BJA 2nd ed.

[Coug It]

Just picked it up and I'm liking what I see. I have to vehemently disagree with something I came across early on. Re. the theory that you should NEVER increase a wager after a losing hand.

In my former days as a ploppy, I often would increase my bet (many times 4-5x my previous wager) out of what was basically anger and the feeling that the dealer just had to lose a hand, eventually.

I actually use this same scenario now as a cover play, while saying something like, "OK, its time to get serious" or "You just gotta lose one sometimes".

I welcome your thoughts.

 

[Adam N. Subtractum]

Don's "never"s...

...are merely his educated opinions. I tend to think, from what I have heard of them, that they apply more to the high stakes player. For example, Don also says "never" play single deck, which many people will disagree with. But this is probably sound advice for the high stakes player that doesn't have an act like Ian Anderson. As for raising after a loss, a little "steam" comin out the ears works wonders.

ANS

 

[Rob McGarvey]

Re: Don's "never"s...

as does "lettin it ride" when the count calls for it. Chasing your bets (Martingaling it) is fine as long as you do so within the parameters of the count, one of my favorite covers.

 

[The Mayor]

One should not throw caution to the wind, but what is all the theoretical knowledge worth if you don't use most of it in practice? Optimal bet ramps, correct bet sizing, etc., are a huge part of your SCORE. The cost of cover is part of the game too, but the cost should be reasonable, and Don's "Nevers" simply cost too much.

 

[learning to count]

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSTEAM

That is the one thing that we all have to work on; the FRUSTRATION of loosing consistantly on a rising count. The rule of thumb is bet with the count not with your paranoia. As far single deck well there are some excellent situations still available but throwing real money at them is difficult. I have been lucky with green stacks up to a hundred bucks. LTC

 

[NewbieCC]

Re: Great book, but . .

I am just finishing up this book and think that it is excellent. I really appreciate the practical logic that Don uses to attack different blackjack questions. It helps me to think through other problems/questions that I have that he does not address. However, it seems to me that (1) Don tends toward the conservative side, and (2) many of his opinions are somewhat reflective of the times when they were written. Some of the contents of the book were writting long ago when games were much more favorable than they are today. This is a great addition to my library, Don's "logic" and "math" are immpecable, but I choose to weigh Don's "opinions" against other experienced player's opinions to come up with something I am comfortable and confindent in. For example, Don advocates in his book, spreading 1 to 2x6 units. Most experienced players today recommend a much higher spread (presumming you can get away with it) in order to get a reasonable return on the tougher games that exist today. And that is just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth.

NewbieCC

 

[ZOD]

Never?

I, for one, hate the word "NEVER." I think that casino conditions dictate appropriate strategies for varying my bets. This is probably one of those times that winning blackjack is as much an art as a science.

In any game situation where there might be a little heat, I always try to come up with a "ploppy" reason for increasing or decreasing my bet. Sometimes that means lowering my bet after my blackjack beats the dealer twenty (well, you know, I always lose the next hand after a blackjack!) Sometimes that means upping my bet after I've lost a couple in a row (I've got to win one of these damn hands eventually!) Sometimes it means asking the pit boss for help and letting him convince me what to do next (often his advice is right on the money.)

The art really comes into it when sizing up the pit boss. The trick isn't just to act like any ploppy, but to act like the ploppy that THIS PIT PARTICULAR PIT BOSS NEEDS TO SEE. Is he bored and needing a little dirty joke to get through shift? Is he laughing at the poor drunk bastards throwing away their money? Does he beam with pride when players tell him what a wonderful casino this is and what a great job he is doing?

I've obviously strayed a little from the original topic, but my point is that once you figure out what the pit boss is NOT looking for, and you become that player, then you can raise and lower your bets almost with impunity.

Except, of course, when those three guys in suits are staring at you and growling. In that case, NEVER...

ZOD

 

[T-Hopper]

Re: Don's "never"s...

I posted a list of several (but probably not all) of Don's unbending rules for cover play on advantageplayer.com. Unfortunately, most of the replies were deleted a couple of days later. While high stakes players can consider using some of these rules some of the time, anyone with a max bet of less than several hundred dollars is wasting his time even thinking about cover plays.

Here are a few of the motives that drive counters and wanna-be counters to use excessive cover.

<UL>

<LI>Overestimation of the edge. BJ is a grind; even with perfect play, you can lose hundreds of units in a very short time, and continue losing for hundreds of hours.

<LI>Looking for an excuse to gamble. You must be patient or find a better game. Believe me, you will get PLENTY of action every hour betting by the count if you know where to look.

<LI>Wanting to "play fair" with the casino. My comment here: BWAHAHAHAHA!

<LI>Fear of getting backed off. So they tell you to leave, so what? There are approximately 999 other places to play in the world. It's not 1977 any more when the only legal blackjack in the U.S. was dealt in Nevada.

<LI>Wanting to play like the "big boys." Monkey see, monkey do. It's foolish to try to imitate the purple chip play of a million dollar team with red chips. They can afford to "give back" a little (if warranted), the average player cannot.

</UL>

 

[Adam N. Subtractum]

Great points T...& some more thoughts

T-Hopper brings up some very valid points. Most cover plays are just far too costly for all but the big money players. But its also important to understand what is meant when people say "low stakes players shouldn't use any cover plays". What's really meant, is don't use plays that have a cost (by cost, I mean decreased ev and/or increased risk).

An example of this has often been brought up by ZG, where he recommends making superstitious decisions on borderline plays (although I am not a preponderant of the idea, as I believe there is no such thing as a "borderline decision"...there is always enough info available to make a decisive decision, though the effects would be near nill). Some more examples can be found in Alan Pell's (author of "Blackjack Bootcamp") "Imbicilicus Touristicus..." article, archived in the Library at BJFonline, but the concept is only limited by your imagination.

It should also be noted, as pointed out by ADM in his great "Enemy" series (archived here, in the "Best Posts" page), that a "naive" act is not something that anyone should just go out and attempt. When executed clumsily you will arise more suspicions than you would have envoked with if you had played normally. Obviously don't go trying to make an "imbicilicus" play while shuffling a stack of cheques like you're friggin' Nick the Greek. Use common sense, and also watch how ploppies behave...their comments, their mannerisms, etc. and try and become comfortable mimicking them. This will seem obvious to experienced players, but the beginners need to understand the importance of this.

One benefit of this ploy is that beginning counters are ususally not veteran gamblers, and are often knew to the casino experience, thus their "acts" can be quite convincing.

 

[T-Hopper]

Borderline plays

Most players should choose the play with lower variance. Increased risk can wipe you out just as quickly as reduced EV. Or better yet, use a running count system instead of having to constantly rely on TC "judgment calls".

What I found strange about the original thread was that anything I said here is controversial. Is everyone supposed to have a high 5 figure BR or more in cash?

 

[T-Hopper]

Also

I am not saying do everything you can to get backed off every session, as some players seem to attempt. Use some caution and discretion. And as the Bishop once said, if you are betting low stakes, dealing with heat is easy. They shouldn't even notice you at most joints, so if you get any heat at all, just leave!

 

[T-Hopper]

Low stakes players don't need an "act"

 

[alienated]

Re: Great points T...& some more thoughts

'a "naive" act is not something that anyone should just go out and attempt. When executed clumsily you will arise more suspicions than you would have envoked with if you had played normally.'

I think this goes for a lot of counters' 'acts', naive or otherwise.

Is it just me, or does everybody cringe the moment a player starts to explain the reason for their play, change in bet, taking of insurance, etc. Straight away I'm thinking 'counter'. ;-)

If someone gets annoyed at your play and abuses you (usually another counter trying to sound like a ploppy!), it can make sense to use the situation to paint yourself in the best light. Or if the dealer or PB offers some 'helpful' advice, again, there may be some utility in playing the situation. But IMO it usually seems unnatural to volunteer your rationale for every little thing you decide to do at the table. What makes you think that anyone would question your actions in the first place? You're a ploppy, right? You know what you're doing. What's with having a rationale anyway? Sounds like someone's thinking too much to be a ploppy. (Note to Adam: second person used as literary device only, such as it is - not directed at you personally !!?! ;-))

Of course, never say never. We all have different personalities, demeanours, appearances, etc, and what works for one person just won't seem right for another. I think the most important thing is to seem natural, where 'natural' is as defined by the narrow-minded, mediocre, bigoted masses, not the cosmopolitan, talented, tolerant advantage-play community (yeah right!). If our 'acts' grow naturally out of our basic personalities, we can't go too far wrong.

There are infinite ways to look dumb, many of them quite subtle.

Of course, it's easier for those of us who have always looked that way. ;-)

 

[Coug It]

Great replies...

Thank you for your insight!

 

[Adam N. Subtractum]

Re: Great points T...& some more thoughts

Ted wrote:
'Adam said: 'a "naive" act is not something that anyone should just go out and attempt. When executed clumsily you will arise more suspicions than you would have envoked with if you had played normally.'

"I think this goes for a lot of counters' 'acts', naive or otherwise."

I agree fully, I wasn't implying that this advice only applies to this ploy. Thanks for elaborating though, for those who may not be aware.

"Is it just me, or does everybody cringe the moment a player starts to explain the reason for their play, change in bet, taking of insurance, etc. Straight away I'm thinking 'counter'. ;-)"

Again I agree fully, I should've clarified that I wasn't suggesting excessive explanations. IMO comments can be useful though, when timed properly.

"If someone gets annoyed at your play and abuses you (usually another counter trying to sound like a ploppy!), it can make sense to use the situation to paint yourself in the best light. Or if the dealer or PB offers some 'helpful' advice, again, there may be some utility in playing the situation. But IMO it usually seems unnatural to volunteer your rationale for every little thing you decide to do at the table. What makes you think that anyone would question your actions in the first place? You're a ploppy, right? You know what you're doing. What's with having a rationale anyway? Sounds like someone's thinking too much to be a ploppy. (Note to Adam: second person used as literary device only, such as it is - not directed at you personally !!?! ;-))

Of course, I understand what you meant Ted ;-). Once again I agree with all of your comments here, but I must caution you about your use "thinking" and "ploppy" in the same sentance. Are you certain there wasn't a better way to word it? lol

"Of course, never say never. We all have different personalities, demeanours, appearances, etc, and what works for one person just won't seem right for another. I think the most important thing is to seem natural, where 'natural' is as defined by the narrow-minded, mediocre, bigoted masses, not the cosmopolitan, talented, tolerant advantage-play community (yeah right!). If our 'acts' grow naturally out of our basic personalities, we can't go too far wrong."

Some very good advice.

"There are infinite ways to look dumb, many of them quite subtle."

Definitely, I see 'em all the time.

"Of course, it's easier for those of us who have always looked that way. ;-)"

So that was YOU Ted!

BTW, its good to see you posting again. How did things work out with your development? It did indeed look very promising.

ANS

 

[Adam N. Subtractum]

Re: Also

T-H wrote:
"I am not saying do everything you can to get backed off every session, as some players seem to attempt. Use some caution and discretion."

Of course. It's funny, you know what they say, some people feel they need to get barred in order to prove to themselves they are playing a winning game. Crazy.

"And as the Bishop once said, 'if you are betting low stakes, dealing with heat is easy. They shouldn't even notice you at most joints, so if you get any heat at all, just leave!'"

What about like in AC where there's only a couple decent games? Wouldn't you agree that a player with less options has to compromise somewhat?

ANS

 

[alienated]

Re: Great points T...& some more thoughts

"I should've clarified that I wasn't suggesting excessive explanations."

I think your post made perfect sense. I enjoyed reading it and was just chiming in with my two cents.

"IMO comments can be useful though, when timed properly."

Agreed.

"BTW, its good to see you posting again. How did things work out with your development? It did indeed look very promising."

I don't really mean to go so long without posting. I tend to get a bit preoccupied with whatever I'm busy with at the moment. Right now it's boundary effects (although this was interrupted with a brief foray into NRS territory ;-)), and it's taking up most of my time away from the tables. I think segment boundaries is the development you are referring to. It does seem to be very promising. Actually, I'm certain all the work will turn out to be worth it. Most of my time is taken up with certain cases. These are by no means the most important cases, just the most difficult to analyze, but I want to cover them for (near) completeness.

But the bottom line is that the main cases - [1,0], [1,1], [2,1] - are all very exploitable. The cases taking most of my time are [all,1] and [all,2], of which the latter is least important because of its low frequency of occurrence.

 

[alienated]

PS

The second bottom line (!) is that segment boundaries are often very exploitable even if you don't know what type of crossing will occur.

I've alluded to the reasons for this in earlier posts, but I'll explain everything more fully when it's ready.

Regards,
Ted

 

[T-Hopper]

Re: Also

Of course you might have to make some concessions if you want to be a regular at the local casino. Just mkae sure that everything you are giving up is necessary to be able to keep playing. In some casinos you can play every day and still do whatever you want, it would be a huge mistake to use cover or quit after XX minutes every time at such a place.