Teamplay
- Thread starter Jyn8923
- Start date
zengrifter
Banned
See ZGI page 13
Southpaw
Well-Known Member
If you're going to use the big player (BP) approach, then you're going to have to have your BP making astronomical bets to be able to support 4 other players. The BP approach is only advisable if you're using it to get away with an absolutely lucrative spread such as 1-100, 1-200, or even higher (i.e., spotters are making $5 minimums, while the BP will make $500, $1000, or even higher bets during high counts). Otherwise, it is more profitable to have all members from the team playing individually and betting off of their shared bankroll. This way every one can make much higher bets with a lower risk or ruin than if they were only backed by their own bankroll.
You might also consider not having your spotters play; they could just be backcounting. This would save money that the spotters would inevitably use. Moreover, there is an argument that the spotter is essentially "eating" (wasting) the good cards that could be going to the BP by remaining at the table during high counts.
There are arguments to be made that it provides more cover to use the BP approach, but in my mind, there are just as good arguments that say using the BP approach is even more detectable by the casino.
Though I've never been on a team, I think the biggest disadvantage would be the requirement that you trust every one else on the team with money that may not be their own.
Best,
SP
You might also consider not having your spotters play; they could just be backcounting. This would save money that the spotters would inevitably use. Moreover, there is an argument that the spotter is essentially "eating" (wasting) the good cards that could be going to the BP by remaining at the table during high counts.
There are arguments to be made that it provides more cover to use the BP approach, but in my mind, there are just as good arguments that say using the BP approach is even more detectable by the casino.
Though I've never been on a team, I think the biggest disadvantage would be the requirement that you trust every one else on the team with money that may not be their own.
Best,
SP
zengrifter
Banned
Not "astronomical", but also not efficient except with suficiently large play -Southpaw said:
above a min threshold BR, perhaps $50k+ min. zg
zengrifter
Banned
Yes, I agree - the joint-BR / every man plays independently is superior in all but very large betting. The BP approach, for that reason, is a compromise born of need for camouflage. Not a superior earnings enhancement. zgSouthpaw said:Zg: With my poor BR, I consider flat bets of $500 or $1000 ($5x 100 or 200) bets to be astronomical
But yeah team play using a BP requires a fat bankroll.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
In today's manage-to-full environment, I've found a lot of advantage in a small team taking over a table, and getting 120 HPH instead of 60 or less. In my world heat is not as much an issue as getting into a good game and getting the hands in.zengrifter said:
You get even more EV out of it by having the players counting/tracking different things for different purposes.
A very big disadvantage to team play is the exposure itself. If 4 or 5 people take over a table, and a week or so later decide to go back into the same place, there is a greatly increased chance of someone in the pit remembering them as having been at the same table together on a previous occasion.
And I'm NOT saying that team play is a bad idea; I do it myself all the time. I'm just pointing out that there ARE down-sides to it that have to be dealt with accordingly. In my opinion; going back too often, and giving them the same look is the number one reason why teams get picked off.
My solution is to rotate as many different teams as is practical (and that does not always work either)
And I'm NOT saying that team play is a bad idea; I do it myself all the time. I'm just pointing out that there ARE down-sides to it that have to be dealt with accordingly. In my opinion; going back too often, and giving them the same look is the number one reason why teams get picked off.
My solution is to rotate as many different teams as is practical (and that does not always work either
)
zengrifter
Banned
How many times have we debunked this theory?Automatic Monkey said:
Every player at seperate tables always out performs.
What have I missed? zg
Last edited:
Automatic Monkey
Banned
You have missed out on how slow and cumbersome East Coast shoe blackjack is these days. Backcounting is not an option at many times and places.zengrifter said:
I am aware that Wongers at separate tables will have better parameters per hand in a game but a table full of wiseguys will usually make more money per hour because they can get so many more hands in per hour. They can also find a table with exceptionally good penetration and they all get to enjoy it. Add to this the bells & whistles a group of skilled players can add to a game and I believe it's the better way to go in the environment I have to play in.
moo321
Well-Known Member
I honestly wonder about this. There are some merits to both sides:Automatic Monkey said:
Pros:
1. Hands per hour
2. Locking down a game with good pen
3. Higher EV (side counts)
4. Psychological support
Cons:
1. Covariance (one dealer blackjack takes many bets)
2. Can't bet as much
3. Heat
Someone should run a sim. Compare having 4 guys lock down a table and double the hands per hour on a slightly better cut (say 1/6 instead of 1.5), include the better insurance/side count data. Then see what the SCORE is.
Sorry by my meddling, I have a question:moo321 said:
In the case in which 2 players(playing with one common Br) are playing at diferent tables, there are not covariace in this case, arent? because they are playing at diferent dealer cards.
And the only thing that changes is Hands per hour? (i.e: if one player can plays 60 HPH, two players at diferent tables can achieve 120HPH) and EV and Variance still being fixed.
any mistake?
A few, in no particular order.Jyn8923 said:
Advantages:
o Ability to engage in BP type plays (misdirection, the information-gatherer isn't the one betting the money).
o Ability to play to a much bigger bankroll, meaning higher stakes and higher expected profits. The improvement can be better than linear, because your expenses and the demands on your time don't grow as you increase stakes. If the bankroll gets big enough, the Kelly criterion may no longer be a real-world constraint.
o Much shorter time to N0 ("n zero") ("the long run"). Mathematically, this is closely related to the increase in the Kelly bet size. But it may be important to you even if your individual bankroll is so large that the Kelly criterion wouldn't constrain you playing alone, because the shorter the time to N0, the more you can count on advantage play furnishing a reliable source of income. That matters to some of us.
o Sharing of game scouting duties.
o Sharing of information.
o Sharing of the development of play strategies, and of knowledge of those strategies.
o Reality checks, camaraderie, combating loneliness on the road and feelings of isolation, and having someone you can depend on when problems come up, small or life-threatening. Some respected pros consider this the most important benefit of team play.
Disadvantages:
o Mostly center on worries over team members' honesty and competence. I strongly suggest that you play only with people in whom you have the greatest confidence, and with whom you know you can get along.
o Potentially rancorous debates over formulas for dividing wins and losses. My advice is KISS, and make sure everyone's bringing sufficient resources to the table.
o Arguments in general.
o Misunderstandings.
o The risk of you all getting heated up together. Take steps to minimize this risk.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
My theory is specific to where I play, where heat isn't much of an issue for those of us betting less than purple, and where purple is going to draw heat no matter what you do or where you do it. So the covariance is the biggest downside to playing at one table and I add to your list: not having civilians available to eat negative counts. If you have a team controlling a table with good pen a negative count is going to have to be eaten and it won't matter that much if one of you do it or all of you do it. But it does give all the players but 1 a chance to take a break.moo321 said:
Given the parameters of your proposed sim, I don't see any way a bunch of separate players playing 6/1.5 can come close to a table full playing 6/1. A half deck isn't exactly slightly better, it's the difference between "playable" and "do what you have to do to get in that game!" But the difference in cuts is usually not that profound, usually just a few cards but that should be all it takes to make up for the covariance.