New Friends

[RJT]

A BP does not need to use any indices if he thinks it might screw him up. Counter's Basic Strategy is sufficient. However no matter what a BP does, his play can't be any better than the information given to him by the spotter. If the spotter has screwed up, it is just like the BP has screwed up. Being a spotter spends 100% of his time counting and a BP does not, the counting skills of the spotter need to be better than that of the BP, who could just come in and flat bet without counting until the end of the shoe and be playing with a large advantage, if he so chose. Therefore I have to call shenanigans if anyone claims the BP has to be a more skilled counter than a spotter.

Well call shenanigans then and answer the question. What experience do you have with playing on or running a team?
The answer is none, just to cut the story short.
A big player who can't use index numbers is not good enough to be a big player. In fact it's totally ridiculous to suggest that the person who's betting the big money cannot play simple play deviations. If he can't memorize some simple strategy changes why would he be good enough to trust large amounts of money too?
Also a BP who's flat betting when called until the end of the shoe is totally screwing up for the team. You are over betting disadvantages, under betting advantages and throwing a vast amount of that EV you were talking about preferring to cover out the window. The advantage that the BP plays with by flat betting through good counts is one thing, still dramatically lower than a BP who varies his bets. The advantage that a BP who just flat bets until the end of the shoe is going to be massively under the potential gains he could have.
You are right about the spotters screwing up and the damage that it can do, but that's why you check out your spotters on a regular basis. All they essentially have to do is keep a running count and call the BP in whenever the RC exceeds the number of decks remaining (Hi/Lo).
Your big player has to have the confidence of every player on the team that they have the right bet out at the right time, that they're making the right play at the right time and they're looking natural and not attracting attention.
All the points you make are exactly the reasons that so many teams fail. Sloppy standards and sloppy attitudes towards expected performance. 'We're playing as a team, it doesn't matter if we don't play perfectly, we're going to win big', 'We'll just flat bet till the end of the shoe - won't change the results that much'.
Let me ask you, how do you think your results would be affected as a counter if you just flat betted your unit until the end of the shoe irregardless of the count once you've got the advantage? What do you think the difference between a counter who uses an optimal strategy and this player would be?

RJT.

 

[RJT]

But it's good to hear that you trust others, and that you might be willing to let me hold your money.

Seriously i would NEVER let you hold my money or even a drink while i nipped to the loo. You've already proved you don't have enough understanding of how to play on a team, or the type of personality that could be trusted enough to play on a team for me to know that. And i think you'd probably spill my drink too.

Here, I'm a reasonable and hard-working AP, but once I find myself in a gaming venue like AC with thousands of dollars in my pocket, I turn into Mr. Hyde. Did you know I'm a sexual compulsive who "swings both ways" and I cannot resist any kind of sexual offer from any person, no matter how risky? I'm also a drug addict. Ten minutes after you hand me the money I'll make some excuse to leave the casino and march right down to Arctic Avenue to cop.

Truthfully none of these admissions surprise me.

Good God, can you imagine what I'd do to you if you tried to stop me? I'll say or do anything to get high. But you'll probably never see me; I'll just sneak out and make up a story about bad variance, maybe hit you up a few more times before you figure it out.

Why do you think that anybody who knows anything about the game would want to play with you? You hardly come across as a respectable individual. In fact you talk about sleeze so much it's unsettling. What was it that was said earlier? Oh yeah, if you are scum you attract scum.

These things I just said about myself aren't true, which is also exactly what I would say if they were true. But you are indeed interested in risking your bankroll in order to find out, right? Ah what a sport, thanks!

I never risked my own bankroll. We were never asked to. That's the difference between a respectable individual who has a trusting relationship with another human being and someone who's trying to sleeze your bankroll out of you.
It's odd how a real pro like Bojack never feels the need to mention sex, drugs, crime etc etc. Strangely enough, cause he doesn't come across it. Maybe someone of your caliber comes across it more often, but if you do, maybe you should consider who you are and how you're treating other people.

RJT.

 

[RJT]

Alright what does a BP test consist of? The spotter test sounds pretty easy, I think I could pass that, can I be on the team.

Alright Joe,
Got a bit carried away with the less important issues here. I'll give details of this first thing in the morning (it's about mid-night where i am just now). Although from what i remember of that interview Sonny posted, it's pretty spot on and it is the MIT team tests that this BP check-out is based on.

RJT.

 

[Bojack1]

The difference between the two terms as I'm using them is that a spotter calls in a BP and doesn't need to tell him what to do, and a play caller calls in a gorilla and does tell him what to do.

A BP does not need to use any indices if he thinks it might screw him up. Counter's Basic Strategy is sufficient. However no matter what a BP does, his play can't be any better than the information given to him by the spotter. If the spotter has screwed up, it is just like the BP has screwed up. Being a spotter spends 100% of his time counting and a BP does not, the counting skills of the spotter need to be better than that of the BP, who could just come in and flat bet without counting until the end of the shoe and be playing with a large advantage, if he so chose. Therefore I have to call shenanigans if anyone claims the BP has to be a more skilled counter than a spotter.

Well at least I can agree with your first sentence, after that your opinion gets in the way of better judgement. Correct in the rather obvious statement that the spotter must have the right count for the BP to play correctly. But all told anybody that counts cards should count correctly no matter how they play. Its much easier to do nothing but count cards and not have to worry about anything else. For example most novice counters can count down a deck of cards with no problem. Its when you throw in all that it takes to play the game that most get flustered and lose count or make mistakes. In essence the spotters game is broken down to the most basic form. Of course perfect BS and straight counting. Once you are proficent at both than you can spot, but not until then, so of course we don't run into bad counting leading to false call ins. I should not have to state the obvious to you but I will if it helps you. The counting skills of the BP have to be superior due to the fact he is the show. The BP dictates the the action, as well as the team. He must be able to count, bet, interact, play indices, which by the way if our BP doesn't feel comfortable playing variations to BS will not be our BP anymore. And I'm sorry I will not allow just flat betting for a BP when that is by no means the optimal way to get the most out of our advantage. Your thinking is theoretical and flawed, please just listen, you don't have to believe but ignorance is not always bliss.

On the other note of you advertising for players to meet with you to backcount. Regardless if you share money or not, you have let a stranger know that basically you carry a bankroll big enough worth stealing by letting them know your betspread. I don't care how macho you think you might be, it wouldn't be hard to take if someone is resigned to the fact of dishonest gains.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Well call shenanigans then and answer the question. What experience do you have with playing on or running a team?
The answer is none, just to cut the story short.

Sorry, but I do not discuss the advantage play of anyone but myself. So it will have to remain a mystery. Of the people I know who really are full-time pros who play alone or on teams intended to extract money from casinos, not even one of them publicly discusses even his own play, let alone that of his comrades. There is a secret message hidden between the lines of this previous sentence.

A big player who can't use index numbers is not good enough to be a big player. In fact it's totally ridiculous to suggest that the person who's betting the big money cannot play simple play deviations. If he can't memorize some simple strategy changes why would he be good enough to trust large amounts of money too?

You would think that a person who is playing on a team in any capacity has first been playing solo for a long time and already is well-versed in playing indices, therefore there would be no reason not to use them. A BP only needs 14 plus the surrender ones where applicable, and for an experienced counter using them would be easier than learning Counter's Basic Strategy.

Also a BP who's flat betting when called until the end of the shoe is totally screwing up for the team. You are over betting disadvantages, under betting advantages and throwing a vast amount of that EV you were talking about preferring to cover out the window. The advantage that the BP plays with by flat betting through good counts is one thing, still dramatically lower than a BP who varies his bets. The advantage that a BP who just flat bets until the end of the shoe is going to be massively under the potential gains he could have.

I wouldn't recommend that style of play either except in certain extraordinary circumstances.

You are right about the spotters screwing up and the damage that it can do, but that's why you check out your spotters on a regular basis. All they essentially have to do is keep a running count and call the BP in whenever the RC exceeds the number of decks remaining (Hi/Lo).

Sometimes. But in your scenario you have not provided nearly enough information to determine when a BP should be called in. Didn't your team teach you about this?

Your big player has to have the confidence of every player on the team that they have the right bet out at the right time, that they're making the right play at the right time and they're looking natural and not attracting attention.

And so does each and every spotter. You have failed to explain to me what is the benefit of having a BP be a better counter than a spotter. In terms of math please, not inspirational slogans.

All the points you make are exactly the reasons that so many teams fail. Sloppy standards and sloppy attitudes towards expected performance. 'We're playing as a team, it doesn't matter if we don't play perfectly, we're going to win big', 'We'll just flat bet till the end of the shoe - won't change the results that much'.
Let me ask you, how do you think your results would be affected as a counter if you just flat betted your unit until the end of the shoe irregardless of the count once you've got the advantage? What do you think the difference between a counter who uses an optimal strategy and this player would be?

RJT.

Again, you have not provided enough information for me to answer this question. There are at least 6 parameters I would need to do this calculation. Surely your team taught you these, did they not?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Seriously i would NEVER let you hold my money or even a drink while i nipped to the loo. You've already proved you don't have enough understanding of how to play on a team, or the type of personality that could be trusted enough to play on a team for me to know that. And i think you'd probably spill my drink too...

I think I might have to spill a lot more than one of your drinks to help you.

Do you really believe that you can tell from someone's personality if they can be trusted? I used to believe that too. Then I met this girl...:violin:

 

[RJT]

I think I might have to spill a lot more than one of your drinks to help you.

Do you really believe that you can tell from someone's personality if they can be trusted? I used to believe that too. Then I met this girl...:violin:

Now you're threatening my drinks? That's low. :joker:
Don't tell me, you paid for her and while you were sleeping she took the rest of your bankroll? Or was it your stash she got? The rest of us don't hang around such elements so maybe there's a lesson to be learned. Although with all the nightmarish stories you've told about the different threats a BJ player is subject to, it could be surmised that you could write some fantastic novels. Maybe even one about the horrific life of a counter trying to find a team?
At what point did i ever state that meeting people that you've spoken to online should ever be a light-hearted or poorly considered venture. Bojack never had any access to any of my money. I did have access to a small amount of his, but not enough to make any sort of dishonesty worthwhile (considering that the money we had access to while playing wouldn't even have covered our plane fair). This was the first positive step that went to was a trusting relationship. The fact that we had spent months getting to know each other and neither of us had anything great at stake.
Actually part of the purpose of this thread was to serve as a counter-point to your well advertised overly abundant sense of paranoia. To show that not everyone out there will rape and kill you if you meet them. A healthy sense of caution is always adviseable, but as Bojack pointed out above, you seem to have a severly over blown sense of fear yet disregard it whenever it doesn't suit you.
Your constant insistance that you know best about team play is shown up in every post you make as weak and falacious. Your lack of experience actually make you contradict common sense regularly.
Please don't mistake me, i've read enough of your posts to see that you have a strong grip on the maths of counting and can handle a simulation when you have to. But most of the time you just don't seem to have the common sense to work out how to apply these things practically - and this is your major problem.
Now as to the team teaching me - they didn't need to for the most part, teach me anything about the theory of how they played. They did need to cover some of the practical aspects. Example of the call in point that you mentioned above, but that's simply a statement which regards the game they are playing at the time and as a good team will always search out games with good rules, the majority of the time they are going to be playing a true minus 1 game. Add to this the fact that they'll try to only use the optimum amount of spotter so they are not paying people needlessly and you'll find that the call in point is generally a TC of 1. But you should - and i'm sure do - know that already.

Sorry, but I do not discuss the advantage play of anyone but myself. So it will have to remain a mystery. Of the people I know who really are full-time pros who play alone or on teams intended to extract money from casinos, not even one of them publicly discusses even his own play, let alone that of his comrades. There is a secret message hidden between the lines of this previous sentence.

Anyway the previous post - wow i got that subtle as a sledge hammer message and how right you are. I'm not a pro and that one really stung :laugh: . Bojack however is to classy to rise to bait like that (I'm just not nearly as laid back as him).
Actually i've seen the team win statements after a bank, and Bojack - while he does have other venture going on in his life - is most asuredly a pro player.
Also i've been a strong advocate of being paranoid about what and where you post. I would never state that i or anyone i knew was going to be playing in AC on xth-nth nor would i ever reveal a players name, occupation, description, where or when they had played in the past or any other relevant piece of information that could possible get them identified. So that little rant about pro players and information seems a little hollow as an excuse given that you would risk other players on the board who possibly don't realize how silly it might be stating on a message board that you'll be playing at a specific location on a specific date.

You would think that a person who is playing on a team in any capacity has first been playing solo for a long time and already is well-versed in playing indices, therefore there would be no reason not to use them. A BP only needs 14 plus the surrender ones where applicable, and for an experienced counter using them would be easier than learning Counter's Basic Strategy.

It is by no means a requirement that you have extensive experience playing before you join a team. In fact some of the most successful teams to have played the game preferred - and in some case insisted - that a player had never played prior to join their team. This served several purposes. Firstly that player had not picked up any bad habbit and could be trained to do exactly the job that the team requires of them. Alongside this it would ensure that a player does not have any history with any casino the team play in which could jepordise team intergrity.
Surprisingly enough - and despite your insistence - it really doesn't take that much training to become a good spotter. Although i do agree to an extent about your point on rounded index numbers, your BP should be capible of doing more. It has always been the toughest role on the team (although you seem to deny this despite the huge body of written evidence from past pro teams and current team members telling you this) and hence should only be played by exceptional players who can eck every extra cent out of the game for their team.

Sometimes. But in your scenario you have not provided nearly enough information to determine when a BP should be called in. Didn't your team teach you about this?

I believe i covered the "didn't your team teach you this" statement above, but just to state that even at different entry points it's really not that hard on a spotter. TC=2 RC=2x#of decks, TC=3 RC=3x#of decks etc etc.

And so does each and every spotter. You have failed to explain to me what is the benefit of having a BP be a better counter than a spotter. In terms of math please, not inspirational slogans.

OK a spotter isn't making every hand at a big bet. There you go. Simple as that. If your BP is a poor player who is making mistakes, then every mistake they make is with a big bet out. EVERY MISTAKE. A spotter who makes a mistake - yes there is the possiblity of them calling the BP into an incorrect count - although as Bojack pointed out above, they have to deal with far less so are far less likely even than a regular counter to actually make a mistake, but there is also a very good possiblity of them not calling the BP into that mistake. Hence in many cases, a spotter mistakes can and will be minimized where a BP's mistakes will be maximized.

Again, you have not provided enough information for me to answer this question. There are at least 6 parameters I would need to do this calculation. Surely your team taught you these, did they not?

And just for once, don't use pedantics to avoid answering a question just because you know that you made a silly statement. Yes i could give you very specific conditions to let you run a sim on what the effect of a BP jumping into a shoe and flat betting through to the end would be in comparison to a BP who wonged out or knew how to vary his bets. I could do that myself and the point of the question wasn't to show that you knew how to run a simulation. It also wasn't really to get a mathematical answer to this. I think we both know that what you described would be a very poor style of play. It was to point out as a genralized issue over the VAST majority of games that the strategy you suggested so that your BP could be below par, would massively reduce profits, hence not one that would be used by any serious team. If no team would use it in a real situation, then your suggestion remains in the realms of the hypothetical with no practical application. I didn't need a team to tell me this.

RJT.

 

[JoeV]

That’s probably when you get into all the fun stuff like TC conversions, indices, betting ramps, dealer mistakes, cover, etc. Johnny C talks about the checkout procedures for the MIT team in his interview:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/interviewJC.htm

Obviously I don’t know exactly what Bojack’s checkouts are like but I’m sure many of his tests are pretty similar. After all, the skills are the same. Counting cards is counting cards.

-Sonny-

I don't know how but this has become a pretty volatile thread. I was still wondering what type of checkouts are done to be a BP on this team, and are they even close to what the MIT's were in the link above. It seems almost impossible to pass such a test.

 

[Sonny]

I was still wondering what type of checkouts are done to be a BP on this team, and are they even close to what the MIT's were in the link above. It seems almost impossible to pass such a test.

Ten shoes with less than 6 errors? That seems pretty fair to me. You could be off by one half the time and still pass!

-Sonny-

 

[RJT]

It has become somewhat volitile hasn't it lol.
What you've maybe missed there Sonny is that that's not a spotter check-out, so that 6 errors is with betting errors included. So if you make a counting error and the count's high enough it could put your bet out by over a unit and hence that would be 2 errors.
The check-out were made easier as time went by and the team check-outs i would face are closely based on these modified check-outs.
For the BP test you would play through 5 shoes stacked to give specific results - often counts far higher than those you would regularly see in a casino setting. No BS or payout errors, and up to 3 counting or betting errors. You incur a betting error if you are more than 0.75 of a unit out. All TC calculations should be done to the nearest 1/4 deck (this will effect you bet significantly so will give you errors if you're not up to it).
Index numbers are not specifically tested, but if you miss an index play or make one at the wrong count you incur an error.
Now while someone is dealing to you and calling hand totals, you would have other players at the table creating as real a casino environment as possible (aka giving you hassel for splitting those 10's etc etc), often jumping on and off the table, other people offering you drinks, asking you to sign up for player's cards etc.
You have someone else taking records at the side of the table, recording the count, your hand and how you play it and recording how many decks have been played. They will also video the whole process so that they can go back and double check all results later. All this record keeping allows the actual test to move as smoothly and as quickly as possible and means that results can be drawn later.
Hope i've made everything here clear, but if you have any questions feel free to ask.

RJT.

 

[JoeV]

It has become somewhat volitile hasn't it lol.
What you've maybe missed there Sonny is that that's not a spotter check-out, so that 6 errors is with betting errors included. So if you make a counting error and the count's high enough it could put your bet out by over a unit and hence that would be 2 errors.
The check-out were made easier as time went by and the team check-outs i would face are closely based on these modified check-outs.
For the BP test you would play through 5 shoes stacked to give specific results - often counts far higher than those you would regularly see in a casino setting. No BS or payout errors, and up to 3 counting or betting errors. You incur a betting error if you are more than 0.75 of a unit out. All TC calculations should be done to the nearest 1/4 deck (this will effect you bet significantly so will give you errors if you're not up to it).
Index numbers are not specifically tested, but if you miss an index play or make one at the wrong count you incur an error.
Now while someone is dealing to you and calling hand totals, you would have other players at the table creating as real a casino environment as possible (aka giving you hassel for splitting those 10's etc etc), often jumping on and off the table, other people offering you drinks, asking you to sign up for player's cards etc.
You have someone else taking records at the side of the table, recording the count, your hand and how you play it and recording how many decks have been played. They will also video the whole process so that they can go back and double check all results later. All this record keeping allows the actual test to move as smoothly and as quickly as possible and means that results can be drawn later.
Hope i've made everything here clear, but if you have any questions feel free to ask.

RJT.

This test sounds crazy hard. I know I could not pass such a test, I couldn't even take this test because I don't have enough people to be there for it. I know I could go all day without making BS mistakes. And I can count pretty good, I mean its been a while since I lost count in a casino. But making bets on 1/4 deck true counts for 5 straight shoes on top of everything is crazy. I know you want to be good but I think there are a lot of people out there that are playing a winning game without all that extra stuff. Don't get me wrong if it works for you good luck, but I don't know if its necessary for everyone. Have you ever seen anyone pass this test? And can you?

 

[RJT]

No and no. But i know people who have passed it and honestly i'm not too far off but i still need some work. Before going and playing with Bojack and his team i thought i was good enough to pass, but hey a shock to the system once in a while is good for the reality perspective.
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that are playing a winning game without being quite that good. There are also a lot of people out there who think they're playing a winning game when they're really not.
The difference between the skill levels here is that these guys are pros. They're not recreational by any stretch of the imagination. They are betting big money and making big money. And that's kind of the point. If you want to make good money you have to bet big. Now on a team if i'm giving you enough money to make good money damn sure i want to make sure you are the buisness when it comes to your skills.
The simple fact is that not everyone who plays is going to pass this level of check-out. That's why the majority of player who played with this team are spotter. You need more of them than you do BP's and far more people are prepared to put the work in to pass the spotter check-out but would be put off playing by trying to pass the BP.
And as to the guys that have passed the BP check-out - they were exceptional. They have refined counting to an art form and could perform all the advanced techniques you care to mention. Years of experience and it really showed. That's the level that personally i want to play at, but as i said before, it's not for everyone.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

No and no. But i know people who have passed it and honestly i'm not too far off but i still need some work. Before going and playing with Bojack and his team i thought i was good enough to pass, but hey a shock to the system once in a while is good for the reality perspective.

Hmm, let me guess. Might this link have anything to do with being good enough to pass this test?

http://www.blackjackinstitute.com/store/content_item.php?i=1013&c=52

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that are playing a winning game without being quite that good. There are also a lot of people out there who think they're playing a winning game when they're really not.
The difference between the skill levels here is that these guys are pros. They're not recreational by any stretch of the imagination. They are betting big money and making big money. And that's kind of the point. If you want to make good money you have to bet big. Now on a team if i'm giving you enough money to make good money damn sure i want to make sure you are the buisness when it comes to your skills.
The simple fact is that not everyone who plays is going to pass this level of check-out. That's why the majority of player who played with this team are spotter. You need more of them than you do BP's and far more people are prepared to put the work in to pass the spotter check-out but would be put off playing by trying to pass the BP.
And as to the guys that have passed the BP check-out - they were exceptional. They have refined counting to an art form and could perform all the advanced techniques you care to mention. Years of experience and it really showed. That's the level that personally i want to play at, but as i said before, it's not for everyone.

RJT.

It has yet to be explained why, if a spotter and a BP are playing off the same bankroll and with the same information, that an error in that information provided by the BP would be more troublesome than one provided by the spotter. Mathematically that does not appear to be possible. Are you able to explain?

A skeptical person might think that such a statement is a concoction of an organization that aspires to use the romance and the glory of being a "big player" to extract money from ambitious novice blackjack players for training aids and services of questionable value, rather than from the blackjack table itself.

Furthermore, the BP/spotters method is one of the less efficient forms of team play, to be reserved for getting huge spreads down in environments with good games and high heat, which is exactly what Atlantic City isn't. The lowest table minimum where you can reasonably expect to find and open seat available at any time during the summer is $25. And there are exactly two casinos that have mid-shoe entry at tables with max bets over $1000. So unless you are willing to limit your play to two casinos, the maximum spread a backcounting player or BP team can get down is 1-40, which is hardly huge for a shoe game with mediocre rules and pen. Assuming a minimum of two spotters per BP, that's not a lot of EV with which to pay all those people plus cover the spotters' losses at the table from flat betting. I would have to question the judgment of any experienced player who chose to attack those games in that fashion. It would be much, much more effective to send all the players out to backcount, individually or in pairs, using a $100-$500 spread that would draw little attention and leave 111 additional tables open to you, being most of the AC stores have a $500 max bet on their mid-shoe tables. But again, that's assuming the purpose of the play was to get money out of casinos.

I'm sorry if these words are painful for you to read, but I call it like I see it and the kind of team you are describing does not appear to be conducting itself in a logical and reasoned way and the kind of play you are describing does not seem to be a worthwhile way for an advantage player to make money from blackjack.

 

[Knox]

Tell us how you really feel AM!

Truthfully I am behind on this thread but I'll catch up soon.

 

[RJT]

I'm sorry if these words are painful for you to read, but I call it like I see it.

OK if we are calling it like we see it, you don't know jack about team play. We already know what you think is a good idea play wise and it doesn't conform to what the really successful teams of the past and present have used. Think Uston, Hyland, Greek, Cezch and yes Munky the MIT teams amongst many others. You have no experience on this level. You have no understanding of the workings of team play. And let's stip this down, while you're fairly good with the maths of some aspects of the game, you actually don't play a very good game at all.
I don't like you because i think you give garbage advice to players about subjects that you don't know about because you get off on being considered an 'authority' on the game and can't stand the idea that there are aspects of play that you don't know that much about. That's not to say your advice on all areas is garbage, but when you enter into the realms of team play and sequencing, little that you type is worth reading, but because you earn yourself a reputation elsewhere some people actually listen to your non-sense. I don't think that any posters who actually do know what they are talking about when it comes to these subject listens to you at all.
Let start off with that.
Now let's not be mistaken here, none of these teams have used this technique exclusively. They take advantage of the circumstances that arise where and when they find them. Actually the specific team you are so sure is all a fabrication will on a regular basis fly to other coutries when they find out about a particularly good games. But the only people who play solo are the BP's as they are the only players who have been checked out on bet sizing and index plays - not to mention the more advanced games that they also have been known to use - so they are the only ones who would be trusted with large amounts of cash.
I've already established earlier in this tread why an error prone BP is more dangerous to a team than and error prone spotter, but you obviously like to skip over the parts that don't fit what you want to read. Anyone with a modicum of common sense to use can see that. Obviously neither is a good thing on a team hence why you have such rigerous testing, but the BP is worse. When all you have to do is keep a running count and play BS it's hardly a master art of the complex variety and you are not really that prone to errors. Not one that any fairly proficient player should struggle with in fact one that any player who is playing the game at all should have mastered.
It just so happens that the BP technique is one of the most flexible and near universally useable techniques from the past and now in the present.
Back counting with a spread. Every player you say? AM how many times have you been backed off now? The whole point to this has been explained to you time and time again, but it's a bit like talking to a wall. Cover. No-one on this team has ever been backed off. They make very good money because they can still play where-ever they want. Once your spotters start getting backed off, you risk exposing your entire team. I always like a point that Snyder made in the Cookbook. When you are playing such a stong game, why would you risk exposing yourself using a weaker one?
As to the spread, again you ignore everything you don't want to see as this part of it has been explained many times. The only time a spotter sits down at a table is when they need to to hold the seat. A lot of a spotter's work is backcount (again making the task even easier). If there are $50 tables open, they often offer a bigger opportunity as they are less likely to be full and offer the BP the chance to play 2 hands, which he always will if the spots are avalible to him and there are other players on the table. Part of being a spotter is being aggressive and finding the best opportunities for the BP. Think looking for less players on a table, looking for dealer's with better penetration and leaving if you're not getting a good count.
Also if you're struggling to find $10 tables, you're not looking very hard. I can think of one casino in AC (i didn't get to see more than a few of them as we were busy working) that i saw while i was over that had a pit with $10 and $15 tables that i was on and off regularly. And this was at probably their busiest hours of the whole week. Maybe it just me? Maybe i'm prepared to try harder to find a good situation than you? Or maybe your just spouting c**p again to muddy the waters? Either way, that takes the possible spread for 1-40 to 1-100 when the spotters are not back-counting. Which is probably less than half the time. And that's not including the higher limits on the $50 tables.
Something else should also be pointed out at this stage. AC is hardly the sole play-ground for this team or any other successful team. They play there. They also play many other places. Another aspect of cover is not being seen in the one place too often. Combine that with only playing good games and high playing standards and you have a recipe for a successful team.
And here we go again. Everytime your argument on a subject gets shaky AM, you return to this tired old 'RJT and Bojack work for the Blackjack Institute' (for all readers- please use a really whiney and nasel voice when reading that last part to yourselves). I'm not going to waste time refuting your dumb accusations. Anyone who really buys into your rubbish isn't someone i can really be bothered dealing with anyway.
As to it however, neither myself nor Bojack has mentioned BI in months on any thread, nor was it mentioned on this one. It is a good tool and will teach you how to get very good. There are several out there that i think are good at this i just happen to think that that is the best one. However, it's not what i'm going to use to pass the BP test. I learned as much as i could from that resource a long time ago. My training had reached it's glass ceiling, where i wasn't improving any further months ago, the practical tips that i got on how to improve my play while i was over with a team of very experienced and knowledgable individuals will be what help me get to the next level now.
Come to think of it, you were the one who commited the heinous crime of mentioning that training resource. Was that your attempt at a plug? Are you now working for them? Nah,i doubt it - but that's because i'm a reasonable man who doesn't have to resort to paranoia every time my ego takes a little knock. Now's the time you come back with your clumsy flailings, ranting on about all the points you've already made that i've already clearly dismissed. How about coming up with some new arguments? That might just add some spice to this tread.

RJT.

 

[Bojack1]

Okay Monkey as much as it pains me to read your drivel on what team play is supposed to be, I will try once again to infuse rational thinking into your rather biased primitive primate brain. If only for the fact that I appreciate RJT's support on this, but it is afterall my team that you question the validity of.

First off if you click on the link you provided you will find Mike Aponte and a very expensive private training offer. Big deal. I have never said you need to pay huge amounts of money to learn how to play blackjack. I have said Mike is a friend of mine and it is a fact he is one of the best to play the game. If someone had that kind of money to spare they could do worse things with their money than learning how to play from him, but it is by no means a neccessity nor should it be an option to most. I agree with his training methods and have given any that wanted them as such for free. There is no affiliation between me and Mike's website. Like I said he is a friend and I believe in what he does, but as far as paying big money for blackjack training, to each his own on that. My stance has been simply try to play as perfectly as possible, in the same vain as what Mike teaches.

To address what has already been beaten into the ground numerous times in this thread already, spotter mistakes vs BP mistakes. I am not saying nor have said a spotters mistakes can't adversely affect the team as much as a BP's mistake. I am saying it is highly unlikely for a spotter to make mistakes thus making it not very costly to the team. Again, a spotters job in its most basic form is to just play BS and count cards. That is what most novice counters learn to do right off the bat. Not to mention when backcounting you even remove playing decisions so there is nothing other to do than count cards. They don't even have to be that discreet in most situations with backcounting as they are not the ones that jump in and play the advantage. To break it down to you for the last time, imagine if you will, the only thing you ever had to do was count cards while playing, no betting decisions, no indice decisions, no cover worries, just BS and straight counting. Now imagine you practice counting just about everyday for years being tested regularly to insure you are great at what little is asked of you. This is why the spotters on my team do not make errors, and will not cost the team money. And as boring a job as that may sound, it still pays well enough that they are more than happy to do it. As far as the BP's I expect very little error from them too, as again there is a lot of training that goes into being one, but there is much more demand on them and it is perceivable that they could make an occasional error thus being somewhat costly as opposed to a spotter not making any. As a side note to the spotters play, we also do not play marathon sessions due to the nature of the method of play we use, thus the spotters do not play fatigued. Practice sessions are far more taxing than actual playing conditions.

As far as playing in A.C. I think RJT has explained that, although I will now do the same as to help with your limited reading comprehension. You are correct in saying A.C. is not the best playing venue. So what, its there and we can beat it so its on our list of playing sites. You are wrong about having to play at $25 tables. As stated earlier when we play we do so at times when there are lower limits as well as higher limits. At such times there usually can be seated spotters as well as backcounters giving us at times spreads as much as 1-200 while BP's are playing multiple hands. Due to the nature of what we do we are very flexible as to when and where we play so it is much easier to play during times it suits us best. Also as you allegedly know there are other types of opportunities available to play there, we do our best to make the best of our situation.

There are venues where we do play differently as far as methods of play, but that really wasn't the issue being talked about. The BP method was being described and we do play that very often so I gave my insights on it. I don't have the time nor the want to discuss this in this manner with you anymore. What you choose to believe is your perogative. The only reason I felt the need to respond this time is I felt that it is not RJT's responsibility to have to defend what me and my team do, and felt I couldn't leave him alone in trying to do so. He is more high strung than I, but even still my chubby primate, it is disconcerting to see how hard you try to discredit what it is I do. It seems more for ego than anything else, are your feelings hurt by my posts somehow? If so, check yourself, because I am very real.

 

[Kasi]

Well maybe the thread did get a little volatile but I enjoyed it very much.

So, thanks to all.

Perhaps like AM, and maybe even RJT, I'd probably have more questions of the team than vice-versa.

gbbbvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv../bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Whoops, my cat seemed to express his opinion too lol.

So many questions, I don't even know where to start, so I won't

But I think team play is infinitely, ok, really, really interesting.

One moment I'll always remember, way back when, when I was younger and dumber, I found myself down about $1000 trying to count and vary bet accordingly. So I back-counted this shoe, resisted getting in on a good count about 3 times. It got really big (don't remember how big) jumped in with a desparate $1000 bet at 3rd base, (getting a very strange look from dealer llol) got a BJ and ran away

I'm sure that was luckier than good but counting, these days anyway, does give me the courage to bet a little bigger anyway from time to time lol.

So, hats off to you correctly-betting card-counters that actually win real money

 

[jack.jackson]

Well maybe the thread did get a little volatile but I enjoyed it very much.

So, thanks to all.

Perhaps like AM, and maybe even RJT, I'd probably have more questions of the team than vice-versa.

gbbbvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv../bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Whoops, my cat seemed to express his opinion too lol.

So many questions, I don't even know where to start, so I won't

But I think team play is infinitely, ok, really, really interesting.

One moment I'll always remember, way back when, when I was younger and dumber, I found myself down about $1000 trying to count and vary bet accordingly. So I back-counted this shoe, resisted getting in on a good count about 3 times. It got really big (don't remember how big) jumped in with a desparate $1000 bet at 3rd base, (getting a very strange look from dealer llol) got a BJ and ran away

I'm sure that was luckier than good but counting, these days anyway, does give me the courage to bet a little bigger anyway from time to time lol.

So, hats off to you correctly-betting card-counters that actually win real money

Ya, i was begining to wonder about the title of the thread there for a minute! But in the end, i saw it as just another thorough discussion debated by difference in opinion.

 

[RJT]

So many questions, I don't even know where to start, so I won't

Well if you change your mind feel free to ask. I'll do what i can to answer and anything i can't, i'm sure that Bojack will.

RJT.

 

[Kasi]

Well if you change your mind feel free to ask. I'll do what i can to answer and anything i can't, i'm sure that Bojack will.RJT.

Thanks RJT. Much appreciated.

When I'm not so tired, I hope u r of the philosophy that there's no such thing as a dumb question. Most of mine are lol.

What questions did u ask of Bojack over ur months-long correspondence?

Cop-out, I know, lol.

But I bet alot of them were alot like the ones I'd eventually come up with