Team play with 2 people

[zengrifter]

I will not go into detail on a public board. It does not take genius to figure it out for yourself, but a two person team, on the same table can be devistating against surviellance programs and things like Mindplay.

Assuming that the two players at one table take turns beting big with the count it will full them for awhile,
but it is NOT as efficient or profitable as the wo playing at different tables. zg

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Being you are new to this, and backcounting, why not just backcount two tables together? When one of you sees a good count, you both go over to play. Simple, effective, and you won't be handling each other's money.

 

[zengrifter]

Being you are new to this, and backcounting, why not just backcount two tables together? When one of you sees a good count, you both go over to play. Simple, effective, and you won't be handling each other's money.

But thats inferior in two ways - 1) Without sharing BR they cannot bet to the combined amount, and, 2) 1-table variance/risk is higher. zg

 

[Bojack1]

If you have a teammate, you will be harder to chop in half by a karate expert?

Wait, is that a sarcastic remark from a supposed advantage player who has yet to be able to tell 6 decks from 8?

 

[RJT]

Wait, is that a sarcastic remark from a supposed advantage player who has yet to be able to tell 6 decks from 8?

LMAO, well if one isn't sarcy the other is!
2 players, have several different options which i'm sure have been discussed already - i haven't and can't be bothered reading through the whole thread - but you could just play off the combined bankroll or alternatively you could use some composition betting (i've used this in the past with a female partner that i play with), i.e. if you are both due to put out a $50 bet, one puts out an $80 and the other a $20 or one $60 and the other $40. It will increase your varience and as you're playing 2 hands you should play a combined total of 4/3 of what you would have bet on 1 hand, but it is nice cover if you're not playing for extended lengths.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

But thats inferior in two ways - 1) Without sharing BR they cannot bet to the combined amount, and, 2) 1-table variance/risk is higher. zg

True, but I believe there are more risks in sharing bankroll than in playing blackjack. Remember this is the guy's first AP experience.

 

[ihate17]

How to play a three hour session on Mindplay without heat!

Assuming that the two players at one table take turns beting big with the count it will full them for awhile,
but it is NOT as efficient or profitable as the wo playing at different tables. zg

Nuff said!

 

[Kasi]

I fully understand that they would have to be at separate tables-what I'm trying to convey is that it would seem they would be overbetting their BR if they were all playing at the same time.
So,is it more correct to think of all team members playing at one time as one player?

I'm with you rogue - this is where I get plenty confused too.

Maybe fine for 2 players but it must breakdown somewhere? Like, if there were 1000 players on the team, they couldn't all be betting to the same bankroll at the same time with the same unit?

 

[RJT]

I'm with you rogue - this is where I get plenty confused too.

Maybe fine for 2 players but it must breakdown somewhere? Like, if there were 1000 players on the team, they couldn't all be betting to the same bankroll at the same time with the same unit?

This is dealt with by reducing the size of the bet that you would play on one hand. Due to the 2 hands being invariably link by playing against the same dealer hand, playing your normal bet on 2 hands increases ROR. To offset this - just like if you were sitting at the table and decieded to spread to 2 or 3 hands - each player would bet 2/3 of what one player would have bet on one hand on two hands or half of what one player would have bet on one hand on three hands.
This is not as profitable as 2 players playing at different tables, but is a workable strategy. It also shows the correct proceeduer for spreading to multiple hands, something that you should do in high counts if there are other people playing at the table (this means that you get a higher proportion of the money cards in the long run and allows you to get more money out on the table).

RJT.

 

[bluewhale]

Wait, is that a sarcastic remark from a supposed advantage player who has yet to be able to tell 6 decks from 8?

take it ez eh bojack. not everyone is looking to make a career out of this... some of us just find it fun.

 

[Bojack1]

take it ez eh bojack. not everyone is looking to make a career out of this... some of us just find it fun.

Understood, just returning the favor of a sarcastic remark. My response was not meant to be mean spirited, it was meant as a playful jab.

 

[Kasi]

This is dealt with by reducing the size of the bet that you would play on one hand. Due to the 2 hands being invariably link by playing against the same dealer hand, playing your normal bet on 2 hands increases ROR. To offset this - just like if you were sitting at the table and decieded to spread to 2 or 3 hands - each player would bet 2/3 of what one player would have bet on one hand on two hands or half of what one player would have bet on one hand on three hands.
This is not as profitable as 2 players playing at different tables, but is a workable strategy. It also shows the correct proceeduer for spreading to multiple hands, something that you should do in high counts if there are other people playing at the table (this means that you get a higher proportion of the money cards in the long run and allows you to get more money out on the table).

RJT.

Thanks RJT. I think I can follow that. Sort of anyway. What I was trying to say I can see with 2 players each having a $5K BR, they can size their bets as if each had 10. But, to take it to an extreme, if you have 10000 players each with $1, they all couldn't play, at least simultabneously, to a 10K BR. So how do you decide the right mix?

 

[EasyRhino]

The 1000 players couldn't play all at once, because each would still only be able to bring $1 to the table. However, they could take turns. Each player play a shift of one hour, iterated 1000 times, carrying the entire bankroll. That's basically a year of continuous play where each player only needs to put in $1 and a hour's effort! It's brilliant!

That's extreme also, but you get the idea. The players don't necessarily have to play at the same time.

 

[Cardcounter]

Team play!

If you are going to do a two man team the most common way is to play at a shoe where there is midshoe entry and have one player get in there and count down the shoe and when it gets too a true count of plus 2 or better you have your big better come in buy in for a large amount and start making big bets right out of the gate. That why no indivual player varies his or her bets and the casino has no reason to be susipicious. I would not recomend team play when you are not playing together.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Wait, is that a sarcastic remark from a supposed advantage player who has yet to be able to tell 6 decks from 8?

For Bojack's reading list: http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/B000G00U18/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-2077804-4111042?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175492679&sr=8-7

 

[RikaKazak]

I never suggested I was any kind of team leader though perhaps you think I'm the great Radu! Anyway,it doesn't make sense to me that 2 or more team members can play with the same bankroll at the same time and make the big bets as if one player were playing off that bankroll.

It's like you're playing TWICE AS FAST!!!!

 

[shadroch]

For Bojack's reading list: http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/B000G00U18/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-2077804-4111042?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175492679&sr=8-7

One of the all-time greatest books.If people spent half the time practicing what they learn from this book as they do the Bible,the world truly would be a better place.