1 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
seriousplayer
I have been rereading most of my blackjack books recently. I reread the book "Blackjack:Take the Money and Run" by Henry Tamburin. The book was giving good advices until I read Chapter 9. In that chapter it talks about setting quitting milestones. To be more specific the book mention that if one lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row, one is gone from the table. Regardless of the count. In other words, even if the count is positive one zillion that person is gone from the table if they lose a maximum of 3 or 4 hands in a row. But if one is winning keep setting quitting milestones until the bankroll drops below the last quitting milestone. I might be wrong but I read that enforcing stops can have a negative impact on card counters. The SCORE will be lower when leaving a shoe with high positive counts. Are setting quitting milestones considered a disadvantage in card counting point of view?
I am not doubting Henry Tamburin's work. I just want to make sure this approach is not dangerous to the players in terms of SCORE.
It sounds like Tamburin is trying to inform people on not spending all of their money in one place or on one particular game. It other words, if your winning get up and leave if you lose 3-4 hands in a row. Don't give it all back. If your losing, get up and stop the bleeding. Whether the count goes high positive who is to say that the dealer will not get the winning hands during a positive count.
Most people that I see play at the casinos whether they are an AP or a gambler will sit there and give everything to the house. I believe the hallmark of any Advanced Player is having the ability to walk away from the game or games when the money has been made. In the real world very few can do that. Your not going to take every chip out of their chip rack and your not going to drink the town out of beer, know when enough is enough and be happy that you don't go bust.
Bookmarks