Do all (or most) of the one and two deck games in Nevada deal the cards face down? Does anyone know of any one or two deck games that are dealt face up?
Terry
Do all (or most) of the one and two deck games in Nevada deal the cards face down? Does anyone know of any one or two deck games that are dealt face up?
Terry
> Do all (or most) of the one and two deck games in
> Nevada deal the cards face down? Does anyone know of
> any one or two deck games that are dealt face up?
Single deck games are nearly always dealt face down.
The majority of double deck games are dealt face down, although face-up games seem to be becoming more common. In Las Vegas, the Plaza, Vegas Club, Wynn, and Treasure Island all deal DD face up. The TrackJack database lists several others as well.
To a counter, it really doesn't make a great deal of difference how the cards are dealt.
> Single deck games are nearly always dealt face down.
> The majority of double deck games are dealt face down,
> although face-up games seem to be becoming more
> common. In Las Vegas, the Plaza, Vegas Club, Wynn, and
> Treasure Island all deal DD face up. The TrackJack
> database lists several others as well.
> To a counter, it really doesn't make a great deal of
> difference how the cards are dealt.
Thanks for the help. I would prefer face up because I'm just learning to count and I'm too slow to read the face down cards before the dealer can them up.
> Thanks for the help. I would prefer face up because
> I'm just learning to count and I'm too slow to read
> the face down cards before the dealer can them up.
As far as I am concerned the key to accurate counting is very simple. Play in games where you are heads up with the dealer or with no more than one other player.
The more players the harder it is to keep count while still making playing decisions. With only myself or one other player playing it is easy to count accurately.
Now if you want to follow my advice while playing at a $5 hand table (or even a $10 or $15) you will have to play at like 3am-6am.
But by getting up the courage to play green chip on the $25 tables I can almost always find a table with only one other player if I look around a bit and you will see a drastic increase in comps unless you are playing at the Wynn or Bellagio or Ceasars where you have to be playing Black Chips to get noticed.
But be warned, if you are playing red chips you can jump your bets and study the cards all you want with nobody really caring, but moving to green chips and especially black chips means you need to camoflage your counting. They will be watching you much more closely both in the pit and on "the eye".
I struggled for years trying to have success counting at full red chip tables and as soon as I took the plunge and went exclusively to $25 tables or $50 tables my ability to play alone or with minimal other players make my counting easier and my profit SOARED!!!
Scrape up $2000 and commit to green chip play and watch the results both in profit and comps
if you want to play green chips at pitch games unless you are prepared to break a few bankrolls before you get into the long run. Unless you can find a good supply of wongable DD games and even then you will be playing to a pretty high ROR.
> if you want to play green chips at pitch games unless
> you are prepared to break a few bankrolls before you
> get into the long run. Unless you can find a good
> supply of wongable DD games and even then you will be
> playing to a pretty high ROR.
I agreed that ideally I would have a bankroll of $25,000 to play $25 chips and never be in danger of getting busted.
But then I have managed to take a $2000 blackjack bankroll up to $20,000+ playing green chips.
But then my approach is different than 95% of the players I sit down next too...I don't sit at the tables grinding out out for hours until my bankroll is eventually ground to away to the felt.
I play 4-5 sessions per day, each session lasting less than an hour. I buy in for $500, all green. With $25 as my base unit I would have to lose 20 units to go through it. I have NEVER lost 20 units in one session of 45-60 minutes while counting, but I have come close. In reality, if I am getting pounded in the first 20 minutes, I just book it to a loss and go for a swim or some other thing to relax, regroup and get ready to give it another go later. By cutting my losses short I protect my bankroll and my confidence.
On the other hand I am often in the situation where I go up and down 4-6 units for a couple shoes, basically treading water, then get a hot shoe, press up the my bets after a win (letting it ride so I look like a gambler rather than jumping it up in huge increments like a counter) and ride out that hot shoe and call it a session, booking a $300-$600 win.
And on those great days I start off hot, winning even against negative counts with small bets THEN get the hot shoe and really clean up....and call it a session.
Playing short sessions, cutting loses short and walking with wins after hot shoes rather than giving back the wins with the next couple shoes I have built an impressive bankroll with little risk of a catastrophic loss.
The key is discipline and having the ability to cut a loss short and TAKE THE LOSS rather than pressing and trying to "get even" and turning a small loss into a big one and walking with reasonable wins rather than giving back the wins by playing long enough for the cards to turn after you have been hot.
I am also a very profitable craps player and it is because I have the discipline to work a system that gives me smaller consistant wins ($75-$150 per hour average) rather than trying for big scores, once again playing for an hour or so then walking with a decent profit or a small loss.
My last two weekends are typical, both having me played 4 blackjack and three craps sessions per day and walking away with over $1000/day of winnings from them both, with my biggest win in any one session being in the range of $500 and my biggest loss having been $200...but over 2 days I had 9 winning sessions and 3 losing ones!
If you cant walk away a small loser and just let it go, you will be very likely to end up getting crushed playing to "get even". If you keep playing after a hot streak you are destined to give back your winnings when things go sour for a while.
Short sessions and empty tables are the key to my success.
> I agreed that ideally I would have a bankroll of
> $25,000 to play $25 chips and never be in danger of
> getting busted.
> But then I have managed to take a $2000 blackjack
> bankroll up to $20,000+ playing green chips.
Then you have been extremely lucky. That's all. Your skill or the way you play the game has had very little to do with it.
> But then my approach is different than 95% of the
> players I sit down next too...I don't sit at the
> tables grinding out out for hours until my bankroll is
> eventually ground to away to the felt.
> I play 4-5 sessions per day, each session lasting less
> than an hour. I buy in for $500, all green. With $25
> as my base unit I would have to lose 20 units to go
> through it. I have NEVER lost 20 units in one session
> of 45-60 minutes while counting, but I have come
> close.
Then you have not been playing very long. In a game that allows resplitting to 4 hands and DAS, if you have a max bet out betting green you can easily lose more than $500 in a single hand! This has happened to me countless times. I have had sessions in which the count immediately went positive, I went to a max bet, the cards did not fall my way, and I was reaching for another $500 buy-in before the pitboss had even returned my players card. Again, if you have never experienced one of these "sessions from hell," then I can only surmise that you have not been playing for very long.
> In reality, if I am getting pounded in the
> first 20 minutes, I just book it to a loss and go for
> a swim or some other thing to relax, regroup and get
> ready to give it another go later. By cutting my
> losses short I protect my bankroll and my confidence.
Trying to manipulate session results is not a long-term winning strategy. Some of my biggest winning sessions have started off with big losses. Besides, it's all one session. There is no guarantee that when return to the table you will not continue to lose. If you have never experienced an extended losing streak of 10 or 12 losing sessions in a row, then once again I would contend that you have not been doing this for very long.
> On the other hand I am often in the situation where I
> go up and down 4-6 units for a couple shoes, basically
> treading water, then get a hot shoe, press up the my
> bets after a win (letting it ride so I look like a
> gambler rather than jumping it up in huge increments
> like a counter) and ride out that hot shoe and call it
> a session, booking a $300-$600 win.
> And on those great days I start off hot, winning even
> against negative counts with small bets THEN get the
> hot shoe and really clean up....and call it a session.
> Playing short sessions, cutting loses short and
> walking with wins after hot shoes rather than giving
> back the wins with the next couple shoes I have built
> an impressive bankroll with little risk of a
> catastrophic loss.
If indeed you have done this, your risk of losing everything was actually quite huge, and you were extremely fortunate.
> The key is discipline and having the ability to cut a
> loss short and TAKE THE LOSS rather than pressing and
> trying to "get even" and turning a small
> loss into a big one and walking with reasonable wins
> rather than giving back the wins by playing long
> enough for the cards to turn after you have been hot.
The key is to play a winning game. In the long run, you will win your EV times your total action, and all the session manipulation in the world will not change that.
> I am also a very profitable craps player and it is
> because I have the discipline to work a system that
> gives me smaller consistant wins ($75-$150 per hour
> average) rather than trying for big scores, once again
> playing for an hour or so then walking with a decent
> profit or a small loss.
> My last two weekends are typical, both having me
> played 4 blackjack and three craps sessions per day
> and walking away with over $1000/day of winnings from
> them both, with my biggest win in any one session
> being in the range of $500 and my biggest loss having
> been $200...but over 2 days I had 9 winning sessions
> and 3 losing ones!
The results of two weekends play are completely, totally meaningless. Your EV is so dwarfed by variance that virtually anything could have happened. It certainly has nothing to do with playing ability.
> If you cant walk away a small loser and just let it
> go, you will be very likely to end up getting crushed
> playing to "get even". If you keep playing
> after a hot streak you are destined to give back your
> winnings when things go sour for a while.
This is superstitious nonsense. If you are playing a winning game you will be a long-term winner. However, it will take a lot longer to get to that long term if you walk away from a good game every time you get ahead or behind a bit.
> Short sessions and empty tables are the key to my
> success.
Yes, but not for the reasons you mention.
I apologise for coming down hard on you, but this is the beginner's page and to suggest that someone can bet green with a $2K bankroll and have any reasonable expectation of doing anything other than losing $2K is unrealistic and irresponsible, and I cannot let it go unchallenged.
If you are playing a winning game you will experience large bankroll swings in both directions. This is unavoidable and perhaps the biggest single reason why more people aren't doing this. If you are not adequately bankrolled then the first big negative swing will wipe you out.
> Then you have been extremely lucky. That's all. Your
> skill or the way you play the game has had very little
> to do with it.
> Then you have not been playing very long. In a game
> that allows resplitting to 4 hands and DAS, if you
> have a max bet out betting green you can easily lose
> more than $500 in a single hand! This has happened
> to me countless times. I have had sessions in which
> the count immediately went positive, I went to a max
> bet, the cards did not fall my way, and I was reaching
> for another $500 buy-in before the pitboss had even
> returned my players card. Again, if you have never
> experienced one of these "sessions from
> hell," then I can only surmise that you have not
> been playing for very long.
> Trying to manipulate session results is not a
> long-term winning strategy. Some of my biggest winning
> sessions have started off with big losses. Besides,
> it's all one session. There is no guarantee that when
> return to the table you will not continue to lose. If
> you have never experienced an extended losing streak
> of 10 or 12 losing sessions in a row, then once again
> I would contend that you have not been doing this for
> very long.
> If indeed you have done this, your risk of losing
> everything was actually quite huge, and you were
> extremely fortunate.
> The key is to play a winning game. In the long run,
> you will win your EV times your total action, and all
> the session manipulation in the world will not change
> that.
> The results of two weekends play are completely,
> totally meaningless. Your EV is so dwarfed by variance
> that virtually anything could have happened. It
> certainly has nothing to do with playing ability.
> This is superstitious nonsense. If you are playing a
> winning game you will be a long-term winner. However,
> it will take a lot longer to get to that long term if
> you walk away from a good game every time you get
> ahead or behind a bit.
> Yes, but not for the reasons you mention.
> I apologise for coming down hard on you, but this is
> the beginner's page and to suggest that someone can
> bet green with a $2K bankroll and have any reasonable
> expectation of doing anything other than losing $2K is
> unrealistic and irresponsible, and I cannot let it go
> unchallenged.
> If you are playing a winning game you will experience
> large bankroll swings in both directions. This is
> unavoidable and perhaps the biggest single reason why
> more people aren't doing this. If you are not
> adequately bankrolled then the first big negative
> swing will wipe you out.
I guess I have been lucky then.
In any event I am bankrolled now and will never lose $20,000 back to the casino in a session or a weekend, but wasn't when I started playing Green Chips, so I guess I got lucky when I was underbankrolled to survive to the point that I was capitalized.
I have had as much as $500 in action (2 spots x $100 (4 units) with split, then double on one and double on the other and had to pull out another $100 or $200 to cover it. Had I lost all 5 bets I would have been done for that session.
Personally I know that it is all one long session, but I feel like I have used leaving the table as a way of "Wonging" by staying out of very negative shoes as much as possible.
So in any event, please disreguard everything I said. It seems it is impossible to run $2000 up to $20,000+ without going broke. (Personally it took 3 times of scraping up $2000 and getting dusted before the 4th time I survived until I was over $10,000 in bankroll, at which point my style assured I was able to protect it while building it slowly and consistantly. But I found it easier to scrap up $2000 four times then to scrape together $20,000 grand before I played.)
I dont have huge wins or huge loses in craps or in blackjack because I cut my loses short and limit my wins to protect against giving them back, but that is just me.
Sorry for having posted bad information.
> I have had as much as $500 in action (2 spots x $100
> (4 units) with split, then double on one and double on
> the other and had to pull out another $100 or $200 to
> cover it. Had I lost all 5 bets I would have been done
> for that session.
Even if you had lost due to a slug of small cards coming out (resulting in a dealer 21) and the count is now hovering somewhere in the stratosphere? There is an old saying among counters: "Never leave a positive shoe."
> Personally I know that it is all one long session, but
> I feel like I have used leaving the table as a way of
> "Wonging" by staying out of very negative
> shoes as much as possible.
This is a proven technique which I heartily recommend. However, leaving the table when the count tanks is entirely different from leaving the table (possibly in a positive count) simply because you have lost (or won) some arbitrary amount.
> So in any event, please disreguard everything I said.
> It seems it is impossible to run $2000 up to $20,000+
> without going broke. (Personally it took 3 times of
> scraping up $2000 and getting dusted before the 4th
> time I survived until I was over $10,000 in bankroll,
> at which point my style assured I was able to protect
> it while building it slowly and consistantly. But I
> found it easier to scrap up $2000 four times then to
> scrape together $20,000 grand before I played.)
I would say that this is rather significant information, which was missing from your previous post. Another way to look at it might be that you actually started with a bankroll of $8K rather than $2K.
This approach is commonly referred to as the "Hail Mary" approach. As any football fan knows, "Hail Mary" plays are low percentage plays, although once in a while they are successful.
The problem with this approach is that you are essentially relying on luck; that you will catch a positive swing and increase your bankroll before a negative swing knocks you out. As advantage players, we try not to rely on positive variance (good luck) for our success.
It is difficult enough for a properly bankrolled player to succeed in today's games; trying to do it while underbankrolled becomes even more difficult. There is nothing really wrong with this approach, providing one has a realistic understanding of the odds against success.
This leads into an interesting, surprisingly complex topic. Classic blackjack theory generally assumes setting aside a fixed bankroll exclusively for blackjack. It is additionally assumed that this bankroll will only be increased via winnings, and that if one is "ruined" (the bankroll is lost), one will give up the game forever.
But what of the replaceable bankroll? Someone, like yourself, who can easily raise a few thousand dollars, and do it again if that amount is lost? How do we calculate optimal betting, risk of ruin, etc., in this situation?
This has been discussed at some length in Don's Domain, and the only conclusion (so far) is that there are no simple answers.
> I dont have huge wins or huge loses in craps or in
> blackjack because I cut my loses short and limit my
> wins to protect against giving them back, but that is
> just me.
I would contend that your success has resulted in spite of these techniques, rather than because of them.
> Sorry for having posted bad information.
No apologies are necessary. We're all here to learn.
> Even if you had lost due to a slug of small cards
> coming out (resulting in a dealer 21) and the count is
> now hovering somewhere in the stratosphere? There is
> an old saying among counters: "Never leave a
> positive shoe."
> This is a proven technique which I heartily recommend.
> However, leaving the table when the count tanks is
> entirely different from leaving the table (possibly in
> a positive count) simply because you have lost (or
> won) some arbitrary amount.
> I would say that this is rather significant
> information, which was missing from your previous
> post. Another way to look at it might be that you
> actually started with a bankroll of $8K rather than
> $2K.
> This approach is commonly referred to as the
> "Hail Mary" approach. As any football fan
> knows, "Hail Mary" plays are low percentage
> plays, although once in a while they are successful.
> The problem with this approach is that you are
> essentially relying on luck; that you will catch a
> positive swing and increase your bankroll before a
> negative swing knocks you out. As advantage players,
> we try not to rely on positive variance (good luck)
> for our success.
> It is difficult enough for a properly bankrolled
> player to succeed in today's games; trying to do it
> while underbankrolled becomes even more difficult.
> There is nothing really wrong with this approach,
> providing one has a realistic understanding of the
> odds against success.
> This leads into an interesting, surprisingly complex
> topic. Classic blackjack theory generally assumes
> setting aside a fixed bankroll exclusively for
> blackjack. It is additionally assumed that this
> bankroll will only be increased via winnings, and that
> if one is "ruined" (the bankroll is lost),
> one will give up the game forever.
> But what of the replaceable bankroll? Someone, like
> yourself, who can easily raise a few thousand dollars,
> and do it again if that amount is lost? How do we
> calculate optimal betting, risk of ruin, etc., in this
> situation?
> This has been discussed at some length in Don's
> Domain, and the only conclusion (so far) is that there
> are no simple answers.
> I would contend that your success has resulted in
> spite of these techniques, rather than because of
> them.
> No apologies are necessary. We're all here to learn.
I appreciate your insight. You guys have done way more analysis in the mathmatics of the game than I have for sure.
When looking at my positings, you have to keep in mind that how I play now that I am well bankrolled is different than how I played when I was seriously under-bankrolled....AND KNEW IT!
Leaving at a preset loss limit is not how I play now that I have an sufficient Green Chip bankroll. Now if I was wiped out of chips on the table now and the shoe was smoking hot, I would just pull another $500-$1000 and buy more(I buy in for $1000 now). But back when I was trying to build a bankroll I was doing what I had to in order to try and survive (limiting my loss).
I still play short sessions because it makes it harder for the pit and "eye" to identifiy you as a counter, but now I quit, win or lose after 45-60 minutes, the exact time being based on either coming into a seriosly negative shoe or having finished a good one.
Back when I only had $2000 (I don't live in Vegas so it would take me 4-6 months or so to scape up that much "extra" money to give it the "hail mary" as you call it) I really had 4 options. Given that I believe to be adequately bankrolled you should have a playing bankroll of 1000 times your playing unit with 2000 being even better my choices were:
1) Play red chip ($10 units) following mainstream accepted methods at crowded tables which made it tough to count and diluted my earnings when a shoe turned positive while still being undercapitalized by about $8K
2) Not play for two or three years until I could save $10,000 to do #1, and still be playing at tables that were less than desirable for an AP.
3) Play green chip at lonely $25 tables while SERIOUSLY undercapitalize using mainstream methods knowing one serious negative swing would wipe me out.
4) Play green chip at those empty or one player tables offering me optimal AP playing conditions, while using a very conservative strategy which may have limited my ability to win big in any one session but gave me the best chance of not getting wiped out (which still happened 3 times) while building a bankroll slowly.
My approach was similar to being a "momenteum play" in the stock market vs. buy and hold. In momenteum stock plays, you buy stock that is moving upward and ride it for a short time then lock in a profit. If the stock swings down you get out quickly before you lose much.
At the tables I would Wong a shoe then get in and ride it out that shoe, then play min bet $25 basic strategy (hoping to tread water effectively) until my time limit came up (quit) or a seriously negative shoe came up(quit) or I got another favorable shoe (play it out then quit).
If the tables had no-mid-shoe-entry rules I would just get in and play min bet $25 basic strategy until my time for that session was up(quit), I hit a really bad shoe(quit) or I got a really good one (which I would ride out then quit).
If I set down and got beat a few times and the shoe wasnt looking good, I quit the table and regrouped.
So, basically I know that everything you are saying is correct, especially when playing with a solid bankroll.
But the person in the original posting doesn't have a solid bankroll and I was just explaining what I did to overcome that situation. He is faced with the four options above
So yes, it took me three tries (hail marys as you call them) but eventually I got a few good weekends in a row playing in Vegas and a local casino and got above $10K, then I could losen up a little.
I was just making do with the sitution I was facing, having counting skills but not a big bankroll.
Now I have both.
And as I stated before, once I went to dedicated Green Chip play, the comps were much better so that I wasnt spending my money eating and paying for rooms because even though I was playing short sessions I was still playing 4-5 hrs of green chip play per day, along with some Craps.
Once again in Craps I employ a highly conservative Don?t Pass/Hedge strategy that has minimal downside and minimal opportunity to win big, but allows for consistent small wins while building playing time for comps and providing camouflage for my BJ counting since most AP BJ players don?t play Craps. I ALWAYS make sure they have my players card when I play Craps because I WANT them to see that I play both BJ & Craps so that I look like a gambler not a counter.
The funny part is that I am far from a gambler?I am one of the most conservative players in the casino but it doesn?t look that way on my ratings card. I usually have $100 or more on the table on every roll of the dice, but it is strategically positioned to hedge my bets so I am really ?gambling? with say $10 per turn while being rated at $100/turn.
An hour or two a of craps play per day rated at $100+ per round really helps the ole comps allowances while providing BJ camoflage and putting a little extra cash in my pocket...
> I appreciate your insight. You guys have done way more
> analysis in the mathmatics of the game than I have for
> sure.
> When looking at my positings, you have to keep in mind
> that how I play now that I am well bankrolled is
> different than how I played when I was seriously
> under-bankrolled....AND KNEW IT!
> Leaving at a preset loss limit is not how I play now
> that I have an sufficient Green Chip bankroll. Now if
> I was wiped out of chips on the table now and the shoe
> was smoking hot, I would just pull another $500-$1000
> and buy more(I buy in for $1000 now). But back when I
> was trying to build a bankroll I was doing what I had
> to in order to try and survive (limiting my loss).
> I still play short sessions because it makes it harder
> for the pit and "eye" to identifiy you as a
> counter, but now I quit, win or lose after 45-60
> minutes, the exact time being based on either coming
> into a seriosly negative shoe or having finished a
> good one.
> Back when I only had $2000 (I don't live in Vegas so
> it would take me 4-6 months or so to scape up that
> much "extra" money to give it the "hail
> mary" as you call it) I really had 4 options.
> Given that I believe to be adequately bankrolled you
> should have a playing bankroll of 1000 times your
> playing unit with 2000 being even better my choices
> were:
> 1) Play red chip ($10 units) following mainstream
> accepted methods at crowded tables which made it tough
> to count and diluted my earnings when a shoe turned
> positive while still being undercapitalized by about
> $8K
> 2) Not play for two or three years until I could save
> $10,000 to do #1, and still be playing at tables that
> were less than desirable for an AP.
> 3) Play green chip at lonely $25 tables while
> SERIOUSLY undercapitalize using mainstream methods
> knowing one serious negative swing would wipe me out.
> 4) Play green chip at those empty or one player tables
> offering me optimal AP playing conditions, while using
> a very conservative strategy which may have limited my
> ability to win big in any one session but gave me the
> best chance of not getting wiped out (which still
> happened 3 times) while building a bankroll slowly.
> My approach was similar to being a "momenteum
> play" in the stock market vs. buy and hold. In
> momenteum stock plays, you buy stock that is moving
> upward and ride it for a short time then lock in a
> profit. If the stock swings down you get out quickly
> before you lose much.
> At the tables I would Wong a shoe then get in and ride
> it out that shoe, then play min bet $25 basic strategy
> (hoping to tread water effectively) until my time
> limit came up (quit) or a seriously negative shoe came
> up(quit) or I got another favorable shoe (play it out
> then quit).
> If the tables had no-mid-shoe-entry rules I would just
> get in and play min bet $25 basic strategy until my
> time for that session was up(quit), I hit a really bad
> shoe(quit) or I got a really good one (which I would
> ride out then quit).
> If I set down and got beat a few times and the shoe
> wasnt looking good, I quit the table and regrouped.
> So, basically I know that everything you are saying is
> correct, especially when playing with a solid
> bankroll.
> But the person in the original posting doesn't have a
> solid bankroll and I was just explaining what I did to
> overcome that situation. He is faced with the four
> options above
> So yes, it took me three tries (hail marys as you call
> them) but eventually I got a few good weekends in a
> row playing in Vegas and a local casino and got above
> $10K, then I could losen up a little.
> I was just making do with the sitution I was facing,
> having counting skills but not a big bankroll.
> Now I have both.
> And as I stated before, once I went to dedicated Green
> Chip play, the comps were much better so that I wasnt
> spending my money eating and paying for rooms because
> even though I was playing short sessions I was still
> playing 4-5 hrs of green chip play per day, along with
> some Craps.
> Once again in Craps I employ a highly conservative
> Don?t Pass/Hedge strategy that has minimal downside
> and minimal opportunity to win big, but allows for
> consistent small wins while building playing time for
> comps and providing camouflage for my BJ counting
> since most AP BJ players don?t play Craps. I ALWAYS
> make sure they have my players card when I play Craps
> because I WANT them to see that I play both BJ &
> Craps so that I look like a gambler not a counter.
> The funny part is that I am far from a gambler?I am
> one of the most conservative players in the casino but
> it doesn?t look that way on my ratings card. I usually
> have $100 or more on the table on every roll of the
> dice, but it is strategically positioned to hedge my
> bets so I am really ?gambling? with say $10 per turn
> while being rated at $100/turn.
> An hour or two a of craps play per day rated at $100+
> per round really helps the ole comps allowances while
> providing BJ camoflage and putting a little extra cash
> in my pocket...
Oh yea, and YES, I was always working on the assumption that I had a renewable bankroll on the low end because I was not playing blackjack for a living, just using "extra" funds. So my choices were save for months and years to get a bankroll "big enough" to follow the accepted bankroll guidelines and usage or take a shot (hail mary) and find a way to make best use what I could scrape up.
I would still be saving if I hadn't thrown up those "Hail Mary" passes every few months until I got hot.
You can just call me Doug Flutie I guess!
Good luck at the tables.
> This leads into an interesting, surprisingly complex
> topic. Classic blackjack theory generally assumes
> setting aside a fixed bankroll exclusively for
> blackjack. It is additionally assumed that this
> bankroll will only be increased via winnings, and that
> if one is "ruined" (the bankroll is lost),
> one will give up the game forever.
> But what of the replaceable bankroll? Someone, like
> yourself, who can easily raise a few thousand dollars,
> and do it again if that amount is lost? How do we
> calculate optimal betting, risk of ruin, etc., in this
> situation?
For a player who can replace his bankroll multiple times, wouldn't bankroll be defined as the number of times that the replaceable stake could be lost before the player gave up the game for good. For instance, BJ for extra $$$ was willing to replenish his $2000 stake four times. Presumably, at some point he would give up for good. I suppose few players would define that point precisely at the outset but if you were playing to a very high ROR and were aware of the risks you were taking, you would have to consider how many times you were willing to throw the Hail Mary before you walked away from the game.
I guess it would be an entirely different situation for someone who was not interested in the Hail Mary strategy but was willing to start underfunded and add a certain amount of cash to the bankroll every month or two, win or lose. But even then there would be a point at which the cumulative total of contributions would reach some sort of maximum amount that the player was willing to lose. Not many people would be willing to see all their extra income go down a hole indefinitely.
If you were doing the latter, couldn't you just determine the duration between bankroll additions, the risk you are willing to take on for any given duration, and adjust your bet ramp according to that info? So, if you start with BR, and every month will add X, in month 1 you have a trip bankroll BR, then let BR = BR + NET + X and proceed accordingly? How is a replenishable bankroll different from constantly readjusted one? Set ROR to a constant and bet accordingly.
> For a player who can replace his bankroll multiple
> times, wouldn't bankroll be defined as the number of
> times that the replaceable stake could be lost before
> the player gave up the game for good. For instance, BJ
> for extra $$$ was willing to replenish his $2000 stake
> four times. Presumably, at some point he would give up
> for good. I suppose few players would define that
> point precisely at the outset but if you were playing
> to a very high ROR and were aware of the risks you
> were taking, you would have to consider how many times
> you were willing to throw the Hail Mary before you
> walked away from the game.
> I guess it would be an entirely different situation
> for someone who was not interested in the Hail Mary
> strategy but was willing to start underfunded and add
> a certain amount of cash to the bankroll every month
> or two, win or lose. But even then there would be a
> point at which the cumulative total of contributions
> would reach some sort of maximum amount that the
> player was willing to lose. Not many people would be
> willing to see all their extra income go down a hole
> indefinitely.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks