How to Approach a Situation?

[Dbs6582]

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.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. No, you did not make your point to my satisfaction. I don't know how you can say he didn't try to boot Bushie off the table. All counters know two counters aren't suppose to play at the same table for obvious reasons...and spreading to 7 hands would upset even the most mild manner ploppy and probably drive them off the table. I'm only speculating but I expect he wanted this table to himself.

As far as the count being at +2, Bushie only said this after I said his fellow counter was employing a good strategy. In Bushie's first post, he said this counter spread when the count was "decently good". Most APs would not call a +2 "decently good".

From the way I read the OP, this counter was able to get a lot of money on the table in positive count when he had an advantage without attracting heat from the pit boss. Part of being a good AP is "getting away with it". That includes cover betting and playing strategy, which is probably what this AP was employing.

As far as indices, Bushie said he didn't think he used any. It doesn't sound like he knew this for sure.

Also, you're making a lot of assumptions that we'll never know. We do not know his skill level. As far as his bankroll, we don't know what it was so we don't know if his bankroll supported his strategy.

You have not commented on any of Bushie's vodoo comments. Don't these concern you? Please reread Bushie's OP and RC 's repilies....and some of mine. There is no reason to rehash all the vodoo statements.

[Freightman]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. No, you did not make your point to my satisfaction. I don't know how you can say he didn't try to boot Bushie off the table. All counters know two counters aren't suppose to play at the same table for obvious reasons...and spreading to 7 hands would upset even the most mild manner ploppy and probably drive them off the table. I'm only speculating but I expect he wanted this table to himself.

As far as the count being at +2, Bushie only said this after I said his fellow counter was employing a good strategy. In Bushie's first post, he said this counter spread when the count was "decently good". Most APs would not call a +2 "decently good".

From the way I read the OP, this counter was able to get a lot of money on the table in positive count when he had an advantage without attracting heat from the pit boss. Part of being a good AP is "getting away with it". That includes cover betting and playing strategy, which is probably what this AP was employing.

As far as indices, Bushie said he didn't think he used any. It doesn't sound like he knew this for sure.

Also, you're making a lot of assumptions that we'll never know. We do not know his skill level. As far as his bankroll, we don't know what it was so we don't know if his bankroll supported his strategy.

You have not commented on any of Bushie's vodoo comments. Don't these concern you? Please reread Bushie's OP and RC 's repilies....and some of mine. There is no reason to rehash all the vodoo statements.

Agreed. We disagree. Not that I give a shit. Regards to the brigade.

[BJGenius007]

Which isn't an option sadly. I should have said that.

If you saw him already in the casino, just leave. Don't tell me it is not an option, either. If you are so bothered by his action, you are not as a nice guy as you think you are. He has the rights to play his money any way he wants and it is not very wise for him to play BJ this way. I don't think he can continue to do so in long term. So your problem will resolve by itself very soon.

[Koz84]

Hi Bushie, are you playing where I think you are in Australia?

[RS]

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.

So? I'm pretty sure +2 TC is ~0.5% player edge. What's wrong with shoving when you have an advantage, even a small one? Also, what responsibility do we have to the other player as far as how he plays? Someone could be spreading to 7x$200 in -2 TC, I bet no one here would be worked up about that.

IIRC, most of your advantage is gained by spreading, not by indices. Oftentimes, index plays are close calls. I'm also pretty sure some players don't use indices right on the dot, but they adjust them a bit (I remember Tthree going into a lot of detail about this in the past, I don't remember all that stuff). There's some leeway in the indices when applied. I might think there are 2.5 decks remaining and bushie might think there are 2.0 decks remaining. If the RC is +10, I think the TC is +4 and he thinks it's +5, so I don't do the "right play" by his standards but I do the right play by my standards. But that's all a moot point since as we all should know, BJ is still plenty beatable without index plays.

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.

Huh? I'm pretty sure that's a strawman argument or pretty close to it.

Sure, those other hands of his are all at a disadvantage (in the given scenario), but that 20 has a HUGE advantage.

Here's another scenario: He gets 11 on every hand, buschie gets 12, buschie busts, that guy doubles every hand, wins, and makes $2400. OMG he's a genius!!!!11!

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.

I'm not of the opinion that guy was trying to get bushie off the table.


Who cares that he's been evaluated and the PB gave the "go ahead" to not sweat his action? I once called someone into a shoe, he sat down and started playing 2 hands at table max, dealer called "checks play to the max", boss came over and said something like, "Oh yeah, he's cool. Let him do whatever he wants." I'm sure it's happened to me and probably you and others, but I just remember that particular case because the entire event was hilarious.

What, do you think when a dealer calls "black action" or "checks play" on you and the boss gives 'em the go ahead, that you've been evaluated and they don't deem you a threat?

Who's to say he was even evaluated or that's why the boss gave the go ahead? Lots of times, IME, PB just wants to know where the action is. "Checks play" or "black action" is a way to alert the floor there's action on a table as well as a passive way of informing the player he bet more -- that way they can't take a shot and on a loss say "oops, I didn't mean to bet that black chip!" or "I wanted to color up those chips, not bet them!" kinda thing.


My only/main "complaint" about the other guy would possibly be if he's playing in a way where he'd burn out the play for everyone. For instance, every now and then on a play, I'll see someone playing 2-3 machines, when the ploppies are trying to get on them. When a ploppy asks if he can play one of them, the AP is rude and says "no, i'm playing all these machines". WTF does he think is going to happen??? Of course, we don't know if that's what's going on in this case, and it doesn't seem like that's what OP's problem is with this other counter.

[Tassie]

Hi Bushie, are you playing where I think you are in Australia?

You may find it useful:

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-Point-Pontoon

[Dbs6582]

If you saw him already in the casino, just leave. Don't tell me it is not an option, either. If you are so bothered by his action, you are not as a nice guy as you think you are. He has the rights to play his money any way he wants and it is not very wise for him to play BJ this way. I don't think he can continue to do so in long term. So your problem will resolve by itself very soon.

BJGenius007, I agree with the first part of your post, but that last part made no sense. As you've said, he has the right to play his money any way he wants to as long as he stays within the casino's rules. I'm surprised so many people on this forum called him out for spreading since we've all taken on the wrath of the ploppy for spreading in the middle of a shoe. It sounded to me like there was a lot of hypocrisy in some of the responces. Just as we have the right to spread, he has the right to spread. It doesn't matter if he's spreading to 2, 3, 4 or 7 hands. If the casino allows it, he has the right to do it. It's his money. Case closed.

As far as your last point, it made no sense, and sounded like vodoo logic. When is getting more money on the table in positive counts "not very wise". Why do you not think he can NOT win like this in the "long term"? There is no mention of the size of his bankroll. Assuming this guy has the bankroll to support this level of betting, the "long term" is this guy's friend; it's not his enemy. If he does this in the long term and gets away with it, he will be very wealthy.

The reseon this thread struck a nerve with me is because I never read so many posts by APs I typically respect make so many comments that made no sense and boarded on ploppy logic. The exception was RC. It was good to see one AP that got it.

The logic from some of the APs was so inconsistent, I wondered if they even understood what they were writing. Some thought it would have made sense if this counter had spread to 7 X $500 rather than 7 X $200. This means if this guy had risked $3,500 rather than $1,400 on one round then all of a sudden his play made sense. What can logic is this?

[refinery]

Some thought it would have made sense if this counter had spread to 7 X $500 rather than 7 X $200. This means if this guy had risked $3,500 rather than $1,400 on one round then all of a sudden his play made sense. What can logic is this?

You really need it spelled out? BJA3 solved this very clearly.

[Freightman]

Methinks various neural pathways of some posters are clogged. I have no further interest in this thread.

[Dbs6582]

You really need it spelled out? BJA3 solved this very clearly.

My point isn't which ones better. It's obviously best to get as much money on the table as possible in positive counts. Yes, betting 7 X $500 gets the most money on the table. But his bankroll also needs to be considered. We have no information on his bankroll. How do the people speculating that he should bet 7 X $500 know he has the bankroll to support this betting level? I've read BJA3 serval times, and I saw no mention of how big this counter bankroll was. This information isn't in BJA3. Only this counter knows the size of his bankroll.

[Freightman]

My point isn't which ones better. It's obviously best to get as much money on the table as possible in positive counts. Yes, betting 7 X $500 gets the most money on the table. But his bankroll also needs to be considered. We have no information on his bankroll. How do the people speculating that he should bet 7 X $500 know he has the bankroll to support this betting level? I've read BJA3 serval times, and I saw no mention of how big this counter bankroll was. This information isn't in BJA3. Only this counter knows the size of his bankroll.

Okay, one more point. Among other things, your comment on us not knowing his bankroll'' size. Is that not on if the main fucking points of this farce you're on.

[Dbs6582]

So, split 10's, resplit if you can, deplete his high cards. Your best result is him losing 1400, regardless of your losing 15-30. He'll be pissed, and when he complains, just tell him it's your money. Even if he wins, it will aggravate him. Of course, don't forget passing your 7 v dealer 6, confidently announcing that you don't want to take his bust card. Hit your 15 v dealer 5's - think you get the gist. For extra measure, hit your 13 v dealer 5, hitting again, if possible. It will drive him nuts.
.

Freightman, I know you don't care anymore but I still wanted to point out one of your many posts in this thread that made no sense and was ploppy thinking. In this post, your advice is to split 10s to "deplete the high cards". The OP said this counter was spreading in the middle of the shoe. This means even though the count was positive, nobody knew where the high cards were located. One of the first things an AP learns is that another person's play does NOT impact their hand. It only impacts the hand of the person playing his hand.

Why do you think this AP will be pissed if someone splits their 10s or did any other bizarre play? If he is truely an AP (and all indications are he is) then he could care less if someone at the table splits 10s. He will know this doesn't impact his hands or his chance of winning. Even if this guy loses $1,400 (which you say is the best result), any knowledgeable AP knows this had nothing to do with a fellow player spilling 10s or any other crazy move.

This type of move will only impact him if he's a ploppy, or thinks like a ploppy (which is pretty much saying the same thing).

[Freightman]

Freightman, I know you don't care anymore but I still wanted to point out one of your many posts in this thread that made no sense and was ploppy thinking. In this post, your advice is to split 10s to "deplete the high cards". The OP said this counter was spreading in the middle of the shoe. This means even though the count was positive, nobody knew where the high cards were located. One of the first things an AP learns is that another person's play does NOT impact their hand. It only impacts the hand of the person playing his hand.

Why do you think this AP will be pissed if someone splits their 10s or did any other bizarre play? If he is truely an AP (and all indications are he is) then he could care less if someone at the table splits 10s. He will know this doesn't impact his hands or his chance of winning. Even if this guy loses $1,400 (which you say is the best result), any knowledgeable AP knows this had nothing to do with a fellow player spilling 10s or any other crazy move.

This type of move will only impact him if he's a ploppy, or thinks like a ploppy (which is pretty much saying the same thing).

Hopeless