Flat betting

[TeamMoney]

Still early in my playing career and the thought of longevity has always been on my mind. Last thing I want to happen to me is getting blacklisted all over the country too soon. Im starting to think of some out of the box ideas that maybe some people can comment on and if there begins to be too much information on this thread, ill ask Norm to delete it.

But right now im thinking of something that I believe could buy me some longevity. My idea is this. Most 'counter catchers', pit boss and surveillance personell look for a 'spreading' of bets from minimum to maximum, sometimes as low as a 1-12 to as high as a 1-40 or 1-50 etc. My idea is this, what if I just backcount until +2 and flat bet 2x300 and compliment that with an aggressive hit and run strategy with no more than 1 hour in each casino? I would never show a spread in my bets and because im backcounting I dont even need to spread and I can just flat bet all the way through the shoe. Also a bet value such as 2x300 gives me a nice healthy win rate as well. Or should I just employ a 1-2 spread and go 2x150 at +2 and 2x300 at +3 and higher? Surely 1-2 spread wont scare any of the pit bosses either. The only downfall to not spreading is the N0 is a lot higher, but I dont mind playing a couple more thousand rounds if it's gonna add another 5-10 years in play.

Thoughts?

[Bodarc]

Hi TeamMoney

Of course you don't need a large spread when you are only playing + counts. You wouldn't flat bet all the way through the shoe though, but only as long as you have an advantage. If the count drops, you leave.

If you bought CVCX, you could input all of your game rules and your style of play and easily develop a hit and run strategy. It is well worth the money.

It is just a suggestion.

Bodarc

[RS]

If you wong in and flat bet 2x300 -- they're probably not gonna say, "Well, he's not spreading -- he must not be a card counter!" and never do a skillz check on you. Spreading 2x150 to 2x300 would probably have the same or similar effect as would flat-betting 2x300. Playing at that level (at some stores) will definitely raise eyebrows....while even at large LV stores, it will still raise some eyebrows eventually.

But, you're also probably overly paranoid about getting "blacklisted" all across the country.


+1 to CVCX

[Bigdaddy]

Hi TeamMoney

Of course you don't need a large spread when you are only playing + counts. You wouldn't flat bet all the way through the shoe though, but only as long as you have an advantage. If the count drops, you leave.

If you bought CVCX, you could input all of your game rules and your style of play and easily develop a hit and run strategy. It is well worth the money.

It is just a suggestion.

You can also find the information you need in Blackjack Attack (3rd Edition). Check out the SCORE Charts on pages 157-158 and commentary beginning on page 159. The charts show the optimum wong-in counts for various games. They also show that a flat-bet approach performs very well, but a 1-2 spread is most effective. One thing that it doesn't address is how to determine the appropriate unit size, but obviously the lower the spread the larger the unit size.

[Stealth]

But right now im thinking of something that I believe could buy me some longevity. My idea is this. Most 'counter catchers', pit boss and surveillance personell look for a 'spreading' of bets from minimum to maximum, sometimes as low as a 1-12 to as high as a 1-40 or 1-50 etc. My idea is this, what if I just backcount until +2 and flat bet 2x300 and compliment that with an aggressive hit and run strategy with no more than 1 hour in each casino? I would never show a spread in my bets and because im backcounting I dont even need to spread and I can just flat bet all the way through the shoe. Also a bet value such as 2x300 gives me a nice healthy win rate as well. Or should I just employ a 1-2 spread and go 2x150 at +2 and 2x300 at +3 and higher? Surely 1-2 spread wont scare any of the pit bosses either. The only downfall to not spreading is the N0 is a lot higher, but I dont mind playing a couple more thousand rounds if it's gonna add another 5-10 years in play.

You have some competing concepts here. First surveillance is looking for you to "move the money with the count" so only playing plus counts and flat betting does prevent that exposure. Back counting is an even larger exposure that can be used sparingly in casinos with the right mix of busy and pit tolerance. If possible, utilize spotters to reduce this exposure.

Flat betting requires a bank sized properly to accommodate the higher variance to a ramp. N0 playing only positive counts is significantly less than "All Play" with a ramp.

When employing either back counting or spotters, have a well designed plan for exit when the count goes negative, when and how to play into the next shoe, if ever and protocols for signaling, buying in, coloring up, tipping etc.

Understand that if an AP can watch you play long enough (usually about 45 minutes), he/she can determine if you are moving the money with the count REGARDLESS of your cover and so can surveillance. Short sessions are important. The key is to not have surveillance watching you and realize that some things you do causes the pit to invite them and others things cause the pit to ignore you. And those things vary.

Longevity, is WAY harder than counting.

[Freightman]

Understand that if an AP can watch you play long enough (usually about 45 minutes), he/she can determine if you are moving the money with the count REGARDLESS of your cover and so can surveillance.
.

I've spotted 3 counters befire they played their first hand - one of them from afar while playing craps. The manner of how they buy in and their interaction with the pit is an interesting interaction. As far as pegging someone from afar, I had taken my dad to the casino, and he loved craps. - there was just simply something different about this guy. Long story short, this out of town counter was the guy who encouraged me to switch to halves from hi Lo, taught me the rudiments of team play and shuffle tracking.

Over the years, I've spotted a lot of counters, ace watchers, shuffle trackers, side bet counters etc etc. Some are easier to spot than. others.

[Gronbog]

Playing only positive counts is "moving money with the count".

[Freightman]

Playing only positive counts is "moving money with the count".

See my post 6 above - make that 5 counters.
I viewed tha Asian youngster with suspicion as he asked for 2 spots, then asked off to watch Baccarat. He came in 2x500 at a good count. I asked him "don't backcount my table" - turned out we knew each other's forum handless off the BJ 21 site, and whom I think us posting here under a different handle. The other was already playing as I sat down - he viewed me with suspicion as I viewed him - just from mannerisms. Turned out he recently moved to a city where I play - we correspond and have coffee occasionally.

After my don't backcount comment, the Asian counter actually whispered to me - are you Freightman? - I also knew his handle - we had previously corresponded on a particular issue. Kind of funny actually.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

NEVER underestimate your enemy, your opponent, your spouse, etc. etc.

Ditto for Pit Critters and Surveillance minions.

[marriedputter]

Back counting is an even larger exposure that can be used sparingly in casinos with the right mix of busy and pit tolerance.

I strongly agree with this. Back counting is almost impossible if you rely on it as your sole manner of beating the game. You need to have other tools in your toolbox.

[DatabaseGuy]

NEVER underestimate your enemy, your opponent, your spouse, etc. etc.

Ditto for Pit Critters and Surveillance minions.

Never underestimate their stupidity either. Being good at reading people is the greatest skill to have. It's not just good for poker. It's essential for blackjack.

Anybody can learn to count cards. Getting away with it requires skills harder to build.

As for stupidity: I've seen a counter at my table stop playing when the count was bad and resuming when it was good. His schtick: he just needed to build courage. I was more amazed at the acceptance of this behavior than by the behavior itself.

Probably because I was the only one counting.