I beat A.C.'s 8 decks for 7 years

I beat A.C.'s 8 deck game for 7 years between 1982-89. A lot of counters say the 8 deck game is not worthwhile but that depends on what your definition of worthwhile is. Every Thursday (my day off) I drove about 4 hours to A.C. and played hi-lo for between 12 and 14 hours straight breaking only to inhale a sandwich. I didn't stay in a hotel I napped in my car. My expenses, gas, tolls and parking were about $40. Now probably about $80. I spread between $5 (or$10) to $60. I got sweated a few times but they never made a strong move to stop me. I believe if I had been spreading $25 to $300 they would have by shuffling early or cutting out half the shoe. A lot of times I just left the table on a high negative count. I won 2 out of 3 times. My biggest win was $1600 and some change my biggest loss was $800 and some change. I averaged $140 per session. It was fun and I made a little. I stopped playing because my next step would be to bet much more and make much more somewhere other than A.C. and I didn't have it in me to do it. What they call "the right stuff." I guess because of inflation they now would tolerate a spread of $15 to $120.

First. In 82-89, there was no such thing as hit soft 17, so all games where stand all 17's. That means the 8 deck game had a house edge in the neighborhood of .43% as opposed to today at .64%. That's a lot more house edge to overcome. That means a bigger spread, maybe quicker ramp, bigger bankroll needed and wilder swings. So your feat would be tougher today. Not impossible, but tougher. And the bigger spreads would draw more attention.

I played mostly AC the first 6 years of my carreer, 2004-2009, with some Vegas trips mixed in the last couple of those years. My first four of those years, I was paying red chip limit, spreading up to first $60, then $80, $100 and finally spreading$15 to $150, before I 'graduated to the $25 tables. Throughout my red play, I had no problems, even at the higher end $15-$120 & $15-$150 spreads, and I was putting in a pretty good amount of time. 30+ hours a week. I would have played even more except Friday afternoon through Sunday evening, anything lower than $25 tables were hard to find and if you did find a $15 table, it was full, making for bad paying conditions.

As soon as I made the jump to green minimum bets ($25 tables) the heat really intensified. At first, my top bet hadn't changed. I was spreading $25 to $150, instead of $15 to $150, but it was a world of differenc, heat wise. At first it was just the glares, and the pit trying to distract me, but before long it was early shuffles, half shoes and my favorite, when they pull out a $5 minimum, $50 maximum bet sign that applies only to you. (I particularly loved this at the $25 tables, where the other patrons were very confused).

But the message was clear enough. I knew I needed a larger rotation of regular stores to play and began panning my move west. But my first few years in AC will always be special to me. I grew my BR from $4300 to mid five figures, including the money for the condo that I bought when I moved to Vegas.

This is very unscientific, based only on my own experience. Again, I began my career playing AC, with a very small bankroll. And the going was slow. Very slow at times. Small advantage. Small win rate. But one thing that I never endured was a serious negative swing.

Those first couple years, even a modest negative period would have wiped me out...and it never came. Now after I moved to Vegas and started playing better games and conditions, I had bigger win rates, but also bigger swings in both directions to get there.

Looking back, I feel like those very mediocre AC games, with
75% penetration, meant fewer hi counts. That means fewer and farther between top bets. You didn't have a bunch of top bets in a row at the end of a shoe while the count was high, because poor penetration limits this. That means no winning 6 or 8 top bets in a row at the end of a shoe, but more importantly, for a small bankroll, no losing 6, 8, top bets in a row. A little less rocky path up a slower incline, so to speak. That seems like a negative because it translated to a smaller win rate, but did it also translate into less variance? Less really big negative swings?

I played there a ton right after that time and the whole town was 6 deck games.

You're right. Part of that time they may not have. It wasn't 82-89 it was 89-96. It was a long time ago and I no longer have records. I was trying to correlate the time to a job that I was working and I made a mistake about that. Sorry about that. The won/loss figures are not inaccurate. I am too cheap not be 100% accurate about the money.

It was 1982 when all the s**t hit the fan with Kenny Uston and his lawsuits. The result was to introduce 8-deck games with four decks cut off, in some instances.

So, yes, 8-deck A.C. games have been around for a very long time.

Don

When I'm playing vs the shoe, my session is often determined by a short streak of +EV hands b4 the shuffle. Might win, might not. Less penetration should mean fewer of these make-or-break hands.

For me, the fun part is the Large Bet hands where u have the split/doubles into 5 hands. You know it's make-or-break. But u also know u have the edge.

GL, mate.