Don when you say in BJ ATTACK that you never increase your bet after a losing hand even if the count goes more in your favor, and that you also never decrease a bet after a winning hand even if the count goes against you.
Is that only for reasons of camo?
Because from any other standpoint, it dosen't make sense to me.
Just curious,
Hollywood
> Don when you say in BJ ATTACK that you never
> increase your bet after a losing hand even
> if the count goes more in your favor, and
> that you also never decrease a bet after a
> winning hand even if the count goes against
> you.
> Is that only for reasons of camo?
Yes.
> Because from any other standpoint, it
> dosen't make sense to me.
Nor to me! :-)
Don
P.S. See p. 193, #9 and p. 130 and beyond. It isn't as if I made those comments in a void! :-)
I am not an expert on Vegas and other typical American conditions, but in Europe many ploppies may usually act quite opposite: after loss, get screwed up and double or triple the bet, and vice versa, after a win (especially a if a wager was higher than average), lower the bet to "preserve" the money won. I often act this way myself when count warrants.
If you never rise a bet after a loss, you may find yourself in situation, when you lose several hands in row and the count meanwhile rises sky high. Say, you should bet 8 units, but you only bet 1 unit because you lost all previous hands. That is serious underbetting. It will be almost impossible to rise to 8 units in that shoe - when you finally won, you can only go to 2 units, then, if lost again, rebet 2 units etc. It will require 3 wins to get your 8 units out - and meanwhile the shoe is over...
Regards,
Orson
> I am not an expert on Vegas and other
> typical American conditions, but in Europe
> many ploppies may usually act quite
> opposite: after loss, get screwed up and
> double or triple the bet, and vice versa,
> after a win (especially a if a wager was
> higher than average), lower the bet to
> "preserve" the money won. I often
> act this way myself when count warrants.
> If you never rise a bet after a loss, you
> may find yourself in situation, when you
> lose several hands in row and the count
> meanwhile rises sky high. Say, you should
> bet 8 units, but you only bet 1 unit because
> you lost all previous hands. That is serious
> underbetting. It will be almost impossible
> to rise to 8 units in that shoe - when you
> finally won, you can only go to 2 units,
> then, if lost again, rebet 2 units etc. It
> will require 3 wins to get your 8 units out
> - and meanwhile the shoe is over...
While everything you write is, mathematically true, it is impossible to play the game for high stakes in the manner that you describe. Even low-stakes players often get pulled up for jumping bets.
Simply put, jumping bets is the single biggest giveaway of all that you are counting. The problem with "steaming" (increasing after a loss) is that, as you mention, some amatuers do it all the time. But, as a counter, you aren't going to do it all the time -- just when the count warrants it. So, you don't look like a beginner, after all.
Bottom line -- camouflage play has a cost associated with it -- without a doubt. But, bet-jumping has a different kind of "cost": ultimately, they won't let you play!
Don
Obviously it depends on the given situation,if you feel doubling after a loss will cause no raised eyebrows then do it,if it does cause raised eyebrows then dont.
I dont think Don meant for everyone to follow his bet scheme rigidly and never change.
But i know what you mean,I think maybe european and american gamblers have a different mindset.I dont see anything strange about doubling up after a loss or as you say cutting down after a series of wins to stay ahead.
I think actually doubling after a few losses makes you like more like a degenerate gambler
I have read about not rising bets after loss and betting at least the same amount after win several times on different pages. No, suppose, casino spies also read this kind of stuff (OK, maybe not at this page, but there are dozens of others). They already know, that you need at least speread 12 to beat their 6D game. You really cannot do much (except wonging) to camouflage your spread. If only they can observe you long enough, they will see, say, that your minimum bet is 25 and max is 300. Now, further is a monologue of a bit advanced pitboss: Oho, this guy is spreading 12 - probably he is worth a closer look! Now let's see what is his betting pattern - wow - he never rises after a loss and never decreases after a win! Did I read it somewhere that it is a pattern of counter? Perhaps somewhere on the net? Or was it in the book by Don S? Wait! He is betting his max now! The shoe is almost over. Last round. Oh no! - he is spreading to two hands on last round! Perhaps, it's time to stop him...
Maybe my logic is somehow flawed or I simply overestimate the intelect of typical pitboss, but I think the more chaotic your betting pattern will be, the more chances they will take you for a gambler. Chasing losses, cutting dow after series of wins is what most gamblers do every day. Even if the count stays the same for a longer time, there is a room for improvisation, say, do not bet $200 all time, but vary the bets between $150 and 250$. It slightly increases the variance, but not as much as serious underbetting or overbetting after count has changed.
Just my humble opinion, of course.
Regards,
Orson
> Maybe my logic is somehow flawed or I simply
> overestimate the intellect of typical
> pitboss,
It is not humanly possible to UNDERestimate the intellect of a typical pitboss, whose IQ rivals that of an earthworm.
> but I think the more chaotic your
> betting pattern will be, the more chances
> they will take you for a gambler.
I agree with that. Nothing should be done perfectly systematically. But, if you want to get me to agree to bet-jumping, you don't have a chance! :-)
> Chasing
> losses, cutting down after series of wins is
> what most gamblers do every day. Even if the
> count stays the same for a longer time,
> there is a room for improvisation, say, do
> not bet $200 all time, but vary the bets
> between $150 and 250$.
That's fine. EV will remain the same, but variance will increase.
> It slightly increases
> the variance, but not as much as serious
> underbetting or overbetting after count has
> changed.
Depends on the circumstances, of course.
> Just my humble opinion, of course.
I have no qualms with your ideas, which are sound. But, those same pit bosses, whose intellect you so admire (!) -- if they know NOTHING other than their names -- know to be leery of a player who does NOT project the image of a moron, yet who jumps bets. It is suicidal to play that way.
Don
> I am not an expert on Vegas and other
> typical American conditions, but in Europe
> many ploppies may usually act quite
> opposite: after loss, get screwed up and
> double or triple the bet, and vice versa,
> after a win (especially a if a wager was
> higher than average), lower the bet to
> "preserve" the money won. I often
> act this way myself when count warrants.
> If you never rise a bet after a loss, you
> may find yourself in situation, when you
> lose several hands in row and the count
> meanwhile rises sky high. Say, you should
> bet 8 units, but you only bet 1 unit because
> you lost all previous hands. That is serious
> underbetting. It will be almost impossible
> to rise to 8 units in that shoe - when you
> finally won, you can only go to 2 units,
> then, if lost again, rebet 2 units etc. It
> will require 3 wins to get your 8 units out
> - and meanwhile the shoe is over...
> Regards,
> Orson
I think jumping bets is part of it.
I have so many different things I do to promote camo that I always feel fully secure by the way I handle stuff.
For one thing, my counting skills are such that I need only glance at a table to keep track of the count. What this allows me to do is constantly look around the room, and turn around frequently. If I have a male dealer, it even works better. I turn around and look at girls and say things like "did you see that?" (one of the camo practices that's enjoyable).
I keep my dummy cards, and constantly stop the game to check if I should soft double, split certain cards etc.
I am constantly asking pit bosses for advice blah blah blah.
The point is that camo has no one thing attached to it. It's a whole series of things highlighted by the bet increases.
So although I feel you can SOMETIMES get away with an increase at a time that perhaps the count jumped in your favor. I agree with Don 100%.
Overall, I must have a plan. And in that plan I handle it the way of BJ attack. Which must be the way to go, because i'm a high stakes player who has not been busted. And scrutiny at the $100.00 tables is greater then other places.
Another thing, is as a high stakes player I get offers in the mail for gifts literally every day. So I try to tie all my playing into the gifts so that i'm never going on my own, but by invitation.
I figure it always looks better showing up in a casino because they told me to come. It's CAMO.
I mean you want to talk about being fanatical about this. Listen to this one.
I wear a special watch when I play. It looks like any other watch, but it is a watch that handicapped people wear. I do this, so I can preset it before I sit down.
It vibrates to the setting where you can't hear it, (not like a phone that vibrates that everyone can hear) it is only for the feel on my wrist.
A. So I don't lose track of time and stay to long at one table.
B. Because I know how long I can play before my counting skills deteriorate. So before this happens. My watch warns me on both counts.
Nuts huh? maybe so, but all these things are part of the many camo things that tie all this together.
I don't remember exactly, but right in the beginning of BJA, Don talks about a guy who does what he wants at a table. Then Don goes on to say, the guy won't be welcome here anymore, and I will.
That's a big deal to me, being welcomed. So I do all this stupid stuff and play the idiot.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that camo is a big deal and involves many different avenues we must all take.
Besides my substantial winnings, I get literally a fortune in comps each year. If I gave that up then I would be an idiot.
opps, excuse me, I must get the door. One of the video cameras is being delivered from one of the hotels.
Hollywood
Consider almost any action, whether it be increasing/lowering your bets, strategy deviations, insurance, spreading to two hands, entering/leaving a table, etc. that you, as a counter, would want to do freely and you will see it being done (somewhere at some time) by players that are not counting or playing with an overall positive expectation. However, what also stands out is how quickly it is apparent that they aren't playing a positive expectation game. In other words, it's not what you are, it's what you're not. At least with respect to the pit, I think that may be an important initial factor in one's longevity at a given casino and something to consider before assuming that simply because others do it you should be able to do it to.
Absolutely correct! That's precisely the point.
Often, players write things like, "ploppies do this all the time, so why can't you?" The answer lies in the very wording of the question!
Ploppies do it ALL the time -- they were born dumb! You weren't. You don't do it all the time. Sometimes, you look quasi-intelligent. Ploppies NEVER look intelligent, because, let's face it, they're clueless.
Unless, from the very start, your plan is to project the image of the totally clueless, rank beginner (and then, you have to play that way ALL the time, which is, clearly, impossible), making occasional plays that resemble those that the neophyte makes all the time isn't going to work, IMHO.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks