Kim Lee: Quiz: Which is the real winner?

[Kim Lee]

Here are various and sundry quotes from the literature and players that characterize different approaches to the game. Which set of attitudes is more likely to characterize a real winner?

1) I consider myself a professional, and prepare meticulously before play. It took me months to memorize as many indices for one of the most powerful systems available. Before playing I first practice with software using the exact rules of the casino. Then I finish counting drills with actual playing cards before heading to the casino. A professional would never drink on the job, because mistakes are disastrous. Even with perfect play this is a risky business. Therefore it is important to play the best games available - single deck if possible, or double deck with S17, DAS, and either surrender or RSA. It is also important to play as many mistake-free hours as possible to get into the long-run. As a professional the casino staff are my "employees". So I tip them adequately to ensure their loyalty and avoid heat during my long sessions. I keep meticulous records showing my hourly performance at different times against different dealers. Consequently I know I do poorly against white middle-aged male dealers and in certain casinos. This also helps me guage the risk of my play for risk of ruin and unit-sizing. Remember: Practice and keep records meticulously, and play as many hours possible with good rules in handheld games.

2) Professional? Whaddaya think, there is some secret underground union of counters? I started with High-Low and only learned around 20 indices because I was going to switch to a more powerful system. I don't really practice, and am probably not terribly good at true count estimation. Heck, I probably make lots of mistakes. But I compensate by just betting a lot when the count is high. Actually I don't really play that many hours because I often backcount shoe games; they are more readily available. My host even complained I was only giving him 2.5 hours per day. You want records? I count Benjamins at the start of my trip and the end of my trip, and the difference is my profit. My running tally shows I'm a winner. I don't worry about risk because I bet as much as I can get away with and I know I'll win eventually. Don't sweat the small stuff. Remember: Just shove out the money when you have an advantage, then go somewhere else and do it again.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Which set of attitudes is more likely to characterize a real winner?

Very unfair question. I'd answer: neither. Sloppiness of thought and preparation is not the sign of a true pro. No one has ever done better at an endeavor for being ill-prepared or less intelligent than the next guy.

That said, "book smarts" are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being successful. "Street smarts" help a lot, too.

Clearly, a little from (1) and a little from (2) may make for the ideal player. The remark about the white, male dealers is plain stupid. But, some of the comments from the second guy are foolhardy, as well.

Question is too black-and-white for my taste. There is no correct answer.

Don

[Pro21]

I've known many of both. If I were forced to invest I'd definitely pick #2. #1 won't lose much but he probably won't win anything either.

Give me the player that says -- I don't count cards. There's too much heat and the edge is too small.

[Night Train]

I finally made it over to the new Masters of Blackjack area. Congratulations to all the Masters on a very impressive web site. This will undoubtedly improve even more over time.

This post was of interest, so here's some input...

>Here are various and sundry quotes from the >literature and players that characterize >different approaches to the game. Which set of >attitudes is more likely to characterize a real >winner?

I feel that both attitudes have flaws, but attitudes can be adjusted. Let's dissect ....

>1)I consider myself a professional, and prepare >meticulously before play.

This is a great quality.

>It took me months to memorize as many indices >for one of the most powerful systems available.

We don't have enough information (bankroll, time available for play, skill-level) to determine whether it is beneficial for the player to attempt
learning and applying "one of the most powerful systems available." In most cases, this could be overkill.

>Before playing I first practice with software >using the exact rules of the casino. Then I >finish counting drills with actual playing cards
>before heading to the casino.

This demonstrates a disciplined routine necessary to keep one's skills sharp. The one comment I have is, as we all know, that although one may be proficient in the home practice, live casino play can present difficulty to some. If a player is comfortable using a complex system at home, but has some concerns when playing live, switching to a simpler system may be the ticket.

>A professional would never drink on the job, >because mistakes are disastrous.

Good philosophy. However, in today's environment it helps to appear as though you are there to have some fun. I'm not saying that you should
"down shots" but a good move is when you are about ready to end your last session of the evening, order a cocktail and leave the table with it. You don't even have to drink it!

>Even with perfect play this is a risky business. >Therefore it is important to play the best games >available - single deck if possible, or double >deck with S17, DAS, and either surrender or RSA.

From these statements, it appears that the "risky business" is referring to the fluctuations inherent in the game. On that note, the follow-up of playing the best games available is correct. However, such "best games" are also the ones that the casino watches most for skilled
play. This presents a different kind of risk, which may result in your getting barred from play altogether.

>It is also important to play as many mistake->free hours as possible to get into the long-run.

This statement, being true, would require a concern of one's ability to play without heat. Moving around and devising methods to play games
other than described above would help improve one's longevity. If you are not permitted to play .... Game over, you lose!

>As a professional the casino staff are >my "employees". So I tip them adequately to >ensure their loyalty and avoid heat during my >long sessions.

This is a good idea, but this statement seems to differ from this player's overall philosophy. I could be wrong, but my first impression of
someone looking to learn a complex system, and seek out the best rules is someone who is looking to maximize expectation and take no prisoners. From my experience, I find such a player NEVER TIPS! However, if the player has a good routine, where he can get a) apply a complex system flawlessly; and, b) play lots of hours at these "best-rules games," he may have developed a
good relationship with the casino staff and he is "biting the bullet" since tipping is that "necessary evil" to keep the door open.

>I keep meticulous records showing my hourly >performance at different times against different >dealers.

This is good to rate penetration levels, dealing speed (hands-per-hour) and which dealers get sloppy later in their respective shifts. For a long-term hourly performance, if your records show a huge overall loss while playing a specific dealer, it may be a good idea to watch closely for any cheating moves.

>Consequently I know I do poorly against white >middle-aged male dealers and in certain casinos.

I'll hold off on the jokes ;-)

>This also helps me gauge the risk of my play for >risk of ruin and unit-sizing. Remember: Practice >and keep records meticulously, and play as
>many hours possible with good rules in handheld >games.

> 2)Professional? Whaddaya think, there is some >secret underground union of counters?

This player could probably use a drink or two while playing ;-)

>I started with High-Low and only learned around >20 indices because I was going to switch to a >more powerful system. I don't really practice,
>and am probably not terribly good at true count >estimation. Heck, I probably make lots of >mistakes.

This player can get lucky in the short run, but long term... Ouch!

>But I compensate by just betting a lot when the >count is high. Actually I don't really play that >many hours because I often backcount shoe games; >they are more readily available.

This is fine, but if you make "lots of mistakes" you have no idea of your accuracy when doing this. Also, while "betting a lot when the count is
high" can work, the player doesn't mention anything about bankroll requirements.

>My host even complained I was only giving him >2.5 hours per day.

2.5 hours per day of backcounting. Let's see .... Spread over three shifts, that's 50 minutes per shift of ACTUAL BETTING. Since the host is
indicating the 2.5 hours, that is actual rated play- time. This does not include the time you may be backcounting without betting, which results in a lot more than 50 minutes of exposure per shift. The player has a host and, from the statement, it appears the player is a guest at the hotel, looking for comps. Aside from the factor of errors as a result of sloppy play,
unless such a player is extremely smooth, he doesn't have a good chance for maintaining longevity either.

>You want records? I count Benjamins at the start >of my trip and the end of my trip, and the >difference is my profit. My running tally shows >I'm a winner. I don't worry about risk because I >bet as much as I can get away with and I know >I'll win eventually Don't sweat the small stuff.

This sounds like short-term results. Luck. Sloppy play, resulting in errors will catch up to you in the long run.

>Remember: Just shove out the money when you have >an advantage, then go somewhere else and do it >again.

Great strategy, if playing accurately and not overbetting your bankroll.

To summarize, both attitudes could use some adjustment. Perhaps these two can get together at the Baccarat Bar, have a couple of drinks,
combine whatever good qualities they possess, eliminate the negative qualities, and team up for some play. I've heard of stranger things!

Regards,
Rick

[Don Schlesinger]

Great, thorough, thoughtful analysis, Rick.

By the way, guys, let me throw in a plug for the upcoming second edition of Rick's terrific book, "Blackjack in the Zone." It's a complete blueprint of how to attack the game, from the beginning level to the pro. I highly recommend it.

Don

[Cacarulo]

I totally agree with Night Train's answer.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[M]

man, i love BJ in the Zone, and i will definitely purchase the 2e as Don mentions.

please post on a regular basis!!!

M.

[Zenfighter]

> I totally agree with Night Train's answer.

> Sincerely,
> Cacarulo

The main reason why only 10% of the counters
tend to survive in the long run, is mainly
because these "high skilled players" are IMHO
the bread and butter of the total population.
Against a "soft dealer" (Usa),I have no doubts.
Against a "hard dealer" (Europe), I rest my case!

Regards
Z

[Cyrus]

Beyond the words, what Kim Lee is offering is a comparison between (1) playing single deck and/or double deck with a set of good rules, tipping heavily and playing "long hours", and (2) mostly wonging shoes and topping out all high counts, for abt 2.5 hours per day. I will not guess which of the two player wins the most because I don't feel I have enough information.

..But as to which of the two players has the potential to become a "real winner", it's #1 without a doubt. He can learn and improve (eg stop tipping !), the other can't.

Smells badly too.