# Thread: What is the most money you've lost to avoid heat?

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by gayandlovingit
Isn't OP referring to a cover play? And haven't AP's noted that they utilize cover plays during heat? ie, not min betting during a bad count, starting off a fresh shoe with a non-min bet, adhering to BS. You could reasonably argue that every time you don't split 10s when the indices call for it, you're purposefully losing money
Not minimum betting during a negative count is “not losing on purpose”. You have your spread and you play it. If my spread is \$10-\$100 and I sit at a \$5 table, keep the same spread, I am not deliberately losing money. Deliberately losing money is to place a bet and then stand on a 12 against a 10 when the count is positive. Deliberately losing money is splitting 6’s against a 10. Deliberately losing money is to hit a 16 with your max bet out against a dealer 5.

AP’s don’t do it.

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by ZeeBabar
Not minimum betting during a negative count is “not losing on purpose”. You have your spread and you play it. If my spread is \$10-\$100 and I sit at a \$5 table, keep the same spread, I am not deliberately losing money. Deliberately losing money is to place a bet and then stand on a 12 against a 10 when the count is positive. Deliberately losing money is splitting 6’s against a 10. Deliberately losing money is to hit a 16 with your max bet out against a dealer 5.

AP’s don’t do it.
What you're describing are all varying degrees of negative EV, whether it's a small negative EV (playing \$10 instead of \$5 during negative counts), or a large one (hit a 16 with max bet out against a dealer 5).

What's the EV threshold that demarcates cover play from losing on purpose?

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
For luck?
-brick

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by gayandlovingit
What you're describing are all varying degrees of negative EV, whether it's a small negative EV (playing \$10 instead of \$5 during negative counts), or a large one (hit a 16 with max bet out against a dealer 5).

What's the EV threshold that demarcates cover play from losing on purpose?
Then according to you, when you sit at a table and get the first round dealt to you, since count is zero and it’s a negative play, anyone who does that is “losing on purpose”. That is bizarre. By your definition, those who wong in at positive counts are the only ones not deliberately losing.

By my definition, deliberate losing is making the wrong play (deviation from correct strategy) with the intention to throw off heat. I dont split tens ever but it’s because I am selling for a bit less aeV, not making a play expecting to lose.

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I second what 21forme said. No real AP in their right mind would ever lose on purpose. There’s enough losing that occurs naturally, so you would never need to lose on purpose. For straight counting, your edge is so thin, you absolutely cannot afford such nonsense.

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Why don't people realize that absolute precision is very important to BJ success. Sloppy thought is very dangerous.

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I’ve played the perfect pair side bet for \$25 two times just because some pit critters were pushy about it, other than that a few exhaustion/pressure mistakes. Never deliberately played outside proper BS or indices deviations.

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I must have been mistaken. I could have sworn I have heard AP Card Counters admitting they lost money on purpose in order to look lije a Ploppy and not an AP Card Counter.

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Blackjack Newbie
I must have been mistaken. I could have sworn I have heard AP Card Counters admitting they lost money on purpose in order to look lije a Ploppy and not an AP Card Counter.
You are probably not mistaken. Some APs will not make some deviation index plays (like splitting 10s) due to the potential risk of being identified as a counter. So, in that sense, not making the deviation = losing EV = losing \$ on purpose. But accepting less EV as cover is not the same thing as losing \$ on purpose because it is done in the hopes of increasing longevity...which, of course, increases EV in the long run.

You say tomato I say tomato...

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
There is only one hand that a person can "lose on purpose" and that is hitting a hard 21 (If you would even be allowed to hit it).
All the way up to this point you have increasingly negative expectation hands with the worst being a double down on a hard 20

So the only hand that you can "lose on purpose", will draw more heat than just about any other decision that you can make at the blackjack table.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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