flyingwind
Well-Known Member
What is the difference between a big player and a gorilla?
Big player vs gorilla
- Thread starter flyingwind
- Start date
I'm pretty sure this is the general idea of it, I hope some of the more experienced players correct me if I'm wrong. The big player is a team member that gets called into a table of positive counts and get passed the count through a signal by the spotter. Then after the count is passed the spotter is free to find a new hot deck and the BP (big player) can bet and play accordingly to the count. The gorilla on the otherhand is more so just acting, gets called into the positive deck and does nothing but act, the spotter controls the gorillas play and bet by various signals. The gorilla cannot play on their own.
NightStalker
Well-Known Member
For the game of blackjack:
Big player can count and bet/play himself.
GP doesn't count and needs signals for how much to bet and which action to play...
Big player can count and bet/play himself.
GP doesn't count and needs signals for how much to bet and which action to play...
flyingwind
Well-Known Member
It seems hard for me to find gorillas.
It's hard for me to find spotters, too.
It's hard for me to find spotters, too.
well as a gorilla you dont have to do anything just follow the signals, technically you can take a homeless guy off the street offer him a bottle of vodka and all he has to do is follow your signals. now the issue of trust is an entirely different story... I can imagine it hard to find spotters just because people dont want to really work at it to do it right.flyingwind said:
Bad help is worse then no help.
I watched a gorilla BP **** up multiple plays on three card poker. (I was NOT part of the team). That's about the easiest game there is.
Even assuming theft isn't an issue, would you really trust someone with your money at a blackjack game if they don't even know basic strategy?
I watched a gorilla BP **** up multiple plays on three card poker. (I was NOT part of the team). That's about the easiest game there is.
Even assuming theft isn't an issue, would you really trust someone with your money at a blackjack game if they don't even know basic strategy?
Lonesome Gambler
Well-Known Member
You're sure the spotter was not to blame?pit15 said:
Lonesome Gambler
Well-Known Member
I once was at a table (I know, almost never advisable, but I had my reasons) with a player that felt like sharing. After a particular signal, I was certain that the game would be burned immediately, it was that ridiculous. I couldn't believe this guy!
Poor skills and bad play should not define the worth of GBP play. When done right, in the right circumstances, it is a very valuable and lucrative method of play. Its not for everybody, and can be a waste of time and money for some situations. However, in the right scenario with good players in the right roles its quite easy to pull it off, and can have huge benefits.pit15 said:
It defines the worth of poorly trained GBP play.Bojack1 said:
Which is what I'm kind of getting at. Don't think it's easy to just pick up a GBP, teach them some signals and play, unless you're willing to blow your cover by correcting their play at the table.
You need to properly train and test the person. For playing a blackjack count game, I think at the minimum the GBP needs to know basic strategy. Having someone who doesn't even know BS bet large sums of money at blackjack is a big mistake.
Of course you need to train and test the person. But sometimes its best that they know no more than what you train them to do, and that may mean not your average BS. Assuming the role of GBP by definition is a player that wagers large based soley on info that is passed to them. If that system is not worked out flawlessly before actual play, then yes it can easily be a failure of a system. But it is absolutely not necessary for a player well trained as a GBP to know your typical BS plays. Its actually smarter to have the GBP more trained in assuming the role of carefree big bettor while being able to comprehend and act on signs. Most GBP play does not come into play in average play all situations, so instead of teaching them BS moves that would optimally be deviated from with strong indice play, it is much easier to signal typical player moves such as hit, stand, etc. It is very simple and the training is much easier and harder to make any errors. Thats typically how its done. Its like taking a test with someone giving you all the correct answers. You can work on your act, play the fool, and there is no reason for a mental slip up because there is no mental taxation.pit15 said:
QFIT
Well-Known Member
While a BP must be a more knowledgeable player than a gorilla, the abilities of a good gorilla can be underestimated. Acting is not as easy as it sounds. There are teams that have paid gorillas well and treat them as major members, and then there have been teams that use them as minor, expendable members. Burn 'em out and train more. There simply aren't enough stats to tell which method works best.
That is true, they most likely do not NEED to know BS, but it's just one of those things where I feel if someone is incapable or unwilling to learn then that's not someone I want handling money.
The other thing I wouldn't be OK with is ploppy mentality. If someone takes a 10 on a bad hit, the dealer flips over 16 and draws a 5, and you want to say something about taking the bust card (unless it's strictly part of an act), then I don't want anything to do with that person. That to me is a sign that someone can't be trusted. I know if I had a GBP make any kind of hunch play I would probably explode at the table and blow any cover we had. Misreads and mistakes are one thing, but doing something "because you had a feeling (unless that "feeling" was because you saw a hole card)" would make me lose it.
The other thing I wouldn't be OK with is ploppy mentality. If someone takes a 10 on a bad hit, the dealer flips over 16 and draws a 5, and you want to say something about taking the bust card (unless it's strictly part of an act), then I don't want anything to do with that person. That to me is a sign that someone can't be trusted. I know if I had a GBP make any kind of hunch play I would probably explode at the table and blow any cover we had. Misreads and mistakes are one thing, but doing something "because you had a feeling (unless that "feeling" was because you saw a hole card)" would make me lose it.
I think you're missing what a GBP really is. It is not, like someone suggested above, someone you just pluck off the street and offer a bottle of vodka. They are going to be the big bettor, which in essence means that they are going to carry a lot of your money. That being the case, like any other team member, there has to be a large degree of trust built up. That's not really my point however - with this degree of trust i would also suggests comes a degree of respect for what you do. If your GBP is making plays on hunches rather than your signals, they're not a GBP. They're a ploppy that you're funding to play.pit15 said:
A very successful player that i have a great deal of respect for actually prefers anyone who plays with him not to have any previous experience. The justification for this is simple - players who already know BS or counting often can't help themselves and this leads to mistakes. When 14vsT comes out they hit, before they realise that he's signalled to stand. A GBP shouldn't be thinking about the game at all, they should be following the signals.
RJT.