See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Sitting Out: some questions

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Sitting Out: some questions

    A big part of my strategy at my local store is sitting out while playing their main game (4.5/6 DAS LS H17 RSA).

    A few things about the typical conditions I see:


    • There typically aren't many tables open - maybe 3-5
    • Penetration varies by dealer from 4-5 of 6 decks
    • I can see most or all of the BJ tables from a seat at any of them - I know when another table is shuffling, whether it has a good dealer (pen, speed, error rate), and how many spots are open.


    My typical behavior is to back-count, wong in at +2, then when count drops, sit out. If the count goes back up to +2, I jump back in (yes, the ploppies love me). When sitting out a bad count, I'm watching for another table to shuffle, ready to jump ship (I'll bail on a partly-counted shoe in favor of a fresh shoe at -1 as per the recommendation in BJA3 - unless my current seating arrangement is worth preserving (good dealer, open spots on either side of me) in which case I might stick around (but sit out).

    My sit-out count varies with how crowded the tables are - if there are multiple open spots at the table, I'll drop out sooner, around 0 to +1. I'll typically wait until I've lost a few hands in a row, lost with a good hand, dealer BJ, etc. before dropping out, making an excuse like "when you can't win with a 20, it's time to drop out" or whatever.

    If the count is really low, I'll take a bathroom break or whatever, but leave my chips so as to save my seat if it's a seat worth saving.

    I don't see much in the literature about playing this way, so I have some questions for the forum:

    1) Is there a term for jumping in and out while seated at the table? "Table-wonging" or something?
    2) Is this a typical part of a back-counting approach to a shoe game?
    3) How much heat does this type of play draw?
    4) Any advice for me to improve my strategy?

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    One of my back offs happened when I sat out hands without leaving the table, and I was only betting reds. The pit boss came to the table flipped thru the discards and about 5 minutes later I got the tap on the shoulder.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    1) Is there a term for jumping in and out while seated at the table? "Table-wonging" or something?
    2) Is this a typical part of a back-counting approach to a shoe game?
    1, WiWo ,self explanatory 2, personal preference and store dependent. 3, usually a lot 4, read as much as possible on the forum and get BJA3.

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    A big part of my strategy at my local store is sitting out while playing their main game (4.5/6 DAS LS H17 RSA).

    A few things about the typical conditions I see:


    • There typically aren't many tables open - maybe 3-5
    • Penetration varies by dealer from 4-5 of 6 decks
    • I can see most or all of the BJ tables from a seat at any of them - I know when another table is shuffling, whether it has a good dealer (pen, speed, error rate), and how many spots are open.


    My typical behavior is to back-count, wong in at +2, then when count drops, sit out. If the count goes back up to +2, I jump back in (yes, the ploppies love me). When sitting out a bad count, I'm watching for another table to shuffle, ready to jump ship (I'll bail on a partly-counted shoe in favor of a fresh shoe at -1 as per the recommendation in BJA3 - unless my current seating arrangement is worth preserving (good dealer, open spots on either side of me) in which case I might stick around (but sit out).

    My sit-out count varies with how crowded the tables are - if there are multiple open spots at the table, I'll drop out sooner, around 0 to +1. I'll typically wait until I've lost a few hands in a row, lost with a good hand, dealer BJ, etc. before dropping out, making an excuse like "when you can't win with a 20, it's time to drop out" or whatever.

    If the count is really low, I'll take a bathroom break or whatever, but leave my chips so as to save my seat if it's a seat worth saving.

    I don't see much in the literature about playing this way, so I have some questions for the forum:

    1) Is there a term for jumping in and out while seated at the table? "Table-wonging" or something?
    2) Is this a typical part of a back-counting approach to a shoe game?
    3) How much heat does this type of play draw?
    4) Any advice for me to improve my strategy?
    Just two quick comments: 1) I think all of the answers to your questions, including WiWo for #1, can be found in the Optimal Departure study of chapter 13 of BJA3. 2) I'm curious as to why you wait until +2 to enter the game you described. Table 10.67 of chapter 10 of BJA3 gives an edge of 0.31 at +1, and that's without RSA, which I didn't include in any of the charts. A quick check with CVCX, and adding RSA, bumps up the edge to 0.41%. You should absolutely want to be playing then!

    Don

  5. #5


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    There was no mention of your betting strategies and they are high on the list of "tells".

    If you are avoiding th evast majority of negative counts then consider a flat bet structure, RoR for your bankroll adjusted. If not flat bet then consider other betting structures that may appear nonoptimal but are good cover. This type of approach will increase your variance but if not done your variance may not matter if you can not play.

    The combination of varying bet ramps and constant wong in and out due to counts will get you an invitation to leave in short order.

    Alos, these comments are for green or higher play, red chip players should have less of this problem and can not afford the type of cover I have suggested.
    Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    if it sit out it's obviously going to be in a bad count but it's only going to be when the table is doing bad, dealer pulls a few 4-5 card 20,21s etc so it's to "change the flow" or some such bs.
    otherwise go to the bathroom take a phone call etc.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    yep...want my phone #, too?
    Posts
    949


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    .....My typical behavior is to back-count, wong in at +2, then when count drops, sit out. If the count goes back up to +2, I jump back in (yes, the ploppies love me). When sitting out a bad count, I'm watching for another table...
    Wouldn't it be easier/quicker to wear a cap, "yo, counting'?...guess if stakes are low they don't care, but is it worth your time?

  8. #8


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    2) Is this a typical part of a back-counting approach to a shoe game?
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    4) Any advice for me to improve my strategy?
    You make it sound like every card counter in the country can implement and use
    a back-counting approach at any time in any casino in the country as long as there are a few empty seats available.
    That is far from the case. Typically you said you have maybe 3 to 5 tables open at a time all close together in the same pit. If you really look at this logically "sure you may be able to get away with it a few times in a very short time frame" but it sounds like you are trying to put a circle into a square hole.

    A back counting approach cannot be relied upon to be available every time or can not be used just everywhere, it presents itself "you will recognize it when you see it" unexpectedly or more often in slower times. The size of the casino plays a big role into this with the number of pits and combined tables. Not counting where you are playing your level of play and how long is your intended session, as well as do you have another casino close by. Messing with ploppies with only a few tables to sit at is asking for trouble big time. Right in front of you, they will in a very short order complain to the floor that this guy is a pain in the ass who keeps screwing up the flow. When you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    My sit-out count varies with how crowded the tables are - if there are multiple open spots at the table, I'll drop out sooner, around 0 to +1. I'll typically wait until I've lost a few hands in a row, lost with a good hand, dealer BJ, etc. before dropping out, making an excuse like "when you can't win with a 20, it's time to drop out" or whatever.
    You will be fooling no one, especially the eye upstairs.
    Last edited by BoSox; 11-30-2018 at 06:31 PM.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Have you seen a unicorn ? they do exist .

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Just two quick comments: 1) I think all of the answers to your questions, including WiWo for #1, can be found in the Optimal Departure study of chapter 13 of BJA3. 2) I'm curious as to why you wait until +2 to enter the game you described. Table 10.67 of chapter 10 of BJA3 gives an edge of 0.31 at +1, and that's without RSA, which I didn't include in any of the charts. A quick check with CVCX, and adding RSA, bumps up the edge to 0.41%. You should absolutely want to be playing then!

    Don
    2) Mostly because a) I thought the edge was lower based on table 10.67 - I never thought RSA would be so valuable since the opportunity is so rare and b) "I want to enter the game where I'm reasonably assured of a little action before conditions deteriorate. I might miss a few advantageous hands, but remember, we don't want to win every dollar possible, we want to win what we can while looking normal doing it." - I read that somewhere....

    Don, can I assume that at higher counts, RSA is worth at least a 0.1% "bonus" over the values in table 10.67?

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    Don, can I assume that at higher counts, RSA is worth at least a 0.1% "bonus" over the values in table 10.67?
    The value of RSA is about ace density. The higher the percentage of aces in the unseen cards the more RSA is worth. T, 9, and 8 density are also important.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    2) Mostly because a) I thought the edge was lower based on table 10.67 - I never thought RSA would be so valuable since the opportunity is so rare and b) "I want to enter the game where I'm reasonably assured of a little action before conditions deteriorate. I might miss a few advantageous hands, but remember, we don't want to win every dollar possible, we want to win what we can while looking normal doing it." - I read that somewhere....

    Don, can I assume that at higher counts, RSA is worth at least a 0.1% "bonus" over the values in table 10.67?
    So, a couple of things. If, in fact, you are doing pure back-counting, and not entering the game until "correct" to do so, table 10.67 does, indeed, show +2 to be the correct entry. If, on the other hand, you're playing all, then when you reach +1, you should be raising your bet there.

    RSA is worth 0.07% to the basic strategist in a 6-deck game. So, it is certainly no surprise that, to a spreading card counter, it would be worth 0.1%.

    Finally, thanks for throwing my words back in my face! Touche! :-)

    Don

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    So, a couple of things. If, in fact, you are doing pure back-counting, and not entering the game until "correct" to do so, table 10.67 does, indeed, show +2 to be the correct entry. If, on the other hand, you're playing all, then when you reach +1, you should be raising your bet there.
    Makes sense. If I'm already in, I certainly stay in if the count falls to +1 - I just don't enter at a mere +1

    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Finally, thanks for throwing my words back in my face! Touche! :-)
    Having never met you, I wasn't sure how you'd take that; glad you saw my attempt at humor.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-04-2015, 03:11 PM
  2. Just won $225 in one sitting using rookie K.O. was it beginners luck?
    By bassplayer3822 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-20-2014, 12:39 PM
  3. Does sitting out and re-entering at positive counts increase bet spread?
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-21-2014, 05:24 PM
  4. Designated Driver: Thanksgiving ploppies sitting all around me
    By Designated Driver in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-01-2005, 01:39 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.