amateur mistakes

[Meistro]

What are the most common amateur mistakes that neophyte counters or counter wannabees make at the blackjack table?

 

[paymypush]

Taking even money on a blackjack. Playing side bets. Doubling for less.

Not following basic strategy even while holding the darn strategy card in their hand. Gut feelings I guess. There are plenty of examples: Soft 18, sometimes a soft 17 vs 7, 12 vs 3, 9,9. My favorite is the 4,4 vs 5 or 6 double down. This is often done with great fanfare after checking and double checking all the cards on the layout. We all know "that" guy. He wouldn't dream of doubling 6,2 or 5,3 but that 4,4 has some type of hypnotic effect.

I saved what I consider the biggest mistake for last. It has to be overbetting.

 

[DSchles]

What are the most common amateur mistakes that neophyte counters or counter wannabees make at the blackjack table?

Why do you ask? You don't know?

Don

 

[Meistro]

sometimes a soft 17 vs 7,

I see this one a lot, I guess they figure it should be a push because you have to count on the next card being a ten

 

[KewlJ]

Basic strategy misplays are more just new player mistakes, not specifically newer card counter mistake. We all are too familiar with new player mistakes. I want to focus on mistakes by newer card counters. There are two big mistakes that I think many newer card counters make.

1.) ramp up too slowly. A lot of the books, from the 80's and 90's offer some sort off generic betting ramp that is ramping up too slow for today's games. One that immediately comes to mind, is one of the first books I read, Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack. Wong had a standard ramp (he used different terminology, which I now forget) that was $10 for all TC's below +2, $20 @ +2, +30 @ +3, $40 @ +4, $50 @ +5 and so on. He referred to $10 as his "unit" and raised in $10 increments per true count.

So to get your max bet of say $120, or $160 (1-12 or 1-16 spread), you aren't going to be max betting until a TC of +12 or +16. which rarely happens. So basically anyone going by this type of ramp is playing a game with a 1-5 spread of so, because you just aren't going to get true counts of more than +5 very often....not often enough to be beneficial. Don't get me wrong, still a lot of good information in Professional Blackjack or other books from this era that does transfer to today's games, but the betting ramps used are too slow.

I also don't think that minimum wager placed at TC's below +2 should be considered the unit and bets raised by that increment, but that's probably getting into another discussing. For the purpose of this discussion, lets just keep it at "ramping up too slowly".

2.) sessions that are too long, in particular, a session consisting of an initial big loss and an extended period off digging out and getting back to even or close to even. Newer counters think this is a great thing. They often comment "it feels almost like winning". I too did this a few times early on, and probably felt the same way. But it is one of the worst things you can do.

That big loss at the beginning likely means you had a number of strong count opportunities and as sometimes happens, you lost the majority of them. The rebound later likely means you won more of your big bet (high count) opportunities later on. This means you showed your spread too many times, going from your smaller bets to the larger bets, and the worse 'tell', going from the larger bets back to smaller bets at the shuffle. You gave whoever might be interested all the information they need. You made it easy for them. Only way it could have made it any easier was to tattoo "card counter" on your forehead. Newer player often think because they didn't win this long session of digging out, that there is some sort off immunity. Nothing is further rom the truth. You may escape paying the price for this action, this trip (session), but they will nail you right away on your next visit.

And worse of all, you missed an opportunity to "book a loss". This isn't something newer players think about, but losses occur during the natural play of card counting. When they do, book a loss. Dig out next time. This is how you increase longevity.

 

[Meistro]

Part of the difference might be inflation as well. $50 in the 80's is a lot different from $50 today.

 

[KewlJ]

Part of the difference might be inflation as well. $50 in the 80's is a lot different from $50 today.

I think you missed my point. Whether ramping up $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, or $25, $50, $75, $100, $125, or even $100, $200, $300, $400, $500, the ramp is too slow, or maybe the better word is too shallow. You have got to ramp up faster. You have to get to your max bet by a TC off +4 or so, not a TC of +10, +12, or +16 which rarely occur.

 

[ZeeBabar]

Mine was underbetting, not splitting a pair of 9's against a 9, not doubling A,8, against a 5-6, not hitting A,7 versus 9-A, not hitting 12 against a 6 in negative counts (the last two because I did not want to upset the ploppies), paranoia about heat etc., etc. Digging out of holes through long sessions and thus staying too long was also an issue because the high from winning a session was great and the low from losing a session was tooo low.

Time and ridiculing by folks on another forum and sometimes on this one cured many of those errors.

 

[KewlJ]

Mine was underbetting, not splitting a pair of 9's against a 9, not doubling A,8, against a 5-6, not hitting A,7 versus 9-A, not hitting 12 against a 6 in negative counts (the last two because I did not want to upset the ploppies), paranoia about heat etc., etc. Digging out of holes through long sessions and thus staying too long was also an issue because the high from winning a session was great and the low from losing a session was tooo low.

Time and ridiculing by folks on another forum and sometimes on this one cured many of those errors.

Come on Zee...you know the saying.,. "there are other players at the table?" I like to give credit to 21forme, but other's have said it as well. It just doesn't matter what other players say or think. Well, there is a specific situation where other players do matter. I call it "secondary attention". Say like you split 10's and someone makes such fuss that it draws the attention of a pit person, who now knows you split 10's when they otherwise wouldn't have. But in the absence of something like that...forget the other players at the table. They are insignificant. What they say or think is insignificant.

And you know what Zee, you should extend that mentality to other members off various forums. Just forget those that only want to ridicule you. Focus on those that are offering advice that may be beneficial to you and forget the rest.

Hitting 12 s 6. I don't think I have ever done that. Yeah, I understand that it would be the correct play at a certain negative count. (What is that count BTW?). But for me the better alternative is to not be at that table at a count so negative that hitting 12 vs 6 is the right play.

 

[DSchles]

"Hitting 12 vs 6. I don't think I have ever done that. Yeah, I understand that it would be the correct play at a certain negative count. (What is that count BTW?). But for me the better alternative is to not be at that table at a count so negative that hitting 12 vs 6 is the right play."

This is an astonishing statement from someone as knowledgeable about the game as you. The Hi-Lo index for standing on 12 v. 6 is ... -1!!! I've hit that hand a thousand times.

Don

 

[Meistro]

The index for standing 12 v 6 depends on whether the dealer hits or stands on soft seventeen.

 

[Midwest Player]

"Hitting 12 vs 6. I don't think I have ever done that. Yeah, I understand that it would be the correct play at a certain negative count. (What is that count BTW?). But for me the better alternative is to not be at that table at a count so negative that hitting 12 vs 6 is the right play."

This is an astonishing statement from someone as knowledgeable about the game as you. The Hi-Lo index for standing on 12 v. 6 is ... -1!!! I've hit that hand a thousand times.

Don

Is this correct for today's games? I was just looking at BJRM where your Illust 18 shows 12 vs 6 for -1 for S17 and -4 for H17 Halves count. Hi-Lo shows -3 forH17. Is BJRM wrong?

 

[KewlJ]

This is an astonishing statement from someone as knowledgeable about the game as you. The Hi-Lo index for standing on 12 v. 6 is ... -1!!! I've hit that hand a thousand times.

Don

Really!?! Hey live and learn. I never claimed to be all that knowledgeable. I sometimes say, I am probably the dumbest card counter/AP in the club.

Actually tc -1 is about my threshold for exiting. I do play some counts @ tc -1, maybe even up to (or down to) tc -1.5. But generally I exit negative counts aggressively.

I can't imagine there is much of a "penalty" for not hitting 12 vs 6 at tc-1? Especially right at or close to the index.

That will give me something to consider, but I can already think of a reason not to:

Hitting 12 vs 6 is a pretty uncommon thing no? As a card counter we try to hide what we are doing as best we can, but it is pretty hard to pull off that we are not at least basic strategy knowledgeable type players. So if pit, surveillance figures us for basic strategy type players, and we go and pull a move like hit 12 vs 6, does that not draw some attention? Maybe along the lines of a splitting 10's where the pit saying goes "only idiots and card counters split tens". Seeing someone who the pits considers a knowledgeable BS player hit 12vs 6...won't that give them something to consider? To look into?

If there is any kind of extra attention drawn like that, the little bit of gain from hitting 12 vs 6 at tc -1 (I definitely am not there at -2, or -3) with my minimum wager out, probably fails the benefit / non benefit test for me. But again, I'll give it some thought.

 

[Meistro]

I remember one time a ploppy was criticizing my play, and I told him "That's funny, I don't remember asking for your opinion". He was not too impressed with my witty rebuke.

 

[Meistro]

I can't imagine there is much of a "penalty" for not hitting 12 vs 6 at tc-1? Especially right at or close to the index.

Presumably right at the index the EV is the same either way or close to the same, although I guess most indexes are rounded for ease of use so it might be slightly better. Personally I get a kick out of using all my indexes. My strategy for leaving games depends a lot on my spread. Like if you are playing a table with a higher minimum, but your bankroll is such that you can't spread high then you have to exit more aggressively. But if you can make it up with a high spread then it's okay to sit through some more negative counts, especially at a table with a low minimum bet, especially if it means continuing to play heads up.

 

[21forme]

ridiculing by folks on another forum and sometimes on this one cured many of those errors.

You're welcome

 

[21forme]

Actually tc -1 is about my threshold for exiting.

No wonder you've worn out body parts

I would never wong out at -1 unless I'm counting a second table at the same time and there's a better opportunity. So many times it can turn around. -2, yes.

 

[KewlJ]

No wonder you've worn out body parts

Is that what it is? Exiting negative counts aggressively is prematurely wearing out my heart valves? I will run that one by the doc and see if he thinks there is anything to it. You must have slept at Holiday Inn Express last night?

I would never wong out at -1 unless I'm counting a second table at the same time and there's a better opportunity. So many times it can turn around. -2, yes.

Well, that's you. I don't want to play negative counts. I just don't. And I am in a position that I don't have to. There are many other games nearby. I am not in a position where I have to get xxx amount of rounds per day or week. I want to get as many +Ev rounds as I can and ultimately as many 'max bet' rounds as I can and playing negative counts just doesn't fit into that plan. I have a very short leash.

 

[KewlJ]

So many times it can turn around. -2, yes.

Fooling around with the software, you will notice that yes, very often TC's of -1, -2 turn around to positive TC's. But just positive TC's are not my goal. My goal is my max bet TC, which is usually tc +4. Once the TC hits -1 or -2, it may rebound to a positive count, but much less rarely the 'max bet' positive count that I am looking for. I am better off taking my chances with a new game of the top (assuming I am not tracking multiple games and can immediately jump to a better opportunity).

 

[KewlJ]

I remember one time a ploppy was criticizing my play, and I told him "That's funny, I don't remember asking for your opinion". He was not too impressed with my witty rebuke.

I used to do this, but there really is no benefit to it. Some of these people are irrational in their thinking, in that when they lose they are looking to blame someone else. You add in the increasing number of unstable people in the general population, and who needs that. What good can come from it.

So here is the way I handle it now. Say someone criticizes my standing on 16 vs 10 (plus count). I say "yeah you are probably right". Diffuses the situation, they feel superior, but I know that maybe not this session or today, but over the course of the month or the year, I will win and they will lose. That's enough for me.

The funniest things is when someone criticizes my play, let's say that 16 vs 10 example. I say "yeah you are probably right". Two rounds later, I get 16 vs dealer 10 and the count is still plus...I stand.