fallout from a big win

[blackjack avenger]

Rosebud

I did not color enough as a child?:cry:

 

[aslan]

A couple weeks ago, I posted about what was for me, a rather large win a while back. As circumstanses would have it, this event took place in the slow morning hours when the casino was slow and I was alone at the table for most of the damage. There was no doubt in my mind that I had drawn attention. By the end of the shoe, one of the pit fella's had taken an interest in my play. :sad:

I have not returned to that location since the event, but that didn't stop the fallout from the event. Last evening I was backed off. About 2 miles from the casino. I was having a brewski, watching a basketball game at a bar, when that very pit gent, sat down bought me a beer and told me that he was not going to let me play on his shift anymore. I was in total shock! I don't receive many back offs to begin with, but never in my wildest dreams would expect this. He was very nice. Very friendly. And we had a nice chat. He even provided me with a little bit of info about how often he sees counters, and how often he backs them off. He told me 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 a while ago, but had previously looked the other way, but no longer could. He bought me a second drink before he departed. Certainly about the nicest back off one could ever hope to get, but still a back off, and one that clearly will not disappear with time.

Again, he only stated that he could not let me play on his shift. I didn't want to press him on that. I will find out the exact meaning of that when the time comes. Has anyone ever encountered such a backoff, or I guess more accurately, a warning, in a setting away from the casino?

Did you allow him to be satisfied that you were indeed counting? Either by your tacit agreement in silence or by verbally agreeing with him? I personally would want to continue to play the lucky ploppy, maybe even by pretending to him that I knew what I was doing but in a way that demonstrated that I really did not know what I was doing.

There was once a TV interview of Eddie Arcaro , the famous jockey from last century. He was questioned about corruption in the racing business, but he consistently denied that there was any such dishonesty as had popularly been reported. The gamblers I knew gave him kudos for his great performance off the track. They said, "He never got off the con," which was their way of paying tribute to him.

When I get caught, I never get off the con. No matter how obvious my card counting behavior may have been, I will play the ploppy. For all you know, this guy had his doubts, but came at you pretending certainty, and a certain amount of sympathy (he said he felt he was forced to not let you play on his shift), in order to get you to corroborate his suspicion, or belief. If satisfied that he was right, he might up the ante and push your name and ID upstairs to demonstrate his keen eye and value to the casino in spotting a counter who had "ripped" them off. Even if if I were 100% sure this was not the case, I would still adhere to that rule of thumb, "Never get off the con."

There are no neutral players in this game of AP vs. Casino. He is either your friend or your assumed enemy. He has nothing to lose no matter what he decides to do; you OTOH have much to lose.

 

[zengrifter]

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

I've certainly employed enough of them! zg

 

[paddywhack]

I've certainly employed enough of them! zg

Negative EV, but most likely eliminated even more detrimental Negative EV

 

[zengrifter]

Negative EV, [that] eliminated even more detrimental Negative EV

Another name for which is insurance. zg

 

[ohbehave]

What I don't get is how a $21K win escaped surveillance. Don't you think someone upstairs would have thought "that guy just walked with $21k maybe we should look at the tapes?"

 

[aslan]

What I don't get is how a $21K win escaped surveillance. Don't you think someone upstairs would have thought "that guy just walked with $21k maybe we should look at the tapes?"

I am guessing that it did not escape surveillance. But what does surveillance have on a perfect shoe scenario? Here's a guy who raised his bet early on, somewhat coincidental with the count, but then he maintained it there throughout the rest of the shoe, which just so happened to remain positive. I'm not sure how it actually happened, but that is a possible scenario that does not automatically spell "counter" even under careful analysis, especially with an AP like kj who never stays long at any particular store.

 

[ohbehave]

I am guessing that it did not escape surveillance. But what does surveillance have on a perfect shoe scenario? Here's a guy who raised his bet early on, somewhat coincidental with the count, but then he maintained it there throughout the rest of the shoe, which just so happened to remain positive. I'm not sure how it actually happened, but that is a possible scenario that does not automatically spell "counter" even under careful analysis, especially with an AP like kj who never stays long at any particular store.

I know he said he hasn't been back and won't go back for awhile but I think he should be very careful. If they saw a bet increase from $25 to $600 in a positive shoe, surveillance would have to be completely clueless, which is unlikely, to not make some kind of move. KJ has shown he can win and from my experience which I know is still limited but once you show you know how to win they don't want you around.

 

[paddywhack]

I am guessing that it did not escape surveillance. But what does surveillance have on a perfect shoe scenario? Here's a guy who raised his bet early on, somewhat coincidental with the count, but then he maintained it there throughout the rest of the shoe, which just so happened to remain positive. I'm not sure how it actually happened, but that is a possible scenario that does not automatically spell "counter" even under careful analysis, especially with an AP like kj who never stays long at any particular store.

Even idiots get lucky. So I'm with Aslan here. Not much for surveillance to go on unless they have other film to review.

 

[aslan]

Even idiots get lucky. So I'm with Aslan here. Not much for surveillance to go on unless they have other film to review.

Let's hope he didn't get identified, anyway. Fortunately, large stores have tons of auxiliary duties, and even a $21,000 score is not big bucks when they have players flying in to bet $10,000 a hand. Yikes! Also, at the end of a graveyard shift, an eye may be more interested in cleaning up his paperwork and getting ready to leave, than running films on a quick win by a never before seen player. Still, at a time when there are few players playing, it would have to be an awfully lax department that failed to do due diligence. If I were kj, I would not revisit this store for quite some time to come. When I finally did return, some time in the distant future (because I don't want to give the impression of being a local), I might play a nondescript basic strategy game for a similarly short period of time, ignoring any positive counts that come my way, just to see if I could detect any special scrutiny coming my way; that is, if I really wanted to keep this store in my inventory of places to play.

Also, I would avoid the bar in which I was ID-ed. What a coincidence that was! But now I know a place where at least one off-duty pit boss visits (does he have any other casino employee friends he meets there?); it can't do me any good to remain in his consciousness.

 

[ohbehave]

I don't want to sound like I'm picking on KJ because I'm certainly not. He has my utmost respect to have been so successful in Vegas.
But look at his win from the casino's perspective. He has said it was early on a weekday. I'm sure even in Vegas it could have been pretty quiet at midday. He's alone. He buys in for $100 and walks with $21k 20 minutes later. That is no run-of-the-mill payout for any pit. However, it is what it is. I do hope for the best for KJ. I just wish the stores around here were so brainless.

 

[zengrifter]

He buys in for $100 and walks with $21k 20 minutes later. That is no run-of-the-mill payout for any pit.

Yes. It would look like a setup, not even a count play - more like a cheat - or an innocent lucky thing. That is one time he definitely should NOT have immediately scooted out the door suspiciously. A regular player would have cheered and stuck around basking in glory. I would have played another full shoe (or two) with 1/2-whole max bets and eaten the -EV of a few hundred dollars (hindsight). zg

 

[aslan]

Yes. It would look like a setup, not even a count play - more like a cheat - or an innocent lucky thing. That is one time he definitely should NOT have immediately scooted out the door suspiciously. A regular player would have cheered and stuck around basking in glory. I would have played another full shoe (or two) with 1/2-whole max bets and eaten the -EV of a few hundred dollars (hindsight). zg

That's my way of thinking, as well. Whether you stay and play (which is not a bad idea) or not, at the very least stick around and bask like a full fledged ploppy in all his glory.

 

[zoomie]

That's my way of thinking, as well. Whether you stay and play (which is not a bad idea) or not, at the very least stick around and bask like a full fledged ploppy in all his glory.

Upon reflection I cannot imagine a loss of $20+K in one shoe, especially to a young guy, that won't be reviewed by surveillance, who would be looking for counting, sure, but cheating also. So you have their attention. Sticking around after the shoe ends surely will not stop them from reviewing the tape, but it does give them more time to talk to you, make up an excuse to check your ID (KJ is young enough for that), ask where you are from, where are you staying, etc. I see no upside. I think that once you are on the radar for a big win, it is time to make yourself scarce, maybe for months. And when you return, consider doing so with a different look. It's not that hard to do.

 

[aslan]

Upon reflection I cannot imagine a loss of $20+K in one shoe, especially to a young guy, that won't be reviewed by surveillance, who would be looking for counting, sure, but cheating also. So you have their attention. Sticking around after the shoe ends surely will not stop them from reviewing the tape, but it does give them more time to talk to you, make up an excuse to check your ID (KJ is young enough for that), ask where you are from, where are you staying, etc. I see no upside. I think that once you are on the radar for a big win, it is time to make yourself scarce, maybe for months. And when you return, consider doing so with a different look. It's not that hard to do.

What zg proposed is probably risky, but if successfully done it would establish him as ploppy who would be welcomed back ASAP. Also, he had already given up his ID according to the OP.

What you are saying would be the conventional advice. But that is not to say that it would necessarily be superior to zg's suggestion. For one thing, if they do establish that you are a card counter, then you (and your picture) will be prominent in their data banks for a very long time, ID or not. Also, the first thing you must do if you choose to run is to take all your chips with you, otherwise your ID is required to generate a CTR. Then you need to send someone (or go yourself) back in a couple of weeks to cash your chips a little at a time. I say a little, because just a week ago I was asked for ID for cashing in a mere $6,000. What's that all about? The requirement for generating a CTR is $10,000, but casinos are at liberty to set the bar lower and many do.

 

[blackriver]

kj, ur one of the best posters here. but you really are being stubborn here.
is there anything he could have said to convince you BJA is right? imagine your man said "hey kj, i dont mind if you spread big when losing, but take it easy on us when your on a rush. thats how i get fired"

"i normally let you go, but you were spreading too big last time." is as close to saying that as he can get.

if you got 50 bets in at $500 with a 2% edge thats $500*50*0.02 = $500 of EV right? if you decided half way through to bet even bigger since you were burning it then we're only talkin factions of $500 right? lets say $200. thats 3-4 hours of work at your rate. not to mention the dissaster if you get flyered. i have become completely paranoid after some dude at an indy property referenced my recent play across multiple other casino networks. the fact that you havent been flyered yet is probably just because you are very likable. (or casinos in vegas just dont cooperate at all). im just assuming you wouldnt do this at an MGM or CEC property.

 

[creeping panther]

Hmmm

kj, ur one of the best posters here. but you really are being stubborn here.
is there anything he could have said to convince you BJA is right? imagine your man said "hey kj, i dont mind if you spread big when losing, but take it easy on us when your on a rush. thats how i get fired"

"i normally let you go, but you were spreading too big last time." is as close to saying that as he can get.

if you got 50 bets in at $500 with a 2% edge thats $500*50*0.02 = $500 of EV right? if you decided half way through to bet even bigger since you were burning it then we're only talkin factions of $500 right? lets say $200. thats 3-4 hours of work at your rate. not to mention the dissaster if you get flyered. i have become completely paranoid after some dude at an indy property referenced my recent play across multiple other casino networks. the fact that you havent been flyered yet is probably just because you are very likable. (or casinos in vegas just dont cooperate at all). im just assuming you wouldnt do this at an MGM or CEC property.

Flyered, that is truly an antiquated term and can actually lead one to a false sense of security in relation to what soon will likely be happening.

This is why I have always strongly suggested getting a trade or a college education and playing as a side. We are entering an entire new era where guys like KJ can find themselves out of a job almost overnite, sorry to say.

CP

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

I apologize in advance if I missed a few points here, as I didn't read the entire thread closely. Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth:

1. You play full-time in Vegas at medium stakes. You experienced a backoff. Not a big deal. I don't mean to sound insensitive at all, but it seems like you're worrying way too much about something that's going to happen every once in a while. Re-evaluating your play and trying to find areas for improvement to prevent future backoffs is certainly wise in this case, but I don't think you need to lose any sleep over it.

2. Do you play unrated? If so, then this is nothing. The circumstances of the backoff would imply that this guy just wanted to save himself some heat and wasn't really interested in ratting you out to everyone else. If you're playing rated, he may have still put a note in the system, but if you were unrated, you're fine. In fact, as mentioned before, making max bets throughout a whole shoe (not very much spreading) doesn't give surveillance much to work with if they don't have a player ID to match previous footage with.

3. Betting big off the top, as you seem to agree, is a waste of money. If anyone actually buys that bit of outdated cover, I would be shocked. And betting big as a bluff off the top won't disguise the strong betting and playing correlation that will be easily observed throughout several shoes when doing a tape review, which is what you should be worried about in the first place. That kind of cover play is certain to lose you money and not very likely to win you any longevity, in my opinion.

In summary, brush it off, learn what you can from the incident, and stay off that PB's shift. Carry on as usual. You're obviously doing something right if you can push six figures counting in Vegas full-time, so when something like this happens, be glad it wasn't worse and get back to work.

Final note: you should actually be somewhat glad that the backoff occurred in the way that it did, too: I would infer from the casual meeting that this boss specifically did not want to make a stink at work over it and thought he's just let you off the hook by giving you a heads-up on the street. This means that you're probably clean on other shifts, and almost certainly clean at other nearby properties, both of which could be problems with a big fallout in the casino.

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

We are entering an entire new era where guys like KJ can find themselves out of a job almost overnite, sorry to say.

While I'm all for diversification of assets, I have to disagree that the current scene is less stable for full-time players. In fact, I'd say it's probably the opposite! In the 70's, you didn't have many venues to ply your trade at, so if word got in in Vegas that you were smart, you would take a massive hit to your job security. Many pros nowadays will tell you that the benefit of casinos opening up all over the country far outweigh the risk caused by modern surveillance technology and awareness of game protection. If a player is willing to adapt and has a solid bankroll (ie. can travel), there's plenty of money to be made, and the outlook is very good for the foreseeable future. Simply my opinion, of course, but I haven't been in a casino without a beatable game yet, and they just keep popping up, it seems.

 

[kewljason]

Well Guys, I continue to be greatly appreciative of all your thoughts and discussions in this matter. It has definately given me some things to think about as far as how I would handle a similar situation in the future. I disagree with the thinking that my time is limited here and this is the beginning of the end. I continue to believe that you can play a long time, playing short session at the green to black level, but there is no doubt I made mistakes in handling this situation and even the unpreparedness of how I would handle such an unusual situation was a failure on my part. I hope to improve on that and be better prepared in the future. My attitude is that if you can at least learn something from your mistakes and better prepare for the next time, then it wasn't a total loss.

I am not going to go into too much detail about how I am going to play in the future, but I will say I have given major consideration to some thoughts by posters Avenger. No I am not going to reduce my top wager when winning extreme amounts as Avenger suggests. A situation where you finally get a really strong count, and win the majority of your top wagers is extremely rare. It is basically the whole reason we (counters) play. To not fully take advantage of that situation when if finally arrives just doesn't make sense to me. However, the notion of a 'super-max' wager at times like that is probably also a bad one. :sad: Since my top wager is set by a desire to remain under a specified max bet level to avoid heat, raising it above that level, on the fly, in the most extreme times directly contradicts that pre-thought out plan and will draw attention during your most vulnerable time.

I continue to believe that almost anything you do isn't going to help much in some instances and a situation where you are playing heads up with the dealer winning the majority of your max wagers, leading to a fairly substantial amount won during a slow time at the casino is definately one of those instances. It is just one of the hazzards of this occupation. The idea of cover is to camoflauge your play to avoid drawing attention, but once you have drawn attention, and no doubt the situation described above draws attention, I believe the effects of camoflauge are completely useless. Once they are looking at you, I want get out as quickly as possible and give them as little to evaluate as possible, especially when playing unrated where to get addition 'film' on you they will have to search rather than just punch in your name and see when you last played.