Well, BP teams are usually better from a trust standpoint because you only have 1 or two people handling money. If I have back-counting spotters, I don't have to trust them. I'd probably let zengrifter be a back-counting spotter.
Well, BP teams are usually better from a trust standpoint because you only have 1 or two people handling money. If I have back-counting spotters, I don't have to trust them. I'd probably let zengrifter be a back-counting spotter.
One problem with a BP team is that people will probably be using different counting systems. People would only be able to play with other people who are using the same system so you might end up with a few mini-teams and a few lone players.
Also, trust might be less of an issue with an EMFH team since everyone is playing from their own money. No money needs to change hands before or during play. I can understand how people might be hesitant to hand over everyone's money to a BP.
One problem with a BP team is that people will probably be using different counting systems. People would only be able to play with other people who are using the same system so you might end up with a few mini-teams and a few lone players.
Couldn't you choose a signaling point in which multiple systems converge, like TC +4 for Hi-Lo and KO? Then it wouldn't matter which system people were using.
Couldn't you choose a signaling point in which multiple systems converge, like TC +4 for Hi-Lo and KO? Then it wouldn't matter which system people were using.
Is the error due to differing counting systems material in this case? There will certainly be some lost precision, but the % advantage criteria for calling in a BP should be pretty consistent. It seems like the effect on bet decisions will be small.
One problem with a BP team is that people will probably be using different counting systems. People would only be able to play with other people who are using the same system so you might end up with a few mini-teams and a few lone players.
Also, trust might be less of an issue with an EMFH team since everyone is playing from their own money. No money needs to change hands before or during play. I can understand how people might be hesitant to hand over everyone's money to a BP.
Just have the spotter stick around and signal to the BP. BP doesn't need to know the RC if the spotter signals to him. Or you could gorilla, and just have the spotter signal when to enter and leave.
The problem with an EMFH team is that everyone plays on their own and must report their sessions honestly. With a BP team the only person who can steal is the BP. It certainly can be done, but there aren't any people on the internet I'd trust with this approach without having known them for awhile.
With a BP team the only person who can steal is the BP. It certainly can be done, but there aren't any people on the internet I'd trust with this approach without having known them for awhile.
This is an interesting point; I'd imagine that for a team with one primary bankroller, either he or his trusted designee would be the BP, and just pay out the spotters. This way the spotters only need to be trusted to do their jobs correctly, not handle (large) $.
I'm game to negotiate a deal with him...all he has to do is ask.
And yes, I consider myself fairly upbeat, pleasant and friendly...all good things when talking to Gate Agents at Airlines trying to get Bounced for Comps or Hotels for Upgrades.