Considering trying full-time

[Sharky]

Considering trying full-time...

Let me start with the basics about myself:

• Mid twenties, college educated
• Have played blackjack casually for 6 years
• ....

FC,

use your education and find a job you actually enjoy...I know this is easier said then done, but find out what you enjoy doing and try to find a job in that 'space'...even if it pays less then what you currently earn...if you like what you do, you likely will be successful over time and BUILD WEALTH (you sound like you already have a reasonable start, most mid-20s are in debt, so kudos for saving)

perhaps find a job in a city that has gambling, frankly, I travel with my job frequently and more surprised to find a city doesn't have gambling reasonably close than if they do

hone your craft, and good advice to find opportunities outside of just counting...which you say you play 'casually for 6 years'...sorry, but you, likely will lose it all...anyone who gives you advice otherwise is 'pipedreaming'

best of luck,

Sharky

[blue_phantom]

Sorry. I am passionate about my improvements to traditional counting techniques. I have pioneered new techniques that haven't been done before. This is one of the reasons I try not to post about it. People don't understand what exists in unexplored territory. Perhaps I should delete the posts. Most people just want a plug and play easy system rather than put in the time it takes to rarely have to gripe about swings. In my opinion people are obsessed about the wrong statistics or don't understand variance is blind to direction of swings.

It’s not a crime for a part time recreational player to use a simple system. Its not lazy either. It’s cost benefit analysis. Getting the boot is hardly my concern either when the nearest playable shop is 6 hours flight away. If I get the boot I fly 10 hours and I get to visit a new place.

A) spent 200 hours or maybe more to learn three’s system
B) spent 200 hours to work so you have a larger br

Which option gives highest ev for the least amount of time invested ?

Whether it’s justifiable for a pro is up to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Three]

Which option gives highest ev for the least amount of time invested ?

I don't worry about maximizing SCORE or EV. Getting that last little bit to get to maximum is very costly. It is an asymptotic function. You get very close to maximum but have to give up a lot to get that last little bit. I look at EV, SCORE and CE as a group. I try to maximize the group as a whole. Maximizing SCORE will hurt EV and CE. Maximizing EV will hurt SCORE and CE. Maximizing CE will hurt SCORE and EV. I pick CE as my favorite of the three but try to get them all close to that state were the cost is high to move it that last little bit. When it comes to doubles and to a lesser degree splits I first try to get as accurate a decision as I can. My approach allows some real fine tuning there that the traditional approach doesn't. This gives me more EV than the traditional approach. Then I give some of that EV gain back by waiting for a larger EV gain to double especially with big bets out. The higher EV is because you are winning a higher percentage of doubles. Close to the index you lose more hands than if you didn't double (if you would want to take another card) and lose twice as much when you lose.

You also have a lower EV when doubling at the index than farther past the index because you are winning a smaller percentage of doubles and losing a higher percentage of doubles than at farther past the index. By being more patient on certain doubles with big bets out the goal isn't to reduce variance; although a small amount of variance reduction occurs, the goal is to increase positive variance while decreasing negative variance for the doubling decision as a whole without costing much of the extra EV from making a more accurate decision to begin with. This way variance is largely unaffected but the variance is more positive variance based than negative variance based than a similar EV with a less accurate doubling decision. This is what maximizes BR growth. Personally I don't like big swings around expectation. I know I can do things about it and I make that my priority without getting to the point I am giving up a ton of EV or decreasing SCORE much. You can choose to take gain anywhere you want. This is the way I choose to take gain. EV maximizing would be 5% more but would hit SCORE and CE hard. SCORE maximizing would be around 3% more with a 20% less EV (that last little bit of SCORE costs a lot to get) but the extra downswings with big bets out would hurt the certainty of BR growth. I hear people say a 5% increase in EV is not worth it all the time when justifying not going to a stronger count than their simple count. I agree with them that there are better places to take that 5% gain than to take it in extra EV. So I take it in a higher ratio of upswing to downswing or in other words much more certain BR growth.

There are a dozens of ways to skin this cat we call BJ. No one way is better than any other because what is best is all a matter of personal preference. Personally I like my approach best, for me. I wouldn't recommend it except for those rare specially driven individuals. But if you gather extra information you can use the same ideas to affect your certainty of BR growth but just apply them differently. I know a few that gather extra info and use it to alter betting when caution is recommended and to wait for being farther past the index to double you money on the table in certain deck compositions and they get quite similar shift to more positive variance and less negative variance causing more certain BR growth. What they do isn't that complicated. It just allows them to make better betting and playing decisions that help control their upswing to downswing ratio. I am sure their EV is lower but they also find their results are much more to their liking than a traditional way of using the extra information that would say it isn't worth much. There are more things that make something valuable than increased EV. Often a decrease in EV can be more valuable than an increase in EV if you make the right decisions to decrease EV.

I am just saying all these stat junkies really don't understand how to take the stats and relate them to what actually happens at the table. They should understand that decisions that decrease stats are not necessarily bad and decisions that increase stats are not automatically good. It is a little more complicated than that when you are actually playing in a casino environment. Big swings make you look like a threat.

[Stealth]

Outs require a knowledge of the other's hand. By the time you get that there are no more decisions to be made.

I may be late to this converstaion but if you are talking about outs playing poker then your statement is misleading at best and wrong at its worst.

In poker, you understad your "outs" based on the information (my hand, the dealers cards and any other cards I have seen) you have, just like not seeing all the hands during a round of blackjack.

Evaluating the worth of that information becomes "artful" when adjusted by playing position, betting characteristics, etc.

Did I miss something?

[Dbs6582]

Considering trying full-time...

Let me start with the basics about myself:

• Mid twenties, college educated
• Have spent my time since college in a cubicle with a boss I do not like
• No liabilities or debt, currently live rent free, drive an old but reliable paid off car
• A little over 40k liquid right now
• Have played blackjack casually for 6 years
• I love being on the road and answering to no one
• Would hope to NET at least 20k first year after all expenses

Can those with experience in the present blackjack world give me some pros and cons? By far my biggest concern is burning through lots of places and not being able to get the hours in on games with great EV to make it worth my while.

If I blow through 20k of my savings I will probably be discouraged and may head back to the cubicle, which will always be there waiting for me…

Talk me into it or out of it.

Hey FalseCount, I am reading a book called I Am A Card Counter by Frank Scoblete and came upon some excellent advice from Stanford Wong about advantage play. I think you’ve heard of him before. When Mr. Wong was asked the question you’re asking he said: “My advise is to keep advantage play part-time. Do something else with the major part of your time, something more valuable to society. You will find that more satisfying than becoming a full-time advantage player.”

I think this is excellent advice. It’s what I do. Being a part time AP gives me some extra cash but I’ve come to realize it is somewhat boring and brings no value to society. There is more to life than just making money. At least with your job in the cubical you’re doing something to add value to society. That’s got to give you some sense of self worth. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

[Sharky]

...At least with your job in the cubical you’re doing something to add value to society...

please elaborate....you can't mean by simply paying income taxes as APs pay them as well...what do you mean???
(i.e. read a book about Enron execs, Bernie Madoff company...need I go on???
)

[Midwest Player]

When Mr. Wong was asked the question you’re asking he said: “My advise is to keep advantage play part-time. Do something else with the major part of your time, something more valuable to society. You will find that more satisfying than becoming a full-time advantage player.”

I think this is excellent advice. It’s what I do. Being a part time AP gives me some extra cash but I’ve come to realize it is somewhat boring and brings no value to society. There is more to life than just making money. At least with your job in the cubical you’re doing something to add value to society. That’s got to give you some sense of self worth.

Most of my working life I sat in a cubical. It was a good paying job for the region of the country where I lived. I never felt I was doing something great for society like maybe what a doctor can do. I never really loved the job or hated it either, except for a short period of time when I was over whelmed by the amount of work I had to do. It was the kind of job where you are never really caught up. When the chance for early retirement came along, I went for it. I always looked at my job as a way to make a living. In fact, when I was pumping gas at a full service station, I probably thought I was doing more for folks than my office job.

[Wino]

After experiencing a 6-month downswing meaning I fell on the left-side of the curve for every session for 6 months straight before starting to see results fall back on the right-side, I would say no way full time unless you are a multi-millionaire and and betting at Kelly that is so insignificant that you would never shead a drop of sweat ever, I would say never go full time Counting. You need other income to supplement like either a regular part-time job, consulting, or mixing Poker, and other AP plays where there's enough of a market for steady enough income. To recap, bankroll is the number one factor. Believe me, scouting Hole-carding and playing Hole-carding games is not glorious at all and almost over-rated in my opinion(from grinding in the trenches). My two cents that others have probably touched on. Your bankroll amount is not enough to do full time because cost of living alone is too high in general these days. Also, please read the effect of Overhead expenses on Risk-of-Ruin. Regards. Oh, and great discussion/post by the way! I love all the input from these experienced members who are giving insight.

[Wino]

Replying to Tthree's second post on the first page of this thread regarding choosing lower EV in order to experience less variance has its good points. Very clear opinion that I also share. I'd take the milder method of attack any day.

[Wino]

If I were you, if my EV is triples of my hourly wages, I would do it, if not, keep it as hobby

EV is just EV. You forgot about the more important CE which relates to overall bankroll and risk-of-ruin.

[Dbs6582]

Most of my working life I sat in a cubical. It was a good paying job for the region of the country where I lived. I never felt I was doing something great for society like maybe what a doctor can do. I never really loved the job or hated it either, except for a short period of time when I was over whelmed by the amount of work I had to do. It was the kind of job where you are never really caught up. When the chance for early retirement came along, I went for it. I always looked at my job as a way to make a living. In fact, when I was pumping gas at a full service station, I probably thought I was doing more for folks than my office job.

Midwest, maybe you didn’t feel you weren’t doing something “great” for society sitting in your cubicle, like what a doctor does. But if someone was paying you for the work you were doing sitting in a cubicle, you were doing something that was seen as value to society. This is why people pay people to work. Evybody’s work will obviously have a different value for society. We all can’t be Noble Laureate scientist or be doctors curing cancer, but if you’re working a real job, you’re adding value to society.

In contrast, being an AP contributes nothing to society. It only benefits the AP. The casino, in fact, is adding value to society by giving the general public entertainment for the opportunity of playing a negative EV games. I know some APs don’t see it this way, but this is the business model of a casino. And it must work since the general public spends more money in casinos than going to movies and sporting events, which are also in the entertainment space.

[angle_sh00ter]

Midwest, maybe you didn’t feel you weren’t doing something “great” for society sitting in your cubicle, like what a doctor does. But if someone was paying you for the work you were doing sitting in a cubicle, you were doing something that was seen as value to society. This is why people pay people to work. Evybody’s work will obviously have a different value for society. We all can’t be Noble Laureate scientist or be doctors curing cancer, but if you’re working a real job, you’re adding value to society.

In contrast, being an AP contributes nothing to society. It only benefits the AP. The casino, in fact, is adding value to society by giving the general public entertainment for the opportunity of playing a negative EV games. I know some APs don’t see it this way, but this is the business model of a casino. And it must work since the general public spends more money in casinos than going to movies and sporting events, which are also in the entertainment space.

Not too sure where this great notion of adding something to society came from? While commendable i feel it may be a bit misdirected at least as it pertains to the subject matter.

Lets not forget the small fact that if someone's employment "adds to society" it is merely incidental to the primary concern of generating an income for themselves (and a profit for their employer/company)

Not saying that there are not people out there doing amazing things for society. Just try not to lose sight of what it is that actually keeps things spinning.

[Jabberwocky]

Hey FalseCount, I am reading a book called I Am A Card Counter by Frank Scoblete and came upon some excellent advice from Stanford Wong about advantage play. I think you’ve heard of him before. When Mr. Wong was asked the question you’re asking he said: “My advise is to keep advantage play part-time. Do something else with the major part of your time, something more valuable to society. You will find that more satisfying than becoming a full-time advantage player.”

I think this is excellent advice. It’s what I do. Being a part time AP gives me some extra cash but I’ve come to realize it is somewhat boring and brings no value to society. There is more to life than just making money. At least with your job in the cubical you’re doing something to add value to society. That’s got to give you some sense of self worth. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Any idea how much Wong made from cc'ing? It was a paltry amount. Hence, a poor authority on the subject matter.