1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

Blackjack The KewlJ Claims on counting multiple tables simultaneous

Discussion in 'Blackjack Forum' started by soxfan, Sep 24, 2022.

  1. soxfan

    soxfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Likes:
    818
    Location:
    FrozenTundra
    In my younger day I was a member of a very proficient 21 cards counting squad. There were six of us and we split into 2 man team so we played 24 hours per day, six days per week. One cat would stand or walk around and count a coupla table simultaneous and then make the signal when a count was fat and the other guy would come over the top firing with blacks chips. This was back in 1989 when condition were still pretty good and we buck up against double decks pitch and my favorite the 4 decks shoe game. So yeah I know it possible to count multiple table when standing especially if yer a taller cat with a good field of visions. But, I gotta say, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to count multiple table simultaneous when sitting at one table counting and playing, hey hey.
     
  2. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Soxfan, I would love to hear more of your experiences with team BJ play from the 80's.

    What you are describing is the call-in approach, generally credited to Al Francesco, but made popular by Ken Uston's teams, Tommy Hyland teams, and MIT teams. Also used by a number of the aggressive European teams, but it was the 3 mentioned, especially the different versions of MIT teams that made it well known....TOO WELL KNOW.

    Doing this while playing one table is related but not exactly the same thing.

    The best way for me to explain it is that in today's world of card counting blackjack, a player just can not sit through 6 deck shoes playing all the negative counts, hoping for a good, positive count. A player must exit more aggressively, escaping at least some of those negative counts.

    So once a player adopts that approach of exiting aggressively, or sometimes called hit and run, the player begins looking for that next game, table, or opportunity even before he has exited the first. That is tracking the nearby table, if conditions allow for this.

    What opponents or non believers like to harp on is that you MAY miss a few cards. That is completely ok. The count at the second table need not be perfect. No count really is perfect or "whole" because of the cards behind the cut card that are never played. This makes every count an estimate to varying degrees. So all a player really need be certain of is that the count at the second table is better than the count at his current table and it becomes advantageous to jump to that new table and count.

    I have bolded that because that is the most important sentence. the other important thing to know, is a player is not going to be able to sit there and count two (or three) tables for the whole shoe. All he needs to do is a couple rounds to determine that the second table is a better opportunity that the game he is currently playing.

    If you have done what you say, the traditional back counting, call in approach, you could easily do this version with just a minimal amount of practice.

    But you are free to believe whatever you like.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2022
  3. Dibu Hqu

    Dibu Hqu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2023
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    Everywhere
    Hey KewlJ, thanks for sharing your insights on counting multiple tables while playing. I noticed you mentioned that players can't sit through negative counts, but I've heard some people say that it's actually beneficial to sit through negative counts because it can lead to more positive counts later on. What's your take on that? Also, I'm curious about your experience with the call-in approach. Did you ever use it yourself or just observe it being used by other teams?
     
  4. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Hi, Dibu Hqu. Your two questions about the call-in team approach and escaping at least some of the negative counts are really very much related. My answer is going to be long. I apologize in advance.

    I am going to start with escaping at least some of the negative counts. When card counting started or became a thing, rules and conditions, including number of decks played were very different from today. Players were playing games with dealer standing on soft 17, making for a house advantage of less than .2% for a single deck game and about .26% for double deck. With house advantages that low to overcome, a player could sit at one table and play every round, betting minimum during the negative counts and using just a small bet spread to bet more in the positive situations and show a nice profit. In addition, if the count went negative at single or even double deck, a player need only play through a few rounds to get to the shuffle, making the penalty, minimal

    Those days are gone. While there is still some double deck around, most of what I talk about is for 6 deck shoe games because that is mostly what I play. A standard 6 deck game, dealer hits soft 17 has a house advantage of .64 or 4 times higher than when card counting started or became known about. If a player were to play that same way, sitting and playing through all counts, he would need a much bigger bet spread to offset all those negative and neutral counts. A bet spread so big that it would be easily detected. In addition, if the count were to go significantly negative in the first few rounds of a 6-deck game, that is a lot of negative rounds the player has to play through to get to the shuffle. Playing this way increases variance and swings tremendously and is a hard way to win.

    Just escaping some (the worst) of the negative counts and the win rate increases by 33-50%, depending on exact rules and conditions like penetration. And/or it can allow a player to win the same amount (or more) by using a smaller bet spread that will be less detectable. It is less fun to play this way I suppose, but it really changes the money (win rate) pretty dramatically.

    As per the argument that a negative count can turn around....of course it can. But understand, I am not looking for a negative count to just turn around and get a little bit positive or a little bit +EV situation. My goal is a true count of +4 or about a 2% advantage where I am placing my largest or max bet. Once the true count goes negative, lets say -2, it is rare that it turns around to the point that it gets to my max bet level. Not impossible but rare. Your odds are much better off just finding a new game at that point.

    So that is my negative count answer. Now one of the ways to avoid those negative counts besides just exiting, is back counting and jumping into games at a positive count and +EV situation. When the player does this himself, it is know as "wonging in" (named for Standford Wong), but really this is derived from the call in approach that you mention, which is credited to Al Francesco (1971) and used by many notable teams from Kenny Uston, to MIT, and many more. And when this approach became know all these team, including European teams all came to Vegas to play it because of the many casinos. So being 50 years now, Vegas casinos, surveillance and pit folks can easily spot this technique. So no, because my top priority is longevity, I never or should say rarely used a call-in approach in Vegas. But my partner and I did use a call-in approach, my own version (which I won't get into right now) probably a couple dozen times on some out of town trips. I just didn't feel comfortable pursuing that in Vegas.

    But tracking a second table, is also a derivative of that 'big player' call in approach. It is just that the player is playing both roles of spotter and "big player" jumping into a new game once he identifies a good situation. And doing so while playing makes it very difficult to be detected. I get a lot of flack from people, mostly people that don't even play blackjack, but it is just not that difficult to track a second table for a few rounds and that is ALL it takes....a few rounds. The difficult part is finding condtions that are right. And that has become even more difficult post covid with fewer regular BJ tables.

    I hope this helps. There will likely be some haters attacking me for this reply, but I am just not interested in wasting any more time on them. But if you have any further questions, I will be happy to try to answer as best I can.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2023
  5. Dibu Hqu

    Dibu Hqu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2023
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    Everywhere
    It sounds like the call-in team approach and escaping negative counts are related because the call-in team approach involves spotting positive count situations and "jumping in" to play at those times, while escaping negative counts involves leaving a game when the count becomes too negative and finding a new game with a more favorable count.

    How does the concept of "penetration" affect a player's win rate when escaping negative counts?
     
  6. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I like to use the term "wonging", even though the pure big player type call in approach precedes Stanford Wong and thus the term "wonging". So there are two aspects to wonging, wonging in which is basically some form of call-in approach (even if a single player is doing the back counting) where the player will be playing only positive counts or +EV situations, and wonging out, which is about escaping some of the negative counts or EV situation. Ideally, wonging in or some form of call-in approach would be best because you are only playing +EV situations, eliminating all or almost all negative and neutral counts. The player could flat bet and win nicely.

    But for where I play, Las Vegas, I saw a couple issues with a solo player, which is what I am, back counting and jumping into only positive count/ +EV situations. To start with, unless conditions are crowded and Las Vegas really isn't except weekend nights, a player standing behind the table back counting for any length of time is notices by dealers, pit, I am sure surveillance and even other players. No one like someone standing behind them, milling around not knowing what they are up to. There is a difference between someone stopping to watch a game for a round or two and someone milling around acting not very natural.

    And if you try to do this during crowded conditions, to be less noticed, there may not even be a seat available when you spot that +EV count or situation. So I like to do my counting and backcounting of another table from my seat at the game I am playing. If the count at my table, or the neighboring table, becomes favorable, I already have my seat or can easily move to the next table AND I am NOT milling around behind the table making anyone nervous or uncomfortable and drawing attention.

    I sort of look at playing off the top of a shuffle and exiting the worst of the negative counts/ situations as the compromise position between wonging in and play all strategies. You are not playing only +EV situations, but you are escaping some (the worst) of the bad situations. I think a lot of players are surprised when they run simulations for a wong out strategy exiting at TC of -2 vs play all and see an increase in win rate of 30-40% or so (game and rules dependent)

    Penetration: Excluding something like BJ pays 6:5 or some other extreme rule, penetration is the single most important factor in card counting. Card counting is all about getting to those few counts that are what I call max bet counts, for me that is TC +3 or +4, where I bet my max bet or top wager. Once in a while the count goes really positive (max bet territory) early, but the majority of times those max bet situations occur towards the very end, just before the shuffle, last deck or half deck to be played. At that point it takes fewer excess 10's and aces remaining to reach that TC +3 or +4 than it would earlier in the shoe.

    So the deeper the penetration, the more max bet or really positive EV situations a player will see and play. And it is pretty extreme for a seemingly small change. Take a 6 deck game dealt to 4.5 before the shuffle (75% penetration). Lets say a player is playing a bet spread and ramp that results in $100/per 100 rounds. (nice, easy numbers). So an increase in penetration, say to 5 decks before the shuffle will increase win rate to somewhere around $125/100 rounds (30% increase). 5.5 decks dealt and you are up greater than $150/100 rounds, maybe $160. But if the game drops to 4 decks played, instead of 4.5, win rate would drop to maybe $70/100 rounds.

    So just a small increase or decrease in penetration changes things dramatically.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2023
  7. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    By the way, when I find a game with better than normal penetration, a higher win rate is only one of the benefits. Instead of playing the same bet spread and bet ramp and increasing my win rate by up to 50%, I might decide to reduce my bet spread and win the same amount with a smaller bet spread and max bet which will make my game less detectable and increase the total amount of play I am able to get from that game.

    Or a may add some cover plays that I otherwise wouldn't because they are too costly, which also serves to increase longevity. Or any combination of the three. For me a game with 83-85% (or better) penetration instead of the normal 75% opens up more possibilities and options.

    If that penetration is a location that has better than average penetration casino wide, I usually adjust my play to make sure I don't lose that opportunity. I want to milk it as long as possible. But if the better-than-expected penetration is just that dealer (dealer dependent), I will play my normal spread, max bet and higher win rate for that day. But will look for that dealer on subsequent visits.

    Just some thoughts. ;)
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2023

  8. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    For the simple fact that UNKewlJ has discussed this "wonging out" ad nauseam for months now without a single mention of which casinos allow or disallow mid shoe entry to begin with, and without even discussing mid shoe entry to begin with, indicates that this is a textbook theoretical discussion lacking any personal experience.

    It is simply ridiculous and pointless to discuss such a matter without establishing whether it would even be allowed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2023
  9. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    This seems like just more of you following me around attempting to discredit anything I say. You really need to get over that, dude.

    NMSE is not very prevalent at shoe game at the off strip properties, on the main floor that I mostly played for over decade in Las Vegas. I don't generally like to list casinos in my rotation, but such properties where there is no MSE restrictions are South Point, Silverton, all 6 currently operating station properties, at least 2 Boyd properties (when their 6 deck games are open), Rampart, numerous downtown Fremont street casinos, like The D, Circa, The Plaza and The Grand. along with several strip properties like MGM.....most MGM properties actually.

    The reason most casinos don't use NMSE on a shoe game on the casino floor is because it can take 15-20 minutes for a shoe to play out. Most players won't sit there and wait that long.

    Double deck? Yes some have NMSE restrictions and/or minimum wager restrictions (less common).
    High limits rooms? I don't know, I don't play them. I will leave that for you to say.

    But more importantly...just stop dude. You clearly are just throwing crap at the wall, hoping to discredit me. I just am not going to keep going on with this crap like we have done for years. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about what I do, which is very different than any blackjack you play, I am willing to have a normal discussion. But I am not going to just keep playing these games.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2023
  10. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    And by the way, the above comments were about where I played for 12 years prior to this last year. In 2022, I did play more on The Strip and more during busier times. Just playing busier times makes any kind of back counting, including tracking a second table, almost impossible, because tables are more crowded. There might not even be a spot to jump to. So I didn't do much of that this past year. Conditions where and when I was playing just weren't right for it.

    BUT, just playing my play off the top style, I do not remember ever seeing a NMSE sign on any 6 or 8 deck shoe game, ON THE MAIN FLOOR, at any Strip casinos. Now other locations, like back East, yes, I have seen that. But it is pretty bad business to tell a player, you have to wait 20 minutes before you can play.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2023
  11. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    Who said this? and what does it mean? "I am not going to list who does and doesn't employ NMSE, but I will point out that there are a handful of casinos (non-strip) that employ a different tactic, in that they allow you to enter mid shoe, but only at table minimum until the shuffle."
     
  12. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Yep, I said that. And at the time it was true. The casino I was specifically talking about at the time was Eastside Cannery which is no longer open.

    But there are a few others that have that rules where you can enter mid shoe at table minimum and a few that have NMSE, but all on their double deck games.

    I can't think of a single casino that gas NMSE on 6 or 8 deck shoe games, which is mostly what I play and which are the games that back counters, including team spotter types are looking to play. No one wants to back count to join a double deck game and get 2 rounds before the shuffle.

    This same limitation also effected tracking a second table while playing one. I wouldn't even bother trying to count the next table if it was double deck. Just not enough rounds before the shuffle.

    So that is what we are talking about...SHOE games, on the floor, not high limit, with NMSE. So name one casino that has that. They may be one as I don't play all strip casinos, only a select handful.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2023
  13. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Come to think of it, I believe Green Valley Ranch did have the enter at minimum wages only on its 6 deck game for a period of time. But they went away from it.

    It is just bad business to try to make a player wait up to 20 minutes before he can play (NMSE) or even bet table minimum for up to 20 minutes (enter at table minimum) before he is allowed to bet bigger.

    If that is the only way they can think of to catch back counters, it is a casino run by morons.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2023
  14. MDawg

    MDawg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2020
    Likes:
    453
    Occupation:
    Lawyer, Businessman
    Location:
    California
    In high limit no mid shoe entry is enforced some with glaring exceptions. Obviously at a private table it's not applicable because there is only one player (me).

    Interesting eh? how allasudden after I mention the issue you come up with some academia on the sujet.
     

  15. KewlJ

    KewlJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Likes:
    1,072
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    What are you talking about dude? :confused:

    You are all over the place and not making any sense.

    The issue you mentioned was NMSE, in the context that back counting or counting a second table can't be done because of NMSE. But there is little if any NMSE except possibly at some DD games.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2023

Share This Page