tracking multiple tables

[KewlJ]

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?

Don

With all due respect Don, this isn't about what you can do nor what I can do. It's not a challenge. Don't turn everything into a pissing contest.

Taking it out of the context of you and I, yes, I believe that of two equally expert practitioners of their respective counts, the one practicing the simpler count will be slightly faster and more accurate than the more complex count. And the more complex layers you add (as seems to be popular these days, with all these custom counts), the greater this difference will be.

This is a situation where the tiniest fraction of a second can make a difference. Sometimes you only get a glimpse for a fraction of a second.

I know you will disagree.

 

[DSchles]

"I know you will disagree."

Of course I do, because my post wasn't about you or me; it was about ANYONE who masters a system. Why would I be the least bit interested in getting into a pissing contest with you? Do I have something to prove to you?

Don

 

[KewlJ]

No you don't have anything to prove to me or anyone. Why are you getting confrontational?

But what you are doing is falling back to the same old argument that level 2 and 3 proponents always make. "I can play my level 2/3 count just as quickly and efficiently as anyone playing a level one count. Numerous scientific studies prove otherwise. The more complex a task, the slower the response time and higher the error rate. It is a proven fact. And whether you want to accept it or not, adding/subtracting 1 AND 2, rather than adding/subtracting 1, falls into the category of more complex task. Somebody, even someone as experienced as you saying you can add/subtract 1 and 2 as quickly and efficiently as another equally experienced player can add/subtract 1, just goes against scientific findings.

As Norm (do you know my dear friend Norm?) pointed out in his book, Modern Blackjack, the two tasks, are even handled entirely differently by the brain.

From page 240 of Modern Blackjack:

Level I versus Level II
Beginning players are usually tempted to go for the more complex strategies. I wanted to add a few words about stepping up to a level II strategy. At first glance, the difference does not appear great. You sometimes add or subtract two instead of always adding or subtracting one. However, adding one to something is not the same as adding any other number, as adding one is simply counting. Your brain doesn’t access an addition table or handle carries. (You sometimes add a pair of ones, but this can be handled by counting twice.) The difference sounds subtle, but not when you are keeping a running count very quickly. Level I and level II strategies are handled in a fundamentally different manner by the brain. Incidentally, the same is true for early computers. An “incrementer” had a fraction of the circuitry of an “adder.”

So please Don, while I respect you to death, don't make that same tired old argument that other proponents make that they are so good, that they are the exception and go against scientifically proven findings.

And even if you were that one in a million exception, that's not what we are even talking about. We are talking about the Norm....not is in Wattenberger, but as in normal circumstances and under normal circumstances, something like tracking multiple tables, along with several other advanced techniques works best if you keep the count as simple as possible.

 

[BoSox]

The same exact topic is taking place in a thread at BJ the forum. In a response to a post from 21 Frome on the subject I wrote:

Lets examine how it would look natural to the eye upstairs as this should be a big concern. Who does this move? For the most part a gambler who is on tilt, who is betting a little bigger than usual, and thinks the current table is cold. He/She leaves the current table betting bigger, and does the same on the new table. For the most part an AP will leave the table in a neutral or slightly positive count right after TC dropped, comes into a new table with a little bigger bet but continues betting in a controlled manner, anything but being someone on tilt. 21Frome, I believe this is okay to use for someone who plays very short sessions, otherwise, I think it is not a wise thing to do. Either way it is not suitable for me as I have poor eyesight, do not play very short sessions, and often play NMET.

 

[KewlJ]

I have read your comments Bosox and won't disagree that jumping tables is something that could draw attention. I try to minimize that with comments to both dealer and pit, making some reference to the dealer being to hot. And yes I realize that is lost on surveillance.

However there are a couple things playing in my favor. One here in Vegas, and especially at some of the smaller local places that are part of my regular rotation, there are much less crowded conditions than back east (and other areas). This means that players can and do jump tables frequently, and not just card counters....many "ploppies" are jumping all around because there are seats so readily available. So I don't think what I am doing stands out as much as you, someone who plays crowded venues with less table hopping going on, thinks it does.

Second thing going for me and this has been a surveillance trend for the last decade is that just like fewer pit folks working more tables, casinos have reduced surveillance people, meaning one surveillance guy is responsible for more screens. That has been a casino industry trend for a decade to cut costs.

And while we know different casinos handle thinggs differently, like some places initiate a player evaluation from the pit, while others initiate from surveillance, many of the local type places initiate from the pit. Surveillance is so small and thin, card counters and AP's are not a top priority. Theft by patrons and employees is higher priority. Player observation and evaluation is only done when requested.

And finally, as I stated before, and I think 21forme stated or hinted at. You should do this with limitations. You don't sit there jumping from table to table for hours....just the same as you don't sit at one table counting and spreading for hours. Those days are gone (at least for me). I show my spread one time and leave that casino. And that is whether I show my spread at the table I am playing or make one single jump and show it at a second table I was tracking.

Longevity continues to be my top priority and incorporating this technique does not jeopardize that.....IMO.

 

[Bigdaddy]

And while we know different casinos handle thinggs differently, like some places initiate a player evaluation from the pit, while others initiate from surveillance, many of the local type places initiate from the pit. Surveillance is so small and thin, card counters and AP's are not a top priority. Theft by patrons and employees is higher priority. Player observation and evaluation is only done when requested.

This is the key! If you can identify the casinos where player evaluation originates only from the pit, you're well on your way to a happy and healthy playing career.

 

[ZeeBabar]

I tried, for the first time, tracking 2 tables. Mine has 3 players and so did the next. However, I screwed it up. I had an RC of Minus 6, early in a 6 deck game, the table next to me had an RC of Plus 5-6 but it was early in both decks so I tried and then got totally confused as to whether my table was positive or negative. I had read the next table as Plus 5, then as dealer dealt my table, I started subtracting from the Plus 5 instead of adding to my negative RC.

We talk about higher level counts as leading to more errors and more fatigue and then we do complicate our own game to cause the same errors and fatigue. I have up.

 

[DSchles]

I assume your last sentence should have read, "I gave up." Why would you think that trying something fairly challenging, once, was going to go perfectly the very first time? Why wouldn't you think there is a learning curve to this, like any other mental endeavor? Did you count cards perfectly the first time you tried? This is simply an extension of that exercise. What you should have done, the minute you had -6 and the other table was +6, was simply change right away.

Don

 

[ZeeBabar]

It was too early in a 6 deck game to shift to another that is also too early. I want for a TC-2 after two decks have been played before I wong out.

My issue with Kewlj is that he blasts folks who use a more complex count and insists that those counts lead to errors and fatigue and then complicates his own game by counting two tables with a level one count. He believes there is more EV from counting 2 tables and the others believe and cite studies that show a higher BC and PE gets more EV.

 

[gronbog]

It was too early in a 6 deck game to shift to another that is also too early. I want for a TC-2 after two decks have been played before I wong out.

TC -2 may be a reasonable wong out point when wonging out to nothing or to a new shuffle, but hopefully you understand that switching from RC -6 to RC+6 is an improvement regardless of how early in the shoe it is.

 

[ZeeBabar]

TC -2 may be a reasonable wong out point when wonging out to nothing or to a new shuffle, but hopefully you understand that switching from RC -6 to RC+6 is an improvement regardless of how early in the shoe it is.

Yes but I don't want to wong out too often. I could wong to another table with RC +6 after a half deck and that table could turn negative within a round. I look at it as a single wong out opportunity at a casino with 1 pit and 2 6deck min $10 tables. Usually, the only other table is a DD Min $25 and probably has 3 poppies playing it.

If I don't see a heads up or 2 people DD game available, I play 6 decks.

 

[gronbog]

I could wong to another table with RC +6 after a half deck and that table could turn negative within a round.

Which table is more likely to "go bad"? The one that's +6 after 1/2 a deck or the one that's -6? The phrase "go bad" doesn't even apply to the second one. It's already bad (TC=-2 for a 6 deck shoe -- floored). The first one is TC=+1 and, depending on the rules, may already warrant an increased bet.

Ploppies change tables all the time. Back and forth ad nauseum. You can afford to jump tables more than once.

 

[21forme]

This thread has taken a priceless turn. The guy who can't even master Basic Strategy is now trying to count 2 tables. LOL

 

[KewlJ]

It was too early in a 6 deck game to shift to another that is also too early. I want for a TC-2 after two decks have been played before I wong out.

Why? Why have you placed some arbitrary limit as to when you can wong out? The goal is to exit one game and immediately enter a second game, with zero or minimum down time, that presents a better opportunity. After one single round has been played at each table, if your primary table has a running count of -6 and the secondary table has a running count of +6, the desired opportunity has presented itself. Why would you wait?

My issue with Kewlj is that he blasts folks who use a more complex count and insists that those counts lead to errors and fatigue and then complicates his own game by counting two tables with a level one count. He believes there is more EV from counting 2 tables and the others believe and cite studies that show a higher BC and PE gets more EV.

Ok, first of all, I don't "blast" anyone for using any count. Players can and should use whatever count they are comfortable with and best suits them. What I do have a problem with....and I am not speaking of anyone in particular....is players that play a higher level count and for whatever reason, and seem to be promoting their choice to other players, especially newer, inexperienced players. And the big problem with this is these proponents of whatever count they are promoting, often use...at worse....false data and claims....at best "cherry-picked" data, to support their claims and/or agenda.

The rest of your statement "He believes there is more EV from counting 2 tables and the others believe and cite studies that show a higher BC and PE gets more EV", indicates that you don't fully understand the concept of tracking multiple tables. Comparing the use of a higher level count which may or may not show a long-term increase in EV of 5-15%, vs tracking a second table where you can have an increase of upwards of 50-75%. You are going to see and PLAY, anywhere from 50%-75% more max bet opportunities within the same number of rounds played. THAT is a big deal! The only thing stopping this increase in results from being close to 100% is that occasionally there will be strong +EV situations at both tables and obviously you can't play both at the same time.

Ok, now since you have shared with us, your "issue" with kewlj....I would like to share my issue with ZeeBabar. You refuse to accept that that small sample sizes of thing based on your personal one or two sessions, are meaningless. You frequently tell us some experience you had and attempt to draw conclusions based on that very small and completely insignificant, sample size...usually involving some sort of loss. And here you are doing it again. You attempted to track two tables, once...had difficulty and are drawing some conclusions from that. Basically it is like what Don said...."what were you expecting from your first time doing that??

Ya know, I was a pretty coordinated and athletic kid. And the first time I attempted to ride a bicycle...I fell. And the second and third time and probably the fourth time....I fell. But guess what??...I didn't draw conclusions that it is impossible to ride a bike. And eventually, I learned to ride a bike.

 

[ZeeBabar]

Kewlj, I said I had difficulties tracking two tables. I just tried it once. If the opportunity presents itself, I might try it again and see if I can handle it. I know my limitations and much of it is due to age and declining abilities. I have never earned more than $20k in any of my 3 plus years and averaged about $11k playing 250 hours.I

I think the biggest factor in a person's success at AP BJ is what each person brings to the table (personality, culture, age, etc) and my limited success is because I hAve had difficulty developing the different skills needed. After a lifetime in salaried positions and frugal, fiscally conservative living, going into business in BJ has been tough.

 

[KewlJ]

Kewlj, I said I had difficulties tracking two tables. I just tried it once. If the opportunity presents itself, I might try it again and see if I can handle it. I know my limitations and much of it is due to age and declining abilities.

Zee, you use your age and so called "limitations" as a crutch. You have this "I am too old" /"can't teach an old dog new tricks" mentality, which I find extremely annoying.

My partner, while 10 years younger than you, is still the "old guy in our household" as I am more than 20 years younger and my brother who lives with us is younger than me. Plus my partner has some physical limitation that should hold him back. But he fights like hell not to allow that as much as possible. When my brother and I are doing things like bike riding, or snow tubing up at Lee Canyon, or participating in some kind of walk/run marathon, My partner is right there joining in and doing the best he can. He fights to do things that he probably shouldn't. And sometimes he gets in over his head and can't do all activities, but he always tries. He never uses the excuses that you do. If he had the mentality you do, I would kick his ass!

People live to be 85-90 years old. And you have to fight to stay strong and active, mentally and physically. Otherwise you just fade away to nothing. As for your earnings....I am aware of your earnings. There is nothing wrong with playing part-time and/or supplementing other income or retirement. I have actually come to believe that this is an ideal scenario for blackjack AP play, as fulltime blackjack AP play, becomes harder and harder as time goes on. So you are doing fine. There!...if you need some sort of pat on the back....you are doing fine.

 

[ZeeBabar]

Kewlj, it's not just age but it's a factor. I have a high school kid that I love and want to be there for him so travel is not easy, perhaps one 2-3 day trip to Lax Vegas a month. The 3 playable local casinos have identified me and take counter measures. I plan on squeezing in a 1-2 trip to the other side of the state where I understand there are 2-3 playable casinos.

I guess that's about it for the rest of the year. About 15 hours in Law Vegas of actual play time and perhaps another 15 hours on shorter trips.

By the way, before you were banned on another site, I learned a lot from you and your style suits my personality. Too bad, I got burned in local casinos. Any tips for playing in Law Vegas on a short trip? I usually rent a car and hop around off strip casinos plus EC. Prefer DD games. Problem is that some of those off strip casinos are quite dead on weekdays and heat is intense (forces me to underbet). I suppose I should consider $10-$15 min. 6 deck games.

 

[KewlJ]

Kewlj, it's not just age but it's a factor. I have a high school kid that I love and want to be there for him so travel is not easy, perhaps one 2-3 day trip to Lax Vegas a month.

Ahhh yes, your high school aged son....the one you arranged a prostitute for several years ago. You will forgive me as that was hard for me to comprehend then and continues to be to this day. But alas...I am not here to join the club of the anti-Zee folks that frequently give you a hard time.

So, I was not referencing limitations due to wanting to minimize travel to be around for your high school aged son. That is certainly admirable and understandable. I was reference the many times you use your age as an excuse for not doing things, everything from learning a new count to new techniques. And I am most certainly not suggesting you should learn a new count....you know my position on that. But don't use that "can't teach an old dog new tricks" rationale. We or at least I grow tired of that excuse. You can do anything you want to do, if you really want to it.

 

[ZeeBabar]

Ahhh yes, your high school aged son....the one you arranged a prostitute for several years ago. You will forgive me as that was hard for me to comprehend then and continues to be to this day. But alas...I am not here to join the club of the anti-Zee folks that frequently give you a hard time.

So, I was not referencing limitations due to wanting to minimize travel to be around for your high school aged son. That is certainly admirable and understandable. I was reference the many times you use your age as an excuse for not doing things, everything from learning a new count to new techniques. And I am most certainly not suggesting you should learn a new count....you know my position on that. But don't use that "can't teach an old dog new tricks" rationale. We or at least I grow tired of that excuse. You can do anything you want to do, if you really want to it.

Most everything I have learned is in a classroom or at the job, nothing on line or self taught. Even in this line, I have just gone to casinos, asked questions or forums, read archives and a few books. It's certainly hard to learn to keep two counts without training or opportunities that are not found that much where I live. You live in a BJ lab.

 

[BoSox]

Most everything I have learned is in a classroom or at the job, nothing on line or self taught. Even in this line, I have just gone to casinos, asked questions or forums, read archives and a few books.

ZeeBabar, I do not know how you feel about it, but I am finding it a real enjoyment, as well as a valuable treasure to once again be reading post from KewlJ. In the back of my mind, I always knew that not having KJ around on some sites was going to diminish the enhancement, and the better understanding of concepts, especially for new players. Unfortunately, I already knew what we were missing, and it is sad.