fallout from a big win

[revrac]

Carver,
I had a similar thread to this question http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=21546
and what i gleaned from the advice i got was that you should one of the following.

1) Stand up and walk away/take a break. When you come back to a new table it will look more natural that you place a min bet. This is preferred because then you can walk around and back-count tables and wong in at +1 instead of playing a brand new shoe waiting for a good count.
2) not give a Sh** about reducing back to a 1 unit bet. and if anyone gives you heat about it, just play the part of a superstitious player that always plays min bets at the begininng of shoes.

Thanks. This is what I have been doing all along BUT after reading a bunch of the post and the fact that I play longer sessions than is advised I've begin to wonder if a little bit larger bet off the top would be smart to add. My only worry with most of the ideas of not doing it is the eye doesn't hear what you say, they just see what your betting.

 

[revrac]

I obviously don't use this approach, but I would think just the opposite. Pitch games have more frequent high counts and the counter can get a higher edge and you might be able to afford a little cover like this to continue playing a good game. Shoe games the edge is so slim, I really don't think you can afford much cover. Playing a higher bet off the top, even if not Max bet, in effect, reduces your spread. Would you be willing to play that shoe game with such a reduced spread to begin with? My answer is no, so then I am not doing so. I'll find a new table and employ my full spread.

The reason i'm saying shoe vs pitch is you end up having max bets out twice as often on a pitch game BUT your expected value isn't twice as high meaning your cutting into your gain with the pitch games by a larger margin.

 

[ohbehave]

In DD you play A LOT of hands off the top. You will seriously eat into your edge by playing cover off the top. Not to say don't ever do it but be highly aware of how much cover you are employing and what it costs you. By contrast, in shoes games you generally play fewer hands off the top but at the same time you need to consider if your cover is buying something thats worth the price.

 

[Gamblor]

Thanks. This is what I have been doing all along BUT after reading a bunch of the post and the fact that I play longer sessions than is advised I've begin to wonder if a little bit larger bet off the top would be smart to add. My only worry with most of the ideas of not doing it is the eye doesn't hear what you say, they just see what your betting.

It's not the worse thing to bet big off the top besides cover. Think about it, if the count drops or count increases fairly early in the shoe, try to see the positive aspects of this Eh, if count stays flat guess its not great, but you theoretically give up a small house edge in this situation anyway. Major negative is increased risk of course.

 

[Midwestern]

Thanks. This is what I have been doing all along BUT after reading a bunch of the post and the fact that I play longer sessions than is advised I've begin to wonder if a little bit larger bet off the top would be smart to add. My only worry with most of the ideas of not doing it is the eye doesn't hear what you say, they just see what your betting.

there is a reason you dont bet big into a RC of zero ... plain and simple...The natural house advantage at that point is about -.5% depending on the rules, and in the long run, betting anything other than your min bet into negative edge will be -EV.

as a cover play, i'm not sure that this will save you money in the long run, especially with SO MANY other people betting exactly the same way (reducing first bet of shoe to min bet). If you were betting your TC+5 amount at the end of a shoe, reducing it to something smaller like your TC+2 bet off the top of the next..... at the end of the day, the pit/eye in the sky will still know that you are "reducing a bet" after a shoe, so why not take advantage of the situation and reduce it all the way to zero and walk away?

 

[revrac]

there is a reason you dont bet big into a RC of zero ... plain and simple...The natural house advantage at that point is about -.5% depending on the rules, and in the long run, betting anything other than your min bet into negative edge will be -EV.

as a cover play, i'm not sure that this will save you money in the long run, especially with SO MANY other people betting exactly the same way (reducing first bet of shoe to min bet). If you were betting your TC+5 amount at the end of a shoe, reducing it to something smaller like your TC+2 bet off the top of the next..... at the end of the day, the pit/eye in the sky will still know that you are "reducing a bet" after a shoe, so why not take advantage of the situation and reduce it all the way to zero and walk away?

Yeah, the just walking away part is hard when your options are limited to a very few places, which is really the main reason i was considering the larger off the top bet. I often "take breaks" at the end of a good shoe and come back about the time i expect they are done with one shoe so it doesn't seem as obvious when I drop back down which i'm sure has helped but i'm also sure this after a time becomes evident as well to anyone looking at tapes.

I'm not really worried about the pit as its quite obvious when they are paying attention I'm just trying to figure out the best way to mask it to the eye while being able to play for an extended period. I really appreciate the advice, I think the wanting to play longer though may just be the issue with no really good solution.

 

[kewljason]

If you think I am making light of your situation. I am taking my time to post for a reason, nothing personal!

What did the pit say to you?

"How he only backs people off when it becomes so obvious that he fears he could get heat if he doesn't." "He said he had identified me awhile ago but had previsouly looked the other way, but no longer could!"

I don't see how one can interpret his words as anything else but, you bet to big and won to much! He let you play before when you bet less and won less!, but you rubbed his face in it! A guess is his boss wandered by or was summoned and was looking over your pits shoulder, forcing his hand!

I mentioned I believe a 10g win barrier? 11g is a lot less then 20g.

You are using hindsight to justify your actions, Those super max bets only had a $20? to $30? extra EV attached to them. An Ev that can be made up at another time!

If you believe that red chippers can use less/no camo and don't have to worry about winning to much, then you have to believe the opposite that big bettors need to worry about camo and winning to much? Aren't they opposite sides of the same coin?

I think many talk about doing things to dissipate heat, not doing things that turn it up?

Many things are talked about to avoid heat:
Minimal spreads
playing errors
playing negative hands
leaving after a large win
I suggest not being greedy; also mentioned in bj literature, and it's ridiculous?

Don't believe the bold red print. Don't believe that the casino watches big winners with more scrutiny! Don't heed my advise. I am no one, just words on a computer screen. Do heed the little blue words the pit said to you and there implications!

Avenger, you seem to be taking it very personal that I don't agree with you. Please don't! It is a good discussion, that I and others are learning valuable things from.

If you are a member of greenchip, please read bigplayers post entitled computer skills check. Pretty much exactly what my style of play is modeled after and expresses everything far better than I could ever hope to as comunication on the message boards is not my strong suit. (is this ok, canceler?) (anyone not a member of greenchip, could be worth taking advantage of the recent trial offer, as bigplayer alone has used that site as his own teaching platform this month with several extremely valuable and useful post)

 

[Canceler]

... expresses everything far better than I could ever hope to as comunication on the message boards is not my strong suit. (is this ok, canceler?)

Hmmm… Borderline, IMO. Message boards have their limitations, and I don’t think you should be embarrassed that those limitations also apply to you.
I do think you communicate quite well here, and you do seem to getting over your obsession with !

 

[zengrifter]

Playing a higher bet off the top, even if not Max bet, in effect, reduces your spread. Would you be willing to play that shoe game with such a reduced spread to begin with?

It is a infrequent move more than offset by a greater frequency of -EV exiting. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Quick question to ZG and anyone else who has any thoughts. When making larger bets off the top, do you drop it from max bet to say like half max bet rather than your full max bet?

You could. OR you could keep the amount the same and divide it between 2-3 hands.

I would assume you would not do full max as a way to reduce the cost of this camo even further?

Nothing wrong with an INFREQUENT full max bet - typically tied to the size of last bet of prior shoe.

Also, when using this approach what do you do if you win that first large bet off the top? Do you let it ride until you lose or do you keep reducing it by half till you get down to your minimum? Or is it some variation where if you made the max bet at the end of the shoe if you win and the count went up you leave it out there but if you win and the count dropped you drop the bet down some more? I could see it being many variations of these scenarios but wondered if anyone had experience as to what worked best.

Yes many variations, never to be overdone.

One last question, do people only use this for shoe games or pitch as well? I could not forsee myself using this in a pitch game as it seems way too costly but wanted to check what others did.

Actually better for pitch. zg

 

[revrac]

Actually better for pitch. zg

While on a pure percentage expected value it would be more detrimental to pitch games i guess in another way it makes more sense to use on pitch games as those are the ones with frequent bet changes that are trying to be disguised. Would that be the driver behind that thought?

 

[zengrifter]

The reason i'm saying shoe vs pitch is you end up having max bets out twice as often on a pitch game BUT your expected value isn't twice as high meaning your cutting into your gain with the pitch games by a larger margin.

Don't misconstrue the cover advice intended for Kewl.
And it was not advised that someone simply bet big off the top as a rule for cover.
Notwithstanding, there are some variants along those lines that are quite workable in really good pitch. zg

 

[blackjack avenger]

One Big Happy Family

If you are a member of greenchip, please read bigplayers post entitled computer skills check. Pretty much exactly what my style of play is modeled after and expresses everything far better than I could ever hope to as comunication on the message boards is not my strong suit. (is this ok, canceler?) (anyone not a member of greenchip, could be worth taking advantage of the recent trial offer, as bigplayer alone has used that site as his own teaching platform this month with several extremely valuable and useful post)

I agree: bigplayer, the Chaperone, the bootlegger and I are all on the same page. Those big bets and winning can get you in trouble!

It really is common sense: Betting big and winning big draw heat!

I would also point out I believe Bill Zender? talked about APs not being greedy!

Maybe I should not include myself in the above group, then it will be more acceptable!:laugh:

I want to point out again Zengrifter's excellent insight. One needs to change their strategy in the same session and in repeated sessions. Especially, when playing same casinos. This is also in line with others thoughts above!

 

[kewljason]

I agree: bigplayer, the Chaperone, the bootlegger and I are all on the same page. Those big bets and winning can get you in trouble!

It really is common sense: Betting big and winning big draw heat!

I would also point out I believe Bill Zender? talked about APs not being greedy!

Maybe I should not include myself in the above group, then it will be more acceptable!:laugh:

No. I have never heard anyone talk of reducing their wager in high counts in an effort to win less. That is strictly your baby! :laugh:

If the problem is that you are winning too much and want to cut down the win, you could just start hitting some hard 18's and 19's. If you are unfortunate enough to draw an ace, hit it again until you lose. Think of the cover that will buy! Or of course, you could just walk away in the middle of a high count so as not to run up your win for that session. Crazy as these ideas are, your idea of reducing your wager to purposely win less seems equally crazy to me. These huge opportunities come along so very infgrequently, I am not going to do some thing to intentionally surpress them. Give me 5, 800+ shoes a year and I will deal with the 5 backoff's that come with them.

 

[zoomie]

[ . . . ] These huge opportunities come along so very infrequently, I am not going to do some thing to intentionally suppress them. Give me 5, 800+ shoes a year and I will deal with the 5 backoffs that come with them.

One problem is that we cannot tell if, when the count rises, this is one of the big ones. If not, and you bet big, you lose big (bad result, obviously, been there many times and recently). But if it really is one of the big ones and you pound it (as reported), big win (good result) but you are outed (bad result). It seems to me that if your opportunities are sufficiently vast then it is worth it and you should go for it. I, for one, would be concerned about getting burned such that I lose a meaningful subset of my good playing opportunities, and I would accordingly have to consider bailing out of a perfect shoe before the end and before I have won way too much. :eyepatch:

 

[blackjack avenger]

The Same but Different!

No. I have never heard anyone talk of reducing their wager in high counts in an effort to win less. That is strictly your baby! :laugh:

If the problem is that you are winning too much and want to cut down the win, you could just start hitting some hard 18's and 19's. If you are unfortunate enough to draw an ace, hit it again until you lose. Think of the cover that will buy! Or of course, you could just walk away in the middle of a high count so as not to run up your win for that session. Crazy as these ideas are, your idea of reducing your wager to purposely win less seems equally crazy to me. These huge opportunities come along so very infgrequently, I am not going to do some thing to intentionally surpress them. Give me 5, 800+ shoes a year and I will deal with the 5 backoff's that come with them.

Don't run to the end of the spectrum and out of sight!

Ok, I think you are still hung up with highsight and thinking you would miss out on 11g if you drop your bets. It's not so, you give up about $30 in EV with those super max bets that you can make up elsewhere.

I think this would have been a better way to present the idea. If one is losing or losing big they can raise their mid range bets. As an example instead of betting a .33 kelly bet ramp switch to a .5 kelly bet ramp (more aggressive) but do not raise the top bets!

This allows one to be more aggressive at an appropriate time, when losing. There is general belief that one can be more aggressive when losing!

This would hurt N0, but gives cover for bigger bets!

See how a rigorous debate can lead to refinement and clarification of ideas!

 

[kewljason]

Mr Avenger,

I am not a fan of rainbow wagering because it slows down the game and I believe is actually counter-productive to which it was intended by actually drawing heat and attention.

I am not a fan of rainbow posting, because it is just damn annoying. :laugh:

I also disagree with you assersion that there is more tolerance during losing session, based on my own experienced as well as comments from others, as I already mentioned.

As for the rest of this strategy that you continue to push on me for some reason, I really applaud you for thinking outside the box. If it works for you and you are comfortable with it....great. I am not comfortable with it and so I will not be employing it. Again, this is no reflection on you, good sir. I deeply respect you, your ideas and credit you with some of the knowledge I have been able to pick up on this site. Believe me, it's not a matter of not understanding your position. You have strongly made your case. So at this point, this particular discussion has run its course as I think we both are just becoming frustrated.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Be Bold Stand Out!

I am not a fan of rainbow wagering because it slows down the game and I believe is actually counter-productive to which it was intended by actually drawing heat and attention.

or

I like the colors

Don't know your definiton of rainbow wagering? Rainbow betting is mixing colors of chips when betting to try to disguise your actual bet, which I am not talking about.

I am not just writing to you, this is a web site?

Don't worry we are Kewl!

 

[zengrifter]

Mr Avenger,

I am not a fan of rainbow wagering ...

But what about rainbow posting?

 

[Thunder]

But what about rainbow posting?

ZG,
I think you entered the wrong field. I believe you might have been even more successful being a lawyer