See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 41

Thread: Big savings should override any objection to team play.

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    If you trust your team, there is no problem. Only members who need reassurance can waste their time watching from afar, or are generally interested in the outcome, because they are in effect playing through the other member.
    Not sure I understand what you are saying. Their isn't any value, or savings, to having idle team members aside from increasing the bank (assuming they contributed). Having one member spotting while four others are waiting is not an efficient use of people's time. If the team is paying for the members' travel expenses, they need to be maximizing EV for the time. A two to one, or one to one, BP to spotter ratio would be a better utilization of people's energy. Better yet if conditions allow, back count. You'll get more call-ins , more total hands, moe EV, and reach N0 sooner. If everybody were to think they are "playing through another member" they might as well just be investors. If "trust" is an issue, those members will soon be gone. If they aren't confident enough in their skills to put the bank in action, they shouldn't be active players yet, and need to be coached up.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    If you trust your team, there is no problem. Only members who need reassurance can waste their time watching from afar, or are generally interested in the outcome, because they are in effect playing through the other member.
    That strategy for "team" play will get busted, and fast.

  3. #16
    Senior Member MJGolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Sooner State
    Posts
    1,477


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Ok, you math guys, wouldn't this be the same as one person playing, but dividing his normal bet by 1/5. That would lower his variance but would also reduce any potential gain. Of course, misery loves company. I guess you could have five friends agree to a bankroll and have only one person play during a time. Might increase the variance in "alcohol consumption" for sure.
    "Women and cats will do as they please, and Men and dogs should just relax and get used to the idea" --- Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by MJGolf View Post
    Ok, you math guys, wouldn't this be the same as one person playing, but dividing his normal bet by 1/5. That would lower his variance but would also reduce any potential gain. Of course, misery loves company. I guess you could have five friends agree to a bankroll and have only one person play during a time. Might increase the variance in "alcohol consumption" for sure.
    There is no savings on a single bankroll because it cannot bet below the minimum. Only combined bankrolls are able to bet below the minimums and reap the savings. Two separate banks each bet the $25. The total cost is $50. If the two banks combine and make the minimum bet, the cost is $25, a savings of $25 on a losing bet.

  5. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    65


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    This guy must get high ALOT! You stating the obvious. If you have a bigger bankroll you can have a larger spread. Congrats , tell us more of your "brilliant" philosophy's.

    Is is this what you wanted? A pat on the back for unitelligent thought?

  6. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    One example from the casino's point of view.
    If all 5 members of a team play together, and each member plays a minimum bet of $25 and loses, the casino collects $125.
    If all 5 members are there, but only one plays, the casino collects only $25, a savings of $100 for the team.
    If there were 100 minimum bets lost, that's a savings of $10,000.
    Each member has only $5 invested in one single bet.
    The bet spread stays the same, but the savings continue all the way up the line.
    With these kinds of savings, the bankroll is effectively lengthened for all members.
    Regardless of what level your team plays at, you can enjoy big savings, even at a minimum bet of $5.
    being able to effectively bet below the min. bet, offsets the casinos always trying to increase the min to attain
    their edge faster.
    Higher minimums threaten all bankrolls.
    Even better. They all go to the casino and nobody plays. They save 25% more than 1 of the 5 playing. Of course my team would be winning money on an average. If they are losing the move is not to play. I guess you just play a losing game and don't get that an AP team is winning on average.

  7. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    There is no savings on a single bankroll because it cannot bet below the minimum. Only combined bankrolls are able to bet below the minimums and reap the savings. Two separate banks each bet the $25. The total cost is $50. If the two banks combine and make the minimum bet, the cost is $25, a savings of $25 on a losing bet.
    You do realize you don't have to bet at a disadvantage don't you? You can bet $0.

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Intermediate View Post
    Not sure I understand what you are saying. Their isn't any value, or savings, to having idle team members aside from increasing the bank (assuming they contributed). Having one member spotting while four others are waiting is not an efficient use of people's time. If the team is paying for the members' travel expenses, they need to be maximizing EV for the time. A two to one, or one to one, BP to spotter ratio would be a better utilization of people's energy. Better yet if conditions allow, back count. You'll get more call-ins , more total hands, moe EV, and reach N0 sooner. If everybody were to think they are "playing through another member" they might as well just be investors. If "trust" is an issue, those members will soon be gone. If they aren't confident enough in their skills to put the bank in action, they shouldn't be active players yet, and need to be coached up.
    Not every player can afford the type of team you mention. They can still form teams and tailor them to their own bankroll size and enjoy the many benefits. I just mention one item that they can relate too and verify for themselves. The secret is to take players out of play and channel the money through one player. Each member can have their turn at playing with the bankroll. If player were to mention their concerns, we could all address them. Probably in a new thread, would be better.

  9. #22
    Senior Member Emeritus Sonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    174


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    You guys remember who falling star is, right? The incoherent rambling should be the first clue.

    -Sonny-

  10. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,055


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Guess I need at least one more clue.

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny View Post
    You guys remember who falling star is, right? The incoherent rambling should be the first clue.

    -Sonny-
    The viewers are smart enough to decide for themselves.

    If you can show where I'm wrong, then do so. Attaching the post is fair game, attacking me isn't. Otherwise,
    I'll change my handle to rising star and really piss you off.

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    It just seems like bad methodology to consider things only when a loss occurs. It's the same kind of thinking the progression players use to justify their play, by only considering wins (they say "when you win you get X much and you'll rarely ever lose so losing doesn't matter). Sure, the team will save money by playing less at min bet, but to say that the savings is $100 per hand lost is missing a large part of picture. Even at a house advantage, players will still win quite often. Betting smaller means winning smaller when you win as well. I'd think that the correct way to size up the savings is the classic EV*avg.bet. Really the team is only saving around fifty cents per hand. It's not a negligible number, but compared to the EV gained by not having idle teammates, the decision should be obvious.

  13. #26
    Senior Member Emeritus Sonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    174


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    If all 5 members of a team play together, and each member plays a minimum bet of $25 and loses, the casino collects $125.
    If all 5 members are there, but only one plays, the casino collects only $25, a savings of $100 for the team.
    Why stop there?
    If all 5 members are there, but none of them play, the casino collects nothing, a savings of $125 for the team.

    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    Each member has only $5 invested in one single bet.
    Are we talking about a team of ploppies here? Do they all invest their money into a joint bankroll in order for one player to play at a disadvantage? I didn't know such things existed outside of fraudulent investment schemes. Why would people give their money to someone else to lose for them?

    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    being able to effectively bet below the min. bet, offsets the casinos always trying to increase the min to attain
    their edge faster.
    Your idea does not allow you to bet below the house minimum. It achieves nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    Higher minimums threaten all bankrolls.
    Not more than giving your bankroll to a ploppy.

    Quote Originally Posted by falling star View Post
    Otherwise, I'll change my handle to rising star and really piss you off.
    Haven't you changed your handle enough over the years? Ion, Parpaluck, Neutron Bomb, North Wind, Fon Chee-U, Win21, suru, ZeroMystic, Betpro, North Wind, Jomoats, falling star. Can't you take a hint?

    -Sonny-

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Team play
    By TonsOfFun in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-08-2012, 05:20 PM
  2. sam: team play?
    By sam in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-05-2004, 05:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.