Heat Versus Math/Reality versus Theory

[Oneoffthecount]

Just a question to ponder and looking for the benefit of experienced players.

I sometimes look for certain conditions in order to not bet the full percentage of my ramp, which is 25 min, 50 TC1, 100 TC2 and 200 TC3 and 250 TC4 and Up. I live in an area with about 5 casinos within an hour and a half and AC about 2.5 hours away (but also generally has less advantageous penn and rules while closer casinos have much better conditions). Its critical to me to keep these casonos friendly.

So for examples:

Ive been betting min for almost an entire shoe, wtih about 2 rounds left to go. I'm down $300 for the session. The count skyrockets to plus four because two players had long chains of low cards. I could take the last two hands at max bet of two hands of $250 but if I lose or break even I'm done for that session because I only show my high max bet once or really even my TC3 bet if possible before I end at shuffle and at least change pit or grab something to eat. This leaves me going home with nothing or significantly down. I'd rather play those two rounds at $150 so I can look for a run of high counts with more penetration left in the shoe, so that I can have some rounds to recover if I lose the first two hands and think I will generally get more high counts in per session if I look for the right circumstances to go to my max.

Second circumstance. I'm up 1000, counts up to +4, four decks left to play. Once again, I am not walking away with a break even which two loosing rounds could give me. I go to 100 bet and If I win, incrementally increase bet but I never risk going below $700 (unless its a double or split scenario and the right thing to do). This means my bets for a couple of rounds aren't following the count and since winning might attract surveillance, I think it might be a good idea. Once I'm past $1300, I go back to full max bet but always keep an eye to make sure I'm not risking leving empty handed.

Generally, I'm not looking to take more than $700 to $1000 out of session, although if I reduce my bet and win then go back to max after a couple of hands, sure I'm happy to walk with 2 or 3 thousand bucks but then will have to avoid that casino for a while. If it has good rules penn and is close, I'm going to miss it.

Do any of the "real" advantage players take these types of things into account when betting?

[Three]

I am guessing you know this kind of thinking and playing hurts your win rate. Unless your sim does the same it will not give the right win rate for this type of play. I usually make big jumps but not min to max. This really depends on the store though. I had one I thought would never back me off and I used 80:1 reads and jumped my bet as the sim dictated. It was very affective but lifetime win caught up with me. I guess if you are backed off lifetime win is the best reason to get it. Their game sucked but being able to spread with impunity and find very predictable heads up conditions made the shit game with shit pen one of my most consistent moneymakers. At one time they had one of the best games around. I made a lot then.

That all said what you are doing is the same as not having enough money to start a shoe and leaving a great count or underbetting because you don't have enough money. Your jump limit should be only for heat reasons not protecting your session win or limiting the loss. It is all one session. The session boundaries you are drawing are artificial. Adjusting bets to win a guaranteed amount hurts your attempt to get to the long run by affecting n0 and average win rate. If this is how your decisions are affected you should have left before that shoe or when you were min betting early in the shoe. See the chapter in BJA3 on optimal departure times for wonging out of the shoe.

[Oneoffthecount]

thanks T3, I respect and value your opinions. Decisions are being driven by not wanting to attact heat primarily but I know its also a hit on EV. Whether it worth the cost I guess is the question. Since I'm new and have limited store opportunities, I'm treading extremely lightly as I test the waters for their tolerance levels.

I don't doubt that you are right and I am hurting myself in the long run. It may be that I learn better and am less paranoid after playing for a while but I don't want to poison any wells when I am just getting started. It might be well advised for me to take some trips and play everything full speed at casinos that won't matter as much to me if I burn my cover (e.g. no chain affiliation) as I learn to read the signs for casino tolerance levels and detecting heat. Right now I assume my every move is being watched. Someone once told me perfect paranoia is perfect perception.

[Three]

Right now I assume my every move is being watched. Someone once told me perfect paranoia is perfect perception.

This is always best. You can never tell when the EITS is watching and with storage space on computers becoming almost unlimited and everything being recorded they could watch you months later if they wanted to go through the trouble.

[SiMi]

Hey, Oneoff

I think you're definitely on the right track and I applaud your careful thought. You are clearly observant, have a scientific approach and you are taking baby steps to test their comfort levels. You MUST be adaptable if you hope to have extreme longevity at these local joints. If you don't want to burn a joint, you are going to have to be very patient and pick your moments carefully and be creative. You can sim your style conservatively to get a feel for your edge but it won't matter if you're backed off at a local joint where you were well known, especially if they trade that info with the other joints in your area. If you keep good records, you can see how you're doing vs. the sims and make a decision whether it's worth it. I almost never hear APBJ advice based on whether the player is a full time pro or a part time player at a local joint. The difference is huge and can mean the difference between a long, profitable and even fun relationship with a local joint and a quick and ugly burn out.

Keep it up!
SiMi

[RS]

I don't understand this post entirely.

I understand the "cautious" part, ie: You don't throw out a max bet when there's only 2 rounds to go -- I agree, I wouldn't do that either.


What I don't understand is the "If I'm up X amount then I bet this, if I'm down Y amount then I bet this" kind of logic. Of course I care if I'm up or down, but I sure as hell am not gonna back off from betting big because I'm winning (or losing)....just to "lock in" a profit. There's a reason you have a $50K bankroll (or whatever your BR is). It's because you're aware of the variance and are willing to go for the EV than lock in some measly profit. [Granted, some plays I would do, like give up 1% of my EV on the hand and take even money.] If you're doing it for cover, OK sure, do whatever you think will get you the most money lifetime. But don't give up (significant) EV just because you want to lock in a profit.


This really hurts my eyes reading this. You have a max bet of 2x250, but are only trying to win 700-1000$ a session to stay within their tolerance/comfort levels?

W. T. F.?????????

2x$250 is WAY too high of a max bet to stay within the 700-1000$ win tolerance threshold thing.


And seriously, who cares if you leave empty handed? You have a bankroll for a reason, sack up and shove your chips in the circle.

[SiMi]

Hey, RS!

Reading his first 2 posts together, I thought the OP was trying to explain a complex pattern of thinking he goes through in certain cases that come up from time to time where he's altering his bet ramp for the conditions, mostly trying to stay under the radar for local joints he doesn't want to burn but still trying to get the overall edge. He might be able to sim it or explain it better with a "max bet" and a "super max bet" idea for those large bets. With a large bankroll, this idea makes sense to me.

SiMi

[RS]

It makes sense to not burn yourself out by placing max bets when there are few rounds remaining.

It does NOT make sense to not push out max bets when there are 4 decks remaining, just because he wants to walk away with $700 profit.


IMO, he is using ploppy logic (lock in a win) or something stupid like that....and pretending it's "cover".

[Oneoffthecount]

I can agree with aspects of what you are both saying. Locking in a win by not pushing max bets is almost definetly a hit on my EV and I realize it. I only do that for a cuople of bets, If I lose, I lose less than I would have lost and If I win I am in a good position to either go back to max bet if the count is still up. So I'm missing the opportunity cost of varying 100 bucks from my max bet (approximately $5 dollars per bet) to ensure I don't leave empty handed. If I win, I go home wtih a couple hundred less but still up $1300 for the session and any review of my play will look ploppyish because I dropped for a couple of bets.

Its a line of logic that I am very open to changing as I get more experience, my current beliefs or theories are extremely fluid as I recognize I'm learning. That is why all of your input as seasoned pros is so valuable.

[Fireman]

This has been one of the better posts that I have followed. Tthree, Simi, and RollingStoned each give excellent advice. Oneoff, you are correct about watching your bet ramp in order to preserve a good local store. I am in the same position, as I have a few stores that I can not afford to burn out at this time.

However, you need to forget about the results of an individual session. This is the part of being an AP where experience does matter. As an AP, I have to act in certain ways that is counter-intuitive to my natural instincts. I have to appear to be a ploppy when at the table, although every instinct inside me wants to prove that I am smarter. I am very competitive by nature (even to an extreme, where I hate to lose anything). This served me well in the athletic arena, but can be a detriment at the tables. For me, once I had a little more seasoning, my individual sessions (win vs. loss) became a lot less relevant.

[SiMi]

It's funny... I saw the OP's logic just the opposite of how RS saw it. I thought he was backing off because he was primarily concerned about not burning the joint and was consoling himself with the idea of "Well, at least I'm 'locking in a win' this way." The other view was that he wanted to 'lock in' a win so he backed off the bet and rationalized this bad idea by telling himself it was cover.

Then Oneoff tells us it was BOTH (which I can see). No one knows for sure where the line is at a joint until they cross it. You will always have to wonder if you left some money on the table if you don't push it to the limit. My concern is, like Fireman, in killing a goose who lays golden eggs in my local area. In that sense, I prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the goose around!

SiMi

[SiMi]

Hi, Fireman!!

Always enjoy your thoughts! I was thinking about your 'competition' instincts. The reason I act like a ploppy is BECAUSE I want to win over the long run. I wonder if the urge to prove you are 'smarter than a ploppy' is more about image and ego (partly determined by how others see you) than success (which you can measure on a spreadsheet in this "sport"). I realize those are VERY closely related and I'm not even sure how to articulate my thoughts clearly. I'm hoping you can pick up on my idea...

I was just wondering if you had looked at APBJ from the point of view that it is better to BE a winner than to APPEAR to be a winner and that might make it easier for you to adopt the act.

Again, just trying to help... I always enjoy reading your comments!

Take care,
SiMi

[Fireman]

Simi, you hit the nail on the head. Overcoming my ego has been (and still is, to a lesser extent I believe) one of my greatest obstacles as an AP. I believe (at least in my case) that the ego and the drive to succeed are intertwined. On the positive side, I used that same drive to practice incredibly long hours and read everything in sight. But, I realize that it could also work against me. A Buddhist quote (please forgive me if I misquote the Buddha) says something to the effect the it is better to conquer yourself than win a thousand battles.
You coined it perfectly: "BE a winner rather than APPEAR to be a winner".
I will try to be more conscious about the fact that it is just fine to appear to be a ploppy and there is nothing wrong with recording a session loss.