5

.01484 X $3000

$ 44.52

6

.01764 X $3000

$ 52.92

7

.02044 X $3000

$ 61.32

8

.02324 X $3000

$ 69.72

At Last! The Betting Schedule

Obviously I cannot place a bet of $10.92 so I'll have to round things off in order to arrive at a practical betting schedule. In doing that, I keep several things in mind. First, I want a schedule which will allow me to 'parlay' winning bets as the count goes up. For example, if the bet for a true count of 2 is $20, it would be great if the bet for a true count of 3 was twice that; it makes me look like a 'gambler' to just add my winnings to the original bet. Of course I'd only be doing it because the count has gone up, but it's something to keep in mind as I design the schedule. Another 'nice-to-have' thing is a schedule which allows me to bet some multiple of the true count. For example, "$10 times the true" would mean that at a true of 2 my bet would be $20, at a true of 4 it'd be $40, etc. Another point to keep in mind is that we have a bit of a 'fudge' factor built into counts above 2.4 in a double deck game. Why 2.4? Well, that's the true count at which one should take insurance in a double deck game and that option is so valuable that it adds to our advantage. While the advantage goes up about .5% with each increase of 1 in the true count, above 2.4 the advantage increase is more like .58%. So our 'real' advantage at a true of 7 is more like 4% than the 3.65% which I show on the charts above. This gives us a cushion for rounding up a bit.

So, here's the betting schedule I worked out for a $3000 bankroll. Bear in mind that as the bankroll increases (or decreases), the schedule must be changed in order to keep the risk of 'gambler's ruin' about the same. I will modify the schedule at $1000 increments; that is, if I win $1000, I'll refigure the betting schedule by remultiplying all the percentages by $4000. On the other hand, if I choose to spend my profits, I'll just continue to operate with the original schedule. In the unlikely event that I hit a big losing streak (how's that for positive thinking?) I really couldn't downsize the bets very much. As long as the bank remains above $2000, I'll stick with this schedule. If it should go below $2000, I'd quit until I could build the bank up again.

Notice that I top out at one hand of $60 or 2 hands of $50, regardless of how high the count gets. I'll stick with that until the bankroll increases and I get a 'feel' for just how the floor supervisors at the casino react to such a spread. The 'pit critters' know that counters vary their bets widely, so I'm going to be conservative for a while since this is my 'home'. If I was playing this game somewhere else -- where they wouldn't see me for months at a time -- I'd be more aggressive. The single-hand schedule is not an easy to memorize; it's not a straight parlay and it's not a simple multiple of the true count. I'm going to be screwing around a lot with $5 and $25 chips and precise betting is another indicator of a card counter, so I may find myself 'pushing' the count; that is, over betting a bit on a true of 2 or 3. I'll have to watch that, since my reaction will be to bet $20 on a true of 2 and $30 on a true of 3. With that, the schedule is $10 times the true, but a bank of $4000 is required to justify those bets. I'll just have to see how it goes.

Playing Two Hands

Whether or not one should play one or two hands is more a factor of opportunity than strategy. If there is no space available at the table for a second hand, I obviously must play only one. Neither am I going to play two hands when the true count is below 2, nor am I going to play two hands if I'm alone with the dealer. The reason for that last rule is twofold: First, by playing a second hand, more cards are used and -- since I only go to two hands on positive counts -- I'll be 'eating' good cards. That's okay, but when head-to-head with the dealer, my two hands represent an increase in the total bet of about 150% but I'm also using up 150% more of the cards. Second, the game has a high maximum bet, well above my maximum so I don't need to spread to two hands in order to get more money on the table. So, whenever I'm alone and the table limit is above my top bet, I'll always play one hand.

If there is at least one other player besides me at the table, I'll then spread to two hands whenever possible. In that case I do want to 'eat' the good cards; why give the opportunities to others when I can get them for myself? Mercenary, perhaps but this IS about money, you know.

Lots of gamblers play two hands, so the maneuver won't draw a lot of attention to you unless you make a big deal about it. First, most casinos allow two hands only if they are located in two adjacent betting circles. If you're sitting at 'first base', don't try to place a second bet at the empty spot on third base. Also, I don't ask people to move to the next spot over in order to accommodate my second hand and I never refuse to allow someone else to sit down and play in the spot I was using for my second hand. You have to look indifferent about the idea of a second hand -- just like a gambler would. One neat trick is to spread to two hands when a new player joins the table (assuming of course that the count justifies it); gamblers seem to think that doing so 'keeps the cards in proper order' when someone is jumping in and out. Naturally it's BS, but anything that makes me look more like a gambler is welcomed.

Practice Makes Perfect

Next I had to set up a regimen of practice to get used to playing a double-deck game. I already own several decks of cards from the casino, so I can use them to 'calibrate' my eyes for estimating the number of decks left to be played. I did this to a half-deck accuracy and can consistently cut 26 cards from two decks shuffled together. I accomplished this simply by breaking the pack into four parts over and over again and counting the segments when I was done. Just looking at a half-deck, a full deck and a deck and a half gets you used to estimating the number of cards remaining to be played. It's hard to describe until you try it for yourself, but I think you know what I mean. I also did some mental calculations of dividing various running counts by 1.5 and .5, etc. to get used to figuring the true count.

I further practiced by counting down two decks to check my accuracy; I can do it in 22 seconds which is more than ample for casino conditions.

But the practice I did most was with a program called "Blackjack Professor" which I set up to reproduce the conditions and rules for the game at Station Casino St. Charles. Whenever I had a spare hour or so I played the game, which is dealt on a head-to-head basis with no other players, utilizing my betting schedule and the other techniques which I use in the casino. For example, if I had $10 bet and the count jumped up considerably, as it will near the end of a shoe, I would not come out with a $40 bet on the next hand, since I wouldn't likely do that at the casino. I'd bet $20 instead and then go to $40 on the next hand, if there was a next hand. Conversely, if I 'pushed' a hand and the count had dropped dramatically, I'd leave the bet out there, just as I would do in the casino. By doing all that, I felt my results from practice would be similar to what I could expect in the casino. Here are the results of 6 different sessions on the computer. Remember, I played each hand according to the basic strategy variations and I bet according to the schedule above, though I never spread to 2 hands because I was always alone at the table. The earnings per hour are based on a rate of 60 hands an hour, a much more realistic figure than the 300 hands an hour I was able to play on my computer.

This totals to 4603 hands which represents about 76 hours of casino time and a profit of $490 or $6.44 an hour. From the program, I was able to extrapolate that my average bet size is about $14, so my overall advantage for these 6 sessions works out to be about .76% which is about half of what I would expect in a bigger sample size. My big losing session saw me reach a low of about $1050 which is not surprising. The lesson to learn from these simulations is that "the money in Blackjack comes in chunks." To anticipate a steady income from this game is a big mistake; you can easily see how wild the swings are.

Actual Play

All the above is theoretical; what matters are real results from actual casino play. To date I've played 7 sessions and here are the results, based on a $10 to $60 spread:

These actual playing sessions total 16.5 hours of play and a profit of $270 for an hourly income of $16.36. I must add that the first two sessions were played before I had fully developed my betting schedule and before I had put in a lot of practice time. I will freely admit that those two loses were a 'wake-up' call that I needed to spend some time practicing the double-deck game, even though double deck is MUCH more closely related to 6 decks than it is to single deck. Once I got 'in the groove', my results are about as I expected. If we ignore those first two sessions, I've won $790 in 12.5 hours for an hourly rate of $63.20. That number cannot be sustained, but it's very typical of how this whole thing works. Over the coming months, I'll probably win about 65% of my sessions and lose or break even in the rest. The hourly income will drop to a more realistic $20 or so, assuming I don't increase the bank size. That's not enough to retire on, but it is a nice part time job.

I hope the thought processes which I've tried to show in this lesson give you an insight into how to structure a plan for your own play. I guess the only 'sage' advice I have at this point is that you must practice a lot more than you play to be successful at this game.

This concludes my series, but I hope you'll stay in touch by visiting us at

As always, if you have any questions, e-mail me at and Ill get back to you ASAP.

Конец!