Count-bet Camouflage Gambits

[blackchipjim]

Gambit or not?

The best camo betting I've found was to use the semi progression bets. Doubling up the bet in steps to correlate with count with a few low level misplays seems to keep any heat away. If I know my count warrants a max bet I can get there faster by doubling up and it looks like a true progression. I never did any math on this simple betting flage but it works for me and my longevity.The jump between strict adherence to the count and varied bet is backed up by Dravot's book. Operating between his stated parameters does take a bit more br and the variance does swing wildly at times.

 

[zoomie]

Yes, the Monkey Gambit!

Play two progressions. In positive counts, double your bet after a win and leave it as it was after a loss or push.

In negative counts, double your bet after a win and drop down to minimum after a loss.

You tune the spread by changing how many units you start off the deck with, and by adjusting the threshold points that you consider a positive or negative count.

This system has a lot of nice features. I was using it for the same win rate as a 1-5 spread, on a game that you only need 1-3 to beat. [ . . . ]

Like it. How does it apply to, say, a Vegas or AC shoe game that requires a bigger spread?

 

[moo321]

Like it. How does it apply to, say, a Vegas or AC shoe game that requires a bigger spread?

Well, you need to spread a lot ot begin with in AC. Maybe 1-15, but probably 1-20. If you include camo, you'll want to spread more, maybe 1-30, or be prepared for a loss in EV and increase in variance.

 

[zengrifter]

Arctic posted his in another thread, it may be okay in a decent 2D? >>

I always play two hands of $200 each, for total of $400, on the first round.
I spread to 2x$400, and ultimately to 2x$600.
If the count drops below zero, I reduce to 2x$100 or 1x$100.
I wong out if the count plummets into the abyss.

 

[kewljason]

Anyone else care to share your favorite count-camo betting gambit? zg

My personal opinion: Camo is over rated. Cuts into an already ultra slim margin. Better to play short sessions. Very short. Get in, get the money down in high count and get out. Get out at the shuffle after the first high count.

Yes, you will have to walk and move around a lot playing this way, but that has health benefits as well. Way better than sitting at one table for 6 hours wrapped around two trips to the buffet. Your heart will thank you in the end.

 

[zengrifter]

My personal opinion: Camo is over rated. Cuts into an already ultra slim margin. Better to play short sessions. Very short. Get in, get the money down in high count and get out. Get out at the shuffle after the first high count.

This is a gambit used successfully by some pros since the mid-70s.
The gambits posited in the thread were more aimed at 1-2D, however. zg

 

[moo321]

My personal opinion: Camo is over rated. Cuts into an already ultra slim margin.

I agree. If you have a 5% advantage, you can play around a bit. With 1-2%, you've gotta be aggressive.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Zengrifter Stated It

These ideas are better for 1 and 2 deck and since those games are not what they once were these camo ideas have lost some value. They are all rather expensive; except wonging, and you would need to play longer and cut your bets in order to employ them if you want to have the same overall EV as optimal play. Does the camo have value if you have to play longer, under scrutiny? They also; for the most part, seem to take some additional mental gymnastics to employ. Even leaving quickly as camo has a cost. One may want to look at the possibilities of any of these being superior to quickly leaving, even in the short term. Finally, probably any of these can be modified or employed sparingly to cut the cost of camo.

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[aslan]

There is no 'extra set-aside' for betting camouflage, it just decreases EV and increases variance... BUT these
were borne of a different era of mostly 1-2D. Smaller stakes 6-8D require much less (if any) camouflage, hence
the question: Are any of these still valid? zg

Healthy plus counts are few and far between for 6-8D with average pen so that you are limited to few courses of action:

(1) You can wong in, betting max, and leaving when the positive count is over.

(2) You can flatbet, wonging out in negative counts, while waiting for a healthy plus count, after which you must leave, whether you win or lose.

(3) You can mix it up, using considerable camouflage, as necessary, and wonging out, so that you are playing a near (+-) break-even game, while waiting for a healthy plus count, then if your camo was successful you will be able to bet max bet and then continue to mix it up again in camoflauged play. By camouflage I mean incorporating your favorite progressions, which after all are break-even overall in neutral counts, but used in negative counts, too, as in the gambits described by you above, an occasional out-of-context large bet, oppositional betting, minor deviations from BS, so that the overall result is no worse than about a break-even game (with the exception of plus counts).

I use all three depending on the circumstances, ease of finding other good games, heat index, availability of mid-shoe entry games, etc. I tend to like option three, although I often leave the game after an especially large win or loss, which creates a lot of heat.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Can't Be Critical; It's Subjective, Except

incorporating your favorite progressions, which after all are break-even overall in neutral counts, but used in negative counts, too, as in the gambits described by you above,[/B] an occasional out-of-context large bet, oppositional betting, minor deviations from BS, so that the overall result is no worse than about a break-even game (with the exception of plus counts).

As long as everyone realizes this is very costly to NO; reaching the long run, due to variance of those neutral bets. However, it could be made up with comps if one plays rated.

Any bet or play we make different from optimal increases NO and potentially hurts our EV, but as individuals we do what we feel we must!

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[aslan]

As long as everyone realizes this is very costly to NO; reaching the long run, due to variance of those neutral bets. However, it could be made up with comps if one plays rated.

Any bet or play we make different from optimal increases NO and potentially hurts our EV, but as individuals we do what we feel we must!

:joker::whip:
good cards

I am no longer playing rated.

Progressions in neutral counts cancel each other out in time. Opportunities lost in oppositional betting can be made up for in larger max bets. The riskiest camo of all is making occasional large bets in negative counts either as part of a progression or not, and overdoing it you will find yourself playing more for luck than anything resembling scientific play. I must say that the largest component of my game is playing perfect BS and betting correlated to the count.

 

[zengrifter]

I am no longer playing rated.

Progressions in neutral counts cancel each other out in time. Opportunities lost in oppositional betting can be made up for in larger max bets. The riskiest camo of all is making occasional large bets in negative counts either as part of a progression or not, and overdoing it you will find yourself playing more for luck than anything resembling scientific play. I must say that the largest component of my game is playing perfect BS and betting correlated to the count.

You do all that sh*t and you should be rated.
I watched Fred play some few years back (I think) - he didn't know it was me (if it was him) - he was a hoot doubling for less on 12s and 14s - maxing as high as 500+ - every boss in the club was aware of him, just another mildly flamboyant dufus playing hours on multiple shifts. I'm sure he was rated.

Fred was that you? zg

 

[zengrifter]

Another gambit I watched, not sure who he was, was betting extreme
uneven amounts on 2 hands at 1 and 2D, only a few years back.

He could have played for hours rated. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Healthy plus counts are few and far between for 6-8D with average pen so that you are limited to few courses of action:

(1) You can wong in, betting max, and leaving when the positive count is over.

(2) You can flatbet, wonging out in negative counts, while waiting for a healthy plus count, after which you must leave, whether you win or lose.

(3) You can mix it up, using considerable camouflage, as necessary, and wonging out, so that you are playing a near (+-) break-even game, while waiting for a healthy plus count, then if your camo was successful you will be able to bet max bet and then continue to mix it up again in camoflauged play. By camouflage I mean incorporating your favorite progressions, which after all are break-even overall in neutral counts, but used in negative counts, too, as in the gambits described by you above, an occasional out-of-context large bet, oppositional betting, minor deviations from BS, so that the overall result is no worse than about a break-even game (with the exception of plus counts).

I use all three depending on the circumstances, ease of finding other good games, heat index, availability of mid-shoe entry games, etc. I tend to like option three, although I often leave the game after an especially large win or loss, which creates a lot of heat.

#s 2 and 3 have me stumped. Give us some better examples of them. zg

 

[aslan]

You do all that sh*t and you should be rated.
I watched Fred play some few years back (I think) - he didn't know it was me (if it was him) - he was a hoot doubling for less on 12s and 14s - maxing as high as 500+ - every boss in the club was aware of him, just another mildly flamboyant dufus playing hours on multiple shifts. I'm sure he was rated.

Fred was that you? zg

:laugh: :laugh: The majority of my game is lack luster to look at with just enough (I hope) trash to make me look a bit insane. Mildly flamboyant would not describe me-- more like clueless. :laugh:

 

[zengrifter]

:laugh: :laugh: The majority of my game is lack luster to look at with just enough (I hope) trash to make me look a bit insane. Mildly flamboyant would not describe me-- more like clueless. :laugh:

Take the rating. zg

 

[aslan]

#s 2 and 3 have me stumped. Give us some better examples of them. zg

#2 is just flatbetting in negative counts, and spreading to max bet in plus counts, then leaving after the positive count. It's the same as hit and run without the wonging in.

#3 just employs a lot of different diversions. Maybe I'll do a simple progression in a neutral count, lose, double, lose triple, lose, back to single, repeat.

If the count drops into negative territory, sometimes I will double my bet. Only if I win will I repeat this losing strategy.

If the count goes plus early, maybe I'll let it run to +8 and then jump from flat bet to max bet, and keep it there if the count continues up, and maybe increase it if the count goes down, but still remains +4 or above. Sometimes, I'll "let it ride" at max bet (double up). I will also bet large if the count goes just below +4 (.5% adv and up)-- if the count continues down, then I will have the benefit of all those big cards coming out and if the count goes up, I will be in plus territory all the while and wind up near +4 or better.

I have even been known to bet large at the first hand of a new shuffle after a good win at max bet last shoe. If I win, I may bet large again and again until I lose. Let those "eyes" try and figure out that one!

Also, I will never wong out after a winning hand. Sometimes this leads to hand after hand in negative counts that are far below a logical wong out threshold.

There are things you can do to mix it up that are too numerous to mention. I try not to do any "losing" ploy unless I am already out ahead. It's a balancing act, but if you want longevity at a favorite spot, you have to mix it up and these have proven successful for me.

 

[aslan]

Take the rating. zg

I am looking like a net winner year after year at some places. This alone could get me backed off or half-shoed (in AC). It is not always easy to rathole chips when winning. The appearance of a steady customer that always seems to win cannot be good.

 

[zengrifter]

Another gambit I watched, not sure who he was, was betting extreme
uneven amounts on 2 hands at 1 and 2D, only a few years back.

He could have played for hours rated. zg

I beleive this was the famous team leader known as 'DD'. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Yes. However, I think if you're going to use camo, you need to be making it up someplace else. Bigger spread, wongouts, etc.

Yes, that is the point. zg