The key to winning...

[aslan]

The key to winning by way of counting is to get more naturals, and win more splits and double downs, all when more money is being bet. If this is not happening, you might as well be flat-betting using basic strategy.

If you agree, read on.

The probability of getting more naturals in positive counts is greater, This seems obvious. Of course, if you are playing at a full or near full table, odds are someone else will get those naturals.

The odds of getting more double downs of the kind that look for tens and aces (6/5, 7/4, 8/3, 9/2, 5/5, 6.4, 7/3, 8/2, 7/2, 6/3, 5/4) are lower, since mostly big cards are falling. Once you get one of these, then the odds are good that you will succeed in drawing a high card.

Next, splits other than 10/10 are not as likely. Again, this is because more high cards are falling. When you do get a split, the odds are you will get two high cards, which is only advantageous if you have 10/10, 9/9, 8/8, or if the dealer has a 4, 5, or 6, you might win no matter what you get. Then again, the odds of the dealer getting a 4, 5, or 6 are less likely during positive counts.

Also, the odds of the dealer getting naturals or a pat hands are higher, as well as making hands that need a ten.

No wonder I have experienced so much "hard luck" in positive counts. Actually, it is not hard luck; it is exactly what is supposed to happen.

The only thing I fall back on for comfort is that simulations show that over time I will get enough of these winning hands when more money is being bet in positive counts to eke out my .5 to% 1.5% edge. Hmmm! That's why pros have large bankrolls and bet so high in positive counts. 1% ain't exactly easy street unless you're betting the farm (over time, mind you). lol

Any discussion would be greatly appreciated. Is my perspective lopsided, or is this the way it is?

 

[shadroch]

I'm going to disagree,partially.
The key to winning,to me,is having more money out in hands you are favored in,and less or no money out the rest of the time. Anything else is needless complication.

 

[aslan]

I'm going to disagree,partially.
The key to winning,to me,is having more money out in hands you are favored in,and less or no money out the rest of the time. Anything else is needless complication.

I think that's what I said. Since the house is still favored to win more hands than the player EVEN when the count is positive, it must mean that the player's edge is due to naturals, double downs and splits that are won when more money is down.

 

[EasyRhino]

The key to winning by way of counting is to get more naturals, and win more splits and double downs, all when more money is being bet.

My version would be:

The key to even keeping it close in blackjack is getting naturals, winning doubles, and I suppose, winning splits.

The key to gaining advantage is to have more money on the table during times when your odds of getting naturals are increased, and your odds of winning splits and double are increased.

Oh, and insurance.

 

[aslan]

My version would be:

The key to even keeping it close in blackjack is getting naturals, winning doubles, and I suppose, winning splits.

The key to gaining advantage is to have more money on the table during times when your odds of getting naturals are increased, and your odds of winning splits and double are increased.

Oh, and insurance.

I agree with you. The other side of winning those doubles and splits is getting the situations in the first place, and they seem to be harder to get when in a positive count simply because more tens and aces are coming out than anything else. So what I'm trying to say is that even though your odds are better for winning those doubles and splits, your odds for getting those situations is worse. That is precisely why the players edge is so small, around .5% to 1.5%, which is not much unless you have a ton bet.

The insurance has saved me a lot. Hasn't won me anything, however. lol

 

[Dopple]

I think having the wits to know where and when to play is important and the original post makes alot of sense.

Personally I have more trouble dealing with the winning than with losing. I will sometimes spend too much and party too much. When I am on a streak everything in the world seems to be too slow and I feel like a King.

Then comes the down.

 

[vonQuux]

I think the key to winning is watching the losers and then not doing what they do. =)

vQ

 

[zengrifter]

Any discussion would be greatly appreciated. Is my perspective lopsided, or is this the way it is?

Your post may be sent to VOODOO forum. Better yet, the DAVID POM blog is looking for gaming correspondents. zg

 

[sagefr0g]

The key to winning by way of counting is to get more naturals, and win more splits and double downs, all when more money is being bet. If this is not happening, you might as well be flat-betting using basic strategy.

If you agree, read on.

The probability of getting more naturals in positive counts is greater, This seems obvious. Of course, if you are playing at a full or near full table, odds are someone else will get those naturals.

The odds of getting more double downs of the kind that look for tens and aces (6/5, 7/4, 8/3, 9/2, 5/5, 6.4, 7/3, 8/2, 7/2, 6/3, 5/4) are lower, since mostly big cards are falling. Once you get one of these, then the odds are good that you will succeed in drawing a high card.

Next, splits other than 10/10 are not as likely. Again, this is because more high cards are falling. When you do get a split, the odds are you will get two high cards, which is only advantageous if you have 10/10, 9/9, 8/8, or if the dealer has a 4, 5, or 6, you might win no matter what you get. Then again, the odds of the dealer getting a 4, 5, or 6 are less likely during positive counts.

Also, the odds of the dealer getting naturals or a pat hands are higher, as well as making hands that need a ten.

No wonder I have experienced so much "hard luck" in positive counts. Actually, it is not hard luck; it is exactly what is supposed to happen.

The only thing I fall back on for comfort is that simulations show that over time I will get enough of these winning hands when more money is being bet in positive counts to eke out my .5 to% 1.5% edge. Hmmm! That's why pros have large bankrolls and bet so high in positive counts. 1% ain't exactly easy street unless you're betting the farm (over time, mind you). lol

Any discussion would be greatly appreciated. Is my perspective lopsided, or is this the way it is?

absolutely, like for the bj's you just get them more often and with more money out in the positive counts (at least that seems logical). but the double downs are a bit more mysterious (at least to me), but they are just happening to what ever accord as well during the positive counts again where you have the money out. but this particular topic i find most fascinating. we have a way of knowing when we have the advantage by knowing the count. but what if there was a way to know when you are more likely to get a double down opportunity during a high count. now Zen can kick your topic to voodoo land lol....... check this link:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9256

 

[Canceler]

Okay, what am I missing?

Your post may be sent to VOODOO forum.

Why voodoo? I nearly replied to this thread last night, but when it came right down to it, I couldn't think of a single thing to add to, or subtract from, the original post. I thought he summed things up rather well.

 

[aslan]

Your post may be sent to VOODOO forum. Better yet, the DAVID POM blog is looking for gaming correspondents. zg

Typically with no explanation.

It only stands to reason that a player edge of about 1% will require a lot of betting to bring home anything worthwhile. 1% of $100,000 Is only $1,000. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure. As for winning most positive count sessions, that has not been my experience. It stands to reason that the only edge at these times is naturals paying 3 to 2 and doubles/splits where more money can be put out and you're favored to win; other that that, the house has just as much chance of catching good hands, and in fact, should win the majority of hands, even in positive counts, at least that's what BJ literature says. And don't forget all the times that the doubles and splits you put out there lose. No, it all comes down to that 1% or 2% edge that the counter has, and it takes either a lot of time or a lot of money to realize any substantial gain, unless of course you're just plain lucky. Which category are you in, zg?

 

[shadroch]

Playing with a 1% edge,a $25 player would clear about $750 a week if he played full-time.A $100 player would do $3,000 a week.Plus the perks that come with that level of betting.
IF he could get in 40 hours a week.

 

[EasyRhino]

To be fair, I suspect the player loses a slightly lower percentage of non natural split double hands in positive counts, as well.

 

[aslan]

absolutely, like for the bj's you just get them more often and with more money out in the positive counts (at least that seems logical). but the double downs are a bit more mysterious (at least to me), but they are just happening to what ever accord as well during the positive counts again where you have the money out. but this particular topic i find most fascinating. we have a way of knowing when we have the advantage by knowing the count. but what if there was a way to know when you are more likely to get a double down opportunity during a high count. now Zen can kick your topic to voodoo land lol....... check this link:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9256

Yes, your URL is exactly on point. Yes, we usually win them when we get them, but how often do we get them (referring to double down situations in high positive counts). And of course the dealer gets them just as much as we do, but they doesn't get paid double, so you might say we get them twice as much as the dealer, in a manner of speaking, and that's good, if we only knew how often we get them. lol

 

[sagefr0g]

.......It only stands to reason that a player edge of about 1% will require a lot of betting to bring home anything worthwhile. 1% of $100,000 Is only $1,000. ......?

one thing keep in mind about this. something that we know but probably tend to forget and that is just how much loot is really flowing over the course of our play. it's a lots of it lol. example i right now got this practice session in CVBJ where i've only just played 218 hands but have wagered $2,179 dollars in that short expanse of time. that's just with an average bet of $10 so far and a max of $40 so far. so point being to wager $100 grand ain't all that much.

 

[aslan]

Playing with a 1% edge,a $25 player would clear about $750 a week if he played full-time.A $100 player would do $3,000 a week.Plus the perks that come with that level of betting.
IF he could get in 40 hours a week.

$150,000 minus a month or two vacation is a decent living. And the bankroll for a $100 East coast player (6-Deck and 8-deck)? All I've ever seen at that range are No Mid-shoe Entry games. Maximum bet would be at least ten times $100 = $1,000. One BR estimator is 100 times maximum bet or $100,000. I know players sometimes get by with a lot less, but for a good RoR I think you need it all. My point is, you need a good-sized bankroll to expect to make decent money counting cards.

 

[aslan]

one thing keep in mind about this. something that we know but probably tend to forget and that is just how much loot is really flowing over the course of our play. it's a lots of it lol. example i right now got this practice session in CVBJ where i've only just played 218 hands but have wagered $2,179 dollars in that short expanse of time. that's just with an average bet of $10 so far and a max of $40 so far. so point being to wager $100 grand ain't all that much.

No, it's not, but to win $100,000 a year with a conservative RoR still requires a ton of money (bankroll). lol

 

[shadroch]

Jeez, you want to make $150,000 a year playing cards and you want a month or two vacation? Not a very easy person to satisfy,are you? Would you like a new super-model companion every few months,as well?

 

[aslan]

Jeez, you want to make $150,000 a year playing cards and you want a month or two vacation? Not a very easy person to satisfy,are you? Would you like a new super-model companion every few months,as well?

I thought that came with the territory.

 

[aslan]

Jeez, you want to make $150,000 a year playing cards and you want a month or two vacation? Not a very easy person to satisfy,are you? Would you like a new super-model companion every few months,as well?

I'm just trying to make it comparable to other professions.