6 deck - 2 spots always?

[VonDox]

I really do appreciate the info and guidance on this issue. I experimented today of playing 2 hands when the RED 7 TC hit 1 and I seemed to do okay. I changed my bet spread accordingly so instead of playing 4 units at a count of +1 I dropped down to 2 spots of 3 units and as the TC climbed I ramped up accordingly. When the count dropped to zero or below I would play 1 additional hand using 2 spots and then back down accordingly. At each table I played at I never had less than 2 other people playing so playing. When for about 10 mins I was sitting along regardless of the count I returned to just playing a single spot. I just got in the mail today all the "Beat the X-Deck" booklets that Snyder put out. Special thanks to AndretheGiant for selling them to at such a reasonable price and passing on some History.. Many thanks to you! Love the old dot matrix print out tables and Arnold's comments under them.. Wish I could have met the man...

[moo321]

I think [redacted] is a real counter tell. I got quickly backed off doing this red chipping at 2D decades ago. I'd recommend going to two hands with a total of 1.5 x your normal ramped bet (split between the two hands) at TC>=4 to get more money on the table at the same RoR. Whether you are heads-up or there's another player at the table would also be a consideration.

It's never a good idea to make posts telling casinos how to catch you. This is a public board.


You probably got backed off because you were playing double deck in Las Vegas. Or at least playing a game with a crew that was paying attention to the game. Or you bet an amount they didn't like. Or you went to two hands when it could be observed that doing so brought attention. It's only a problem if they're looking for it.

[VonDox]

At the tribal casino I play at, so far, there has been no issue with splitting.. or I ask the dealer any issue with me playing 2 spots occasionally and they either let me know it's okay or not. When I go I try to avoid the peak hours when the drunks are all just dropping chips left and right and having a fun time. Either I have done it enough already that it doesn't seem to phase them or they just don't seem to care that much. I was pushing out 2 spots of $50 on Monday when the count hit +3 when I had been playing 1 spot of $10 and they did call out green action but the floor boss never even came over.. So, I guessing at least for now, I am not either winning enough to worry them or what. So far, it seems to have flattened the variance mostly.. I win one and I lose one. Where I make the money it seems on those 2 spots is if I can double/split one or both hands.. Appreciate all the good advice here.. many thanks.

[G Man]

What casino is this ?

[awesomeblue7]

It's never a good idea to make posts telling casinos how to catch you. This is a public board.


You probably got backed off because you were playing double deck in Las Vegas. Or at least playing a game with a crew that was paying attention to the game. Or you bet an amount they didn't like. Or you went to two hands when it could be observed that doing so brought attention. It's only a problem if they're looking for it.

I second that betting an amt they didn't like with an observant crew. I got backed off in a single shoe at the tribal the OP is likely talking about. All I did was stand my max bets 16 v10 and lost 1.6k in my first ever shoe. Going 2 hands are TC 4&5

[VonDox]

If you want to know, private message me please. I will reply... I have played their for 2 years putting in, on average, 24 to 36 hours a month playing BJ and Baccart with about a quarter of that time in the high limit room. Slots are too confusing to me and I find it boring to play them..

[G Man]

I don't want to know !
The point is, people are giving so much information about their play on open boards, it's not surprising they get barred out of the blue.

[Archvaldor]

Worth adding that sometimes departing from the recommendations of a count system might be advisable with an awareness of different hand totals. This is information commercial count systems don't consider.

If say, you have a stiff, you might want to stand on it if your first hand is a 20. The reason being that there is a decent probability of one hand winning and one losing if you stand, and this probability is reduced when you hit.
The logic here is similar to sports betting arbitrage-you generally give up some of your expectation when you lock in an arb but the reduction in fluctuation allows your bankroll to grow faster than taking a position on one side.

You might want to give up some expectation to reduce your global variance if the count is very near the relevant strike number. Don't overdo this, but anything that helps when you shove out the money is worth doing.

[Norm]

This is all included in risk-averse indices.

[Archvaldor]

This is all included in risk-averse indices.

I'm not talking about risk-averse indices in the conventional sense.

Risk-averse indices do not take into consideration the relationship between the different hand totals of two hands.

There is a correlation between win/loss probability of your first and second hand. All things being equal you would like this correlation to be as low as possible to reduce your global risk.

[Norm]

Theoretically. I'm having some difficulty believing that such calculation is worth the speed and effort. I continue to believe that speed is a very important aspect, too often ignored.

[Archvaldor]

Theoretically. I'm having some difficulty believing that such calculation is worth the speed and effort. I continue to believe that speed is a very important aspect, too often ignored.

This can actually enhance speed of play. If you stand when you might otherwise hit to lower your overall risk between the two hands this has the by-product of increasing the speed with which the hand is resolved.

I think what you mean is that if considering factors such as the covariance between hands causes you to play slower this probably isn't good idea. It probably isn't. Most things like this have to come with no reduction in speed of play to be worth implementing.

That said I don't think it is terribly difficult to shade a play decision when the count is near a strike number using the criteria I mentioned.

[Kaiser11]

Good day everyone,

I have been trying to follow up on this thread, and I would like just to kindly ask: if absolute no cover needed, then you say that it is the best to play 1 spot and go up to 2 spots on a TC 1 to take the best possible EV?

At the casino I play, I definetely do not need any cover, but I do have all kinds of playing alone/busy tables, and I normally have the chance to play 1 or 2 spots at my call, when other players around.

Would you recommend to stick to, either ALWAYS play 2 spots as Norman's Book shows, or does it really make it always a better EV moving to 2 spots on TC 1 if no cover needed? what about 3 spots, if allowed?

Thanks in advance.