New West Virginia Blackjack Games
- Thread starter Sam Bench
- Start date
Hopefully you've learned a relatively cheap lesson.wvbjplayer said:
But, apparently, based on the above, maybe not lol.
If you want to play for entertainment and hope for the best, that's fine. Whether you know it or not, that's all you were doing anyway.
So, I'm afraid doing what your doing has, basically, like SysTrader said, and what I feared all along, a 100% ROR so don't be too surprised if you lose all your money.
Don't feel bad, it's a common mistake to learning how to bet after one has learned to count. That's the hard part lol - counting is the easy part.
wvbjplayer
Well-Known Member
1. I've read Uston & Wong. Lack of knowledge wasn't my problem; a combination of insufficient practice, insufficient capital, and (most significantly) plain old bad luck were.SystemsTrader said:
2. According to Uston, a bankroll of $2,500 is sufficient for $5 min. bets if you're satisfied w/ a 5% element-of-ruin. Your $10k figure is off the charts.
3. As I mentioned in my previous post, I would be uncomfortable backcounting at such a small casino where the players (and spectators) are so easily and constantly observed. My only option, I think, is to abandon tables as soon as the shoes turn ugly, wait out the storm, and return later. The downside is that I'd probably do a lot more hanging around than actual playing, which is no fun. But it might be necessary if I'm going to crawl my way back into the black.
4. I don't know where you got the idea that I can't distinguish between 6D & 8D shoes. What I said was, at this particular casino some of the tables alternate randomly between such shoes.
wvbjplayer
SystemsTrader
Well-Known Member
Uston was probably talking about single deck. Below are your ror's for each spread with $2500 and $10,000 accounts playing 8 deck S17 75% pen and $5 min table play-all. Does my 10k figure still look off the charts? I still think 10k is too low for the risk vs reward factor. If you would like I could include the $/hr you would make on these games but they will make a minimum wage job look good.wvbjplayer said:
$2500
1-5 ror 55.1%
1-10 ror 50.2%
1-15 ror 53.0%
1-20 ror 56.4%
$10,000
1-5 ror 9.2%
1-10 ror 6.4%
1-15 ror 7.9%
1-20 ror 10.1%
Well, we don't really know what bankroll you were playing to.wvbjplayer said:
Perhaps if you laid all your cards out on the table for us to see, we may be able to help you a little better.
Like the bankroll upon which your bets were based. How much you bet at what count (sounds like a $25 min spreading to $50 for the most part?). I assume it's a H17 game whether 6 or 8 Deck.
I still can't figure this 6 vs 8 thing out - do you mean sitting at the same table, that from one shoe to the next, the number of decks could change? And then change back in another shoe or 2?
Or just that it might change on the next shift or something?
Anyway, before you play again, I think it would be time well spent to figure out as specifically as you can what happens when you bet a certain way with a certain bankroll.
Basically, I think that's the main reason some here suspect you may not have been as unlucky as you think you were.
wvbjplayer
Well-Known Member
Before we get into all these specifics, let me pose to you and the other members of the forum a pretty simple question: given a relatively neutral count, what percentage of the time is the dealer expected to bust with a 4, 5, or 6 upcard? I would have guessed somewhere close to 50%. Am I wrong?Kasi said:
I ask b/c I visited the same casino again tonight and would estimate that the dealers busted maybe 20-25% of the time when they had such upcards. The dealer's avg. was around 19. (I know this for sure, b/c I paid very careful attention. You basically couldn't win w/ less than a 20.)
wvbjplayer
Well ok. Such numbers are readily available if you look around. But say 40-42%, maybe more if it's H17.wvbjplayer said:
And the dealer is supposed to average almost 19.
Not sure the best way for you to go about gathering facts that might support your theory that it is an unfair game. Is that what you want to show?
But estimates won't work very well and, even if your estimate is right, I don't think it would be that unusual over a few hundred hands.
If you are serious, stand around and record 1000 dealer upcards and/or final totals and report back, it'd be a start anyway.
Now can we get to specifics of your card-counting plan lol? Or not, no big deal. But we're just saying if you're gonna play all or most of the hands in these games you probably need 1000-2000 min bets for a bankroll and a small spread likely just isn't enough to give you an overall advantage.
Should you ever accept the truth of this, no one will blame you for being depressed lol. It is depressing if u ask me lol.
Anyway glad you're still coming back with your thoughts.
wbjplayer:
Check out the latest blog of Jugador's Blackjack Journal here: http://www.blackjackjournal.blogspot.com/
It might help you swallow the losses better, (he's had some deadly runs the past few months) after seeing just how few hands a couple of days represent in the long run and how much he wins/looses. And his absolutely vehement feelings towards csm.
It ain't a quick fix, but sometimes it helps to see what other people see!
Check out the latest blog of Jugador's Blackjack Journal here: http://www.blackjackjournal.blogspot.com/
It might help you swallow the losses better, (he's had some deadly runs the past few months) after seeing just how few hands a couple of days represent in the long run and how much he wins/looses. And his absolutely vehement feelings towards csm.
It ain't a quick fix, but sometimes it helps to see what other people see!
wvbjplayer
Well-Known Member
At true counts of +2 or higher, I increase to $30.Kasi said:
At true counts of >+4, I go up to $35.
>+6 = $40.
>+8 = $45.
>+10 = $50.
I generally double for the entire amt. or one unit lower as long as the true count is positive.
Dealer stands on soft 17's (I assume H17 = dealer hits on soft 17's?).
I don't think the same table ever switches from 6D to 8D (or vice versa) during the same shift. At any given time, however, some tables will have 6D shoes while others will have 8. I normally play on the 6D tables, but haven't noticed much of a difference in the apparent high-low stacking.
Anything else you need to know to form a complete picture?
Incidentally, I realize now that, with such a small spread and such high min. bets, playing at least 90% of all hands (regardless of the count), I was unlikely to win much, if at all. Nevertheless, I still think something fishy is going on w/ those cards. ;-)
wvbjplayer
Thanks for hanging in there. And thanks for that 6 8 deck thing - it does seem weird.wvbjplayer said:
And nice to know they have S17 games.
Anyway, I was gonna say we might need to know your bankroll but actually we don't because you are playing at an overall disadvantage. Less than the disadvantage a BS might be playing at but still a disadvantage. So, even with a million dollar bankroll, that betting scheme would eventually lose all your money. Maybe others could run a sim or something for you.
So, if you can understand that, it's pointless to blame the cards since fair cards will make you lose 100% of the time anyway. Just a matter of when.
The problem is that you are playing so many of your hands at a disadvantage and your bigger bets when you have an advantage don't occur frequently enough and with a high enough bet to offset this and create an overall advantage.
Anyway, the important thing to me is that you seem to be beginning to realize this. In a nutshell, it's pretty much everything.
So, if people tell you stuff like "hang in there", "losses happen", "stan deviation sucks" etc, that all may be true if you are playing at an overall advantage but they don't seem to realize that you're not and none of that applies. It's just you and your money and ultimately up to you how to play it.
Like whatever gave you the idea in the first place that that betting scheme was a good one? Whatever it was, figure out where you went wrong in following it like was it based on a different game with different rules, etc.
Anyway, hope all this discussion may have helped you in some way.
Are you playing Hi-Lo? Was your bankroll like $2500 or so (just my guess)? Like that might actually maybe work in a back-counting scenario but will never work in the betting plan you provided.
Basically, as always if you ask me, the solution is very simple. The thing to do is blow 2-3 min bets on a sim and plug in the rules, the pen, the betting scheme, the bankroll, indices you may be using, etc and see if it works for you in the sense of maybe winning some money versus the chances of losing all or a large portion of your bankroll. One-time cost, lifetime of benefits.
Already, spending that less than $100, would have likely saved you that $700 You've probably spent more than that on gas by now.
And, maybe I'd be remiss if I didn't say there are even free sims out there.
wvbjplayer
Well-Known Member
I don't see the point of your and Doofus's sarcasm, given that I've long since (reluctantly) retracted my "cheating casino" theory. Seems unnecessary.Canceler said:
Also, you're hopelessly naive if you think bullshit casinos in the middle of nowhere wouldn't try to pull some shady **** if they thought they could get away with it. Go ahead, go drop a few grand there. No big deal... it would be a "modest loss."
One easily forgets that modesty, like most other concepts, is relative.
wvbjplayer
Doofus
Well-Known Member
Oh, it's gentle sarcasm, but don't take it personally.
Losing in blackjack, even long losing streaks, are going to happen even to the best, most skilled card counters (which I am certainly NOT). From what I've read of your losing experience, however, if memory serves you were down only one standard deviation, which even a doofus like me knows is not only expected, but normal.
If you'd like to commiserate about losing, I am a perfect example. On my last Vegas trip I was up almost $2500 in one day of play (my standard unit tends to be $25, though if I am feeling frisky it will be $50 or $100). Well, it all got pissed away and then some over the following two days. I got hammered on highly positive counts, and only seemed to win a hand on negative counts.
The holes in my play which contributed to this two day tale of disaster and woe? The biggest of them was probably fatigue - something unavoidable on a weekend trip to Vegas, I think. :cool2:
Losing in blackjack, even long losing streaks, are going to happen even to the best, most skilled card counters (which I am certainly NOT). From what I've read of your losing experience, however, if memory serves you were down only one standard deviation, which even a doofus like me knows is not only expected, but normal.
If you'd like to commiserate about losing, I am a perfect example. On my last Vegas trip I was up almost $2500 in one day of play (my standard unit tends to be $25, though if I am feeling frisky it will be $50 or $100). Well, it all got pissed away and then some over the following two days. I got hammered on highly positive counts, and only seemed to win a hand on negative counts.
The holes in my play which contributed to this two day tale of disaster and woe? The biggest of them was probably fatigue - something unavoidable on a weekend trip to Vegas, I think. :cool2:
wvbjplayer
Well-Known Member
Well, as a dog returneth to its vomit, I journeyed back tonight to the nightmarish hellhole whence I came. And I satisfied myself, quite thoroughly, that:Doofus said:
1. The casino doesn't rig ALL of its shoes.
2. The casino has no problem engaging in shady practices generally (or, at least, encouraging such practices among its dealers).
The evidence for 1 is that I won quite a bit when I first got there, thanks to a couple decent shoes; and, far more convincingly, I slaughtered the table toward the end on an absolutely GOLDEN shoe (7 blackjacks w/ almost all max bets!!!), followed immediately by two (let's call them) "silver" shoes, in the process almost doubling the hefty sum I'd cashed in for.
The evidence for 2 is that three different dealers attempted to short me on four different payoffs. Two were wins where they attempted to take my chips; another was a win where he failed (initially) to pay me; the fourth was a push where she attempted to take them. They all gave me the ole "So sorry, sir, my arm has a mind of its own" line. Yeah, right... I bet it does, too, sweetheart/bucko.
Incidentally, the vast majority (>80%) of the shoes were total ****, and it was only b/c I was so well rested and concentrating so well, I think, that I managed to stay afloat throughout them. I realize now how much better I count, and how much more vigilant I am of the dealer's actions, when I'm wide awake and well fed. During that fateful night a couple weeks ago when I lost virtually my entire bankroll (at the time), I was convinced the dealer had stiffed me on 2 hands almost in a row (or maybe they WERE in a row, I don't recall), but hadn't picked up on it quite in time to prove it w/out causing a scene (i.e., the cards were already in the discard tray and the dealer had just begun to deal a new hand). Now I know I wasn't just paranoid (severely fatigued, yes, but not paranoid).
So anyway, the lesson is: you CAN still win at this place - if they do cheat, they don't cheat ALL the time - but you've got to pay close attention to the dealers if you're going to.
wvbjplayer
