Anyone ever use the "Big Player" technique?

When I first got serious about Blackjack (about a year ago) I quickly was drawn to the big player technique. Since it is difficult for a counter to "pull off" a good spread... even at MY low levels, does it pay to have a "rich" accomplice?

I have a friend who is a "died in the wool" gambler. Mostly craps, if that says anything. But he has offered me a gold mine... maybe. He DOES play some blackjack... pretty close to basic strategy... but he believes in the "flow" of the cards stuff. Very astrology oriented. If his "stars" are in the right formation... he can't lose. (Yeah, right!) But he REALLY believes this. Thats OK by me. He's a REALLY great guy, except.... :)

Ok... now the "money" part. He knows that I have studied a lot of Blackjack... and am practicing counting (one year at it... not really a profit, YET). But... he wants to bet BIG, on Blackjack, when I say it's OK. Says that if I can signal him in (when the deck is ripe) he will split his wins with me. Sounds too good. I can't lose... BUT, I can't have him in to lose frequently or my money maker is GONE. He'll be back to the craps game.

My delimma:

This has GOT to be a positive expectation for me. When should I call him in? More that +2 TC, I assume, as the long term win is not yet apparent. I'm spreading $5 to $50 at 6 deck... he'll be placing $100 to $300 dollar bets.

Has anyone else used this idea much? When should I "bring in the big bucks" while I'm counting KO? The pivot?

I'm sure others will nitpic more but...

Your "Money Man" has got to learn perfect basic strategy & I would think it would be wise to teach him a few indicies(ie: Stand on 16v10, exc).

Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that you still planned on spreading $5-$50 well waiting 2 signal him in. I don't think this is a smart move. Your not going to be able to call him if you get 86'd from the game. I think when Uston used this technique all his teammates would strictly Flat bet. I could be wrong on that, but it would seem to me that it would prolong your career.

Just a couple thoughts,
Jayel

The problem of your Big Player is he is inexperienced and stands a good chance of losing confidence after only a few losing sessions.
Another problem is he is more likely to lose discipline at the tables and make foolish bets while ignoring your signals because he is winning.

For a "Big Player" to qualify in my books he must have a good understanding of Blackjack and know the game very well.

Besides the fact that you two don't know what you are doing, you are seriously ripping hime off with that arrangement.

if you take half the winnings.the only person who will win is you.think about it.if your ev is say 100 an hour and you have a score of 6000 in 3 hours.he will give you 3000 which is 2700 more then he was supposed to win.a week later he loses 6000 and now he is down 9000 because of the money he gave you.if you are a man of integrity you would not split the winnings.its totally wrong.he is better off playing craps.you should split the hourly ev(50 bucks in that example)or you should save up some dinero and split the bankroll 50/50 and then you could split everything down the middle.you sound inexperienced by your post.i hope you do a little more research before you dive in.later...

more then he should of won and on top of that he is giving you 3000.

quark, Sticking to Uston's method should still work in single and double deck games if both of you are disciplined enough to practice seriously, and to put it to use without error in the casino. Your comment, "BUT, I can't have him in to lose frequently or my money maker is GONE. He'll be back to the craps game." makes me wonder if he is ready. I'd suggest you pick out chapters in books which explain the long term effect, risk of ruin and what it means, the importance of not making hunch bets, etc... If he can grasp these things, and is willing to abide by them, the two of you should have a successful time at the tables.

If you've read Million Dollar Blackjack or Ken Uston on Blackjack you'll know of the "Gorilla" BP method. This is when the counter (you) signals bets and plays to the BP. The BP will not have to learn a count or indices for this play. This requires a good amount of practice time at home, and also in a casino. For the casino practice stick to the lowest possible units. Pay attention to the BP's behavior during these casino trials also to see if he might be acting in a way which might cause heat. Examples would be staring at you for signals, hesitation in placing bets, looking toward you before playing his hand, etc...

Instead of the 1-3 spread betting $100-$300 will give the BP I'd suggest dropping to $50 units and trying to push a 1-6 spread with the same top bet. Remember though that you should start at extremely low levels to begin with until the two of you are performing like clockwork. If you want to try grinding out a shoe game, drop to $25 units and go with a 1-12 spread. The two of you should not change tables so use bathroom breaks, or other distractions, to get the BP out of the game during negative counts. Once again, especially with shoes, play at the lowest possible minimum table ($5 or $10 if possible). This way you'll be 30-60 units below your teams max bet of $300 while placing your waiting bets.

I'll emphasise something one of the other posters said and that is that you should not ramp your bets. Play the table minimum with basic strategy. You'll be busy enough playing both your's and the BP's hands. Study the writings of Uston and others, do your prep work, work at your trial runs, and I think you will get along okay. Hit 'em hard, The Side

I would also agree that Quark should get more experience before trying this. When I started playing this game seriously about 5 years ago, I thought I knew it all. Had read all the books, memorized my indices, etc. I soon found out that there is no substitute for actual casino playing experience. It is only now that I feel I am real comfortable with my playing. If only I knew what I know now, five years ago!

Neko

Was a play where a friend and I switched places and jumped our bets $5 to $200 on each switch, between 3 tables. The way we worked it out, It looked like each of us was alternating our bets at random, while all high bets were at high counts called by the other.

I cannot help you on the KO pivot. BTW I had an answer to your rge21.com question that was of course censored and you never read; yes counts can get high enough to have your edge fade. The rest of my opinions you can guess from my posts here. Kudos for Stanford Wong for allowing other views than....

The first attempt with a pal who understood the game as good as me was a complete failure. We used our own signals to call in the Big Player and to communicate the count but in two hours we were made. I thought that we had been very careful not to appear as a team and it was only later that I discovered that Uston had been in Oostende himself using just that technique! The pit critters obviously had learned his lesson.

Later I used it again in other European countries with my girl friend who is also a counter.It went quite well but I tell you that it's quite straining for the BP. You have to be on constant alert while appearing to be a gambler or a drunkard. I have never been as exhausted in BJ as after these evenings.

I doubt that you could be successful with the person you describe. His faith won't be firm enough to keep the discipline. Even longer training sessions with him will hardly produce the desired results.

Francis Salmon

under your arrangement.

This is a "can't lose" for you, but a "can't win" for him.

Don't do it! You would be completely ripping off your friend, though not intentionally.

There are other ways to use his bankroll for mutually profitable arrangements, which will bring you much more value in the long run.

I'm sure others will give you some good suggestions.

I agree with many of the posts expressing reservations regarding your plan. Unless you can convince him to become a student of the game, I can't see it working. Does he realize that for a given one hour session that you'd probably have only a 51% to 53% chance of being ahead, dependent on spread and game conditions. Not only should he know at least basic stratety and a few indicies, but he should be well aware of standard deviation, bankroll requirement, risk or ruin, optimal betting, the concept of playing for the long run, etc. etc.

Many months ago, I had presented a similar idea on greechip. DD had suggested that a 50/50 split would indeed be unfair to the bankroller of such an endeavor. On a per session basis, he arbitrarily suggested that the counter should receive around 15% of winning sessions as the counter is not sharing in the losses which will occur nearly as frequently as the wins. I personally think the number should be at least 20% but certainly not more than 25% for the counter, with the long term result being closer to a equal split after factoring in the losing sessions.

Think about it this way. If you are able to create a situation where the long term combined EV is around $150 an hour, you'll still personally realize over 40% of that EV with a 20% take of winning sessions as you won't be sharing in the losses. Of course, as you know, those losing sessions are factored into the long term EV.

May you convince your ploppy friend to become a student of the game, or maybe as an alternative, ask him to bankroll you on a per session basis under the above mentioned revenue split. If he does bankroll you, be certain to provide him with full and accurate disclosure regarding the risks vs. benefits of such an arrangement.

Good luck in your endeavors,
Telescopic

Says that if I can signal him in (when the deck is ripe) he will split his wins with me. Sounds too good. I can't lose

You're best play here is to call the BP in at any chance you have. Since he's eating the losses, it doesn't really matter what kind of edge you've got. If you get lucky and he wins, then you're golden. If you get unlucky and he loses, no harm for you.

"BTW I had an answer to your rge21.com question that was of course censored and you never read; yes counts can get high enough to have your edge fade. The rest of my opinions you can guess from my posts here. Kudos for Stanford Wong for allowing other views than...."

Clarke... I like you! No... I really mean that! I was reading some posts on RGE and saw one by you "defining" the "floating advantage" theory. I can't remember exactly what you said, but is was something like a 1.33 TC being treated in the 1.0 TC category and thus "missing the true cause" of the problem. I thought this was a great point and was eager to hear DS's comments. It kinda surprised me that he dispatshed your comments so abruply. Kinda surprised me. Later... Parker handed you a "cease and disist order" for NO apparent reason. I have NEVER known you to flame someone OR cause any trouble (other than disagreeing with the authorities). Now... I guess you are forbidden to post? If true... that is a shame.

First of all... I AM a DS clone. I believe everything he says! If I ever have something that's "troubling" me... I can BANK on what Don says. End of statement ! ! But... you bring forward points that aren't dispatched fully. Why aren't they? Something is "up for grabs" here, and you just may have it.

quark...

Suppose one had raised his hand for NIS. Suppose the officers above that one knew that this one was going to be a target of a seemingly innocent lawsuit. Suppose that one also wrote some software that was interesting. Suppose the commanding officers wanted that one to be focused on...well to keep that one acting as bait. So the officers involved asked that an agreement to mention that software not be honored.

Then suppose that situation kept growing in ways that even I do not believe. Like Watergate the coverup far excedes the initial act.

Now even if you discount the above the facts are the same as I have laid out about the FA and don't expect anyone to ever allow any discussion of any topic where DS and I are in any sort of dispute at rge21.com, especially since Arnold is gone!

N*52/(#cards left), where N is all integers including negative and zero. There are usually several possible true counts in any rounding range, but with less than 52 cards left a range that is 1 TC point wide will have only one possible TC within it. And that possible TC will drift upward. Hence the clones got it very wrong, by equating TCs, of example 1.4, with prior TCs, in the same range, that averaged 1.0 Thus they are on their insane ploppy play mission to try to prove a real FA. See my other posts on this on this board, and unfortunately not rge21.com