...and another nugget..lol... from OP that was glossed over on this thread
HL AND H2H
...totally different strategy (better learn your many neg indices), ramp and cover
so my overall take..all things considered...no offense to op, but really no clue what was going on here
For a long time I thought your member name was "Snarky". A lot of your comments made it seem fitting. Then one day I noticed your member name was actually "Sharky". I got a good laugh out of my misreading of you member name. I get a snicker every time you make a snarky comment.Originally Posted by Sharky
Update: Just saw my first "maybe" AP at my local spot and today I confirmed it. At first, I thought he wasn't an AP since if you read the 1st post, I wasn't sure if he was playing a counting ap, but he did have solid basic strategy down. I sat down, glimpsed the first round of the 8 deck shoe, I think it was +8 Running count off the bat, and then he put out 2 x $150. I don't remember it. For the next shoe, he leaves the 2 x $100 to 2 x $150 all the way to the end. At first I thought he was just a player who played big and since he never changed his spread much, I assumed he wasn't an AP. Till the 2nd shoe came, a big negative count came by 1/2 way in and just as I was going to wong out, he got up! Interesting, interesting. I super confirmed it when I came back from my wong (which I just cashed out, wanted to end my session) and he dropped his usual bet of 2 x $50 at even neutral counts, to 2 x $25. And let it ride 2 x $25 all the way to the end of the negative shoe, coincidence I think not!
However the interesting thing is; his style of cover for play. I thought long and hard about it. He bets 2 x $50 off the top of the shoe and leaves it riding as long as it is a neutral and begins 2 x $100 at even running counts of 1-2. However his max spread that I saw was 2 x $200? Even from the last session I saw him, he never ramped big. If his intentions are to hide he's an AP by using a smaller spread, but using bigger units, then I guess this is pretty brilliant. In fact, at even a 10-1 spread at the 8 decker at my joint, he's averaging at least $40/hr. He wongs, he's pretty freaking old, so I'm not surprised if he has a thousand indexes under his belt, and has that old man rich vibe. Perfect cover!
If you are somehow reading this, I was your anchor yet again. As for people saying why are you playing at his table - yet again - I left my other table heads up shoe in a negative count and did not want to solo play through it. So I just joined this fresh table. 2nd time seeing him, while I frequent the joint over the past 2 years, so I guess it's my place if anything
That's exactly what I thought at first. So I was thinking coincidence he was playing like an AP, then I saw him lower his spread to 2 x $25 (his real min). With a $50 to $400 that's 8-1 and that's only what I saw. We both wonged out after 3/4 of 1 shoe. I saw 2 shoes. So perhaps I did not see his true max bet. Not hard to think he would go $50 to $500 for a 10-1 at $250 each. Not much of a bump. He's now playing enough money with a "weak" spread that he's averaging $35-40hrly.
The interesting thing is, his tolerance or willingness to play at 2 x $50 to $100 at neutral or below TC-1. Seems like he doesn't mind the variance and slight loss in money in neutral counts to keep his image as a BP? That's my thoughts at least. While his spread may not be the dead giveaway (good for him), his timing of wonging, his decisions on staying 16s and 12v2 or 3 and fast speed decisions without hesitation has me convinced otherwise.
Last edited by 20 to 1 Spread; 08-14-2015 at 12:11 PM.
You are missing the point. Why give anything specific about another AP? There are others out there so what is the big deal. It certainly isn't worth outing another AP or bringing heat onto you which are the 2 possible consequences of your thread.
Update: Played with the same AP again (he came to my table). Some interesting things happen. He opens for 2 x $50 off the top and remains it on neutral. Once the RC went negative, he dropped to 2 x $25. He moved his bet accordingly to the count, but his max was pretty weak (but still quite profitable). He hit accordingly to BS, his 12 vs 2 and 3s. Doubled soft Aces when it was right etc.
However - he kept insuring hands at low RCs on a 8 decker, so probably TC 1-1.5 he was insuring. Is he using this as cover, since he mostly insures his hands, it won't come as a shock to insure when he has his max bet outs? "oh this guy always get insurance" type of cover. this really expensive and should affect his EV...
The most awkward thing he did that stood out to me was the fact that he kept hitting his 16 vs 10 in positive counts. He never stood on them, or at least super rarely that I cant even remember. Last time I checked, you stand at even a positive RC!?!? Or have I been mistaken.... Is he using some sort of complex count? Or is this a form of cover as well. However if he was do it wisely, he would always stay, thus his big bet for 16 vs 10 won't be played incorrectly. Perhaps he's trying to trick us! A wise pit boss will go, in a hot deck, no one would hit their 16! He can't be an AP! But that's like the 2nd most important index for ILL 18.. That must cost a lot. Like a lot...
Like I mentioned. He wonged at negative counts. He spread accordingly to the TC. Just some weird stuff here and there that seem really costly. He seems like he knows what he's doing, so I believe he's doing it on purpose. But why!? I can't make sense of it.
As for why does it matter, it really doesn't. Just thought it was interesting someone would do so many things correctly and then misplay the most important things. doesn't add up. it's weird.
Last edited by 20 to 1 Spread; 08-17-2015 at 05:22 AM.
If you were using an ace reckoned count like Hilo he may have been making more exact plays than you. The aces may have been depleted making his insurance plays correct while you thought it wasn't profitable due to your count having the same tag for T's and A's which has you making more actual mistakes with the insurance bet.
I was thinking that. He might've been using a much more complex count than I could imagine. Which leads me to my next question, he kept hitting his 16 vs 10 in all positive counts. I think just always. I can't imagine a count system that would instruct you to hit 16 vs 10 in so many positive shoes...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks