KO team techniques

[Raixs010]

I was wondering if there is any good information that gets more in depth regarding proper technique to a blackjack team using the BP method.
Specifically more on betting spreads the BP uses, what count to call a BP in at, because at too low of a count it seems like the BP may only stay for a hand or two if the count drops.
I'll be using the KO system, 4 person team, around a 25k bankroll.
Thus far, any calculator I've found regarding betting and more information in books only really helps solo players.
Lastly, when the BP comes in, do they need to know all the indices and assume the count is high or do they just play BS?

Many thanks!

 

[moo321]

I don't know for KO, but usually a hi-lo TC of +2 or so is generally good for call-ins. That's if you're doing a modest spread, 1-3 to maybe 1-6.

If you don't want to spread, call in at +3 (equivalent), or a little before, and flat bet.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The more spotters you have the higher the threshold should be for the call-in. Because you don't want the BP coming in on a moderately high count when a really big one appears someplace else.

 

[Raixs010]

For this situation we'd have at least 2 spotters, so with the KO i'd assume you'd want it above the pivot point to prevent the count from dropping after a hand or two. I'd prefer to try and stay at smaller tables of course to prevent that from happening, but tables can fill up pretty quickly depending on the time of day.

 

[Sonny]

I was wondering if there is any good information that gets more in depth regarding proper technique to a blackjack team using the BP method.

Million Dollar Blackjack and Blackjack Attack cover this topic pretty well.

-Sonny-

 

[Raixs010]

I've read through KO blackjack, Stanford Wong's Blackjack Secrets, and Million Dollar blackjack, and I don't recall it saying too much beyond how the BP system works, while not getting too in depth. Regarding the betting system, I was pretty sure it only dealt with betting spreads by yourself. Other times they talk about using a BP they just talk about betting the max, which with a 25k bankroll seems like way too much with an average 500$ max. Also, i'll assume that the BP should learn all necessary indexes regarding the count being high, seeing how they'll only be called in with a high count, and not just playing BS, correct?

(I'll have to dig up Million Dollar Blackjack and reread it)

Also, would it be alright to have the spotters having a betting spread as well?
For example, if multiple tables have good counts, but the BP is already at one, would it work well to have the other spotter start spreading his bets to take advantage of it?
This is assuming you have no other BP able to come to the other table to start betting.

 

[Dyepaintball12]

If the spotters start to spread than it is possible they could be made as a counter too.

 

[Raixs010]

Well all counters have spreads, but you'd only be doing it off and on. most of the time it'd just be a flat bet.

 

[Bojack1]

Well all counters have spreads, but you'd only be doing it off and on. most of the time it'd just be a flat bet.

Yes all counters have spreads, thats exactly why BP team play is such good camoflauge, there seemingly is little to no spread noticed by the pit even though the spread is huge. As a spotter you should rarely spread your bets. If you have an advantage and the BP is busy and can't get there than maybe spread 1-2. The whole concept of this method of play is to eliminate any counter play characteristics. Starting to spread as a spotter defeats this. Getting backed off as a spotter because of your play is an inexcusable offense. Better to miss the occasional call in then not be able to play. Better yet depending on size and skill of your team you could have a secondary BP for the overload. If you are only using 2 spotters that should rarely happen though. I would'nt think about using multiple BP's unless there were at least 4 spotters.

 

[JoeV]

I was wondering if it really is feasible to still use the big player team approach. Hasn't it been done so much that any casino is aware of it? If it can be done what sort of things are done to hide it? I'm pretty sure how its done but how can it be pulled off regularly without attention being brought on? I know there are some that say they still use this,but really what kind of stakes can be bet?

 

[Sonny]

Specifically more on betting spreads the BP uses, what count to call a BP in at, because at too low of a count it seems like the BP may only stay for a hand or two if the count drops.

The spread and call in number will depend on the number of spotters, the number of BPs and the game. You’ll want to use a call in number that gives the BP a big enough advantage and has him busy enough so that he’s not standing around waiting for a hot shoe, but not so busy that he’s missing opportunities at other tables. His bet spread will depend on the advantage at each count he is playing and what sort of RoR you are comfortable with. Blackjack Attack covers all of these issues.

Lastly, when the BP comes in, do they need to know all the indices and assume the count is high or do they just play BS?

They can still have a good advantage without using any indices, but you are better off having them play a strong game. If they know the indices then you’ll have to signal them the RC when they arrive and they’ll pick it up from there. If they don’t know the indices then you can still use them as a Gorilla BP and signal them how to play the hands. Uston’s book covers this in great detail.

For example, if multiple tables have good counts, but the BP is already at one, would it work well to have the other spotter start spreading his bets to take advantage of it?

It would look very strange for a $5 bettor to suddenly start betting $200+ per hand. As Bojack said, that defeats the purpose of having BPs. If you set up your team properly then you shouldn’t have very many overlaps to worry about.

-Sonny-

 

[rogue1]

Richard Munchkins interview with Johnny Chang & wife

The interview is on Arnold Snyders' website (so there is something that makes it worth going to!) Johnnys' wife said they didn't use indices except for 16v10 and insurance and they were "making money like pigs"

 

[Sonny]

The interview is on Arnold Snyders' website (so there is something that makes it worth going to!) Johnnys' wife said they didn't use indices except for 16v10 and insurance and they were "making money like pigs"

They were using a modified BS for their BPs which included a lot of positive indices. Since they were only playing in positive counts they would always stand on 16 vs. 10, double 9 vs. 2, 11 vs. A, etc. In that sense they were using indices, but they were built into the strategy, similar to Uston’s old “strike numbers.”

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

They were using a modified BS for their BPs which included a lot of positive indices. Since they were only playing in positive counts they would always stand on 16 vs. 10, double 9 vs. 2, 11 vs. A, etc. In that sense they were using indices, but they were built into the strategy, similar to Uston’s old “strike numbers.”

-Sonny-

Yes there are a couple of modified strategies for specific purposes like that. There's one that I've used for sequencing, when you put big bets down that have nothing to do with the count but with expectation of an ace. Well what happens when you don't get an ace? Certain plays (split 66 vs 2, double A2 vs. 5 etc.) have such low advantages that they are not worth the added risk when you have put a big bet down and gotten one of these unspectacular hands. So there's a risk-averse BS for that.

Then there's a BS for the seated player when you're playing the rider-split game, where the seated player sacrifices his own EV to improve that of a back-betting player with a large bet.

 

[JoeV]

All the advice and comments on this type of team play has been very good, But I was still wondering if its still practical to play this way due to all the attention the MIT teams attracted to it. And does anybody here use it successfully still. I like the idea of it but if its an outdated method I'd rather try something else. What are the pros and cons? Thanks for any help.

 

[RJT]

Yes it is still practicle to use the BP techniques, just not to the same scale as the MIT used to use it. Essentially when they played they burned out the possibilities for teams to play at those stakes (mulitiple hands of $10000 at times). It's still very hard to spot and very profitable as long as you're not betting too high. That being the case, there are teams out there doing this very successfully right now.

RJT.

 

[Sonny]

All the advice and comments on this type of team play has been very good, But I was still wondering if its still practical to play this way due to all the attention the MIT teams attracted to it.

Sure, it still works. People have been using this technique since the 70s (and probably before that). The fact that the MIT team was still getting away with it even after it was so widely used by Hyland, the Czechs, Francesco, the Greeks, and many others and published with meticulous detail by Uston (a New York Times best seller) should give you an idea of how practical it can be.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

All the advice and comments on this type of team play has been very good, But I was still wondering if its still practical to play this way due to all the attention the MIT teams attracted to it. And does anybody here use it successfully still. I like the idea of it but if its an outdated method I'd rather try something else. What are the pros and cons? Thanks for any help.

One big con associated with it is that you have to be making enough to pay all those people. You'll need skilled, experienced counters as your spotters, and your pay has to be sufficient to make it worth their while to work for you and not work on their own. Good luck with that. If you want to pay them less than what they could make on their own, you have to agree to pay them whether you win or lose, and that kind of overhead significantly reduces the level of bets the BP can safely make.

Another problem you'll run into with a BP is a limited number of stores with a table max high enough to justify the BP style of team play. You'll be limited to a few dozen large operations, all of which have seen this before. If I were designing a team, I'd use a very different structure.

 

[RJT]

Another problem you'll run into with a BP is a limited number of stores with a table max high enough to justify the BP style of team play.

If you are playing high enough that you are struggling to find tables with a high enough limit, then you are play too high and will burn out quickly. Hell you shouldn't even be playing high enough that you need to be in the high stakes pits these days. And you can still make a good amount playing $5-$50 tables. Truth told, if you would play the venue as a solo counter with the same bankroll, then there's no reason not to play it with a BP team. Your max bet shouldn't change that much, it the minimum that your spotters play that allows the huge spread. So playing with 2 or 3 spotters, you shouldn't see too much of an overlap with regards to positive situations and this is just the equivalent of 2 or 3 counters playing with a huge spread.
The real limiting factor is how busy the casino is and how long you want to play. Playing for hours on end in the same pit will eventually draw attention as the spotter will be leaving the tables every time the BP turns up. That's why you should limit the number of times any one spotter calls you in to any one table. The busier the casino is and the more tables (and pits) it has, the more time you can afford to play there. But you will always have a longer lifespan playing the BP team than counting individually and trying to achieve the same spread - or even a lesser one.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

If you are playing high enough that you are struggling to find tables with a high enough limit, then you are play too high and will burn out quickly. Hell you shouldn't even be playing high enough that you need to be in the high stakes pits these days. And you can still make a good amount playing $5-$50 tables. Truth told, if you would play the venue as a solo counter with the same bankroll, then there's no reason not to play it with a BP team. Your max bet shouldn't change that much, it the minimum that your spotters play that allows the huge spread. So playing with 2 or 3 spotters, you shouldn't see too much of an overlap with regards to positive situations and this is just the equivalent of 2 or 3 counters playing with a huge spread.
The real limiting factor is how busy the casino is and how long you want to play. Playing for hours on end in the same pit will eventually draw attention as the spotter will be leaving the tables every time the BP turns up. That's why you should limit the number of times any one spotter calls you in to any one table. The busier the casino is and the more tables (and pits) it has, the more time you can afford to play there. But you will always have a longer lifespan playing the BP team than counting individually and trying to achieve the same spread - or even a lesser one.

RJT.

Can't agree with that. 2-3 spotters and a BP is not like 2-3 counters.

First of all, with seated spotters they are still playing and spending money at other tables, including some very bad counts, even when the BP is playing a good count. Secondly, individual counters are going to be walking away from bad counts so they are going to be seeing more good counts. Sonny and I discussed this a while back, and came to the conclusion that you are better off having all team members backcounting and individually playing good counts to the combined bankroll than calling in a BP or calling other players over to the table.

The way I would structure a team would be a mix of the two philosophies. Let's call it the IDIC model. Let's say there were 8 players. I would send them out to play in pairs, sort of a buddy system, and for every session everyone would be paired up with a different buddy. That way the floor wouldn't see the same players playing together all the time, and more importantly, players would be discouraged from ripping off the team because they are always being watched and always by someone different that they can't be sure would go along with a conspiracy to rip off. At the same time, you're getting most of the benefit of having players play individually. Players could even mix and match techniques depending on who they are playing with. With one guy you could just backcount, with another you would combine counting and tracking techniques, and with another you might play a call-in game. This way the casinos would be confused as to who is doing what and where, the team BR would be relatively secure and the players would be learning new techniques with one another.