Team Paying for Performance

[Dyepaintball12]

I have been reading a lot about BP Teams recently, and I saw in Blackbelt in Blackjack that some teams reward players more who make money during their sessions opposed to the ones who lose.

Now I understand the thinking behind this to incentivize, but if its just variation then why would you pay someone more who didn't actually do anything better?

 

[itakeyourmoney]

It may be to try to reduce the chance that a BP would under report his winnings, or perhaps to try to punish people who periodically lose the count or miscount or misbet.

These are just my ideas, the experts here will be able to give you better answers I'm sure.

 

[Pro21]

This was always a big point of argument on teams. One side felt that you shouldn't do this because it encourages people to over bet and take bigger swings. You are rewarding people for variance. The other side are people who felt like they played better than their team mates so wanted to be paid more for winning more.

 

[SleightOfHand]

This was always a big point of argument on teams. One side felt that you shouldn't do this because it encourages people to over bet and take bigger swings. You are rewarding people for variance. The other side are people who felt like they played better than their team mates so wanted to be paid more for winning more.

But, at least for CCs, winning more is not indicative of skill/team contribution. Much of the time, its just more variance. For teams that are able to achieve advantages where skill is easily reflected in money won, this may be the case, but for teams that rely on CC, i see very little reason to incentivise wins.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It may be to try to reduce the chance that a BP would under report his winnings, or perhaps to try to punish people who periodically lose the count or miscount or misbet.

These are just my ideas, the experts here will be able to give you better answers I'm sure.

It wouldn't do any good for any of those reasons. The expected variance in BJ is too large to make any pay penalty a deterrent, and the effect of bad play is so subtle that it will take forever to determine this is the case by results.

The only advantage incentivizing such a relationship would have would be to make the game more fun for some people, add a little gamble to it.

 

[craazyman]

It wouldn't do any good for any of those reasons. The expected variance in BJ is too large to make any pay penalty a deterrent, and the effect of bad play is so subtle that it will take forever to determine this is the case by results.

The only advantage incentivizing such a relationship would have would be to make the game more fun for some people, add a little gamble to it.

Also... you might end up with some angry members which could get ugly :flame:

 

[Blue Efficacy]

It's like paying teachers based on performance. Surely the teacher with kids from a better neighborhood is going to have better test scores than the other teacher who has mainly kids from the projects.

If that poor BP gets dealt 9,7 an inordinate amount of times what's he to do?

 

[blackjack avenger]

Yes & No

To reward based on short term positive or negative variance is probably not a good idea as others have pointed out. The players will play for variance, depending on the reward and punishment if ahead they will play conservatively and if behind they will be aggressive.

However,:joker::whip:

If you have a very good idea of the games a team will face
If you can sim players skill set
count, indices etc.
Then you can base % profits based on actual skill of players.

As an example:
A player using a higher level count can earn about 5% more then a player using a lower level count.:joker::whip:
So settling when a certain dollar amount is won can reflect this.

 

[Brock Windsor]

As an example:
A player using a higher level count can earn about 5% more then a player using a lower level count.:joker::whip:
So settling when a certain dollar amount is won can reflect this.

Level 2 count vs level 1 count I thought the dif was 10-20% all other things being equal.
-RC

 

[kewljason]

Level 2 count vs level 1 count I thought the dif was 10-20% all other things being equal.
-RC

No. In shoe games, which is what most teams tackle, a level two count has an additional EV of about 5-7%. 1 or 2 extra small mistakes an hour will wipe out that additional advantage. That is why most teams play hi-lo. It is far more important to be acurate than playing a higher count.

 

[RJT]

To reward based on short term positive or negative variance is probably not a good idea as others have pointed out. The players will play for variance, depending on the reward and punishment if ahead they will play conservatively and if behind they will be aggressive.

However,:joker::whip:

If you have a very good idea of the games a team will face
If you can sim players skill set
count, indices etc.
Then you can base % profits based on actual skill of players.

As an example:
A player using a higher level count can earn about 5% more then a player using a lower level count.:joker::whip:
So settling when a certain dollar amount is won can reflect this.

IMHO this just adds a level of complexity to an already difficult situation - holding a team together has been shown time and time again to be a delicate balancing act, normally playing off people with egos and financial investments against each other.
To start looking at compensating people based on the fractional differences that their counts make, you then need to be able to ensure that the players who are deploying the more complex counts are as proficient with their counts as the other players are with the more basic counts - this involves someone who is proficient enough at both counts to check-out your players to ensure a consistent approach. More hassle than it's worth.
If you are running a team, personally i would advise going down the route of using a standardized count for all players (preferably Hi/Lo or KO) which makes confirming players ablilties far easier.
The differential in pay should come in on more serious issues, think BP (not gorilla) getting paid more as it's their neck on the line, or shuffle tracking or HC play or whatever. But most of the time you'll only be dealing with one or two pay rates.

RJT.

 

[daddybo]

I've played very little "team play".. Mostly lone wolf... But I would think there are other tangible and intangible skills and attributes of team members that are not the actual play involved that can level the playing field as far as pay. Provided these skills are recognized and deployed.

 

[WRX]

This was always a big point of argument on teams. One side felt that you shouldn't do this because it encourages people to over bet and take bigger swings. You are rewarding people for variance. The other side are people who felt like they played better than their team mates so wanted to be paid more for winning more.

With a little experience under my belt, my feeling now is that by far the best situation is to have team members who are so good, so reliable, so committed to the long term success of the team, such fast friends, that they're not going to be swayed by short-term incentives to look for personal gain at the team's expense. And it's best that everyone be adequately bankrolled, so that you can just KISS, have everyone devote approximately equal time to the enterprise, and split wins and losses equally. Complex formulas can always lead to arguments, and shouldn't be necessary except in the case of MIT-style teams making massive bets.

 

[bigplayer]

I have been reading a lot about BP Teams recently, and I saw in Blackbelt in Blackjack that some teams reward players more who make money during their sessions opposed to the ones who lose.

Now I understand the thinking behind this to incentivize, but if its just variation then why would you pay someone more who didn't actually do anything better?

The team I'm on pays players a percentage of EV based on the game being played. The better the game the more you're paid. There is also a factor built in that if you win or lose a certain amount above or below EV your pay is adjusted slightly upward or downward. In the short run flux can wipe out a good bit of an individual trips pay (or increase it) but over the course of an entire bank flux doesn't make too much difference in your overall pay and this factor is never a disincentive to continue to play regardless of how far ahead or behind you may be on a bank. We're also reimbursed a percentage of our mileage and expenses but the team gets the same percentage of coupons and other convertible comps as an offset.

A previous team I was on paid strictly based on your results but players were advanced a modest hourly rate which counted against the players share when the bank was broken. Winning players had a certain amount of their winnings retained to cover possible future losses and new players had to put up a modest escrow deposit up (usually $5000 to $10000) before beginning play to cover the possibility that they might lose. This extra escrow money would get 1% interest and would be available as working capital for the team but would not get figured into risk of ruin bankroll calculations. Losses not offset by escrow would carry-over to the next bank. Players ate their own expenses but kept all comps. Players who quit the team or were fired for cause while behind lost their escrow (up to the players share of their losses). Otherwise players got their escrow back when they left the team at the end of the bank or when ahead. Profits were split 49% each to players and investors and 2% to a team slush fund for expenses and management.

The thinking behind this is that sometimes flux isn't just flux. Not all players are equal. Some are more aggressive and jump their bets with less fear and less cover and thus will achieve a higher win rate than estimates. Those that put their butt on the line to get a higher win rate will often feel cheated if they don't get some sort of performance bonus. Making some amount of player pay based on results is an incentive to play a stronger game and make better choices in terms of game selection. Paying based on results or adjusting pay based on results is often just flux...but some unknown part of it is not flux. Because this part is unknown and unquantifiable many teams have decided to just let the results speak for themselves. Teams want to keep their strongest performers happy. As with any business arrangement it's tough to argue with actual results regardless of how much luck is involved. Even in sales jobs a certain amount of monthly performance is flux and the sales commissions still apply.

Personally I like my current team's pay plan. It encourages me to find heads up great games and rewards me for more aggressive play. Also if I take a beating early in a bank I'm not discouraged from continuing to play and likewise I'm not encouraged to sit on a big win that is mostly the result of flux as I'd get only a tiny percentage of it. I'm also encouraged to find games that really take the action and just pound them relentlessly to accumulate expectation. The negative is that the players share is lower than the previous team but the investors do take on some added risk in that losses do not carry over from bank to bank.

About 8 years ago there was a fantastic thread on bjmath.com between DD', Mathprof, and Don Schlesinger about the pros and cons of various team pay arrangements. The result of this discussion was the chapter on team pay and flux towards the end of the BJ Attack 3rd edition. If the website is still up you might try to find the thread and look through it.

 

[RJT]

The thinking behind this is that sometimes flux isn't just flux. Not all players are equal. Some are more aggressive and jump their bets with less fear and less cover and thus will achieve a higher win rate than estimates. Those that put their butt on the line to get a higher win rate will often feel cheated if they don't get some sort of performance bonus. Making some amount of player pay based on results is an incentive to play a stronger game and make better choices in terms of game selection. Paying based on results or adjusting pay based on results is often just flux...but some unknown part of it is not flux. Because this part is unknown and unquantifiable many teams have decided to just let the results speak for themselves. Teams want to keep their strongest performers happy. As with any business arrangement it's tough to argue with actual results regardless of how much luck is involved. Even in sales jobs a certain amount of monthly performance is flux and the sales commissions still apply.

I can only see this being the case in an EMFH team, where players are out and about by themselves and personally i've never been fond of that style as i simply wouldn't have enough control over people who are risking my money. Personally when my money is on the line i want to know what play a person is going to make in any given situation, know what bet they are going to place at a given count and position through the stack.
I'd also hasten to add that if the effects of this improved play are indistinguishable from variance then they're nothing that should be earning you extra - from an ego perspective, i can tell you now that if i know i'm playing as strong if not a stronger game than the other players on the team yet i'm getting penalised because of a bit of bad variance, i would be pissed no matter how small the penalty - you're basically telling me i'm a sh*t player. The small improvments in play you discussed aren't enough to compensate for variance and all other things being equal, some players will come out up and some down.
I can think of one example from my own play where a player has created a $50k blackhole over the duration of his play, however i know for a fact (as the player is simply a proxy for me - it's online so i'll leave you to imagine the rest) that this player has had exactly the same opportuities and played in exactly the same style as the other 'players' i work with. Deciding he's a weaker player than then others based on this is total nonsense.

Personally I like my current team's pay plan. It encourages me to find heads up great games and rewards me for more aggressive play. Also if I take a beating early in a bank I'm not discouraged from continuing to play and likewise I'm not encouraged to sit on a big win that is mostly the result of flux as I'd get only a tiny percentage of it. I'm also encouraged to find games that really take the action and just pound them relentlessly to accumulate expectation. The negative is that the players share is lower than the previous team but the investors do take on some added risk in that losses do not carry over from bank to bank.

This is exactly why i don't like result based incentives - you've been "encouraged to play more aggressively". Now while to you that might just mean finding more heads up situations and being more guttsy about putting your big bet out, that could easily translate to putting your big bet out earlier than you should and increasing the team RoR or all kinds of other bad behaviour. And if the incentive is small enough that you'd never be tempted to do that but big enough that you'll still put the extra time and effort in finding the best games and be prepared to take the extra risks to get the money down at the right times you've discovered a very rare balance indeed. I think more likely is that you're the type of player who'll always look for the best situation - the dealer who deals out those 10 cards extra, the table that has less players on it, an occasional HC situation - a perfectionist that realises that better results for him mean better results for the team mean better pay for him. Or would you honestly say you wouldn't do these things if the tiny incentive wasn't there?

RJT.

 

[blackjack avenger]

If You Need to Here is How

If you want to compensate for skill, here is how to do it.

In example players check out and are as skilled as they claim.

example
pick your game
10g bank
for illustration
Sims of the players skill and playing style return these SCORES
halves player ill 18 fab 4 score $10.43
hi lo player ill 18 fab 4 score $9.34
For a combined SCORE of $19.77

$10.43/$19.77 = 52.76% of win
$9.34/$19.77 = 47.24% of win

So if you settle at 10g with equal time played
halves gets $5,276
hi lo gets $4,724

Do not pay a bonus or penalty on just performance, this is trouble.:joker::whip:

 

[blackjack avenger]

Human Nature and a Bonus and Penalty

A player is on a team that offers a 10% bonus or 10% penalty depending on performance.

When ahead the player will tend to be conservative, they can do this while following team guidelines.

When behind the player will tend to be more aggressive, they can do this while following team guidelines.

Basic human nature, may not even be aware of it.:joker::whip:

 

[daddybo]

No. In shoe games, which is what most teams tackle, a level two count has an additional EV of about 5-7%. 1 or 2 extra small mistakes an hour will wipe out that additional advantage. That is why most teams play hi-lo. It is far more important to be acurate than playing a higher count.

Will somebody please tell me why the general consensus is a level 2 count is more mistake prone than a level 1. You guys do realize that a single mistake in a level 2 count is not generally as serious as a single mistake in a level 1 count. (or so I've read somewhere)

 

[RJT]

Will somebody please tell me why the general consensus is a level 2 count is more mistake prone than a level 1. You guys do realize that a single mistake in a level 2 count is not generally as serious as a single mistake in a level 1 count. (or so I've read somewhere)

Quite simply put - when you have a multilevel count, cancelling out cards doesn't happen as easily.

RJT.

 

[daddybo]

Quite simply put - when you have a multilevel count, cancelling out cards doesn't happen as easily.

RJT.

I guess that would depend on level of experience. I.E. 2 +1 cards cancel 1 -2 card. 1 +2 cancels 1 -2 etc. It just seems more efficient to me. But then again I have mucho hours both with level 1 and 2.. but way more with level 2.