Casino Training by not using bet spreads.

[BrokenSaints]

Right now I don't feel I am at a level to play huge spreads. Obviously since practicing in a casino is the best experience available I have been playing 5 dollar min table lately just for practice.

To get the most out of my practice.

I find a fast dealer
I find a busy and loud table during a busy time.
I use basic strategy, counting and deviations to the best of my ability and try to recognize my weaknesses.
I also do my best to have conversations and use cover.

To me this training is well worth the .6 of a percent house edge. Flash cards counting decks and studying charts could only take me so far I think this has helping to take my game to that next level.

Let me know what you think about this and if you think it is worth the money? I was also wondering if anybody did this when they were learning to count?

 

[callipygian]

I was also wondering if anybody did this when they were learning to count?

I didn't do it intentionally, but I was a BS player for many years before moving towards AP.

This is my opinion, but I completely agree with you. Most people start spreading too early and just ignore the fundamentals. If they want to earn more money, most people increase their bet spread, which does increase EV but also increases variance by quite a bit. My reccommendation:

0) Play basic strategy until it's second nature. If it takes you more than a quarter of a second to decide whether to split 9's vs. dealer 8, you're going to lose the count when you're dealt 99 vs. dealer 8 at a TC of +3 with T-A, 5-5, 3-7, and 9-9 on the table.

1) Learn to Wonging out. As you count cards, whenever the count gets too negative, invent an excuse to leave. If you leave when the TC drops below -1, you halve the house edge with minimal risk.

2) Next, find a good way to Wong in. Count up a table quickly, and only enter when the count is +1 or higher. If you Wong in at +1, and Wong out at -1, you've just broke even with the house without spreading at all.

3) Then start increasing your bet spread. A 1:2

 

[sagefr0g]

...
1) Learn to Wonging out. As you count cards, whenever the count gets too negative, invent an excuse to leave. If you leave when the TC drops below -1, you halve the house edge with minimal risk.
..

dumb question i know. so how about if you wong out half of the times that the TC drops below -1 and play all the rest of the times. that would be cutting the house edge by one quarter?

and if that's the case would this work for flat betting cutting the house edge by 1/2 or 1/4 or what ever?

 

[callipygian]

so how about if you wong out half of the times that the TC drops below -1 and play all the rest of the times. that would be cutting the house edge by one quarter?

I would assume so, assuming the half that you choose to sit out is random. If it's not random, there might be differences.

would this work for flat betting cutting the house edge by 1/2 or 1/4 or what ever?

That's actually exactly my point. Most people (including me when I started) try to negate house edge by increasing their bet spread, which does work, but also increases variance (thus requiring a large bankroll or accepting high ROR). Something as simple as sitting out very negative counts does the same thing and actually lowers variance. If you're practicing counting, Wonging out should be the first thing you should do (even if it won't give you the advantage by itself).

 

[BrokenSaints]

Thanks I will start doing that

 

[sagefr0g]

I would assume so, assuming the half that you choose to sit out is random. If it's not random, there might be differences.

yeah thank you for the opinion it would seem to make sense. think i'll sim it and just see how it goes. cause i may actually try and tailor some of this way into my play which counting wise is less than perfection to begin with.

That's actually exactly my point. Most people (including me when I started) try to negate house edge by increasing their bet spread, which does work, but also increases variance (thus requiring a large bankroll or accepting high ROR). Something as simple as sitting out very negative counts does the same thing and actually lowers variance. If you're practicing counting, Wonging out should be the first thing you should do (even if it won't give you the advantage by itself).

yeah i know all about that variance tagging merrily along with a larger bet spread lol.
so but another question and a guess on my part. if sitting out very negative counts actually lowers variance the question arises why or how so? i mean actually i believe it's true that you win virtually just as many hands in negative counts as positive. my guess would be less successful double downs and splits would be the biggest factor driving the greater variance? not that it wouldn't be the thing to do to make the doubles and splits per basic strategy with maybe proper departures just that doing so is making for greater variance?

 

[callipygian]

if sitting out very negative counts actually lowers variance the question arises why or how so?

Because your actual result (0) always matches your EV (0) when you sit out.

You also play fewer hands, so your variance per time goes down.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Reverse Logic?

Playing weaker is not playing safer:whip:

 

[sagefr0g]

Playing weaker is not playing safer:whip:

lol why didn't i see that comming and from whom. i'm trying to be good:angel:
in a crafty sort of way :devil:

 

[_shed_]

training at the casino

Hey guys,

i've been doing the same thing as brokensaints, backcounting a £5 table then wonging at +2, flatbetting, playing BS and Il18 and wonging out at 0. But jeez isn't this keeping the count thing whilst playing damn difficult!!

But i'm really thinking this whole sitting out negative counts thing looks really suspicious. Tonight, sat down at fresh shoe, TC never gets positive enough to play, just munch on the free sandwiches, during the next shoe count *still* doesn't get positive enough and now i'm just feeling really itchy but because it's 4 decks, the shuffle comes again around fairly soonish (the pen is ~80%) so i don't mind just sitting there pretending i'm texting someone on my phone.

The third shoe winds up at a RC of -6 so now i really think i've been keeping this seat warm for too long so spot a fresh shuffle elsewhere and am really bored that i've been at this joint for nearly an hr and have not played a single hand so i lay down £5 right after the shuffle and get TT, dealer busts. The count is still zero so I play the next hand and win that too, then it tanks so i sit out. Fresh shoe and then I play from the beginning again and win the next 2 hands then stop with my £20 profit.

But that was like after 3 hours!

I know it's probably just variance but i'm glad i wasn't playing those negative shoes and the ploppies were losing bigtime but anyone think that it's harder in a 4 deck game for the count to reach a decent amount than compared to a six deck game?

i have 2 joints near me, one with 4D and the other with 6, so is it really better to play the 4D game, cos my experience so far has told me that the TC gets much higher with the 6D game. Anyone else find this?

 

[blackjack avenger]

Worst Post Ever!

lol why didn't i see that comming and from whom. i'm trying to be good:angel:
in a crafty sort of way :devil:

weak game = large variance = large trouble

Why play a weak game.
Why be so lame.
When you lose your money.
Only you to blame.

Play a strong game.
Don't be tame.
Take it to them.
Have no shame.

Yep, this is the worst post ever:joker::whip:

 

[callipygian]

i'm really thinking this whole sitting out negative counts thing looks really suspicious.

It IS really suspicious if you're loitering around one table and not playing. Wonging is most effective when you have a lot of tables to choose from - Las Vegas, for instance. And it's least effective when you have only one table to choose from.

And yes, it can be really boring. That's why most backcounters learn to backcount two tables, and usually do it from a distance. Find a roulette wheel or slot machine where you can watch the blackjack tables and backcount from there, for instance.

I know it's probably just variance but i'm glad i wasn't playing those negative shoes and the ploppies were losing bigtime

It's just variance. If the count is plummeting, ploppies should be winning.

(There's no typo.)

 

[EasyRhino]

Brokensaints, I worry that you might be wasting time. The only time I wasn't varying bets while counting was on my first effort, when I actually just failed horribly at keeping the count, and had to flat bet. Determining the desired bet for a given count is a fundamental skill. It's third in importance after basic strategy, and keeping the count. It's way more important than indexes.

The only real excuse for not spreading is if your bankroll can't take it. If you can only bring $100-$200 to the casino, then $5 bets might be appropriate. And unless you can find a $1 table, then you'll have to wong it hard. I would recommend more of a +2 entry point and wong out at no lower than 0. And yes, it's incredibly boring.

Shed, I'm kind of surprised they let you sit at the table so long without playing. And more importantly, YOU GET FREE SANDWICHES?! Might be my favorite place ever!

 

[blackchipjim]

five dollar tables

In my oppinion five dollar tables can be played effectivlly if you wong out at the proper time. In the name of practice table jumping is less obvious in alot of casinos and you just appear to be a nervous gambler. One of my best acts is to jump into new shoes and leave at the wong out point and jump in again at a different table. You will have to spread your bets to make a meager profit but it is practice and cheap practice. If you visit lv there are some three dollar tables which I will not mention the location but you can practice at lower limts and take less of hit to your bankroll. blackchipjim

 

[UK-21]

Hey guys,

i've been doing the same thing as brokensaints, backcounting a £5 table then wonging at +2, flatbetting, playing BS and Il18 and wonging out at 0. But jeez isn't this keeping the count thing whilst playing damn difficult!!

But i'm really thinking this whole sitting out negative counts thing looks really suspicious. Tonight, sat down at fresh shoe, TC never gets positive enough to play, just munch on the free sandwiches, during the next shoe count *still* doesn't get positive enough and now i'm just feeling really itchy but because it's 4 decks, the shuffle comes again around fairly soonish (the pen is ~80%) so i don't mind just sitting there pretending i'm texting someone on my phone.

The third shoe winds up at a RC of -6 so now i really think i've been keeping this seat warm for too long so spot a fresh shuffle elsewhere and am really bored that i've been at this joint for nearly an hr and have not played a single hand so i lay down £5 right after the shuffle and get TT, dealer busts. The count is still zero so I play the next hand and win that too, then it tanks so i sit out. Fresh shoe and then I play from the beginning again and win the next 2 hands then stop with my £20 profit.

But that was like after 3 hours!

I know it's probably just variance but i'm glad i wasn't playing those negative shoes and the ploppies were losing bigtime but anyone think that it's harder in a 4 deck game for the count to reach a decent amount than compared to a six deck game?

i have 2 joints near me, one with 4D and the other with 6, so is it really better to play the 4D game, cos my experience so far has told me that the TC gets much higher with the 6D game. Anyone else find this?

Shed,
Can you PM me and tell me where you play (London somewhere I presume)?
I might make a weekend jolly to the Smoke - I live way out in the green leafy bit of Britain.

I think the problem with jumping in and out of play where there's only one or two tables is that it'll get noticed sooner or later. It's what I keep saying to friends from the other side of the pond - it ain't vegas with aisles of tables to work through . . . conditions in the UK are very different, and the good advice re the wonging in/out offered by many isn't so easy to apply in practice.

It depends what one gets out of the counting thing too I suppose. Personally I'm not too interested in making a hundred mile round trip (to my local House of Chance) to watch people play blackjack and playing only those hands myself where things look promising -the purest AP approach for those who see it as the day job. I play for enjoyment and the counting thing adds an interesting dimension to the experience. The moment I start worrying about whether I should play or not (having travelled somewhere for the purposes of doing so) I think it'll be time to find another hobby. Having said that, I do like to know the numbers and some crunching I've done indicates that playing "all hands" in a six deck show will result in losing around 50% of the EV. Bearing in mind the amount of time I will be able to play, this is not really an issue for me - I would think that the variation inherrent in the game will be greater - so I accept my play is still largely degenerate gambling of the lowest order. But then you could say that about anyone who hasn't clocked up around 200-300 hours of time at the tables, which I'm told is the point at which the averages should have evened themselves out.

I hope things run better for you on your next visit to the tables.

Cheers from the sticks.

Newb99

 

[N&B]

UK = no split 4's 5's and X's and no hole card
after that I'm unsure if the dealer hits Soft 17
much tougher than this side of the pond.

 

[UK-21]

The proscribed UK ruleset has been altered (quite recently I think) and the house now has the option to allow splitting 4s,5s,10s, doubling on anything, doubling after splitting and allowing the dealer to hit A-6. In another post I've made re 6/5 SD games I have said that all games in the UK are 6 deck. Not true (apologies for misleading). The ruleset on the Gambling Commission website that I looked at this morning (revised July 08) says that the number of decks in play must be clearly posted, and not altered mid-game to the disadvantage of the player. In theory then, UK casinos could offer single deck games although they'd be stuck with having to pay 3/2. No prizes for guessing the thoughts of the floorgames directors on that one!

Bearing in mind the conditions within the UK (no playing anonymously -membership required, crowded tables, relatively few casinos in the whole country where you could consistently lay down serious money - ie £100+ per hand) nobody is going to make any serious money playing BJ and staying under the radar - hence my earlier posting re playing for the crack (sorry enjoyment, not the stuff that turns one's brain to mush) rather than to squeeze every decimal point out of the EV. Anyone in the UK who is looking to make a living gambling needs to stick with the GGs or take advantage of the recent explosion in Poker.

Newb99