The "creative art" is not in your words but giving them something they can assume from watching you. I don't think it wise to go into details but if you are good at it they will be unsure you bets moves are based on the count. People who change their bets have many different reasons. They know what most of them are and are trained to separate the wheat from the chaff. You want to look like the chaff so that you can just blow by undetected.
Personally, I think you are selling both pit and surveillance short.Originally Posted by Tthree
The way I see it there are two different approaches that can improve longevity. One is cover. Various forms of cover. Various acts. The bottom line is you are trying to trick those that may be watching. There is usually a cost to most cover plays and moves and that cost adds up. The second approach, my approach, is to try to draw as little attention as possible. It's more about playing in the shadows. Playing at levels that are tolerated so you don't stand out. And short quick sessions.
One problem with any 'act' is that we, think we are so creative, and pulling something new. Most of these pit guys have seen it all. You think you are 'tricking them', but your not....just spending money trying to. Another problem with the "trick em" approach is that you can literally insult the pit and surveillance. I have a pit friend who has talked about this. He'll mention cover plays that were uses and says "what do they think I am stupid?" Now he's a part-time recreational counter, so maybe he is more sensitive to that type of thing than other pit/surveillance people, I don't know.
I am not saying my way is the right way for everyone. But it's the right way for me. Maybe other ways work better for other players and other styles and other locations.
Getting back to this alternating bet spreads thing. Let's say you are using two spreads, one double the other as previously mentioned. Lets say spread #1 is $10-$80 and spread #2 is $20-$160. So you spread $10-$80. The shoe ends with you max betting your $80. At the shuffle you have to retreat backwards....this is always the vulnerable spot for a counter. So now you go into your second spread, minimum wager $20. That's helpful, you didn't retreat all the way back.
But now the other scenario, you spread $20-$160, ending the shoe with your $160 max bet. Now you have to retreat back even further to the minimum bet of your smaller spread $10. This makes the total spread you are showing in this one short period seem double $10-$160. How is that cover and buying you anything? I think it is working against you and making it look like you are playing an even bigger spread. ???
You go back to $20 not $10. Creative art means not playing like a robot. It is an improv to use what is going on to make you look like you aren't or even can't be counting. The art is in doing it so you still have almost the same but are making inexplicable betting moves and maybe even plays. First you need enough EV that you can afford to give up some. Many don't have this.
Anyway in my effort to keep things brief I am guessing you never developed this art because you have the luxury of moving to another store after one max bet cycle. Most people play in areas where they don't have this luxury and need to become real artisans. I wish I had that luxury but the reality is a bit different in areas without casino clusters. Judging by how far off your assumptions of how to be an artisan are I think this is a safe bet.
Now, I think you are selling me short.While my game doesn't revolve around my act, there is some acting in my game.
I have mentioned some of these things. Small buy-ins (when I buy in for cash) and I mean really small. 4 minimum wagers. And I go out of my way making sure I am buying in with $20's and $10 for effect. (first impressions). Often I don't even sit or if I do, I sit only half facing the table, half facing away as if I am ready to bolt. This signal that I won't be there long without saying a word. So don't sell me short, I have some act in my game.
I am just not convinced this approach buys you all that much.
Last edited by KJ; 05-21-2015 at 11:58 AM.
Thanks KJ. It is just another tool in the toolbox. I am not one for accepting increased variance. I do a lot more than most to increase certainty/lower variance. While that may mean I can give some of that back for cover I am not doing all I do to reduce swings to just invite larger swings as a blanket part of my game. I could see doing it sparingly when it fits the circumstances.
While looking at the sum might get you a correct ramp if you were betting evenly on both hands (and expecting each bet to be 0.75 of a single bet for one hand), what alternating bankrolls throws into the mix is that you have to consider the difference (or more accurately, in my opinion, probably the ratio) between the bets. A two hands of $75 may get you the same risk as one hand of $100 but it's not the same thing, risk wise, as one hand of $10 and another of $150. I'm sure the difference in variance is quite blatant
That's why they make vanilla and chocolate. Not everyone has a use for this style but that does not render it ineffective in ALL case. It is just another tool that should be understood and used when appropriate.
In my use, when I go to two hands, it is for total bet of what one hand would have been. I want to generate the same amount of EV with less variance and to get some cover. That is, the variance on a total bet of $300 for one hand is greater than the sum of the variance for 2 hands, one of $100 and the other of $200 and the EV is the same. Part of the attractiveness is to reduce variance not increase it.
The other choice is to increase your total amount bet to make the variance equal to your one bet and to increase your EV at the same variance and add some amount of cover or piss off the pit because the think you are trying to fool them, as indicated.
KJ indicated we were not giving the pit due consideration and I have to say the bell shaped curve based on the intelligence/understanding of pit people would not cause us to think that the majority understands much beyond basic strategy level, if even, and we move way out on the curve with card counting, deviations etc.
As with most things in this topic of AP play, your results may vary.
Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!
You could change this up in so many ways. On one shoe, you could alternate your bankrolls like has been mentioned. Then on the next shoe, you could use one bankroll on even cards and the other on odd cards. On the shoe after that, you could use one bankroll on black cards and your other on red cards. You could switch it up in a lot of different ways. If an observer were trying to figure out your technique on high counts, it would drive them crazy if in fact they were even concerned with HOW you were doing it. The "how" may not matter to them. They may boot you anyway. And of course, nothing will fool a computer if that surveillance guy is willing to input it all.
All the smoke and mirrors in the world will not fool them on negative counts though. On the negatives, you really only have 3 choices. Either "play all" with minimum bets, white rabbit/wonging, or get convenient phone calls and bathroom breaks.
So what's the answer? Bottom Line: Know your store. Wonging will work at some places and not others. A big bet spread may be tolerated at one, but not the other. You may only be able to play short sessions at one, not the other, etc.
I may be preaching to the choir here, but this particular tool (alternating bankrolls) is only going to valuable at certain places. It's like a key to a lock. This key may indeed open up treasures at a particular store, thereby giving it much value. At another, it may be practically useless.
People keep coming up with random triggers for alternating the bankrolls. I would use either EV maximizing triggers like playing the low half of your TC bucket withe the lower BR and the high half with the upper BR or something that would make sense to the pit like whether or not you won the last hand, people joining the table, or any other behavior that would explain you as not an AP. The other thing may be trying to opposition bet which the former idea of what part of your TC bucket you are in may do for you. It would also lower your RoR on your big BR and raise it on your small BR. I know that would make me more comfortable about doing this.
In my opinion having them decide they know why you are moving your bets that is independent of the count but as a ploppy would due to superstition or moving of bets in opposition to the count is what buys you true cover. If they are trying to figure out what you are doing you want them to come up with something, not be baffled. Once they figure out an explanation or give up on finding an explanation they either forget about you or take the review to the next level. If you want them to forget about you you need them to decide they know why you are moving your bets and it has nothing to do with counting cards.
Last edited by Three; 05-26-2015 at 12:23 PM.
If one were to use TCs of +1 to +4 for the small BR and +5 to +8 and above for the big BR, won't that be an obvious big jump? The amount bet between +4 and +5 would be so different that as an observer, I would interpret this as "this guy starts going big at +5."
I had also thought of mixing opposition betting into this as well. I already OB. I have never utilized alternating bankrolls because I am not comfortable with the pit seeing such a huge gap in betting and I also do not like the variation that would be involved. I find alternating bankrolls intriguing though and am still considering it in some mild form and on a limited scale.
You misunderstand. For TC +1.0 to +1.4 use BR1 for TC +1.5 to 1.9 use BR2. For TC 2.0 to 2.4 use BR1 and for TC 2.5 to 2.9 use BR2 ...
So the count goes from TC 1.5 to 2.4 and you go from BR2 to BR1. The idea is the strong end of each TC taken to 1 decimal is bet with BR2 and the weak end of each TC taken to 1 decimal is bet with BR1. You could even raise your bets some on BR2 (the bigger BR)
Last edited by Three; 05-27-2015 at 05:59 AM.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks