KO team techniques

[Bojack1]

Can't agree with that. 2-3 spotters and a BP is not like 2-3 counters.

First of all, with seated spotters they are still playing and spending money at other tables, including some very bad counts, even when the BP is playing a good count. Secondly, individual counters are going to be walking away from bad counts so they are going to be seeing more good counts. Sonny and I discussed this a while back, and came to the conclusion that you are better off having all team members backcounting and individually playing good counts to the combined bankroll than calling in a BP or calling other players over to the table.

The way I would structure a team would be a mix of the two philosophies. Let's call it the IDIC model. Let's say there were 8 players. I would send them out to play in pairs, sort of a buddy system, and for every session everyone would be paired up with a different buddy. That way the floor wouldn't see the same players playing together all the time, and more importantly, players would be discouraged from ripping off the team because they are always being watched and always by someone different that they can't be sure would go along with a conspiracy to rip off. At the same time, you're getting most of the benefit of having players play individually. Players could even mix and match techniques depending on who they are playing with. With one guy you could just backcount, with another you would combine counting and tracking techniques, and with another you might play a call-in game. This way the casinos would be confused as to who is doing what and where, the team BR would be relatively secure and the players would be learning new techniques with one another.

I can't agree with this. First off as a spotter if its possible to just backcount then of course thats what should be done. If it is very crowded then it is beneficial for the spotter to take a seat and count and then give it up to the BP in an advantageous situation. As a spotter though its still important to be aggressive in finding tables that have potential for call ins, and not become headstones playing through total garbage. If the count is shot than the job of the spotter is to be looking for a shuffle and not have much down time between leaving tables. As long as you don't overload the team with too many spotters and too few BPs then your spotters should very rarely be playing with the advantage, but at the same time not playing crushingly bad counts either.

So if you have 3 spotters playing $10 tables during neutral and slightly negative counts, and the big player coming in playing $100 units during each spotters advantage, then it is exactly like playing with 3 separate players. Also with a huge spread depending on what you decide your max bet to be. And I would also suggest spreading to 2 hands whenever possible with the advantage to increase the spread even more. You must remember a good spotters job is to act just like an aggressive wonging individual but with absolutely no bet differential. Being careful to keep sessions short and not calling your BP onto the same table per session will almost gaurantee no heat. And with shift changes come fresh opportunities to do it all again with casino personnel that have not seen you earlier. As a matter of fact if done right a lot of times the pit personnel will never see any of the team members ever playing together or even speaking to each other.

Theoretically what you propose for team play might work but it seems to me to be impractical. People doing all different sorts of things may be hard to track for the casino, but worse off its hard to track for the team. Its hard to have any kind of quality control with too many systems trying to be implemented at once. And I sincerely doubt anyone is going to learn how to shuffletrack by watching their buddy doing it in a casino. Also casinos as dull as they can be have a tendency to remember if players play big or not, especially if you play there even slightly regularly. If you are mixing and matching players and techniques you will be hardpressed to explain why you went from betting $10 a hand to $500, or vice versa.

And finally if there is a need to put in steps to prevent theft among teamates, than your team will fail anyway. Everybody should be held accountable for team money they are allotted, thats a given, but it should be for playing stats and results, not for theft. If you don't know and trust those you play with, don't share a bankroll. No gray area. Heavy losses or losing streaks mean only that when you play with the right people. When it means questioning if its due to poor play or honesty, you will not get the most out of your team and I would get out. What I have discussed here is just my opinion, but its based on the real thing not on what I think might work.

 

[RJT]

Can't agree with that. 2-3 spotters and a BP is not like 2-3 counters.

First of all, with seated spotters they are still playing and spending money at other tables, including some very bad counts, even when the BP is playing a good count. Secondly, individual counters are going to be walking away from bad counts so they are going to be seeing more good counts. Sonny and I discussed this a while back, and came to the conclusion that you are better off having all team members backcounting and individually playing good counts to the combined bankroll than calling in a BP or calling other players over to the table.

That's flat out wrong. Any reasonable team using the BP technique know that you back count where possible, sit down where needed and walk away at a TC of -1 or less. Hell if the spotter's got the opportunity of an empty table, then maybe sit to a TC of -1.5, but no further. If you have your spotters sitting as headstones, yes they generate a lot of negative ev and they also don't sample as many shoe so you don't get as many possible good counts.
I've had the privilige of seeing a proficient team in action, and even at the busiest hours they never had their spotters camped out. It might take a few minutes, but you can always find a new table.
That being the case, they were playing very close to 2-3 individual players - given that there is going to be a slight reduction due to overlapping positive shoes - except their players would be playing with an absolutely massive spread, totally unachievable by the individuals involved.
Secondly, if you can't trust the players you are playing with you shouldn't be on a team with them full stop. You are so paranoid about theft and violence and actually i know several people who have functioned on teams both past and present and have never experienced any major issues along these lines. Yes you should be careful, but not to the point of paranoia.
The buddy systems as you describe it wouldn't be put into play by any serious team unless they are simply looking for every counter to play individually. Firstly if you played a call in game your cover is going to be blown quickly with the same guy calling you in again and again in a short space of time. If you play individually, you'll never achieve the spread that a BP team can. And as to advanced techniques - i can assure you that most players would struggle to make spotter on any team i was running, so i'd need an exceptional group before i considered letting them go out an try tracking, cutting, sequencing ect ect. If they want to learn new techniques, they can learn them in practice with the rest of the team where they can be sufficiently checked out before they go burning up the team bankroll.

RJT.

 

[Bojack1]

Thats very funny RJT I put my post up at almost the exact same time as yours, saying practically the same things. Sounds like you've met up with a pretty fine team if I do say so myself. It would be safe to say with your quality of play I'm sure they would welcome you back anytime.

 

[RJT]

I certainly hope so. I could see myself appreciating the opportunity to play with them again. A unique experience, one that i've learned so much from yet i'm confident i've a lot more to learn.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I can't agree with this. First off as a spotter if its possible to just backcount then of course thats what should be done. If it is very crowded then it is beneficial for the spotter to take a seat and count and then give it up to the BP in an advantageous situation. As a spotter though its still important to be aggressive in finding tables that have potential for call ins, and not become headstones playing through total garbage. If the count is shot than the job of the spotter is to be looking for a shuffle and not have much down time between leaving tables. As long as you don't overload the team with too many spotters and too few BPs then your spotters should very rarely be playing with the advantage, but at the same time not playing crushingly bad counts either.

In this instance there's no reason for the spotters to play at all, unless you are talking about completely full tables where the spotter leaves so the BP can take his place. If the spotter is going to play in a good count, why would you have him eating up cards with $10 bets?

So if you have 3 spotters playing $10 tables during neutral and slightly negative counts, and the big player coming in playing $100 units during each spotters advantage, then it is exactly like playing with 3 separate players.

No, it is not. What happens when 2 or 3 tables all have an advantageous count at the same time? 3 separate players can play all of them, one BP cannot. Furthermore, 3 separate players can exploit slight positive counts that call for a small bet increase but would not justify calling in a BP. Not being able to raise your bet when you have a 0.3-0.5% advantage is throwing EV away.

Also with a huge spread depending on what you decide your max bet to be. And I would also suggest spreading to 2 hands whenever possible with the advantage to increase the spread even more. You must remember a good spotters job is to act just like an aggressive wonging individual but with absolutely no bet differential. Being careful to keep sessions short and not calling your BP onto the same table per session will almost gaurantee no heat.

3 spotters, and not calling in the BP to the same table more than once per session. That should allow for half hour sessions.

...And finally if there is a need to put in steps to prevent theft among teamates, than your team will fail anyway. Everybody should be held accountable for team money they are allotted, thats a given, but it should be for playing stats and results, not for theft. If you don't know and trust those you play with, don't share a bankroll. No gray area. Heavy losses or losing streaks mean only that when you play with the right people. When it means questioning if its due to poor play or honesty, you will not get the most out of your team and I would get out. What I have discussed here is just my opinion, but its based on the real thing not on what I think might work.

All businesses have means to discourage theft, and a team that doesn't have this is not being run as a business. We're all sinners and people and situations that you thought you knew well can change. Many AP's were gamblers and men of vice before they were AP's so I would be inclined to trust them as individuals slightly less than I would the general public.

And no individual player can be judged by his results in the environment of shoe blackjack. The N0 is tens of thousands of hands and by the time you can say with any degree of confidence that an individual is ripping you off judging only by his win and loss records, it's too late. He has already succeeded in ripping you off. Unless you are prepared to call someone a thief based on a one standard deviation loss. Being a person who actually understands what N0 and standard deviation mean, that's something I would be unwilling to do.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

That's flat out wrong. Any reasonable team using the BP technique know that you back count where possible, sit down where needed and walk away at a TC of -1 or less. Hell if the spotter's got the opportunity of an empty table, then maybe sit to a TC of -1.5, but no further. If you have your spotters sitting as headstones, yes they generate a lot of negative ev and they also don't sample as many shoe so you don't get as many possible good counts.
I've had the privilige of seeing a proficient team in action, and even at the busiest hours they never had their spotters camped out. It might take a few minutes, but you can always find a new table.
That being the case, they were playing very close to 2-3 individual players - given that there is going to be a slight reduction due to overlapping positive shoes - except their players would be playing with an absolutely massive spread, totally unachievable by the individuals involved.
Secondly, if you can't trust the players you are playing with you shouldn't be on a team with them full stop. You are so paranoid about theft and violence and actually i know several people who have functioned on teams both past and present and have never experienced any major issues along these lines. Yes you should be careful, but not to the point of paranoia.
The buddy systems as you describe it wouldn't be put into play by any serious team unless they are simply looking for every counter to play individually. Firstly if you played a call in game your cover is going to be blown quickly with the same guy calling you in again and again in a short space of time. If you play individually, you'll never achieve the spread that a BP team can. And as to advanced techniques - i can assure you that most players would struggle to make spotter on any team i was running, so i'd need an exceptional group before i considered letting them go out an try tracking, cutting, sequencing ect ect. If they want to learn new techniques, they can learn them in practice with the rest of the team where they can be sufficiently checked out before they go burning up the team bankroll.

RJT.

What you are saying I mostly agree with; that the purpose of a BP team is to get down an enormous spread. Not a $10-$100 spread or a $10-$200 spread. Think $10-$2000 spread. If you're not playing stakes on that level, don't bother with the BP just because you read that the MIT team did it. Try another approach.

Otherwise it has no benefit. Just some dead weight and missed opportunities, and the added risk of additional people with access to your bankroll. But I'm glad to hear you're a trusting person. There are a bunch of guys in Las Vegas who would love to meet you!

 

[RJT]

In this instance there's no reason for the spotters to play at all, unless you are talking about completely full tables where the spotter leaves so the BP can take his place. If the spotter is going to play in a good count, why would you have him eating up cards with $10 bets?

One word. Cover. It's the whole point of team play.

No, it is not. What happens when 2 or 3 tables all have an advantageous count at the same time? 3 separate players can play all of them, one BP cannot. Furthermore, 3 separate players can exploit slight positive counts that call for a small bet increase but would not justify calling in a BP. Not being able to raise your bet when you have a 0.3-0.5% advantage is throwing EV away.

True, but that's already been mentioned and is actually more than compensated for by the far larger bet spread.

3 spotters, and not calling in the BP to the same table more than once per session. That should allow for half hour sessions.

That depends where you play and honestly, it allows for a lot more than that.

All businesses have means to discourage theft, and a team that doesn't have this is not being run as a business. We're all sinners and people and situations that you thought you knew well can change. Many AP's were gamblers and men of vice before they were AP's so I would be inclined to trust them as individuals slightly less than I would the general public.
And no individual player can be judged by his results in the environment of shoe blackjack. The N0 is tens of thousands of hands and by the time you can say with any degree of confidence that an individual is ripping you off judging only by his win and loss records, it's too late. He has already succeeded in ripping you off. Unless you are prepared to call someone a thief based on a one standard deviation loss. Being a person who actually understands what N0 and standard deviation mean, that's something I would be unwilling to do.

My experience of AP's is actually quite the opposite. Don't mistake me - i've been careful about which AP's i've socialized with, but the number that i have have been meticulously honesty in every dealing i've had with them. And many of them could actually prove in many 10's of thousands of hands, that their results are honest. After that it comes down to trust and for that you can only use yourself as a ruler. If you feel that the people you are playing with meet your standards then that has to be enough. I'm just not cynical or beaten enough to view the entire world as out to get me.

RJT.

 

[RJT]

Think $10-$2000 spread. If you're not playing stakes on that level, don't bother with the BP just because you read that the MIT team did it. Try another approach.

Rubbish. It can be very successfully employed at a smaller spread than that. Hey, if you can get away with that spread, by all means do so and it is possible in the right situations, but as long as you don't have your spotter's actually playing minimums that are too high, it's more that feesable to employ this without that hugh a spread.

Otherwise it has no benefit. Just some dead weight and missed opportunities, and the added risk of additional people with access to your bankroll.

You're really not a person who's ever going to have use for a team.

But I'm glad to hear you're a trusting person. There are a bunch of guys in Las Vegas who would love to meet you!

And what makes you think that i'd ever trust them? I trust my instincts about people and what i can prove. And you know they've never lead me wrong. If you don't have any, i'll leave you to get suckerd by the vegas crew or avoid profitable situations cause you can't decide who to trust. Just be careful not to get caught in any drive-by's on the way to the casino.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

...My experience of AP's is actually quite the opposite. Don't mistake me - i've been careful about which AP's i've socialized with, but the number that i have have been meticulously honesty in every dealing i've had with them. And many of them could actually prove in many 10's of thousands of hands, that their results are honest. After that it comes down to trust and for that you can only use yourself as a ruler. If you feel that the people you are playing with meet your standards then that has to be enough. I'm just not cynical or beaten enough to view the entire world as out to get me.

RJT.

No, no one can prove in tens of thousands of hands of shoe blackjack that they are honest! If you believe that you are setting yourself up. School's in- suppose you send me out with cash to play a game with an N0 of 20,000 and an expected win of 600 units. At the end of the N0, I proudly hand you back your bankroll plus 620 units profit. Does that prove I have been honest?

You say you "trust your instincts" and that is also a recipe for disaster. Grifters are masters at manipulating our instincts, and I do not believe I am capable of determining an honest from a dishonest person by instinct. Our greatest American President, Ronald Reagan, once said "Trust, but verify." A reliable system of verification appropriate to the level of funds is needed whenever cash is handled. As proof of this, I offer that bank employees are heavily screened by investigative professionals, and are generally trustworthy, but they still don't get to handle tens of thousands of dollars without constant oversight. They don't handle customer deposits alone, not because they aren't trusted, but just because the proper way to handle other people's money is with verification.

From the other perspective, when I eventually bite into a two SD loss at the table, I'd feel a lot better if someone was watching over me and can vouch for the fact that I wasn't steaming, wasn't drunk or anything like that. It would be preferable to having to explain to other what happened and just hope they believe me. Overall I would refuse to play on a team that didn't have a reliable way to verify who was doing what with the money on a day-by-day basis, for the protection of both my investment and my good reputation.

 

[RJT]

No, no one can prove in tens of thousands of hands of shoe blackjack that they are honest! If you believe that you are setting yourself up. School's in- suppose you send me out with cash to play a game with an N0 of 20,000 and an expected win of 600 units. At the end of the N0, I proudly hand you back your bankroll plus 620 units profit. Does that prove I have been honest?

You say you "trust your instincts" and that is also a recipe for disaster. Grifters are masters at manipulating our instincts, and I do not believe I am capable of determining an honest from a dishonest person by instinct. Our greatest American President, Ronald Reagan, once said "Trust, but verify." A reliable system of verification appropriate to the level of funds is needed whenever cash is handled. As proof of this, I offer that bank employees are heavily screened by investigative professionals, and are generally trustworthy, but they still don't get to handle tens of thousands of dollars without constant oversight. They don't handle customer deposits alone, not because they aren't trusted, but just because the proper way to handle other people's money is with verification.

From the other perspective, when I eventually bite into a two SD loss at the table, I'd feel a lot better if someone was watching over me and can vouch for the fact that I wasn't steaming, wasn't drunk or anything like that. It would be preferable to having to explain to other what happened and just hope they believe me. Overall I would refuse to play on a team that didn't have a reliable way to verify who was doing what with the money on a day-by-day basis, for the protection of both my investment and my good reputation.

You are completely right on this and i would never say otherwise. Although i think that over 10's of thousands of hands you can offer a trend, perhaps the word 'prove' that i offered was a little strong.
And again, i'm sure that there are no shortage of people out there that are just looking to grab your money and run. I've encountered more than my fair share of them both off and online. However, i've also had the opposite experience. That of a table full of players who insist that a small stack of green chips is mine when it actually belongs to the player next to me - honesty to a fault. You can't make assessments based on only one experience.
Now in the BP format, only one person should ever be handling any large volume of cash in the first place - the BP.
Any time you go out, your spotters are issued a small bankroll that should be more than capible of supporting minimum bets played over the trip, and they check in and out exactly what their results are after every session. This in no way proves their innocence, but it goes a long way to re-assuring everyone's confidence, even if it naieve to believe that this actually checks anything.
You BP, now that's a dirtier area, so you have to choose people that the entire team is confident in, happy with on both a personal and buisness level. Again you run checks in the 10's of thousands of hands but if your team is playing any reasonable ammount, between them all the 100's of thousands of hands in never that far away. At this point you begin to get a more accurate view of the team's overall performance.
Overall there are never going to be the check that you seem to want, so there is always going to be an element of trust involved in team play and you can fixate on the negative if you like - but many teams out there don't and have had great success over the years. If you can't grant that level of trust, then as i said before, team play is not for you. I suppose on that level it all comes down to risk tollerance. Not a hell of a lot more too it really.

RJT.