las vegas 21 general questions

Hello....i will be going to vegas soon and need some advice. I will be playing mostly blackjack and would like to know which games are probably my best bet. I know basic strategy and high low count and my bankroll will be 500 per day for three days. i will only be playing on the strip and realize that most of the lower limit games (5, 10, 15$) pay 6:5 unless there are 6 or eight decks being used. I don't really want to play the 25$ min 2 deck games becuase that would be 5% of my bankroll per bet or more depending if I need to double, split or double after split. Please give advice as to what I should do and what casinos on the strip offer the best options.

Thanks so much!

what about harrahs properties....i am platinum comp level there and usually stay and play there....this time I am staying at Paris on comps

... my bankroll will be 500 per day for three days.

What does "per day" mean? It appears you have a $1500 trip bankroll. Why the division into days?

i was thinking of playing with about 500 per day....is that a bad idea?

Is this some type of "stop loss" or a win limit, or what? I don't understand why you look at it "per day" rather than $1500 for your three-day trip.

If you play fewer hours because you might exceed your day bankroll, you will expected to win less money.

On the other hand, you risk losing your entire bankroll in one day. Suppose it takes you 12 hours to lose it. What is the difference between losing it in three 4 hour session or losing it in one 12 hour session? You will have played just as long. On the other hand, if limit yourself to only 4 hours in one day, you lose all that time you could have been making money during the rest of the day. The more you play, the more you will win -- also, the faster you will get into the "long run."

With a $1500 bankroll playing at a $10 table, he is not looking to retire on his winnings. He wants to play a little each day. If he loses it all on the first day(probably due to big losses at monster counts), he will not be able to play for the rest of this trip. Or, maybe even worse, he will have to go to the ATM, pay exorbitant fees, and lose more than he planned on losing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. If he plays 12 hours over three days or all on the first day, he's still the same amount in to the long run. It's not about stop losses, long runs, or making a killing at blackjack. He wants to have a little fun playing BJ. As one of the great sages of these pages told me recently, why play if you're not having fun?

thanks for your comments....revereman, I think we are on the same page....i just am thinking in terms of having fun but yet not getting too carried away, and having a bankroll plan to work with. If i have a bad day the first day and go through 500, than I take a break and see how my luck is the second day and so on. At least I will be able to have fun throughout my trip with an expected loss amount and go home up or down having had an enjoyable time. I guess this is not a professional's way of looking at things but it works for me...its easy in vegas to get out of controle and then its no fun at all. Am I wrong ?!

It's not maximizing your winning potential but that's not your goal. You're playing with an advantage and having some fun. Sounds like a plan to me.

are on a game with one other player or heads up, with good rules and good pen, and it's only day one, you may want to press on and play that game because you may not have it on day 2 or 3.

Here's another idea that could be a lot of fun - stop loss days one and two at say $200 or less. Then on day 3, play a hail mary bankroll.

If you're willing to lose $1,500 for the trip and you have $1,100 or more left on day 3, move up to green and be sure not to sweat. Don't get nervous, don't make bad plays, don't walk from a good game because you get hammered on the first shoe - you can really play as though that is your usual level. That could be exillerating for you if you are a low red player. It will also open your eyes to some things you otherwise wouldn't have experienced. And, you may end up by a standard deviation or more at the green level!! If you lose, who cares, since you were prepared to do so anyway.

Great post. Thanks for this (in my experience, underposted) viewpoint.

And great turn of phrase -- someone clearly doesn't understand what "the long run" means if they think 12 hours in one day gets someone into "the long run" more efficiently than 3 days of 4 hours each day. Same playing time, same "run" time, same "length" of "run."

The more I read these boards, the more I suspect I'm running into people who have made mantras out of what are clearly guidelines from players who are playing 40+ hours a week, and applying them to players who are playing on vacation time, 80 hours a year.

Thanks again.

And great turn of phrase -- someone clearly doesn't understand what "the long run" means if they think 12 hours in one day gets someone into "the long run" more efficiently than 3 days of 4 hours each day. Same playing time, same "run" time, same "length" of "run."

No, 12 hours in each of three days will get into the long run faster than three days of 4 hours, unless you are unfortunate and lose it early. In that case, either strategy gets you just as much playing time. However, my strategy results in more playing time when I recover from early losses.

The more I read these boards, the more I suspect I'm running into people who have made mantras out of what are clearly guidelines from players who are playing 40+ hours a week, and applying them to players who are playing on vacation time, 80 hours a year.

You certainly won't find many people expousing non-mathematical strategies, such as stop-win or stop-loss. The only mantra I have is: The more time you play, the more money you will win. Unlike voodoo, this is based strictly on mathematics.

However, what I am saying applies especially to those of us who visit casinos infrequently. What fun is it to lose your daily bankroll and sitting around doing nothing the rest of the day? I could sit around the pool all day without leaving home.

If he plays 12 hours over three days or all on the first day, he's still the same amount in to the long run.

If his goal is to play a total of 12 hours over 3 days, you are right. However, if his goal is to play as much as his bank will let him, he is arbitrarily limiting his playing time by stopping after losing $500 in one day.

If you take the trouble to count the cards you cannot really make us believe that you just play for fun.But in order to give yourself a fair chance to beat the game you need to have your entire bankroll available. Otherwise you cannot play a sufficient spread.
However, when you feel at the table that you're not ready for it, just forget about counting and simply play BS. If you flat bet minimum your bankroll will last for months.

Francis Salmon

While I see your point, I guess I was assuming that the person would not lose $500 in 4 hours of play -- if that happens, it's likely he's wagering higher than where he should be (probably $1, though that's impossible in the US outside of medium size cruise ships and small riverboats), especially if it happens more than one day in a three-day trip.

So I was assuming that he'd get all 4 hours of each of his 3 days in, and total 12 hours, just as he would if he sat down for a 12 hour session and left 12 hours later. The result, in both cases, is twelve hours played.

I certainly agree it doesn't make sense to shoot yourself in the foot with unproven strategy regardless of whether you're amateur or professional; I guess I was just assuming (from the above) that he wasn't, in either case. But I agree that it could happen very quickly if he sat at a green-chip (or even a $10 or $15 minimum) table.

I didn't say it was impossible, merely unlikely. Agreed on all other counts.

-BB

...That's what everyone here is always bitching about. It just goes with the territory.

Cobbson

HELP US OUT OF THE RECESSION
BUY AMERICAN WHENEVER YOU CAN
CHINA MAKES CRAP

Indeed -- well summed up.

and it's very possible to lose $500 quickly mid-shoe. Are we expected to recommend that he quit playing at that point and walk with a big count? He would be far better off just waiting until the last day of his trip to play and have access to the full $1,500.

Not everyone is a pro looking to maximize their profits. I know that you agree that anything can happen in the short run and it is very possible that he could lose the whole $1500 in a very short period of time. In that case, he'd be in Vegas and couldn't gamble for the next two days. I don't think he'd be happy with that.
In my long experience at the tables, I've walked away from very juicy counts maybe 8-10 times. Believe me, that is not a lot for the amount of times I have played. In most, if not all, of the cases, I was approaching the end of a trip, was up a pretty good amount and got killed in a very high count, giving back some, if not a lot of my winnings. In these cases, I usually left with a good win, but not a great win. Statistically, should I have left the table? No. However, booking a win, and more importantly, not giving back all of my trip win was a victory. Could I have won a few more thousand dollars? Sure. Could I have lost my winnings and some of my original bankroll. Yes. That was part of my point in my other post--I don't play like a machine, and my guess is that many others don't too (although nobody seems willing to address the issue).
In summary, you are absolutely right but there is a difference betwnn theory and the real world.