I'm novice card counter, help!!! Should I switch to Zen from Hi opt II for shoe game??

[xengrifter]

Lord Don can you clarify a little bit what you meant by "you could count on one hand how many times you raised a bet after a loss;

What his Lordship is implying, is that he tends to
raise his bet after a win... But never after a loss.

 

[KewlJ]

What his lordship is implying, is that he tends to
raise his bet after a win... But never after a loss.

I know a lot of players swear by this rule or strategy. I don't. And while I can's say for sure it has never hurt me, I am doing pretty well longevity wise.

If you watch other (non card counter) players, it isn't unusual for a player to place a higher wager after a loss, trying to re-coup that loss plus some. It is a form of chasing actually. Now I am talking modest increase (if the count calls for it), not minimum wager to max bet. I also don't think it even looks that unnatural. Once the bet is lost and chips collected, you have to go to chips anyway. If someone is going to notice that you now wagered 6 or 8 green chips, when your last wager, that has already been collected was 4 green chips, you might have a problem anyway (like already being evaluated). But I just don't think this triggers anything since you HAVE to go to chips anyway for next wager. Just my opinion.

I do adhere to the only increase from chips in the circle after a win rule. That would be your original bet plus winning, which will only allow you to double unless you win a BJ, double down or split. It looks very unnatural to win a wager and increase more than that win (going for additional chips). So the down side is if the count suddenly rises dramatically, it may take you 2 rounds to catch up.

 

[DSchles]

Lord Don can you clarify a little bit what you meant by "you could count on one hand how many times you raised a bet after a loss; winners parlay" etc? I had that line in my head one night when I was losing really bad.. it turned things around unbelievably and I ended up with my highest win in 5 years. I was never sure if my interpretation of it was correct but hot damn those cheques were stacked lol

For camouflage and longevity purposes, I rarely if ever jumped a bet. I define that concept in the book and also quantified the cost of so doing in the camouflage chapter. I raised bets when a previous bet won and the count called for an increase. In short, I parlayed winnings and didn't add to my bet from my stack after a loss. While this has an inherent cost to it, I think it looks more natural, and it felt more comfortable.

Many will disagree and will simply bet according to he count, but I learned from Revere, and followed his principles for a long time. Of course, the games I played were infinitely better than the crap that's offered today, so many feel the need to be more aggressive playing against the modern-day games, and I understand that.

Don

 

[DSchles]

I know a lot of players swear by this rule or strategy. I don't. And while I can's say for sure it has never hurt me, I am doing pretty well longevity wise.

If you watch other (non card counter) players, it isn't unusual for a player to place a higher wager after a loss, trying to re-coup that loss plus some. It is a form of chasing actually. Now I am talking modest increase (if the count calls for it), not minimum wager to max bet. I also don't think it even looks that unnatural. Once the bet is lost and chips collected, you have to go to chips anyway. If someone is going to notice that you now wagered 6 or 8 green chips, when your last wager, that has already been collected was 4 green chips, you might have a problem anyway (like already being evaluated). But I just don't think this triggers anything since you HAVE to go to chips anyway for next wager. Just my opinion.

I do adhere to the only increase from chips in the circle after a win rule. That would be your original bet plus winning, which will only allow you to double unless you win a BJ, double down or split. It looks very unnatural to win a wager and increase more than that win (going for additional chips). So the down side is if the count suddenly rises dramatically, it may take you 2 rounds to catch up.

I respect that style. The problem is that you can never be totally consistent in that, often, you will lose bets and NOT increase to seemingly chase -- because the count doesn't warrant the increase. So, if they want to get you, it's easy enough to review the video and see that the only time you "chase" is when the count has risen.

Don

 

[Raven]

For camouflage and longevity purposes, I rarely if ever jumped a bet. I define that concept in the book and also quantified the cost of so doing in the camouflage chapter. I raised bets when a previous bet won and the count called for an increase. In short, I parlayed winnings and didn't add to my bet from my stack after a loss. While this has an inherent cost to it, I think it looks more natural, and it felt more comfortable.

Many will disagree and will simply bet according to he count, but I learned from Revere, and followed his principles for a long time. Of course, the games I played were infinitely better than the crap that's offered today, so many feel the need to be more aggressive playing against the modern-day games, and I understand that.

Don

Thanks for clarifying. I remember thinking I didn't care about the count if I wasn't winning I'm not raising. I wasn't gonna be "tricked" into raising my bet anymore that night lol. Sure enough I flat betted and wonged out neg counts and pressed only on wins after the count turned.. Finally the PB signaled me to 'cut it off' after I more than quadrupled my buy in. I couldn't believe I turned it around. Honestly woulda' been tapped out that night after a series of losses outside the casino too.. where the real losing happens.