Advantage play with two people - any tips?

[Jumpfreak888]

Again, I come to you guys for some wisdom.

I have found a fellow college student who shares my passion for beating the casino. As such, we've decided to start working as a team.

What are some ways that we can take advantage of working as a team?

Thus far, all we've really done to make use of our 'team play' is to call the other person over to make big bets when the count goes high. (Luckily, the casino we play blackjack in has a beatable doubledeck and shoe game right across from eachother, so it's easy to signal the other person over to 'wong' when the count is highly positive)

What else can / should we do?

Thanks in advance!,

Dan

 

[Sonny]

Combining bankrolls and playing at different tables is usually the most effective way. Unless you're planning on using a huge max bet or taking advantage of another opportunity (side bets, hole carding, etc.) then you should stick with aggressive play at separate tables.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Combining bankrolls and playing at different tables is usually the most effective way. Unless you're planning on using a huge max bet or taking advantage of another opportunity (side bets, hole carding, etc.) then you should stick with aggressive play at separate tables.

-Sonny-

I don't know, I think I would choose backcounting different tables and sitting down together when one of them finds a good count. It doesn't cut per-hand variance as much as playing 2 different tables does, but you can compensate by playing a lower top bet and it won't hurt win rate because you'll be playing good counts more often.

Having both teammates always playing at the same table also helps reduce accounting irregularities, if you know what I mean.

 

[Sonny]

I think I would choose backcounting different tables and sitting down together when one of them finds a good count.

That’s a good plan, but if they backcount separately then they will get even more hands per hour. It helps to reduce the redundancy of having two people counting down the same table. If they are both playing at the same table then nobody is scouting the other tables. I would be more apt to use your plan if there were non-counting teammates who could act as Gorillas. In that case you don’t lose anything by having two people at the same table. But even without any Gorillas they could still spread to two hands by themselves so the Gorillas aren’t really contributing much in that case.

Having both teammates always playing at the same table also helps reduce accounting irregularities, if you know what I mean.

Very good point.

-Sonny-

 

[JoeV]

In my opinion, if you feel the need to watch your teamate so close that you have to sit at the same table to watch for accounting irregularities, than you shouldn't be playing as a team.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

That’s a good plan, but if they backcount separately then they will get even more hands per hour. It helps to reduce the redundancy of having two people counting down the same table. If they are both playing at the same table then nobody is scouting the other tables. I would be more apt to use your plan if there were non-counting teammates who could act as Gorillas. In that case you don’t lose anything by having two people at the same table. But even without any Gorillas they could still spread to two hands by themselves so the Gorillas aren’t really contributing much in that case.

What I meant was backcounting two different tables, and then converging on one when they see a good count on one of them.

I suppose that's right, that if they are both playing one table no one is backcounting the other tables, but if they are both already at a table with a good count, there's no need to find another good count.

On the other hand, that good count will be gone soon, and it would be nice to have another one to play right away. This is an interesting question. The best answer probably changes with playing conditions.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

In my opinion, if you feel the need to watch your teamate so close that you have to sit at the same table to watch for accounting irregularities, than you shouldn't be playing as a team.

Trust but verify. Not only do I want to watch my partner, I want him to watch me even more. Because two people can go into a partnership with the best intentions, and the unforseeable happens and everything goes bad.

At least if you are watching each other, if the team goes bankrupt you'll still always be friends.

 

[Kasi]

I don't know, I think I would choose backcounting different tables and sitting down together when one of them finds a good count. It doesn't cut per-hand variance as much as playing 2 different tables does, but you can compensate by playing a lower top bet and it won't hurt win rate because you'll be playing good counts more often.

Having both teammates always playing at the same table also helps reduce accounting irregularities, if you know what I mean.

It's late and I don't know but assuming you're playing to the same bankroll I don't think both of you should be betting the same way at the same table as u would if u were betting at separate tables.

But maybe that's what ur saying - if u both know to lower ur bet to the same as if one person were playing 2 hands.

As far as accounting irregularities go, I'd hope all that would be spelled out ahead of time. When winnings would be distributed, how one would be paid off at any point in time if they so choose, etc based on how many hours they played or how much they won or lost etc or how much they invested. What game would be played and how. How overhead, rooms, tips, etc are handled.

Even whether u would choose to both play the same table or not, at what count and how much etc. All that should be decided ahead of time, I would think.

I would want robots on my team. There is no free will. Resistance is futile.

 

[halcyon1234]

Maybe you can both just play at the same table, spreading to two hands on good counts. You aren't going to get the combined-bankroll or BP bonus or anything like that, but what you will get is more than your fair share of "good cards". Between the two of you, you can use up 4/7 spots. That's 3 fewer card-eating ploppies than if you just played by yourself.

While you are doing this, you both keep your own counts, play your own hands, use your own bankrolls. You won't have to worry about bankroll trust, book keeping, relative level of skills, etc. It'll give you a chance to evaluate each other in play. You can provide each other with critique about how the other plays in a real, live casino.

Play for while. If you find that both of you are on the same foot-- you both know BS, can handle cover, heat, etc, can manage your bankrolls, can act properly in a casino-- then look into doing something more teamy. Combined bankroll on seperate tables. Or take turns being the BP.

I reccomend this because I don't think jumping right into forming a professional team is a good idea-- given small bankroll, inexperience, lack of knowing each other well. BUT that doesn't mean that you can't work together to got some value out of it. Practicing, critiquing each other is something you won't get from the message boards. Sharing the cost of gas to the casino is good, too.

 

[Sonny]

Maybe you can both just play at the same table, spreading to two hands on good counts…Between the two of you, you can use up 4/7 spots.

That might be a little too blatant, no?

It'll give you a chance to evaluate each other in play. You can provide each other with critique about how the other plays in a real, live casino.

In this case it might be best if one player shadows another instead of having them both play in tandem. One player could simply watch the other from behind and cheer him on. This would look much less suspicious than two counters simultaneously spreading to 4 hands. It would also give the evaluator more time to focus on the player instead of having to count and play his own hands.

But I agree that it is important to be familiar with each other’s play before starting the team. It is very important that all players be able to show the minimum required skills in order to participate in team activities. Ideally any team should have all of the training and testing done before they enter any casinos. It sounds like Jumpfreak has his team assembled already, which is a good start. The next step is to find a way to utilize everyone to their maximum value.

-Sonny-

 

[Sonny]

…but if they are both already at a table with a good count, there's no need to find another good count.

But if they play separately then there will be times when they both find hot shoes at the same time. Then they can each play their max bet at different tables instead of 75% of their max bet at the same table. More money on the table = more profit.

Also, why use two players when each player can spread to two hands on his own? That way they are occasionally playing 4 hands simultaneously instead of just 2. They will be able to play more hands per hour by playing individually. More hands = more profit.

This way you’re getting more money on the table and playing more hands per hour.

Let’s look at this mathematically for a second. We’ll assume 100 hands seen per hour and 25 of those will be positive. If they play separately then they will find 50 (25+25) good hands, about 6 of which will be simultaneous (0.25*0.25). If they play together then they will miss out on those 6 extra hands. Now they are only playing 44 hands per hour (1-0.75*0.75). Any time that the second player spends not watching other tables is going to add up to even more missed hands. Even though he is technically already playing a good hand, he is missing out on others where he could be betting more money.

To put it another way, think about the first player. He is watching 100 hands per hour. If the second player is playing separately then he is also seeing 100 hands. The team is watching 200 hands per hour. But if the second player joins the first player for 25 hands then the team is only watching 175 unique hands per hour. If you include the missed hands where the second player is rushing over trying to get to the table then you will end up with maybe 165 or so hands per hour. That’s an 18% EV loss not including the money they are losing from not being able to play simultaneous max bets 6 times per hour.

This is an interesting question. The best answer probably changes with playing conditions.

I’ll bet you’re right. I mean, if there aren’t many other tables available then it doesn’t make much sense to have another player sitting around waiting for them to shuffle instead of playing. But in a larger casino is seems like it would be better to have them split up so that they can find as many opportunities as possible. Camo is also a consideration with two counters ramping their bets at the same table.

-Sonny-

 

[Mimosine]

Camo is also a consideration with two counters ramping their bets at the same table.

-Sonny-

Maybe they could attack this problem with a drunken frat boy approach of daring each other publicly who is willing to bet more per hand!

 

[Sonny]

Maybe they could attack this problem with a drunken frat boy approach of daring each other publicly who is willing to bet more per hand!

That might work. They could also pretend to be in competition to see who can win the most. Every time one of them raises his bet the other one says "I'm not gonna let you make a move on me!" and raises his bet as well. It's almost like they are in a tournament together.

-Sonny-

 

[shadroch]

That might work. They could also pretend to be in competition to see who can win the most. Every time one of them raises his bet the other one says "I'm not gonna let you make a move on me!" and raises his bet as well. It's almost like they are in a tournament together.

-Sonny-

The mini-tournament play works great with a male-female team. Especially where the male is playing the experianced know-it-all and the female is a beginner who just happens to have a big bet out there when a natural comes along.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

But if they play separately then there will be times when they both find hot shoes at the same time. Then they can each play their max bet at different tables instead of 75% of their max bet at the same table. More money on the table = more profit.

Also, why use two players when each player can spread to two hands on his own? That way they are occasionally playing 4 hands simultaneously instead of just 2. They will be able to play more hands per hour by playing individually. More hands = more profit.

This way you’re getting more money on the table and playing more hands per hour.

Let’s look at this mathematically for a second. We’ll assume 100 hands seen per hour and 25 of those will be positive. If they play separately then they will find 50 (25+25) good hands, about 6 of which will be simultaneous (0.25*0.25). If they play together then they will miss out on those 6 extra hands. Now they are only playing 44 hands per hour (1-0.75*0.75). Any time that the second player spends not watching other tables is going to add up to even more missed hands. Even though he is technically already playing a good hand, he is missing out on others where he could be betting more money.

To put it another way, think about the first player. He is watching 100 hands per hour. If the second player is playing separately then he is also seeing 100 hands. The team is watching 200 hands per hour. But if the second player joins the first player for 25 hands then the team is only watching 175 unique hands per hour. If you include the missed hands where the second player is rushing over trying to get to the table then you will end up with maybe 165 or so hands per hour. That’s an 18% EV loss not including the money they are losing from not being able to play simultaneous max bets 6 times per hour.



I’ll bet you’re right. I mean, if there aren’t many other tables available then it doesn’t make much sense to have another player sitting around waiting for them to shuffle instead of playing. But in a larger casino is seems like it would be better to have them split up so that they can find as many opportunities as possible. Camo is also a consideration with two counters ramping their bets at the same table.

-Sonny-

Ah OK now I see what you mean. In an ideal situation, assuming both players are playing to a combined bankroll, they will be better off each on their own. In fact they'll be a tiny increment better off not even in the same casino. In this scenario you can consider the two players to be the equivalent of one player capable of bilocation, being in two places at the same time. (I'm sure ZG knows a method for doing this!)

Combined bankroll, independent play might be a little bit heavy for a pair of rookies though.