Don did write in the book about not raising bet after a loss but in a different context. He was giving some advice about cover to his team members. But that was a time where games were much better than now and they were playing high stakes. So, most players do not follow that suggestion at the current environment but some might.
Just lost a massive 100 units
- Thread starter JohnCrover
- Start date
It is in Don's book and was also recommended as cover in other books and wass so widely used by counters for a while it became a telltale sign that you were likely a counter. That defeats the cover value.
A tip for your next two paragraphs. Remove all chips from the betting circle and add them to a chip stack after being paid each time. Then bet what looks like a random grab but is in fact an amount that you are certain of in some manner. I won't say how I do it but I am sure you can figure out how to do the same.
A tip for your next two paragraphs. Remove all chips from the betting circle and add them to a chip stack after being paid each time. Then bet what looks like a random grab but is in fact an amount that you are certain of in some manner. I won't say how I do it but I am sure you can figure out how to do the same.
Well thank you for the tip, but I think I will pass on that. For one, I play 70-80 thousand rounds of blackjack a year and, while I am not going to say that I have never seen players remove all chips back to their stack and then re-bet, it is pretty uncommon. I try to stay away from things that are pretty uncommon. Uncommon things like that just make you stand out.
More importantly, Pulling chips back from the circle to your stack, and re-betting from stack will slow the game down and fairly significantly. That might be a ploy you can implement if you are playing crowded conditions on the east coast. I only play games heads up or with 1 or at most 2 players. My preference is one other player for a variety of reasons, but regardless, I want over a hundred rounds per hour (preferably well over). I rarely play an hour at one table, but that is the speed I seek. Basically 2 rounds or better per minute. I don't do anything to slow the game down.
More importantly, Pulling chips back from the circle to your stack, and re-betting from stack will slow the game down and fairly significantly. That might be a ploy you can implement if you are playing crowded conditions on the east coast. I only play games heads up or with 1 or at most 2 players. My preference is one other player for a variety of reasons, but regardless, I want over a hundred rounds per hour (preferably well over). I rarely play an hour at one table, but that is the speed I seek. Basically 2 rounds or better per minute. I don't do anything to slow the game down.
While I understand your reservations, having an organized chip configuration that looks unorganized allows this to be done without slowing down the game. I play mostly heads up and if not with at most 1 other person. If I get a really fast dealer I don't slow the game down when heads up. If I feel I am slowing the game down I don't do it. If you have a nice advantage count you want to play through it as fast as possible to leave the smallest window for being observed or for others to jump into your shoe. You are experienced enough to know what to do and when. I just thought you might have a use for the info. Maybe next time the tidbit will be more useful to you.
I'm going to copy KewlJ's strategy when I move to Vegas. Never hit 12 vs 12 or 13, never hit 16 vs 10, never change your bet after a push, don't play negative shoes if you don't have to. Never play for more than an hour, try to limit it to one or two shoes. Increase your bet after a loss to make it look like you're chasing. Never go back to your stack to increase your bet after a win. Only use the chips in play from the last hand.
Never hit 12 vs 12 or 13?? I think you mean vs a 2 or 3?
At what point does one realize the shoe is too negative to play? A shoe can start off negative 6 RC in the first two rounds but in a 6 or 8 deck shoe, there's so many future rounds yet to be played that it can still turn around. I don't want to "burn" a Wong out that early. Is it after one full deck? A deck and a half?
At what point does one realize the shoe is too negative to play? A shoe can start off negative 6 RC in the first two rounds but in a 6 or 8 deck shoe, there's so many future rounds yet to be played that it can still turn around. I don't want to "burn" a Wong out that early. Is it after one full deck? A deck and a half?
Don did some work on this didn't he? But really, depends on circumstances. How nearby is another better opportunity? 5 feet at the next table? 5 minutes at the next (nearby) casino? Or an hour drive to the next casino?
With my answers being 5 feet to the next table, or 5 minutes, or even 10/15minutes to the next casino, I just am not interested in playing through many negative counts. I often hear that logic that you shouldn't bail too early because the count still could "turn around". Describe "turn around" because I am not just looking for the count to "turn around" and go from negative to positive. I am looking for 'Max Bet' opportunities, and preferably early in the shoe so there can be many rounds played at that max bet opportunity. That is far less likely to occur once the count goes negative.
Bottom line: Given the choice of a moderate negative count, let's say running count -7 with 5 decks remaining (TC -1.4), or a fresh game (running and true count zero), I am always opting for the fresh game. And for me, there is always a fresh game nearby somewhere.
With my answers being 5 feet to the next table, or 5 minutes, or even 10/15minutes to the next casino, I just am not interested in playing through many negative counts. I often hear that logic that you shouldn't bail too early because the count still could "turn around". Describe "turn around" because I am not just looking for the count to "turn around" and go from negative to positive. I am looking for 'Max Bet' opportunities, and preferably early in the shoe so there can be many rounds played at that max bet opportunity. That is far less likely to occur once the count goes negative.
Bottom line: Given the choice of a moderate negative count, let's say running count -7 with 5 decks remaining (TC -1.4), or a fresh game (running and true count zero), I am always opting for the fresh game. And for me, there is always a fresh game nearby somewhere.
KewlJ said:
Don did some work on this didn't he? But really, depends on circumstances. How nearby is another better opportunity? 5 feet at the next table? 5 minutes at the next (nearby) casino? Or an hour drive to the next casino?
With my answers being 5 feet to the next table, or 5 minutes, or even 10/15minutes to the next casino, I just am not interested in playing through many negative counts. I often hear that logic that you shouldn't bail too early because the count still could "turn around". Describe "turn around" because I am not just looking for the count to "turn around" and go from negative to positive. I am looking for 'Max Bet' opportunities, and preferably early in the shoe so there can be many rounds played at that max bet opportunity. That is far less likely to occur once the count goes negative.
Bottom line: Given the choice of a moderate negative count, let's say running count -7 with 5 decks remaining (TC -1.4), or a fresh game (running and true count zero), I am always opting for the fresh game. And for me, there is always a fresh game nearby somewhere.
With my answers being 5 feet to the next table, or 5 minutes, or even 10/15minutes to the next casino, I just am not interested in playing through many negative counts. I often hear that logic that you shouldn't bail too early because the count still could "turn around". Describe "turn around" because I am not just looking for the count to "turn around" and go from negative to positive. I am looking for 'Max Bet' opportunities, and preferably early in the shoe so there can be many rounds played at that max bet opportunity. That is far less likely to occur once the count goes negative.
Bottom line: Given the choice of a moderate negative count, let's say running count -7 with 5 decks remaining (TC -1.4), or a fresh game (running and true count zero), I am always opting for the fresh game. And for me, there is always a fresh game nearby somewhere.
See Optimal Departure study, chapter 13, BJA3. Only took about a year and a half to do!
Don
KewlJ said:
Don did some work on this didn't he? But really, depends on circumstances. How nearby is another better opportunity? 5 feet at the next table? 5 minutes at the next (nearby) casino? Or an hour drive to the next casino?
With my answers being 5 feet to the next table, or 5 minutes, or even 10/15minutes to the next casino, I just am not interested in playing through many negative counts. I often hear that logic that you shouldn't bail too early because the count still could "turn around". Describe "turn around" because I am not just looking for the count to "turn around" and go from negative to positive. I am looking for 'Max Bet' opportunities, and preferably early in the shoe so there can be many rounds played at that max bet opportunity. That is far less likely to occur once the count goes negative.
Bottom line: Given the choice of a moderate negative count, let's say running count -7 with 5 decks remaining (TC -1.4), or a fresh game (running and true count zero), I am always opting for the fresh game. And for me, there is always a fresh game nearby somewhere.
With my answers being 5 feet to the next table, or 5 minutes, or even 10/15minutes to the next casino, I just am not interested in playing through many negative counts. I often hear that logic that you shouldn't bail too early because the count still could "turn around". Describe "turn around" because I am not just looking for the count to "turn around" and go from negative to positive. I am looking for 'Max Bet' opportunities, and preferably early in the shoe so there can be many rounds played at that max bet opportunity. That is far less likely to occur once the count goes negative.
Bottom line: Given the choice of a moderate negative count, let's say running count -7 with 5 decks remaining (TC -1.4), or a fresh game (running and true count zero), I am always opting for the fresh game. And for me, there is always a fresh game nearby somewhere.
But I'm still in my first year, so getting experience at low stakes is worth something. I try to Wong out at TC of minus 2, but I do sit thru an occasional mildly negative shoe. As the stakes get bigger, I plan to get more selective. You've obviously been doing this a long time so it makes sense to be that selective. We do appreciate the advice.
On a declining scale, if you feel you were being CHEATED you might ask them to kiss you next time before a blank in the hindparts. Then, it's buffet for two coupon, for one, free gelato, and of course, free night stay so we can do this all again tomorrow. If all else fails, a Happy Meal at McD might help.