Alternating Bankrolls

[KJ]

I think the point is to avoid computer analysis in the first place by seemingly betting so oddly that no one flags you for analysis.

But I am not sure this technique would accomplish this. As a matter of fact, you could make the case it would do just the opposite. I mean half the pit folks can't or don't count anyway. So they are going to see a wide variation in spread, and first reaction will be to call upstairs for an evaluation. You will have actually drawn attention, rather than deflecting it.

I am just saying that in this day and age, any card counter who is even moderately serious, relies on technology to improve his game, mostly yours, Norm. It is a huge mistake to think the 'opponents' (the industry) isn't doing so also.

[Norm]

The technique would obviously fail if one bankroll was 20 times the other. I believe the example was one bankroll twice the other. That's what I used when I simmed this.

[KJ]

The technique would obviously fail if one bankroll was 20 times the other. I believe the example was one bankroll twice the other. That's what I used when I simmed this.

With such a 'shallow' differential as one BR and spread only 2x the other, I think it would have even less effect.
The end result (variance-wise) would be similar to using the "bucket method" of wagering that many of us currently employ. Anyone, myself included, using such a technique is not under any delusion that it is buying you all that much.

[Stealth]

I am just saying that in this day and age, any card counter who is even moderately serious, relies on technology to improve his game, mostly yours, Norm. It is a huge mistake to think the 'opponents' (the industry) isn't doing so also.

I am not aware of any casino that has surveillance capability to automatically capture your bets and playing decisions without human intervention (rfid chips excluded). They have the software to evaluate but I believe the play has to be entered manually. This implication is that surveillance got involved and that is generally as a result of someone suggesting they need to check a player out. So while I agree with your warning, let's not cry wolf quite yet.

Otherwise, you will find surveillance capabilities that vary by store and, as I believe, vary by how old the systems are (where the systems are in their depreciation schedule). They are not going to throw out working systems just because something new is available. But they will upgrade when the time comes. If you go to a new or newly renovated store you will find much better cameras, facial recognition software and surveillance systems. Be afraid of these. Playing unrated will not help. I got walked out of one of the strip renovations after a 10 minute "no card" session while I was waiting to be called in by a team member who was spotting another game. Never made the team member. The system and nice suit that walked me out identified me by name.

Dr. Reid's Dynamic system works to provide cover using betting structures that delay or prevent detection by surveillance reviewing your play. This is still true and will be for some time. We used wong in and flat betting to accomplish a similar thing but you have to have the bank to support it. It is not one size fits all but it is a very valuable structure for those who design it for their games.

[Three]

The technique would obviously fail if one bankroll was 20 times the other. I believe the example was one bankroll twice the other. That's what I used when I simmed this.

The only way I could imagine making it work was a small difference like Norm talks about here. It would reduce the crazy variance relatively speaking and allow your to opposition bet and trend betas you bounce back and forth while looking like reasonable moves. Jumps in bets shouldn't be ridiculously extreme. My experience from getting heat and avoiding it with unusual techniques says this. Give them a reason to explain your bet changes other than counting and take advantage of opportunities to opposition bet when it is the correct move. I had one store I played regularly as my favorite store. I got a couple years in with the suits totally buying into my act. People would say they wished they could do what I do meaning winning on the main bet. The suits would then explain what I am doing. It didn't include counting but was what I was trying to show as an alternate explanation. After a few years of winning the comps started to dwindle. I was the suits favorite player to watch play. They all were players to and were trying to figure out what I was doing to use it in the casinos. I think my lifetime win was catching up to me so I dropped it from my rotation. I won't be playing rated anymore when I go back.

Anyway the point is you don't want you moves to look random. You either want an obvious explanation to be apparent or you just want them to look like you definitely aren't moving your bets with the count by moving them in opposition to the count often enough to throw them off. This works best when you move your bet in opposition on obvious big count moves. These types of things can be effective when used sparingly. The observer is thinking well he will definitely jump his bet now but you drop your bet. Just think about what they expect makes non-AP's move their bets and try to mimic one of those as a part of what you are doing. There is an art to doing this so you get the most tolerance in the pit at the least cost. It is always a good idea to sim the cover betting as a rule to know what doing it all the time costs and then use it situationally for the biggest bang for your buck.

[KJ]

I am not aware of any casino that has surveillance capability to automatically capture your bets and playing decisions without human intervention (rfid chips excluded). They have the software to evaluate but I believe the play has to be entered manually. This implication is that surveillance got involved and that is generally as a result of someone suggesting they need to check a player out. So while I agree with your warning, let's not cry wolf quite yet.

I didn't mean to imply that the evaluation process was completely automated. If my post came across that way, I apologize as I didn't make my point well. It most definitely would require human input. Complete automation of the evaluation process, like the 'mindplay' attempt is illegal, at least here in Vegas.

But I still say that pit person on the floor, in many, maybe even most case, doesn't know how to or just doesn't count. So upon seeing a bet variation, they just call upstairs for such an evaluation. This 'double spread' technique is going to look like even more variation to someone on the floor who is not actually counting along. So I still say, you very well may draw more attention, contrary to your actual goal.

I appreciate Dr Reid's attempt to think outside the box, I just question if this is going to really make a difference in most cases. But, to each, his own. If you or anyone feels or finds you benefit from such a tactic, go for it.

[Norm]

In the first eleven years, MGM used BJ Survey to survey only 650 players (five a month). The program claimed 10% of those were counters with an edge (0.5 per month).

[tjr5259]

In the first eleven years, MGM used BJ Survey to survey only 650 players (five a month). The program claimed 10% of those were counters with an edge (0.5 per month).

Thats the software by Ron Buono. Do you think that is accurate? Don't they have to make the choice to analyze your play before they even use that software?

[Norm]

Ron didn't write it -- he just uses it. He's not a programmer. Yes, they get a call from the pit before using it. That's the point. They rarely get the call because it's a pain to use. The software says that you must track 150 hands. First, that's a lot of time for surv to devote to one guy in a casino with 70 BJ tables. Second, 150 hands usually doesn't mean a damn thing in a shoe game, unless you just happen to observe a positive TC swing. IMHO, the software is not very useful.

If you're really worried about getting tracked with BJ Survey, hire a disposable player to play at a different table looking like a counter. I doubt if they have ever tracked more than one player at a time.

[tjr5259]

Oh okay. I'm. I'm not worried just curious. Didn't know much about it thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marriedputter]

What does it say about negative counts? If you wong out at negative counts or bet the minimum (play-all), this end of the bell-curve will still be readily identifiable, will it not?

I know that the big bets will be the first to be scrutinized, but wouldn't the card counter still be recognized by how she treats the disadvantage side of things? I have always thought that this was just another way to spot a counter. It's probably not as much fun to play nor review as high counts, but this predictability of play would still be there I would think.

[counter19]

There's something mathematical that I don't understand here and I will probably kick myself when I get the answer, but I am going to ask anyway. I ask this question out of pure ignorance since I have not heard of this concept until today, though I think I understand the idea.

If you have a $30,000 bankroll, can't you just split it in two and call it 2 bankrolls? Assuming we double one bankroll, then bankroll "A" would be at $10,000 and bankroll "B" at $20,000. Assuming you're playing at a count with a 1% advantage (probably at +3 with HiLo) and you are playing 1/4 Kelly, you would bet $25 with BR A and $50 with BR B, wouldn't you? However, your average bet in this example would be $37.50. If you were playing with your full $30,000 BR, your bet would be $75.

Aren't you limiting your gain in this way (and loss)? What am I missing here?

[Norm]

You would be betting at better than 1/4 Kelly in that case because if one of your bankrolls went to zero, you wouldn't really be at zero.