The Complete How To Figure It by Darrell Huff has a chapter on blackjack along with a simple counting strategy. Also note that the book has other info on investing & finances and math around the house & stuff. It’s worth at least checking out from the library, especially in light of the OP.
Here are the basics of a very simple counting system:
First, you need to know basic strategy cold. If you can’t answer simple questions like whether you should double down on a soft 18 against a dealer’s 6, or whether you should hit a hard 12 against a dealer’s 13, go study the strategy some more. I’m constantly surprised by the number of ‘card counters’ I meet who don’t know the basic strategy of the game first.
After you’ve got that, the basic ‘hi-lo’ count is this: When the deck is shuffled, start with a count of 0. As the cards are exposed, do the following:
- For every 2-6 value card you see, add 1 to your count.
- For every face card and Ace you see, subtract 1.
- When it’s time for you to make your decision, estimate how many decks the dealer still has not dealt, and divide your ‘running count’ by that number to come up with a ‘true count’. This is the ratio of high cards to low cards PER DECK.
As the count goes positive, the advantage starts to shift towards the player. In a typical shoe game with typical Vegas rules, the house advantage is 0 at a True Count (TC) of about +2. After that, the player gains about a half a percentage point in advantage for each true count increment.
Let’s do a simple 2-hand example. There are five players at the table, and it’s a 4-deck shoe game. These are the cards that come out:
Player 1: 2K
Player 2: TT
Player 3: 45
Player 4: 28
You: 46
Dealer: A
Now, the easiest way to count is to count cards in pairs, because they often cancel out (i.e. a 2-6 and a face card is +1, -1, for a net of zero). So, counting pairs of cards from player 1, we have 0,-2,+2,+2, +2, -1, for a total running count of +3. Now, the players draw to their hands:
Player 1: T2 (K) Bust
Player 2: TT Stand
Player 3: 45 (3)(7) - Stand
Player 4: 28 (9) - Stand
At this point, we started with a running count of +3, and now we start adding and subtracting as each card came out. So when the first player got a King, we mentally said, “Plus 2”. The next player draws a 3 (“plus 3”), and a seven (“Plus 3” - no change). The next player draws a 9 (“plus 3” - no change).
So when it gets to us, the ‘running count’ is Plus 3. And less than half a deck has been dealt, meaning there are about 3.5 decks left. Doing the rough division, the true count is slightly under +1. You hit, and get (2)(3)(9) and bust. But now the running count is Plus 5. The dealer hits the ace, and gets (6)(T) for a 17. The 6 and T cancel, so you’re still at plus 5.
So, on the next hand the house still has an advantage, but a smaller one. So, you’ll still bet a minimum bet. Now the cards come out:
Player 1: 44
Player 2: 23
Player 3: 77
Player 4: A3
You: 62
Dealer: T
So we started this hand with a running count of 5. After adding up the cards above in pairs (try it), you should quickly see that we’re at a running count of +10 now.
The players hit:
Player 1: 44(T)
Player 2: 23(5)(5)(9)
Player 3: 77(6)
Player 4: A3(T)(4)
You: 62(T)
Dealer: T(9)
Okay, after all the hits, you should see that the running count is now at +11. Dividing by the number of decks left and rounding to the nearest half-deck, you should see that we’ve got 3 decks left, for a true count close to +4. Precision is not important. If you can get round your deck estimation to a half-deck, and round your true count calculations to the nearest point, that’s good enough. So in this case, for speed I wouldn’t actually try to divide 11 by three and come up with a number. I know that 12/3=4, so 11/3 is “just under 4”.
A true count of just under 4 means that on the next bet we have about a .5% advantage over the house. This means you should increase the size of your bet. To maximize the theoretical gain, you should bet your advantage times the size of your bankroll. So if your gambling bankroll is $5,000, you should bet $25. You don’t do that math at the table, BTW. Usually, you’ll know exactly how much you should bet for each true count, and set your table limits accordingly.
In a nutshell, that’s it. The added detail is that you vary your playing strategy based on the count as well. For example, NEVER take insurance if you aren’t counting. If you’re counting cards, the insurance side bet has a positive expectation at true counts over +3, and you should then take insurance. There are 18 such strategy variations that you should learn (actually, there are hundreds, but if you learn the top 18 you gain about 95% of the advantage at a fraction of the workload).
So there you have it. A winning blackjack system. With what I just told you here, you should be able to beat a shoe game with good rules and basic strategy along with these bet variations. Oh, and I should add that if the count had gone the other way (if mostly high cards had come out), I would have gotten up and walked away from the table. Because it works both ways - the house typically has roughly a .5% advantage over the player, but this also goes up by about .5% per negative true count.
In fact, if you never varied your bets, but simply kept enough of a count that you recognized those high negative counts where the house has a huge advantage and you walk away from the table when a shoe goes bad, you’ll be playing essentially a break-even game. The house will have no advantage over you.
I hope someone finds this monstrosity of a message interesting.
Oops. Made a little mistake. In the first example, I counted 28 as +2. It’s +1, and the running count after the first 2 cards were dealt to everyone is +2, not +3. Adjust accordingly.
Any suggestion you can PRESENTLY win significant amounts from a casino using a simple card counting scheme in blackjack is far fetched.
Depends what you mean by ‘significant amounts’. If you’re willing to limit your wins to $5/hr or so, the Casino will let you. Some casinos have an informal rule to leave suspected counters alone as long as they are not betting more than $100 a hand. These counters are essentially being comped, on the theory that it’s worth more to let them play and attract their friends who don’t win. That, and that most of the smaller limit counters aren’t any good and probably lose money anyway.
The mathematics of the game haven’t changed. The only real countermeasure the casino has is to cut thicker, but that slows the game down and annoys the other players. So the casinos generally just let it go, give the low-stakes counters a decent shot at the game, and concentrate their efforts on the high-stakes players and teams.
Here in Alberta, the blackjack game is one of the most profitable there has ever been. They allow all the good rules plus early surrender on the Ace. Four deck shoes, with 1 deck cut off. Some dealers less. And they completely leave alone the small limit counters. If you want to make minimum wage, you can sit in them all day long.
But it gets significantly tougher if you want to make real money, because the casinos invest their countermeasures here, and they’re getting really good at spotting counters. The only guys who make a living at it any more do hit-and-run sessions at different casinos spread out around the country so that no one ever gets to know them. It’s really tedious.
“Cut thicker”? What does that mean?
To cut more decks off the back of the shoe. Counters call it ‘penetration’. It is the single most important factor in determining how profitable a shoe game is.
The reason is because most significant count variations happen as you get closer to the end of the shoe, because the divisor for the ‘true count’ gets smaller. Most of the profit for a counter is made in the last deck of a shoe.
So if you play a 4-deck shoe, but the house reshuffles after 2 decks have gone by, you’re going to be playing a situation with much less statistical variation than if you play a 4-deck shoe where 3.5 decks are played before shuffling, and statistical variation is what allows you to beat the house. This depth of penetration is more important than difference in house rules. I’d much rather play a shoe game with a 4-deck shoe, no surrender, no double after split, but with 3.5 decks being dealt than I would a 6-deck shoe with all the best rules but 2 decks cut off.
If you play a place where they re-shuffle after roughly half the shoe has been played, the game is close to unbeatable. The only way you’ll be able to do it will be to ‘back count’ without playing, and then sitting down to play only when you have the advantage. That means you’ll be standing and watching most of the time, and actually playing very few hands. Casinos generally won’t tolerate much of this for very long, simply because it annoys the other players. So you have to do even more hit-and-run, which further limits your hourly profit.
New Jersey does not allow the casinos to bar card counters. As a result, their games are pretty bad from a penetration standpoint. Typically, they play 6 or 8 deck shoes now, with 2 or 3 decks cut off the back. You can still beat them, and many people do, but it takes a bigger bankroll to make reasonable money, and it’s a lot more work.
Vegas and Reno and other places are allowed to bar card counters. Given that protection, they are free to make the games better for their non-counting players. So typically Nevada games are better, with better rules, fewer decks, and better penetration.
BTW, the simple count I outlined above is really most effective in shoe games, where bet variations make up the vast proportion of the profit potential. The hi-lo count has a very low ‘playing efficiency’ (51% if I recall). For single deck games, accurate strategy variations are more important to your overall profit, so you need to learn more complex level-2 counts (where card values aren’t just +1,0 and -1, but +2, +1, 0, -1, and -2), and keeping side counts of important cards for playing variation (sevens and Aces, typically).
Sounds like the words of a man who has spent a hell of a lot of time at the blackjack tables! 
… meaning you would spend it on fripperies and doodads, I presume? Isn’t that still better than giving it to the credit card company?
jshore: About 2000 hours in one year, averaging an income of $11.80 per hour, if my memory holds. I have the playing logs around here somewhere. Not that I was anal about it or anything… (-: Actually, one of the things I learned early on was to keep EXACT numbers when gambling for profit. Otherwise, it’s just too easy to convince yourself to do stupid things.
I quit playing blackjack when I discovered that not only could you make a lot more money playing poker, but you didn’t have to skulk around like a criminal. The casinos actually LIKE you. My hourly income playing poker was about four times what I made playing blackjack. Poker is a much more difficult challenge, however, and you need to become a serious student of the game. I said I could teach someone to beat the house in Blackjack in a weekend. If I had to teach someone how to be successful at mid-limit poker, it’d take a lot more than that, AND a lot of people just aren’t intellectually or emotionally capable of doing it. You have to think hard, all the time.
I spent a few years as a professional gambler between careers. It was fun, but got dull really fast. I made it more interesting by writing a few magazine articles on the subject, and I have the outline and first four chapters of a gambling book finished. Then the bug left me. At least for now. I don’t even play for fun any more.
Yep, (and I said I have been, not that I am anymore), but it wasn’t really about net worth- it was more about the security of having cash for unexpected large expenses for which I couldn’t or wouldnt use a credit card, and knowing myself well enough to know that if I took (fictitious number) $5000 out of the bank to pay the $5000 in credit card debts 2 years later I probably would still have nothing in the bank. If I left the $5000 in the bank, two years later I would still have the money in the bank, and would have a lower balance on the credit card ( I’ve always paid bills just fine, and more than the minimum. It’s saving in dribs and drabs I’ve had trouble with).
Ah…but this is a common misconception regarding expected rates of return.
Statisticaly, expected rate of return for decisoin b is $55 (50% *0 + 50% * $110). So you say "hey, thats better than $50 so I’ll take it!.
Well that would be a mistake because you are GARANTEED $50 if you choose a. So the question is, if I choose the riskier b, is the payoff worth the risk? Remember that the payoff won’t be $55, it will either be $110 or $0.
It really depends on your style of investment. If you want to be conservative, you may want to take the garanteed $50. If having the $50 is not that important, you may be willing to risk it all for the $110.
So in other words, a is not an invalid choice.
Getting away from the pure gambling aspect, one of the most prevalent mistakes people make is in the Stock Market, where they will hold loss-making shares until they reach the original cost. People simply cannot take a loss, becasue that’s an admission of making a mistake; of being somehow “weak”.
A stock is worth what it’s worth today. What you paid for it is only relevant in your decision process when calculating tax.