Re: Counting in a group

"Meeexs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Anyone seen the math on counting in a group and then splitting the
> > chips after the session? I've been playing with a group for a couple
> > of years.
>
> It's a great way to spread out risk. It helps your results get closer
> to the expectation in a shorter amount of time. Really, it's the same
> number of hands to get to the "long run", but you get X times as many
> hands per hour.
>
> > We think we have orchestrated our betting so it doesn't stand out. So
> > far  nobody has said anything to us.
> >
> > I'm not the math type but it appears that counting with a group of 5
> > or 6 people at one table is advantageous. I think if everyone at a
> > table counted their would be no blackjack.
>
> Wait. You play at the same table? I find this odd. My feeling is that
> you will draw a lot more casino heat this way. One person moving their
> bet size up and down is one thing. A whole table doing it in
> synchronization with each other could set off alarm bells all over the
> place. Furthermore, this undermines your advantage in playing as a
> team because it increases risk vs. playing separate tables. It's akin
> to playing more than one hand: it spreads out risk vs. a single hand,
> but there is still some correlation because all hands are playing
> against the same dealer.
>
> Not exactly sure what you mean here, but who plays and how they play
> has no effect on the number of blackjacks.
>
> >
> > Usually 1/3 of the group has a big run, 1/3 of the group might double
> > their money, and 1/3 will lose some but rarely to their initial
> > bankroll.When the count is + the table seems to take heavy losses as a
> > whole.
>
> Do not expect these results to be the norm. You have been lucky. In
> the end, the numbers should be something like: 1/3 have medium to good
> win, 1/3 have small loss to small win and 1/3 have slightly less than
> medium to slightly less than bad loss. In other words, if you are
> counting very well, only luck will win you more than 1 or 2 percent of
> the total amount of dollars bet.
>
> Your losses at + counts further confirms this, since those are the
> times when your card counting should actually be paying off. My guess
> is that you are either not counting very well, haven't actually played
> that much, had a very unlikely run of luck or haven't kept track of
> what has actually happened during + counts and in the rest of the game
> as a whole.
>
> > We actually see this as practice. One of these days we might go for a
> > big touchdown.
>
> Good, if it's just practice and you are getting no heat (don't be sure
> that no attention = no heat) then have fun! One big advantage of what
> you are doing is being able to size up your teammates. Do you signal
> the count to each other to make sure you agree? Or take breaks every
> so often and compare notes? Team play, for the purpose of spreading
> out risk, seems like a great idea, but you have to trust your
> teammates to play well and there's no better way than watching it
> first hand.
>
> -M
Team play is a good way to increase your bankroll and therefore your bet
size.  6 members each with $3000 will give a bank of 18,000.  If you stick
to the bank equals 100 times your max bet, you can increase your max bet
from $30 to $180.

But, play at different tables, better still different casinos.

Big Ed