Snyder Profit Index

[counter19]

The following questions are in reference to The Snyder Profit Index on page 121 of Blackbelt in Blackjack. For those of you who are not familiar with it, it is an index used to quickly rate whether or not a table is worth playing based on table rules, number of decks, and number of players at the table.
After adding up all the info, here is how to use the scores:

Above 50 - Play all (no wonging necessary)
0-50 - table-hop only
Below 0 - A waste of time

Note: I don't think that Snyder in all examples means to say whether or not a table is "winnable" by this method, but rather whether or not it is worth a player's time.

So I have computed the information based on 6-Deck and 2-Deck games in my area. There are only 4 casinos with tables that are worthwhile. When you add all the tables in the casinos, about half are above 50 and the other half are form 0-50. However, NONE of the tables in these casinos have a score above 50 when the table has 5-7 players.

Normally I don't wong in, but I do wong out. Therefore,

Question 1: If I am in a situation where wonging becomes necessary to not waste time according to his index, would the intention of wonging out be worthwhile or do I need to wong in as well (provided that his score is between 0 and 50)? I prefer to begin each shuffle, then wong out if things go negative. I do this because I believe that wonging in would be obvious in these casinos due to their size. I rarely see people watching from behind any table. "Wonging" in this case may simply mean going to the bathroom, pretending to take a phone call, getting something to eat, or switching to another table.

Question 2: All the numbers that I ran assume that I am spreading 1-8 on both 2-deck and 6-deck. However, I would like to begin spreading 1-12 on the 6-deck. This would help the Snyder Index results in terms of making it more worth playing. That would require me to be playing $100 chips since 1 unit is $10 for me. Blacks always get a "checks-play." I know that checks-play doesn't necessarily mean heat, but I have been playing at these little joints for a while and few people bet blacks. When they do, the pit watches a little more.
So, I was reading that if you want to play 2 hands, if the count calls for an $80 bet for example, you would not play 2 hands of $80 each for a total of $160. You would play a total of $120 by playing 2 hands of $60. I'm sure this is probably due to covariance.
I believe that 2 hands of $60 would get less heat than one hand of $120. This is based on what I have read and my own experience with the casinos. Obviously this would only be done with high counts. What do you think of this strategy and would you recommend it?

Question 3: Referring to the info in question 2, would this example be considered a spread of 1-12 with $10 being only one unit or would it be something different? I don't know what to consider the spread to be when playing 2 hands. If the total bet is $120, then to me this means that it is a 1-12 spread.

[Dieter]

That would require me to be playing $100 chips since 1 unit is $10 for me. Blacks always get a "checks-play." I know that checks-play doesn't necessarily mean heat, but I have been playing at these little joints for a while and few people bet blacks. When they do, the pit watches a little more.

So play green. A tall stack of red gets noticed (... or does it?) A black chip gets noticed. A few green chips, maybe not.

One of the issues on black is that at the small places, the pit is supposed to keep a pretty accurate count of how many black chips are in the tray. Dealers have to call "black out" and get approval before paying. ("Black in" probably is just an advisory call.)

I don't particularly encourage taking up smoking to wong out, but I've never gotten a hard time when stepping away from a non-smoking table for a puff.

Good luck... it's really annoying to sit down for heads up and then have the table get swarmed by people afraid to play solo. (Lather, rinse, repeat.)

[counter19]

So play green. A tall stack of red gets noticed (... or does it?) A black chip gets noticed. A few green chips, maybe not.

I don't get blacks anyway unless I color up. I have never placed a black in the circle personally.

I have often thought of betting 3 green and 5 red. Colors seem to do something to the mind. 1 black seems like more money than 4 green. And 4 green may seem like more money than 3 greens and 5 reds.

In a total of 8 chips, with 5 of the 8 being red, maybe it won't "look" like it is as much.

[bigplayer]

You are thinking too hard on this. If the thought of betting $100 gives you the shivers, then spread $10 to 2x$90. You won't get any heat or even attention at most places until you have at least $300 total on the table. While you are a low stakes player now is not the time to develop bad habits and worrying about cover when red/green chipping is the worst thing you can do. Blast it and consider keeping your session times reasonable to be the only cover you should be using at this point. By reasonable I mean 75 to 90 minutes, take a break to eat, and then give it another 75 to 90 minutes.

[Dieter]

I have often thought of betting 3 green and 5 red.

Just... no. That will look extra suspicious. Playing more than one color slows the pay/take, meaning less hands per hour.

If you're betting $100 and don't want the "black action" call, bet 4 green. If they still call "checks play" when you cross the $100 line, so be it.

[Three]

I have been playing at these little joints for a while and few people bet blacks. When they do, the pit watches a little more.

They must account for the whereabouts of every black chip to watch for employee theft. They are required to look closer in order to keep that tally. Most places don't have the same scrutiny on green chips but some small joints track the green chips as well.

If I am in a situation where wonging becomes necessary to not waste time according to his index, would the intention of wonging out be worthwhile or do I need to wong in as well (provided that his score is between 0 and 50)?

To me table hopping means wonging out and wonging in is wonging in. A person could definitely view wonging in as table hopping but I use more specific terminology for that. I would try to White Rabbit but if you wong out and no table is available you could certainly back count rather than wait for a fresh shoe. Many prefer not to backcount a shoe in progress. They have a point in that when you wong in you have effectively wonged in to a shoe with reduced pen by the number of cards unseen in the discard tray. But the TC is the TC. Just remember to treat those unseen cards in the discard tray as not being in the discard tray when determining a TC. Switch to a fresh shoe if you haven't wonged in when it becomes available. I find it best just to avoid games that are so bad you must table hop to make them playable.

I believe that 2 hands of $60 would get less heat than one hand of $120. This is based on what I have read and my own experience with the casinos. Obviously this would only be done with high counts. What do you think of this strategy and would you recommend it?

You already pointed out that it is 2 hands of $60 rather than 1 hand 0f $80 not the $120 you erroneously stated in your question. The bet size is more easily accepted when spread to 2 spots but spreading can be a red flag in the sweatier places. Usually the sweaty shops are offering the best games but that is not always the case. When the game requires table hopping to make it playable it is not a good game. Lack of heat may make it worth your time but you should be taking advantage of the clueless or tolerant staff to make this so. Larger spreads and more aggressive play are what you should be considering. If the place both has a crappy game and is a sweatshop, what the hell are you doing there to begin with. I would think playing a crappy game you want to use all the tricks in your tool box. Spreading to 2 hands, aggressive bet spreads and bet jumps, as well as aggressive wonging. What difference is it to you if you lose a crappy game? Just to to lose it to identifying a heated situation rather than a backoff.

Referring to the info in question 2, would this example be considered a spread of 1-12 with $10 being only one unit or would it be something different? I don't know what to consider the spread to be when playing 2 hands. If the total bet is $120, then to me this means that it is a 1-12 spread.

I would consider it a 1-12 spread with about the same risk profile than a single spot 1-8 spread. If your BR could handle the risk I would bet a top bet of at least 2x75. for a 1-15 spread or even 2x100 for a 1-20 spread if that $100 threshold doesn't draw heat. You could go to 2x90 for a 1-18 spread but it may be better not to bet a rainbow stack as has been pointed out. It slows the game down which costs a player playing with an advantage money.

[counter19]

You are thinking too hard on this. If the thought of betting $100 gives you the shivers, then spread $10 to 2x$90. You won't get any heat or even attention at most places until you have at least $300 total on the table.

To be honest, I am not as nervous about it as I might seem in my posts. I just want to use an extra tool in the toolbox if there is one.

[counter19]

They must account for the whereabouts of every black chip to watch for employee theft. They are required to look closer in order to keep that tally. Most places don't have the same scrutiny on green chips but some small joints track the green chips as well.


To me table hopping means wonging out and wonging in is wonging in. A person could definitely view wonging in as table hopping but I use more specific terminology for that. I would try to White Rabbit but if you wong out and no table is available you could certainly back count rather than wait for a fresh shoe. Many prefer not to backcount a shoe in progress. They have a point in that when you wong in you have effectively wonged in to a shoe with reduced pen by the number of cards unseen in the discard tray. But the TC is the TC. Just remember to treat those unseen cards in the discard tray as not being in the discard tray when determining a TC. Switch to a fresh shoe if you haven't wonged in when it becomes available. I find it best just to avoid games that are so bad you must table hop to make them playable.




You already pointed out that it is 2 hands of $60 rather than 1 hand 0f $80 not the $120 you erroneously stated in your question. The bet size is more easily accepted when spread to 2 spots but spreading can be a red flag in the sweatier places. Usually the sweaty shops are offering the best games but that is not always the case. When the game requires table hopping to make it playable it is not a good game. Lack of heat may make it worth your time but you should be taking advantage of the clueless or tolerant staff to make this so. Larger spreads and more aggressive play are what you should be considering. If the place both has a crappy game and is a sweatshop, what the hell are you doing there to begin with. I would think playing a crappy game you want to use all the tricks in your tool box. Spreading to 2 hands, aggressive bet spreads and bet jumps, as well as aggressive wonging. What difference is it to you if you lose a crappy game? Just to to lose it to identifying a heated situation rather than a backoff.


I would consider it a 1-12 spread with about the same risk profile than a single spot 1-8 spread. If your BR could handle the risk I would bet a top bet of at least 2x75. for a 1-15 spread or even 2x100 for a 1-20 spread if that $100 threshold doesn't draw heat. You could go to 2x90 for a 1-18 spread but it may be better not to bet a rainbow stack as has been pointed out. It slows the game down which costs a player playing with an advantage money.

I know about them keeping track of blacks, but don't forget the other information that I provided. Most people don't play above $100. I'm probably worrying too much, but I do not have other casinos to go to like many of you. Just trying to err on the side of caution a little, but I will probably go ahead and pound away at it anyway. It's not worth my time if I don't get a certain EV after all.
I usually look for a fresh shuffle while still sitting at a table. I don't like to give up penetration by entering a table that has already started dealing. Since penetration is one of the paramounts of card counting, I do not want to give up even a few cards.
I would however consider jumping into a game that is already started if I felt I needed some camouflage. They would hopefully think "this guy may not be a card counter. He just jumped into a shoe and doesn't know what the cards already dealt were." They may not understand as you pointed out that they should just be considered unseen cards.

--You already pointed out that it is 2 hands of $60 rather than 1 hand 0f $80 not the $120 you erroneously stated in your question.--

This example was not meant to have anything to do with correct betting size according to Snyder. I was making this statement from the CASINOS point of view. Forget the Snyder Index and even card counting all together. If you are a dealer, pit boss, or whoever, which looks like more money psychologically, 2 hands of $60 or 1 hand of $120? I just thought that a black chip probably "looked" like more money than 2 hands of $60 from across the way. A pit boss might be busy while walking by my table and briefly see some reds and keep walking. If he saw a black, it might give him pause and interrupt whatever he was doing when he walked by. Once again, they see reds all the time. They don't see blacks as much.

--When the game requires table hopping to make it playable it is not a good game.--

I guess that's a matter of opinion isn't it? Snyder seems to consider them "playable." Is "playable" synonymous with a "good game" in his mind? I don't know.
In my mind, I agree with you. I have no interest in playing games where I have to table hop. I HATE back counting and would rather have a bigger spread than to back count. I would even get less heat this way I believe based on my experience in the casinos.

--If the place both has a crappy game and is a sweatshop, what the hell are you doing there to begin with.--

I don't play those so that is not a problem. I don't know yet whether my casinos would "sweat" with bets over $100 since I have not attempted that yet. I am just trying to prepare in case they do.
All this about table-hopping, betting blacks, etc. is all hypothetical at this point. I haven't tried it yet. Though it seems clear to me that you are saying that any table under 50 according to the Snyder Index is not worth playing at all. I believe it could have some value in terms of avoiding heat and not playing at the same casino too many times, but I haven't decided yet if that is worth it or not, which is why I am asking questions.
Thank you very much for your info Tthree. It looks to me like we do see eye-to-eye on this. It's always good to see you guys with so much experience verify what I was thinking. Ideally, I would do exactly as you are saying. I just thought there may be some way to camouflage my bets just in case the casino starts to take notice. I appreciate the suggestion to avoid the "rainbow betting" with reds as that is a mistake I would have made had I not asked.

[counter19]

Also guys, does "white rabbit" mean wonging out but not wonging in? I did a google search and I am having a heck of a time finding that answer. I think this is what it means, but only because I am inferring based upon what Tthree said along with countless other message boards that I found in a search.

[Three]

Yes, white rabbit is starting fresh shoes and leaving at an optimal departure point where you are better off starting another shoe than hoping the count will recover. Blackjack Attack 3 (the latest edition) is a must own and will make you more money. It goes into great detail about when you are better off starting a fresh shoe rather than continuing the one you are playing. You look like you are late for something as you quickly abandon shoes that would be a waste of your time in order to start fresh shoes. After a count upgrade and having a better BR, I tried the white rabbit for the first times. I switched shoes quickly for 4 shoes and then hit a monster. I got to max bet halfway through the shoe and got nothing but successful max bet doubles and splits the rest of the shoe. I surrendered one hand and lost one max bet and won all the others. Had I been wasting my time at any of the other tables I would have missed it. BJA3 will be the best $25 you ever spend. It will make you tens of thousands of dollars if you stick with this for a while.

[Nikky_Flash]

After a count upgrade and having a better BR, I tried the white rabbit for the first times. I switched shoes quickly for 4 shoes and then hit a monster. I got to max bet halfway through the shoe and got nothing but successful max bet doubles and splits the rest of the shoe. I surrendered one hand and lost one max bet and won all the others. Had I been wasting my time at any of the other tables I would have missed it.

this same exact situation happened to me a few days ago , accept my big bet double down (8/3 )pulled a 5 vs dealer 5 , with high hopes still , dealer flips over yet another 5 , then an ace , lol ,

[muckz]

Tthree, kind of short sighted don't you think?

This actually happened to me, I had already played a long time and was thinking about leaving after a lackluster day of losing with a little bit of comeback. I was heads up about 2 decks in, the TC was ~ hilo tc -3. I almost packed up and left, I decided to stay to finish out the shoe, that shoe ended up being > 3sd positive swing. If I had left I wouldn't have seen it.

But, Snyder profit index should not be followed as the law, I doubt if asked today which he would prefer if he had the "time" to work it out would it be using a score or SPI? Take SPI for what it is an easy quick method to evaluate a game in very little time.

In my experience, white rabbit used so aggressively as stated in Don's book is not effective when compared to WiWo or play all. My battle plan has White rabbit jumping out at nearly twice the recommended ODP, with better results.

There are many other things you can do to reduce risk and increase advantage that don't involve a Wong approach. And if you are going to utilize White rabbit, be sure that your situations allow for it to work flawlessly. When you're not counting you're not generating EV.

[counter19]

Tthree, kind of short sighted don't you think?

This actually happened to me, I had already played a long time and was thinking about leaving after a lackluster day of losing with a little bit of comeback. I was heads up about 2 decks in, the TC was ~ hilo tc -3. I almost packed up and left, I decided to stay to finish out the shoe, that shoe ended up being > 3sd positive swing. If I had left I wouldn't have seen it.

But, Snyder profit index should not be followed as the law, I doubt if asked today which he would prefer if he had the "time" to work it out would it be using a score or SPI? Take SPI for what it is an easy quick method to evaluate a game in very little time.

In my experience, white rabbit used so aggressively as stated in Don's book is not effective when compared to WiWo or play all. My battle plan has White rabbit jumping out at nearly twice the recommended ODP, with better results.

There are many other things you can do to reduce risk and increase advantage that don't involve a Wong approach. And if you are going to utilize White rabbit, be sure that your situations allow for it to work flawlessly. When you're not counting you're not generating EV.

I played the other night and was hopping from table to table. Almost every shoe that I played had a TC of +8 or more at one time during the shuffle (Hi-Lo). I went way down to begin with, but came back and left with a small win. It was definitely a high betting night for me. I suddenly looked way more aggressive than normal which I think confused the dealers. They were probably wondering "why is he betting so much tonight?" There was even a dealer passing by the table that made a comment like this. I left when the tables were at TC of -4 or so. In my situation, it worked well I think. Of course, I'll never know for sure since I didn't hang around the same table when it went negative.
I think we can all agree that when the count gets low enough, we all should jump out. It's just a different number for each of us. The only ones who would disagree I would think would be those who are strictly "play-alls" purists. For me, at the very least, highly negative counts represent a good reason for my bladder to start telling me something.