1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a jerk

[learning to count]

Type vacation: Cruise

Ship:Carnival Legend

Time: Eight days of splendid cruising; Eight nights of BJ nuclear war!

Game: Eight decks/two-3.5 deck cut offs, suggested % -49.

Tools: Hi-Lo; Wonging; Dealer grifting and begging.

Net result: 30 unit loss over all at the end of the week; Roller coaster ride on win/loss.

Highs: $750 win on one shoe with monstrous TC'S. Several 100 to 500 dollar shoe wins. Was able to grift certain dealers to deal out seven decks instead of the casino directive of minimum six decks dealt out! Damn incredible experience for a six deck player. I learned a lot!

Lows: High TC's with $50 to $100 two hand each having 20 totals and end up losing to dealers 15 and 16 becoming 21! I had a plus 3-7 TC count run for three hands at the quarter table. I played three bets on three hands. Two $50 bets and a $25 dollar cap bet on a obliging neighbor. (I recieved 15 and 16 and the dealer had 20. Three Snappers on down the line. I busted and lost my capped bet which was 18! Shit that hurt!) No profit to take home!

Ploppy stories well that will be in my next post! Just to give a taste I split tens against a six with a plus 6 tc. A high roller who had the personality of Rasputin called me a "jerk" and told every one I did not know what the hell I was doing and that I was F*%$K*NG up the game for every one. I split with a $50 original bet. HAAA A hundred on the table and I get an ace for each split ten. Raspie is shocked and mutters something about me being a dumb F%$*K. The count then rises to a TC of 8. I bet two hands at 75 and get two snappers HAAAAAAAAAAAAA! The SOB gathers up his $500 plus in red chips, yep 500 in red, and walks away swearing. HAAAAAAAAA. I said real loud hey not bad for a begginer and everyone started cheering at the table!!!! This was my shoe from Heaven! Talk to ya later I need sleep.

 

[BradRod]

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a

<<<<< Damn incredible experience for a six deck player >>>>

If I come to a table and see only one or two hands have been played. I may start counting at -5, or -7 to cover what I judge the worst count scenario may be, then see what happens in the next few hands. If the count turns positive then my thinking is it must really be positive because I adjusted such a low count. (This was before my enlightenmant. Now I understand that i should Wong the table until the count gets truly favorable)

Twice when I did this the count was growing very positive so, I was of course raising my bet. My lesson was to look before you leap. Both of those times I came to a table w/8D shoes that I was playing to be 6D.

One was a casino that I had not played at before. I checked Trackjack to learn the conditions there and saw that they had a 6D game,, - that was in the other pit though ---. SO, the information was not completely accurate. The other time was in a casino that I was familiar with but, that had changed the one pit area to 8D from 6 - also changed from S17 to H17....since my previous visit. It does pay to scope things out first

 

[The Mayor]

Not correct

If you enter a table with a shoe already played, you should just view those as unplayed cards, or in other words, you are playing a shoe with crappy penetration. That is the only way to play it. Don't make any assumptions about the worst case -- that will only hurt you.

 

[zengrifter]

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a

If I come to a table and see only one or two hands have been played. I may start counting at -5, or -7 to cover what I judge the worst count scenario may be, then see what happens in the next few hands.
-----------------

Negatory - the cards you do not see are the same AS IF they were behind the shuffle-card. zg

 

[BradRod]

Re: Not correct

If you enter a table with a shoe already played, you should just view those as unplayed cards, or in other words, you are playing a shoe with crappy penetration. That is the only way to play it. Don't make any assumptions about the worst case -- that will only hurt you.

...... because you will not be properly playing the low count game , insurance plays ?

I guess I feel like I sometimes have to guard against over exuberance in high counts..

I would not enter a table with more than 1/4 deck played (of 6) for the reason of the poor penetration.

 

[The Mayor]

Re: Not correct

Unseen cards are the same, whether they are previously played in a shoe, or whether they are behind the cut card. Just as you would make no assumption about the cards behind the cut card (and guard against...), so too you should make no assumption about unseen cards already in the discard tray.

 

[BradRod]

i stand corrected

 

[learning to count]

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a

The art and ZEN of Wonging,(Or WHAT I think I learned!) The first thing I did was to start playing at the begining of a shoe with flat bets. I increased my bets with the count. I was only allowed a 1-40 spread because this was the min/max at the tables. I dont have the mathmatical proof but I feel a spread of 1 to 50/60 may be needed to beat this horrible game. If they cut off only a deck.

I know the Mayor or ZG can give more insight to the spread for such a game.

When the count went south of the border -1 True count I would play one more hand to see if there would by any improvement to nuetral or I would play while the count droped as long as I was winning. If not adios. Luckily there were several other tables with opportunity for back counting. Now remember you need at least a minus eight to show a negative count and that is a lot of cards.

Another technique I used was to back count a shoe from its inception and jump in a plus eight or better. At a count higher than plus two (Per the Mayor) I would bet two hands of one unit each. If the count went up I bet my ramp spliting it between two hands. The frustrating thing was that high plus true counts are slow in comming. You need a +16 to get a TC of +2 for at least two hands.

I preferred the first technique of WONGING out.

The other technique I used was to pass and do the scan technique which is to count whats on the table and look for a plus eight or better(plus six for a six decker) and play it until the plus one TC disapeared. LIke the mayor and ZG said you must start at zero and treat the cards in the discard tray as the same as the cards in the shoe. This is hard but after several hours of doing this you get the knack.

The last thing I started doing was shuffle tracking. I kept track of the of the slugs and was able to see when the mix of these slugs and then cut the deck to put them in a playable position when they are dealt out. I had limited success when there was a distinct visible slugs and not low counts which would not amount to a good mix at time of deal. I was also good at getting the table to allow me to make the cuts! I played 5 to 8 hours a night/day continuosly for eight days so I was able to study the shuffle and know which dealers bastardized the official suffle and simplified it so I was able to track the slugs.

IMHO:This my perview and my experience. As far as I know I could be full of it. SO dont take your wife's cookie money and try and bet the bank next trip. LTC

 

[BradRod]

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a

>>>>>>>I was only allowed a 1-40 spread because this was the min/max at the tables. I dont have the mathmatical proof but I feel a spread of 1 to 50/60 may be needed to beat this horrible game. If they cut off only a deck.<<<<<<<<<

this seems like a really extreme spread.. at $10 min, you are soon betting $400 - $600. you really do that ?? i had my one lucky bet of $600 that hit a blackjack but, it seems like you would get wiped out pretty quick betting at that level consistently.

>>>>>>>>>>>>When the count went south of the border -1 True count I would play one more hand to see if there would by any improvement to nuetral or I would play while the count droped as long as I was winning. If not adios. <<<<<<<<<<<<

I do that too.. no need to leave while you are ahead and winning. i usually wait for the next losing hand. but, then i do not always leave the table. unless the shoe looks totally hopeless, i sometimes sit and keep counting if the count rises toward the end of the shoe i jump back in for what i hope will be a juicy last hand or 2.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The other technique I used was to pass and do the scan technique which is to count whats on the table and look for a plus eight or better(plus six for a six decker) and play it until the plus one TC disapeared. LIke the mayor and ZG said you must start at zero and treat the cards in the discard tray as the same as the cards in the shoe. This is hard but after several hours of doing this you get the knack.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I wonder if the Mayor, ZG, or other pro would comment on this method of WOnging in the middle of a shoe ?

 

[zengrifter]

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a

I wonder if the Mayor, ZG, or other pro would comment on this method of WOnging in the middle of a shoe ?
--------------------------

I've wonged in as deep as 2Ds (as though the top of 6or8Ds) though typically I won't stop and look if more than 1D has been played.

Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg

 

[BradRod]

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a

Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3

a 1-120, etc. zg

i do not understand that, can you explain further ?

another question - in using silver fox to approximate KO in the card couting computer i find that if i run the same parameters for 10k, 100k and 1 M hands the SD remains approximately the same, but if i increase the bet spread then the SD also increases. I can intuitively understand the effect of bet spread on SD but, i would think that if i increase the number of hands then the SD should decrease.does that make sense ??

 

[learning to count]

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a

"I've wonged in as deep as 2Ds (as though the top of 6or8Ds) though typically I won't stop and look if more than 1D has been played."

Good point I did wong in after two decks with a triple sized TC for eight decks and found good results.

"Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg "

QUESTION: ZG are you saying that due to the higher expected ev of playing only at the advantage you can risk more money?????

QUESTION: Also you obtain the cover of playing a short period of time and that you are betting large at these advantagious times with out big spreads????????

Please explain in depth if possible! LTC Thanks

 

[BradRod]

Yes, ZG. Do tell .

 

[zengrifter]

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a

"Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg "
QUESTION: ZG are you saying that due to the higher expected ev of playing only at the advantage you can risk more money?????

**NO, I'm saying that if you sit-out 1/2 of the -counts it effectively doubles your spread

QUESTION: Also you obtain the cover of playing a short period of time and that you are betting large at these advantagious times with out big spreads????????

**NO, my "sit-out" scheme applies to a "play-all-counts" scenario. IF you are wonging +counts only then you only need a 1-5 spread (1-10 max). zg

 

[BradRod]

sit out / play -all.....

??? Sorry ZG still not following . Could you please explain further...

Thanks

 

[The Mayor]

Re: sit out / play -all.....

If your minimum bet is played during negative counts, then:

scenario 1: you bet $10 for 100 hands in a negative count. $100 at max. 10-1 spread.

scenario 2: you bet $10 for 50 hands, and go to the bathroom for the other 50.

Both take the same amount of time, but effectively, your average bet in S-2 is $5 for each of the 100 hands (= $500 of action). Thus you have a 20-1 spread.

scenario 3: wong out.

In S-3, you find a better game, hence not wasting your time at the table during negative counts.

ZG is right on.

 

[BradRod]

Re: sit out / play -all.....

scenario 1: you bet $10 for 100 hands in a negative count. $100 at max. 10-1 spread.

scenario 2: you bet $10 for 50 hands, and go to the bathroom for the other 50.

Both take the same amount of time, but effectively, your average bet in S-2 is $5 for each of the 100 hands (= $500 of action). Thus you

have a 20-1 spread.

scenario 3: wong ou
=========================================================

OK, so as i understand it--------

scenario 1: = the play all scenario

scenario 2: = the sit out scenario

scenario 3: = wong out

I do understand the effect not betting all the neagative count hands has on the effective bet spread.

I guess what I am still unclear on are

a. - the size of LTC's basic spread @ 1:40 or 50. Does that mean that as long as it meets the Kelly criteria and as long as it does not btray one's attmpt at camouflage there is no suggested mathematical limit to one's spread at the upper end ?

b. - i have been getting a lot of what i think is good, strong advice to wong the game. When is scenario 1 a good strategic choice ?