POLL: What would your next bet be?

[21forme]

I walk into a casino I play once every 4-6 weeks. It has a relatively small BJ area, and the PC recognizes me and we exchange trivialities. He's kinda hanging around as only 2 or 3 tables are open in the pit.

I'm playing a $50 unit. After a few decks (shoe game) count goes up and up, I'm winning hand after hand, and I parlay my way up to a $500 bet. Final bet of the shoe, I double down and push, so I get my 10 blacks back. I made $2000 that shoe.

Dealer starts to shuffle and I'm wondering what I should bet opening hand, as the PC was watching the shoe end. Your thoughts appreciated.

 

[eandre]

If you are playing with a $50 minimum, then a winning hand of $1000 via a double is normal. Nothing you posted indicated heat, especially if the pit knows you and that's your normal game. I personally think the paranoid response by counters costs them money. A gambler would press after a great shoe...a counter starts at the bottom. In 30+ years of play, I have never used a cover bet as camo. Think and act like a losing gambler that doesn't care. At some properties they think I'm a doctor...when I lose a big hand I state, " guess someone is getting 2 extra stitches they don't really need." Your interaction with the pit and ability to talk about anything but gaming, pretend to be interested in the roulette game next to you or the T.V. at the bar, and still count and play properly will keep you in the game. In fact just yesterday I lost 3 hands in a row...$200,$300, $300, and then caught a $1000 blackjack with the pit boss and pit supervisor standing at my table because I had to buy in for each bet. They congradulated me and the pit boss even said,"That was hot!" I pretended to be steaming while the count climbed to the heavens.

Play on... opening with $100.

 

[QFIT]

"Think I'll leave a winner for once." Then go take a walk.

 

[zengrifter]

$500 again and again untill a loss. zg

 

[21forme]

"Think I'll leave a winner for once." Then go take a walk.

This is exactly what I did.

$500 again and again untill a loss. zg

I know some guys advocate this, but I couldn't bring myself to do it starting a new shoe. If you lose the first hand of the new shoe at $500, what would your next bet be?

 

[sicharlton]

Seeing you guys talk about hundreds and thousands of dollars, winning them loosing them..it just makes my interest for the game grow more and more. The excitement generated by the risk. I would love to see you 'pro' card counters at work. Damn you guys must have lots of bankroll. Did you guys (and girls) start from the bottom and work up or did you have a certain high bankroll when you began properly?

Thanks, I don't mean to pry I'm just fascinated with it all.

 

[zengrifter]

$500 again and again untill a loss. zg

Ideally, after the shuffle I'd divide the $500 between 2-3 hands and play it out per hand UNTILL a loss on each - then I'd depart the table. zg

 

[eandre]

Seeing you guys talk about hundreds and thousands of dollars, winning them loosing them..it just makes my interest for the game grow more and more. The excitement generated by the risk. I would love to see you 'pro' card counters at work. Damn you guys must have lots of bankroll. Did you guys (and girls) start from the bottom and work up or did you have a certain high bankroll when you began properly?

Thanks, I don't mean to pry I'm just fascinated with it all.

Everything is relative. Many years ago I started to study blackjack and set out with a very modest bankroll. $800. I am not a professional but I probably play more hours then most professionals. I take the game very serious and study/read something nearly every day. The internet has been an invaluable source of information once you weed out the garbage. I am not a theorist, I am a player. My play has steadily grown, as has my bankroll. I'm super diciplined and will not play big at any casino that has marginal rules. I will play enough to cover the comps such as flights/suites/meals but will play next door to make the money. Some management companies are more generous then others but their rules make it tough to win. I am a grinder. Just knowing I can beat a casino time and time again is really the thrill. I mix my play up. Sometimes at $10/$15 tables, spreading 1-30 or more and sometimes at high stakes spreading 1-20 or more. My game is 6 deck but I enjoy double deck with decent rules. It's not always fun when you flush 10-20k but it happens. I will quit playing the game only if I bust out and have to begin using my earned income from any other source than gambling. I am a rather frugile individual except at the tables. My adrenaline doesn't start pumping any more until my bets exceed the $1800 level...don't ask me why it's $1800 except that I have a routine that I run that bet up to $5000 if catch 2-$1800 winners and the count warrants it...anticipation. But if I run into a rough patch where my bankroll drops by50-75k...I focus on the smaller tables with bigger spreads to replenish my ammunition. I find that I can spread 1-50 at times in low stakes pits and pick up 3-5k with little chance of losing because of the low minimums. It may take several sessions but looking at my log,it's effective for me. Remember, if you bet big, you win big, but you also lose big. I rarely run long losing streaks except for the months of October and November regardless where I play. I'm always on fire Jan-May regardless where I play. The hardest thing to learn is not to change your style of play based on winning or losing. Don't turn conservative(start counting your winning) and don't plunge either (over betting). I see it happen to players time and time again. Very few players have success over the years. I see new faces every6-18 months. I don't know if they burn out or bust out. I am a loner and that has extended my shelf life. My wife is an excellent video poker player and most casinos see her as the bigger player even at my level primarily because I work very hard disguising my wins.
Also, most of the experts are not big players and the honest ones admit it. I am not an expert...I am a player.

 

[InPlay]

Ideally, after the shuffle I'd divide the $500 between 2-3 hands and play it out per hand UNTILL a loss on each - then I'd depart the table. zg

Sort of like steaming ?

 

[eandre]

Sort of like steaming ?

You don't steam when you win.....

 

[zengrifter]

I know some guys advocate this, but I couldn't bring myself to do it starting a new shoe. If you lose the first hand of the new shoe at $500, what would your next bet be?

Back to $50 - "Oh well, my run is over."

Your statistical loss on the $500 off-the-top bet is $2.50 - IF you win the first one
you can definetly bet another... and so on.

However IF you divide it between two-three hands OTT, 99% of bosses
and surveillance will still perceive it as $500 bet. zg

 

[InPlay]

Back to $50 - "Oh well, my run is over."

Your statistical loss on the $500 off-the-top bet is $2.50 - IF you win the first one
you can definetly bet another... and so on.

However IF you divide it between two-three hands OTT, 99% of bosses
and surveillance will still perceive it as $500 bet. zg

So what kind of counting system would justify betting 500 off the top of a new shoe? Your betting spread 2 to 20 $25 dollar chips at a Min $50 dollar table. Why not bet $500 on every new shoe that would produce the same results. What happen last shoe is past history and has no bearing on this shoe. Correct ?

 

[Ferretnparrot]

i would have commented on how lucky i was, and how i am planning to quit whiel im ahead, color up into as many 1000/500 dollar chips as possible and safely stash them into my pocket, start to leave the table, then say NOOOO how coudl i do that im outa control tonight and just play the minimum from there out as usual with the remaning uncolored green chips.

Thats what i do when somebody is watching my play and idont feel like leaving, typically i do just leave though.

 

[zengrifter]

Key here is this - "I walk into a casino I play once every 4-6 weeks. It has a relatively small BJ area, and the PC recognizes me."

He plays a small joint once per month - he's known - and he just pounded $500 bets into a winning shoe. Its abosolutely nececessary to alleviate potential for suspicsion or post play video analysis by fearlessly placing the same size bet after the shuffle as his last successive winning max bet on the last round of the shoe.

Had he lost the last 500 bet last round, he would be free to drop back to $50 after the shuffle.

Again, that $500 OTT bet after a winning shoe-series only costs (neg-EV) $2.50 (.50%). Want to reduce the variance? Bet 2x$250 OTT (still $500), or 3hands $125-$175-$200 (500) - still net expected loss: $2.50.

So an occaisional BIG bet OTT is WORTH the $2.50 cost... or the next time the shift mgr might be at your side before you even sit down, saying "so solly chally, you no play BJ here no more!" Cape'ce? zg

 

[EasyRhino]

If you don't care about cover, then it doesn't matter.

But if you do, then I think doing anything besides placing a minimum bet is the way to go. Taking a break from the table is a very viable option.

I also like zg's idea. Not only does it give you lots of options on how to size followup bets, but it just plain looks erratic. And erratic is good.

 

[zengrifter]

I also like zg's idea. Not only does it give you lots of options on how to size followup bets, but it just plain looks erratic. And erratic is good.

It definetly does NOT look erratic - his last winning bet at the end of the show was 500. Anytime you reduce your bet after the shuffle you are subject to hightened scrutiny. In this case its a small club and he's the biggest bettor in the house. See Ian Anderson's "Burning The Tables" for more elaboration (or even the ZG Interview). zg

 

[zengrifter]

Sort of like steaming ?

Psuedo steaming for counters is different - the count is shooting up and you increase the bet - lose - throw out more cash - money plays - lose - count shoots higher - looking wild eyed, throw more out - bigger money plays, etc. You look like your steaming from the losing hands, but its really the count.

This is why I buy in for relatively small number of chips - so I can lose them, sometimes, and keep reaching for more cash fast, and look like a steamer. zg

 

[eandre]

ZG is 100% correct in regard to the opening bet. The other responses are a good lesson for any counter of what not to do! Your shelf life as a counter will be shortened with every back off. You must look like a gambler. Any opening bet on the new shoe above your minimum is just not very costly, especially since your long term cover is invaluable. Even leaving the table is a tell. Play on...always leave on a losing bet, always. A gambler would never leave while on a winning streak...never.

 

[InPlay]

ZG is 100% correct in regard to the opening bet. The other responses are a good lesson for any counter of what not to do! Your shelf life as a counter will be shortened with every back off. You must look like a gambler. Any opening bet on the new shoe above your minimum is just not very costly, especially since your long term cover is invaluable. Even leaving the table is a tell. Play on...always leave on a losing bet, always. A gambler would never leave while on a winning streak...never.

I have no problem I always look like a gambler.

 

[daddybo]

this is exactly what i did.



I know some guys advocate this, but i couldn't bring myself to do it starting a new shoe. If you lose the first hand of the new shoe at $500, what would your next bet be?

$500 if you can't do that you are over betting anyway... very little -EV off the top.