Are setting quitting milestones considered Voodoo?

[seriousplayer]

I have been rereading most of my blackjack books recently. I reread the book "Blackjack:Take the Money and Run" by Henry Tamburin. The book was giving good advices until I read Chapter 9. In that chapter it talks about setting quitting milestones. To be more specific the book mention that if one lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row, one is gone from the table. Regardless of the count. In other words, even if the count is positive one zillion that person is gone from the table if they lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row. But if one is winning keep setting quitting milestones until the bankroll drops below the last quitting milestone. I might be wrong but I read that enforcing stops can have a negative impact on card counters. The SCORE will be lower when leaving a shoe with high positive counts. Are setting quitting milestones considered a disadvantage in card counting point of view?

I am not doubting Henry Tamburin's work. I just want to make sure this approach is not dangerous to the players in terms of SCORE.

[BJGenius007]

I have been rereading most of my blackjack books recently. I reread the book "Blackjack:Take the Money and Run" by Henry Tamburin. The book was giving good advices until I read Chapter 9. In that chapter it talks about setting quitting milestones. To be more specific the book mention that if one lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row, one is gone from the table. Regardless of the count. In other words, even if the count is positive one zillion that person is gone from the table if they lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row. But if one is winning keep setting quitting milestones until the bankroll drops below the last quitting milestone. I might be wrong but I read that enforcing stops can have a negative impact on card counters. The SCORE will be lower when leaving a shoe with high positive counts. Are setting quitting milestones considered a disadvantage in card counting point of view?

The worst shoes I encountered are those with high TC and rising to the end. By rising, I mean although TC was extremely high, small cards kept going out thus dealers kept making hands while APs and BS players stayed most of the time. In the end, I know for sure, those tens and aces were all hidden behind the yellow card. In such cases, I had net loss of more than 10 max bets. If I had set a defense line like 5 losses to quit or half my max bet, I would have avoided the big losses.

This happened less often on hand-shuffled shoes. On some ASM shoes, I had seen the full tables got all fours besides two or three face cards near the end of shoe when TC was extremely high. I had to pointed out the ASM machine are evil to my tablemates every time it happend. Aces and fours are the two most popular cards to be cramped by ASM. And it is often that the four cramp followed by the ace cramp. It is a death trap for AP when you double on your ten and get a four on high TC.

[hitthat16]

This is nonsense.

[21forme]

To be more specific the book mention that if one lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row, one is gone from the table. Regardless of the count.

Blasphemy! Never leave in a good count.

[TheRedKing]

Unless you are intending on having frequent visits and trying to prolong your welcome... take all you can.

[hitthat16]

What's unnecessary? There's no mathematical or logical reason to stop playing in a good count just because you lost the last couple of hands. It's still in the players' favor. Get as many hands at that shoe as possible!

Of course it's gonna negatively impact SCORE. You're willing to walk away from money making counts!

[stopgambling]

Unless you are intending on having frequent visits and trying to prolong your welcome... take all you can.

yes ,one do not need to play all the good counts.

[stopgambling]

if you keep looking at short term ,then you are gambling with an advantage not advantage play.

[Blitzkrieg]

I have been rereading most of my blackjack books recently. I reread the book "Blackjack:Take the Money and Run" by Henry Tamburin. The book was giving good advices until I read Chapter 9. In that chapter it talks about setting quitting milestones. To be more specific the book mention that if one lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row, one is gone from the table. Regardless of the count. In other words, even if the count is positive one zillion that person is gone from the table if they lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row. But if one is winning keep setting quitting milestones until the bankroll drops below the last quitting milestone. I might be wrong but I read that enforcing stops can have a negative impact on card counters. The SCORE will be lower when leaving a shoe with high positive counts. Are setting quitting milestones considered a disadvantage in card counting point of view?

I am not doubting Henry Tamburin's work. I just want to make sure this approach is not dangerous to the players in terms of SCORE.

It sounds like Tamburin is trying to inform people on not spending all of their money in one place or on one particular game. It other words, if your winning get up and leave if you lose 3-4 hands in a row. Don't give it all back. If your losing, get up and stop the bleeding. Whether the count goes high positive who is to say that the dealer will not get the winning hands during a positive count.

Most people that I see play at the casinos whether they are an AP or a gambler will sit there and give everything to the house. I believe the hallmark of any Advanced Player is having the ability to walk away from the game or games when the money has been made. In the real world very few can do that. Your not going to take every chip out of their chip rack and your not going to drink the town out of beer, know when enough is enough and be happy that you don't go bust.

[Marvin]

I think 'milestones' make sense with respect to CTR thresholds or casino tolerance thresholds. Other than that, I think they're voodoo. Even in these cases, it's usually worth to keep playing until the count drops, shoe ends, or you don't have enough cash on hand to continue (want to make sure you can split/double to several hands in case you're dealt something like an 88vs7, etc).

[zebaustin]

call me crazy however I will take the money and run every time!! the last two nights I doubled up in less than 30 minutes........I was gone, I will take that return on investment every time!!

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Referencing (almost anything) written by Tamburin makes me slightly angry.

There are a couple of other authors for whom my disdain is almost as strong.

I once overheard someone say, "He must be smart. His books are everywhere."

I had to explain how that was primarily due to his PUBLISHER ~ not the author.

[mofungoo]

I need more of a reason than, "I'm ahead now so I'm going to leave before I lose what I've won". If a slow dealer comes in then I'm looking to leave soon. If a dealer gives lousy pen, I'm outta there. If the bosses are starting to notice that I'm piling up chips, I'm heading for the door. If the table fills up or if I'm getting tired, goodbye. Certainly not because I'm ahead.