Another counter at the table...

S

smithj

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
(6D, S17, DAS, RSA, ES10)

Yesterday I was playing with another counter (a friend) at the table (just the two of us) and we had a hot shoe with a very high count... we were playing 2 spots each and he decided to open one more spot... so in other words he began to play 3 spots and I stayed in 2.

I have two questions:
1. Does this affect me in any way?
2. Wouldn't it be better to keep playing just 2 spots each for both of us?

At the end of the shoe he won 5 times what I won (same bets). Just in case he was to my left (so he was closing the table) and we were not playing together (separate bankrolls); do not consider heat.

Thanks in advance for your comments,

J.
 
Jack_Black

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
1. Does this affect me in any way?

Yes, It means you don't get as much of the good cards because he is eating them up!


2. Wouldn't it be better to keep playing just 2 spots each for both of us?


well, it's better for your friend to play 3 spots because he gets more +TC cards than you!

P.S. you need to find less selfish friends.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#3
#3
smithj said:
(6D, S17, DAS, RSA, ES10)

Yesterday I was playing with another counter (a friend) at the table (just the two of us) and we had a hot shoe with a very high count... we were playing 2 spots each and he decided to open one more spot... so in other words he began to play 3 spots and I stayed in 2.

I have two questions:
1. Does this affect me in any way?
2. Wouldn't it be better to keep playing just 2 spots each for both of us?

At the end of the shoe he won 5 times what I won (same bets). Just in case he was to my left (so he was closing the table) and we were not playing together (separate bankrolls); do not consider heat.

Thanks in advance for your comments,

J.
Click to expand...
He got a higher percentage of hands, but you knew that? If you didn't, certainly he did.
This is how I play when Barfarkel is at my table. z:laugh:g
 
T

tensplitter

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
It's disadvantageous to both of you to have two counters at the same table. More heat and more variance. Both would be better off to play at different tables (or different casinos).
 
A

Alvaro

Member
#5
#5
tensplitter said:
It's disadvantageous to both of you to have two counters at the same table. More heat and more variance. Both would be better off to play at different tables (or different casinos).
Click to expand...
can you explain me why more variance ?
bearing in mind that he says they were playing with diferent bankrolls
 
S

smithj

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
zengrifter said:
He got a higher percentage of hands, but you knew that? If you didn't, certainly he did.
This is how I play when Barfarkel is at my table. z:laugh:g
Click to expand...
I told him to get back to 2 spots (didn't do it)... anyways, I think we will need to have another conversation...
 
I

idontneedluck

Member
#8
#8
Think the best case would be for both of you to just play 1 spot each? Then you get more hands in at that high count. If a ploppy comes you can just ask him to wait out the shoe.
 
moo321

moo321

Well-Known Member
#9
#9
idontneedluck said:
Think the best case would be for both of you to just play 1 spot each? Then you get more hands in at that high count. If a ploppy comes you can just ask him to wait out the shoe.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you should both be playing one hand.
 
R

revrac

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
I don't think I agree with the both playing one hand. You should both split to the max number of hands allowed. Similar to a "ploppy" eating up the high cards, a dealer eats them up as well. Say you split to 2 hands each, your getting 40% of the high cards, while 1 hand each your getting 33% with the dealer taking 33% himself. The only way i'd change this is if you saw you were close to the end of the shoe and you think you could get an extra deal out of only doing one hand, then switch back to multiple for the deal the cut card would come out.
 
S

smithj

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
revrac said:
I don't think I agree with the both playing one hand. You should both split to the max number of hands allowed. Similar to a "ploppy" eating up the high cards, a dealer eats them up as well. Say you split to 2 hands each, your getting 40% of the high cards, while 1 hand each your getting 33% with the dealer taking 33% himself. The only way i'd change this is if you saw you were close to the end of the shoe and you think you could get an extra deal out of only doing one hand, then switch back to multiple for the deal the cut card would come out.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the optimal considering the scenario described on my first post, would be playing 2 spots each (forgot to mention that we were betting the table max $300).
 
I

idontneedluck

Member
#12
#12
revrac said:
I don't think I agree with the both playing one hand. You should both split to the max number of hands allowed. Similar to a "ploppy" eating up the high cards, a dealer eats them up as well. Say you split to 2 hands each, your getting 40% of the high cards, while 1 hand each your getting 33% with the dealer taking 33% himself. The only way i'd change this is if you saw you were close to the end of the shoe and you think you could get an extra deal out of only doing one hand, then switch back to multiple for the deal the cut card would come out.
Click to expand...
If you bet the same amount per hand on max number of hands allowed as you would on one hand, then yes you would get more EV out of the remaining deck even factoring in more hands per hour. Assuming table has 6 spots, number of cards used if max number hands played is 18.9(assuming 2.7 card per hand on average). If both of you only play one spot, then the number of cards used is 8.1. Thus on average you get about 2/5 of the rounds you would get if both only play one spot. Multiplying this by 3 spots, you would be able to put out 20% more $$ playing 3 spots. But since all 3 hands are correlated, it is much riskier than playing 1 spot only.

Since good cards for the player are bad cards for the dealer, I would think it would be better for the dealer to get more 'good' cards.

I think its also key to note that both the OP and his friend will be spreading to the same number of spots. Thus the effect of more hands, less rounds is more pronounced.

Also think that this discussion is similar to the 1 hand or 2 hands heads up discussion in the theory and math forum and um..doesnt seem like there was any conclusion. See the link below.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=19500

My thoughts.
 
R

revrac

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
idontneedluck said:
If you bet the same amount per hand on max number of hands allowed as you would on one hand, then yes you would get more EV out of the remaining deck even factoring in more hands per hour. Assuming table has 6 spots, number of cards used if max number hands played is 18.9(assuming 2.7 card per hand on average). If both of you only play one spot, then the number of cards used is 8.1. Thus on average you get about 2/5 of the rounds you would get if both only play one spot. Multiplying this by 3 spots, you would be able to put out 20% more $$ playing 3 spots. But since all 3 hands are correlated, it is much riskier than playing 1 spot only.

Since good cards for the player are bad cards for the dealer, I would think it would be better for the dealer to get more 'good' cards.

I think its also key to note that both the OP and his friend will be spreading to the same number of spots. Thus the effect of more hands, less rounds is more pronounced.

Also think that this discussion is similar to the 1 hand or 2 hands heads up discussion in the theory and math forum and um..doesnt seem like there was any conclusion. See the link below.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=19500

My thoughts.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is more risky due to the correllation, higher variance and higher RoR but if you were going from a purely more +EV expectation then switching to multiple hands is better. Also note that you would switch back to one hand if you thought it would buy you an extra deal as in say there are 10 cards left and you think if you play 1 hand a piece you'll get to the cut card on the next deal, then switch back to max hands again on the next deal.

Many of the discussions on the other thread with references to the book are discussing optimal betting which isn't highest EV but takes into account everything else as well.
 
B

bj21abc

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
We don't know if RoR comes into play here - is the $300 table max x2,3 hands in line with what smithj wants to be putting on the table. He's not debating 2x225 instead of 1x300. If RoR is no problem, then yes, bet all spots on the table at table max.


Also - 2 guys at the table, betting in unison with the count - this casino's management must be blind. ES10 so I'm guessing E Eruope, but still - blind.
Always a good thing :)

D.


revrac said:
I agree that it is more risky due to the correllation, higher variance and higher RoR but if you were going from a purely more +EV expectation then switching to multiple hands is better. Also note that you would switch back to one hand if you thought it would buy you an extra deal as in say there are 10 cards left and you think if you play 1 hand a piece you'll get to the cut card on the next deal, then switch back to max hands again on the next deal.

Many of the discussions on the other thread with references to the book are discussing optimal betting which isn't highest EV but takes into account everything else as well.
Click to expand...
 
S

smithj

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
bj21abc said:
We don't know if RoR comes into play here - is the $300 table max x2,3 hands in line with what smithj wants to be putting on the table. He's not debating 2x225 instead of 1x300. If RoR is no problem, then yes, bet all spots on the table at table max.


Also - 2 guys at the table, betting in unison with the count - this casino's management must be blind. ES10 so I'm guessing E Eruope, but still - blind.
Always a good thing :)

D.
Click to expand...
hehe not in the states for sure... and i don't think they are blind about the other guy definitely, he really plays like a counter ($5-$10 and suddenly $100). For that reason i prefer not to be seen with him or other counter together... if they have me on the list, i am pretty sure that they have serious doubts because i play totally different (i use all the camo that i can, i tip pretty good and my relationship with dealers and supervisors is really good)... Also i don't abuse... if i am over $1K i leave (i also try to play 2 hours on average, 2 days a week per casino) ;)
 
P

Polarbearsolvent

Member
#17
#17
Lots of good replies here. One thing I will add is be a bit careful when spreading to multiple hands if you and the other AP are the only players at the table. That can very quickly bring a hell of a lot of heat, especially if your ramps are the same.

As for it being a good idea overall, there are arguments on both sides, but overall its pretty risky unless the casino is blind. Plus, both of you playing heads up at separate tables is -much- better for both of you (more hands/hour, and when you bust/get BJ the dealer does not play out his hand and that happens a great deal more when heads up, making you shoes last longer)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top