Arnold Snyder's Blackjack Forum articles

Kudos to LVA for resurrecting these old blackjack info pieces that are still applicable in many ways; all are a good read and mediated by an old pro and his peers. The impact of SD and fluctuation during blackjack play information is very useful and down to earth, with all of it presented in Snyder's ( and others) uniquely appealing writing style/s. Thanks for adding this to your bevy of gaming info.

These sorts of books are fun reads, even after you realize that there's basically no way any of this stuff could be realistically deployed in today's casino environment...if it was ever really possible at all. And of course, you have to have a great deal of faith in your observational powers and ability to calculate on the fly; then you have to scare up a several hundred thousand dollar bankroll to make that 0.003% edge that you might not actually have at all worth the effort. And how do you even tell that it's working? You won because of your studly skills, or because the Variance Fairy gave you a big smooch?

I'll be candid. I think the successful advantage gamblers of today are just the ones who survived the high variance that is a necessary and fundamental element of the profession. There are probably fifty times as many who were equally adept but couldn't fade a bad month (or week) and were unable to replenish their bankrolls, and are now selling insurance (take it when the true count is +2). So the ones writing books are a) the ones who were well bankrolled b) the ones who were lucky enough to survive not being well bankrolled or c) the ones who were neither, and that's why they're writing books now.

Players who got wiped out because they couldn't fade a bad month and couldn't replenish their bankrolls were never, ever adept, even if they could keep an accurate count and play and bet accordingly. Because those skills are meaningless if you don't play within your bankroll limitations.

Does that mean that those who don't start with a large bankroll are forever shut out of most meaningful blackjack (and video poker) advantage play? Yep. That's why so many people are so bitter about it.

Well, as someone who has fought long and hard in the blackjack and the video poker wars, I can tell you that grittting your teeth and sticking to $1 VP or max bet $100 BJ, because you know it would be foolish to violate the Kelly Criterion, and consequently barely making enough to feed a hamster, makes you bleed from the ears in fatigue and frustration, not to mention the extreme buttle fatigue and all the smoke you inhale. It's a shit way to make a lousy living.

I had SO many friends and acquaintances who busted out, and many of them were better players than I. I don't think it was because they weren't adept, as you put it. I think they confronted the bitter choice between a high risk of ruin and not making the effort at all, and chose the former. And of course, many of them had "leaks." I didn't, which is why I survived. There was nothing particularly difficult or sophisticated about what we were all doing. But it did take a lot of discipline and kind of an iron constitution. I would never recommend that anyone try it now.

   You say -  "Does that mean that those who don't start with a large bankroll are forever shut out of most meaningful blackjack (and video poker) advantage play? Yep. That's why so many people are so bitter about it." -- I believe that the bankroll comment, while important, is just one of the reasons people are bitter. Throw in 6/5 blackjack payoffs, shallow penetration, lousy rules, backing off players who count cards, high minimums, etc., these are other reasons for bitterness. (As far as video poker goes, removal of playable games and the poor payback of the remaining games is also another reason for bitterness.)  - Taken all together, there is justification for "bitterness". 

That's not what MP was saying. He was referring to players realizing that their bankrolls are/were inadequate to take advantage of positive plays. The "bitterness" of that feeling is actually better than playing over your head and busting out despite your ostensible advantage.

With a short bankroll, you can play within its limitations, but you won't make, as MP puts it, "meaningful" money. And it's stressful to observe other players who have larger bankrolls doing the exact same things you're doing but making double or triple the money that you are. That leads to some players saying "what the hell" and upping the stakes--and more often than not, busting despite their mathematical advantage.

     I agreed with what MP said  AND added additional reasons for the "bitterness". 

Well, you missed his point altogether. But that's fine 

  I believe if someone says "I agreed with" that means they did not miss the point.

Not if what they professed to agree with is a point the original speaker never made. MP referred to the emotions a player might feel who understands advantage play and sees opportunities but can't take advantage of them. You referred to the feelings of disappointment you and other players have felt as those opportunities have disappeared. In the former case, which is what MP was referring to, the opportunities existed but many players couldn't take advantage of them. In the latter case, which is what you were referring to, those opportunities started to not exist at all.

It's frustration and disappointment ("bitterness") in either case, but over completely different phenomena. There's a big difference between not being able to take advantage of an opportunity and that opportunity not existing at all. A player who feels he has too short a bankroll to risk playing an advantage game can find a way to increase that bankroll. A player who can't find such a game at all is SOL.