the results:

What is the "CE" which is expressed in a dollar amount ex. $50.45.?

The definition given from the website on what this means is "Certainty Equivalent - CE is essentially the value of a wager."

What exactly does this mean?

Thanks... I'm looking into purchasing this software.

Another horrific week for me in AC. -$6,600. Had 7 max bets out on 1 round. 2 spots played, 2 splits and 2 double downs, all my hands are totaling 19 or 20, dealer draws a 3 card hand to equal 21, showing a 6 as her up card. Then very next hand have 3 max bets out with 1 double down, she again draws to a 21. brutal session.

I have a question to anybody who cares to answer: what is the more optimal play with a 4,4 against a dealer 6, with the true count at a +5?

The index play for 8 against a dealer 6 is to double down at a true count of +2 or more. But, what takes preference here: the basic strategy play or the index play?

split the 4's or double down?

I winded up splitting the 4's, this took place on the above round I mentioned. I thought afterwards, if I had doubled down instead of splitting the 4s, I might have won the hand, instead of the dealer drawing to the 21.

Dealer repeatedly drawing to 21 against a decent hand is just a beach isn't it :) And they never do it just once or twice, they seem to get an appetite for doing it. You've also seen how a few splits and double downs can turn a good shoe into a real big nightmare.

Good luck and take care. Don't go living off the winnings when you have those extra good days, because the extra goodness beyond EV is, at best, just the flip side to the badness of almost inevitable bad days.

Quote: stabworld

Another horrific week for me in AC. -$6,600. Had 7 max bets out on 1 round. 2 spots played, 2 splits and 2 double downs, all my hands are totaling 19 or 20, dealer draws a 3 card hand to equal 21, showing a 6 as her up card. Then very next hand have 3 max bets out with 1 double down, she again draws to a 21. brutal session.

I have a question to anybody who cares to answer: what is the more optimal play with a 4,4 against a dealer 6, with the true count at a +5?

The index play for 8 against a dealer 6 is to double down at a true count of +2 or more. But, what takes preference here: the basic strategy play or the index play?

split the 4's or double down?

I winded up splitting the 4's, this took place on the above round I mentioned. I thought afterwards, if I had doubled down instead of splitting the 4s, I might have won the hand, instead of the dealer drawing to the 21.

A successful counter that I know will double 4,4 vs 6 rather than split in high counts. I don't know the count that he changes from split to double but it's at least +4. He plays his share of shoe games but not 8 decks. One reason is that with the abundance of 10s he says he's probably not going to get a double opportunity. His main reason for doubling rather than splitting is to not eat extra cards in positive situations.

He says he has run simulations that show that the results are very close. I don't know because I've never seen the sims and I don't run them myself. I like to hear what others think.

Quote: 1BB

A successful counter that I know will double 4,4 vs 6 rather than split in high counts. I don't know the count that he changes from split to double but it's at least +4. He plays his share of shoe games but not 8 decks. One reason is that with the abundance of 10s he says he's probably not going to get a double opportunity. His main reason for doubling rather than splitting is to not eat extra cards in positive situations.

He says he has run simulations that show that the results are very close. I don't know because I've never seen the sims and I don't run them myself. I like to hear what others think.

I would say this is exactly right. 1BB hit on all the right points. Basic strategy or at lower counts, what you are hoping for is a double opportunity AFTER you split. You would like to draw a 5,6,7 to your split 4's, and then double get a 10 for a 19,20,21 hand that has a good chance of winning on it's own even if the dealer does not break. But as the count goes higher, it is more likely your split 4's will turn into 14's, which means your only chance of winning is the dealer break.

The secondary benefit that may not be taken into consideration depending on just how the index number was generated in the first place, it using fewer cards in a high count. Preserving just a few cards might result in an extra round at a significant high count and advantage. But this should never be the primary reason for doing things. If you make preserving cards your primary factor, you start making incorrect plays that cost more than the value of an extra round. It should be one of those things that if all else is equal or close to equal, you go with the option that uses less cards.

My own personal index for doubling 44 vs 6 rather than splitting is TC of +5. But I can no longer tell you if that is the exact point that the play becomes positive EV. My indices are not exact like that in some cases. In some cases I have moved slightly off the exact point that the play becomes +EV, opting for a risk adverse number, which is usually just slightly more conservative. And in a few cases I have backed just slightly off the exact +EV point, for cover purposes. There is really very little penalty for adjusting your index numbers ever so slightly.

thanks for the input, 1BB and kewlj. I think I will choose the double down option if the count is +4 or higher, otherwise I will split the 4's.

That does make sense also in regards to preserving the extra cards by doubling down. I was thinking that as well. That's a good way of looking at it too kewlj, by splitting the 4's you risk getting the 10, giving you an unfavorable 14, causing you to stay, basically hoping the dealer busts on the 6. I never looked at it that way. The only thing you hope for in that situation, would be getting a 4, 5, 6, or 7, to make a 8, 9,10, or an 11, on the split 4, and then your chances are better for getting the 10 on the double down, but again you hope you don't get the 10 first. So probably the double down on the 8 vs. the 6 is a better play at a high count, because your more likely to draw to a face card then one of the 4's, 5's, or 6's (7's I don't track, as I use the hi-lo count).

I just ordered norm's CVCX simulator software package from qfit.com for $90. I guess I'm suppose to get a CD in the mail with the software. I downloaded the free demo and inputted the license number that norm gave me. I'm having trouble finding out my win rate per 100 hands and also standard deviation per hundred hands. Does anybody else use this software?

Quote: stabworld

thanks for the input, 1BB and kewlj. I think I will choose the double down option if the count is +4 or higher, otherwise I will split the 4's.

That does make sense also in regards to preserving the extra cards by doubling down. I was thinking that as well. That's a good way of looking at it too kewlj, by splitting the 4's you risk getting the 10, giving you an unfavorable 14, causing you to stay, basically hoping the dealer busts on the 6. I never looked at it that way. The only thing you hope for in that situation, would be getting a 4, 5, 6, or 7, to make a 8, 9,10, or an 11, on the split 4, and then your chances are better for getting the 10 on the double down, but again you hope you don't get the 10 first. So probably the double down on the 8 vs. the 6 is a better play at a high count, because your more likely to draw to a face card then one of the 4's, 5's, or 6's (7's I don't track, as I use the hi-lo count).

I mostly agree with the advice given, but just want to throw out some devil's advocate to perhaps spark further discussion on the topic as I think it's an interesting topic... My educated guess is also that there is a specific number where doubling 4-4 becomes the same or greater EV than splitting, but I'm not exactly sure the TC, my guess would be more like +6 or higher because of my example below (hopefully after running the software you can tell us if it finds a breaking point).

First, and most simple, is the fact that this is an ideal situation a counter is looking for... TC +5 and a dealer 6 up! You want to get as much money as humanly possible on the table. This is why we split 10's here as well. We aren't terrified of pulling 4-5-6 here and ending up with 14, 15, 16... So why should we be afraid of splitting 4's and ending up with 14? This is why most ploppies say "But you have 20! Why would you ruin that?!?!"...because since we know this is the correct play, not to do it would be essentially playing scared. Again, the idea is to get as much money on the table as possible in such a good situation where the dealer will break more often due to the high valued composition of the deck.

Now there's the fear of getting two 14's and needing the dealer to bust, but to always think you're going to get a 10 in that situation is a 'little' like assuming the dealer always has a 10 down, in my opinion. Even with 1 deck remaining and the TC = +5, all that means is out of 52 cards, there's 5 more 'big' valued cards than 'little' (not to mention if you're using hi-low then this even counts aces, which would give you a double). So if you break it down, here's a normal 52 card deck:

10: 16
Non-10: 36

Your odds of getting a non 10 are 36/52, well more than half the time. With a TC +5 all this means is the deck now looks like this:

10: 21*
Non-10: 31

*Note: This is best case scenario for the argument of doubling because with hi-low counting Aces are the same values as 10's, but here I'm literally accounting for 5 more 10's in the deck.

In this situation your odds of pulling a NON-10 are still 31/52... more than half the time with 4, 5, 6, 7, A giving you an opportunity to put even more money on the table. That is, when pulling a non-10, 56% (5/9) of the time you'll get to put another max bet on the table with a dealer 6 in a high TC.

I'm hoping with this example to show just because it's a TC +5, in my opinion, doesn't mean the deck is heavy enough to warrant doubling over splitting, because the splits will more often lead to getting more money on the table in such a +EV situation and you are more likely to pull a non 10 card even with a TC = +5. One last point on the whole 'eating cards' topic... Would you rather have your max bet facing a dealer guaranteed 6 up card, or an unknown dealer up card the following round? In both scenarios you could get a split/double/etc hand and you'll have a max bet out, but by splitting now you're doing it when you know the dealer is in a pretty poor position to boot. Again just my opinion, but unless you see you can get another round out of not splitting, I wouldn't worry about 'eating' a couple extra cards to give yourself an opportunity to continue to put max bets out with a dealer 6 up and a high TC.

Quote: Romes

I mostly agree with the advice given, but just want to throw out some devil's advocate to perhaps spark further discussion on the topic as I think it's an interesting topic... My educated guess is also that there is a specific number where doubling 4-4 becomes the same or greater EV than splitting, but I'm not exactly sure the TC, my guess would be more like +6 or higher because of my example below (hopefully after running the software you can tell us if it finds a breaking point).

First, and most simple, is the fact that this is an ideal situation a counter is looking for... TC +5 and a dealer 6 up! You want to get as much money as humanly possible on the table. This is why we split 10's here as well. We aren't terrified of pulling 4-5-6 here and ending up with 14, 15, 16... So why should we be afraid of splitting 4's and ending up with 14? This is why most ploppies say "But you have 20! Why would you ruin that?!?!"...because since we know this is the correct play, not to do it would be essentially playing scared. Again, the idea is to get as much money on the table as possible in such a good situation where the dealer will break more often due to the high valued composition of the deck.

Now there's the fear of getting two 14's and needing the dealer to bust, but to always think you're going to get a 10 in that situation is a 'little' like assuming the dealer always has a 10 down, in my opinion. Even with 1 deck remaining and the TC = +5, all that means is out of 52 cards, there's 5 more 'big' valued cards than 'little' (not to mention if you're using hi-low then this even counts aces, which would give you a double). So if you break it down, here's a normal 52 card deck:

10: 16
Non-10: 36

Your odds of getting a non 10 are 36/52, well more than half the time. With a TC +5 all this means is the deck now looks like this:

10: 21*
Non-10: 31

*Note: This is best case scenario for the argument of doubling because with hi-low counting Aces are the same values as 10's, but here I'm literally accounting for 5 more 10's in the deck.

In this situation your odds of pulling a NON-10 are still 31/52... more than half the time with 4, 5, 6, 7, A giving you an opportunity to put even more money on the table. That is, when pulling a non-10, 56% (5/9) of the time you'll get to put another max bet on the table with a dealer 6 in a high TC.

I'm hoping with this example to show just because it's a TC +5, in my opinion, doesn't mean the deck is heavy enough to warrant doubling over splitting, because the splits will more often lead to getting more money on the table in such a +EV situation and you are more likely to pull a non 10 card even with a TC = +5. One last point on the whole 'eating cards' topic... Would you rather have your max bet facing a dealer guaranteed 6 up card, or an unknown dealer up card the following round? In both scenarios you could get a split/double/etc hand and you'll have a max bet out, but by splitting now you're doing it when you know the dealer is in a pretty poor position to boot. Again just my opinion, but unless you see you can get another round out of not splitting, I wouldn't worry about 'eating' a couple extra cards to give yourself an opportunity to continue to put max bets out with a dealer 6 up and a high TC.

interesting.... good points.. makes sense to me..thanks for your input..

Well fellas, had a great week in AC. +$8,900. 15 hrs of play.. needed that after the last 2 weeks... overall stats since March... 273 hrs. +$14,625 avg. $54 p/hr.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Very interesting reading. Thanks for sharing and being honest.

I'll add to the unwanted advice, but from the poker side.

The only way you could have maxed your potential playing at these levels is if you were an idiot. It's clear that you are not an idiot.

If you need stimulation, I'd subscribe to a training site. It will sort of turn your poker brain back on. I highly recommend Crush Live Poker. Also, you are giving up a lot of ev playing in small tourneys. As bad as tourney players are, your edge is still much bigger in cash. And the juice is really hard to overcome in small tourneys. If you need more money, that's a very big and super easy leak to plug.

Assuming you have reasonable emotional control, you should be able to beat 2/5 for $30/hr with some work. Maybe more. If you play a very focused, tight aggressive style, you'll have a lot less chance of going broke than with BJ, based on what all these experienced, smart BJ players are saying. I've gone through lulls too when the game is just boring to me. The solution is to reengage it on fresh terms, thinking about stuff you didn't used to consider. For example, you could just focus on getting great at physical reads or in perfecting your 3betting. Have you tried all of the good material on mental game? Some of that stuff will improve your whole life.

I get the desire to branch out. I do some sports betting on the side but, it's kind of the same deal. I don't have the BR to really attack sports, even though I can beat it. So, for now, it's just a little hobby.

I know I can grind NL, pay the bills and slowly build my roll as I gain experience in other areas. That way, I can ease into sports and, by the time I'm betting big, I'll be ready to do so.

Since you know you are "playing with fire" why not use this approach and not play with fire? Especially since you were lucky enough to capture 10 2/5 buy ins on this adventure.

Rigondeaux - sorry for the late reply. I read your post, and appreciate the suggestion. I did consider what you said, and have played a few 2/5 sessions over the last 2 weeks, with success. I have basically almost completely eliminating my poker play in the last 6 months to focus all my attention on blackjack. But, I think I might play a session or 2 once a week again to have some balance. However, I still must not let it infringe on getting my goal of 15-20 hours of blackjack in a week.

Thanks again for your suggestion.

Quote: stabworld

Well fellas, had a great week in AC. +$8,900. 15 hrs of play.. needed that after the last 2 weeks... overall stats since March... 273 hrs. +$14,625 avg. $54 p/hr.

That's a $600 an hour average for every one of those 15 hours. Obviously some hours were higher and some were lower. Any heat?

damn what the hell am i doing i need to do this

Quote: richbailey86

damn what the hell am i doing i need to do this

Don't be fooled. His results are not at all indicative of his edge. His swings are massive and he is overbetting his bankroll by a factor of 5 or 10. He has been extremely lucky -- at this rate he could easily be broke in a month or two.

Quote: stabworld

Well fellas, had a great week in AC. +$8,900. 15 hrs of play.. needed that after the last 2 weeks... overall stats since March... 273 hrs. +$14,625 avg. $54 p/hr.

Well done Stabworld. Some great good fortune there. You did indeed need it.

$8,900 in 15 hours of play... $593 per hour.
$14,625 in 273 hours of play... $54 per hour.
Therefore, before those last 15 hours

(14625-8900)/(273-15) = $22.18 per hour of play. Wasn't there a time where your bad run took your rolling hourly average way down?

Not a bad rate of return, but I wonder what proportion of your time was spent either wonged out, not playing for other reasons, or playing minimum bet while the count was bad.
Did you, at any time, get the urge to bet other than to your own AP regime. If so, how well did you resist?

Quote: 1BB

That's a $600 an hour average for every one of those 15 hours. Obviously some hours were higher and some were lower. Any heat?

Yes, I got what I call "half heat".

I record my sessions if I received heat as eighter: "heat" or "half heat". My definitions are as follows: "heat" - (being the worst of the two) is a floor guy on the phone with surveillance, (I experienced this once - I overhead his conversation, he was talking about my taking insurance with big bets out there on the phone. I cashed out quickly and stayed away for 2 weeks.)

Then my "half heat" definition would be a floor guy or two or three just really looking at my play maybe combined with a whisper in the ear to the dealer to maybe cut the deck fatter giving undesirable penetration for the next shoe). I experienced this, and when I seen the bad penetration, I stubbornly moved over to the next table - the floor again whispered in the ear of the dealer to do the same, I waited, for the cut, and it was pretty bad, but not as bad as the previous dealers cut. I stayed and played out the shoe and took them for over a grand, overcoming the bad penetration. They didn't like it. This was at one of the now closed AC properties, so I didn't care of the attention brought to myself. I wouldn't normally do that at a casino I plan to have longevity in.

Ok, so yes, I received "half heat" from my session at the Taj Mahal. I was max betting for half the shoe, the count got hot mid way through and stayed high to the end. The floor was observing my play the whole time I had my max bets out, but I payed it no mind and didn't let it influence my play. I continued to make all +EV plays not concerned with cover. One of the plays that had the dealer look over to the floor, was I doubled down on a soft 20 against the dealers 6. The count justified this index play. The dealer was really shocked when I did this, because how many people are you going to see double down on a soft 20? I winded up losing the hand, not sure if this was a good play maybe as cover, or an indication of me being an advantage player. I guess the floor guy observing my play would have to know the index play to know what i'm doing otherwise he would be thinking to himself, what a dumbass. Anyhow I won over 4 grand on this 25 minute session, cashing out over 5k. They held me up at the cage, because it was a cash out of over 5k, they had to call the pit I was playing at to verify my cash out at the table. It was inconvenient, I wanted to just get the hell out of there.

Quote: OnceDear

Well done Stabworld. Some great good fortune there. You did indeed need it.

$8,900 in 15 hours of play... $593 per hour.
$14,625 in 273 hours of play... $54 per hour.
Therefore, before those last 15 hours

(14625-8900)/(273-15) = $22.18 per hour of play. Wasn't there a time where your bad run took your rolling hourly average way down?

(very true) this last trip brought back my hourly wage to where it was, but was down to just around what you said in the low 20's per hour.

Not a bad rate of return, but I wonder what proportion of your time was spent either wonged out, not playing for other reasons, or playing minimum bet while the count was bad.
Did you, at any time, get the urge to bet other than to your own AP regime. If so, how well did you resist?

Yes, good point made. My recorded hours, are actual time I am sitting at the blackjack table being dealt cards. If you factor in the time spent walking from casino to casino, scouting out tables to play at, waiting for the fresh shoe to start, it will be more hours, cutting down the hourly wage.

I religiously stay disciplined and never overbet my advantage out of frustration, actually I did once in my first few sessions of playing, back in March, but never again. I have my bet spread and stick to it, no matter how well or bad I'm doing. I have been wonging out less and playing all more recently, but for the most part I leave the table if there is no hope for the count getting good.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Don't be fooled. His results are not at all indicative of his edge. His swings are massive and he is overbetting his bankroll by a factor of 5 or 10. He has been extremely lucky -- at this rate he could easily be broke in a month or two.

Axiom- What do you mean by this? "overbetting his bankroll by a factor of 5 or 10" . Sorry not that mathematically educated on terminonlogy.

I ask because, I have been worried lately, that I have been max betting to high for my bankroll. (what I consider to be my bankroll, we already know the opposition to this, so lets not go over that again.)

My max bet is $300 X 2. current bankroll - $53,000.

Quote: stabworld

Axiom- What do you mean by this? "overbetting his bankroll by a factor of 5 or 10" . Sorry not that mathematically educated on terminonlogy.

I ask because, I have been worried lately, that I have been max betting to high for my bankroll. (what I consider to be my bankroll, we already know the opposition to this, so lets not go over that again.)

My max bet is $300 X 2. current bankroll - $53,000.

So you're playing 8 deck H17?

A couple of questions Stabworld: What proportion of the time would you say the count is TC+2 or better (Or whatever TC you place significant bets.) What is your current ramp regime?