I would advise against spreading to 3 boxes, except into last few rounds. If 6 twin brothers (call them "hexa-brothers") start playing with you, would you change your strategy just because there are 6 brothers playing each spot? How exactly does one crazy person playing 6 spots differ from 6 identical hexa-brothers playing one spot each? From a counter's perspective, there is no difference, hence no changes in strategy.Originally Posted by Bushie
There's a thing at the top right of every post, "Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No"
But seriously, re-read what you wrote:
Does that sound sensible to you? I thought I'd bold the "bad" parts, but I'd just end up bolding the entire thing (so I didn't).This obviously nukes the count within a round or two, the dealer tends to mop up the low cards after the high card slog (rarely busts) and covariance with that many boxes neuters most of the advantage gleaned through ramping that he had anyway
Please explain how it nukes the count.
Explain how the covariance neuters the advanced by spreading horizontally.
Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote about "rarely busts" and the "high card slog [sic] (slug?)", because neither of those make sense as they're written (even with the assumption you meant 'slug').
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
RC has already made most of the comments I was going to make so please reread them. I only want to add a couple more. Frist, if you were shuffle tracking or shuffle steering, you should have mentioned that in your OP. Your post said you were "counting". I reiterate, your comments were vodooo thinking in reference to counting.
Some of the comments by respected players (exception RC) made little sense to me. Why do most people think it doesn't make sense to spread from $15 X 1 spot to $200 X 7 spots in highly positive counts? Why does Freightman think the fellow counter was underfunded? There is no mention of the fellow counter's bankroll in the OP's post. I've never played at a casino that has allowed spreading to 7 spots, but if it's allowed why do people think this is a bad strategy in highly positive counts? We should try to get as much money on the table as possible in highly positive counts. The other counter was able to get $1,400 on the table in a highly positive count! Why is everybody making such a big deal if it was done horizontally or vertically? The point should be that he got the money out there at the right time. He knew what he was doing!
Here's something else to think about. There were two counters at the table. We all know we shouldn't play with another counter for obvious reasons. This other counter probably understands this too. Why does Bushie think he has the right to this table and the other counter does not? Even though the other counter was described as lacking skills, it sounded to me like he was highly skilled. How do we know this other counter wasn't spreading to 7 hands to try and get Bushie to leave? This sounds like a better strategy to drive a fellow counter off the table than what's s been proposed by other people here.
This is another post filled with ploppy vodoo logic. If you both bet more in positive counts and he lost $3,000 and you won money, this is due to variance. It's not because he spread to 7 spots. Why is his "strategy" bung, if he's raising his bet in positive counts? The number of spots one is playing doesn't change the fact that he was playing with an advantage.
In my understanding of the OP, the fellow counter was not playing 200$ on a highly positive count. The true count was barely +1.
It is a bad strategy because we are talking about "optimal play" here which is a default "good" strategy.
Tassie, please reread Bushie's original post. You're incorrect. Bushie said the other counter fanned out with a "decent" count. I don't know what that means, but I expect that means a least a +3 count.
As as far as playing optimally, the counter is also trying to "get away with it" so he doesn't get kicked out. It sounds like he has a very good cover strategy since the pit boss didn't even call out "check play" when he went to black. His strategy was so advanced it looks like it fooled Bushie and most of the APs on this forum. Maybe we could learn something from him...rather than call him names.
I don't know why the other counter was doing this or what his intentions were. I can only speculate. It could be he used this strategy to drive Bushie off the table and confuse the pit. My comments have nothing to do with if this other counter was a decent human being. I'm only commenting on his play. It looks like it was highly advanced. His only problem was he encountered some negative variance.
If he did have half a brain, then I know exactly what he was doing. Problem is that strategy has a pretty short fuse as well, and you can't afford not to use indices.
My comments were based on some unknown prick, actling like a pig, taking all the cards away from me that negate npmy edge.
Now, for my remaining fans, an umhelpFul one or two ratings would be appreciated.
Last edited by Freightman; 04-08-2018 at 09:07 AM.
Let's just say that he was sweating the money. That alone gives a good indication don't you think? Spreading to numerous boxes like that is only recommended when the cut card is due and the count is high. You'll read that in any worthwhile BJ book.
If you think that brute forcing with what I gather was Hi-Lo, purely by ramping and spreading like that without using indices is quote, "highly skilled", then I honestly don't know what to say..
Freightman, I understand your point. My point was that he might have been doing this to drive off Bushie. He went with the "hog" all the good cards approach, instead of your more subtle chili, beans and beer approach. I have once been in an unfriendly battle with a fellow counter and left the table. It was my local store and he was the new kid. It was a DD game. He was very obnoxious, spread widely and wonged out in negative counts. If it wasn't my local store and I wouldn't have implicated myself, I had half a mind to tell the pit boss to back him off. As it was, I just left. I had more to lose than him so he won that battle.
From reading Bushie's post, it sounded like a "dance off" between two counters who wanted the same table. This other counter was trying to be as disruptive as possible to drive off other counters, and pulled the spread to 7 hands in a positive count move. Regardless of what other people think, going from 1 x $15 to 7 X $200 is quite an impressive move. If he'd have pulled this type of move in a "dance off", he'd have most likely won.
Since there is only one table with these conditions, it sounds like this other counter and Bushie should just play at different times, which several other people have mentioned.
What made no sense to me to me is when Bushie implied that spreading to 7 hands made this guy lose money or that he took all the high cards and somehow gave the dealer the low cards. I'm probably not being totally accurate in what Bushie said, but there was a lot of vodoo logic in his post. If his post had vodoo logic, how do we know he didn't interpret some of the other counter's actions wrongly?
The bottom line is I'd love to have been a "fly on the wall" to see the exchange between this counter and Bushie at this unique table. It'd have been entertaining.
I agree with you, if that was his only reason for spreading like this. But he might have been doing this as a cover play or to drive you off the table. Since he was doing this in a positive count, he was generating positive EV. Again, I don't know the situation (you do) but I know two counters should NOT be at the same table no matter what he was doing.
As as far as indices, yes he should use them. But he might not have used them for cover play purposes. I don't know. I'm just speculating. As I'm sure you know, our main advantage comes from betting more in positive counts. Indices play a much smaller role.
Yoi know the situation better than I do. If he is an obnoxious unfriendly counter, then there is probably little you can do.
So, what we were initially told, as well as what we know, is as follows.
He pulls the trigger at plus 2, spreading 1x15 to 7x200.
He does not know indices.
Forgetting an implied strategy, which he is clearly not good enough for, let's just assume the normal parameters of greed, and apply his strategy accordingly. To emphasize the example, I'll create a scenario.
Bushie is playing his single square game when, all of a sudden, his table mate - numb nuts, at the stroke of true 2.0, spreads from 15 to 7x200. We are now starting deck 5 of a 5.5 dealt shoe, so we know, for sure (playing hi lo) that they're 2 more face cards than low cards. Numb nuts, since he does not have a handle on indices, for sure has no concept of the middle card groupings. Hand 1 produces a 20, against dealers upcard of 10. RC is minus 1. He has 6 more hands, with no evidence being presented of shuffle tracking, or depth charging skill (not properly applied anyways) for that matter. We don't know WHEATHER hi or lo cards are coming out - we now know, however, that the rest of the hands aRe at a disadvantage. In fact, numb nuts is in the middle of a crap shoot, and he's just increased his exposure 95 times on a potential one time event.
He's not, in a million years trying to boot Bushie if the table, with that strategy, at true 2.0. The point for dickhead of getting Bushie off the table, is to do so at minimal cost as opposed to vast over exposure.
Further, numb nuts has been previously evaluated, by others as evidenced by the critters indifference, said critter having been told not to sweat the action.
They're other ways that this scenario can be applied valuated, but numb nuts hasn't been he skill. I trust I've made my point.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks