Discussion: What is required to succeed as an AP in Blackjack?

[Oneoffthecount]

Thanks I am considering your comments and looking at cvcx to try to figure it out. With 7/8 pen and a one to 12 spread, I could get where I wan to go but would need to ramp up TC 1, 2, 3 and 4 to get a fair return for my time above the optimal levels suggested by cvcx.. I know you said 8 or 10 and I will agree with you once I have some bruises on my butt from being tossed out of a prime location, I'm fairly sure. The ror seems attractive playing with this format at least.

As far as travel, I have no limits except to manage expenses agains expected EV. So there might be two types of casinos for me, ones I treat nice and go steady and ones who are churn and burn one night stands. I will have to woo the local casinos with good pen and rules if they exist, because they represent lower expense to play it sounds like. Catching planes to try to rape and pillage other casinos, might be my thought. Especially in target rich environments.

I am embarrassed to ask this question, but how can an individual dealer effect pen when they all have to slide the cut card into a pre-notched spot on the shoe? I'd rather display my ignorance now than figure it out at a cost later. Still looking for a mentor....who can answer embarrassingly simple questions via email.. Exoter, thanks a million. I'd like to know if you show up at a Moo, when and where. You said you wanted to speak to longevity and I'd make a trip to hear you and other people speak, I think it would be well worth it.

[NotEnoughHeat]

Even TC-2 might not be the greatest route to go depending on the rules, pen, and # of decks. On top of that, "two straight losses" is far too arbitrary, and will result in hurting your "long game" quite a bit. The same way that a "stop win" and "stop loss" can hurt you considerably in the long run.

I read Oneofthecount's wonging style as wonging out at TC-2 only after losing twice. I'm sure he isn't just stopping anytime he losses two hands in a row, but just doing so as cover for his wonging out (it looks more natural and ploppy-like if he stops playing after a loss). Depending how he does it, I don't see how it's a problem. The damage to your game due to stop losses and stop wins (ie. stopping at certain loss/win thresh hold, which is what those terms usually refer to) only comes from the fact that the large swings in your session roll will likely come at high counts and leaving in the middle of a high count is leaving money at the table. Not playing negative shoes on the other hand, can't harm you (EV wise). Unless the statement you made refers to something other than EV, like N0 or something, I don't see how it's the case that what he's doing is hurting his game other than he's not wonging out enough.If he waits to lose two hands after reaching TC-2 territory he won't be wonging often enough since he'll be waiting for the 2 consecutive losses while playing at -2 or below. However, if at anytime he's facing a 2nd loss and the TC is -2 or less, he wongs out, the frequency of wonging out of the negative counts is higher than the procedure just described before (in the previous sentence).

Personally, Oneofthecount's, if you think it helps you cover at all to wong out after losing, be willing to do it anytime the count is under -2 TC and losing (even pushing if you feel like pushing it (pun intended)) only one hand. Losing two hands in a row cuts down on the times you wong out when you want to significantly and is unnecessary to reap the benefits (if any) of wonging out after losing hands.

I am embarrassed to ask this question, but how can an individual dealer effect pen when they all have to slide the cut card into a pre-notched spot on the shoe? I'd rather display my ignorance now than figure it out at a cost later.

The answer is that not everywhere uses a pre-notched spot. A lot of places the dealer just eyes out whatever seems appropriate. That's why you'll hear of people talking about finding dealers with good penetration or 'encouraging' the dealer to give good pen by being friendly/tipping. I'm not well traveled, so perhaps someone else can chime in on this, but I get the impression that the pre-notched spot is more the exception than the rule.

[Oneoffthecount]

[QUOTE=NotEnoughHeat;155070]I read Oneofthecount's wonging style as wonging out at TC-2 only after losing twice. I'm sure he isn't just stopping anytime he losses two hands in a row, but just doing so as cover for his wonging out (it looks more natural and ploppy-like if he stops playing after a loss).


NEHeat-

Your interpretation is correct. However, what I find is that by waiting for two losses a number of scenarios occur which I think benefit me. Could be they don't and I am not challenging the more experienced players opinions on this as much as seeking their input. Often what happens is instead of loosing two, I win one, lose one, win two, lose one...so I'm not loosing money but in the mean time the count comes back up to zero or above. Therefore, I never have to wong out and don't spend the time looking for a new shoe or waiting for the next shoe, it ups my hands per hour. I figure I'm at risk for loosing three units occassionally but (completely analgalous) I'm able to hand around without loosing two straight while the count improves. I figure if I wong out less, I also attract less attention from constand excuses like potty breaks. That's my amatuerish way of looking at it. Thanks for your input. I think there must be allot of difference in East Coast games. I see mostly eight decks and the notch.

[Oneoffthecount]

Also wanted to mention, I looked at cvcx and the frequency of hands under a zero count appearst to be about 46% playing hilo sweet 16 fab 4 (although I don't think strategy would change frequency of counts or don't understand how it could), however, If I look at my last 21000 hands (lost prior data due to a corrupt file) my percentage of hands under at -1tc or less is 26%, so I think I am still having some impact on improving my mix of TC versus not wonging out.

[ohbehave]

If you are playing through negative rounds, whether you win or lose is immaterial, bets placed are at a disadvantage meaning it costs money. When the count goes to -2 unless its a sudden drop near the end of the shoe, when just a couple of high cards can swing the count, its not likely to recover to anything worth waiting for.

[Oneoffthecount]

OH behave, that makes some sense. Thanks

[ohbehave]

My email if you want to shoot any questions off forum ohbehave648 at hotmail dot com

[NotEnoughHeat]

Also wanted to mention, I looked at cvcx and the frequency of hands under a zero count appearst to be about 46% playing hilo sweet 16 fab 4 (although I don't think strategy would change frequency of counts or don't understand how it could), however, If I look at my last 21000 hands (lost prior data due to a corrupt file) my percentage of hands under at -1tc or less is 26%, so I think I am still having some impact on improving my mix of TC versus not wonging out.

This could be due to the way true count is calculated. I think the 46% probably refers to the frequency the count is under 0 at all. However, usually TC frequencies are usually given as rounded or floored numbers, since having an fractional true count is more common than having the exact integer so when the count is -0.4 it's included as a TC of 0. So most graphs or charts will show the majority of the time the rounded TC is 0 (results will shift down if the TC is floored instead). It's also important to keep in mind that there is a huge different in frequency between the TC (when rounded, but also in general) 0 and -1.