View Single Post
Old 08-05-2013, 11:18 AM   #8
Swanman Swanman is offline
It's a league game, Dude
 
Swanman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Itasca, IL
Casino cash: $48466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawnmower View Post
I'm by no means a player, but if you do basic strategy plus some form of basic running count, it amounts to a net positive (albeit very small), then like you said when you add in comps etc....

But that requires optimal strategy plus more...if you can keep a running count and also insurance count then the net positive becomes a little bigger but to me it is still too small to mess with (as you suggest).

I think some people who are good at keeping the counts just try to grind out a living playing....(I know a guy who did for years) but to me it is a waste because it becomes a job with really long hours that is ultra repetitive. I guess the good thing is you have no boss except the pit boss...

So while I question the 'net less' aspect of your premise..(for those rare people who can do perfect strategy, AND keep 2 counts)..the net gain is way too minimal in terms of a % or $ per hour to bother with unless you are playing with a really big stack.

ANd that doesn't even factor in getting asked to leave once you start making money (which you WILL be asked to leave...and not politely).

Not to mention the margin for error is very slim...if you get distracted or make a mistake you ruin an hour worth of profit...
There are a ton of house rules that have to be in effect for the house advantage to be minimized to a point where you could grind out a gain long-term if you were a proficient counter. A few rules that would need to be in place, off the top of my head:

1. Blackjack pays 3/2
2. Surrender available
3. Dealer stays on soft 17

There are a couple others. If any of those rules go against the player, it adds quite a bit to the house advantage. The worst is blackjack paying 6/5, that adds like 3% to the house advantage by itself.
Posts: 3,302
Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.Swanman would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote