Worst display of counting I've seen yet.

[EasyRhino]

So, a while back I'm sitting at a table in a rare monent of heads-up bliss. Youngish guy comes up to the table and sits at third base. I ask if he wants to play, and he says he's waiting for his friend, who shows up about 5 minutes later.

3rd base is betting $50-$75, the friend is betting quarters. Count gets crushingly bad, but we're almost at the shuffle. Friend gets a stiff, then I hear a following exchange.

"How do I play this?"
"I don't know, it's soo negative."

Moderatlely quiet, but nowhere near a whisper.

About five minutes later, in a neutral count, I hear the question "is it positve yet?"

But here's the terrible thing about the whole episode: these guys weren't varying their bets any! One was flat betting the minimum, or the other just always varied between $50 and $75.

It just all seemed like the biggest waste of effort I could possibly imagine.

 

[ihate17]

In a recent thread

On this or some other blackjack forum, there was an obvious novice who thought he could play a positive ev game by just using indices and flat betting. He was quickly informed that he was mistaken.

I have posted before that most people who attempt to count fail. Without listing reasons I can see a percentage of people who, for instance, might pick up a simple count like hi-lo and not read the book, or pick it up by itself on the internet but basically never read the part about making money when the pack favors you by betting more.

As far as just saying so you can hear that they are counting, you were playing with morons. Playing blackjack with morons is not a rare occurance!
Of course, if I was the pit I would comp these guys, they sound like prefered customers.

ihate17

 

[dacium]

I think you should cut young people some slack (well at lest the one playing flat $25). Most people don't have money to ramp. How much bankroll did they actually have? They may have been practicing or something.

 

[EasyRhino]

Well, the late arriving friend tapped out pretty quickly flat-betting quarters. I think he bought in for one or two hundred. Third base bought in for more.

Problem was, they sat down at a $25 minimum table, and there were $5 and $10 tables available at the same time, so they could have played there if just practicing. And there wasn't even a visible attempt to ramp from $25 to $75 on the "BP"'s part.

Plus, from the conversation, it sounded like they were losing count.

At best, it was a sad, expensive experiment on their part.

 

[ScottH]

So, a while back I'm sitting at a table in a rare monent of heads-up bliss. Youngish guy comes up to the table and sits at third base. I ask if he wants to play, and he says he's waiting for his friend, who shows up about 5 minutes later.

3rd base is betting $50-$75, the friend is betting quarters. Count gets crushingly bad, but we're almost at the shuffle. Friend gets a stiff, then I hear a following exchange.

"How do I play this?"
"I don't know, it's soo negative."

Moderatlely quiet, but nowhere near a whisper.

About five minutes later, in a neutral count, I hear the question "is it positve yet?"

But here's the terrible thing about the whole episode: these guys weren't varying their bets any! One was flat betting the minimum, or the other just always varied between $50 and $75.

It just all seemed like the biggest waste of effort I could possibly imagine.

They were probably doing the "eyeball" counting method. I know a lot of people who tell me they can count cards, but after seeing them play I know they really have no clue. It's only, "I havn't seen a ten in a while", or "Hey, a lot of low cards just came out". Quite a few people have told me they can count cards, but after I ask them 1 or 2 questions about it, I know that they really can't. I've only met 1 other counter other that SCMC, and it was a planned meeting.

 

[MEDITANK]

I can count cards, but once the RC gets over 10, I have to remove my socks and shoes. :laugh:

 

[eps6724]

I can count cards, but once the RC gets over 10, I have to remove my socks and shoes. :laugh:

And if the count goes over 20, I hope I'm not at your table!:laugh:

 

[Mimosine]

And if the count goes over 20, I hope I'm not at your table!:laugh:

BAHAHAHAHA! you've been one-uped Medi my friend!

 

[halcyon1234]

I just realized: Maybe they were a cover play. You have two yahoos sitting at the table, very obviously counting. It should draw the attention of the pit in one of two ways:

1) They'll focus on the counters who are a "threat" and will consume all the pit's processing cycles.
2) The pit will be amused by the bafoonish display, which will disarm the pit, because they'll then equate that table with "not even worth watching" or "watch these two idiots for fun".

Then you, the real counter, sits quietly, blasting out the bets needed to cover the EV lost to the Joker's small plays. (Which wouldn't be too much with the right Counter:Joker bet ratio, and especially if the Joker is making mostly correct plays to minimize the -EV).

 

[EasyRhino]

Wow, that's brilliant! I wish I had thought of that.

 

[SPX]

On this or some other blackjack forum, there was an obvious novice who thought he could play a positive ev game by just using indices and flat betting. He was quickly informed that he was mistaken.

Surely it does cut a hefty percentage off the house's edge though. Even though I don't count, experiments at home with KO have shown me that the count is hugely influential when making the choice to double down on hands like 11 vs 10 and a number of other plays.

 

[ihate17]

You actually can play a positive game

Surely it does cut a hefty percentage off the house's edge though. Even though I don't count, experiments at home with KO have shown me that the count is hugely influential when making the choice to double down on hands like 11 vs 10 and a number of other plays.

If one were to wong in at counts of +2 or better, flat bet and use indices, you would be playing a positive game.
In your case you are correct, you would at least be cutting into the house edge.

ihate17

 

[Kasi]

Surely it does cut a hefty percentage off the house's edge though. Even though I don't count, experiments at home with KO have shown me that the count is hugely influential when making the choice to double down on hands like 11 vs 10 and a number of other plays.

Well I doubt if it cuts that much at all off the house edge, especially if u r flat-betting and playing all.

A little bit but not a lot. Especially multi-decks.

What is the Playing Efficiency of KO anyway?

What do u think is "hefty"?

 

[SPX]

Well I doubt if it cuts that much at all off the house edge, especially if u r flat-betting and playing all.

A little bit but not a lot. Especially multi-decks.

What is the Playing Efficiency of KO anyway?

What do u think is "hefty"?

I guess the term HEFTY is relative. .5% doesn't sound very hefty. In found it sounds pretty inconsequential. But look at all the effort people go through to slice that off and get about the same advantage for themselves, or perhaps just slightly more.

You can win a good many shoes with BS alone. I am in the process of hand-dealing 100 shoes out to 4 "players", mostly for my own curiosity. I have only applied betting analysis to the first 16 but after 16 shoes all four players are ahead and, at a $10 flat bet, one player is nearly $300 up.

So it's not at all remarkable to win a shoe or a series of shoes with BS. And if in absolute terms BS will win almost--relatively speaking--as much as it loses then it's certainly not a stretch to think that with a more intelligent system of play that one might be able to get the edge even when flat betting.

In regard to KO, I don't think it really matters what system you use. I am only saying that I have consistently sat there and watched how I would sit on 11 against a 6 and, when the count's low, I would double down and end up drawing a 2 and the dealer would pull low cards until he sat comfortably at 19. But when the count is high, I'd get my 10 and so would the dealer, busting him.

 

[Kasi]

I guess the term HEFTY is relative. .5% doesn't sound very hefty. In found it sounds pretty inconsequential. But look at all the effort people go through to slice that off and get about the same advantage for themselves, or perhaps just slightly more.

Well, .5% sounds pretty hefty to me in a .43% game

Add a zero before the 5 and you'll be alot closer but probably still too high.

Even that would be reducing HA by 10+%.


Which, to me, ain't nothing to sneeze at!

 

[Knox]

On this or some other blackjack forum, there was an obvious novice who thought he could play a positive ev game by just using indices and flat betting. He was quickly informed that he was mistaken.
ihate17

It seems to me that for a SD or DD game with good rules, you could eke out a small positive EV with index plays alone. I would agree that it would be virtually impossible on 6D or 8D games. I am also aware that the majority of the benefit comes from varying your bets, but index plays are far more valuable toward EV the fewer the decks, no?

 

[Kasi]

It seems to me that for a SD or DD game with good rules, you could eke out a small positive EV with index plays alone. I would agree that it would be virtually impossible on 6D or 8D games. I am also aware that the majority of the benefit comes from varying your bets, but index plays are far more valuable toward EV the fewer the decks, no?

Yes much more valuable the fewer the decks.

Still, flat betting, playing all, I doubt u could eke an advantage.

Just don't know lol.