Anyone find value in negative counts with min bets being an opportunity for some cover betting. Example: split tens
21forme,
I guess I'm missing something. Let's say you're playing heads up and the cut card is 7 cards away in a deeply negative shoe that, for whatever reason, you don't want to leave.
If you play one spot, the CC might very well appear on this round (especially if you take extra hits, as Freightman suggested): if so, you've played only one minimum bet; if not, you'll have to play a total of two minimum bets.
If you spread to two spots, then the CC will very probably appear on this round (unless the dealer's and/or both of your hands are naturals, or everybody is pat), so you will play at least two minimum bets, with an outside chance of even more.
So what is the advantage of spreading in this case? Is it that you get to the shuffle in fewer rounds and, thus, less time?
Dog Hand
Yes, first presumption is that there is a reason I can't just get up and leave the table (which I won't go into) unless I was going to leave for the day. By playing two hands heads up, you are eating more cards per round. This is exactly the reason that you shouldn't spread to two hands, heads up, in a positive count, unless you are bumping up against table max. Perhaps Don can jump in and explain it more eloquently and quote a page number...
The oft missed component, that of elapsed time. Getting to a new opportunity (new shoe) more quickly seeking better composition, and thus, Maximus Profitas.. So what is the advantage of spreading in this case? Is it that you get to the shuffle in fewer rounds and, thus, less time?
Oh, wouldst I could kick the habit and give up Latin for good - Shakespeare at the strip.
Sounds like you did this during a high end play session possibly on a no mid shoe entry table making something like a $5 double. Under that scenario I would forget that move, as doing this now becomes more memorable than it already is, something that you don't want. Aside of all that the situation that you presented seemed like a good time to be taking a rest room break before the hand.
Last edited by BoSox; 12-15-2020 at 01:07 PM.
Depends on the play and your definition of negative count and min bet. I generally don't like these plays because the casino generally isn't watching you when you're betting small.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Depends on the audience, but generally No.
The only worthwhile audience for this stuff is the "Don't take the bust card" or otherwise irritating ploppies, who believe you're responsible for their losses on account of you hitting A7v9. Depending on your risk tolerance (for being assaulted) a couple of card-eating negative EV plays might drive such people away from your table, which boosts your hands per hour.
As for casino employees? At green or red stakes, there's no point: Your intended audience (the pit, or maybe surveillance) doesn't much care, particularly because you have a minimum bet out, and because most of them wouldn't know a bad play anyway - the ploppies make plenty of these all day. And they have other things to think about.
If you ever have occasion to share a table with a dealer or pit boss from another casino, you will be amazed by the voodoo: "Don't take the bust card." They're just as likely to think you're an idiot for making the right play.
Bookmarks