An ATM would have been a good idea, however, I doubt I could stop the dealer mid shoe and say "Hey you're at +14, let me quickly go to the ATM...if these two other players do not mind?" But looking at it retrospectively, I would have gone to the ATM BEFORE going to the tables. But like I said, I wasn't anticipating any play, just went to observe for a while and counted a shoe randomly for fun.tensplitter said:
It appears you need to bring more money with you on your trips. Also, if faced with a dwindling trip bank during a trip you need to cut your bets so you can keep playing. If you bust out on trips that have high expenses you coud turn into a losing long run player. To take your last $600 and spread to 3 hands was truly bad, what if you got a spl? Your advantage was not as high as you thought because you could not split. Also the dogma seems to be that 2 hands is superior to 3.aslan said:
That happened to me last Friday. The true count was very high, so I jumped to 12x of my original bet while everyone else was still at the minimal bet. Guess what! I kept getting stiff hands and watched everybody else getting Blackjack and 20. I kept getting 12, 13, 14 and bust after getting a card. I wonder if he could direct the negative energy towards one person who bets the most because winning that bet can pay everyone else and house still makes money.aslan said:
You absolutely never know when opportunity will knock but you must be prepared if it does.Koz1984 said:...you go to your local store with friends for dinner not anticipating any game play, finding a dealer who cuts about 3/4-1deck from 8, and then count a shoe for fun to get to +14 with 1.5 decks remaining...AND HAVING NONE OF YOUR BR ON YOU! So you just sit back and watch, cringing at the 20s and BJs coming out, and what could have been...
Well, I did switch to a lower bet after that--a $10 min game. But what happened here was an anomaly with me losing hand after hand in a high count until back against the wall I was down to my last $600 and not thinking too logically. I probably should not have played more than two hands, but at least playing more hands conserves cards, meaning that I get to see a lot more cards than the dealer. But you're absolutely right that if I had a split or double down, I would not have had the cash to bet it. Dummy! :whip::whip: One should never throw in the towel.blackjack avenger said:
To me that IS the long range consideration, but is pretty much meaningless as a single or short number of acts within the very short range. If you have a 3% edge, you won't be criticized by me for going "all in." For one thing, you DO have an advantage, which is +EV. And secondly, you're not risking ruin of your bankroll, which you did not bring, only your insufficient "trip bankroll." Do what you want, but when faced with a case of betting a 3% edge to the max (save enough aside to cover a double down or split), I would bet as much as I can without jeopardizing my larger bankroll. BTW, I presume you mean to play a $10 game; otherwise the $50 premise is meaningless since in a $25 game you would have to keep aside half of it to cover the possibility of a split or double down, not that 3% isn't +EV in and of itself.tensplitter said:
I meant I'd play a $10 game. Even with a $50 bankroll and a +5 true count, I'd take a shot at that high count by betting $10 a hand till the count drops to 0 or I lose my $50. It would be nice to win an extra $50 when not intending to play at all, but I wouldn't get over the fact that I could have won hundreds. Which is why I'll take $1000 with me to Pittsburgh even if I don't end up playing anything, and I will balk at a ridiculous $25 parking fee even though I have $1000 in my wallet. If they require a certain amount of play to get free parking, then I'll play some video poker. The expected loss of just paying the parking fee would be $25, but the expected loss of playing $50 through VP is $1.aslan said:
