Misconception about basic strategy
When playing normally, people always ask, "What is the best move to play here?" if they are not familiar with basic strategy.
But telling someone what move to make is wrong in my opinion. I end up always telling them to "Go with their gut".
The reason I do this is, in my opinion, THAT BASIC STRATEGY CHARTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CARD COUNTING and you should do what you feel is right at the moment, as the situations presented in the basic strategy charts are for when the count is within a specific range, so card counters can act accordingly. <------ that is what i think is a misconception. is this correct? is basic strategy mainly used in conjunction with card counting or is it no matter what i should play that way because of MATH?
Basic strategy is the mathematically absolutely correct (best) way to play every hand on the precondition that you don't know the count. Period. Basic strategy cards are not supposed to be used in conjunction with card counting. However, they remind us of the best starting strategy. Card counting simply indicates when the player should play different to basic strategy, because the count dictates that basic strategy does not apply.Quote: heatmapI think i have a misconception about basic strategy that i would like to clarify.
When playing normally, people always ask, "What is the best move to play here?" if they are not familiar with basic strategy.
But telling someone what move to make is wrong in my opinion. I end up always telling them to "Go with their gut".
The reason I do this is, in my opinion, THAT BASIC STRATEGY CHARTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CARD COUNTING and you should do what you feel is right at the moment, as the situations presented in the basic strategy charts are for when the count is within a specific range, so card counters can act accordingly. <------ that is what i think is a misconception. is this correct? is basic strategy mainly used in conjunction with card counting or is it no matter what i should play that way because of MATH?
For example. If the count is unknown, it is mathematically correct to NOT take insurance. Ever. But if the count of tens is such that the shoe is 10 rich ( beyond 1/3 of the count of cards remaining ) then you should always take insurance.
If someone asks you how to play a hand... Plead ignorance or lend him your BS card without comment. There is little downside and much downside in giving a strategy answer,
Whenever someone asks for advice I either ignore them or say “it’s not my bet.”
Quote: heatmapTHAT BASIC STRATEGY CHARTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CARD COUNTING
Card counting determines the bet.
Basic strategy remains in effect at all times. (If you are an expert counter there might be rare instances where you will deviate from basic strategy due to the count, but these are rare and not even necessary.)
In general: you don't sit there and debate over whether or not to hit a hard 16 if the dealer has a ten up, you just hit it, always. This is why I avoid the small stakes tables, those are where the ones who don't know how to play mess up the deck with inconsistent hit/stand choices. The big boys are generally going to stick to playing right.
Basic Strategy is the correct play if the count is zero. The example you site about hitting a 16 into a T is actually the most likely one to change, since you should stand if the count is positive. And since your bet increases when the count gets positive, this and other deviations from basic strategy can matter a lot (especially in single and double deck games).Quote: MDawgCard counting determines the bet.
Basic strategy remains in effect at all times. (If you are an expert counter there might be rare instances where you will deviate from basic strategy due to the count, but these are rare and not even necessary.)
In general: you don't sit there and debate over whether or not to hit a hard 16 if the dealer has a ten up, you just hit it, always. This is why I avoid the small stakes tables, those are where the ones who don't know how to play mess up the deck with inconsistent hit/stand choices. The big boys are generally going to stick to playing right.
Also, your idea that people playing differently messes up the shoe is superstition and not correct.
Quote: MDawgIn general: you don't sit there and debate over whether or not to hit a hard 16 if the dealer has a ten up, you just hit it, always.
A lot of the best blackjack players would argue it is the exact opposite
Quote: MDawgThis is why I avoid the small stakes tables, those are where the ones who don't know how to play mess up the deck with inconsistent hit/stand choices. The big boys are generally going to stick to playing right.
Messing up the deck is just as likely to help you win money as it is to cause you to lose money
Quote: MDawgCard counting determines the bet.
Basic strategy remains in effect at all times. (If you are an expert counter there might be rare instances where you will deviate from basic strategy due to the count, but these are rare and not even necessary.)
In general: you don't sit there and debate over whether or not to hit a hard 16 if the dealer has a ten up, you just hit it, always. This is why I avoid the small stakes tables, those are where the ones who don't know how to play mess up the deck with inconsistent hit/stand choices. The big boys are generally going to stick to playing right.
You won't believe it but everything you wrote is wrong.
1) Some counts have hundreds of deviations from basic strategy. A good player knows most of the 18 most common.
2) You never debate. No matter what you system you use, there is one best decision.
3) There is no sacred flow of the cards. Nothing anyone does effects your long term game.
4) Any card anyone takes has no effect on your card in the long run.
5) Never assume a $25 player is better than a $5 player. Playing at higher stakes can get you better rules but don't expect better players.
Reading a book called " The Blackjack Zone" will greatly improve your understanding of the game. Best of luck, this can be a great place.
Quote: billryan5) Never assume a $25 player is better than a $5 player. Playing at higher stakes can get you better rules but don't expect better players.
Hooboy, yeah. I had somebody sit down at a 100$/min table with absolutely no idea what he was doing. (Or, he was running the best cover job ever.) After losing around 5k, he gave up, went back to baccarat, and gave me 50$ for giving him a spare strategy card I had on me.
And what I came across the other day: Is there ANY count where you would even consider doubling an H14v3? (Because that was a 400$ doozy...)
Quote: unJon
Also, your idea that people playing differently messes up the shoe is superstition and not correct.
Spoken like someone who doesn't play table limit bets. Get to that point and you're not going to sit at a small table with people messing up the flow with stupid plays.
Everything matters when you're playing to the limit. Even if all it does is bother you that some idiot is standing on 16 with a ten up or doubling down on a hard 12 (seen it at the little tables), that sort of emotion is enough to throw you off, especially if the player takes the card that you needed, or doesn't take the card that you didn't want, or does something that six cards down the line would have made a big difference. I watch and count everything nothing gets past me.
Quote: billryan
Reading a book called " The Blackjack Zone" will greatly improve your understanding of the game. Best of luck, this can be a great place.
Thank you. I got a copy already, and am reading Eliot's book.
I am halfway through and a lot of it makes perfect sense.
However, let's face it - what he is saying is that over time luck makes no difference at all. This is statistically true over time, but I don't play blackjack 7/24, I don't gamble every single day or even every single week. So for the short term, hit or miss, there will be times when the cards flow my way, or do not.
How could you argue with the statement of "if you're getting 12s and 13s all night long, card counting doesn't make a bit of difference"? What I am saying is that despite what Eliot writes, there are times when the card flow will be good and times when it will be bad. Getting up and leaving after a great card flow that piles chips in front of you is a good idea. I don't know why it happens that way, but I've been in front of the dealer on a night where no matter what they did, change decks, shuffle, whatever, I just kept winning almost every hand and cleaned them out to mid to high five figures, not even betting all that much per hand, either. And then there are times when I can't win more than 1/3 hands.
Recognizing that "things are happening" or "not happening" goes into the realm of that, There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your blackjack zone. There is nothing wrong with getting up and leaving when you are ahead, versus sitting there steadfastly pushing bets when the cards are coming against you. I don't know why the cards tend to flow one way or another, but anyone who has spent a lot of time playing knows this is a fact.
Not saying you should necessarily alter your basic strategy at all, just saying that you must alter your bet with the card flow.
I think altering your strategy with the card flow may have some benefit but not as much benefit as altering your bet.
Eliot seems to be saying that money management makes no difference.
If he hits, he gets the next card, you will get the second one.
Which card do you want? The first card or the second card? Let's say the pitboss is in a good mood and has the dealer deal out three cards and place them face down on the table. He skips the next player and let's you pick any of the three cards. Which do you pick, and why. Does the size of your bet matter? Does a table max player have a better chance of picking a good card than the $3 player?
How about this;
Fresh deck, one on one with the dealer. I deal you two cards, dealer has a nine showing. You have a total of 11, and double down.
I spread the remaining 48 carryout, face down. Pick the card you want. How do you chose? Does it matter if you take the next card or the last card? If someone else gets to pick a card before you, are your chances of winning increased or decreased?
One last one.
Does the $500 player pick out a better card than a $3 player?
Quote: unJonBasic Strategy is the correct play if the count is zero.
That's technically not correct - Basic Strategy takes into account three known cards (the two in your starting hand and the dealer's upcard). I recall from the Wizard's analysis one time that in a perfectly zero-count shoe (with every remaining card in the same proportions as a shoe before any cards are dealt) that standing on 16 vs. T is very slightly better (you have to take the EV out to several decimal places to see it though) - but in an infinite deck (where taking a card has zero impact on the distribution of the remaining cards) then hitting is ever so slightly better.
If you were to always play 16 vs. T one way or the other, hitting would be better if surrender is not allowed and standing would be better if you can surrender an initial two-card hand (since the general strategy for a 3+ card 16 vs. T would be to stand).
Yes you are correct. It takes into account your cards and the dealer upcard.Quote: KellynbnfThat's technically not correct - Basic Strategy takes into account three known cards (the two in your starting hand and the dealer's upcard). I recall from the Wizard's analysis one time that in a perfectly zero-count shoe (with every remaining card in the same proportions as a shoe before any cards are dealt) that standing on 16 vs. T is very slightly better (you have to take the EV out to several decimal places to see it though) - but in an infinite deck (where taking a card has zero impact on the distribution of the remaining cards) then hitting is ever so slightly better.
If you were to always play 16 vs. T one way or the other, hitting would be better if surrender is not allowed and standing would be better if you can surrender an initial two-card hand (since the general strategy for a 3+ card 16 vs. T would be to stand).
Quote: billryan
Reading a book called " The Blackjack Zone" will greatly improve your understanding of the game. Best of luck, this can be a great place.
I finished reading it. As far as the advantage play, there was nothing in there I didn't already know, but - I'll admit, at BJ I don't always formally count cards at least not the entire deck, and since I don't formally count the cards I don't vary from basic strategy, but anyway - somehow, I've just always done well at BJ, at least except for the periods where I was effectively banned from BJ at some of the casinos. I do vary my bet greatly, and seem to win the big hands so my timing is generally correct. I mean when I walked up to a BJ table and declared that I needed twenty grand, I would walk away with twenty grand. There was a time when I went to the table and declared I needed fifty grand, and less than thirty minutes later, I had it, and walked with all of it. After I wasn't allowed to play BJ (wasn't allow to vary my bets), I won at Baccarat for some years too, then when I started to lose at Bacc. is when I quit gambling for over a decade. And now when I play I just play for fun and comps, and it has worked out so far.
BJ Zone was published in 2005. However the Blackjack Zone author Eliot Jacobsen has a 2017, blog
https://www.888casino.com/blog/seven-reasons-to-never-count-cards
in which he appears to gainsay most of what he wrote in his book, and advises against counting cards, says it is a losing proposition. Maybe he's now just trying to promote shamelessly his 888casino, but anyway that's what he is writing nowadays, words like these:
"I'm here to tell you not to count cards at blackjack. Don't do it."
Eliot also writes:
"Blackjack card counting is at the very bottom of the heap when it comes to the various ways to beat casino games. If your goal is to play with an advantage in a casino then there are much faster-to-learn and easier-to-use ways than blackjack card counting."
Your emotions and superstitions have no effect on probability.Quote: MDawgEven if all it does is bother you that some idiot is standing on 16 with a ten up or doubling down on a hard 12 (seen it at the little tables), that sort of emotion is enough to throw you off.
You also believe in waiting for craps tables to get hot.
I suggest you quit the card counting hobby and buy a book on palm reading instead.
Are you suggesting you've never seen someone at your big boy table ever double a hard twelve? That only low rollers do things like that?
For background, I used to play very hard, average bet was easily 2000, and I'd play to table limit many hands every session. I won for ten years straight and then started to lose my last year (at Baccarat, not at BJ), and then I quit. I stopped, and then I was too busy with business and life to gamble whatsoever for the past decade, and started up again just this year.
Now I just play average 200 - 300, with $50K credit lines, just to get comps and have fun, but we don't come to town to lose either. I've never been interested in gambling unless I was winning. If I have a bad year and start to lose again, I'll quit again, but as long as I don't get banned at BJ again, I know I will win. I can usually win at Baccarat too, but it's not a sure thing for me like BJ is.
I had only two trips this year - one was five days, the second was nine days, both in Vegas. Might have a third trip if we have time, before year is out. On both trips, I played baccarat and BJ. On the BJ I played only a 0.26% house edge six deck, or a 0.19% house edge double deck. I played BJ with the flow of the cards, not an exact count, but I have a good sense of when my advantage play is happening, and would jump the bet, win some, and then move on.
With Baccarat I just play until I'm into a run or predictable pattern, press the bet, and then walk away.
Getting up and leaving after you're ahead sufficiently based on your average bet sounds so simple, and yet people discuss it to death as if it can't be done or shouldn't be done.
Everything was comped and the first trip I took home a little over a thousand, and the second trip a little over 7500. Peanuts, but even a dollar ahead after a fully comped trip is good.
*I might not post again until after my next trip. After all, what good is talk? Results are all that matter.
Suppose you are in a situation in which basic strategy calls for doubling. Is it always true that doubling for some amount x is better than doubling for less than x? Example: I have a $25 bet and BS says to double. If I only have $1 to bet, is it better to double down for an extra $1 or is it better to hit and have a chance to get another card?
If you have 11 and dealer has 5, the expected return for standing and doubling is 31.2% and 62.4 %respectively so it makes no difference in this case since you’d only take one more card in both scenarios,
Those returns vary very slightly by player hand composition.
Sorry to preach but you should never play without sufficient funds to double and split. Or the house has a much higher advantage on you.
Same for splits. Some splits, you want to buy, others you want to sell. At a table full of tourists, scavenging hands can add extra value. The downside is it slows the game to a crawl.
There is no difference between the dealer tossing you the next card in the deck and the dealer holding an opaque bag of cards, and when you need another card, he reaches in and picks one at random. What the player before you does has no effect on you.
Sure, you can look at the results and then say "well, if the player before me didn't take a card, I would have won", or you could say "well, if the player before me did take a card, I would have won", or you could say "well, if the player before me didn't take a card, I would have lost", or you could say "well, if the player before me did take a card, I would have lost", and it all means absolutely nothing, because we don't place bets based on past results, we place bets on future, unknown, random results.
The same type of useless analysis can be done on the lottery. Study past drawings and apply numerology using addition or subtraction or substitution or anything (all of them completely useless) to come up with numbers to play for the next drawing. Then when the drawing occurs, you could say "well, if I had used the addition method, I would have won", or you could say "well, if I had used the subtraction method, I would have won", and so on.
Total waste of time... just use basic strategy (counting cards if you can). Want to play the lottery? Pick numbers at random. They're all just as likely to win and have nothing to do with past drawings. The past drawings are just like the card the BJ player to your right does or does not take. It doesn't effect you, so stop worrying about it, STFU, and just play the game!
Quote: kvitlekhSuppose you are in a situation in which basic strategy calls for doubling. Is it always true that doubling for some amount x is better than doubling for less than x? Example: I have a $25 bet and BS says to double. If I only have $1 to bet, is it better to double down for an extra $1 or is it better to hit and have a chance to get another card?
My understanding is that "Basic Strategy" says to only play a hand when you have enough to cover all the split / double possibilities. If you don't have enough to double, you are no longer playing basic strategy
Quote: TomGMy understanding is that "Basic Strategy" says to only play a hand when you have enough to cover all the split / double possibilities. If you don't have enough to double, you are no longer playing basic strategy
I stated that assumption only to determine whether or not there exists a situation in which not doubling at all is better than doubling for less. There are many fish who have enough to cover the full double but for some reason choose to double for less.
To reiterate, my question is: are there ever situations in which not doubling at all is better than doubling for less? I assumed that if a double is correct, then any amount X between 0 and the max double would be be better than an amount Y if Y < X. But apparently this is not the case?
Quote: MDawgGetting up and leaving after you're ahead sufficiently based on your average bet sounds so simple, and yet people discuss it to death as if it can't be done or shouldn't be done.
It can be done, and it's not that it shouldn't be done. However, doing that has no effect on the future outcomes, so it's pointless to do that. It will make sense if you won't gamble again after that, but if you will, it will make no difference financially in the long run to continue gambling immediately or the next year. I guess it'll make a difference emotionally, though.
Quote: kvitlekhI stated that assumption only to determine whether or not there exists a situation in which not doubling at all is better than doubling for less. There are many fish who have enough to cover the full double but for some reason choose to double for less.
To reiterate, my question is: are there ever situations in which not doubling at all is better than doubling for less? I assumed that if a double is correct, then any amount X between 0 and the max double would be be better than an amount Y if Y < X. But apparently this is not the case?
This was answered up thread. There are times when doubling for less is worse than hitting.
You double the amount you can win, but give up a percentage of your wins when you double. That's why I'll scavenge someone doubling for less, but don't offer to put up the whole amount even though sometimes people offer.
There are some close doubles, for instance 10 vs 9 where you would be better off hitting than doubling. Here's the maths part...Quote: kvitlekh...my question is: are there ever situations in which not doubling at all is better than doubling for less?...
Using the wizard's tables (https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/1/ )
Hitting : $100 bet is worth $111.65 (expected profit $11.65)
Double: $200 total wager is worth $214.43 (expected profit $14.43)
So if you had a smaller wager (i.e. doubled for less) then (say) $150 would have an expected profit of 14.43*.75 = $10.82,
Thus you would be better off hitting if you didn't have enough to double for quite a bit.
You absolutely know, with 100 percent certainty that your next card is an Ace. You jump your bet to the table max. Sure enough, you get your Ace, only to be followed by a seven. You've got a massive bet out already. Still want to follow BS and double?
Quote: billryanTheoretical question.
You absolutely know, with 100 percent certainty that your next card is an Ace. You jump your bet to the table max. Sure enough, you get your Ace, only to be followed by a seven. You've got a massive bet out already. Still want to follow BS and double?
Not enough info to answer. Obviously I would need to know whether the deck came pre shuffled without being checked by ASM.
Quote: billryanTheoretical question.
You absolutely know, with 100 percent certainty that your next card is an Ace. You jump your bet to the table max. Sure enough, you get your Ace, only to be followed by a seven. You've got a massive bet out already. Still want to follow BS and double?
It depends. If you have lots of money available to risk, then stick with basic strategy. If not, then stand. Personally, I would stand. I would not want to lose double the table max.
Quote: MDawgI didn't post for a bit because I was in Vegas, and then too busy after I got back to post results.
For background, I used to play very hard, average bet was easily 2000, and I'd play to table limit many hands every session. I won for ten years straight and then started to lose my last year (at Baccarat, not at BJ), and then I quit. I stopped, and then I was too busy with business and life to gamble whatsoever for the past decade, and started up again just this year.
Now I just play average 200 - 300, with $50K credit lines, just to get comps and have fun, but we don't come to town to lose either. I've never been interested in gambling unless I was winning. If I have a bad year and start to lose again, I'll quit again, but as long as I don't get banned at BJ again, I know I will win. I can usually win at Baccarat too, but it's not a sure thing for me like BJ is.
I had only two trips this year - one was five days, the second was nine days, both in Vegas. Might have a third trip if we have time, before year is out. On both trips, I played baccarat and BJ. On the BJ I played only a 0.26% house edge six deck, or a 0.19% house edge double deck. I played BJ with the flow of the cards, not an exact count, but I have a good sense of when my advantage play is happening, and would jump the bet, win some, and then move on.
With Baccarat I just play until I'm into a run or predictable pattern, press the bet, and then walk away.
Getting up and leaving after you're ahead sufficiently based on your average bet sounds so simple, and yet people discuss it to death as if it can't be done or shouldn't be done.
Everything was comped and the first trip I took home a little over a thousand, and the second trip a little over 7500. Peanuts, but even a dollar ahead after a fully comped trip is good.
*I might not post again until after my next trip. After all, what good is talk? Results are all that matter.
Okay so third (recent) trip:
Was in Vegas a solid two weeks. End result win was about 5500, of which a good 1000 I tipped out during play to dealers, so final take home was 4500. Almost everything except spa (she was at the spa a fair amount) was comp'ed too, and given the suites at Encore and Cosmo, the value in these comps was not insubstantial.
I don't want to pat myself on the back too hard, but I think anyone who is in Vegas for two solid weeks, with several $50K credit lines, and who leaves a winner, knows something.
I played double deck BJ, some shoe BJ, and a lot of Baccarat. The value in leaving when ahead, and stopping when losing, is immeasurable.
The hosts kept saying, "Don't you ever lose?" but it's only been three trips (three trips since my long long hiatus from gaming). Anyway, I'm not trying to lose!
I talked about it all with an old friend of mine who used to be one of my hosts, from back in the day when my average bet was more like $2000., or $3000. (versus these days, my average bet is about $300. although I do go up to a $1500. bet at times, if I am pressing into a run), I talked to her about how most of the players I encountered, had no END GAME that they just kept playing and playing even when they were massively up, and she said
"I think that's true of a lot of players. You're a different bird in that aspect. it's an escape for them. you play it like a game.
"you don't play with emotions. you'll always do fine."
She also pointed out that unlike me, the average mentality of the gambler is, "but I just need one hand to turn it around."
Anyway, as far as the gaming, I dunno, when I go in there with a $50K line and all I am trying to do is either break even or win a little, and I am betting average only a few hunny a hand, in my mind anyway, I feel like as long as I am patient, I can't lose. I can count, I can watch flow, and I have great intution to know when I am winning, and when I am losing.
I feel like as long as I am patient, I can't lose.
It's not the sort of thing I want to do all the time, two weeks was plenty, but win about five large, and have yet another great free vacation, why not?
Quote: heatmapI think i have a misconception about basic strategy that i would like to clarify.
When playing normally, people always ask, "What is the best move to play here?" if they are not familiar with basic strategy.
But telling someone what move to make is wrong in my opinion. I end up always telling them to "Go with their gut".
The reason I do this is, in my opinion, THAT BASIC STRATEGY CHARTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CARD COUNTING
Basic strategy is the correct play for a "neutral" count, eg at the start of the shoe. In my opinion, you are correct in saying to "go with your gut" as opposed to telling the other player the correct basic strategy play.
By telling others how to play, you:
1. Reveal (to the casino) that you know how to play. This may cost you comps.
2. Open yourself up to blame and ridicule for "making players lose" or "ruining the order of the cards" if making the mathematically correct play isn't successful
3. May annoy players and be perceived as a "know it all".
Quote: billryanWhich card do you want? The first card or the second card? Let's say the pitboss is in a good mood and has the dealer deal out three cards and place them face down on the table. He skips the next player and let's you pick any of the three cards. Which do you pick, and why. Does the size of your bet matter? Does a table max player have a better chance of picking a good card than the $3 player?
How about this;
Fresh deck, one on one with the dealer. I deal you two cards, dealer has a nine showing. You have a total of 11, and double down.
I spread the remaining 48 carryout, face down. Pick the card you want. How do you chose? Does it matter if you take the next card or the last card? If someone else gets to pick a card before you, are your chances of winning increased or decreased?
One last one.
Does the $500 player pick out a better card than a $3 player?
Another example of "order of the cards" not mattering:
Say a casino decides not to shuffle the cards (!) of a six deck shoe, but instead uses a RNG Random Number Generator to pick from 312 (311, 310, etc) to deal the next card. Would the other players' skill level, or lack thereof, matter?
This time just shy of three weeks straight at Wynn then Cosmo. Played some double deck BJ @ Wynn, very little 6 deck shoe BJ at Cosmo, but mostly Baccarat. A LOT of baccarat, Many, many, MANY hours of Baccarat (enough to get comp'ed every single night in the suite, and most all of the food).
End result winning was a bit over $10K, but I am sure I tipped out about $5K (by putting bets alongside mine), so the total winnings were more like $15K.
Granted, I had some shoes like this:
https://imgur.com/eI0eNuz
where in the old days, playing hard, I woulda cleared $100K easy,
but even with crappy shoes I managed to cut my losses, and recoup either later that session, or rest a full day and come back and recover all losses in segments.
There is NO question that:
-money management
-a goal (win or lose)
are ESSENTIALS to success at Vegas.
Hey, anyone who is able to win multiple trips in a row (still not one loser since I started up playing again in 2018), let alone stay in Vegas 2 -3 weeks and STILL go home a winner, knows something.
I didn't see any other players win (at least not, in the end). An acquaintance of mine got up $80K, mostly in bacc., held on to it through a couple of days of play, then lost it all in one night. Next day he lost additionally whatever he put down.
On the way out, my Cosmo host joked, "I'm glad you won, but NO ONE stays here for two weeks, not even the Chinese million dollar players. Why don't I comp you a couple more nights so you can get your Nevada residency card?" lol, I'm going to mail him a couple of Brioni ties. He's a good guy.
I don't even go to Vegas to win anymore, we go just to have fun and get comps. Maybe it is because I don't even care that I win. But no, I think it's because I know how to play, and am, as the dealers kept saying about me, "Very disciplined."
As yet another dealer said, pointing to some of the others, "They gamble. You play."
In the old days when I played hard, my goal might've been $100K, or even $250K. On the occasions when I achieved that goal, whether in one session or a week of sessions, it made absolutely no difference what I tipped the cocktail waitress or dealers along the way. No Bill, if your goal is $1000. you will not end up with $1020. because you stiffed the poor cocktail waitress for four drinks. Either you will achieve your goal, or not, but it won't be exactly affected by what you tip out.
Nowadays my goals might be much tamer, only say, ending up ahead, or winning $1K, or $5K, $8K or $10K in a session. Whatever my goal might be, the fives, the quarter or two, or even the occasional black chip I place alongside my bet for the dealer do not affect my end results. Let's say I draw an $8K marker: my goal is to win $5K. Whether I end up with $13K on the table or zero isn't affected by the side bets I place for the dealer or the nickels I pull out to give the cocktail waitress for each non-alcoholic drink (I do not drink). I do not STOP because I reached $12,800. or stop at $13,200. I stop when I get to $13K. Or if I end up losing it all, I won't end up with BUST plus the tips I scraped, I'll end up with zero.
Tips are the equivalent of zero transaction costs. That statement sounds astonishing, but anyone who has been there, knows this.
Your thinking is the same reason that cheapos get stock trading software like RobinHood and think they are doing great until the day the software crashes during critical stock movements and they end up losing money or losing opportunity that washes out all the supposed nickels they saved.
Quote: MDawgTipping along the way does not affect your end result, win or lose. It's hard for someone who doesn't play seriously to understand, but that is just the way it is.
It actually does.
Quote: MDawg
Tips are the equivalent of zero transaction costs. That statement sounds astonishing, but anyone who has been there, knows this.
wat
Quote: MDawg
Your thinking is the same reason that cheapos get stock trading software like RobinHood and think they are doing great until the day the software crashes during critical stock movements and they end up losing money or losing opportunity that washes out all the supposed nickels they saved.
I pay $0 for trades through Merrill Lynch. Am I a cheapo?
If you're just some average person who makes a few stock trades a month, then you are no more like me with how much I have in the stock market and how often I trade stocks, than you are like me in terms of how much I play or have played in the past in casinos. Not on my level, no comparison. Unless you've been there with a goal of a hundred thousand dollars for a single session you can't comprehend how tipping the cocktail waitress or putting little dealer bets alongside yours does not affect the end result. Indeed, it actually affects it positively, in terms of getting your mind working well and the positive energy and concentration needed to make the right bets at the right time, but that's apparently beyond your ken too if you seriously think that tips affect the final outcome when it comes to big or bigger play.
I play until I reach my goal; the tips presented along the way do not affect the final outcome (other than the sadness the casino management experiences for the money that goes into that dealer box that is irretrievable).
"
Nuff said.
There were some sessions when the dealer probably ended up winning more than I did, but those were during sessions when I was ahead, then negative, then came back from negative to even or just above even and stopped for that session. I have no problem with that. All in the scheme of things, and being a winner who leaves town ahead.
Quote: MDawgI reached my goal; I might have simply stopped sooner but with the same $10K or so, if I had not tipped along the way. Which I would never NOT tip. All of those tips were based on dealer wins alongside my wins.
There were some sessions when the dealer probably ended up winning more than I did, but those were during sessions when I was ahead, then negative, then came back from negative to even or just above even and stopped for that session. I have no problem with that. All in the scheme of things, and being a winner who leaves town ahead.
I'm beginning to think you're a dealer coming in here to try and convince us to tip more. I can tell you most card counters will never tip unless they find it will provide some sort of +EV. You're also not a winning player if you're not counting. Eventually, you will start losing no matter what your bet size is. Just because you bet big doesn't somehow give you +EV unless you were able to negotiate for better rules and rebate losses.
I played mostly Baccarat this last trip.
Anyway, all I know is that I win repeatedly. My Red Card player card number at Wynn Vegas is four digits. I don't think you'll find many, if any, big players with a player number that low who still have large credit lines open and did not go bust, let alone who keep winning.
I did take a very long hiatus, because I got too busy to bother with casino play - to win consistently takes a lot of energy and sometimes time too, nevertheless - I'm back, and I'm still here.
I'm a professional gambler, so I consider myself a serious player. Tipping 100%, no questions asked, factually does affect your end result. Here's proof:Quote: MDawgTipping along the way does not affect your end result, win or lose. It's hard for someone who doesn't play seriously to understand, but that is just the way it is...
Say EVERY SINGLE HAND you win, you give the winnings as a tip. Do you think you can win or come out ahead in the long run on any game in the casino? If your answer is no, then you hopefully understand the overall point that I'm making, regardless if you tip a fractional amount of your win or the whole thing.
If your Expected Value (EV) for a session is -$1,000... but due to variance you're luckily up $10k, when you tip $5k, that just means your EV for the session is now -$6,000. It absolutely 'tacks on' to the amount you're supposed to lose already by playing a game with a house advantage.
