Important! One standard deviation covers what will happen 68.3% of the time; two standard deviations cover what will happen 95% of the time and three standard deviations cover what will happen 99.7% of the time, which shows you how rare a four standard deviations result is.

Nothing has caused counters to give up Blackjack more than a lack of understanding about normal, everyday variance; what most people call "luck." By the way, standard deviation is the square root of variance, but don't sweat the technical stuff; all you need to know is in the chart below, which is expressed in terms of dollars. It’s easy for counters who have trained hard to (unrealistically) expect to win each time they play, so when they have several losing sessions they might forget what they've learned. The next thing you know, they're over-betting their bankroll, fail to play their hands properly - like not doubling when they should - and when they wake up from the daze, their money is gone.

PATIENCE AND SKILL WIN. HUNCHES AND WISHING WILL NOT WIN. PRAYER DOES NOT WORK AT BLACKJACK.

So, what can you expect? What's the worst that can happen? Well, you can lose all your $$$, but if you establish a bankroll of at least 50 "top" bets, play proper basic strategy at all times and don't over-bet, you stand a good chance of making a profit at Blackjack assuming the game at your local casino is one that can be beaten. (Hey, if it were easy everybody would be doing it.) The table below illustrates the possible results from varying hours of play at a fairly typical game. Shown with the expectation are the possible dollar results as measured by one standard deviation (68.3% of the time) and two standard deviations, which cover what will happen 95% of the time. Three standard deviations cover what will happen 99.7% of the time but I do not show that here.

Let's talk about this a bit. If you were to play several hundred "sessions" of 3 hours each (about 150 hands in each session), the average win for each of those would be $16. This comes from using the $5 to $60 betting spread that we discussed above (which results in a $9 average bet per hand). But very few sessions would end with a win of exactly $16.00; about two-thirds would have a result of somewhere between a win of $142 and a loss of $109, which is one standard deviation to the plus side and one to the minus side. Most of the other sessions could see you winning as much as $267 or losing as much as $235 (2 SD) and a few would see wins or losses even bigger than that! Now do you see why it takes a bankroll of $3000 to support a $5 to $60 betting spread? In order to be successful, you must be able to absorb losses which are many times that of your "expectation." These fluctuations are real; they will happen to you at one time or another and if you're not prepared for them, you'll either get frustrated and quit or lose your cool and blow your bankroll. Now look at the results for 90 hours of play. Most of you will be - at worst - about break-even after that many hours. A few might be up by $1863 (2 SD to the plus side), but some of you could be down by $890 or more, which is 2 SD to the minus side. Boy, I'd hate to hear the names you'll be calling the old GameMaster then! But it can happen and it won't be unusual if it does, so ask yourself right now if you can deal with playing a disciplined game for 90 hours, still be at a loss and continue playing and betting as I've shown you. It's sad, but most of you won't be able to cope with that and you'll be another victim of standard deviation. That's why I'm not afraid of the casinos going out of business, even if every player in the world learns how to count cards; few have the patience to stick it out. I don't want to be overly negative, but that's the reality. However, if you do stick it out, the percentages will eventually begin working in your favor. As I tell all my students, the money comes in "chunks" at Blackjack. This is not a slow, consistent way to make money; your bankroll will, at times, resemble a roller coaster and it's difficult to deal with that from an emotional point of view. Each of us is different in that regard, of course but I’m one of those who believes taking a risk may cause you to lose but refusing to take any risk virtually guarantees you’ll lose.