How to Approach a Situation?

[Dbs6582]

You did think that the op was smart, when you wrote:

"From the way I read the OP, this counter was able to get a lot of money on the table in positive count when he had an advantage without attracting heat from the pit boss. Part of being a good AP is "getting away with it". That includes cover betting and playing strategy, which is probably what this AP was employing."

Such a wonderful opinion. I am sure all that cover betting while playing basic strategy left the house completely bewildered. Resulting in the OP playing unrestricted for decades.

Valid point. You got me on that one. I did say he might be smart, but my main point all along was he was playing a winning game...as long as he had a big enough bankroll to support it. This is only going on the information given by Bushie. Many posters said they thought he was playing a losing game, mostly because he was spreading to too many spots in positive counts. This was the main debate.

No one has shown any data on why they think someone loses their advantage when they spread to 7 spots in positive counts. This is what I've been asking to see from the group that believes a person loses their advantage when spreading to too many hands in positive counts.

[stopgambling]

My last try to express this point . An AP can lose in a game even with a 5% edge just due to variance.Just because someone is playing with an edge doesn't make him/her smart if they don't know what they are doing.

[Dbs6582]

My last try to express this point . An AP can lose in a game even with a 5% edge just due to variance.Just because someone is playing with an edge doesn't make him/her smart if they don't know what they are doing.

I get it....but that's true no matter what the case is. What does this have to do with this counter and his strategy? Any strategy with a huge edge can result in bankruptcy due to variance and too small of a bankroll. Is that the only point people were trying to make?

And I disagree with what you've highlighted in red. If someone is playing with an edge in a casino where all games are designed to give the house an advantage, then that AP has be somewhat smart to play in a way where he's moved the edge in his favor.

The main way we get an advantage is by betting more when we have an edge (I know I'm stating the obvious). Spreading is the main thing that gives us an advantage...this counter had a 1 to 93 spread ($15 to $1400) once the count was +2 and greater. This is huge spread and thus gives this counter a huge edge (as long as his bankroll supports it). Why are so many APs against what he's doing? I still don't get it.

To reiterate, this counter did the two main things that gave him an edge: 1) he counted so he knew when he had an advantage, and 2) he bet more (a lot more) when he had an edge.

Was he unconventional in how he has able to accomplish his spread? Yes. But this doesn't change that he was playing at a pretty big advantage when he had an edge.

I get that it might have made more sense to spread to 2 or 3 hands than 7 spots, but 7 spots appears to have been working for him. He also had to worry about heat. And Bushie said he wasn't getting any heat doing what he was doing.

Again, I'm only going by what Bushie said. He said this counter played perfect BS and he was a good counter and always raised his bet when it was "decently good". This gets the money (again assuming he has the bankroll to support it and he plays enough hours).

Thank you for your reply. And addressing my question and not attacking me.

[Freightman]

Valid point. You got me on that one. I did say he might be smart, but my main point all along was he was playing a winning game...as long as he had a big enough bankroll to support it. This is only going on the information given by Bushie. Many posters said they thought he was playing a losing game, mostly because he was spreading to too many spots in positive counts. This was the main debate.

No one has shown any data on why they think someone loses their advantage when they spread to 7 spots in positive counts. This is what I've been asking to see from the group that believes a person loses their advantage when spreading to too many hands in positive counts.

It is clear that you have mastered reading. If you can extend your talents to comprehension, then, one may find value in your thoughts.

[Dbs6582]

It is clear that you have mastered reading. If you can extend your talents to comprehension, then, one may find value in your thoughts.

Great put down. You're good at this. Now could you answer my question? Why do you think this counter would lose all his money betting more and spreading to 7 spots in positive counts. I'm interested in data. Not some hypothetical situation.

[Freightman]

Great put down. You're good at this. Now could you answer my question? Why do you think this counter would lose all his money betting more and spreading to 7 spots in positive counts. I'm interested in data. Not some hypothetical situation.

If you had mastered comprehension, you would have realized that I did not say that. What I voiced was the folly of this ploy at true 2, the obvious short comings numb nuts has, which makes his ploy unplayable - regardless of supporting comments by your Brigade brother, RS.

Now, as for your data, I'm not interested in the effort. Regardless of wheather I'm responding to a Ustonzen or DBS0000, it's clear that dealing with you is a circular reference - an unending iteration of useless nit picking trivia, an excercise of futility and frustration. Therefore, any analysis must be produced by your side.

[BoSox]

Why do you think this counter would lose all his money betting more and spreading to 7 spots in positive counts.

Logic. The casino allowed the OP to play, that is all you need to know! I am sure that the casino had a far better evaluation of the man than Bushie's short observation. Just another player with big dreams, and living in fantasy land.

[Three]

At least everyone knows the discussion was about Blackjack.

The funny thing is it probably isn't about Blackjack. It is most likely about Pontoon.

[Three]

Has anyone actually really considered the fact that this guy is a ploppie and that by pure coincidence was betting according to true count. The chance of this is not impossible, especially depending on the amount of time the op was playing with said "counter," making most of speculations in this thread pretty much pointless. Either that or op was in a "counter battle" and didn't even know it.. lul

This strategy is from Kat's book about Pontoon etc. Kat wrote about her using pretty much this exact strategy when they believed the game couldn't be beaten. Of course the same thing COULD be done at BJ but they wouldn't put up with it. The OP wouldn't have to worry about what to do because the casino would end this guy for him. It works better in Pontoon because covariance is a lot lower.

[BoSox]

The funny thing is it probably isn't about Blackjack. It is most likely about Pontoon.

Three, I am afraid you are most likely right on this one.

[SpikeBJ]

Stop the thread, I want to get off...

[Dbs6582]

Logic. The casino allowed the OP to play, that is all you need to know! I am sure that the casino had a far better evaluation of the man than Bushie's short observation. Just another player with big dreams, and living in fantasy land.

Yeah, of course that could be the case. But that's a different reason than believing this counter had a bad strategy based on the information Bushie gave us. I was assuming everybody was basing their opinion on believing Bushie's info was correct.

Yes, this game could also be pontoon but everybody was arguing their point believing this game was blackjack. So if it's really pontoon, it shouldn't matter for the discussions on this thread.

I feel like the goal posts keep moving on why people think this counter will lose. Some think his bankroll is too small to play this way and variance will take him out even though there is no mention of his bankroll size. Some think he wasn't playing the way Bushie said he was playing. And some think the game was pontoon.

I was strictly arguing my point based on the academics of it. Assuming everything Bushie said was correct and the game was bj, was this counter an AP and would he win money in the long way playing this way? My analysis said yes.

I did not assume very bad variance would take him out, or Bushie was giving us bad info, or this game wasn't Blackjack. Who knows it might have gin rummy. That would really make this thread meaningless. Lol

As as far as someone playing big money and getting away with it, this has happened at casinos before, even here in USA. All casinos aren't smart. Joe748 won $400,000 in 400 hours his first year. He had to have some pretty long winning sessions in some casinos to pull this off.

I know many people are getting tired of this thread and it's starting to wear me out too, but at least I now have a better idea on where people are coming from that thought this guy would lose in the long run. It didn't have to do with math...it more had to do with other reason, which do make sense. Thanks!

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Two years ago a student of mine, (thrilled with his Hi-Opt II
results),comp'd me "coast-to-coast", as we used to say,
He simply decided to celebrate his win that day (>$36,000).

He told me that he had been playing for years at a casino
that permitted him to bet every spot on the table without
even requiring higher minimums. He said that he had been
playing spreading aggressively for several years but was
having trouble winning that was near his e.v. He was using
the RedSeven should have amazing results. So he spread
from $25 to all seven (7) spots at $500 each. His spread was
from $25 to $500 X 7 = $3,500 (140 to 1)

He had told me that there was NO heat. That paved the way for
me to say: "There's NO heat. Until there IS!"

I have said that dozens of times to dozens of my students.

Last year this casino made huge changes and now they are a
SweatBox. This was all because a Card Counter (from Canada)
with deep pockets completely burned out the game. He was
there for a week at a time. He was almost as aggressive as my
guy was. The important difference is that he was, (in behavior,
appearance, and style), a stereotype Card Counter. The trouble
was that he was playing on all 3 shifts, way too many hours,
winning far too much money, with hardly a toke!

My guy was incapable of getting the greedy bastard to "instantly
cease and desist" from "burning out" a really nice "Honey Pot".