first 200 hours counting cards
- Thread starter JohnCrover
- Start date
Ok, so for anyone confused by these Zengrifter comments/questions let me do some Zengrifter to earthling translation.
Zengrifter, believes and advocates and rightfully so IMO, that spreads should be figured from the top down rather than the bottom up. You first determine your max bet, whether it is based on bankroll limitation (RoR) or some betting threshold that you have determined is within the casinos comfort level. Once you have determined the Max bet, you just work backwards to YOUR minimum bet, which may or may not be the table minimum bet.
So let's say either based on my bankroll or a threshold that I want to stay below for heat purposes, I decide I am going to Max bet at $400. This is actually a max bet that I use at a lot of games and casinos. So I would work backwards probably using a minimum wager of $25, which would be a very standard 1-16 spread.
Now what if I find myself at a $10 minimum table, which I often do. Under the Zengrifter method of working backwards I would basically use the same spread, but I could drop my minimum wager back to $10. This would now be a 1-40 spread, which sounds a lot different, but when you do the math, your win rate is only going to change slightly. Not nearly as much as you might think and NOT nearly enough to offset the extra heat/attention you will draw by spreading 1-40 through 3 different chip color denominations....which is a big no-no in my book.
So THAT is what Zengrifter is getting at. Did I hit that about right Zengrifter?
Zengrifter, believes and advocates and rightfully so IMO, that spreads should be figured from the top down rather than the bottom up. You first determine your max bet, whether it is based on bankroll limitation (RoR) or some betting threshold that you have determined is within the casinos comfort level. Once you have determined the Max bet, you just work backwards to YOUR minimum bet, which may or may not be the table minimum bet.
So let's say either based on my bankroll or a threshold that I want to stay below for heat purposes, I decide I am going to Max bet at $400. This is actually a max bet that I use at a lot of games and casinos. So I would work backwards probably using a minimum wager of $25, which would be a very standard 1-16 spread.
Now what if I find myself at a $10 minimum table, which I often do. Under the Zengrifter method of working backwards I would basically use the same spread, but I could drop my minimum wager back to $10. This would now be a 1-40 spread, which sounds a lot different, but when you do the math, your win rate is only going to change slightly. Not nearly as much as you might think and NOT nearly enough to offset the extra heat/attention you will draw by spreading 1-40 through 3 different chip color denominations....which is a big no-no in my book.
So THAT is what Zengrifter is getting at. Did I hit that about right Zengrifter?
And while I am at it, let me say this. I think John Crover sharing his experience is one of the most useful things posted in a long while. Kudos to John who has taken some heat from some of the haters.
Basically, I would describe John's approach as a "Hail Mary" approach. I don't know the official definition of Hail Mary Bankroll, so it may not technically qualify, but basically John used an aggressive betting spread for his bankroll. This is going to mean a higher chance of busting out. Not a suicidal chance but a higher chance.
And the thinking is that is you do bust out, you put together another bankroll and have another go at it, until you do hit some good positive early variance/results and then hopefully you are off and running.....hopefully to never look back.
So John did in fact bust out of his first BR and did in fact acquire another BR and seems to be experiencing better variance.
Now the KJ haters on various forms are going to jump up and down screaming that I am endorsing playing at a high RoR, which will lead to players going broke. They will probably throw in that I work for the casinos.
I am not endorsing anything. What RoR a player takes is a decision he makes based on his comfort level and ability to raise another BR.
BUT, I can tell you....if I knew 15 years ago, what I know now, I would have began playing to some sort of Hail Mary approach, instead of grinding along for 3 years making peanuts, wearing out my face and name. And if I would have busted out that initial BR ($4300 in my case), I would have gotten a job, built another BR and tried again, until just like John you hit some positive variance and are off and running.
Basically, I would describe John's approach as a "Hail Mary" approach. I don't know the official definition of Hail Mary Bankroll, so it may not technically qualify, but basically John used an aggressive betting spread for his bankroll. This is going to mean a higher chance of busting out. Not a suicidal chance but a higher chance.
And the thinking is that is you do bust out, you put together another bankroll and have another go at it, until you do hit some good positive early variance/results and then hopefully you are off and running.....hopefully to never look back.
So John did in fact bust out of his first BR and did in fact acquire another BR and seems to be experiencing better variance.
Now the KJ haters on various forms are going to jump up and down screaming that I am endorsing playing at a high RoR, which will lead to players going broke. They will probably throw in that I work for the casinos.
I am not endorsing anything. What RoR a player takes is a decision he makes based on his comfort level and ability to raise another BR. BUT, I can tell you....if I knew 15 years ago, what I know now, I would have began playing to some sort of Hail Mary approach, instead of grinding along for 3 years making peanuts, wearing out my face and name. And if I would have busted out that initial BR ($4300 in my case), I would have gotten a job, built another BR and tried again, until just like John you hit some positive variance and are off and running.
Yes, of course you did.
I am thinking that the difference between a 1 to 60 spread and a 1 - 20 spread profit-wise is negligible.
The reason why I approached this with the max bet as a constant it's because many newer counters seem to be confused about spread in this regard.
That's said, there are certainly more sophisticated ways 2 gauge spread optimally, but first newbies need to grasp that the limits are imposed on the max bet.
A while back some hotshot was bragging about getting down a 1 to 100 spread at single-deck, and he curiously thought that the win rate would be so much higher then a 1 to 20 spread, which of course it is not.
I am thinking that the difference between a 1 to 60 spread and a 1 - 20 spread profit-wise is negligible.
The reason why I approached this with the max bet as a constant it's because many newer counters seem to be confused about spread in this regard.
That's said, there are certainly more sophisticated ways 2 gauge spread optimally, but first newbies need to grasp that the limits are imposed on the max bet.
A while back some hotshot was bragging about getting down a 1 to 100 spread at single-deck, and he curiously thought that the win rate would be so much higher then a 1 to 20 spread, which of course it is not.
Yes, but you stated previously that your max bet was the same. In the quote above you state that your max bet was smaller with a smaller spread.
My question simply is, if your max bet was two hands of $150, would your EV with a minimum bet of $5 be significantly higher then it would be with a minimum bet of $25?
My question simply is, if your max bet was two hands of $150, would your EV with a minimum bet of $5 be significantly higher then it would be with a minimum bet of $25?
You must be one of those people that thinks that Las Vegas is ONLY the strip, because there is $5 DD games all over Las Vegas, once you get off the strip. I would never attempt to spread $5-$300 unless you only hope to last 4 minutes.
As a matter of fact, as a Vegas regular, I play very little DD. Most games are counter traps and/or severely "hawked". I have a couple independent type properties that I play DD sparingly with a fairly small spread and pretty unique betting pattern.
KewlJ said:
You must be one of those people that thinks that Las Vegas is ONLY the strip, because there is $5 DD games all over Las Vegas, once you get off the strip. I would never attempt to spread $5-$300 unless you only hope to last 4 minutes.
As a matter of fact, as a Vegas regular, I play very little DD. Most games are counter traps and/or severely "hawked". I have a couple independent type properties that I play DD sparingly with a fairly small spread and pretty unique betting pattern.
As a matter of fact, as a Vegas regular, I play very little DD. Most games are counter traps and/or severely "hawked". I have a couple independent type properties that I play DD sparingly with a fairly small spread and pretty unique betting pattern.
And yes that is what I was saying...regardless of how you try to do it...I know you can't get away with 1-60 spread in DD. And certainly not anywhere near Vegas lol.
And this is exactly the problem with players that live and die by simulation numbers.
15% increase. And the trade off is 10 times more heat, countermeasures, backoffs, barings and a much shorter career?
Simulations are only a tool. Never the end-all answer and very often don't translate well into real life play.
I am not speaking of anyone specific in this thread, but it is my experience that players that live and die with simulation numbers, and are always citing simulation numbers are most likely doing most of their blackjack play on their computer, not at real felt blackjack table. And yeah, I am talking to you T3 where ever you are. The recently released from jail Reno, guy too.
15% increase. And the trade off is 10 times more heat, countermeasures, backoffs, barings and a much shorter career?
Simulations are only a tool. Never the end-all answer and very often don't translate well into real life play.
I am not speaking of anyone specific in this thread, but it is my experience that players that live and die with simulation numbers, and are always citing simulation numbers are most likely doing most of their blackjack play on their computer, not at real felt blackjack table. And yeah, I am talking to you T3 where ever you are. The recently released from jail Reno, guy too.
KewlJ said:
And this is exactly the problem with players that live and die by simulation numbers.
15% increase. And the trade off is 10 times more heat, countermeasures, backoffs, barings and a much shorter career?
Simulations are only a tool. Never the end-all answer and very often don't translate well into real life play.
I am not speaking of anyone specific in this thread, but it is my experience that players that live and die with simulation numbers, and are always citing simulation numbers are most likely doing most of their blackjack play on their computer, not at real felt blackjack table. And yeah, I am talking to you T3 where ever you are. The recently released from jail Reno, guy too.
15% increase. And the trade off is 10 times more heat, countermeasures, backoffs, barings and a much shorter career?
Simulations are only a tool. Never the end-all answer and very often don't translate well into real life play.
I am not speaking of anyone specific in this thread, but it is my experience that players that live and die with simulation numbers, and are always citing simulation numbers are most likely doing most of their blackjack play on their computer, not at real felt blackjack table. And yeah, I am talking to you T3 where ever you are. The recently released from jail Reno, guy too.
So true. I figured I’d go all out early on in my career and not care about backoffs/heat since there were so many places to go. Trying to get every ounce of EV. Now looking back I wished someone had told me to tone it down a bit. The flyers/database caught up to me and fast. On one trip, I was looking forward to a quality game that I had never played before but before I could even make a bet they were already showing me the door.
You are not alone my friend. Many, many professional and serious card counters made that same decision. And for many it hasn't worked out that well. It is the slaughter vs shear debate. New technology, in identifying players and the database networks woks against players and weakens that "so many places" argument. Next thing you know heat and backoffs and consequences from one location have arrived at the next location before the player can.
I sort of lucked into taking a different route. Having spent 5+ years in Atlantic city including several years of 2-3 nights a week overnight stays, coupled with numerous annual trips to Vegas and Connecticut, when my relocation was forced upon me, I make the decision that I didn't want to do all that traveling, I don't care for flying anyway and living in casino hotel rooms several nights a week had already gotten old.
So my game plan was to minimize travel and create and play as large a home rotation as possible. This meant you had to find levels and a style that the casinos are somewhat comfortable with. It has worked out great for me. I wish I could say it was all part of a master plan, but I can't. My desire to minimize travel just forced a plan allows me to (mostly) avoid those advances in technology that have been so problematic for the traveling players.
I sort of lucked into taking a different route. Having spent 5+ years in Atlantic city including several years of 2-3 nights a week overnight stays, coupled with numerous annual trips to Vegas and Connecticut, when my relocation was forced upon me, I make the decision that I didn't want to do all that traveling, I don't care for flying anyway and living in casino hotel rooms several nights a week had already gotten old.
So my game plan was to minimize travel and create and play as large a home rotation as possible. This meant you had to find levels and a style that the casinos are somewhat comfortable with. It has worked out great for me. I wish I could say it was all part of a master plan, but I can't. My desire to minimize travel just forced a plan allows me to (mostly) avoid those advances in technology that have been so problematic for the traveling players.
I made no threat.
What I did do is admonish you for popping on here
and calling another member a liar.
You are incorrect, I am only banned at BJTF.
Please do not promulgate falsehood about me.
Ps -
I am pretty much the same today as I was 14 years ago when I began posting in this forum. I am in fact the biggest single contributor to this forum, spanning nearly a decade-and-a-half.
What I did do is admonish you for popping on here
and calling another member a liar.
You are incorrect, I am only banned at BJTF.
Please do not promulgate falsehood about me.
Ps -
I am pretty much the same today as I was 14 years ago when I began posting in this forum. I am in fact the biggest single contributor to this forum, spanning nearly a decade-and-a-half.
Last edited:
There was nothing for you to admonish me about, it had nothing to do with you. Are you the forum moderator or do you just think you are? I guess realistically there probably isn't even a moderator on this forum. Maybe that's why you're still here.
Yes, yes we all know you are the "know it all" about everything now that Three has somehow finally exited the BJ forums. Obviously you do know a lot, but just keep your nose where it belongs and all will be fine.
Yes, yes we all know you are the "know it all" about everything now that Three has somehow finally exited the BJ forums. Obviously you do know a lot, but just keep your nose where it belongs and all will be fine.
Last edited: