Boondoggle rn

[Iwantmoney]

In exhibit CAA page 38 I think it mentions rn boondoggle. It is in context of how APs reduce heat. I have no idea what it is for half a year and has contacted the author with no reply. I wonder if any of you here know what it is. RN boondoggle

[Frank Galvin]

Uncertain, but always assumed that "R/N Boondoggle" was used by JG to refer to the decisionmaking process as to whether a player would engage in Rated OR Not (or sometimes) Rated play.

[Iwantmoney]

Uncertain, but always assumed that "R/N Boondoggle" was used by JG to refer to the decisionmaking process as to whether a player would engage in Rated OR Not (or sometimes) Rated play.

Wow. Awesome reply. A pro may still not know what it meant

[Bigdaddy]

Grosjean uses this term "R/N Boondoggle" as one of three methods that players might use to obscure their lifetime win at a casino. So Frank's explanation (rated or not rated) makes sense; i.e., play non-rated, unless you lose, then give them your card.

The other two are: "the Southbound Chip Express". We all know what that is (a la rat hole). The third technique cited is "the two-man North South Maneuver". I think I have an idea of how that might work, but would be interested to hear further commentary on it.

[Iwantmoney]

I think it refers to simply BP and SP. RN was really confounding.

Grosjean uses this term "R/N Boondoggle" as one of three methods that players might use to obscure their lifetime win at a casino. So Frank's explanation (rated or not rated) makes sense; i.e., play non-rated, unless you lose, then give them your card.

The other two are: "the Southbound Chip Express". We all know what that is (a la rat hole). The third technique cited is "the two-man North South Maneuver". I think I have an idea of how that might work, but would be interested to hear further commentary on it.

[Frank Galvin]

And here I thought the two-man North-South Maneuver described a situation involving 2 (or more) players at the same table moving their bets in opposing directions so that their bets don't individually appear to be robotically following the count. But depending on how they structure their betting patterns, they can still synchronize their aggregate bets in a fashion intended to optimize their combined bet with the true count, while hopefully misdirecting the EITS or floor-based counter catchers.

[Bigdaddy]

And here I thought the two-man North-South Maneuver described a situation involving 2 (or more) players at the same table moving their bets in opposing directions so that their bets don't individually appear to be robotically following the count. But depending on how they structure their betting patterns, they can still synchronize their aggregate bets in a fashion intended to optimize their combined bet with the true count, while hopefully misdirecting the EITS or floor-based counter catchers.

Makes sense. Now I'm really confused...

[Iwantmoney]

I do not think it refers to what you are referring. In the section immediately preceding he mentions... The counter has two weaknesses, count correlation and life time win. The literature is rife with methods to cover the former while for the later ...it is these three. I am basing all these wording on memory. So what you have described would have been classified as the former.

And here I thought the two-man North-South Maneuver described a situation involving 2 (or more) players at the same table moving their bets in opposing directions so that their bets don't individually appear to be robotically following the count. But depending on how they structure their betting patterns, they can still synchronize their aggregate bets in a fashion intended to optimize their combined bet with the true count, while hopefully misdirecting the EITS or floor-based counter catchers.

[AndretheGiant]

He's talking about hiding overall win.

[Frank Galvin]

I do not think it refers to what you are referring. In the section immediately preceding he mentions... The counter has two weaknesses, count correlation and life time win. The literature is rife with methods to cover the former while for the later ...it is these three. I am basing all these wording on memory. So what you have described would have been classified as the former.

If so, then I stand corrected.

[Bigdaddy]

Grosjean uses this term "R/N Boondoggle" as one of three methods that players might use to obscure their lifetime win at a casino. So Frank's explanation (rated or not rated) makes sense; i.e., play non-rated, unless you lose, then give them your card.

The other two are: "the Southbound Chip Express". We all know what that is (a la rat hole). The third technique cited is "the two-man North South Maneuver". I think I have an idea of how that might work, but would be interested to hear further commentary on it.

I was reading back through my BJ library today and I think I found out what "the two-man North South Maneuver" is all about. It is discussed in Blackjack Blueprint" by Rick Blaine. He describes it in a section on "disguising wins and hiding chips". He calls it "transferring chips":

You have a teammate join your table and play anonymous/unrated. At the right moment, you go south with x amount of chips and the teammate pulls the same x amount of chips out of his pocket and puts them with his pile. When you cash out, the pit has no difficulty in accounting for the chips. You have basically reduced your outcome by x and increased the teammate's outcome by the same amount. But he's playing anonymous, so who cares...

[Exoter175]

Uncertain, but always assumed that "R/N Boondoggle" was used by JG to refer to the decisionmaking process as to whether a player would engage in Rated OR Not (or sometimes) Rated play.

Correct.

Grosjean uses this term "R/N Boondoggle" as one of three methods that players might use to obscure their lifetime win at a casino. So Frank's explanation (rated or not rated) makes sense; i.e., play non-rated, unless you lose, then give them your card.

The other two are: "the Southbound Chip Express". We all know what that is (a la rat hole). The third technique cited is "the two-man North South Maneuver". I think I have an idea of how that might work, but would be interested to hear further commentary on it.

Correct, sort of. Grosjean doesn't cover "all" ways to hide lifetime win, and I have to believe Grosjean knows that, and is intentionally leaving out about half a dozen really good ways at hiding it, or simply just doesn't know the more efficient methods.

The whole R/N Boondoggle approach itself has like, 47 million different iterations on how to use it to your advantage. I'm closing in on two years in a row clearing over 70k from a single store (I'm usually on the road but have approximately 8 "home" stores I frequent) and I've managed to perfect the approach with this specific store to the point that my theo/adt as well as my W/L are pretty ridiculous to the point where all I need to do is ask and I'll receive basically whatever I need within reason, which, in my eyes, is ultimately the biggest angle an AP can have against a store. Hiding your lifetime wins from a store is imperative, and the single most important piece of information every AP needs to work on, speaking specifically to longevity players like myself. You show a couple months consecutive 5 digits up, and they start looking deeper, even the "slow" places catch on after the 2nd year.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Originally Posted by Frank Galvin
" ... "R/N Boondoggle" was used by JG to refer to the decisionmaking process as to
whether a player would engage in Rated OR Not (or sometimes) Rated play."

Correct. Pit Critters and Suits use "R/N" as an abbreviation for "REFUSED NAME"