SJ:

Depends how much you wager and how long you play. Eventually you will lose it all though.

Mrs. BonBon:

over the long haul you WILL lose unless you are counting cards – Why ?

for one you go FIRST – and 2 – blackjack gives the player the illusion of control yet most decisions a player makes he or she is NOT favored to get desired result based on drawing one card.

that being said you need to take into account that in the short term anything can and does happen –

how much do you buy in for? if your buying in for 100 dollars unless your playing 5.00 flat bets you are NOT giving yourself ANY margin for error really – and its not hard to wonder why your cleaned out in 30 minutes…….

you need to have enough money to give yourself a CHANCE to catch a good run of cards get lucky and hopefully leave with a profit.

Good Luck:)

Paco:

You mentioned that your casino had 8 full decks shuffled in.
————-
Consider a game with
1) 1 deck
2) Dealer stands on soft 17
3) Player may resplit to four hands, except aces
4) No drawing to split aces
5) Player may not double after split.
————-
This was more or less the game in the 1950′s and the very early 1960′s. Even WITHOUT CARD counting, but just playing by the book this game has a theoretical advantage to the player of 0.000423 (which is pretty small).
————-
I chose this game because I wanted to illustrate a game with a player advantage. Now the house would frequently win at this game because of player mistakes. However, the house also has the advantage of the fact that it has an unlimited bankroll, whereas you are severely limited.
————–
You didn’t state your stopping condition. I suspect that if you had a modest stopping condition like you want to increase your bankroll by 50% then you would not often walk away bankrupt. But if you have an unreasonable stopping condition (like increasing your bankroll by 400%) you will probably go bankrupt. There are a set of statistics called “risk of ruin” statistics. Since your bankroll is relatively small compared to your minimum bet (usually $5) your “risk of ruin” is very high if you have an unreasonable stopping condition. This metric is relatively independent of “house edge”. So even if you were playing the 1960 version of blackjack, you will probably go bankrupt if you have an unreasonable stopping condition.
=============
There are also statistics about “risks of streaks”. Even if you had a 50/50 chance of losing, the odds of you getting a streak of 6 losses in a row are over 50% in only 89 plays. Blackjack has (depending on the rules) a 58% chance of losing each hand even with perfect play. The bonus pay when you get a “blackjack” partially makes up for this disadvantage. So your risk of a long losing streak is much higher than most people believe. Because your bankroll is so low, you will probably hit a losing streak and go bankrupt.
==================
The psychological block that every human has about the probability of losing streaks often leads people to one of the most common mistakes in gambling. Everyone thinks about using the “double or nothing” betting strategy where you keep doubling your bet everytime you lose until the streak ends. Then you return to your minimum bet. Because most people don’t understand that Losing streaks naturally have a high probability of occurring they believe that this strategy will work. Unfortunately if you can do the mathematics (stochastic probabilities) then you would know that your odds of going bankrupt before your double your money are roughly 2 to 1 even if there were no house edge.