tracking multiple tables

Discussion in 'Skilled Play - Card Counting, Advanced Strategies' started by KewlJ, Sep 5, 2017.

  1. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    With all due respect Don, this isn't about what you can do nor what I can do. It's not a challenge. Don't turn everything into a pissing contest.

    Taking it out of the context of you and I, yes, I believe that of two equally expert practitioners of their respective counts, the one practicing the simpler count will be slightly faster and more accurate than the more complex count. And the more complex layers you add (as seems to be popular these days, with all these custom counts), the greater this difference will be.

    This is a situation where the tiniest fraction of a second can make a difference. Sometimes you only get a glimpse for a fraction of a second.

    I know you will disagree.
  2. DSchles

    DSchles Well-Known Member

    "I know you will disagree."

    Of course I do, because my post wasn't about you or me; it was about ANYONE who masters a system. Why would I be the least bit interested in getting into a pissing contest with you? Do I have something to prove to you?

  3. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    No you don't have anything to prove to me or anyone. Why are you getting confrontational?

    But what you are doing is falling back to the same old argument that level 2 and 3 proponents always make. "I can play my level 2/3 count just as quickly and efficiently as anyone playing a level one count. Numerous scientific studies prove otherwise. The more complex a task, the slower the response time and higher the error rate. It is a proven fact. And whether you want to accept it or not, adding/subtracting 1 AND 2, rather than adding/subtracting 1, falls into the category of more complex task. Somebody, even someone as experienced as you saying you can add/subtract 1 and 2 as quickly and efficiently as another equally experienced player can add/subtract 1, just goes against scientific findings.

    As Norm (do you know my dear friend Norm?) pointed out in his book, Modern Blackjack, the two tasks, are even handled entirely differently by the brain.

    From page 240 of Modern Blackjack:

    Level I versus Level II
    Beginning players are usually tempted to go for the more complex strategies. I wanted to add a few words about stepping up to a level II strategy. At first glance, the difference does not appear great. You sometimes add or subtract two instead of always adding or subtracting one. However, adding one to something is not the same as adding any other number, as adding one is simply counting. Your brain doesn’t access an addition table or handle carries. (You sometimes add a pair of ones, but this can be handled by counting twice.) The difference sounds subtle, but not when you are keeping a running count very quickly. Level I and level II strategies are handled in a fundamentally different manner by the brain. Incidentally, the same is true for early computers. An “incrementer” had a fraction of the circuitry of an “adder.”

    So please Don, while I respect you to death, don't make that same tired old argument that other proponents make that they are so good, that they are the exception and go against scientifically proven findings.

    And even if you were that one in a million exception, that's not what we are even talking about. We are talking about the Norm....not is in Wattenberger, but as in normal circumstances and under normal circumstances, something like tracking multiple tables, along with several other advanced techniques works best if you keep the count as simple as possible.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  4. BoSox

    BoSox Member

    The same exact topic is taking place in a thread at BJ the forum. In a response to a post from 21 Frome on the subject I wrote:

    Lets examine how it would look natural to the eye upstairs as this should be a big concern. Who does this move? For the most part a gambler who is on tilt, who is betting a little bigger than usual, and thinks the current table is cold. He/She leaves the current table betting bigger, and does the same on the new table. For the most part an AP will leave the table in a neutral or slightly positive count right after TC dropped, comes into a new table with a little bigger bet but continues betting in a controlled manner, anything but being someone on tilt. 21Frome, I believe this is okay to use for someone who plays very short sessions, otherwise, I think it is not a wise thing to do. Either way it is not suitable for me as I have poor eyesight, do not play very short sessions, and often play NMET.
  5. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    I have read your comments Bosox and won't disagree that jumping tables is something that could draw attention. I try to minimize that with comments to both dealer and pit, making some reference to the dealer being to hot. And yes I realize that is lost on surveillance.

    However there are a couple things playing in my favor. One here in Vegas, and especially at some of the smaller local places that are part of my regular rotation, there are much less crowded conditions than back east (and other areas). This means that players can and do jump tables frequently, and not just card counters....many "ploppies" are jumping all around because there are seats so readily available. So I don't think what I am doing stands out as much as you, someone who plays crowded venues with less table hopping going on, thinks it does.

    Second thing going for me and this has been a surveillance trend for the last decade is that just like fewer pit folks working more tables, casinos have reduced surveillance people, meaning one surveillance guy is responsible for more screens. That has been a casino industry trend for a decade to cut costs.

    And while we know different casinos handle thinggs differently, like some places initiate a player evaluation from the pit, while others initiate from surveillance, many of the local type places initiate from the pit. Surveillance is so small and thin, card counters and AP's are not a top priority. Theft by patrons and employees is higher priority. Player observation and evaluation is only done when requested.

    And finally, as I stated before, and I think 21forme stated or hinted at. You should do this with limitations. You don't sit there jumping from table to table for hours....just the same as you don't sit at one table counting and spreading for hours. Those days are gone (at least for me). I show my spread one time and leave that casino. And that is whether I show my spread at the table I am playing or make one single jump and show it at a second table I was tracking.

    Longevity continues to be my top priority and incorporating this technique does not jeopardize that.....IMO.
  6. Bigdaddy

    Bigdaddy New Member

    This is the key! If you can identify the casinos where player evaluation originates only from the pit, you're well on your way to a happy and healthy playing career.

Share This Page