A Different Twist to Card Counting Team Play
By Bill Zender
(This is an article that was printed in the Willy Allison’s Catwalk e-zine in association with the 2006 World Game Protection Conference and is a portion of my new book to be released in February 2006 titled, Advantage Play for the Casino Executive.)
There is one technique used to some extreme at this present time in blackjack that we haven’t discussed. Why? Because I intended to stay away from card counting and this method of play is considered strictly counting, but with a new twist. Gaming and surveillance consultant Jim Hartley insisted that I include this counting-advantage play technique in this text if I expected to provide casino executive with a complete understanding of how casino games can be beat using legal techniques. For the first and only time in this text I will outline a count play used today to defeat the game of blackjack based on Jim’s request. The technique is called “correlation betting” and it allows a team of counters to play on a blackjack table without appearing as typical card counters (Grojean, 2000).
Generally, the biggest indicator that a player is counting cards, especially on a multiple deck game, is his or her bet spread. A player counting cards on a six deck game with 75% deck penetration (cutting off 1.5 decks), playing on every hand, needs a bet spread of one to sixteen units in order to gain a 1% advantage over the house (game starting basic strategy house advantage of 0.5%). If the beat spread is less then 1 to 16 units the counters expected advantage drops drastically, decreasing hourly win and increasing win-lose volatility. Because of the range of the multi-deck spread is so great and is also necessary for overall success, casino surveillance personnel and floor supervisors use “bet spread” as the key indicator that a player could be counting cards. In his book titled, Beyond Counting (2000), statistician and blackjack expert James Grosjean indicates what the players think about the casino staff, and unfortunately, much of what he claims is true:
“Many casino bosses cannot count, and do not even know basic strategy, but they are trained to look for bet variation and correlation. A suddenly large bet on a table covered with Tens and Aces is a hint to the most obtuse boss.”
Although I believe most casino floor supervisors and practically all surveillance operators know the basic mechanics of card counting and basic strategy, many do not know the intricacies of counting; not to the degree of knowledge the professional counter or the advantage player possesses. It goes without saying that a counter who can disguise his or her bet spread from the casino staff will achieve greater play longevity.
The technique Grosjean coined as “correlation betting” probably should be called “combination betting” since the detection cover it creates comes from several team counters varying their individual bets from high to low regardless of the count, but have a combined total or “bet sum”, that is in direct correlation with the count composition of the cards remaining in the deck. When observed as individual players their betting pattern will not indicate any of the team members as a card counter.
For example; let’s say three counters approach a blackjack table and play individually. Each player will start out betting a minimum amount and will progress upward with a plus count of the cards. If they need to maintain a bet spread of one to sixteen units, $25 to $400, each player will be seen increasing their bets with the positive count until each player is wagering a top bet (or spread bets) of $400. This scenario will attract attention from the floor and surveillance, and their play longevity will be limited. In most cases these team players would not play on the same game because their similar betting patterns can be spotted much more easily, and all three players will be subject to the same win-loss fluctuation due to playing against the same dealer, creating greater bankroll up and down swings.
On the other hand, what will happen if the counters play a combined bet spread of $75 to $1,200? The three players sit and bet minimum bets off the top of the shoe, but when the count indicates the players need to increase their bets to a combined total of $300 they make different wagers that equal $300. The first player bet $200, the second player stays at $25, while the third player bets the different between the first and second players wager and the $300 target amount, or $75. On the next round the true count increases and the combined team wager is calculated as $600. Now the first player wagers $100, the second player wagers $400, and the last player makes up the difference and wager $100. As you can see, while the second and third players increase their bets in correlation with the count, the first player actual decrease his or her wager in complete opposition to the count information. Regardless how each individual wagers the combined total bets of the team equals the target wager amount of $600.
Table 2 – Bet Combination of Three Team Counters on a Six Deck Shoe
Rounds True Count Player 1 Player 2 Players 3 Comb. Wager
1 Less than +1 $25 $25 $25 $75
2 Less than +1 $25 $50 $0 $75
3 Less than +1 $0 $25 $50 $75
4 Less than +1 $25 $25 $25 $75
5 +2 $100 $100 $100 $300
6 +2 $200 $75 $25 $300
7 +4 $300 $500 $400 $1200
8 +5 $100 $750 $350 $1200
9 +3 $400 $150 $50 $600
10 +2 $100 $100 $100 $300
11 Less than +1 $100 $0 $0 $100
12 +2 $0 $200 $100 $300
13 +3 $200 $100 $300 $600
14 +5 $300 $100 $600 $1200
15 +2 $50 $50 $200 $300
If you examine Table 2 the counting player’s betting pattern and their combined wagering pattern speak for themselves. Not one of the three players has a betting pattern in complete correlation with the count, even though the combined wager is in 100% parity. It’s easy to see that play analysis of each player separately will not indicate beyond any doubt that the observed player is counting cards. However, if we were to add together the players wagers we would develop a different opinion, and would start considering giving these three players the hook. Another reason this technique works so well for the counting team players; it defeats the card counting software. Most counting software takes into consideration the amount of bet spread and the correlation of that bet spread to the true count. In the above situation the computer would return three negative evaluations based on this correlation factor, and the team might receive increased play longevity based on the faulty computer analysis.
(Note: Two and three player correlation betting plays would be the most common; just don’t let your guard down to teams that alternate players at the table by individuals and positions played.)
Reference
Grojean, James (2000). Beyond Counting: Exploiting Casino Games from Blackjack to
Video Poker. Oakland: RGE Publishing.
|
|
