Why not go to Vegas? (nt)
I applaud the brave decision to quit your job. When I did so ten years ago, I knew already for sure that I would be able to make a living at BJ since I had been playing on a semi-professional basis for four years already.With you, I get the impression that you're not so sure of yourself which explains the repeated switch between Poker and Blackjack.
I think you're still in the sales-rep-mentality to be constantly on the move and you seem to forget that your expenses are no longer covered by your employer.
Why on earth do you still want to "work" 40-50 hours a week? You said yourself that the main benefit from quitting your job was personal freedom.But somehow you feel compelled (or is it your wife?) to be just as activ as before.
I admit I don't know the USA let alone Northern Nevada but the rules of efficiency are the same everywhere.No matter whether you're driving or just hanging around in Casinos, you must drastically limit your down time.Here is my suggestion:
Before you set out (about 3 times a week) you make a list of casinos to visit, preferably on the same road. If conditions are not good or have deteriorated, you immediately go the next casino on the list. This is known as the paper-route-technique.
I hope that describing your play and naming all the casinos you visit hasn't done you too much harm but this might be a good opportunity to change your act.How about the "compulsive gambler"?
You ought to know that hilo is not the best system for SD.An ace-neutral count with side count of aces would be more appropriate.
I wish you all the best!
Francis Salmon
I live in Las Vegas, but the vast majority of my blackjack play (probably 98%) is in Reno and Wendover. I think I made 18 Reno trips in 2008, and a handful of Wendover trips. This year will be about the same. 2goodformyowngood stated that he lives in the Reno area. Flying to Las Vegas on a regular basis would be a waste of time, energy and money for him. He would face far more hassles for no good reason.
Perhaps one trip a year or so might be worthwhile for him, but certainly no more than that. As long as he is able to profitably play in the Reno area, Las Vegas is a distant second place in terms of desirability. After he has burned out most of his local stores, then more frequent commuting might become necessary for him. With his play style, it will probably be years before he has lost most of the playable Reno-area stores.
What I would like to see is some sort of quantification of the effect of walking out of negative decks (aka Wonging).
Of course, it is essentially impossible to know exactly the effect of walking out on negative decks playing single deck when going from casino to casino, bang-bang, because you'd have to keep records of how many cards were left in each deck, etc., but the effect must be substantial, especially with shorter sessions. All that fine-tuned mathematics about tiny edges gained by using this system versus that, or this betting scheme versus that, is well and good, but in my experience, playing single-deck blackjack full-time was much more a game of getting the money out on the table when you could, as much as you could, without drawing attention, and realizing that your count might be off a bit at times, but not caring because the real deal was get the money out, get out on the negative count whenever possible (of course you don't want to leave a good session if you can help it). Thorp (i.e., God) wrote about how it didn't matter if your made counting errors as long as the counting errors were truly random, and not the same one over and over (such as assigning -2 to a 9 when your system says to assign -1). I never could count down a deck real fast and with devastating accuracy (by any means) but what i did look for was systematic errors. I might be off by 1 or 2, but the counting errors were as often on the positive side as on the negative side. Because my counting errors seemed random enough, I didn't worry too much about making a counting error or two here and there. i figured walking out of negative decks would easily obliterate the effects of being off a point or two on the count once and a while. I managed to support myself counting for quite a while, but I never did get a good precise quantitative handle on the effect of walking out on negative decks.
All i knew was that I would work my butt off to get 2 or 3 hands in a heavily positive environment, and I could augment my efforts strongly by walking out on a deck that went badly negative early on.
Any comments on more precisely quantifying the effect of Wonging when playing single deck? (All I know is that trimming away 3-4 hands from a strongly negative single deck, pretty often, has got to REALLY matter.)
Use QFIT's CVCX online viewer to calculate the c-SCOREs for Wong out.
For instance, 6 Deck S17, DS, LS, 1-10 spread, 78 card cut has a c-SCORE of 28 for play all and 45 not playing counts < -1.
Not only does wonging increase your EV, it also decreases your variance -- a double win!
What I meant by the question was: Why would you ever consider going to Las Vegas? :)
Playing style that's being mentioned is one that other APs utilize, as well. SD blackjack is an art that doesn't conform to the normal "blackjack" strategies. Hitting the game hard and fast is the best way to beat it.
The post contains many contradictions and exxagerations and is therefore not credible.
I request you tell us what contradictions and exaggerations that's being posted...ask any knowledgeable AP that plays alot in Reno, poster's statements are definitely within the realm of realistic play. I mimic most of his style, by the way.
You want to start the deck with 150$ which would seriously limit your spread
In what way does this LIMIT his spread? Based on your comments I have to assume you have very limited single deck experience.
Poster states that he takes a break between play. My only suggestion here is to find other advantages and play them. Move your play around and you never wear out the welcome mat.
I also suggest he take back his offer to "meet" with others. What's the use? He doesn't have to prove anything and risk of exposure far outweighs any possible benefit.
Regards,
PM
