tracking multiple tables

[KewlJ]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you guys track a second (neighboring) table while playing your primary table?
I have been doing this for several years now. It turned out to be one of the benefits to my moving and playing Vegas regularly. Less crowded conditions and few NMSE signs/tables.

The count at the second table doesn't have to be all that precise. You can even miss cards (subtracts from penetration). It doesn't even have to be all that formal of a counting process....just enough to know that the opportunity at the second table is superior for the remaining shoe than the table you are currently playing.

I ask, because I have occasionally mentioned that I do this fairly regularly. Not every time I sit down of course, it depends on conditions, the first of which is that the casino has 2nd blackjack tables open (some smaller local places don't) .

So anyway, I mentioned that I do his on a site that isn't a blackjack or AP site particularly, more discussion of Vegas. On this site, there are a number of AP haters and deniers. You know the kind of folks that think AP is a myth. So upon my mention of tracking two tables, one of these haters/deniers jumped up at 3 am in the morning and ran to the strip (mirage) where he took blurry photographs of the neighboring table and positioned himself trying to show my claim was not possible.

Later he posted that he spoke with several card counters who told him this was impossible. Of course I know it is, because I do it regularly. I also suspect many other experienced CCer's track (at least casually) a second table when they have the opportunity and right conditions. (this would be one of the many advantages of using a simple count....but that's another discussion).

So my question...do any of you guys track a second table while playing one, even if rather casually or non-precise?

 

[gronbog]

The best I can say is that I keep an eye out for other tables and when they are likely to shuffle. That way, when the table I'm at goes South, I can switch with little or no loss of time. Kind of like an express White Rabbit.

I have tried from time to time to do what you do, but haven't found a position that I'm comfortable with which affords the view that I need.

 

[KewlJ]

Thanks for the reply gronbog.

You really need to be sitting in the middle seat or if there are 6 seats, one of the middle two seats. This means that 1.) you will have a view of a neighboring table without turning your head very much and 2.) no other players at your table will be blocking your view as that middle seat sits back further than the other seats due to the curvature of the table.

Now at the neighboring table, lets say the table to the right....the first 3 seats (right to middle) are non factors as they sit back far enough not to interfere with a sight line to the table and playing surface (players are to the right of the view line needed to see the table playing surface). Similarly 3rd base also sits back and will be to the left of the sight view needed.

The only seat at the table to the right that could possible be blocking the view of the playing surface is the second to last seat (next to third base). If THAT seat is occupied you might not be able to track a second table, although sometimes, if the person isn't too 'big' just shifting a couple inches can still enable you to have a clear sight line. Sometimes not. As I said, you don't always have this opportunity. Depends on crowding conditions and number of tables open.

note: If the second table being tracked is to the left, everything I stated above would be opposite. It would be the second seat (next to first base) that is the key seat that has the potential to block your view.

 

[gronbog]

Thanks for that. The real problem for me is crowded conditions at my locals. I still have a full time career, so these places are where I am forced to play most of the time. Having said that, your response set me on to a way of thinking about this and there are two tables at one of the places I play where the middle seat at either would give me a guaranteed unrestricted view of the other without having to turn my head. Next time I'm there, I'll try to get that seat. Then the test will be whether my eyesight will meet the challenge!

 

[KewlJ]

Yeah, crowded conditions make tracking two tables, less likely with fewer opportunities. For one, there has to be a seat open to jump to. I don't even bother tracking a second table unless there are at least 2 seats open (I really prefer only one or two other players). Last thing I want to do is go through the effort of tracking a second table and just as I am ready to jump, someone gobbles up the remaining seat(s).

This just happened to be a technique that became possible when I moved to Vegas and began playing places (off strip) and even on strip during off times, with less crowded conditions. And it isn't something I planned for, just an unexpected benefit.

On the opposite end, when I moved to Vegas, leaving the more crowded conditions of the east coast, I thought one benefit of less crowed conditions would be more opportunities to spread to multiple hands. And there are more opportunities, but I quickly found that not to be well tolerated. Much less tolerated or noticed than back east. So in that case what I thought and hoped was an opportunity of less crowded conditions, didn't pan out (for me....anyway).

 

[21forme]

KJ - I do it, and also backcount two tables at the same time. Perhaps I'm taking credit I don't deserve, but I seem to recall introducing you to the technique via discussions we had many years ago.

To give some credence to your deniers, it can't be done everywhere. Tables have to be positioned just right, and if someone sits in the wrong chair, that's the end of viewing the other table. Regarding seeing the cards on the next table while seated, having some HC experience is very helpful in being able to recognize the card values by pips, allowing identification from over 20 feet away.

This may have been before your time, but at the old Sands in AC, there was a balcony overlooking the table games. Some people had spotters up there to count down tables and point their players in the right direction.

 

[KewlJ]

I am not sure why I am unable to quote, so that I can address the particular things said that I wish to but....

Maybe you did introduce or plant that seed in my mind. It is VERY possible. You have had a large influence on my career, whether you know it or not. So take a little credit if you like.

It's funny, one of the arguments I made in this discussion to the deniers was a suggestion that they tape a playing card to the wall, then walk back 10, 15 and 20 feet and see if they can see the card (probably works better if someone else picks and tapes the card). I can clearly see the cards at 20 feet. The deniers then go to the X-ray/super vision argument. I have neither, nor is it necessary. I think most people can see and identify cards at 15-20 feet.

Pips & paint: I brought that up too. Even when you can't quite make out a card number as looking solely at the little numbers, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 could look similar, but when you focus on pips and paint, quite easy to see the differences and identify the card. At mention of "pips and paint", deniers seem lost.

And finally, I have told the story of one of the older Casinos in AC, and at this point I don't quit remember which one....I want to say Sands but am not positive (possible Claridge or even Resorts)....but one of them had a mirrored ceiling. I remember I could look up and clearly see the mirrored reflections on cards at a table across the pit. And I remember one time jumping up after seeing two rounds of all small cards hitting the felt and running across the pit for that shoe. But, that was an odd AC tracking of two tables for me. I didn't do it regularly back then. For one it was usually just too crowded at the low stakes I was playing then and two, I just wasn't up to that at that time. Playing one table was almost more than I could handle.

 

[21forme]

but one of them had a mirrored ceiling.

Yes, I've done that, too. IIRC, it's Resorts.

Don't let the deniers get to you. You've proven you have a thick skin

 

[LC Larry]

My sentiments exactly. Ignore those fools as if they're a ploppie at first base. Just smile and shrug.

 

[xengrifter]

do any of you guys track a second (neighboring) table while playing your primary table?

Only prior to wonging in, not once I'm betting...
... because we all know that's IMPOSSIBLE!!
.

 

[BoSox]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you guys track a second (neighboring) table while playing your primary table?

KewlJ, I personally can not do this because of poor vision, but I often notice the discard trays of a adjoining tables and will shift at the right times. Although even if I could do that move, I would not jump from an active shoe into another active shoe right next to me, as this move in my opinion DOES NOT look right especially in a pit with only a few tables, regardless if you are only playing a short session. I will say that I do have a few tricks up my sleeve.

KewlJ, it has been a while since we traded opinions, I hope life is treating you well.

 

[KewlJ]

Howdy Bosox. Doing great....thanks for asking. Hope you are well and doing well. I do get to read more of your opinions and thoughts than you do of mine.

As per jumping to the table right next door. I haven't noticed any addition issues with that. I make my excuses (for what that is worth), often telling the dealer he/she is killing me so I am moving. If the pit happens to be close and watching I will even tell them something similar. The funny thing is when I tell the dealer he is killing me when I am actually ahead. Some times they look at me like I am nuts....but what do I care.

If moving tables is drawing attention, which again I haven't noticed that it is, I am often exiting at the next shuffle anyways. Because I only jump to a better opportunity, usually significant, I have session exit triggers that are likely to kick in....in this case, exit after showing my spread and max bet. This exit (at the shuffle) after showing max bet, would be a session and casino exit.

 

[xengrifter]

I would not jump from an active shoe into another active shoe right next to me, as this move in my opinion DOES NOT look right especially in a pit with only a few tables

I think it would look even LESS suspicious.

 

[xengrifter]

This exit (at the shuffle) after showing max bet, would be a session and casino exit.

I think I saw you exit the other day ...
... you exit on a hoverboard right?

 

[Meistro]

Not while playing at a table, no, I prefer to focus on one thing at a time. When initially selecting a table I will often count down two for a round or two but abandon one asap because maintaining two separate counts is pretty annoying. The best thing to do is just find a heads up game, which obviously cannot be back counted, anyway.

 

[BoSox]

I am doing well thank you.

As per jumping to the table right next door. I haven't noticed any addition issues with that. I make my excuses (for what that is worth), often telling the dealer he/she is killing me so I am moving. If the pit happens to be close and watching I will even tell them something similar. The funny thing is when I tell the dealer he is killing me when I am actually ahead. Some times they look at me like I am nuts....but what do I care.

KewlJ, it is not about the dealers, and the pit crew alone that should be your primary concern.

If moving tables is drawing attention, which again I haven't noticed that it is, I am often exiting at the next shuffle anyways. Because I only jump to a better opportunity, usually significant, I have session exit triggers that are likely to kick in....in this case, exit after showing my spread and max bet. This exit (at the shuffle) after showing max bet, would be a session and casino exit.

I believe it is your early exit point that is saving you. I have to go about it much differently as there are no other close by casinos to play, resulting in longer sessions.

 

[Talmadge]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you guys track a second (neighboring) table while playing your primary table?

When the conditions are right to use this technique, i can imagine that it would add significant ev to your game.
One little 'problem' which may arise sometimes is having to decide which table to stick to while they both are positve. Not a bad problem to have

 

[KewlJ]

When the conditions are right to use this technique, i can imagine that it would add significant ev to your game.
One little 'problem' which may arise sometimes is having to decide which table to stick to while they both are positve. Not a bad problem to have

To tell you the truth I don't even know how to figure just how much EV it adds. My thinking is that you are seeing twice as many good counts and max bet opportunities per 100 rounds played. That is....if you could play them all...but you can't. There is the problem of both tables being significantly positive at the same time, which as you point out is not a bad problem to have. And not often but occasionally, I am tracking a second table and just as it is getting 'ripe' a couple people gobble up the remaining seats. That doesn't happen often because usually I won't bother tracking a second table unless there are at least 3 open seats for me to jump.

So between those two scenarios, I have been roughly figuring seeing 75% more good counts and max bet opportunities (per 100 rounds played)...on those occasions that I am tracking a second table. I don't know if that is over estimating or under, but over the last several years, actual results are pretty close to expectation, using these numbers.

 

[KewlJ]

On another site, Tarzan raised some concerns over tracking two tables that I would like to address. Obviously crowded conditions and NMSE, which would make the technique moot. Those are issue on the east coast. Here in Vegas, we have few NMSE tables and it was the less crowded conditions here (in Vegas) that lead me to start using this technique to begin with. I did not track multiple tables when I was back east. Tarzan also raised the concern about accuracy and missed cards. Tracking a second table is like back-counting. The count at the second table need not be perfect. Just enough to know that is a superior opportunity than the table you are currently playing.

I did find Tarzan's comment interesting, that of those players he knew that tracked multiple tables, most used a level one count like hi-lo. Whenever I participated in the different count "discussions" this was a point I often tried to make....that there are opportunities available to simple count practitioners, that are unavailable or much more problematic to those proponents of a higher count. Opportunities that can make a significant difference....not 5-10% improvement of a higher count, which doesn't even account for increased errors. Thanks for making my point Tarzan. And this is only one such example of a technique that works better with a simplistic count.

 

[DSchles]

On another site, Tarzan raised some concerns over tracking two tables that I would like to address. Obviously crowded conditions and NMSE, which would make the technique moot. Those are issue on the east coast. Here in Vegas, we have few NMSE tables and it was the less crowded conditions here (in Vegas) that lead me to start using this technique to begin with. I did not track multiple tables when I was back east. Tarzan also raised the concern about accuracy and missed cards. Tracking a second table is like back-counting. The count at the second table need not be perfect. Just enough to know that is a superior opportunity than the table you are currently playing.

I did find Tarzan's comment interesting, that of those players he knew that tracked multiple tables, most used a level one count like hi-lo. Whenever I participated in the different count "discussions" this was a point I often tried to make....that there are opportunities available to simple count practitioners, that are unavailable or much more problematic to those proponents of a higher count. Opportunities that can make a significant difference....not 5-10% improvement of a higher count, which doesn't even account for increased errors. Thanks for making my point Tarzan. And this is only one such example of a technique that works better with a simplistic count.

I have backcounted two tables at a time and also glanced at one to my right or left while actively playing for 40 years. I have also used the RPC all that time. Do you figure that, because you use Hi-Lo and I use RPC, you must have an easier time of it than I do?

The level or complexity of a count does not de facto determine whether a practitioner finds it difficult to use or not. I doubt that people stay with a count, regardless of its level, if they find it difficult to use.

Don