Wagers, bettor losses set record

Of course, it's New England. Mistyped. My bad.

 

Thanks, Donnie.

To expound, I think the real money can be made in Las Vegas by living there, playing blackjack and being okay with "small" wins -- Like Knish in Rounders.

From the 1,200+ daily hands of blackjack I would deal each shift, I taught myself how to count but also saw where casinos make their money on blackjack. Bettors with small bankrolls who become timid once they're down 50 bucks and people who just don't know how the play.

Blackjack cannot be beaten in a vacuum. However, the disciplined player has one tool the casino doesn't have. The ability to walk away when leading. That is the most potent weapon for a player.

I would see players get up $200 (after a hot run -- winning 10 of 11 hands or something uncommon) when I dealt but they were pushing for a $500 profit. I almost always took their $200 back, they would start chasing and be down $200 and leave all pissed off.

I think that card counting can be a grind, which is why I prefer the "W-L" count every 20 hands. The thinking here is that if you are +4 units when you start at $25 a hand, then take the $100 profit and end it. But if you get 6 wins and 14 losses in the first 20, you're down quite a bit but, if you have a decent bankroll - at least $1,500 in your pocket for a $25 bet - you won't play as scared. Then bump it up to $50. You probably won't go 14-6 over the next 20 hands but it will even out -- you'll win 4 of 5 or perhaps 7 of 10... and that's when you make your money back, make your $100 profit and quit. It's how you can win 43% of your hands and still come out ahead -- take the losses with less money and get your wins with more money.

(One exception to card counting -- if you're at a casino where the cards are layed out, in order and they still manually shuffle - PLAY that dealer. Cards will often be clumped for the first shoe. Example - a sequence of 2-3-J-4-5-Q-6-7. Then you can wait for the high cards in the following hands).

For the past ten years, I've run web simulations on blackjack and money management -- documenting the results.

Here is how I think a blackjack player could make an excellent living in Las Vegas with a minimum amount of work. You need liquid of $200,000. That's your bankroll. Bet $200 a hand with a goal to win $400 a session (2 units). If you get down 16 units ($3,200), step away, go to Ellis Island for the steak special and come back another day.

If you're down $3,200 and want to play, find the North LV casinos where early surrender is offered or dealers stand on all 17s. Most of the new strip casinos have terrible odds for players -- and the players don't care because to them, gambling is entertainment.

All you have to do is win 2 units.

Results of hundreds of simulated sessions: I hit the 400 usually within 10 hands, almost always within 60 hands. I have had a couple situations where I've been down $20 k and get to betting $3k a hand. Eventually it turned around and got back to even but I'm not sure if I could do this in real life.

Las Vegas has about 90 casinos in the metro area. Make your $400 a day, five days a week. That's $2,000 a week...cash. Take your chips home. Visit a different casino every day for 4 months. Then when you go back to casinos for a second visit, a different shift on a different day of the week. Spend one day a month where you don't play blackjack but drive around to the casinos and cash your chips back in, $800 at a time, keeping you well under the $1,200 IRS paperwork threshold.

If you walk into a casino with $500, you should be able to walk out with $600. Casinos make their money off the underfunded and those without a plan or discipline. Too many people go for a big score as they're only in Las Vegas for four days. But if you live there, make a little bit every day.

 

That's it, I'm moving there.

A small corollary to exmedia's theory: The last few times I've gone, I've never played less blackjack -- or won more. It is true. Quit while you're ahead is the only way to be ahead.

 

I am certainly not considering this a fool-proof way to make money at blackjack but, in what has been my life's bizarre "hobby calling" (beating blackjack), this is what I believe to be the best plan. Not beating the "game" (that's impossible) but using the parts that 97% of the players don't use.

When I dealt, I was absolutely floored by the idiots I saw playing. Under funded. Standing on 14 against a face card. Not knowing when to double (Always double on 11 and always on 10 except against faces or aces, always a 9 vs. 2 thru 8, always an 8 vs. 5 or 6).

I saw the casino I worked at only ban one guy -- he lived 60 miles from the casino but the pit boss told me he took about 75k the previous year off the tribe's three casinos in the region. Said the player would leave whenever he was up $500 at $100 a hand. Never more than that. Never tried for the big score. Casino used the "right to refuse action" clause, which I felt was bullshit. He was a good player who didn't appear to be counting, just well-funded and pleasant to deal to.

 

In a negative expectation game (e.g., blackjack sans counting) the quit-while-you're-ahead strategy doesn't gain (or cost) you anything in expected return. This is true even if you couple it with a betting progression system.

Casinos make their money through the house edge ... If, for your game/approach, the edge is x%, now matter how you slice/dice your bankroll or manipulate the timing of your gambling sessions, you'll pay that edge over the long run.

 

You're omitting all of the psychology of gambling, in addition to the mental fatigue and other mistakes and concentration lapses.

 

If you're playing nickel slots, yes. There is no skill in that.

Blackjack is negative expectation, of course, but that can be trimmed substantially with basic strategy coupled with disciplined money management. The "doubling up"/Martingale progression system leads to ruin but a modified version of that, not only one hand but, rather, counting the wins and losses over 20 hands tempers some of that risk.

You may lose 7 hands in a row (which would destroy your plan if you double up after losses) but, in that opening 20 hands with the 7-hand losing streak, you go 5-15. If you move your bets from $100 to $200 for the next twenty hands, if you are ever +5 on hands for that 20-hand stretch (whether you're 6-1, 11-6 or finish two "starting units" up at 13-7), you're back to even. Using these examples, you could be even going 11-16 or 16-21 or leading at 18-22.

That's what I am getting at here.

If you start out 5-15, you will almost never get back to ".500" on the W/L. However, you will catch a stretch where you'll win a few in a row or 8 of 10. That closes your deficit in a hurry.

Most blackjack players who fill Las Vegas are there for a few days, trying for the big score or happy to lose their bankrolls. This requires deep pockets and a commitment to smaller but consistent wins every session and not getting greedy.

 

Played last night at Cleveland casino before the Cavs game. Put $500 in front of me. I lost my first eight or nine hands. Minimum bet was $15. I raised my bet a few times during the streak before I gave up. Left for another table with $300. At that table, I got hot and won back more than half. Then I hit a bad streak again where I lost 10 of 11 with the one non-loss a push. Then I got hot again and wound up leaving for the game with a hundred bucks less than I started with.

Returned after the game to reclaim my hundred. Got on another hot streak and reclaimed 200. I was pressing my bets as I won, so each bet was higher than the next until I lost. I even lost my biggest bet, which was for $60 and a double down. So there was $240 more bucks I could have had.

Anyway, I'm not sure the best method is winning $100/losing $400 and walking. Even if psychologically you could do that every time, are you going to win $100 more often than you lose $400? Regression doesn't necessarily set in after you go 5-15. Although I will admit that when I'm down to maybe my last hundred, I'll bet $50 just to try and get a double down and build back up quickly or get the hell out, and I have not been busting lately. I guess I'm just on a lucky streak.

 

Couple reports saying late money is coming heavy on the Seahawks.

 

If I recall correctly, the major books got hit pretty hard in that Giants-Patriots SB a few years ago because the late money that usually comes (and that they'd anticipated) didn't come in. Because it didn't come in, the books wound up in a heavy "Patriots to cover" position*. I recall one industry insider being quoted to the effect that "We didn't realize just how despised the Patriots were."

*The expectation was that the late money would come in on that side.

 

It is not-so-affectionately referred to as "Black Sunday," because there was also a ton of money paid out on the Giants money line, which I believe paid at +450.