fallout from a big win

[blackjack avenger]

Different Perspectives

on offense, but betting 25% less when winning and 25% more when losing, has to be one of the most ridiculous things i've read on this board especially coming from a (seemingly) seasoned vet

perhaps this strategy might hold in a store you frequent regularly where there are no, or few, other games nearby, but Vega$, come on' man!

Thanks for the errrrr compliment? Many probably think I have never played!:joker::whip:

I am feeling all warm and fuzzy hearing about all these wonderful pit bosses. I guess there are 2 camps:
Those who have had a nasty backoff
Those who have not
There will be a difference between low level and high level player backoffs/barrings. The amount you win will play a big factor!

For the low level players:
When they make you, it's a bad thing. Even if not backed off, you have just been limited to how big you can bet and how much you can win! The lesson, red chip players need camo!

The 25% up or down is just an example.

I think some are chasing the hot shoe. The hot shoe is also the source of many backoffs because you win to much. Just like what happened to Kewl. If he had cut his bets and won less, could he have been spared? We don't know. We do know the hot shoe got him backed off!

Someone commented my idea was paranoid or timid? Nothing about what I stated means you can't play very aggressively. The OP is about a backoff, so apparently they are acutally out to get you!

Chasing losses is a standard camo move, some also talk of using negative progressions, like what I am talking about!

Only employing the strategy when winning big or losing big means it won't be used much. However, cutting the win in hot shoes is very important longevity wise, you make the ev up on losing sessions where you bet more!

What is one of the things some/many would advise? To bet what a casino will tolerate! Now, some mention one can play longer when losing or be a little more aggressive. Some will say when winning cut things short. This is not much different from what I am suggesting.

A thought experiment. You have the ability to win every hand you play. What would you do? Walk into a casino and try to own the place in one session orrrrr win a few bets over an extended period of time? Which would make the most money?

I am soooo correct; though subjective, with these thoughts I am shocked anyone is doubting.

Which would a casino tolerate more?
Which player would get a little more tolerance from the pit?
A player betting big and winning
A player betting big and losing

How does one become a tall Poppy?
What generates the most heat?
Betting big and winning big!

 

[kewljason]

Thanks for the errrrr compliment? Many probably think I have never played!:joker::whip:

I am feeling all warm and fuzzy hearing about all these wonderful pit bosses. I guess there are 2 camps:
Those who have had a nasty backoff
Those who have not
There will be a difference between low level and high level player backoffs/barrings. The amount you win will play a big factor!

For the low level players:
When they make you, it's a bad thing. Even if not backed off, you have just been limited to how big you can bet and how much you can win! The lesson, red chip players need camo!

The 25% up or down is just an example.

I think some are chasing the hot shoe. The hot shoe is also the source of many backoffs because you win to much. Just like what happened to Kewl. If he had cut his bets and won less, could he have been spared? We don't know. We do know the hot shoe got him backed off!

Someone commented my idea was paranoid or timid? Nothing about what I stated means you can't play very aggressively. The OP is about a backoff, so apparently they are acutally out to get you!

Chasing losses is a standard camo move, some also talk of using negative progressions, like what I am talking about!

Only employing the strategy when winning big or losing big means it won't be used much. However, cutting the win in hot shoes is very important longevity wise, you make the ev up on losing sessions where you bet more!

What is one of the things some/many would advise? To bet what a casino will tolerate! Now, some mention one can play longer when losing or be a little more aggressive. Some will say when winning cut things short. This is not much different from what I am suggesting.

A thought experiment. You have the ability to win every hand you play. What would you do? Walk into a casino and try to own the place in one session orrrrr win a few bets over an extended period of time? Which would make the most money?

I am soooo correct; though subjective, with these thoughts I am shocked anyone is doubting.

Which would a casino tolerate more?
Which player would get a little more tolerance from the pit?
A player betting big and winning
A player betting big and losing

How does one become a tall Poppy?
What generates the most heat?
Betting big and winning big!

Your 25% increase/decrease in top wager is basically an extention of opposition wagering. Instead of having a rigid amount of say $400 top wager, you would have a range of $300 to $500 ($300 when winning and $500 when losing) which would stilll avereage out to a top wager of $400. The problem with this is increased variance. That is the downside to opposition wagering which is basically the same concept but only at the intermediate counts, for cover purposes. If you do so at the top wager this increase in variance will be big. If you are playing with a low enough RoR, I guess that's not too much of an issue.

The other problem I have is I don't know how much cover it buys you. Your thoughts about a player losing being more tolerated than a player winning hasn't exactly been my personal experience. Of the limited backoffs that I have encountered, most have occured while I was losing. I have heard other players claim this as well. I think the casino gets a bigger thrill out of busting you when they have your money and not giving you a chance to get it back.

 

[BJgenius007]

Your 25% increase/decrease in top wager is basically an extention of opposition wagering. Instead of having a rigid amount of say $400 top wager, you would have a range of $300 to $500 ($300 when winning and $500 when losing) which would stilll avereage out to a top wager of $400. The problem with this is increased variance. That is the downside to opposition wagering which is basically the same concept but only at the intermediate counts, for cover purposes. If you do so at the top wager this increase in variance will be big. If you are playing with a low enough RoR, I guess that's not too much of an issue.

The other problem I have is I don't know how much cover it buys you. Your thoughts about a player losing being more tolerated than a player winning hasn't exactly been my personal experience. Of the limited backoffs that I have encountered, most have occured while I was losing. I have heard other players claim this as well. I think the casino gets a bigger thrill out of busting you when they have your money and not giving you a chance to get it back.

I really think using cover is a terrible idea. I just found out a great DD game. Like honey attracts the bees, now I meet so many APs at this table every time I play there. (Before this, I hardly encounter any other APs.) I saw some of them use cover after the high TC drops or reshuffle. It really eats up their winnings and have ABSOLUTELY NO effect. Pit bosses and dealers know exactly who the counters are.

One of the funny things happened earlier today. I met another AP whose bet size is identical to mine.We didn't watch each other. Just grab our chips. Most of the times we have identical bet size.

 

[kewljason]

I really think using cover is a terrible idea. I just found out a great DD game. Like honey attracts the bees, now I meet so many APs at this table every time I play there. (Before this, I hardly encounter any other APs.) I saw some of them use cover after the high TC drops or reshuffle. It really eats up their winnings and have ABSOLUTELY NO effect. Pit bosses and dealers know exactly who the counters are.

One of the funny things happened earlier today. I met another AP whose bet size is identical to mine.We didn't watch each other. Just grab our chips. Most of the times we have identical bet size.

I totally agree with you about cover. I think most cover really has minimal effect. And cover that will be effective has a high cost. Each player has to decide whether that price is worth it or not.

The situation you describe about raising bets in inison with another counter is just about the worst situation you can be in. I would exit, if not immediately, definately at the next shuffle.

 

[zengrifter]

Oh I have gone sexual with female PC's but no actual fornication. Depending on how it is done, I can either endear myself to her or keep her as far away from me as possible.

I used a non-AP for additional distraction at the trop years ago, my roommate, who got chummy with the SB, a knockoutg bodybuilder who was suspicious of me. One time she confided that she thought I might be a counter but she saw me make a modest bet in a sky-high count (I knew she was watching intently) and said "I thought you were counting but then I saw you make small bet when the count was so high I would have chunked out half my BR." I told her she should have let me know!

She continued to have some suspicions, but in the interim she winds up f**king my buddy and he later tells me that in the midst of screaming orgasm, they collapse, roll over and she immediately blurts out, "Is Marcus counting?" z:laugh:g

 

[psyduck]

Oh I have gone sexual with female PC's but no actual fornication.

THAT is monkey business!

 

[blackjack avenger]

Enlightenment!

Zen has made some interesting points about playing a place multiple times with the same camo strategy!

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Know It's Because I am Saying It LOL

I totally agree with you about cover. I think most cover really has minimal effect. And cover that will be effective has a high cost. Each player has to decide whether that price is worth it or not.

Don't you use 2 forms of camo that cost money?
Leaving and low max bets?

You do believe that big bets draw heat? Yet, you can't seem to make the logical leap that
Big Winning Bets Draw Even More Heat! Even when you were a victim of
Big Winning Bets Drawing Heat.

Losing and more likely to be barred?
Probably 2 factors:
Throwing out ultra max bets chasing.
Staying so long one is analyzed in detail.

I am not proposing raising your top bets when losing big. The ultra max bets can draw the heat one is trying to avoid. A better alternative is to let big bets ride or raise the lower bets.

You use one general bet ramp across all games? Well, your bets are often off by 25% anyway. Which of course is hurting your N0!

Let's look at it from a pits point of view. You have a bunch of small players and 2 big players which are betting the same at different tables.
One is winning
One is losing
Which one should the pit pay attention to? If they were going to get on the phone which one would they call about? I don't think they would think "Gosh, this guy is betting big and winning every hand! Nothing to worry about!", "I better get on the phone about that guy betting big and losing!" The pit has to watch for excessive winning, they could be cheating. Any business watches were the money is, or where money is being lost!

I am truly confoundedthat some of you don't think Betting Big and Winning Big Draws Increased Heat!

Yes, if the font is big enough and the color bold enough, it means it's Factual:laugh::whip:

 

[zengrifter]

Zen has made some interesting points about playing a place multiple times with the same camo strategy!

That is as opposed to NO cover, other than just ending after the big bet shoe. zg

 

[kewljason]

Mr Avenger. I asked for opinions about this event and am grateful for all the input received, including yours. Your idea is a little out side the box and I like that way of thinking. While I understand the concept, I have concerns that I have already expressed and don't see it as the great camo cover that you do. Other players who I respect greatly also didn't seem to think much of it, although they didn't go into much detail of why, as I did. I don't think it is a matter of myself and/or others not understanding, it is a matter that we don't agree. Repeating the same claim over and over with Big Red Print, isn't going to change that. If anything, it makes you come across as a little goofy, J-stat-ish.

Now let's look at this particular event one more time, comparing what happened to what would have happened using your strategy. I generally avoid talking in terms of money opting instead for units, which everyone should be able to relate to, as a unit is a unit whether $5 or $100. But in this case, I am going to revert back to dollars to clarify my points.

This 'perfect shoe' took place at 10:30 or 11 am on a weekday. Once I began to win heavily and attract attention I realized my usual attempt at flying under the radar where not going to prevail. There most likely would be a price to pay at some point, whether that day or on my next visit. That is why I decided to increase my max wager 50%, from my normal $400 to $600, figuring I was cooked anyway and wanting to take advantage of it.

Now lets look at final results. 870 units won. That was $21,750. Now you advocate reducing my max wager 25% from $400 to $300. This means that all those super-max wagers that I won at $600 would have been $300 with your strategy. So basically my win would have been about half, roughly $11,000 instead of $22,000. Now do you really think that me sitting there at a slow time in the casino winning 30 some max bets at $300, instead of $600 in a 10 minute span, would have prevented any heat? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think I would have drawn just as much attention, but just have 11 grand less in my pocket.

At my average rate of win which is roughly $65/per 100 hands, I would have needed to play 16,923 hands to make up that addition 11 grand. That's 2 months worth of of playing. So yes, knowing their was going to be a price to pay, I increased my wager to extract as much value as I could from the situation. Of course I had no way of knowing how great that shoe would turn out. I also didn't know that I would have the misfortune of frequenting an establishment that the pit person in question also frequents, which of course compounds the situation as he is not likely to forget me anytime in this lifetime. All I really knew was that I was going to have to take this store out of my rotation for a period, so I might as well capitalize all I could first. It just happened to work out worse case scenario that way this time.

It is quite easy to find fault with my style following this worse case scenario event, where I have lost the use of this store at very minimum part of the time, But when I look at the whole picture, my style has served me very well. I play upwards of 100,000 a year and have had 5 backoffs in 17 months, living here in Vegas. It's going to take a couple more of these events to convince me I need to dramatically change something. However, that doesn't mean I am not trying to learn something from these events. It made me realize I have become a little sloppy and lazy and need to expand my rotation a bit so as not to play my favorite stores as often. The big advantage of Las Vegas is quantity of games and that is the reason I moved here. This serves as a reminder of that.

So again, I greatly appreciate your input, I just don't think your methods, in this case, are for me and all the big red print in the world isn't going to change that. :laugh:

 

[Solo player]

I used a non-AP for additional distraction at the trop years ago, my roommate, who got chummy with the SB, a knockoutg bodybuilder who was suspicious of me. One time she confided that she thought I might be a counter but she saw me make a modest bet in a sky-high count (I knew she was watching intently) and said "I thought you were counting but then I saw you make small bet when the count was so high I would have chunked out half my BR." I told her she should have let me know!

She continued to have some suspicions, but in the interim she winds up f**king my buddy and he later tells me that in the midst of screaming orgasm, they collapse, roll over and she immediately blurts out, "Is Marcus counting?" z:laugh:g

Gotta laugh at that one :laugh::grin::laugh::laugh:

 

[too_easy]

So jealous

Incredible,
870 units won.... That is about the size of my bankroll... :cry:

 

[eandre]

I think Kewl is a bit beyond the novice-level advice you proffer. zg

Zen maybe you are the one who's loosing the edge??? This isn't the 70's, 80's or even the 90's anymore.

 

[BJgenius007]

Zen maybe you are the one who's loosing the edge??? This isn't the 70's, 80's or even the 90's anymore.

Don't make fun of the grumpy zg. He rumbled in the 60's.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Apologies

Now let's look at this particular event one more time, comparing what happened to what would have happened using your strategy. I generally avoid talking in terms of money opting instead for units, which everyone should be able to relate to, as a unit is a unit whether $5 or $100. But in this case, I am going to revert back to dollars to clarify my points.

This 'perfect shoe' took place at 10:30 or 11 am on a weekday. Once I began to win heavily and attract attention I realized my usual attempt at flying under the radar where not going to prevail. There most likely would be a price to pay at some point, whether that day or on my next visit. That is why I decided to increase my max wager 50%, from my normal $400 to $600, figuring I was cooked anyway and wanting to take advantage of it.

Now lets look at final results. 870 units won. That was $21,750. Now you advocate reducing my max wager 25% from $400 to $300. This means that all those super-max wagers that I won at $600 would have been $300 with your strategy. So basically my win would have been about half, roughly $11,000 instead of $22,000. Now do you really think that me sitting there at a slow time in the casino winning 30 some max bets at $300, instead of $600 in a 10 minute span, would have prevented any heat? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think I would have drawn just as much attention, but just have 11 grand less in my pocket.

At my average rate of win which is roughly $65/per 100 hands, I would have needed to play 16,923 hands to make up that addition 11 grand. That's 2 months worth of of playing. So yes, knowing their was going to be a price to pay, I increased my wager to extract as much value as I could from the situation. Of course I had no way of knowing how great that shoe would turn out. I also didn't know that I would have the misfortune of frequenting an establishment that the pit person in question also frequents, which of course compounds the situation as he is not likely to forget me anytime in this lifetime. All I really knew was that I was going to have to take this store out of my rotation for a period, so I might as well capitalize all I could first. It just happened to work out worse case scenario that way this time.

It is quite easy to find fault with my style following this worse case scenario event, where I have lost the use of this store at very minimum part of the time, But when I look at the whole picture, my style has served me very well. I play upwards of 100,000 a year and have had 5 backoffs in 17 months, living here in Vegas. It's going to take a couple more of these events to convince me I need to dramatically change something. However, that doesn't mean I am not trying to learn something from these events. It made me realize I have become a little sloppy and lazy and need to expand my rotation a bit so as not to play my favorite stores as often. The big advantage of Las Vegas is quantity of games and that is the reason I moved here. This serves as a reminder of that.

So again, I greatly appreciate your input, I just don't think your methods, in this case, are for me and all the big red print in the world isn't going to change that. :laugh:

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!

 

[zengrifter]

Don't make fun of the grumpy zg. He rumbled in the 60's.

Yes, but I was'nt in high school yet. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Zen maybe you are the one who's loosing the edge??? This isn't the 70's, 80's or even the 90's anymore.

I was only commenting on your advice to Kewl below. Vintage Revere 70s advice*.
Plus that last line, some BS plagerized from Bryce Carlson. zg

Keep the play short and spread your play around to several properties. Over the years I have seen too many APs loose their ability to earn money due to back offs and bannings and end up playing at local joints grinding all day long.

* Big red means fact

 

[revrac]

KJ - Your pattern of always leaving after the high bets shoe does not serve you over time. This is why I advocate paying the small price of making big bets off the top of the new show whenever you end a shoe with big bets. zg

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

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.

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.

 

[kewljason]

Quick question to ZG and anyone else who has any thoughts.

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.

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.

 

[Midwestern]

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

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.

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.

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.