MikeH: Back from 10 days in Vegas

[MikeH]

Just arrived back home from a most enjoyable trip to Vegas. However, while the trip was fun, I have come back nursing some what feels like a fairly sizeable loss from the trip's blackjack sessions. Any comments observations on where I might have gone wrong are most welcome - Im still learning and I know that and really appreciate guidance from the more battle hardened. Did I just pick the wrong games? Was I not spreading enough? Or are my result fairly typical of lower tail outcomes for a 10 days trip?

I played mostly at the large casinos at the South end of the strip (mentioning no names) on the DD games I identified as the best looking contenders from CBJN and Trackjack. Typical rules were H17, DAS, no RSA and in one place LS. Penetration varied from joint to joint and from dealer to dealer, but ~60% was typical. I played at the $25 tables and spread between $25 (TC <=1) and $200 (on one occassion up to $300 as noted below) without seeming to attract any heat at all. Most bet ramping was made to appear as if I was letting wins ride or doubling up to make up a loss. I took convenient bathroom breaks to dodge negative counts, or sat out a round or two to "shake up the order of the cards", but had to play occassionally and bet the table minimum in all cases. Mostly I played with 1-2 others at the table, sometimes heads up (I always seemed to get hammered playing heads up).

Compared to the conditions I see in London, these games seemed fabulous and I was confident I could play a winning game. Here are my results from my DD sessions across a range of casinos. As you can see, the trip started really well but was blighted by two rather large losses.

+$1100 (3 hours)
+$200 (2 hours)
+$800 (6 hours) (at this point I was planning on turning pro :-) )
-$2100 (8 hours)
-$500 (2 hours)
+$200 (1 hour)
-$500 (1 hour)
-$200 (1 hour)
+$300 (2 hours)
-$400 (2 bours)
+$200 (4 hours)
level (2 hours)
+$200 (2 hours)
-$1900 (4 hours)
-$100 (2 hours)

Overall, a loss of $2700 from 42 hours of play.

The result of my penultimate session would have been a lot worse if I hadnt won a "money plays" and "money doubles" hand for a total of $600. That session was uncomfortable to sit through. I lost hand after hand when the count was positive and seemed to be constantly dipping into my wallet (I bought-in in $300-400 blocks). Finally walked from the table after losing a split (Aces versus 7) with $100 on each. Dealer showed a 6 in the hole for a total of 16, then put an Ace on it. Naturally, I had a 2 and a 4 on my aces...

At least I seem to have a reasonable enough act, as I didnt seem to attract any heat, or even attention. I'm comfortable enough to be able to jabber away at the table while keeping count and tried to be chatty and friendly with the dealers, other players. Nobody seemed to mind the Englishman who just loves to gamble.

Looking back on the trip, I dont think I messed up anywhere along the line, so unless anyone can spot something I'm missing, my inclination is just to put my losses down to an unfortunate streak of cards. I believe Im playing a winning game. However, I am at present a losing card counter with career losses instead of career profits, so a careful review of my play is called for.

Thanks for reading and thanks in advance for any comments/observations/suggestions.

Kind regards

Mike

[Victoria]

Hard to really say anything about a player without seeing them play but I do have an observation or two.
First off, you played something like 42 hours and that is not enough hours to make a statistical judgement. If nothing else a dose of negative variance could have done you in.

Then there is the question in my mind, as to why your two longest sessions were your two worst sessions. Why did you stay then but leave earlier during some of your better sessions?

Finally, you can find better than 60% penetration at DD in Vegas.

Victoria

[MikeH]

Victoria

> Hard to really say anything about a player
> without seeing them play but I do have an
> observation or two.

Now that is something I would really value, to play along side an experienced counter and have them assess my play. I think an hour of that would be worth many hours of solo experience and home computer simulation/practice. However, given the necessarily secretive approach of the counter, perhaps impossible to arrange.

> First off, you played something like 42
> hours and that is not enough hours to make a
> statistical judgement. If nothing else a
> dose of negative variance could have done
> you in.

Yes, a good point. If I was getting circa 100 hands an hour then we have a sample size of 4000-4500 hands. Wong presents some stats that show that negative outcomes are distinctly possible in a sample of this size.

> Then there is the question in my mind, as to
> why your two longest sessions were your two
> worst sessions. Why did you stay then but
> leave earlier during some of your better
> sessions?

My starting and stopping points were determined by meeting up with people, starting times of shows etc, so mostly non-blackjack reasons. Its also worth noting that the places where I had my two big losses were at the same locations where I also had wins, in one case my two biggest wins. In fact they were typically with the same dealers who dealt me winners earlier in my trip. So the big losses are not obviously linked to me continuing to play a particularly poor game while bailing out on better games.

> Finally, you can find better than 60%
> penetration at DD in Vegas.

Now thats interesting. How much better? Some places and some dealers were giving me more like 2/3rds before a shuffle (so ~65%), but I dont recall seeing a place that was consistently dealing beyond that (and nothing in CBJN led me to believe that I could find penetration beyond that). Similarly, at some places where I could get 65% now and again, other dealers were giving more like 50-55%.

Anyway, I have returned home to find a parcel with two more books on blackjack waiting for me. So I will continue up the learning curve.

Thanks for taking the time to post.

Mike

[Wolverine]

I would agree with Victoria that you needed to cut and run a little faster from the long sessions that didn't work out. As you have no doubt learned by now, walking away 'even' is an OK result rather than a loss. It is hard to maintain your concentration for an 8 hour clip (or even a 4 hour session) and keep accurate counts and index plays. Give yourself a break from time to time, even if it is just to get up and walk around. Helps to keep the mind sharp.

Good luck on your next run at the casinos.

[BJforBooze]

It may be too long after the event to remember but think back to your longer sessions (winning and losing) and try to remember your result after say 2 or 4 hours. Then look at your results for the period after the first 2 or 4 hours. Was it worth staying? Although you do not have enough hours' data for reliable results, there are several possible reasons for losing in longer sessions. One may be your endurance or ability to concentrate for long periods. This may be even worse after a night with less than normal sleep; compare your results with how much sleep you had on the preceeding night. Try deliberately relaxing, particularly your face muscles, during the shuffle. Were you waiting for someone else to arrive and distracted by that? Were the pit paying more attention as you stayed longer and were you distracted by that? Regardless of your results, pit attention is a good reason to not play that long and if you play long sessions they have more tape to check when they do suspect you. Personally, I would rarely play more than 1 hour or even less.

[MikeH]

> It may be too long after the event to
> remember but think back to your longer
> sessions (winning and losing) and try to
> remember your result after say 2 or 4 hours.
> Then look at your results for the period
> after the first 2 or 4 hours. Was it worth
> staying? Although you do not have enough
> hours' data for reliable results, there are
> several possible reasons for losing in
> longer sessions. One may be your endurance
> or ability to concentrate for long periods.
> This may be even worse after a night with
> less than normal sleep; compare your results
> with how much sleep you had on the
> preceeding night. Try deliberately relaxing,
> particularly your face muscles, during the
> shuffle. Were you waiting for someone else
> to arrive and distracted by that? Were the
> pit paying more attention as you stayed
> longer and were you distracted by that?
> Regardless of your results, pit attention is
> a good reason to not play that long and if
> you play long sessions they have more tape
> to check when they do suspect you.
> Personally, I would rarely play more than 1
> hour or even less.

Thanks for your comment.

Thinking back, you are correct. My first large loss I certainly recall being $200-$300 ahead for a few hours before it all went into reverse. It could well be that I wasnt playing my best game when things went sharply into decline. The second loss I now regard as just one of those things, but the first I could certainly have managed better.

Since getting back from Vegas I have continued my education and have read Anderson's "Burning the Tables". He seems to advocate shorter sessions for a variety of reasons and it seems like sound advice.

Thanks again

Mike

[Brick]

I dont think using the pit as a reason to keep all sessions under an hour is a good excuse. I've played many sessions well over an hour when nothing significant happens with the count. I think Thorp stated long ago to keep sessions under an hour to avoid being suspected as a counter,therefore many will tell you the same. However in many conditions and situations there is nothing wrong with playing longer sessions.