Table Games Blackjack: Optimal Length of Time at Table for Positive Result

what do you find your optimal length of time at table is for a positive result in BJ?
Discounting the hit and run technique please

I'm a victim of too much time at the table causing the inevitable losses...I'm talking 6-7-9 hours at a stretch

Do you find that 1-2 hour sessions work better for you in overall outcome?

 

About an hour. Here's why...

- An hour is enough time for you to have a good streak and take the money and run
- It's also enough time for you to keep playing if you've had a bad streak and hopefully even it out
- But it's not enough time (compared to several hours, anyway) for you to "dig yourself really deep". If the cards are in your favour and you're up a bit - you take it. If they're not, you have a small opportunity to get even... but if you can't, you're limited to what you can lose in an hour
- It's also about enough time for two drinks - which you might as well take advantage of
- If you're being rated, it's also a long enough time of play to accumulate some wagers on your profile for the sake of comps
- Most importantly, it's not enough time for fatigue to really set in. That can be your biggest killer while playing.

 

I feel I do well within the first hour or two. any longer and it tends to go downhill. Hot streaks only last for so long. Even if everything is going well, it is hard to have a winning streak last more than a few hours..
I also prefer to play heads up so that could be why I play on the shorter side..

 

I play 6 deck shoes mostly. Typically i dont stay much past a hot shoe. If the first one is choppy , i stay for #2, If two is hot , I pull aside a min walk away money and test next shoe, if its cold i color up, if its hot I pull aside more walk away money until I lose my excess, then I walk away

 

I play craps and also some slots with my wife and lately I'm getting more comfortable with BJ on a red chip level. Notfromconcentrate said two thing I will take to my next BJ table...." an hour session is also about enough time for two drinks - which you might as well take advantage of and an hour is not enough time for fatigue to really set in"....some of my past mistakes appear to be a correlation between extra drink service ( I really like my single malt scotch ) and fatigue from too long a session. More time more drinks...bye bye money.... gonna try the two drink...one hour method ...thanks

 

Typically, 1 to 2 hours, depending on how things are going.
If after an hour, I'm "struggling" - hanging at about 4 or 5 units up or down, I'll color out and find another table...I try to make my departure on a 4 or 5 unit upswing though...it helps me to accumulate a lot of small session wins.
If on the other hand, I'm doing particularly well, I've been known to say parked at the same table for as much as 3 hours.

 

One hand. Because math.

That said, I seem to lose about 80% of my first hands so math can go @#&! itself.

 

That's exactly why I always start out with a big bet. The odds are about 51% against me... but in any form of gambling, you're betting on the good, not the bad. By betting big first, two things can happen... you lose, then you still have the opportunity to fight your way back to even or up... or you win, then you might just catch an advantageous streak where if you had bet less from the start, you'll wish you had bet more.

 

Time is not your friend at the blackjack table. No matter how much you're up, you will get ground down. It's best to set a goal and stick to it (I know... WAY easier said than done).

 

Yeah, off hand that's what I was thinking too. But what gambler wants to play just one hand? [emoji6]

 

+1!

 

My typical BJ sessions are 30-45 minutes long. If I catch a good streak all is good and I'll walk with my profit. I employ a quasi positive progression approach so if I'm on a good run I'll ride it for all its worth until it's over, regardless of how long I've been at the table. If I get on a tear and my base bet goes from $10 to $100 I'll color up immediately after my first losing hand. I liken the 30-45 min sessions to kind of like the internal clock a QB has that he knows he has to get rid of the ball before all hell breaks loose in the backfield. I'll either throw a touchdown pass or somehow make it back close to the line of scrimmage for a small loss. I definitely want to avoid the sack......

I agree with the above posters when they say time is your biggest enemy. The math does say that your best chances for a win is to play your entire trip BR on one bet as opposed to the casino grinding away with their HE over multiple hours of play. But in reality how many really do that? It seems impractible for a variety of reasons, at least for me.

All in all, I've found that shorter sessions work out way better for me than longer ones. If I'm losing I'd rather take my medicine and walk with a small loss and regroup. I've been playing BJ for ver 35 years and as I look back on it my worst sessions were invariably the long ones where I got in an immediate hole and tried for hours to reach the break even point only to dig the hole deeper.

 

There is no optimal length of time. The shorter your session, the higher your variance will be.

I rarely play more than an hour and still often hit 'gave it all back' results, that's why they call it gambling.

If you want to stop earlier and protect winning sessions, I'd suggest just giving yourself a win goal you stop at. It won't make you long term profitable or anything, the return is still the return, but it will help avoid those most painful of sessions, where you go from way up all the way down to the felt.

 

This is one thing that I find a lot of amateur gamblers don't understand - you absolutely have to set a win goal. Your loss goal is already established for you by your bankroll/buy-in. So if that's the only goal you have, it's generally the only goal you'll play to, which effectively guarantees ruin.

 

Totally agree.

I sit down with $200, and play mostly $20 hands. I have a convoluted but fairly conservative pressing approach when I am ahead.

My rule is that I walk away when one of two things happens: 1) the whole $200 is gone, or 2) the first time I lose a hand, and am at least $100 up. I like this approach because it's a fun ride on the variance wave.

Sometimes it takes me 15 minutes to lose the whole $200. Sometimes it takes me hours and literally hundreds of hands.

Sometimes it takes me 15 minutes to walk away a winner. Sometimes it takes me hours.

With this approach, where I am betting at least 10% of my bankroll every hand, it occasionally happens where I put my last chips on the table, and come back to win. It also sometimes happens where I lose a hand and am just short of being $100 ahead, so I keep playing, and then up losing the whole thing. As long as I am playing, I am in the race to win or lose, and that's fun. The important thing is to have that strict and appropriate win and lose limit.

 

45 to 60 minutes. This game requires attention to details and can be work for us lazy types. If I am winning after an hour I may test the waters until two or three loses in a row.

 

Good advice, thanks

 

Huh? It's a negative expectation game. How can you even hypothesize this? 1 hour is best, no 3 hours, I disagree, 2 hour and 30 minute sessions are the most profitable.....

If you're lucky enough to get a few runs, you can make bank over multiple hours. You can also grind back to your original buyin after a few hours, and of course you can get wiped out in 10 hands or 200 hands. I don't understand this thread. What is the most strategic time to buy a lotto ticket?

Nick

 

usually one hour. always got the feelign after a hour im getting screwed lol

 

I see what you're saying and I think that's why this thread was more about what people do when they play versus what is actually optimal. There's no such thing as optimal but there are smarter ways of playing so you don't lose too much. I've seen people go on a very cold streak and lose hundreds of dollars on $15 tables...then again, these degens don't know basic strategy...