Progression in possitive counts
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
SleightOfHand
Well-Known Member
The FAQ in the CC forum has a lot of commonly asked questions answered, although this question isn't in itaslan said:
.
What im saying is the larger progression would start at 10 units. It would definately not be a negative progression but something like oscars' grind where the bets would never be increased on a loss. The betting units would remain the same after a loss.
If and when the shoe ended and the losses were not recouped in that shoe , I would pick up at that point on the next positive shoe.
I know variance would be high and I know a very large bankroll would be necessary to complete these two progressions.
As I have said earlier I am trying not to get barred playing a typical counters plan. ( flat bet early and then get to 10-15 units on real positive counts)
aslan
Well-Known Member
Positive counts don't grow on trees. You are wasting valuable time trying to appear to implement a progression. The point is, you will be raising your bet, be it in a typical counter fashion or be it in the guise (I didn't say disguise) of a progression, which spells the same thing to anyone surveilling the game. Its easier to announce (as I said before), "Let it ride!" if you want to imitate a ploppy. If your bankroll can afford it, you can then say, "Time to parlay! Let it ride again!" In any case, max bet, progression bet, or "let it ride" bet--it would be wise to move on and return another day. No matter how you increase your bet to max in positive counts, it's the telltale sign that no surveillance worth its salt will miss.johnny said:
Finn Dog
Well-Known Member
Yes, the above is the point--if a player moves money with the count, they'll discover it and determine he has the advantage.aslan said:
Allow me to explain Johnny--in case you're not familiar with the following:
Card Counters are caught in the cold, dark confines of Surveillance rooms with a computer program called Survey Voice.
Your play is input and the computer determines your skill.
If you play perfectly, you'd be rated as having approximately a 1.0% edge over the house--and backed off.
If you make bonehead camouflage plays or use betting camo (similar to what you've described), the computer will rate your skill at about a 0.80% edge over the house--and you'll still be backed off.
Meanwhile, if the computer were to rate the average Ploppie, it would find the house would have about a 3% advantage over the Ploppie (thereby explaining the red carpet treatment they receive).
Therefore, we're just saying you might as well try and get all you can. Short sessions are the key.
Regards,
FD
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
The post by Finn Dog is very well articulated.
The only plays that I almost always forego is splitting 10's and doubling A-9.
re: cover plays — Standing on ALL 16's vs. Tens costs almost nothing if you are spreading well; as it will be correct whenever your bet size is of any consequence.
It pays to know the truly borderline hands, i.e. A-2 vs 5, A-4 vs 4, 10-2 vs 4.
The only plays that I almost always forego is splitting 10's and doubling A-9.
re: cover plays — Standing on ALL 16's vs. Tens costs almost nothing if you are spreading well; as it will be correct whenever your bet size is of any consequence.
It pays to know the truly borderline hands, i.e. A-2 vs 5, A-4 vs 4, 10-2 vs 4.
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
A-2 vs 5, hit? A-4 vs 4, DD? A-2 vs. 4, what?
Th two soft doubles are worth almost nothing, so you can simultaneously make a (seeming) error for cover purposes and reduce the flux (by not doubling the money at risk).
I mentioned Ten-2 vs. 4, not A-2 vs. 4 — and this play in a shoe game is VERY close. Hitting looks wrong (but the cost of the "error" is hardly anything.)
The Basic Strategy play is so close that the correct play is different if playing a 6 deck shoe instead of an 8 deck shoe.
If playing a "pitch game" one may try hitting their twelves (12's) against 3's but hitting against 4's. This looks hopelessly illogical to a floor person.
Th two soft doubles are worth almost nothing, so you can simultaneously make a (seeming) error for cover purposes and reduce the flux (by not doubling the money at risk).
I mentioned Ten-2 vs. 4, not A-2 vs. 4 — and this play in a shoe game is VERY close. Hitting looks wrong (but the cost of the "error" is hardly anything.)
The Basic Strategy play is so close that the correct play is different if playing a 6 deck shoe instead of an 8 deck shoe.
If playing a "pitch game" one may try hitting their twelves (12's) against 3's but hitting against 4's. This looks hopelessly illogical to a floor person.