Given your choice on H17 DAS 6D 4.5 tables would you rather 1. Jump onto an open table alone or 2. Begin back counting the adjacent table with 3 other players at the table. I choose #1 because you can pick up a little on a diving count sometimes and if it turns good it should be all yours hopefully. Which would have the higher EV? I was going to buy the software but I never factored in last years losses.
Wheres the beef? Backcounting
- Thread starter Dopple
- Start date
Talmadge
Well-Known Member
21forme, i have read some of your posts where you and others have mentioned that they can back count two tables simultaneously for long periods at a time.
I have just recently begun trying this technique out and i am finding it quite difficult even just after a few rounds.
I was wondering if you have any tips or tricks how you can maintain this without accidently mixing both counts up/ losing the count on one table or is it just something that becomes easier and more natural with more time put in practicing it? Thanks
I have just recently begun trying this technique out and i am finding it quite difficult even just after a few rounds.
I was wondering if you have any tips or tricks how you can maintain this without accidently mixing both counts up/ losing the count on one table or is it just something that becomes easier and more natural with more time put in practicing it? Thanks
You're right; Meistro is wrong -- and vastly wrong, since he said #1 was VASTLY superior, which it isn't!21forme said:
From the chapter 10 charts, playing all, with a 1-12 spread at the game indicated has a score of 12.6. Playing alone, instead of with three other players, means two total hands instead of five, so 250 hands per hour instead of 100. Multiply 12.6 by 2.5 and you get 31.5. Meanwhile, if you back-count with a 1-4 spread, the SCORE is more than 34.
Don
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
I hope it is ok if I reply as well, as tracking a second table while playing one is a big part of my game. I began doing this, very casually back in Atlantic City when the opportunity presented itself. (there is the mirrored ceiling story that I believe both 21forme and I took advantage of). But I really got into this when I relocated to Las Vegas, where less crowded conditions really presented an opportunity for this approach.Talmadge said:
A couple things: Your count at the second table need not be perfect. You can miss a couple cards, due to being blocked or just timing (playing at your primary table). Missed cards simply reduces penetration. It is not fatal. All you are looking for is a count at the second table that presents a better opportunity than the table you are currently playing. Perfect scenario, your table goes negative, while table 2 goes positive. But less "perfect" but still favorable, table 2 goes positive while your table hovers in the neutral range. Less favorable but still beneficial is table 2 is in the neutral range while your table goes very negative.
The bottom line is that under all these scenarios, you will be increasing the positive counts that you see and play, per 100 rounds vs a play all approach or even a normal wong out approach. You will be increasing positive counts opportunities, including max bet opportunities significantly over what simulations say are the true count frequencies. I like to think of it "as changing true count frequencies in your favor".
Every time I have mentioned that I use this technique, I have gotten push back from members (mostly non-blackjack players) that claim this is impossible. No, it's not impossible. You do need to convert your counting style to the glance and cancel method, rather than eyeballing every card played, which I think most counters do anyway at some point. That sort of comes with experience. And the glance and cancel method works best with simplicity. I don't want to get in to a count debate and have someone say they can do it with more complicated counts. Glance-and-cancel works best with a simpler count...period. That is one of the benefits of simplicity and that glance-and-cancel goes for just general wonging in as well, just walking by a table and you get a glance at the cards on the felt.
Anyway, moving on. Again, this technique is available when it is available. No one is claiming they can always use this technique. Best case scenario is 1-2 players (possible 3) at table 2 and none being in the "key blocking seat". Very quickly if you are sitting in the center seat of a table there is a "key blocking seat" for both the table to your right and table to your left. Table to your right it is the second to last seat, (next to third base), table to your left the second seat (next to first base). This is usually. If tables are on some kind of angle, it could be another seat, but there is always one key blocking seat. And sometimes you can position yourself to see around that blocking seat, by leaning slightly forward or backwards in your seat (especially with a smaller person occupying the key seat), but that becomes difficult and problematic. Best to go for a situation where that key seat is vacant.
So it's funny, in a discussion about a year ago on another site, I was severely challenged about this technique. "that's impossible" blah, blah, blah. One guy even jumped up at 3am in the morning and drove to Caesars and posted blurry pictures of the next table.
Anyway as I was challenged, I reached out to other longterm counters to see if anyone else used this technique and was not really surprised to learn that 21forme, Don Schlesinger and Richard Munchkin, along with a few others all confirmed that they had used this technique at times. Again, of course not all the time. For some, maybe infrequently. But when the opportunity presents itself. Another tool in the arsenal. And Vegas is the perfect place for that...not that there aren't other ideal situations and places, especially during less crowded times.
Last edited:
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Oh and yes, of course it gets better/easier the more you do it.
Oh and BTW, for those of you that are familiar with my participation in the great count debates/discussions, I always said that there are things you can do that really make a difference in your results, where changing what count you play, only adds minimally. Tracking and jumping to second table is just one of those things. The people getting all worked up about different counts are "chasing pennies, when they could be chasing dollars".
Oh and BTW, for those of you that are familiar with my participation in the great count debates/discussions, I always said that there are things you can do that really make a difference in your results, where changing what count you play, only adds minimally. Tracking and jumping to second table is just one of those things.
The people getting all worked up about different counts are "chasing pennies, when they could be chasing dollars".
Last edited:
KJ, POM nom for your post
And POTY for this one: The people getting all worked up about different counts are "chasing pennies, when they could be chasing dollars".
I have very little to add to KJ's excellent post. A few tips:
1. If I'm standing behind 2 tables while faking a phone call, one hand may be in my pocket to use fingers to help track things on one table, while I'm "talking" on my phone.
2. When playing one table and counting another table, I am constantly saying the RCs in my head after each round. For example, M1 4, M3 2, etc., where the first number is the table to my left. Once one table drops to a TC -1.5 or so, I drop the count on that table, which may involve switching tables, too. In terms of seeing the cards on the next table, being able to read them by the pip pattern is very useful. I can read the pips from probably 20 ft away. It also comes in handy for HCing.
3. There's one casino I've played that had a DD game (with MSE), next to a shoe game. At DD, I use HiLo with an ace side count. It didn't take me long to realize I couldn't count both tables and keep the ace side count, too, so I gave up on that one. I suspect I could do it after some practice, but the situation doesn't come up often enough to make it worthwhile.
And POTY for this one: The people getting all worked up about different counts are "chasing pennies, when they could be chasing dollars".
I have very little to add to KJ's excellent post. A few tips:
1. If I'm standing behind 2 tables while faking a phone call, one hand may be in my pocket to use fingers to help track things on one table, while I'm "talking" on my phone.
2. When playing one table and counting another table, I am constantly saying the RCs in my head after each round. For example, M1 4, M3 2, etc., where the first number is the table to my left. Once one table drops to a TC -1.5 or so, I drop the count on that table, which may involve switching tables, too. In terms of seeing the cards on the next table, being able to read them by the pip pattern is very useful. I can read the pips from probably 20 ft away. It also comes in handy for HCing.
3. There's one casino I've played that had a DD game (with MSE), next to a shoe game. At DD, I use HiLo with an ace side count. It didn't take me long to realize I couldn't count both tables and keep the ace side count, too, so I gave up on that one.
I suspect I could do it after some practice, but the situation doesn't come up often enough to make it worthwhile.Second the POM nomination! Agreed, not remotely impossible, I did it a few times myself during my very active counting days. What I never analyzed properly is when I should make the jump to a different table. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes less so - especially when you're looking at the end of a decent shoe vs. a neighboring table with a slightly less favorable count, but much less into the shoe. I don't know if this has been analyzed formally, maybe Don has.
Either way, you're doubling the information you have, which is a huge improvement.
Either way, you're doubling the information you have, which is a huge improvement.
Talmadge
Well-Known Member
Kewlj, thanks for the very clear and detailed description of how you go about using this technique. Its easy to see how it can add a very significant boost to your EV when the opportunity presents itself. I'm not sure how one would go about calculating this, but being able to play more positive counts and max bet opportunities, would have to be a big boost. A bigger boost than pennies
21Forme, while back counting two tables i may try keeping track of things on one table with one hand in my pocket using fingers as you mentioned.
Originally i was thinking of using a word to correlate with the running count on one table, say the left table and using a number on the right table so when i glance at the right table to pick up the new running count just using a number and then glance back at the left table i remember the previous word of that left table and then update the new running count with the new word correlating to the new updated count rather than trying to constantly keep using and updating two numbers.
21Forme, while back counting two tables i may try keeping track of things on one table with one hand in my pocket using fingers as you mentioned.
Originally i was thinking of using a word to correlate with the running count on one table, say the left table and using a number on the right table so when i glance at the right table to pick up the new running count just using a number and then glance back at the left table i remember the previous word of that left table and then update the new running count with the new word correlating to the new updated count rather than trying to constantly keep using and updating two numbers.
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
In fairness, I think the gap that you speak of has narrowed in the past few years with the implementation of sidebets (up to as many as 3 different side bets sometimes). Getting on a table with player(s) playing side bets, dramatically alter things.DSchles said:
I don't know if it changes the outcome of the comparison, but it definitely narrows the gap. Just saying this needs to be taken into consideration when making this comparison.