Running for Cover, leaving a high count shoe

[Three]

It seems that you are saying that as long as your spread is reasonable, you can win as much as you want if it happens to occur in one shoe.

No. I don't want to win that much. It can cause bad things to happen. I am saying if your spread and top bet are reasonable the places I play are fine with taking whatever happens within a shoe and leaving. That is my impression because I have never had an issue making way more than the tolerance threshold in one shoe as long as I leave afterwards. I have had the casino change things about their game because I consistently won quickly with the conditions that existed. Going into details will obviously out me so don't ask.

Once I won way to much on the first shoe I played so I figured I would play the next shoe stupid and give some back. That didn't go as planned. I was doing plays that looked costly but really weren't and using information differently for betting to make my bets look crazy without costing to much (I added in more information and calculated my bet using different information that wouldn't correlate to the way others do it). I just made things worse by doubling my win. No action was taken so maybe the cover of using different information in a different way worked. I felt like I failed. LoL

[Freightman]

Fwiw. In DD $25 game. I would buy in for $1,000. Spread 1 to 6 up to 10% frequency. I woud not leave a positive deck. I would leave a negative deck if down or up $500. I play only straight up. I play to either of those milestones or about 100 hands. I play about 5 sessions per day or 20 per week. I figure if they boot me for this conservative approach, i didnt want to play anyway. Not enough money for you? I probably make more than the pit boss in about 1/10th the time invested.

I know nothing about 6 decks but it seems there is alot of confusion in this thread. Perhaps this guide line will help. Of course, you'd increase accordingly. Perhaps 3 times?

To much of a buy in for $25 dd. will earn you some scrutiny.

[ZeeBabar]

To much of a buy in for $25 dd. will earn you some scrutiny.

+1. I buy in for as little as $200 but more often $250-$275.

[jimmybond007]

I never have been in a situation where I felt like I needed to leave a positive shoe but I do cut sessions short based on results or the cards that fell. What I mean is if I sit down a hit some positive variance quickly I might just leave and not risk even more good variance put me above any thresholds. Same goes in reverse. Don't lose too much in a given session. Also I take into account the cards. Some shoes lend themselves to being a positive shoe by playing out in such a way that lets you parlay your bets and other things that make you not look like a counter. Those sorts of situations you can probably get away with more play time. Other shoes present lots of index plays for you to make. Lots of insurance and stuff. Those shoes exposure you much more and usually means an exit is in order. All that being said my bet sizes are fairly low and blend into the ploppy action pretty well. I Also change up spreads and bet sizes all the time. Slow uncrowded times I may use lower bets so if they are watching me they may deem my action too low to warrant action. The good thing here is the increased game speed helps compensate for the smaller bets. In more crowded situations where there is more action in the casino I might bet more if I get a good seat. My philosophy is to blend it and appear as a ploppy. Despite it all the cumulative win will reveal us all. We just delay the inevitable.

The latest GWAE had lots of discussion on things relevant to this thread.

[jimmybond007]

To much of a buy in for $25 dd. will earn you some scrutiny.

I've seen a rookie counter buy in 1000$ on a 10$ table.

[Freightman]

I've seen a rookie counter buy in 1000$ on a 10$ table.

Not very smart. I saw some idiot but in for $300 at a $2.00 table.

[ZeeBabar]

I would say $500 is a standard buy in at a $25 table single deck. Generally, black chip players buy in for more than $2k. Additional buy ins seems to create a commotion. The game stops. Quite often, the pit has to be notified. I'd just as soon not have them come over because im buying more chips to make a DD bet on a max bet.

Plus, I think there is a mental barrier crossed when one goes into their wallet. The realization that actual money has been lost. Thus the liklihood to chase quickly follows as panic sets in.

Buying in small amounts, $2-300, reminds the pit that they have a loser at table X. I think buying in $200 to lay out a $25 first bet is acceptable. Buying in for $500 and placing a $25 bet raises more suspicion. So, if your initial bet is just $25 or you might be playing just $25 as a neutral count bet, then $200 is more sensible. If your neutral bet is $50, then $300and if your neutral bet is $50 or two hands of $25 then $500 is ok but $1k is definitely more likely to raise interest from the Heat.

[tomf23]

this is rediuculous
you can lose for hundreds of hours on end or make a boat load in one shoe. a target win and leaving in a +ev count wont get you longevity but it will light money on fire.

[Fire Walker]

this is rediuculous
you can lose for hundreds of hours on end or make a boat load in one shoe. a target win and leaving in a +ev count wont get you longevity but it will light money on fire.

tomf23,

You hit the nail on the head.
It will be harder/impossible to overcome the bigger, inevitable losing sessions if the wins are throttled (with regularity).
I remember when I was first starting out the temptation to leave once you're "up pretty good" is strong, but walking away from good situations will sting you in time.

[bigplayer]

I would never do it unless that was part of my plan all along. Some people do an intentional set-up type of play when breaking in a new card to get the casino to enter favorable remarks into their system. You should know before you sit down the reason why you are playing. You pay a hidden tax when making all of those waiting bets before you get a big shoe. It's stupid to walk away after you've paid the hidden ante. Just play out the shoe and leave. If the count drops back to only a small positive edge it's probably good to just walk away at that point rather than drop your bet down.

[marriedputter]

So here's what I don't understand. There are many ways to provide cover for yourself that are widely accepted. Here are a few that are generally accepted, though there are more examples:

1. You can lower your bet ramp to something that the casino may allow.
2. You can play for shorter periods of time.
3. You can even stop playing there all together for a while to let things "cool off."
4. You can avoid splitting tens and doubling on soft 20 when the count calls for it.
5. You can do betting techniques such as oppositional betting, consolidation betting, etc.

There are examples of things that are typically accepted by counters. However, all three of these things obviously lower your win rate.

Leaving a shoe after a target win rate is hit limits your wins as well. So how are these five examples different than what I mentioned? Consider number three. If you don't even go into a casino for a while, thing of all those shoes that you didn't have access to! Many went positive and you weren't there!

I suppose the difference may be that you were laying waiting bets for a while, only to leave after a target win rate is hit. This may be the factor. But how much does that really cost you? Isn't that just another price for cover?

You burn your money when you do other accepted forms of cover. They're all camouflage at the end of the day. You all seem to be saying that this form of cover just costs too much. There will be other positive shoes. In spite of the overwhelming majority being against this, I still do not see anything wrong with it. It's going to be difficult to change my mind here. I'm not being stubborn. I just honestly don't see the difference between this and other forms of cover.

And please remember, this situation rarely happens. This is one of those shoes where the count shoots up early (usually) AND you are winning a lot of bets. For me, I just don't seem to see that situation very often. I don't bail out of every high count. I only do if i make a killing right away, which is very rare indeed.

[marriedputter]

tomf23,

You hit the nail on the head.
It will be harder/impossible to overcome the bigger, inevitable losing sessions if the wins are throttled (with regularity).

It is most definitely NOT with regularity.

[Three]

Leaving a shoe after a target win rate is hit limits your wins as well. So how are these five examples different than what I mentioned?

Because the things listed lower your edge from a known advantage to a known advantage. If you leave in a plus count your sims say you have a certain advantage because it assumes you leave negative counts and play positive counts. What is the new advantage if you also leave positive counts. What is the cost. You wait for many many shoes to get a big count. Say you get a big count 15% of shoes (pulled out go the air). The big count is were your variance is highest meaning you either win a lot or lose a lot or somewhere in between. You are suggesting substituting a range from lose a lot to win a modest amount for the range lose a lot to win a lot. You don't see the problem here? Depending on the frequency of the trade, those big count shoes may not even shoe a profit in the long run.