Casino Training by not using bet spreads.

[BrokenSaints]

Right now I don't feel I am at a level to play huge spreads. Obviously since practicing in a casino is the best experience available I have been playing 5 dollar min table lately just for practice.

To get the most out of my practice.

I find a fast dealer
I find a busy and loud table during a busy time.
I use basic strategy, counting and deviations to the best of my ability and try to recognize my weaknesses.
I also do my best to have conversations and use cover.

To me this training is well worth the .6 of a percent house edge. Flash cards counting decks and studying charts could only take me so far I think this has helping to take my game to that next level.

Let me know what you think about this and if you think it is worth the money? I was also wondering if anybody did this when they were learning to count?

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by BrokenSaints

I was also wondering if anybody did this when they were learning to count?

I didn't do it intentionally, but I was a BS player for many years before moving towards AP.

This is my opinion, but I completely agree with you. Most people start spreading too early and just ignore the fundamentals. If they want to earn more money, most people increase their bet spread, which does increase EV but also increases variance by quite a bit. My reccommendation:

0) Play basic strategy until it's second nature. If it takes you more than a quarter of a second to decide whether to split 9's vs. dealer 8, you're going to lose the count when you're dealt 99 vs. dealer 8 at a TC of +3 with T-A, 5-5, 3-7, and 9-9 on the table.

1) Learn to Wonging out. As you count cards, whenever the count gets too negative, invent an excuse to leave. If you leave when the TC drops below -1, you halve the house edge with minimal risk.

2) Next, find a good way to Wong in. Count up a table quickly, and only enter when the count is +1 or higher. If you Wong in at +1, and Wong out at -1, you've just broke even with the house without spreading at all.

3) Then start increasing your bet spread. A 1:2

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by callipygian

...
1) Learn to Wonging out. As you count cards, whenever the count gets too negative, invent an excuse to leave. If you leave when the TC drops below -1, you halve the house edge with minimal risk.
..

dumb question i know. so how about if you wong out half of the times that the TC drops below -1 and play all the rest of the times. that would be cutting the house edge by one quarter?

and if that's the case would this work for flat betting cutting the house edge by 1/2 or 1/4 or what ever?

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

so how about if you wong out half of the times that the TC drops below -1 and play all the rest of the times. that would be cutting the house edge by one quarter?

I would assume so, assuming the half that you choose to sit out is random. If it's not random, there might be differences.

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

would this work for flat betting cutting the house edge by 1/2 or 1/4 or what ever?

That's actually exactly my point. Most people (including me when I started) try to negate house edge by increasing their bet spread, which does work, but also increases variance (thus requiring a large bankroll or accepting high ROR). Something as simple as sitting out very negative counts does the same thing and actually lowers variance. If you're practicing counting, Wonging out should be the first thing you should do (even if it won't give you the advantage by itself).

[BrokenSaints]

Thanks I will start doing that

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by callipygian

I would assume so, assuming the half that you choose to sit out is random. If it's not random, there might be differences.

yeah thank you for the opinion it would seem to make sense. think i'll sim it and just see how it goes. cause i may actually try and tailor some of this way into my play which counting wise is less than perfection to begin with.

Originally Posted by callipygian

That's actually exactly my point. Most people (including me when I started) try to negate house edge by increasing their bet spread, which does work, but also increases variance (thus requiring a large bankroll or accepting high ROR). Something as simple as sitting out very negative counts does the same thing and actually lowers variance. If you're practicing counting, Wonging out should be the first thing you should do (even if it won't give you the advantage by itself).

yeah i know all about that variance tagging merrily along with a larger bet spread lol.
so but another question and a guess on my part. if sitting out very negative counts actually lowers variance the question arises why or how so? i mean actually i believe it's true that you win virtually just as many hands in negative counts as positive. my guess would be less successful double downs and splits would be the biggest factor driving the greater variance? not that it wouldn't be the thing to do to make the doubles and splits per basic strategy with maybe proper departures just that doing so is making for greater variance?

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

if sitting out very negative counts actually lowers variance the question arises why or how so?

Because your actual result (0) always matches your EV (0) when you sit out.

You also play fewer hands, so your variance per time goes down.

[blackjack avenger]

Playing weaker is not playing safer

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

Playing weaker is not playing safer

lol why didn't i see that comming and from whom. i'm trying to be good
in a crafty sort of way

[_shed_]

Hey guys,

i've been doing the same thing as brokensaints, backcounting a £5 table then wonging at +2, flatbetting, playing BS and Il18 and wonging out at 0. But jeez isn't this keeping the count thing whilst playing damn difficult!!

But i'm really thinking this whole sitting out negative counts thing looks really suspicious. Tonight, sat down at fresh shoe, TC never gets positive enough to play, just munch on the free sandwiches, during the next shoe count *still* doesn't get positive enough and now i'm just feeling really itchy but because it's 4 decks, the shuffle comes again around fairly soonish (the pen is ~80%) so i don't mind just sitting there pretending i'm texting someone on my phone.

The third shoe winds up at a RC of -6 so now i really think i've been keeping this seat warm for too long so spot a fresh shuffle elsewhere and am really bored that i've been at this joint for nearly an hr and have not played a single hand so i lay down £5 right after the shuffle and get TT, dealer busts. The count is still zero so I play the next hand and win that too, then it tanks so i sit out. Fresh shoe and then I play from the beginning again and win the next 2 hands then stop with my £20 profit.

But that was like after 3 hours!

I know it's probably just variance but i'm glad i wasn't playing those negative shoes and the ploppies were losing bigtime but anyone think that it's harder in a 4 deck game for the count to reach a decent amount than compared to a six deck game?

i have 2 joints near me, one with 4D and the other with 6, so is it really better to play the 4D game, cos my experience so far has told me that the TC gets much higher with the 6D game. Anyone else find this?