amateur mistakes

[ZeeBabar]

I would re-think this Zee. Retreating back to the minimum wager at the shuffle is absolutely the biggest tell of a card counter, especially after ending the last shoe with a max or bigger bet out.

Unfortunately, there are not many options for avoiding it. You can leave at the shuffle as I do, or you can not return all the way back to minimum wager, as Zengrifter has at times suggested. I don't like this non-minimum wager for shoe games as it is just too costly. @DD, you can afford to do that a bit more. As a matter of fact, my normal DD spread goes both ways. The advantage of this, is pit, surveillance need to see both negative counts as well as the max bets counts to see your full spread.

I guess I disagree. Lots of ploppies do it, I do it. Start a shoe with the same bet every shoe. I have had Pit guys chatting with me when I did this. I say "here we start again, lets hope this shoe starts better" or some such thing. I usually start a DD $25 min game with a single bet of $50 or two hands of $25, often a shoe with one hand, next shoe with two hands. Its working for me so far.

 

[Meistro]

at least if u r only using 6-1 spread it's not quite as noticable

 

[KewlJ]

I guess I disagree. Lots of ploppies do it, I do it. Start a shoe with the same bet every shoe. I have had Pit guys chatting with me when I did this. I say "here we start again, lets hope this shoe starts better" or some such thing. I usually start a DD $25 min game with a single bet of $50 or two hands of $25, often a shoe with one hand, next shoe with two hands. Its working for me so far.

Well, if what you are doing is working for you, then keep doing what you are doing. It just seems like it wasn't very long ago, you were posting about all the heat and back offs you were experiencing.

One other thing for your consideration: Chatty pit guys are not your friend. You may think you are turning on the charm and are likeable. They are just doing their job. And more often than not, when they come over all friendly like, chit-chatting up a storm, they are either "fishing", trying to distract you or just gauging your response (whether you become nervous or uncomfortable). In my experience, a chatty pit person is one of the first signs that your play has drawn some interest.

 

[Meistro]

Unfortunately, there is no way to handle the chatty pit boss other than to chat right back. Usually it is best to stop counting and just engage in conversation with them.

 

[Rob Bin]

Why do you think they are not your friends? They are until they find out you are a counter. They see you as fool who Will handle them his money. They also see you as main reason they work, because without you they would have to work something else, different job.

 

[KewlJ]

So Midwest Player, how is your effort to prove me wrong (or whatever it is you are doing), going?

While I no longer have my copy of Professional Blackjack, I stand by what I said. In the edition I had and I can't even tell you what edition that was, Wong used a standard set of numbers, throughout his book. He didn't use the word "standard", he used a different word or terminology that I just can't remember. But anyway, it was a $10,000 BR, $10 minimum bet which he referred to as unit. And he raised his bets in $10 increments per true count, $20 wager @ TC +2, $30 @ TC +3, $40 @ TC +4 and so on up until wherever he capped the spread, 8-1, 10-1, or 12, maybe 16-1, I don't remember.

But anyway, I am now sort of sorry that I singled out Professional Blackjack. I didn't know you were going to repost the quote on other sites, which taken out of context of the topic of the thread, "mistakes newer card counters make", just made it look like I was trashing Professional Blackjack, which was not my intent. Professional blackjack is still a good book. A lot of good and useful information. Just like a number of other books from that time period, the financial recommendations, involving, bet spread and ramp are outdated for 2017 and the worse games available today. With Today's conditions, a player has to ramp quicker than those recommendations from the 80's. A lot of new players are using outdated recommendations on spread and ramp and even RoR and are not ramping up quick enough, not getting the max bet out quick enough for today's conditions. THAT was the point, not to discredit Professional Blackjack.

 

[BoSox]

Yeah pressing can work. You see regular players doing that all the time. I prefer parlaying, as I just mentioned, but whatever works. All you really want to avoid is something that looks very unnatural like winning a $50 bet and betting $300 on the next hand.

I guess I should also share my view on decreasing after a win, since it was asked. I don't worry about decreasing my wager nearly as much as increasing, with the exception of the biggest of 'tells', decreasing back to minimum at the shuffle after a max or bigger wager.

Other than this biggest of tells, I decrease at will. The most common course of action after a win, is to bet the same amount. So the player is pulling back the winning chips anyway. So what difference does it make if you pull back only some of the winning chips, all of the winning chips, or even all of the winning chips plus some of the original bet. It's all the same action as long as you are not too 'awkward' about it.

The truth is some of these things, we all, myself included, probably over think. Some of these things probably don't matter as much as we think. Unless someone is really watching you, really evaluating your game, in which case you are probably in trouble anyway.

When making any unusual betting changes which should be a small percentage of actual play, make it a little harder for anyone who may be watching you, by switching it up 40 to 50% of the time on winning hands. What I mean is get into the habit of after some winning decisions, and the payoffs are made to pullback everything in the circle and re-stack on your chips, and now come out with a fresh bet. Especially if you plan something a little unusual on the next bet, this should be an automatic planned move when you already saw the last card played in the completed round.

 

[KewlJ]

When making any unusual betting changes which should be a small percentage of actual play, make it a little harder for anyone who may be watching you, by switching it up 40 to 50% of the time on winning hands. What I mean is get into the habit of after some winning decisions, and the payoffs are made to pullback everything in the circle and re-stack on your chips, and now come out with a fresh bet. Especially if you plan something a little unusual on the next bet, this should be an automatic planned move when you already saw the last card played in the completed round.

Interesting Bosox. I do this on the final hand of a shuffle when I have won a hand and am reducing for the new shuffle. If I was betting max bet before the shuffle, I will exit rather than go all the way back down, but if I was betting something less than max, say $150 and won, I pull back all chips, put them with my stacks, and then throw out my smaller new bet just before the dealer is ready to deal again. But I have never considered doing this with all bets, when reducing. Just off the top of my head, it seems like a little bit unnatural move, but is something to think about.

 

[Midwest Player]

So Midwest Player, how is your effort to prove me wrong (or whatever it is you are doing), going?

But anyway, I am now sort of sorry that I singled out Professional Blackjack. I didn't know you were going to repost the quote on other sites, which taken out of context of the topic of the thread, "mistakes newer card counters make", just made it look like I was trashing Professional Blackjack, which was not my intent.

Don't worry KJ when Norm saw your quote he deleted it. He was either looking out for your interest or didn't want to see a word from you mentioned on his site.

Professional Blackjack was kind of my bible when I was first starting to play blackjack. I don't remember any betting ramp in it, but I had the old 1978 or 1982 edition. It was a black hard cover book. You probably had the 1995 edition of Professional Blackjack. I too have that book, but I only skimmed it because it seemed like most everything was the same as the previous edition.

Anyway, it wasn't only Professional Blackjack, it was all the books I read in those early days. I don't remember a single one give a betting ramp. The reason I was losing in those early years was because I wasn't spreading enough. I'm sure I would of done better if I knew how much to spread. Of course that was over 25 years ago and at may age my memory might not be the best.

PS. I wish you the best in your recovery from heart surgery.

 

[KewlJ]

Don't worry KJ when Norm saw your quote he deleted it.

I am aware.

He was either looking out for your interest or didn't want to see a word from you mentioned on his site.

Yeah, probably one of those two. I honestly no longer have any animosity towards Norm of any kind, I really don't. Life is just too short to get bogged down in all the negativity that he and I have been bogged down with for a couple years now. When I think of Norm, I have nothing but gratitude for his software products that have enabled me to be as successful as I have been. Minor success compares to many/most, but beyond my dreams. I am not mathematically smart enough to have figured out and learned the things that I would have needed to learn and know on my own. Without the benefit of Qfit's products I would probably be some sort of lower management at home depot or target.

I don't remember any betting ramp in it, but I had the old 1978 or 1982 edition. It was a black hard cover book. You probably had the 1995 edition of Professional Blackjack. I too have that book, but I only skimmed it because it seemed like most everything was the same as the previous edition. I don't remember a single one give a betting ramp.

You don't remember the use of a term, like "standard" referring to bankroll, minimum wager, betting unit and amount raised per TC? The word used was not "standard, or "uniform" or "default", but it had that meaning. I just can't recall the exact terminology and it is driving me crazy. As soon as I am bit healthier and more mobile, I am going to head to a library and refresh my memory. UNLV has a nice collection of blackjack material, think I will head there.

The reason I was losing in those early years was because I wasn't spreading enough. I'm sure I would of done better if I knew how much to spread.

And this really was the point of my post, in a thread about mistakes new counter make. I think you are or were not alone. I think many new players, including current are influenced by bad information or lack of information regarding spread and especially ramp. And when I say "bad", I just mean outdated as far as today's games and conditions. With larger house edge to over come and less frequent, +ev counts, it is a must that a player get his max bet out by TC of +4 or so. To wait any longer as I remember Professional Blackjack and other books from 30 years ago, suggesting, just isn't going to get it done vs these games and conditions.

 

[BoSox]

You don't remember the use of a term, like "standard" referring to bankroll, minimum wager, betting unit and amount raised per TC? The word used was not "standard, or "uniform" or "default", but it had that meaning. I just can't recall the exact terminology and it is driving me crazy. As soon as I am bit healthier and more mobile, I am going to head to a library and refresh my memory. UNLV has a nice collection of blackjack material, think I will head there.

KJ did you happen to mean the word "benchmark" that Wong used throughout the book?

 

[KewlJ]

KJ did you happen to mean the word "benchmark" that Wong used throughout the book?

Yes, indeed sir! Benchmark...that is it. Thank you. Throughout the book $10,000 bankroll, $10 minimum bet (referred to as unit), raising in $10 increments per true count until whatever cap 1-8, 1-12 was reached. This had the effect of not getting those larger bets out until TC's of +8, +12 or whatever the cap was.

In other words, the recommended ramp was far to slow. Maybe not for the time the book was written, but far too slow for today's games. I think newer counters are still influenced by these outdated spreads and especially betting ramps, not only suggested by Professional Blackjack, but other books from that era as well.

 

[xengrifter]

ZeeBabar, you do show some thick skin when it comes to these message boards, but yet at the blackjack table you, you don't show that same characteristic, instead worrying way to much what other players think or say. Try to work on that.

Yes: worried about other players, worried about the house suspicions of no rating, etc.

I don't like this non-minimum wager for shoe games as it is just too costly.

NOT too costly! LOL

 

[DSchles]

You don't remember the use of a term, like "standard" referring to bankroll, minimum wager, betting unit and amount raised per TC? The word used was not "standard, or "uniform" or "default", but it had that meaning. I just can't recall the exact terminology and it is driving me crazy. As soon as I am bit healthier and more mobile, I am going to head to a library and refresh my memory. UNLV has a nice collection of blackjack material, think I will head there.

The word you're looking for is "benchmark."

Don

 

[KewlJ]

The word you're looking for is "benchmark."

Don

Yes Don, thank you, "benchmark" is the term I was looking for. Bosox came up with it late last night. It was really driving me crazy that I could not come up with it.

 

[KewlJ]

NOT too costly! LOL

On this you and I will have to disagree. For a round or two, yes, maybe the cost is not excessive, but that is not how I use this technique. I am essentially "resetting" my minimum wager to a higher amount than I was playing, to avoid retreating back to my original minimum wager. I am not just resetting for a round or two, but for at least most of the next shoe at which point I can again drop back to my original minimum wager. It is sort of a two step process to avoid showing what I believe is the biggest of tells, dropping all the way back at the shuffle. Doing it for more than just a token round or two, has too high a cost (in shoe games).

 

[xengrifter]

On this you and I will have to disagree. For a round or two, yes, maybe the cost is not excessive, but that is not how I use this technique. I am essentially "resetting" my minimum wager to a higher amount than I was playing, to avoid retreating back to my original minimum wager.

We have no disagreement then...
...but I can recall some years ago when we did.

 

[KewlJ]

We have no disagreement then...
...but I can recall some years ago when we did.

Are you speaking of this specific topic or in general? In general, yes, I am quite certain we disagree on numerous thing. On this topic, although I don't know what you are referring to, it is quite possible we used to see something differently and no longer do. I tend to evolve on things. I like to call it "learning".

 

[xengrifter]

Are you speaking of this specific topic or in general?

Yes, I remember when you refused to make a bigger bet OTT when you won the big bet(s) at shoe's end.
You would just walk... and I felt that such was too telling.
You argued with math, calculating that it would cost you $1,300/yr in -EV
At the time you had had a few curious backoffs or strange management encounters.

 

[Meistro]

That's the great thing about Colombian blackjack, there is no house edge so you can make a big bet off the top with no loss in EV.