I started taking casino blackjack seriously about ten years ago, and the venue for three-quarters of my gambling junkets has been Foxwoods. Over those years, they’ve been very good to me.

A frequent birthday ritual has been to take the day off and drive down to Connecticut, play some blackjack, and then stop off at Purgatory Chasm on the way home.

The timing of this year’s trip was a little interesting for three reasons. First, it occurred during my last week working at Buildium. Secondly, the remnants of Hurricane Patricia—one of the most powerful storms on record—passed through New England the night before. When I left that morning, the overnight rain clouds were just beginning to break up, promising a beautifully warm and breezy day. And finally, this would be my last trip to Foxwoods before moving away.

Foxwoods chips

Upon arriving, I first went to their Fox Tower casino. I wanted to check it out, because I hadn’t been there since a 2011 loss, back when it was the MGM and brand new. Sadly, all they had were $1 tables, which was an obvious waste of time. So I hoofed it back to my usual haunt at the Grand Pequot.

Once I sat down and started playing, all the chips just got sucked into my gravity well. It took a mere 23 minutes to achieve my predetermined “win” threshold, so I got up, took a deep breath, and cashed out.

It might seem silly to drive four hours and only spend a few minutes at the table, but I don’t go to a casino to play games; I go to win. Winning makes me happy, and you can’t win if you don’t walk away when you’ve won. And if it only takes 20 minutes to achieve my goal, then the sooner I get out of the casino the better! Except, well, I did stop to have a big ice cream before I left…

So that was my last expedition to my favorite casino. They had the most favorable rules I’ve come across, and I’ve only lost on one of my past eight trips, which exceeds all reasonable expectations.

However, that may not be my last opportunity to find a good game of blackjack. There’s a casino right in Pittsburgh, and their state law mandates rules that are even slightly better than Foxwoods’, who annoyingly started hitting soft 17 a couple years back. So we’ll just have to test whether the Pennsylvania government are going to be as generous to me as the Mashantucket Pequots of Connecticut!

Of course, since I was in the area, a stop at Purgatory Chasm was also required. It’s always an amazing, fun, breathtaking, spiritual place, which inevitably provides a dramatic juxtaposition with the overstimulation and consumerism of the casino. The warm weather was a special blessing on what will probably be my last visit there, as well.

And because I was in a self-indulgent birthday mood—and because it was National Cat Day—on the way home I stopped by Boston’s Angell pet adoption center and socialized a few cats, just for fun. It’s been just over a year since I lost Grady, and there’s been a lamentable lack of feline presence in the house.

So overall it was a good day, even though it was the last time for this particular set of rituals.

Somehow two years had passed since my last trip to a casino. To make up for that, I made two blackjack pilgrimages in the past couple months. Here’s some notes.

My first stop was Foxwoods, my preferred joint. In that session, I lost a lot early, but managed to turn it around. In the most memorable hand, I split two fours against a four, then doubled down when I drew a seven on one of the splits. Fortunately, since I now had three times an already substantial initial bet riding on that hand, the dealer busted. It’s always nice when big money hands go according to the mathematical probabilities.

After about 90 minutes I looked down and saw that I’d surpassed my “win” criteria, so I stepped away and drove home. That’s really the most difficult and most important skill in blackjack: having the self-discipline to leave when you’re winning.

A month later, during a trip to Maine, I decided to check out a new casino that has opened in Oxford. It seemed like a nice little joint, until I looked at their rules: no surrender and dealer hits soft 17. Nonetheless, having made the trip, I sat down and played through.

It didn’t take much time for me to plummet to my “lose” criteria. Some of that was bad cards, and some of it was also the unfavorable rules, which bit me a half dozen times.

Will I go back to Oxford? Not unless they change their rules. Foxwoods permits late surrender and stands on soft 17, and I prefer to encourage stores with favorable rules. It’s too bad, though, because Oxford seemed like a nice little place.

So you win one, you lose one, and that’s about par. The betting strategy I’ve developed theoretically allows me to win two thirds of the time, and that has proven out in real-life, where I’ve been up after six of my last ten sessions.

That might sound great, but because I set my loss threshold at twice as much as my win threshold, it winds up being a wash.

In other words, if I win $100 66 percent of the time, and lose $200 33 percent of the time, my long-term result should be a big fat goose egg. Or, if you’re mathematically inclined, let X = my win threshhold:

(.66 * X) - (.33 * 2X) = $0

Nonetheless, that’s an above average result when you’re playing against the house, and it felt great to be back at the table again.

BIRF!

Nov. 6th, 2009 04:23 pm

Another birfday.

Woke up and dumped $250 worth of scotch down the toilet. I’ve gone 18 months without any alcohol, so I didn’t want it laying around taking up space anymore. I’d offered it to several people, but no one seemed motivated to take it, and I felt a little ambiguity about the karmic consequences of giving it to someone, so it went down the tubes.

The sad part is that it included an entire bottle of Bruichladdich, the last remaining bit of my beloved smooth Highland Park 12, and some of the unbelievable and expensive 1982 Port Ellen, an amazing and rare and revered scotch from a distillery that shut down 26 years ago. I do miss the scotch and several scotch ales, but not enough to break that vow I made to myself.

On the other side of the proverbial morality coin, I grabbed a rental car and drove down to teh Foxywood for my first day of casino blackjack since my post-layoff trip last Xmas. I shall leave it at this: my third winning trip in a row, and my most profitable session evar, with some absolutely ludicrous hands. Details follow flocked for the flist.

Then I drove east to Bourne, to check out some alternate hotels for the Pan-Mass Challenge. Mostly disappointed that the places all have two-night minimums.

Drove home to drop off my booty, which took enough time to get two city of Boston parking tickets. Huh.

Then off to the final session of my five-week Metta (lovingkindness) practice group at CIMC. Details of that will be forthcoming.

Unfortunately, some F*c*book “friends” knew it was my birthday, so some public observances happened. Fortunately, they remained at a tolerable level, and did not annoy or offend much.

So all in all a nice birthday. Next year I’d like to have one that doesn’t include a rushed trip back to the meditation center, please?

I thought it important that I followup on last month’s article, wherein—after a successful trip down to Foxwoods—I described my betting strategy for blackjack.

I did a little followup research, and discovered that the basic idea behind my betting strategy is pretty close to something that’s been around for a long time, and is commonly known as the Martingale betting system.

The kicker is that it is almost universally derided by the pros who have looked at it. That kind of intrigued me, so I read up on it quite a bit.

I’ve already described the basic strategy: every time you lose, you double your bet until you win, guaranteeing that you can’t lose.

There are two problems with that. First, you need a big bankroll to be able to absorb the doubling you have to do if you lose six, eight, ten hands in a row. Second, on most games, there’s a fixed house limit that is designed to specifically prohibit you from following the doubling progression indefinitely.

So what it boils down to is this: you’re betting the casino that you’re not going to lose six, eight, ten hands in a row during that session. It’s a very profitable bet, and one you’re likely to win most of the time, as shown in the chart at right.

However, the problem is that when you lose that bet, you lose your entire bankroll. Hence the worrying lump at the left hand side of that same chart.

So there are a couple keys to making Martingale work. First, you need to play a game with near 50-50 odds, like the red/black roulette bet or the pass line in craps. Second, you need to play it for a comparatively short time, because over the long run, you’re guaranteed to eventually lose those eight hands in a row and completely bust, and that will likely lose you more money than you won on all the other hands combined.

That’s why professional gamblers hate Martingale: over the course of the large number of hands they play, they’re guaranteed to bust. However, for us recreational gamblers, it can be profitable in the short term. But if you’re going to Martingale, you always have to be prepared to lose your entire bankroll at the drop of a hat, because the more you play, the more likely it is to happen.

Of course, being cocksure, I’ll continue to play Martingale for blackjack, even though it’s heavily contraindicated. I’ll bring what I can afford to lose, be happy when I win, and grumble when I lose. We’ll see how it turns out. It’s not like I go to a casino often enough to tip the odds in their favor. But win or lose, it’ll be an interesting thing to observe.

But if you thought my betting strategy made sense, you’re hereby officially warned: it’s explicitly called out as a misleading and dangerous strategy by nearly all professional gamblers.

So my buddy [livejournal.com profile] somervillian, who hosted a few of the Hold ’Em tournaments that I’ve attended, aspires to become a “serious” poker player. A couple days ago he pinged me and asked if I wanted to make a trip down to Foxwoods with him. (For the out-of-towners, Foxwoods is an Indian casino in Connecticut, and presumably the largest casino in the world).

I’ve only been in a casino once before. That was also at Foxwoods, but seven years ago, and I lost a couple hundred bucks on blackjack during that visit. On the other hand, I feel I have a pretty solid grasp of casino blackjack, and I had some extra Xmas cash lying around, so why not go down and give it a shot?

So yesterday we drove down, and I tagged along with my buddy as he signed up for a seat in the poker room.

At a casino, one element of success is in knowing what you don’t know. I clearly don’t know the wacky table games like craps and roulette, nor am I inclined to make the effort to learn them and gain proficiency at them.

But having taken second and third in two of the three friendly Hold ’Em tournaments I’ve been to, I think I could probably succeed at poker, but the casino game—and particularly casino players—are very different from friendly games, so I figured discretion was the better part of valor. I left [livejournal.com profile] somervillian to his own devices and I went to scout out the familiar blackjack tables.

Despite the fact that I lost money back in 1999, I feel I have a very solid blackjack strategy (even back then I started the day up and lost my winnings later). There are “strategy” cards you can download that tell you mathematically what you should do on any possible combination of cards, which makes things pretty easy. I don’t always play by the suggested strategy, but I limit my deviation from the strategy to certain specific card combinations where I feel that taking an additional risk is justified.

Of course, that takes care of a strategy for playing your hand. However, knowing how to win a hand is only half the equation.

You see, if you go by the printed strategy card, over the long run you’ll win about 40 percent of the time. That means that over the long term you’re guaranteed to lose money if you always bet the same amount. So in order to make money at blackjack you need not only a strategy for playing out your hands, but you also need a betting strategy.

My betting strategy is fairly straightforward. It’s based on the premise that the more hands I lose, the more likely it is that I’ll win the next hand, or that the more I win, the less likely it is that I’ll continue to win. In the short term, there’s no real correlation between one hand and the next, but over the long run, the player’s going to win 40 percent of the time, and if I wager and win enough money on my winning hands to cover the hands I lose, then I’ll wind up winning money overall. No?

So the key is if you lose on a $15 hand, you increase your bet to $25, hoping you’ll win the next hand. If you lose again, you increase your bet that much more, to $35, then to $50, $75, $100. Keep increasing until you win (just make sure you’ve got the bankroll to be able to double three or four times). Then, after you’ve won a big money hand, you back down to the minimum bet until you’ve had another losing run, when you can jump in again.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple, and predicting how much to bet and when to jump is an exercise in experience and intuition. I’m not saying the strategy is perfect or that it would work for anyone else; I’m just saying that’s how I play.

So I found myself a blackjack table with a friendly dealer and a $15 minimum bet and put all this into effect. I got raped. As the French would say, I met the man with the hammer. I was getting shit cards and couldn’t win a single hand. I think I blew through my $200 initial buy-in in less than ten minutes, and plopped another $150 onto the table. Then I lost probably all but $50 of that.

I was hemorrhaging. At the abyssal nadir of my losing streak I coined a brand new phrase to keep my spirits up. Likening my losing streak to a airplane crash, I thought: Any table you can walk away from is a good one.

But you have to trust the math. I kept putting money out there, and finally the cards turned against the dealer. By then the minimum bet had increased to $25, which helped my recuperation (recoup-eration?). I trusted the betting strategy: lose, jump, win. Lose, jump, lose, double, win more. Lose, jump, lose, redouble, lose, quintuple, win big.

It took several hours, but I knew I was at least even when I looked down and saw about $400 in chips in front of me. The stack yoyoed a bit with each hand, but the overall trend stayed positive. When my buddy called me to say he was done for the day, I didn’t know precisely where I stood, but I knew I was pretty good. I was in fact pretty surprised when I went to cash out and took $875 in chips with me to the window. Wow. I had a $500 poker chip of my very own! I was flabbergasted.

Yeah. I didn’t actually do the math until I was in the car. Superstitious or something. And that waiting was very hard, because we had dinner before we left the casino (I paid, of course). Finally sitting in the car, I did the day’s tally: not only did I make up the $350 I’d lost initially, but I came away with $525 of the house’s money. Wow!

During the long drive back, we talked about strategy and what we’d both learned about our respective games. I’m afraid I must have been a pretty poor conversationalist, because I was so shocked that I could just play blackjack for a couple hours and walk away with a fistful of Bens. Sure, it was pretty nerve-wracking at first, and there were a couple hands where I had $100 riding on a single play, but I got away with the casino’s money!

The casinos project that you have the opportunity to win big, but ultimately they are in the business of taking money away from you in exchange for a little high drama and entertainment. There’s this theoretical chance that you might win, but it’s a pretty slim chance. Sure, my $525 is nothing to the casino, but it still shocks and awes me that I got away with what— to me—is a tidy chunk o’ change.

Frequent topics