Again, well said (nt)
Let me first say that I'm just starting out with counting (6 months playing; about 2 years reading), so I may be very wrong here.
However, I'm not sure I understand your idea when you say "If you take the trouble to count the cards you cannot really make us believe that you just play for fun."
For me, at least, the amount of "fun" I have DURING A STAY IN AC (not just during gamglinb time) is related to the following factors (in order of importance TO ME):
- Time I get to relax away from work
- Sleeping in without an alarm or without the feeling that I should at least be monitoring events remotely at my job (I'm in the IT profession, and the advent of blackberries and VPNs is a double-edged sword for me -- convenience vs. heightened expectations)
- Time at the tables during which I can confidently say that I was minimizing the house edge as much as possible
- Socialization
- Comps (pretty minimal for me)
The vast majority of advantage from counting comes from the wager spread (at least for the 6-shoe games I play; I'm not saying I don't modify basic strategy plays at TCs far from 0 but it just doesn't happen often given how often I play and because I play six-shoe games).
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I am 100% sure that I come down here have fun, yet I would be having less fun if I flat bet, because while in that case I might get to play for more time over a set number of months or years, I would rather accept the risk of (if I happen to lose all of my bankroll for some sessions) having played for a bit less time in exchange for the reward of having made more money in the long run.
The term "long run" seems to upset people here a bit if it's not used by a person that doesn't play more than 80 hours a month, but I promise you it applies the same for the person that plays 20 hours a month for 60 years just as much as it applies to the person that plays 120 hours a month for 10 years. Sure, given the average lifespan of a human being, the person playing at 120 hours/month for 10 years could potentially get into a longer "run" than the other guy, but at that point (IMHO) things will have averaged out nicely enough FOR ME. Again, YMMV.
Anyway, that's just my viewpoint -- any rational corrections are certainly welcome; I'm here to learn.
"Even at a $5 minimum table, I think losing $500 quickly would be very easy. You're spreading 1-10, the count goes high within the first two decks, you start putting out max bets, the count stays high, and you lose 10 hands in a row. One shoe and you're down $500."
I've had this happen on more than one occasion. I play red chips and have lost $500 in the course of a shoe and really high counts. Play a max bet of $80, split 8's twice, double on a ten and eleven, only to see that the dealer has a 6 under their five and get a face, and you just lost $400. $400 isn't much to most of you, but for us "tiny stakes" red-chip players, that is a significant part of a trip bankroll.
Even so, I think I would play the entire $1500 as a piece instead of three $500 individual trip bankrolls. I normally play very short red-chip sessions in the local casinos and I usually walk in with about $400. I'll buy in with $100-$200. Even though I know better, if I'm down to $50 in chips on the table and I'm playing two hands, even if the count would call for me to play two spots of $30, I will be tempted at time to play two spots of $15 leaving $15 to cover a split or double. This is stupid and I know it, but I'll sometimes do it rather than stop play, pull out another $100 and buy in for more.
I think that small session bankrolls, at least in my case, tend to make me not manage the money ideally. Rather than taking in $300 and leaving if I lose it all, I should simply set a time limit on my play and leave when that time is up (unless the count and/or conditions are really good).
