Team play

[prankster]

Three of us have decided to team play. We're not sure of which type of team play to use-2 members backcount without even sitting down and calling in player #3-or all 3 sit and play individually-or 2 members sit and play and bet minimums and call in player #3 and get up and leave as soon as he sits at the table. Contact me at [email protected] if you have advice.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Sonny]

From the Frequently Asked Questions thread:

Q: I want to start a team. How should we bet?
A: Well, if you don’t know how to bet then you aren’t ready to start a team. Keep studying and practicing until you have every piece of your game plan ready. In the meantime, read through some of these old threads:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=28662
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=6468

The second link above should answer your question.

-Sonny-

 

[prankster]

Thank you Sonny. The thing is we do know how to bet-we're wondering which of the three above mentioned techniques works best. I personally think being called in by the backcounting team member would be best as not even minimum bets have been placed. Thanks again.

 

[callipygian]

Thank you Sonny. The thing is we do know how to bet-we're wondering which of the three above mentioned techniques works best. I personally think being called in by the backcounting team member would be best as not even minimum bets have been placed. Thanks again.

My thoughts.

(0) You trust your team completely, right? As in, if your team takes your money and claims they lost 20 big hands in a row, and they're down $10,000, it wouldn't occur to you at all that they might be cheating you, right? These are people you'd let your girlfriend/wife share a bed with on a camping trip and would let them live on your couch for a few months if they were unemployed, and borrow your new BMW, right? Because if you don't have that level of trust, don't play as a team. At all. Even EMFH teams require trust (people can underreport winnings and then keep their personal winnings plus a share of the others' winnings).

That being said ...

(1) EMFH teams are boring. You're playing with the same EV, but with reduced variance. I suppose I'd consider it if I were committed to play for the long term AND couldn't scrape up the bankroll to do it solo, but it's usually easier to save a bankroll than to find someone you really trust.

(2) Backcounting is hard to do well. It's easy to do, but because you need to call people in at very high counts, you're loitering around for a really long time, and loitering at the tables attracts surveillance attention. Wonging in is best done at +1 or +2, where you have a reasonable shot of finding the table you want in the time you can pretend to be looking through your wallet for cash. Wonging in at +3 or higher, either individually or as a team, is pretty obvious. That all being said, if you think you can do it, it's huge EV and low variance.

(3) Calling/signalling a BP in is the way I played as a team, and it's a good compromise between the first two. The hardest part will be to come up with signals that are both uncrackable and clear. I think verbal signals are best, as it's harder for surveillance to pick up if they're reviewing tapes. This is where having a long history of friendship with your team will come in handy - use inside jokes to help you remember the signals. We used a series of pretty standard greeting statements to ask what the count was.

BAD example
"How's the table?"
"Pretty good, I give it a 5 out of 5!"

GOOD example
"How's the table?"
"Up and down." (referring to the time that your friend got drunk, passed out on an elevator, and ended up riding it up and down until he ended up on the 5th floor)

 

[Bojack1]

Three of us have decided to team play. We're not sure of which type of team play to use-2 members backcount without even sitting down and calling in player #3-or all 3 sit and play individually-or 2 members sit and play and bet minimums and call in player #3 and get up and leave as soon as he sits at the table. Contact me at [email protected] if you have advice.
Thanks in advance.

I say yes to all three ways. Depending on where you're playing, one system may work better than another. It helps to be a well rounded team and be able to adapt to the playing conditions. I would however, be aware that there will be different expectations based on different play and that should be realized before you play. Also be sure each player can handle all aspects of each style of play.

Its also important to find each others strengths and make sure that they are used in the proper role. On paper team play is easy, but to really pull it off, it takes some real practice. And I hate to say this, but most small teams need some good luck to start off. (sagefrog thats for you.)Trust fades with losses when you haven't firmly grasped what to truly expect from this game, which most beginning counters don't. Its easy when there is nobody to blame but yourself. A little luck in the beginning may put some trust in the bank. That and stringent testing for players in practice I have found to be great for trust. If you can actually see that someone can perform their job at a level even higher than needed, you will be less apt to blame that person for losses due to anything other than whats expected. As for honesty thats something you better figure out before you even play one hand.

 

[FLASH1296]

Team play is unethical

Callipygian's post is really excellent.

You may want to read "Blackjack Blueprint" re: Team Play

Personally, I believe that Advantage Play becomes unethical when it morphs into Team Play.

I understand that the "Robin Hood" defense usually comes into play here,
i.e. taking from the evil rich ones is perfectly justifiable
inasmuch as we perceive them as the enemy;
but it is still unethical as the game is designed
to be played individually.

Have I ever engaged in this unethical conduct. Yes I have.

I have also seen the insides of Jail Cells, but that does not make me a bad person.

I take the money from dealer mistakes, but I am not a cheater.

 

[Bojack1]

Callipygian's post is really excellent.

You may want to read "Blackjack Blueprint" re: Team Play

Personally, I believe that Advantage Play becomes unethical when it morphs into Team Play.

I understand that the "Robin Hood" defense usually comes into play here,
i.e. taking from the evil rich ones is perfectly justifiable
inasmuch as we perceive them as the enemy;
but it is still unethical as the game is designed
to be played individually.

Have I ever engaged in this unethical conduct. Yes I have.

I have also seen the insides of Jail Cells, but that does not make me a bad person.

I take the money from dealer mistakes, but I am not a cheater.

There is no reason to speak of what is ethical or not when it comes to blackjack. It is foolish speak to think of playing this game as a Robin Hood like endeavor. I have never fallen into the cliche of taking from the rich and giving to the poor mentality, nor have any of those that I know who play this game seriously. Its a business where if you can gain an advantage there's the chance to be profitable, thats it, its that simple. Its not war, its not fighting the enemy. We leave that way of thinking to those that don't play it as a business. You play smart, calculated, and with a precise plan and goal in mind, and then achieve as best you can. Its not life or death nor should it be percieved as such. There is nothing dramatic about advantage play except from the words of those who like to glamourize it as such.

As far as ethical, if you want to criticize team play as being unethical, I say all advantage play is as such. You say that this game was meant to be played individually, it was also meant to be played with a house advantage. If playing as a solo AP is so ethical why must you hide it? I fail to see how it could be the high ground if you cannot be honest. If you cannot be honest in your actions you are not ethical. I don't care what a person thinks about how unfair casinos rules and procedures are. They are allowed to make them up as they see fit just as you are allowed to in your own home. If you knowingly break these rules or go against their procedures while all the time trying to mask your intentions, you are unethical and need not point a finger at another.

All this being said, I personally do not find playing as an AP whether it be team or solo a moral quandry. It is to me a business that pays bills and hurts no one. It is not us against them, if it was then you are a loser because them always has more than us. It is us against ourselves and are limited only by ourselves. The casino is just a tool in my ability to make money, it isn't alive it doesn't eat breathe or bleed. In my mind it has nothing to do with ethics if you break no law, working in any way you see fit to make your money.

 

[White Guy]

This is a very entertaining post. Talking about ethics and Blackjack/Casinos...... What about making a game with such horrible rules the uninformed gambler doesn't stand a chance?? Talk about ethics the casinos would let you bet on 6d with one deck pen no double, split, or insurance if you would. I have seen people sitting at tables so drunk they can't keep their heads up hitting 18's while the waitress brings them another drink... Now THAT is unethical.. I have no problem taking all the money I can from a casino LEGALLY. Congratulations on finding a team you can trust fully. That has been an unsuccessful venture of mine for a while now. I just can't round up enough people I know and trust 100%. GOOD LUCK

 

[Automatic Monkey]

This is a very entertaining post. Talking about ethics and Blackjack/Casinos...... What about making a game with such horrible rules the uninformed gambler doesn't stand a chance?? Talk about ethics the casinos would let you bet on 6d with one deck pen no double, split, or insurance if you would. I have seen people sitting at tables so drunk they can't keep their heads up hitting 18's while the waitress brings them another drink... Now that is unethical.. I have no problem taking all the money I can from a casino LEGALLY.

I'll go even further- I have no moral or ethical problem with players taking money from the casino illegally. Waving a gun in a cashier's face, sure I would have a problem with that. But with a bet capper or a card marker, in my opinion the only sin is in getting caught.

The reason is the casinos break the law when it is in their interests, even though they were instrumental in writing these laws that apply to them. You saw them dealing cards to and serving more alcohol to someone who was already grossly intoxicated? That's beyond unethical, that's illegal. They will also let self-banned gamblers continue to play as long as they are losing.

 

[Bojack1]

I'll go even further- I have no moral or ethical problem with players taking money from the casino illegally. Waving a gun in a cashier's face, sure I would have a problem with that. But with a bet capper or a card marker, in my opinion the only sin is in getting caught.

The reason is the casinos break the law when it is in their interests, even though they were instrumental in writing these laws that apply to them. You saw them dealing cards to and serving more alcohol to someone who was already grossly intoxicated? That's beyond unethical, that's illegal. They will also let self-banned gamblers continue to play as long as they are losing.

To each his own on what people will or won't do. I can see your point of view on this, I just can't agree with it. If the casino is unethical and even illegal I won't be sucked into the same behavior. Its what makes us civilized to be able to decipher right from wrong. If we purposely break the law then we are no better than those we condemn. I also find it despicable the actions of the casinos at times, but I also don't tolerate fools. My sympathy is saved for family and friends. If someone becomes the victim of a casino such as over intoxication or being allowed to bet with a gambling problem, me breaking the law isn't going to help them. Going to jail on the principle that the casino is hurting people so I should act the fool does not appeal to me. Drunks and gamblers fill every casino, I am fine with that, as I also am fine knowing I am not there to avenge them. Its just business.

 

[callipygian]

Personally, I believe that Advantage Play becomes unethical when it morphs into Team Play.

While most people have focused on the word "unethical" here (i.e. "is this unethical or not"), let me steer the discussion towards the word "morphs" - you imply with this sentence that you believe card counting, and perhaps advanced techniques, are ethical ways of winning money from the casino, yet you also believe there's a difference when you form a team.

What is that difference?

What is the difference between two people counting individually at the same table and each varying their bets exactly the same, and the same two people doing the exact same thing but lowering their EV by agreeing to split their winnings after they leave the table?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

To each his own on what people will or won't do. I can see your point of view on this, I just can't agree with it. If the casino is unethical and even illegal I won't be sucked into the same behavior. Its what makes us civilized to be able to decipher right from wrong. If we purposely break the law then we are no better than those we condemn. I also find it despicable the actions of the casinos at times, but I also don't tolerate fools. My sympathy is saved for family and friends. If someone becomes the victim of a casino such as over intoxication or being allowed to bet with a gambling problem, me breaking the law isn't going to help them. Going to jail on the principle that the casino is hurting people so I should act the fool does not appeal to me. Drunks and gamblers fill every casino, I am fine with that, as I also am fine knowing I am not there to avenge them. Its just business.

Right, it is just business, and sometimes illegal maneuvers are a business decision. Just like they are in football. Sometimes it's worth it to do a hold or an illegal block and hope the ref doesn't see it, if it will make a difference of a touchdown. And you pay the price if he does see it. The other team will be doing this too.

In terms of BJ the penalty for cheating isn't worth it, not unless it's a really, really big score and I don't play at those stakes. Shots and borderline moves, that's a different story. But I just want to be clear that I don't cheat only because it's not worth the risk of getting caught, not because I think the casinos are entitled to the honest treatment I would afford an ordinary person. Show me a casino that's always ethical and I'll treat them ethically.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Using Your Brain to Play Cards is Not Unethical!!!!!

Everyone who gambles in a casino is using their brains! Everyone who plays blackjack is using their brains! I have seen players talk about playing their hands based on the cards on the table!!!!! I have seen players talk about most of the As being gone and dropping their bet. These people I don't think were counters but were using their brains to improve their advantage. Some may consider them weak counters, but I doubt unethical?:joker::whip: Some have BS cards right on the table. Some people in a casino just use their brains better then others.

I see couples and friends advise each other all the time, one reading off a BS card to the group. They are a team, combining their knowledge and skills. Is that unethical? Absolutely not!

If casinos take away all games that allows players to make decisions then they would lose a lot of customers!

I believe in some of the early court cases involving counting it was established that using your brain is not illegial!

Yet,:joker::whip:

 

[FLASH1296]

morphing immoral < ? >

By morphing, I meant that the moving of strategic mode from individual to tactical team play, I meant that it is "seamless" - The move is made with no "vetting" of the process of removing from the casinos some of their money.

That is because our collective mindset holds that the casinos treat us ruthlessly; consequently they "deserve" the same in return.

As Clint Eastwood said, so well, as it was apropos to a discussion of whether or not a victim who had been killed had deserved his fate.

Clint gritted his septuagenarian teeth, and with a cynical gaze, hissed:

"Deserves got nothin' to do with it."

In the case of the casinos and our "war" with them:

A. "The Ends Do Not Justify the Means."

Simple stuff for theologians, philosophers, and sociologists.

B. The games were never given rules and procedures that permitted more than one person must make betting and playing decisions. If you and I play Backgammon, Heads_Up_Poker or Ro-Sham-Bo I assume that it is my combination of luck and skill that will face off against yours. I do not put my funds at risk by playing you(and others who somehow are surreptitiously) aiding and abetting you in your sincere efforts to take my money from me.

We call that cheating when we are on the "wrong-end" of the action.
Cheating, by definition, is a signature event defining a "moral bankrupt."

C. As my semi-literate forebears told me: "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right."

The realities or beliefs about an a priori event or observation can have NO impact upon one's moral ethical quotient as expressed by actions in real time, not in empty words.

 

[callipygian]

By morphing, I meant that the moving of strategic mode from individual to tactical team play, I meant that it is "seamless" - The move is made with no "vetting" of the process of removing from the casinos some of their money.

By this reasoning, why isn't individual card counting illegal as well? Most individual card counters do not vet the process by which they remove money from the casinos either.

The games were never given rules and procedures that permitted more than one person must make betting and playing decisions.

Nor is it forbidden - people discuss basic strategy at the table all the time, not only with people of their own group, but also with other patrons at the table. Do you also consider that cheating because people are pooling their knowledge?

Remember that there is no functional difference between card counting and basic strategy. Both are mathematical decisions based on public knowledge (that is, I differentiate between card counting, where all the information is available to everyone - and holecarding, where the information is available only to a few).

That you can be barred for openly discussing what the count is, is no indication that it is illegal - you can also be barred for talking too loudly, but talking loudly is not morally wrong.

You are correct in assuming (and I would cite this against Automatic Monkey) that sitting at a table and making a wager is a form of social contract. The casino has agreed to certain rules (many of which are enforced by the Gaming Commission), and you agree to certain rules as well. Bet capping breaks that social contract by altering it after information has come out, and it is both immoral and illegal.

However, you are incorrect in assuming that sharing information is a breach of that same social contract (at least for a face-up shoe game; I suppose one can make the argument that in a face-down game the social contract includes not divulging your personal cards, although it most certainly still does not include the count).

The realities or beliefs about an a priori event or observation can have NO impact upon one's moral ethical quotient as expressed by actions in real time, not in empty words.

I'm positive that at least one of these words does not mean what you think it means; smart money is on the phrase "a priori". Events cannot be a priori; they are drawn from our experience.

But even if you replace "a priori" with "theoretical" (which I believe is the intent of your statement), this statement is still meaningless. Your statement would have full impact had I agreed with Automatic Monkey - that cheating is wrong on a theoretical level, but on a practical level excusable. I do not agree with AM.

My argument is that what you think is cheating is not cheating at all, nor is it morally wrong. Specifically, you have yet to show a good reason why card counting on a team level is any different from card counting on an individual level (which you already agree is fine).

 

[jaredmt]

as blackjack avenger said, people advise each other right at the tables all the time. there are people from foreign countries doing the same thing and the dealer and pit boss have no idea what they are saying to each other. how is that any different than signaling? how would the casino staff know if the people speaking chinese are only doing that to conceal information on what plays to make?

theres nothing illegal or against the rules on working together. just because the casino doesnt like it, doesnt make it unethical. and i dont think most teams are motivated by "giving the casino what they deserve". i think most teams are motivated by trying to be a professional business and make money so they can feed themselves or probably just have some extra cash. its just not worth all those hours and energy and money at stake just for the sake of "giving them what they deserve"

 

[callipygian]

just because the casino doesnt like it, doesnt make it unethical

Not only that, the risk of people cooperating and beating the house is explicitly a risk that the casino has assumed when it set up a "player vs. house" game (as opposed to taking a rake on "player vs. player" games). This is certainly a risk that the casino is taking, but it's a risk that the casino has taken voluntarily.

As a separate note for card counters in general, this is exactly why card counting and holecarding are treated VERY differently by casino staff. Card counters are simply using information which the casino has voluntarily disclosed to the players; holecarders are using information which the casino has involuntarily disclosed. The two are viewed differently because of the notion that your bet is a voluntary social contract in which both the casino and the player have agreed to a certain set of rules.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Not only that, the risk of people cooperating and beating the house is explicitly a risk that the casino has assumed when it set up a "player vs. house" game (as opposed to taking a rake on "player vs. player" games). This is certainly a risk that the casino is taking, but it's a risk that the casino has taken voluntarily.

As a separate note for card counters in general, this is exactly why card counting and holecarding are treated VERY differently by casino staff. Card counters are simply using information which the casino has voluntarily disclosed to the players; holecarders are using information which the casino has involuntarily disclosed. The two are viewed differently because of the notion that your bet is a voluntary social contract in which both the casino and the player have agreed to a certain set of rules.

And if you can holecard, the casino's agent (the dealer) is not playing by the rules. The rules explicitly state he is supposed to deal one card face down to himself without showing it to the player and the fact that he is not doing this is what makes you a holecarder, not anything you are doing.

Thus involuntarily disclosed is not the most accurate term for the casino's actions; negligently or improperly would be better words.

 

[callipygian]

Thus involuntarily disclosed is not the most accurate term for the casino's actions; negligently or improperly would be better words.

Fair enough. I chose "involuntarily" as a contrast to "voluntarily"; "improperly" is a better term, I agree.

[For the record, I think that holecarding is a very nebulous subject: I can see the argument that it's the casino's responsibility to hide it, not the player's to ignore it. But I can also see the argument that there's something unethical about using information that not everyone at the table is privy to.]

The overall point is that there's a tacit understanding. Card counting and (I argue) team play fall within that understanding, while bet capping does not. Shuffling up when you raise your bet falls within that understanding, removing the pip tens does not. Certainly I would side more (perhaps not completely) with you [Automatic Monkey] if I caught a dealer dealing seconds (outside the understanding/contract). But under the assumption that the casino is upholding their end of the understanding, I don't see a difference between card counting and team card counting.

 

[Bojack1]

By morphing, I meant that the moving of strategic mode from individual to tactical team play, I meant that it is "seamless" - The move is made with no "vetting" of the process of removing from the casinos some of their money.

That is because our collective mindset holds that the casinos treat us ruthlessly; consequently they "deserve" the same in return.

As Clint Eastwood said, so well, as it was apropos to a discussion of whether or not a victim who had been killed had deserved his fate.

Clint gritted his septuagenarian teeth, and with a cynical gaze, hissed:

"Deserves got nothin' to do with it."

In the case of the casinos and our "war" with them:

A. "The Ends Do Not Justify the Means."

Simple stuff for theologians, philosophers, and sociologists.

B. The games were never given rules and procedures that permitted more than one person must make betting and playing decisions. If you and I play Backgammon, Heads_Up_Poker or Ro-Sham-Bo I assume that it is my combination of luck and skill that will face off against yours. I do not put my funds at risk by playing you(and others who somehow are surreptitiously) aiding and abetting you in your sincere efforts to take my money from me.

We call that cheating when we are on the "wrong-end" of the action.
Cheating, by definition, is a signature event defining a "moral bankrupt."

C. As my semi-literate forebears told me: "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right."

The realities or beliefs about an a priori event or observation can have NO impact upon one's moral ethical quotient as expressed by actions in real time, not in empty words.

I think you are missing just about everything I said. I don't feel the casino deserves anything, good or bad. I don't feel I need to make up for any supposed wrongdoings of the casino to any other patrons. I don't care one bit about what the casinos do to make their money from those who either can't or won't take the advantage. This is all about me going to work and finding ways to accomplish my job with more consistency and profit. Its not like backgammon or poker as there is no built in advantage against you when you start the game. In those games its your skill against anothers starting with even odds, its apples and oranges when comparing it to blackjack. With blackjack its a game of skill only if you get the advantage, and I have no emotional engagement with the casino. As I said before, the casino is just a tool for me to make money. As long as I don't break any laws I can use this tool in anyway I see fit that better enhances my chance to make a living. I can't afford little mind games like this is war or they are my enemy and I hate them. Its nothing personal, its just business. Win or lose I hold no comtempt for the casino therefore I have no thoughts of them deserving anything.

These are the true thoughts of most pros. If indeed you are anything close to what you say you are, you would get it. There are 0 professional players that I know of, and I know many, that have any ethical problems with team play of any kind. If you do you are the first. Maybe you need to worry less about warring with the enemy and just play blackjack.