The best shoe I ever had and I still "lost" money!

Canceler

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
If lack of camo creates heat, then there is need for camo. Let's not get into semantics. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If in the first instance you don't practice camo, there is heat, then there is heat, and you need camo. The heat is measurable by the amount of camo needed to overcome it. If the sweaty eye is watching carefully and the pit is watching with peaked interest, but my camo is terrific and they cannot see what I am doing, can you say there is no heat? Where there is no heat, there is no need for camo. :)
If it’s a question of semantics, maybe it’s your definition of heat. Wouldn’t you say that “heat” is when the casino takes an overt interest in your game? And when you notice this, you are experiencing heat?

Blue is referring to a place we both know of that does not apply heat. You don’t know they’re interested in you at all, until one day you get a tap on the shoulder, and an invitation to leave, with the advice that if you should decide to return, you shouldn’t play blackjack anymore.

So, even if there is no heat, there is still the need for camo.
 

blackjack avenger

Well-Known Member
Winning a False Sense of Security

It seems the original OP might not fully understand the cost of negative plays. If you play a hand that is negative you will lose X percentage of that hand. If you happen to win the hand it's variance "luck" and nothing more. If you happen to win several negative expectation hands in a row it is variance "luck" and nothing more!

Now some may choose to play negative hands as part of camo, holding the spot on the table if crowded conditions or NMSE, but I hope everyone realizes the cost.

If one martingales during negative counts they will lose X percentage of whatever they bet. A martingale does not work, even for negative expectation hands.:sad:

Try not to let winning a negative expectation bet lull you.

good cards
:joker::whip:
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
Bet big on the hands you know you are going to win, less on the other hands. It doesn't get much simpler.
 

Blue Efficacy

Well-Known Member
Canceler said:
If it’s a question of semantics, maybe it’s your definition of heat. Wouldn’t you say that “heat” is when the casino takes an overt interest in your game? And when you notice this, you are experiencing heat?

Blue is referring to a place we both know of that does not apply heat. You don’t know they’re interested in you at all, until one day you get a tap on the shoulder, and an invitation to leave, with the advice that if you should decide to return, you shouldn’t play blackjack anymore.

So, even if there is no heat, there is still the need for camo.
That is exactly what I am trying to say, thank you Canceler!
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
Canceler said:
If it’s a question of semantics, maybe it’s your definition of heat. Wouldn’t you say that “heat” is when the casino takes an overt interest in your game? And when you notice this, you are experiencing heat?
That's "discernible" heat.

OTOH, You may discern heat, but others may not. They don't have to run to the phone or stand behind me, for me to discern there is heat. But one time, even though they were standing behind me, I refused to recognize it as heat and they later gave me the tap.

Also, You may know a place has heat by reputation, such as in your example below.
Canceler said:
Blue is referring to a place we both know of that does not apply heat. You don’t know they’re interested in you at all, until one day you get a tap on the shoulder, and an invitation to leave, with the advice that if you should decide to return, you shouldn’t play blackjack anymore.

So, even if there is no heat, there is still the need for camo.
In the first sentence you say they don't apply heat. In the second sentence you say they have been sweating your game all along (applying heat), but without you knowing it until you get a tap. Just because you don't discern it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Maybe Grosjean would sense it and maybe Aslan would not. But if you tell me there is no heat, I take it to mean that they DO NOT sweat your action, and therefore you can get away with just about anything in terms of counting behavior.

All I'm saying is, "Don't tell me there is no heat, when in fact they are looking for counters."

The hottest place is where they suspect everyone who walks through the door. The average place is where they sweat certain tells, and when you do one of those tells (suddenly raise your bet, split tens, play perfect basic strategy, wong out in negative counts, etc.) the temperature goes up whether you feel it or not. A place is heat free when they either don't care if you count cards or they are too inept to know when you are counting cards. The former may be nonexistent. I have seen the latter, like when they just open a casino and the pit and dealers are new to gaming. The eye, even if halfway talented (and sometimes they are not or are not even present), can only observe a limited number of tables at once, so in a big operation you are next to invisible.

The other day, someone was telling me about a casino in Canada that is heat free. As I thought he described it, he can count and spread without camo and without arousing any heat. If he is correct, that would be heat free for normal counting purposes. I am sure that one could still display radical enough behavior to attract attention. My only question is, "Why would they?"

Now I know I probably have not convinced anyone. And I do see where you are coming from and the distinction you are making. But at least you can see the way I look at it. When I play, I assume heat; I play as if the eye is looking at my every move, even though I know that he rarely knows I am even in the building. The only time I ever got backed off was when I did not assume heat. For me, it's all a matter of degrees, so when I hear about a game with no heat, my ears go up. I want to play it, if it exists. :)
 
Last edited:
Top