Carlson's advice about Casual Counters

[boneuphtoner]

I'm a recreational counter who plays very casually...I average 2-3 casino trips per year, and only 1 of those usually includes an overnight stay. I have have been a red chipper ever since I started playing 7 years ago, but I have never really made the effort to raise a real bankroll. I bring to the casino what I can spare to lose, and let that be it. Although it is too small of a sample to draw any conclusions, I've come home ahead or very slightly down when I've stuck to red chip stakes with modest spreads. I have done it this way by following Bryce Carlson's sage advice, who said in BJFB, p. 99: "If you are playing for sport with small change, don't worry about a stake, just have fun."

My question to you guys is: do you agree with Carlson's advice? I have been following it, but have found that I'm very limited in the games I can play at the red chip level. Last time I went to Vegas for a 3 day trip, I brought $1000 with me to play, and was even until I hit some bad variance in a juicy $25 double deck game....Yes, I realize that the fluctuation I experienced is completely normal, and although I nearly lost my entire stake in less than an hour, it was within 1 standard deviation of my expected outcome. The reason why I'm asking this question is I like playing these better games, and this negative variance, for the lack of a better word, really pissed me off. The logic is if I had a real bankroll, I wouldn't let a beatdown like this bother me because the amount that I lost would small in comparison my bankroll. But there is a possibility that if I had a big bankroll that I would still let a loss like that piss me off. But on the other hand, no more than I play, I question whether I should go to the trouble. I have other hobbies (you can probably make some educated guesses based on my handle) that require most of my discretionary funds, and if I were to raise a decent bankroll, it would probably take me 18 months where my other hobbies would have to fall by the wayside.

I think this is a mental issue here...I don't think I really need to raise a bankroll if one of the two situations is true:

- If I stick to the red chip level realizing that some of the best games are beyond my reach
- If I don't let beatdowns piss me off when I start wagering at a higher level than I probably should.

What do you guys think? Any advice on how to handle this for a very casual recreational counter? I have zero aspirations of ever making blackjack the source of any funds that matter to me.

 

[BJgenius007]

You are just a bad counter.

Playing 2 or 3 times a year, you can't be a good counter. If I were you, I will play with computer. At near the end of every shoe, check if the running count matches computer's.

 

[boneuphtoner]

Playing 2 or 3 times a year, you can't be a good counter. If I were you, I will play with computer. At near the end of every shoe, check if the running count matches computer's.

It does match and I drill myself religiously on CVBJ. If I'm off by chance, it isn't by any amount that will make any difference. I can count down a deck of cards using FELT in 11.5 seconds, and 6 decks in 92 seconds. Counting isn't my problem. But I don't get the chance to play that much and I have yet to really raise a bankroll, hence that is why I call myself a casual recreational counter.

 

[ALLucK]

If you are playing 2-3 times a year it may be worth it to just stick with Basic Strategy and expect to come out a bit behind (or be pleasantly surprised to come out ahead) after playing for 10 hours with the house edge being around .31% - .57% depending on the decks/rules in play. The reason I say this is that, even with a large bankroll, advantage play will still be vulnerable to normal fluctuations. Thus, if you become frustrated with the fluctuations that don't go your way with red chips, this will only get worse with green chips or black chips.

Perhaps if you were able to play more and weather some of these negative fluxes then advantage play would be a good route. But, someone correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe 2-3 trips per year will allow you to ever see the "long run" and get near your expected value/return.

 

[boneuphtoner]

But, someone correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe 2-3 trips per year will allow you to ever see the "long run" and get near your expected value/return.

Yes, this is one reason why I question how wise it would be to even go to the trouble of raising a bankroll. And that is in line with Carlson's advice. I posted several months ago about how you can theoretically play a winnng game with a very modest spread. And one of the pros also wrote about an encounter he had with a guy who was spreading 1-2 in an 8 deck game with wonging....and who was proven to be playing a winning strategy, even if it was very modest.

 

[prankster]

If your BR is $1,000 I'd suggest you continue to play red chips and don't go to green until your BR increases. There are Indian casinos that offer excellent games and have a $5.00 min-but you may not be able to get to them I guess.
You sound like you have no problem with counting. I've found that once you become a counter you just CAN'T play and not count-playing just basic strategy I mean. Good cards!:joker:

 

[Canceler]

If you are playing 2-3 times a year it may be worth it to just stick with Basic Strategy...

...I do not believe 2-3 trips per year will allow you to ever see the "long run" and get near your expected value/return.

Nothing personal against you, ALLucK, because I’ve seen this kind of thing plenty of times before, but…

You’re implying that something that is good for the long run (counting) is somehow bad for the short run. And I just can’t go along with that.

I posted several months ago about how you can theoretically play a winnng game with a very modest spread.

Yes, and if you’re planning on varying the amount of your bet at all, you might as well do it according to the count, thereby getting an advantage, or at least less of a disadvantage. I can’t see how that can be bad, even in the short run.

 

[ALLucK]

No offense taken Canceler, I'm always open to and welcome the correction of something I post that may not be entirely accurate, and you're right, this game can be rewarding in the short run as well as the long run!

 

[sagefr0g]

i think even as a casual player you can come up with a number for a bankroll that fits your frequency of play, the games you play and your psychological perspective. personally, i think i'd want to have such a numbered bankroll.
such quantification will help you figure out game plans and such.

thing is, the psychological aspect, well just me maybe, but i can't seem to get a real good handle on that aspect. like, i've been fooling with this stuff for around almost seven years now i think it is. my bankroll has grown for the most part way beyond my skills, sorta thing, to the point it's getting nice and juicy, lol. thing is i still from a psychological stand point have sessions such as this one where i whine and whine: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=193211&postcount=80
what i'm saying is, me, just me maybe, a losing session, or real bad beats even in a winning session and it bugs me, i can rationalize and intellectualize and understand the math, but it still bugs me. go figure. i think one aspect of this advantage gambling that i just can't shake is the knowledge that complete ruin is not out of the question, sort of thing, and i have this sort of little mental dark cloud that hangs over me, too where i have this fear that it just might be me that ends up ruined.

whatever, i think i can understand what Carlson is getting at, but regardless, i'd still want to have a quantified bankroll that is reasoned out and practical a possible for how i tend to play, sorta thing.

 

[UK-21]

Playing 2 or 3 times a year, you can't be a good counter. If I were you, I will play with computer. At near the end of every shoe, check if the running count matches computer's.

Stupid statement if you don't mind me saying so. Frequency of doing something has no relationship on the proficiency of doing it.

I'm the same, a few times a year casual player. I'm not sure I'll ever hit n-zero.

I don't have a bankroll as such, but when I visit the house of chance I take 40-50 units with me, and know I have around a 10% chance of losing the lot within an hour. However, it's money I can afford to lose. Despite the risk, my position at the moment is the right side of the bell curve, and my efforts at counting cards have resulted in several free nights out and an all expenses paid (so to speak) weekend in the capital. This wouldn't have happened if I'd flat bet BS and not made the effort to know when the odds of a shoe had turned in my favour.

My view, for what it's worth, is that the original poster should repeat and enjoy (as opposed to repeat until rich). If it becomes a chore, or the emotional distress of losing a session roll is too great, then it's time to give it a rest.

Good luck.

 

[Sucker]

Frequency of doing something has no relationship on the proficiency of doing it.

I'm sure that Tiger Woods would take exception to this. Or ANY professional athlete, for that matter. And then again; try making this statement to a concert violinist.

Fact is; the frequency of doing something has EVERYTHING to do with the proficiency of doing it. Practice makes perfect.

 

[UK-21]

Citing Mr Woods or a concert violinist is taking an extreme view - it's comparing apples ans oranges. Of course they need to practice. But it's not really a valid comparison to compare a professional sportsman or musician with a recreational card counter, and the hours they need to put in to be proficient at what they do.

Consider the UK's Civil Aviation Authority's requirements for a private pilots licence. I am told that you only need to fly for a few hours each year to maintain one - and it's a lot less than the time I spent at the felt. One must infer then that they are content that pilots can maintain a satisfactory level of profiency in flying a light aircraft by putting in these hours?

So whilst I agree that practice improves performance it's not an absolute as you imply. It depends what one considers acceptable.

 

[Sucker]

So whilst I agree that practice improves performance it's not an absolute as you imply.

Just to be perfectly clear: I am not merely IMPLYING this. Read my lips: "Practice makes perfect". I am making an absolute statement. I don't care if you're talking about an airplane pilot, a gambler, or even a beggar on the street.

You've made the criticism that BjGenius' suggestion of practicing in order to improve and/or checking one's proficiency, is a "stupid" statement.

You have made some very valuable contributions to this site, so I mean no offense when I say this: THIS time, it was YOU who has made the stupid statement.

 

[boneuphtoner]

Just to be perfectly clear: I am not merely IMPLYING this. Read my lips: "Practice makes perfect". I am making an absolute statement. I don't care if you're talking about an airplane pilot, a gambler, or even a beggar on the street.

You've made the criticism that BjGenius' suggestion of practicing in order to improve and/or checking one's proficiency, is a "stupid" statement.

You have made some very valuable contributions to this site, so I mean no offense when I say this: THIS time, it was YOU who has made the stupid statement.

I think what UK21 meant to say was: "So whilst I agree that frequent application at the tables improves performance it's not an absolute as you imply." I substituted his word "practice" for "frequent application at the tables"....I do think that is a true statement. I think the fact that I'll never hit the long run with the amount of outings I currently make is a psychological hurdle that I'll need to get over. :sad::sad::sad:

 

[aslan]

Considering all that goes into making a top notch card counter, practice does not make perfect, but it does make better. The more you practice the better you'll become, and the more you ply the art and science of card counting in the real life arena, the better you will become at it where it counts. Not to disparage practicing on the computer, it has it's place, but it does not prepare one for everything one encounters in real life situations.

 

[NchooseK]

Citing Mr Woods or a concert violinist is taking an extreme view - it's comparing apples ans oranges. Of course they need to practice. But it's not really a valid comparison to compare a professional sportsman or musician with a recreational card counter, and the hours they need to put in to be proficient at what they do.

Consider the UK's Civil Aviation Authority's requirements for a private pilots licence. I am told that you only need to fly for a few hours each year to maintain one - and it's a lot less than the time I spent at the felt. One must infer then that they are content that pilots can maintain a satisfactory level of profiency in flying a light aircraft by putting in these hours?

So whilst I agree that practice improves performance it's not an absolute as you imply. It depends what one considers acceptable.

I have to 100% agree with sucker here. No matter what type of situation, practice has a big impact in overall performance. Would you seriously say you would be indifferent about having the pilot of your plane be one who flies 1500 hours/yr vs. a pilot with 3hr/yr?

Same with counting, the more experienced you are, the less mistakes you will make and the more efficiently you will count.

 

[nottooshabby]

Frequency of doing something has no relationship on the proficiency of doing it.

Would like a word with you . . .

 

[Canceler]

Even if no one else is, I’m going to side with UK-21 here. I went for 15 months without playing BJ. Yes, I practiced counting before I started playing again. I even felt the need to review basic strategy. I found it was fairly easy to regain my proficiency, though.

 

[UK-21]

. . .You've made the criticism that BjGenius' suggestion of practicing in order to improve and/or checking one's proficiency, is a "stupid" statement.

No I didn't. I wrote that the statement "Playing 2 or 3 times a year, you can't be a good counter" was stupid. The term "good" is subjective of course, but if you substitute this for the word "proficient" it looks to be nonsense. One can be proficient at something with a minimum of application (or practice if you like).

And I'm afraid that practice does not always make perfect. Some people are naturally gifted at things and reach high standards, and even "perfection" (although that's subjective too) with very little practice. Others practice all their lives at things and never achieve anywhere near perfection or the standards hit by our naturally high achievers. I accept though that what they do achieve is probably better than if they hadn't put in the practice time.

Take the example of someone learning to drive. If we take the standard of proficiency to be passing the official driving test (although that's far from perfection) some people struggle all their lives and practice regularly and never do pass. Others pass first time with a minimum of pratice as they have naturally good coordination and roadsense. An example perhaps where practice doesn't always make perfect, or even achieve an acceptable standard of proficiency in some.

The "practice makes perfect" line is a generality that is usually dolled out at school in our younger years. But as I've gone through life I've found it to be one of those myths that is undermined by individuals' personal qualities and natural abilities. Sometimes we just have to accept that in some endeavours we just ain't going to make it, regardless of the practice we put in.

I respect your view, but as with most things in life I think accepting absolutes like "practice makes perfect" can result in a whole raft of angst.
Religion is a prime example , but that's something else to write about.

As I've said, I only play a few times a year but that doesn't necessarily make me bad at it. I must be doing something right, although chance has played a part as I'm below n-zero. I accept though that others who play more than I will probably make less mistakes - but it is a probably.

Good cards.

 

[UK-21]

And who's the guy with the goofy haircut ?? What's he got to do with the debate?