winning at blackjack

[booboobear]

When you play blackjack do you set a limit for the day of how much you want to win.
Secondly if you set out to win $ 150 would you go to the $ 10 $ 25 or $ 50 minimum bet table.

 

[Cobster]

Wanna win big, gotta bet big.
$150 is reasonable, but if you lose 5 hands at a $20 table, you're pretty much out and done fast.
Then it's all about getting that $100 back plus your goal of $150, so now, it's $250.
Same goes for the opposite.
Good luck with that.

 

[booboobear]

Wanna win big, gotta bet big.
$150 is reasonable, but if you lose 5 hands at a $20 table, you're pretty much out and done fast.
Then it's all about getting that $100 back plus your goal of $150, so now, it's $250.
Same goes for the opposite.
Good luck with that.

That's what I thought so if your goal is $ 150 do you think it's better to play the $ 50 bet table means of course you need to buy more chips say $ 250 and be willing to lose before you hopefully come back,

 

[Cobster]

That's the way to do it, but if you lose (and fast), you're really going to be pissed off large.
But you gotta play big. It's a gamble right.
Sounds like you wanna make a quick buck, my suggestion try $10 minimum tables.
Then if you're up say $20 initially, drop a $20 hand. Take it from there.

 

[john bourne]

the key to blackjack is once you've doubled your money, leave!!!! even if you can count cards, your edge is only like 0.5% over the house. now over time, that will make you rich, but in the short run, it won't do a whole lot. if you're lucky enough to double your money, RUN far far away from the pitt.

- john

 

[Malibook]

I like to play the lowest minimum table since even a $15 table lets you bet up to $300 anyways.

You have to play for fun and be perfectly ready to accept losing.

If you are up a nice amount make sure you leave with some of it.

I find the key to doing well is going when it is not busy.
You have to have the option of easily moving to a different table when things are going bad.
When it is busy and there is only the odd seat open, you don't have a chance, plus the minimums are high and will blow you away fast.
Take advantage of your edges like doubling down and splitting pairs, when appropriate of course.

 

[1HandInMyPocket]

When you play blackjack do you set a limit for the day of how much you want to win.
Secondly if you set out to win $ 150 would you go to the $ 10 $ 25 or $ 50 minimum bet table.

1) always set a limit to how much you can affor to lose. I don't play blackjack anymore, but I do set a limit when I play other casino games. Like the saying goes "know your limit, play within it"

2) seeing how there is a house edge (or vig) in the casino advantage, you will lose (mathematically) in the long run. Now if you use one of the basic blackjack strategy such as play by the same rules as the dealer does, hit until 17, and throw in real basic card counting you can get a slight advantage. So by this play the lower limits and expect to gring it out over a few hours to get to $150. If you play the higher limits, then really your expecting to get lucky and win the first few times.

 

[wonkyknee]

You should have 20-30 times your minimum bet in your pocket...at least. Like its been indicated, be ready to grind it out!

Also like its been said, at $15/hand...assuming you'll be raising your bet when you're winning, to double or triple that amount, start your stop losses once you're up $150 - $200....you also don't want to walk away too early.

Basic strategy is important. Money management is what distinguishes winners from LOSERS.

Insurance isn't always BAD. If you got big money on the table, remember its called insurance for a reason.

 

[BACKRUBbuzzard]

You should have 20-30 times your minimum bet in your pocket...at least.

WKN is correct - 30 times your average/minimum bet

Consider pressing your bets e.g.

If you bet $25 and win, stay at $25 for the next hand.
If you win again, bet $40
Again, then $65, $100, $150, $225
Somewhere around now, you should consider backing off and returning to $25

Remember, splits and double downs can be great or a killer. But also remember, over the long run, the casino always win.

 

[JJ Gettes]

Basic Strategy

Here is link to basic strategy, it tells you how to play every possible hand and gives you the best probability of winning without counting cards. Of course that is over millions of hands. Counting cards is a betting strategy as opposed to a playing strategy. Playing like the dealer that is drawing until you hit 17 is why the casinos make big money. The big advantage that casinos have is the dealer goes last that is they collect all the times you bust.

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack

I have seen some interesting variations, such as double exposure, where the dealer plays with both cards up. In this game the house wins if you push. So if the dealer is sitting with a count of 20 and you have 20 you have to hit hoping to find the ace! Don't like the game much.

 

[booboobear]

1) always set a limit to how much you can affor to lose. I don't play blackjack anymore, but I do set a limit when I play other casino games. Like the saying goes "know your limit, play within it"

2) seeing how there is a house edge (or vig) in the casino advantage, you will lose (mathematically) in the long run. Now if you use one of the basic blackjack strategy such as play by the same rules as the dealer does, hit until 17, and throw in real basic card counting you can get a slight advantage. So by this play the lower limits and expect to gring it out over a few hours to get to $150. If you play the higher limits, then really your expecting to get lucky and win the first few times.

All good advice guys , I was up $ 70 on Sat and walked away , not a lot I know then came back , big mistake lost the $ 70 plus $ 150 played by the rules when to hit but the house didn't . At least I was only playing with the winning chips I had before I didn't cash my chips.. Now I am thinking of trying limit texas hlod em , anybody made the switch . How did you do, any tips.

 

[homonger]

I don't play blackjack as much as I used to, but my usual cash management strategy was to grind it out, betting the minimum unless the count was in my favor, just trying to stay a bit ahead on every shoe, and hoping to hit it big when I got a favorable count. The problem with this, though, is that you could play for hours before hitting a good positive shoe, and even then, there are no guarantees.

As noted, the problem with blackjack is that even the best players and counters have a razor thin advantage, so the odds are very long that you could expect to double your money in any given session. But the converse is also true, it is also equally unlikely that you could lose your whole stack too (unless you really are a donkey).

I would usually bring something like $400 or $500, play at a $15 table, and if I got hot and doubled up quickly, I'd bolt. Likewise, if I dropped 1/2 my stack right off the bat, I'd say it wasn't my day and get the hell out of there. The more likely scenario would be that after a couple of hours, I'd be a bit ahead or a bit behind, so I'd set some kind of modest goal, like I want to get back to even, or finish $100 ahead or whatever. I'd also think about how long I wanted to play, whether I was having any fun or not, whether there were other things I wanted to do. I found that setting a time limit was sometimes the best limit of them all.

 

[homonger]

Now I am thinking of trying limit texas hlod em , anybody made the switch . How did you do, any tips.

I didn't see this before, but after being a fairly serious blackjack player, I made the switch to pretty much playing no limit hold 'em exclusively.

I just feel I have more control playing poker. In BJ, I knew basic strategy cold and was a pretty good card counter, but I'd still have too many sessions where I did everything right and still have my ass handed to me. That 0.5% edge you get from doing everything right still means the house is pretty much even money to clean your clock. In poker, edges usually mean something. You are going to win a higher pair on pair confrontation 75% to 80% of the time. If you hit the nut flush, and there are no pairs or straight draws on the board, you will win that hand 100% of the time. There is always going to be a luck factor in any form of gaming, but I find that with poker, the edges hold up more often than not.

My shorthand summary of it is:

1) BJ is better because there is only one opponent--the house, and you know exactly how they have to play
2) BJ is better because it is so highly mechanical, you can play for hours and not be taxed. Once you get to a certain skill level, the plays all become routine.
3) While there are table limits, your winning upside is dictated by how much you are willing to risk--you can even dig back into your wallet in the middle of a hand, if the situation warrants it. With poker you can only win the amount of chips you have on the table at any given moment, and even if you have a ton of chips, you can't win any more than what your opponents have.
4) No one ever tries to stare you down at the BJ table.
5) You can always ask your dealer for help at the BJ table if you are uncertain what to do. At the poker table, you're on your own.

On the flip side:

1) Poker is better because you can choose to bet as much or as little as you want on any given hand. You can even choose not to play your cards at all if you want.
2) You can win without having good cards
3) You can play for hours with $200 at a $1/$2 hold 'em table. $200 might last 30 minutes at a blackjack table.
4) No one ever asks a good poker player to leave the casino
5) The skill level of the players at your table is a huge factor in determining whether your session will be profitable or not. In BJ, having a chump at your table doesn't really impact your chances of winning. Also, there is a huge range of skill level generally present at most poker tables. You don't have to be the best player at your table to win, just not the worst.
6) The 'bad beat' stories are more interesting. There are even jackpots for bad beats at some casinos.

 

[booboobear]

I didn't see this before, but after being a fairly serious blackjack player, I made the switch to pretty much playing no limit hold 'em exclusively.

I just feel I have more control playing poker. In BJ, I knew basic strategy cold and was a pretty good card counter, but I'd still have too many sessions where I did everything right and still have my ass handed to me. My shorthand summary of it is:

1) BJ is better because there is only one opponent--the house, and you know exactly how they have to play
2) BJ is better because it is so highly mechanical, you can play for hours and not be taxed. Once you get to a certain skill level, the plays all become routine.
, you're on your own.

On the flip side:

1) Poker is better because you can choose to bet as much or as little as you want on any given hand. You can even choose not to play your cards at all if you want.
2) You can win without having good cards
3) You can play for hours with $200 at a $1/$2 hold 'em table. $200 might last 30 minutes at a blackjack table.
4) No one ever asks a good poker player to leave the casino
5) The skill level of the players at your table is a huge factor in determining whether your session will be profitable or not. In BJ, having a chump at your table doesn't really impact your chances of winning. Also, there is a huge range of skill level generally present at most poker tables. You don't have to be the best player at your table to win, just not the worst.
6) The 'bad beat' stories are more interesting. There are even jackpots for bad beats at some casinos.

Thanks this is a great evaluation I think it is pretty well the way I feel after playing BJ and why I want to switch to Texas hold em . The one main reason that you pointed out , if you are having a bad day at BJ you can blow through money pretty quickly . I think I will start limit holdem, I know this eliminates the excitement of all in and a large part of the bluff factor but it.s a start . Are you cautious in your betting ?

 

[wonkyknee]

Sounds Good Ho..

I don't play blackjack as much as I used to, but my usual cash management strategy was to grind it out, betting the minimum unless the count was in my favor, just trying to stay a bit ahead on every shoe, and hoping to hit it big when I got a favorable count. The problem with this, though, is that you could play for hours before hitting a good positive shoe, and even then, there are no guarantees.

As noted, the problem with blackjack is that even the best players and counters have a razor thin advantage, so the odds are very long that you could expect to double your money in any given session. But the converse is also true, it is also equally unlikely that you could lose your whole stack too (unless you really are a donkey).

I would usually bring something like $400 or $500, play at a $15 table, and if I got hot and doubled up quickly, I'd bolt. Likewise, if I dropped 1/2 my stack right off the bat, I'd say it wasn't my day and get the hell out of there. The more likely scenario would be that after a couple of hours, I'd be a bit ahead or a bit behind, so I'd set some kind of modest goal, like I want to get back to even, or finish $100 ahead or whatever. I'd also think about how long I wanted to play, whether I was having any fun or not, whether there were other things I wanted to do. I found that setting a time limit was sometimes the best limit of them all.

....not not only want to take advantage of a favorable card count, but you also got to take advantage of a string of favorable cards dealt to you...or a string of busts by the dealer...if you don't raise your bets in those circumstances you miss out on HUGE OPPORTUNITIES.

 

[homonger]

Thanks this is a great evaluation I think it is pretty well the way I feel after playing BJ and why I want to switch to Texas hold em . The one main reason that you pointed out , if you are having a bad day at BJ you can blow through money pretty quickly . I think I will start limit holdem, I know this eliminates the excitement of all in and a large part of the bluff factor but it.s a start . Are you cautious in your betting ?

There is no simple answer to this question, but in general, yes, I don't sit down at a hold 'em table and immediately start raising pots. Unless I'm getting monster hands, of course.

Hold 'em poker is an immensely popular game right now, and my strongest advice would be to study a bit first before playing in a casino. Practice online, play a few home games, read some books (there are many excellent ones). The somewhat frightening (but in a good way) thing about the game's popularity is that a lot of guys watch it on TV and think they can play the game. The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of crummy players out there. If you study the game, learn about starting hand requirements and playing position, pay attention to betting patterns, and understand outs and pot odds, you will automatically be better than most people.

To further address your question, playing tight is generally considered to be the way to go, especially for newer players. As you learn and get better, you can start adding fancy bells and whistles to your game, but starting out, tight is right. One of the things I have learned about poker is that there are many different styles than can be successful. One of the challenges is to figure out what style suits you best. What is important is for you to learn the fundamentals, and then you can figure out what kind of player you want to be.

 

[homonger]

....not not only want to take advantage of a favorable card count, but you also got to take advantage of a string of favorable cards dealt to you...or a string of busts by the dealer...if you don't raise your bets in those circumstances you miss out on HUGE OPPORTUNITIES.

I agree, of course, and this is one of the things that makes BJ tricky. Namely, how much are you willing to risk when the true count starts running in your favor? My typical approach was to bet the minimum when the count was neutral or slightly negative, raise my bet a unit or two when the count was in the +2 to +4 range, and bet the farm when the count was +10 or higher. The problem is, having a true count of +10 or higher is a situation that comes along so infrequently, most BJ experts would say you have to be willing to put it all out there when it does happen. This was pretty much the approach of the MIT blackjack team that took Vegas for millions a few years ago. One guy would play the minimum, and when the count got big, they'd signal another guy to come over and plop down a huge bet.

The problem with this approach is there is still a lot of volatility to this game. There have been many times where I've been playing with a very high favorable count and still lost. And then when that happens, you've lost a series of very big bets. Of course, when it works, it's a beautiful thing and you take your money and run. It's still risky though, and you have to have the bankroll and stomach for it, good and bad.

 

[Pilotas]

To re-enforce (if it's needed) what homonger is correctly stating...money managment is the only way to win. That being said, you must technically have a very good to excellent understanding of the game.

And then, you must have a physcological command over the game and casino. i.e. know your limits, know when to leave and never chase your bets.


Good luck.

 

[danmand]

I would (respectfully) add to Homongers lecture, that Limit Holdem is a very different game from no-limit holdem. I played no-limit or pot-limit on the internet for years, and now go to a local casino to play once in a while. The local casino only have limit tables, and it was quite a learning experience for me.

 

[homonger]

I would (respectfully) add to Homongers lecture, that Limit Holdem is a very different game from no-limit holdem.

That is an excellent point. I am almost exclusively a no limit hold 'em player, and have found limit hold 'em to be a very different game as well. I will go as far as to say I don't really know how to play it.