Heat and Tolerance

[The Chaperone]

Sorry to hear about your mom and good luck with your surgery, but...

PE is where 2/3 of the advantage in pitch games comes from.

...WTF are you talking about? Does this mean you think you'd have an advantage flat betting if you had a good count with a high Playing Efficiency?

 

[zengrifter]

I've been a pretty conservative counter at the casino. Spreading only 1-3, which, with my indices (50 in all, Zen) and the rules of the game (DD, Reno-esque, good pen), my sim predicted a slow and steady win. Now, I don't mean to sound greedy, but it's no secret to me that increasing the spread would increase my profits as well, and I'd kinda like to look into that. I'm pretty paranoid about heat, though.

You need 1-2x4 -or- 1-6 MINIMUM. Also, use every excuse you can feign to exit -EV counts (cell-call is always good).
Also, remember that you calc spread from the max down, not min up. zg

 

[AR Nick]

Of the ones that do most will not care, but if they do say something, that most likely means they want more tokes.

I figured as much. He got a generous contribution. I've been to the same place a few more times since then (and have officially broken the quadruple digits barrier) and have felt no heat. Then again, perhaps my noobishness is simply preventing me from recognizing the heat. I've yet to have any floormen or pit bosses talk to me, though.

tthree, you mentioned about PE being a big part of one's success in pitch games. I'd read about that before in books and posts on this forum, but I've never understood the mechanics behind it. Don't get me wrong. It's not that I don't believe it (I did, after all, elect to use a high-PE count on pitch games for this exact reason), but if it wouldn't be too much of a grind, could you explain why that happens for me? I've just always thought that even if shoe games have more cards of the same type, when you divide by the remaining decks, you get to the same number. Obligatory reminder that I blow at mathematics.

ZG, regarding your last line, do you mean calculate from the table max or from whatever sum I decide to never exceed? I'm still being a little timid about my bets. The $25 table minimum sort of holds you hostage. Part of why I've not bet too high thus far.

I did, however, run some more sims after reading some of the posts on this thread. The 2 units per hour on the 1-4 spread I'd written earlier was from memory. It turns out I remembered it a little too optimistically. The real result was about 1.5 units per hour. I tried some different betting spreads and ramps this evening, and the newish system I've got as of a few hours ago (basically a 1-5) seems to just about scrape the 2 unit per hour win, while not really increasing variance. From previous sim results, I've noticed that beginning to spread when your edge is less than 2% does indeed increase long term winnings, but the swings are just so violent. I'd rather win less, slower, but without too many valleys.

Another question about wonging out of poor counts: Is it a practice that casino personnel are not too familiar with? I'm asking this because I shared a table with a fellow who was doing this just the other week. Even though he always had a valid excuse, his moves were just so obvious. Or, at least, they were to me since they always matched up with a tanking count. Would this stand out to surveillance, or do they tend to mostly just focus on the bet spread itself?

Apologies for what are, I'm sure, a mess of stupid questions, and thanks again for the responses.

 

[tthree]

Sorry to hear about your mom and good luck with your surgery, but...




...WTF are you talking about? Does this mean you think you'd have an advantage flat betting if you had a good count with a high Playing Efficiency?

It is a very simple concept. Obviously you never understood by this question. The probabilities of outcomes to different hand match ups vary over a far greater range depending on deck composition of all the cards and their affect on the hand match up in pitch games. By playing hands with information that tells you this play has a huge advantage rather than making the decision with less information about the entire deck composition that says the opposite play gives you a small advantage you gain an advantage much larger than what can be gained by bet correlation. Shoe players see this effect to a far lesser degree when the same true count gives a larger advantage with deeper penetration. This larger advantage comes from PE. Your decisions are more accurate and have a larger edge. The size of this increase in edge is dependent on PE.

 

[tthree]

tthree, you mentioned about PE being a big part of one's success in pitch games. I'd read about that before in books and posts on this forum, but I've never understood the mechanics behind it. Don't get me wrong. It's not that I don't believe it (I did, after all, elect to use a high-PE count on pitch games for this exact reason), but if it wouldn't be too much of a grind, could you explain why that happens for me? I've just always thought that even if shoe games have more cards of the same type, when you divide by the remaining decks, you get to the same number. Obligatory reminder that I blow at mathematics.

To see why this is the case get out your copy of The Theory Of Blackjack or Blackjack Attack. Turn to the tables of EOR for various cards for all hand match ups. You will see charts for each dealer upcard for all your hands in Blackjack attack. Notice how most match ups are driven by the density of 2 or 3 cards and the rest have minimal affects by comparison. In a shoe game the EOR of any of these cards is diluted by the number of decks. The running count adjustment for key card removal can be as high as 6 or more for a level 2 count for some hand match ups for that card. With 3 decks to play that only that moves the playing TC by 2 (6/3) for one card. In double deck the effect starts at 6/2decks = 3 for true count adjustment. So if you see the first round out of a double deck game burns 2 of this denomination (or none) in 1/4 deck of cards, your TC is +1 the hand match up playing index is +2 without the added knowledge of EOR you make the obvious decision. There are 1 deficit cards (you expect 1 at this point not 2, note no cards burned would have an equal but opposite affect on the TC.) with a RC adjustment of 6 per card. The TC adjustment would be 6/(7/4) = 3.43 added/subtracted to your TC for each surplus/deicit for playing decisions for your hand match up. The straight counter made a decision based on incomplete information to hit his hand based on a TC +1 and an index of +2, the higher PE of the added information showed a more accurate playing TC to be +4.43. Not only is the straight counter or counter with a weak PE making the wrong decision a lot, he is making the wrong decision when the right one has a large advantage in many situations. Near the cut card in double deck the playing TC for a hand match up is being moved by 7 or 8 for each surplus or deficit key card in many instances. If that card is out of balance with what it should be that information can be more important than all the other cards combined information to making the correct decision for the hand match up deep into a pitch game.

For single deck noticing the early removal of 2 or 3 cards of any denomination other than T or the lack of any being removed can totally change the correct decisions as long as the imbalance is there. One deficit or extra key card in this game moves the playing TC by as much as 12 or more near the shuffle for a level 2 count with some hand match ups in SD.

The number of hand match ups that your PE changes to the correct decision in pitch games is far more significant than in shoe games. This affect is why they take away rules that favor the player as the number of decks decrease. Many risky soft doubles are made on sketchy information since you are not counting the key cards. If you can easily track these key cards until the shuffle these risky doubles become extremely strong doubles. Even if you are counting a key card in your count it is watered down by averaging it's affect with the other counted cards.

 

[BJgenius007]

To see why this is the case get out your copy of The Theory Of Blackjack or Blackjack attack. Turn to the tables of EOR for various cards for all hand match ups. You will see charts for each dealer upcard for all your hands in Blackjack attack. Notice how most match ups are driven by the density of 2 or 3 cards and the rest have minimal affects by comparison. In a shoe game the EOR of any of these cards is diluted by the number of decks. The running count adjustment for key card removal can be as high as 6 or more for a level 2 count for some hand match ups for that card. With 3 decks to play that only that moves the playing TC by 2 (6/3) for one card. In double deck the effect starts at 6/2decks = 3 for true count adjustment. So if you see the first round out of a double deck game burns 2 of this denomination (or none) in 1/4 deck of cards, your TC is +1 the hand match up playing index is +2 without the added knowledge of EOR you make the obvious decision. There are 1 deficit cards (you expect 1 at this point not 2, note no cards burned would have an equal but opposite affect on the TC.) with a RC adjustment of 6 per card. The TC adjustment would be 6/(7/4) = 3.43 added/subtracted to your TC for each surplus/deicit for playing decisions for your hand match up. The straight counter made a decision based on incomplete information to hit his hand based on a TC +1 and an index of +2, the higher PE of the added information showed a more accurate playing TC to be +4.43. Not only is the straight counter or counter with a weak PE making the wrong decision a lot, he is making the wrong decision when the right one has a large advantage in many situations. Near the cut card in double deck the playing TC for a hand match up is being moved by 7 or 8 for each surplus or deficit key card in many instances. If that card is out of balance with what it should be that information can be more important than all the other cards combined information to making the correct decision for the hand match up deep into a pitch game.

For single deck noticing the early removal of 2 or 3 cards of any denomination other than T or the lack of any being removed can totally change the correct decisions as long as the imbalance is there. One deficit or extra key card in this game moves the playing TC by as much as 12 or more near the shuffle for a level 2 count with some hand match ups in SD.

The number of hand match ups that your PE changes to the correct decision in pitch games is far more significant than in shoe games. This affect is why they take away rules that favor the player as the number of decks decrease. Many risky soft doubles are made on sketchy information since you are not counting the key cards. If you can easily track these key cards until the shuffle these risky doubles become extremely strong doubles. Even if you are counting a key card in your count it is watered down by averaging it's affect with the other counted cards.

I have a perfect example at counters' table last night. For more counters' table tales, check my posts at the story section.

Let me refresh readers' memory first. There is this Indian guy who is the second boldest guy in the counters' table. He always played two hands and his spread is like this:

TC Bet size
-2 Wong out
-1 $25x1
0 $25x2
+1 $50x2
+2 $400x2 or $500x2

Basically he spread 40 to 1 and Wong out at TC -2. Since this is a double deck, he should make a good fortune. But his variance is high because he use Zen without ace side count.

This happened twice last night. Note that I am using Omega II with ace side count and most of the time we bump up bets at the same time.

This is the last hand before the shuffle. I have seen 7 aces. Running count for me is +4. Unadjusted true count is +2.5 for me. Because the deck is ace poor by 2, my adjusted TC is +0.5 so I bet table minimal. But for Zen counters like him, because ace is only half weight of ten, he could see RC is +6 and TC is +4. He didn't know most of aces are gone and see high TC. He bet $1000. I know he is in trouble immediately because I have seen similar situations at least 10 times when we played at the same table. Most of the times, he lost the max bet. And it happened again tonight, not once but twice. Had him incorporated the ace side count in his play, he would get $9,000 more from the casino. And this just count the few hours we played together.

 

[tthree]

Here is a PE puzzle

Here is a blackjack puzzle:

You are playing on a team with 2 other counters. You are sitting at third base. Your teammates are occupying the 2 seats to your right at the same table. You are the Bigplayer and now have the table limit of $1000 on the last spot. Your team mates are covering the other 6 spots with $10 bets. One of your teammates is counting HILO and passing the RC to you with a secret signal. His information is generally only used to size your bets. (HILO 2 thru 6 +1 and T and A -1) Your other teammate is using the Roberts count (all T are -2 all other cards +1). He also signals you the RC which you generally use for perfect insurance decisions. He starts his RC at 0 so you insure when the RC is greater than +4. Your job is to count the exact number of cards played and keep a side count of aces. In this way, you can ace adjust high low to have much more accurate playing decisions for an exact true count.

The game you are playing is single deck with Vegas Strip rules and late surrender. Because your teammates had split and resplit pairs on three of their second round hands, by the time the dealer gets to you there are 6 cards yet to be played including the burn card , the bottom card and the dealer's hole card. There are no remaining aces. You hold 66 v 8. The HILO counter signals the RC is 0. The Robert's count counter signals the RC is -2. Should you stand? Hit? Double? Split? Or surrender?

Anyone have a solution? Tarzan count would not hesitate on its own. Don't forget the logic for your solution.

 

[Friendo]

And it happened again tonight, not once but twice. Had him incorporated the ace side count in his play, he would get $9,000 more from the casino. And this just count the few hours we played together.

Meaningless.

I once re-split to four aces twice in an hour, and saw another player do the same thing an hour later. I would have had my ass handed to me with two hands of 12, which is what I would have had if the RSA rule wasn't in effect.

To judge from that short interval of play, the RSA rule is extremely important. In reality, it's well below most of the common options in determining house edge.

You're using anecdotal evidence, which is nearly worthless in blackjack. To know how important the ace sidecount is, we would have to know two things:

• The frequency with which the ace sidecount will result in a substantially different bet
• The long-term difference in earnings on hands where these situations occur

In many cases, he would have won that large bet anyway, due to factors having nothing to do with the knowledge given by his count or your count.

I saw yet another ploppy hit a hard 17 and draw a 4 recently. If he had not hit, he would have lost a lot of money. This is at least the third time I have seen someone win by hitting a hard 17, and I have never seen someone lose by doing so. But I don't think I will ever follow their example.

 

[BJgenius007]

Meaningless.

I once re-split to four aces twice in an hour, and saw another player do the same thing an hour later. I would have had my ass handed to me with two hands of 12, which is what I would have had if the RSA rule wasn't in effect.

To judge from that short interval of play, the RSA rule is extremely important. In reality, it's well below most of the common options in determining house edge.

You're using anecdotal evidence, which is nearly worthless in blackjack. To know how important the ace sidecount is, we would have to know two things:

• The frequency with which the ace sidecount will result in a substantially different bet
• The long-term difference in earnings on hands where these situations occur

In many cases, he would have won that large bet anyway, due to factors having nothing to do with the knowledge given by his count or your count.

I saw yet another ploppy hit a hard 17 and draw a 4 recently. If he had not hit, he would have lost a lot of money. This is at least the third time I have seen someone win by hitting a hard 17, and I have never seen someone lose by doing so. But I don't think I will ever follow their example.

Ace side count is important because ace poor deck greatly reduce the possibility of getting BJ. Most of the advantage for players comes from the 50% extra pay of getting BJ.

 

[tthree]

Meaningless.

I once re-split to four aces twice in an hour, and saw another player do the same thing an hour later. I made out far better than I would have with two hands of 12, which I would have had if the RSA rule wasn't in effect.

To judge from that short interval of play, the RSA rule is extremely important.

The problem is that you're using anecdotal evidence, which is nearly worthless in blackjack. To know how important the ace sidecount is, we would have to know two things:

• The frequency with which the ace sidecount will result in a substantially different bet
• The long-term difference in earnings on hands where these situations occur

In many cases, he would have won that large bet anyway, due to factors having nothing to do with the knowledge given by his count or your count.

How often do you have to unnecessarily lose $9,000 before it becomes meaningful. The point that the Genius is making is your long term outcome depends on the accuracy of your decisions and by extension the information they are based upon. You can count perfectly but if the information gathered doesn't reflect the actual odds of the deck composition you have a large area in which you can improve your game. You would look at a guy counting Ace 5 count and know he would benefit from more information. He might be happy with his outcomes and say the added effort required to gather more information as not worth the effort. That is all we have here. People happy with their outcome not wanting to put in more effort to make more money. They give the sour grapes argument. The sad part is for most people the extra effort is only learning something. Once they are doing it for a while it becomes second nature. How many people post about moving their feet when they see an ace years after they stopped counting them. It became second nature and was done with no effort at all.

 

[Friendo]

... if the information gathered doesn't reflect the actual odds of the deck composition you have a large area in which you can improve your game.

You should not use the the adjective "large" unless you can back it up. A couple of examples in a day's play constitutes no evidence. And the word "large" is simply false in this case: flat-out, directly, and unequivocally false.

We all forego numerous bits of information when we play. I don't sidecount aces because I figure the effects of playing a slower game and making a few additional errors per day would more than negate the slim advantage of adding aces, or any other sidecount, to the system I currently use. My evidence is simulations of hundreds of millions of hands, which do not show a "large" advantage to be gained by adding a sidecount.

To turn your silly argument about ace-5 counts around, I could ask why you don't sidecount each rank individually. That would surely make your system stronger. See how silly that sounds?

You don't understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and simulations. You don't understand variance. I am not worried for you, because you seem to understand many other things. But I am worried that new players will take your advice.

How often do you have to unnecessarily lose $9,000 before it becomes meaningful.

How often does a sidecount tell you anything more about the likelihood of losing that $9,000, and what's the actual correlation between what it tells you and the outcome? How does the advantage gained compare with the larger number of errors and fewer hands per hour which will work against you?

 

[BJgenius007]

How often does a sidecount tell you anything more about the likelihood of losing that $9,000, and what's the actual correlation between what it tells you and the outcome? How does the advantage gained compare with the larger number of errors and fewer hands per hour which will work against you?

In the previous example, I demonstrate how ace poor deck becomes a trap for counters without ace side count.

On the other end of the spectrum, I will show how they miss the opportunity when the deck becomes super ace rich.

I have mentioned this before. When I sat at the counters' table, I can profile other APs' counting system. This is when it happened. In rare occasion (but not that rare in double deck), sometimes we may see 8 aces still in tact after one deck being played. Supposed running count is slightly negative, AP without ace side count will bet minimal or just two units. But I will bet my max bet because adjusted TC is boosted by +4. It is the time that men separate from the boys. As I said before, most of the times, APs with different counting systems bump up bets at the same time, but in these two occasions, they took the opposite action. And 90% of the time, APs incorporating ace side count win because of the nature of the game.

For people who still haven't decided which counting system to use, you need to choose the one that not only treats the ace as a high card on betting and a low card on playing, but also sees ace is the more important card than ten.

And the answer is not Uston, Wong Halves or Zen. It must be Omega II with ace side count.

 

[johnnyb]

It seems from your first post that you are much too paranoid about heat. If you are playing greens, I'd prefer you to spread a little harder. This is actually an easy task in a play-all situation or a wong-in situation if the casino you play at is often filled with people, and sometimes crowded. Playing in these situations recquires minimal cover play because PB's and other casino personnel are very busy checking dealer money racks and are generally multitasking, leaving little time to really focus on your tiny spread. The only time you need to practice your act is in the casino, when you are playing heads-up versus the dealer. In these situations, cover plays will assist your overall goal of staying under the radar, and a minor bet spread of 1-6 should be no issue.

Don't take the cover plays too far. Don't make stupid decisions when you have your max bets out, it's just not a logical decision. Instead, if you experience a good DD game where you have won a couple max bets, be smart and begin the first hand of the new shuffle with a 2 or 3 unit bet.

Best of luck.

 

[blackjack avenger]

missing something?

Here is a blackjack puzzle:

You are playing on a team with 2 other counters. You are sitting at third base. Your teammates are occupying the 2 seats to your right at the same table. You are the Bigplayer and now have the table limit of $1000 on the last spot. Your team mates are covering the other 6 spots with $10 bets. One of your teammates is counting HILO and passing the RC to you with a secret signal. His information is generally only used to size your bets. (HILO 2 thru 6 +1 and T and A -1) Your other teammate is using the Roberts count (all T are -2 all other cards +1). He also signals you the RC which you generally use for perfect insurance decisions. He starts his RC at 0 so you insure when the RC is greater than +4. Your job is to count the exact number of cards played and keep a side count of aces. In this way, you can ace adjust high low to have much more accurate playing decisions for an exact true count.

The game you are playing is single deck with Vegas Strip rules and late surrender. Because your teammates had split and resplit pairs on three of their second round hands, by the time the dealer gets to you there are 6 cards yet to be played including the burn card , the bottom card and the dealer's hole card. There are no remaining aces. You hold 66 v 8. The HILO counter signals the RC is 0. The Robert's count counter signals the RC is -2. Should you stand? Hit? Double? Split? Or surrender?

Anyone have a solution? Tarzan count would not hesitate on its own. Don't forget the logic for your solution.

This game does not exist.
The players are not using their talents optimally.
One thing I have thought, three are u basing your advanced strategies on today games?

Do u know the advantage of the ins. Count on top of hi lo or more specifically halves?

 

[tthree]

This game does not exist.
The players are not using their talents optimally.
One thing I have thought, three are u basing your advanced strategies on today games?

Do u know the advantage of the ins. Count on top of hi lo or more specifically halves?

I did not make up the puzzle someone else did. I think this one dates back to the 1980s but the mental exercise of getting the most out of additional information is useful training. The illustration of combining information in more than a linear way like a computer sim is forced to do is important. We have brains capable of more than that. A sim can't perform these tasks so easily. You almost certainly have to have written your own sim program that is far more complicated to have a shot at the deductive power of the brain. The point is are you expert enough at blackjack to outperform the computer sim by going beyond linear analysis. This one took me about 3 minutes to solve because I was unfamiliar with the Robert's count. A real expert should solve it in seconds rather than minutes as this Bigplayer is expected to do.

 

[AR Nick]

The only time you need to practice your act is in the casino, when you are playing heads-up versus the dealer.

That's been my problem. I try to play only heads-up or at most with one or two other players. I don't go to the casino when there are too many folks there because my casino seems to draw a certain type of people that play Blackjack like it's Poker, going out of their way, absurd theatrics and all, to make sure no one sees their precious cards. When there are 4 or 5 other people at the table (and no one busts), I'm behind 8 or 10 cards in my count when making a playing decision. This is devastating in a DD game. I tried it once, lost about $200, and decided to stick to weekdays.

To everyone else, thanks loads for all of the info. You've been a great help. :toast: I don't have either of those two books you mentioned, tthree, but I'll be sure to look them up and get them. As for the puzzle, let me see if I've got it right. At a single deck, I calculated the Roberts count to be unbalanced, finishing at +4. Since the RC at the time of the decision is -2, it needs six more non-ten cards to balance out, and there are only six cards left, therefore there are no tens left. If HiLo is 0, that means the large and small cards balance out, and since there are no tens and no aces left, all six of the remaining cards would have to be Hilo neutral cards (sevens, eights and nines). Splitting your sixes will not guarantee a win as you'd need a 7-8 or 7-7 on each to not bust, and surrender would be a bad choice because whether you hit once or stand, the dealer will bust, and you'll win.

Interesting indeed. It took me longer to figure out than I'd like to admit, but it was quite stimulating. Now I just gotta find a single deck game that deals that deep.

 

[tthree]

That's been my problem. I try to play only heads-up or at most with one or two other players. I don't go to the casino when there are too many folks there because my casino seems to draw a certain type of people that play Blackjack like it's Poker, going out of their way, absurd theatrics and all, to make sure no one sees their precious cards. When there are 4 or 5 other people at the table (and no one busts), I'm behind 8 or 10 cards in my count when making a playing decision. This is devastating in a DD game. I tried it once, lost about $200, and decided to stick to weekdays.

To everyone else, thanks loads for all of the info. You've been a great help. :toast: I don't have either of those two books you mentioned, tthree, but I'll be sure to look them up and get them. As for the puzzle, let me see if I've got it right. At a single deck, I calculated the Roberts count to be unbalanced, finishing at +4. Since the RC at the time of the decision is -2, it needs six more non-ten cards to balance out, and there are only six cards left, therefore there are no tens left. If HiLo is 0, that means the large and small cards balance out, and since there are no tens and no aces left, all six of the remaining cards would have to be Hilo neutral cards (sevens, eights and nines). Splitting your sixes will not guarantee a win as you'd need a 7-8 or 7-7 on each to not bust, and surrender would be a bad choice because whether you hit once or stand, the dealer will bust, and you'll win.

Interesting indeed. It took me longer to figure out than I'd like to admit, but it was quite stimulating. Now I just gotta find a single deck game that deals that deep.

We have a winner. You deduced the deck composition properly. I guess by process of elimination you were going to correctly double your 12 v 8. You will either end up with a 19, 20 or 21. The dealer is going to either get a 9 for 17 or bust after drawing 2 cards. If you double your 12 v 8 you can't lose.

I just thought an illustration of how having the odds of possible outcomes change in pitch games so much faster than shoe games would help Chaperone understand why 2/3 of your possible advantage gain in pitch games are found in your PE. If you are getting 3 rounds in a single deck game the PE gained with lots of added info (not hard to keep track of for three rounds) and a quick mind, is likely to increase your decisions accuracy quite a bit. That means one third of the hands (Last of the three rounds) you play will have a significant increase in win percentage. If late surrender is available you can surrender the match ups were the added info is horrible news for your hand's outcome.

 

[AR Nick]

Indeed so. I've kinda been doing that - playing the last round of each shoe with great index plays - but I never really imagined what a difference a second count or second parameter could make. A perfect illustration, that was. Many thanks.

 

[tthree]

YOUR WELCOME. Getting away from a strictly linear attack that straight counting does allows a 2 dimensional approach which can show more of an advantage by using sort of a solving linear equations approach to optimizing the combination of using more than one linear count. It is hard to quantify with more decks but at SD with practice you can get a pretty good feel for the probable outcomes predicted. Certainly pitch games are the only ones practical for this application of advanced math. It doesn't surprise me that the person able to see fat opportunities not indicated by straight counting has been working on exploiting more information in his own game.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Wonging's a good idea, but this casino is ahead of the game in that department. Wonging out is an option, naturally, but in pitch games, I'm not sure of how much benefit it would bring compared to its much greater utility in shoe games. Wonging in, as I alluded, is just not allowed. Perhaps that's why the rest of the rules are so good (relatively speaking, of course) in comparison to other casinos in the area or, indeed, other casinos in areas where they're few and far between.

But as you and others have said, I'll put more time into other casinos rather than sitting on this one for too long.

As for playing aggressively when losing, that's a pretty good idea, but I'd have to increase the amount of money I carry on me. Last time I went, there was a fellow sitting at my table who was probably the most obvious AP in the history of ever. His spreads and sit-outs were so mechanical, I could predict his every move before he made it. Even the dealer* was getting visibly upset with him every time he'd try to make up some excuse to not play the rest of the shoe. This guy was spreading about 1-12 ($25 - $300, in other words), and he lost at least a couple of thousand that hour (the dealer was pulling lots of 20s and BJs). I only lost about $600 during that time and quickly won them back and won that much more within the next 3 or 4 hours (yeah, too long, I know). Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that even though, as you've said, this strategy would be really good cover, if my chips are already below even, aren't I increasing my risk of ruin by betting big right then, or rather, more so than if I did so while up?


* A quick question regarding that: This was the same dealer who made a comment about my index plays. I was playing with the idea that he might be a counter himself. Is that something that's common amongst dealers? Uncommon? Rare? Totally unheard of? If it is common to some degree, do the casinos use dealers like that to pick out APs, or is that something that's just never part of a dealer's job?

Once again, many thanks for all the answers and advice.

Betting more when losing is counter to Kelly theory but you should have a very low ror? This advice is a camo move. They are more tolerant of losers.

Don't change counts, you are fine. Add a few indices beyond catch 22 if you wish.

Wong in & out of shoes the best you can.

Play some shoes even in home casino.

Wonging out of DD is hard because it can turn fast, last hand perhaps to check a starting shoe.

You probably know the tolerance for your casino.
General heat rises depending on casino and bets around you.:
$100
$200, the new unspoken $100 in big casinos
$500
$1,000
Higher