Is low stakes solo counting really worth it?

That's basically my question to the group, and any responses from those who are successful at this would be greatly appreciated.

Based on these assumptions: lets say I play a $10 table on A.C. conditions every weekend for some number of hours. If I flat bet and play perfect basic strategy, the house edge is .05% That should mean that at at full table with at most 75 hands an hour, I'd lose an average of only $3.75 an hour.

Now please correct me if I'm wrong (and I hope someone will!), but let's say I use a decent bet spread like 1-10. An I'll even throw in for good measure that I'll leave tables which are at very negative counts. From what I've read and studied, the largest advantage I can expect to have is approximately 1% (am I wrong in thinking this?). Assuming my bet spread raises my average bet to around $20, now I'm earning appromately $15 an hour (using the 1% figure).

So basically I'm making under $20 an hour, and greatly increasing my variance. Yes, over the long run, it's proven to succeed, but what if I have a decent day grinding out slighly positive shoes with small bets, only to lose my first 5 big bets in a row when the count finally calls for it (unlikely, but exactly that happened to me two sessions in a row!!!).

Perhaps I'm just a frustrated beginning counter who practices like crazy, has acheived a decent skill level, yet seems to lose every single time I put out my max bet. If I'm wrong on all this, or there is some better way to make the profits a little higher, than I'd appreciate any advice/pep talks from the group. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that the $20 an hour isn't worth it, especially when you can now lose $1000s in a weekend on a bad stretch. A bad stretch before when I was not counting and only flat betting meant maybe losing $100-$200. Granted, I never expected to make money, but I never wound up losing $1500 in a 8 hour session either.

Any advice, pep talks, wisdom from the successful, etc., would be very much appreciated. If responses are basically along the lines of "yep, you pretty much summed it up," then I think there has to be better uses for your time and effort than playing blackjack for money. I think I'd be better off going back to flat betting, and spending my time studying the stock market.

Again, thanks in advance.

All the years he set home run records, he also set records for number of strike outs.

If you flat bet, yes you will only lose X% (with variance) in the long run, but if you count and spread properly you have a chance of winning X% (with variance) in the long run.

What is so unusual about losing 5 max bets in a row? I dropped 30,000 in one session after losing about 20 in a row.

From the sounds of your playing time, don't even think about the long run until you have put in several years of table time.

Is it worth it? I don't know, what else have you got going on? I can think of lots of better things to do than hang out in a smokey casino with a bunch of degenerates.

what are the reasons why you play. If you want to win money at blackjack then there is no way to avoid the variance.

You can flat-bet and still have a positive expectation if you avoid all negative counts. If you factor in comps you might be doing OK.

Now please correct me if I'm wrong (and I hope someone will!), but let's say I use a decent bet spread like 1-10. An I'll even throw in for good measure that I'll leave tables which are at very negative counts. From what I've read and studied, the largest advantage I can expect to have is approximately 1% (am I wrong in thinking this?). Assuming my bet spread raises my average bet to around $20, now I'm earning appromately $15 an hour (using the 1% figure).

So basically I'm making under $20 an hour, and greatly increasing my variance. Yes, over the long run, it's proven to succeed, but what if I have a decent day grinding out slighly positive shoes with small bets, only to lose my first 5 big bets in a row when the count finally calls for it (unlikely, but exactly that happened to me two sessions in a row!!!).

Perhaps I'm just a frustrated beginning counter who practices like crazy, has acheived a decent skill level, yet seems to lose every single time I put out my max bet. If I'm wrong on all this, or there is some better way to make the profits a little higher, than I'd appreciate any advice/pep talks from the group. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that the $20 an hour isn't worth it, especially when you can now lose $1000s in a weekend on a bad stretch. A bad stretch before when I was not counting and only flat betting meant maybe losing $100-$200. Granted, I never expected to make money, but I never wound up losing $1500 in a 8 hour session either.

Doesn't sound like you have the mindset for this. I don't mean that as a criticism at all, it means you are saner than most of us.
To be honest you are barely scratching the surface. It will get much, much worse than this at some point. Most pros have a losing year at some point.

Regarding extra profits, yes there are lots of ways. So many ways that I ended up abandoning counting altogether. Magician has pointed out that comps are a big factors-if you seriously want to make a profit you must take advantage of the comp system or your bankroll will be eaten away by expenses. But many other means of supplementing your edge exist, for example look for payoff errors, warps, learn cutoff tracking etc. Look through the catalogue here for some ideas.

Only for playing experience maybe, but not if you want to make more than $10 an hour betting reds.

I feel your pain. I'm an even lower-stakes counter ($3 to $30) than yourself. But I too have experienced exactly what you've gone through and felt the exact same way.

Even though my net probably comes out to something like $5 per hour plus comps, for me it's worth it. But that's because I get a charge out of playing blackjack in a casino. I go only a few times a year. I love the idea of beating the casino at its own game, making money (however little) on a vacation, getting free drinks and occasionally free meals and discounted rooms just for playing a game that I enjoy. And the fact that I can smoke a cigar indoors is a special plus for those of us who live in the People's Republic of California.

But for you, those attractions may not be enough. If playing BJ in a casino isn't your idea of a good time, then your $15 per hour payoff is definitely not worth the inevitable big losses.

If you want to make serious money, you'll have to bet a lot more. Of course, that means it will cost you even more when you run into the negative swings. And, of course, you'll get a lot more heat for your troubles.

If you want to stay at low stakes, to avoid severe discouragement over the big losses, perhaps you could do what I do: set a maximum loss level for your trip. If you get too close to it, decrease the element of ruin by spreading less. Rather than increasing your bet by a factor of 10 on a high count, increase it by 5. And so on. It's basically trading some potential profits for peace of mind.

It's the coward's way out, true. But I've found it's worth it to avoid having a lousy visit to Vegas. Since you're not a pro and don't intend to be, the main thing is to have a good time. If losing $1,000 on a weekend bums you out too much, then don't do it.

Best of luck

First, I'd like to thank everyone who has replied. It's great that there is a forum here to help beginning counters and advantage players.

One response told me to look more into warps, shuffle tracking, etc. for additional ways to gain an advantage that do not involve counting. Can someone elaborate a little more on this? I looked at the catalogue, and the only thing which seemed relevant was "Shuffle Tracking for Beginners." Is shuffle tracking a viable way to seriously increase your advantage at blackjack, or is the edge which it offers marginal at best? As for warps, I don't even know what warps are. Are there any other techniques I can look into? If so, where can I find/buy some good information. I am eager to learn and put the time and money in, but I'd just like a realistic picture of what I can expect to gain in the long term by doing these and other non-counting advantage play alternatives over the long run.

Again, thanks in advance.

From my understanding when some dealers peak under a card it may develop a slight warp. This is usually negated by shuffling however if a dealer has a really light shuffle the warp may stay. In this way aces and 10s may be effectively marked. However this technique won't work at tables with mirrors or hole card detectors. I hope this helps a bit.

It is worth it. When you played with a disadvantage, why did you play? I'll bet you played for the variance. You played for the times you came home with an extra $500. And essentially you were willing to pay for that privelege. You were willing to pay $3.75/hr for it. Frankly that's cheap entertainment. That's how I saw it. As a counter the casino's paying you to enjoy the variance.

But also now as a counter you understand the math and are awed by it. You realize the futility and the hours required and see yourself for the insignificant speck in the billion hand simulation that is your statistical edge. It stops being fun when it turns into work.

You have a choice. Be a pro. Dedicate yourself to it. Learn your odds, carefully manage your money/expenses and turn blackjack into a job. And you better be good (and lucky). It won't be fun anymore (but it beats digging ditches I'm sure).

Or keep it as a hobby. It's fun. Bring back that person who used to flat bet and let him sit at the table. If you can't handle the variance under bet your bankroll. My bankroll and ability to replenish would easily support light black play, but I STILL spread $10-$100 because that's what FUN for me. I'll play black when I get comfortable, but not until.

So analyze your reasons for playing and your expectations. Sounds like this is a hobby so treat it as such. How much are you willing to spend on a hobby in a weekend? Golf clubs, mountainbikes, lift tickets. All those are expensive. Counting is one of a small percentage of positive EV hobbies.

And better luck. It'll snap. Keep your chin up and max bets out!
This weekend cost me 6 units because I lowered my max bet after a bad streak. Next three hands: snapper, push, snapper.

And I can laugh at my foolishness because it's $60 and not $600.

Feep

In AC, with nickel action, you're talking at least 6, and usually 8 decks.

The variance with 6 decks is such that you'd need a bankroll of something like 30,000 units to do things "properly."

A better (but still not good) game can be found on the Miss. Gulf Coast -- DD but usually only about 55% pen and you won't be able to get away with anything better than a 1-4 spread. Still, IMHO, you'd be money ahead by accumulating bankroll and going to Mississippi about 1/5th to 1/10th as often as you go to Atlantic City.

There are a few decent games in Minnesota (DD & 4D, 75% pen, decent rules) and a few in Nevada.

But if you want to go back to playing BS in AC for pure recreation, I suggest you use a betting progression instead of flat betting. No, it will not give you any better edge, but it can be a lot more fun and exciting; and once in a while you can achieve a significant win.

> The variance with 6 decks is such that you'd need a bankroll of something like 30,000 units to do things "properly."

This seems extremely conservative. What do you mean by "properly"?

having enough depth to withstand the effects of variance.

AFAIAC, trying to count (i.e., bet and play the count) 6 or more decks is A) too @#$*ing risky; and B) a waste of time and mental effort.

In fact, the variance is *so* high that doubling a 20-unit buy-in playing a moderately agressive progression is easily and well within one standard deviation.

Thus my advice to the original poster, who seemed to be going in with waaaaay too little depth. Given the variance, he won't be much worse off $$-wise just having fun playing BS and betting progression.

First, read my posts in this thread.

Then, if you want to discuss what I have found to be the best way to play the AC $10 tables, email me.

I guess I'm not doing it "properly" then. Wonging shoes substantially reduces the variance and thus the bankroll requirements.

> AFAIAC, trying to count (i.e., bet and play the count) 6 or more decks is A) too @#$*ing risky; and B) a waste of time and mental effort.

I disagree, but to each his own.