table minimums

[sagefr0g]

i've always had what i suppose is a simplistic philosophy with respect to table minimums. that being that it is always best to play tables with the lowest minimums (if games of various minimums are equal) as long as the table maximun allows you to bet the spread you desire to employ. reason being then one is able to get away with the lowest waiting bets.
the question is two fold. is this an overly simplistic outlook and also what would advantageous reasons be for attacking tables that have higher minimums such as 10, 15, 25 table minimums be?

 

[EasyRhino]

Less crowded, therefore faster.

If either a) your general bet range is high enough, or b) you're wonging, then the minimums don't really come into play anyway.

 

[sagefr0g]

Less crowded, therefore faster.

If either a) your general bet range is high enough, or b) you're wonging, then the minimums don't really come into play anyway.

how about if you're only able to wong out predominately and rarely able to wong in? thats one problem i face.

 

[RJT]

You use higher minimums if you need to play a higher unit. It's really that simple. If your highest bet can be accomidated by a $5 table without attracting attention then you play the $5 table. As you said, the lowest waiting bet avalible.
If however your highest bet would exceed the table max, or draw undue attention, you move to a table with a higher minimum.
I'm fairly drunk, how's everyone else doing?

RJT.

 

[ihate17]

Measure the variables

I will play at both low and high limit tables.
The low limit table, if you can get away with it, gives you the ability for a low play all bet and a very high spread on good counts. At the same time, the low limit tables tend to get very crowded and at many casinos the rules are less favorable on these tables.
So given good rules, a near empty casino and a good act or tolerant casino policy, the low limit table is a good place. Otherwise for me, it is a higher limit, less crowded table for me.

ihate17

 

[21forme]

I prefer higher limit tables for:
1. less crowds
2. less stupid plays (not that there's anything wrong with that)
3. blend in better as the bigger bets come out.

 

[Preston]

I will play at both low and high limit tables.
The low limit table, if you can get away with it, gives you the ability for a low play all bet and a very high spread on good counts. At the same time, the low limit tables tend to get very crowded and at many casinos the rules are less favorable on these tables.
So given good rules, a near empty casino and a good act or tolerant casino policy, the low limit table is a good place. Otherwise for me, it is a higher limit, less crowded table for me.

ihate17

I find myself have much less frustration and variance at the higher limit tables due to a few things. First of all, I don't have people jumping in and out, and it's the low limit ploppies that tend to have the worst attitudes. Once you get to a $25 table people generally know what they're doing.

Or also the higher tables have less people at them. I can remember a number of times where I made an AP move, i.e. standing aon 14 against a 10. Only having the ploppy on 3rd base hit their 16 and draw a 10, and the dealer flips over a 13 and then pulles an 8.

I have never had anyone betting more than $50 give me 'ploppy heat'.

However, I find the best conditions to be in the early morning hours when I get the best of both worlds -- heads up with the dealer at a low table limit.

 

[21forme]

However, I find the best conditions to be in the early morning hours when I get the best of both worlds -- heads up with the dealer at a low table limit.

It's my favorite time, too, with the exception there usually aren't enough tables open and enough people milling around for backcounting.

 

[EasyRhino]

First of all, I don't have people jumping in and out...

...I can remember a number of times where I made an AP move, i.e. standing aon 14 against a 10. Only having the ploppy on 3rd base hit their 16 and draw a 10, and the dealer flips over a 13 and then pulles an 8.

Course, you realize that neither of these things really matters, right?

 

[Preston]

Course, you realize that neither of these things really matters, right?

It was my roundabout way of saying I don't want ploppies taking my valuable 10's.

 

[Kasi]

i've always had what i suppose is a simplistic philosophy with respect to table minimums. that being that it is always best to play tables with the lowest minimums (if games of various minimums are equal) as long as the table maximun allows you to bet the spread you desire to employ. reason being then one is able to get away with the lowest waiting bets.
the question is two fold. is this an overly simplistic outlook and also what would advantageous reasons be for attacking tables that have higher minimums such as 10, 15, 25 table minimums be?

Well I would always start with my bankroll and what ROR I can accept. While doubling your bet will double your win rate, it will quadruple your risk with the same bankroll.

So either you'd be accepting a lower win rate or you'd be playing with a higher ROR.

 

[Kasi]

I can remember a number of times where I made an AP move, i.e. standing aon 14 against a 10. Only having the ploppy on 3rd base hit their 16 and draw a 10, and the dealer flips over a 13 and then pulles an 8.

Holy smokes how high does the count have to be to stand on a 14 vs 10?

Now u really can't get too mad at a guy hitting a 16 vs 10, can u?

 

[sagefr0g]

Well I would always start with my bankroll and what ROR I can accept. While doubling your bet will double your win rate, it will quadruple your risk with the same bankroll.

So either you'd be accepting a lower win rate or you'd be playing with a higher ROR.

yeah this is pretty much what i know. and it fits me to a T as i love winning money and abhor losing it . but realisticaly with an adequate bankroll and equal games the picture i'm getting is playing the higher minimum tables just gives you an opportunity to use a bigger unit that with the higher maximum allows you reach about the same spread as you'd be using on a lower minimum/maximum table. hence like you say a bit higher win rate and you need a large enough bankroll to keep your ROR down.
i dunno it's just that i've read threads where it seems that some AP's have this attitude that one hasn't quite reached the 'promised' land until one starts playing higher limit tables and i'm having trouble understanding that.
oh yeah and i'm also seeing or hearing about so many joints pushing up the table minimums that i'm wanting to understand this issue more clearly.

 

[EasyRhino]

Practical application of this today: it was super-crowded at all of the tables, except for some tables with $50 minimum. Even though it was a decent game, this was still a very uncomfortable minimum for my bankroll.

It was quite a dilemna. In hindsight, I chose the option that would allow me to lose money the quickest.

 

[Kasi]

yeah this is pretty much what i know. and it fits me to a T as i love winning money and abhor losing it . but realisticaly with an adequate bankroll and equal games the picture i'm getting is playing the higher minimum tables just gives you an opportunity to use a bigger unit that with the higher maximum allows you reach about the same spread as you'd be using on a lower minimum/maximum table. hence like you say a bit higher win rate and you need a large enough bankroll to keep your ROR down.
i dunno it's just that i've read threads where it seems that some AP's have this attitude that one hasn't quite reached the 'promised' land until one starts playing higher limit tables and i'm having trouble understanding that.
oh yeah and i'm also seeing or hearing about so many joints pushing up the table minimums that i'm wanting to understand this issue more clearly.

Oh I don't know. How do u define success? If I'm counting and doubled my 5-50 spread bankroll for whatever game kinda like as expected. Have I failed? Maybe I haven't won much money but I guess I was a successful card-counter. If I bust out playing 500 to 5000, as luck would have it, am I a bad card-counter?

On a 5-100 table u could do a 10-1 spread with either a 5 or 10 unit. How much extra risk are u willing to take for doubling your win? Before u play, I'd imagine u've figured all that out.

Some people want to win $100/hr others are maybe happy with $5. Whatever.

Hopefully you'll know, after you've lost your money, or even won it, that whatever happened wasn't because you either screwed up or got lucky.

 

[Kasi]

In hindsight, I chose the option that would allow
me to lose money the quickest.

LMAO

Nothing like 20-20 hindsight!

 

[ihate17]

14 vs 10 hi-low

Holy smokes how high does the count have to be to stand on a 14 vs 10?

Now u really can't get too mad at a guy hitting a 16 vs 10, can u?

The number is above +10 TC

ihate17

 

[Kasi]

The number is above +10 TCihate17

I'm guessing it's above +20 too.

 

[jack.jackson]

I'm guessing it's above +20 too.

It's +15 for the A011, and +22 for 15vs7, but when theres 1 deck remaining i jack it up by even +2 more.

 

[Sonny]

it was super-crowded at all of the tables, except for some tables with $50 minimum.

Yeah, and as soon as you sat down about 3 players came out of the woodwork and sat next to you! It must have been your charisma. That's when Sonny the Scarecrow went to work. I had that table empty again within a few minutes. It must have been my creepiness.

-Sonny-