See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 23 of 23

Thread: Counting 2 tables at once

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    I will not allow links to any threads in which a person participates who has spent three years attempting to destroy this site and the reputations of many APs through hundreds of posts on nine forums filled with slander. Sorry, but enough is enough. He just recently made false accusations there against yet another member here of outing an AP. People can post where they wish. But, I will not pay my money to host links to threads including those that have spent years attempting to harm, now, six members of this site, merely because they chose to post here. Now, you can call me any names you want. I don't delete posts insulting me. Or, you can suggest alternative actions on the Suggestions page. But, this man has harmed the AP community more than any other person, including D. Grant. And, at some point, I have to draw a line. And, after years and thousands of lies with apparently no end, this must be the time. After all, he has twice stated that he will celebrate on the day I die and will continue these posts against both me and Mike Shackleford long after we are dead, and has admitted that he purposely spreads lies because he enjoys hurting people. I wish no harm to anyone. I wouldn't even wish upon him a hangnail, much less death. I don't even understand such an attitude.

    This is a free site where people can have polite discussions about AP. I have been lax in the rules. I will be enforcing the rules more exactingly as this site is not about harming people. Links to Holocaust denial sites (where he has participated for years), scam sites, or any threads involving people with years of constant attempts to cause harm to APs will not be allowed.

    And, for those that participate at ZZ, Don and I did not know about 9/11 in advance and let thousands of people die.
    I had no idea about this

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by mcallister3200 View Post
    No doubt the PE is better. It also denotes the ace.....BC is worse for zen at .96 vs .97 if you're not using any ace adjustments. It would be uncommon for players using ace reckoned counts to make that adjustment in shoe games. Your post seems to assume the zen player will be making an extra betting adjustment and Hi-Lo player will not. Seems intentionally misleading.
    Threads always get derailed lol

  3. #16
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Those I have seen or heard of counting down two tables at once used Hi-Lo or an equivalent count. It's hard to even envision trying to do it using a more difficult count, and I doubt I could do it (without a serious loss of accuracy). Playing one and keeping tabs on another makes a lot of sense if you have the right conditions to pull it off and the ability to do it.

    What I've experienced trying to back count just one table at a time as follows:

    -Field of vision and obstructed view. People are steadily moving and bopping about. I've had a hell of a time back counting just one at a time and there's no way I could do two, even if side by side with no field of vision issues (using my count). You're going to require a configuration of people at the two tables that allows a full view of the other table being watched. Someone shifting around at the table, a waitress walking up, other players sitting down, are all things that can interfere with your field of vision. Although I've never even attempted this, the intuitive reasoning would be needing the right conditions, positioned to see your table and the next with no players or others blocking the view.

    -Number of tables available and crowd size. The story of the three bears... This one is too packed. This one is practically empty. Ahhh, this one is just right! You want a crowded casino to remain as inconspicuous as possible, but once it gets packed in to a certain point back counting just one table becomes all but impossible, much less two. Once again, although I've never attempted it personally, covering two tables could only work in less crowded conditions.

    -Accuracy. What is the loss of accuracy counting two tables at once, if any? The only way to figure that out is to test out and see how accurate you are at the two tables playing at once. The three variables are your bankroll, your time, your edge. If your estimation of the RC/TC is off the mark, this is the biggest variable, lowering your theoretical edge. The idea behind two tables at once is to increase hands per hour, which has to overcome any loss in accuracy. I question if it's too sloppy, too easy to be way off in the count in the heat of battle. If I go off by one card it bothers me and I can cover one table with total accuracy. I doubt counting two tables at once with the same accuracy even with considerable training would be attainable (using my count).

    I slithered around back counting tables for some years there, with lots of perfect conditions for doing so that I adapted to. Being a lone counter playing maybe 25% of the hands you are watching is a tedious and taxing way to go. People don't exactly consider whether they are temporarily blocking your view of the table or not... they just do it! NMSE tables are more prevalent and any tables that are not NMSE have horrible rules in today's games, another hill to overcome.

    As far as wonging in goes, you don't need an advanced count to do this! The reason for an advanced count is to have a more accurate RC/TC and perfect play in order to ride out the neutral counts (the vast majority of the time) in a NMSE situation. You can only wong out here and spend a great deal of time with a minimum bet out there riding out the neutral count. If you are wonging in, there are no neutral to negative counts to worry about, so no need of any advanced count beyond Hi-Lo to have an effective theoretical edge. You are getting considerably more bang for your buck but increasing the time involved with fewer hands per hour, and basically standing around a lot. You are investing more time. It certainly solves that issue of standing around a lot if you're playing one and simultaneously watching another table, certainly more comfortable, but it seems to me that three bears thing comes to mind more finely tuned if you're trying to play one table while having a full view of the next table over... think about it though, the count goes negative on one just as it's going quite positive on the other table and you are in like flint!
    Last edited by Tarzan; 09-13-2017 at 02:45 AM.

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I have back-counted up to three tables using a simple unbalanced running count, but often players obstruct my field of view so I'm limited to two tables at a time. I also spend more focus on the table with greatest potential to reach a high count with still a reasonable amount of cards left, so I'm less likely to miss any crucial cards. I've noticed about 1.5x the hourly profit gain since employing this method.

  5. #18


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    It's true that conditions have to be right to count two tables at once. However, it can be done, and done often in some venues. As I commented in the thread on the other site, if you can read the card values by recognizing pip patterns, it's easy to do so from 20 ft away without super-vision.

    Regarding missing cards, suppose you're playing a 6D game with 1 deck cut off. and you miss an entire round at table 2 for some reason. If there are 3 players at table 2, that's 11 cards, on average, for that round. So instead of 52 cards cut off, it's now 63 cards cut off. All that has happened is penetration has worsened; accuracy hasn't suffered.

    I'll leave it to Don to crunch the numbers on optimal departure point, etc., if he so desires, but given the frequency of positive counts at shoe games, my guesstimate is you are increasing your EV by 25% by counting a second table while you are playing another one.

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    It's true that conditions have to be right to count two tables at once. However, it can be done, and done often in some venues.

    Lets examine how it would look natural to the eye upstairs as this should be a big concern. Who does this move? For the most part a gambler who is on tilt, who is betting a little bigger than usual, and thinks the current table is cold. He/She leaves the current table betting bigger, and does the same on the new table. For the most part an AP will leave the table in a neutral or slightly positive count right after TC dropped, comes into a new table with a little bigger bet but continues betting in a controlled manner, anything but being someone on tilt. 21Frome, I believe this is okay to use for someone who plays very short sessions, otherwise, I think it is not a wise thing to do. Either way it is not suitable for me as I have poor eyesight, do not play very short sessions, and often play NMET.
    Last edited by BoSox; 09-13-2017 at 06:03 PM.

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I agree this is not a method to use for camping out. Pit people don't like table hoppers. It makes them do some work, tracking the chips. Doing it once or twice per it, usually works fine. It's ideal for large casinos with multiple pits out of sense from one another, such as FW, the Borg and the place that used to have lions, for example.

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I have done this grinding out for months at one casino that had two pits and around 30 tables at a place considered by many to be sweaty. Not all surveillance are that sharp.

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    Pit people don't like table hoppers. It makes them do some work, tracking the chips. Doing it once or twice per it, usually works fine.
    in many US stores that would be the case . Trying going to to Macau and tell the players that . A lot staff of US stores are only probably used to seeing the regular ploppies ,not the hardcore degen that think they could win by moving around looking for "good" tables. I find a lot of US/ North America staff of the casino are absurdly biased . Some states probably will never see the big action from ASIA except the big exception of LV and some states that are populated by the biggest crowd of degen in the world.

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The casinos in Macau seem to rightly understand their profit is generated by game speed and house edge, not by keeping an orderly chip rack and tracking all black chips and higher. I just passed through there and was never asked for a player's card or had my buy-ins tracked. Granted, I didn't play that much at all.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. The "good" tables and the "bad" tables, no such thing right?
    By counter19 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-30-2014, 08:10 PM
  2. Accused of card counting without actually counting?
    By lilbucky in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 03-08-2014, 07:08 AM
  3. Bad tables?
    By bjarg in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-04-2012, 11:45 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.