Less heat this way?

As I posted recently , I have been red flagged by both Borgata and Revel for counting. Annoying but not a huge deal. So I got to wondering if you just Wong out and as trade off make your max smaller would the casinos get on your case as much? I think as long as your max bet isn't THAT much smaller you'll be making money in the long run.

My feelings are that most casinos only care about the major things. The huge bet. The "black action" etc. I used to do this and it seems I got way my player heat than anything because I "messed up the shoe". But the hell with them lol.

Make your spread smaller. That's what they're looking for. I'm still not convinced that you you got heat. Do you play rated?

Yeah, I don't think he got heat either. Sounds like paranoia to me. (Ok, the half-shoeing was probably heat. The rest of it was just standard operating procedure)

Quote: 1BB

Make your spread smaller. That's what they're looking for. I'm still not convinced that you you got heat. Do you play rated?

I was rated. I was also told in the Borgata instance that I was not allowed to play two hands. Another guy was very clearly told he was allowed to play two hands. Favoritism sounds like heat to me. The 100 dollar max bet situation at that table as well.

Go play penny slots No heat at all.

Quote: Buzzard

Go play penny slots No heat at all.

Clearly you don't realize I raise my bet when the machine is "hot"

Ah the gold old days when you could heat the coins up before putting them in the machine. Mickey's best advantage play !

I played AC for the first 5 and a half years of my career from 2004 through 2009. When I read your post about limiting hands to a single hand and wager to $100, I was flabbergasted. I have been back to AC one time since 2009, so I wasn't aware of any such policies. Really crazy! But I asked a couple guys that I network with, who do still play AC somewhat regularly and they confirmed that yes, several stores have policies in place to limit your action, if you are playing unrated until they have a chance to evaluate your play. I am not sure if this has withstood any legal challenge, but the policy is similar to the bet restricting policies that were in place during the last year or so of my regular play there. That is to say, they limit your wagers and spread to a low limit 1-10 ratio. In my final months and years, I had a min bet $5, max bet $50, card pulled on me a number of times even though I was playing a higher limit ($25 min table).

So based on this info, I don't believe you drew heat either Lemieux66. They are just following policy. A policy, you understandably don't like, but all indications are it is legal and within their right to do so. Your complaint about the other player is not favoritism. Again, the policy appears to be, restrictions are imposed until they have had a chance to evaluate your play and deem you not a threat. The other player, even if also playing unrated, was apparently deemed no threat, so any restrictions were not imposed.

Again, I can understand you being unhappy with the policy. Back in 2009, when I started getting bet restricted, that is when it became clear to me, that I would need to find a different 'playground', one with more stores and less restrictions.

Quote: kewlj

I played AC for the first 5 and a half years of my career from 2004 through 2009. When I read your post about limiting hands to a single hand and wager to $100, I was flabbergasted. I have been back to AC one time since 2009, so I wasn't aware of any such policies. Really crazy! But I asked a couple guys that I network with, who do still play AC somewhat regularly and they confirmed that yes, several stores have policies in place to limit your action, if you are playing unrated until they have a chance to evaluate your play. I am not sure if this has withstood any legal challenge, but the policy is similar to the bet restricting policies that were in place during the last year or so of my regular play there. That is to say, they limit your wagers and spread to a low limit 1-10 ratio. In my final months and years, I had a min bet $5, max bet $50, card pulled on me a number of times even though I was playing a higher limit ($25 min table).

So based on this info, I don't believe you drew heat either Lemieux66. They are just following policy. A policy, you understandably don't like, but all indications are it is legal and within their right to do so. Your complaint about the other player is not favoritism. Again, the policy appears to be, restrictions are imposed until they have had a chance to evaluate your play and deem you not a threat. The other player, even if also playing unrated, was apparently deemed no threat, so any restrictions were not imposed.

Again, I can understand you being unhappy with the policy. Back in 2009, when I started getting bet restricted, that is when it became clear to me, that I would need to find a different 'playground', one with more stores and less restrictions.

Resorts is pretty clueless about me at this point. They also have the best rules(s17, can Wong out, $10 min on most weekdays). I'm just trying to safeguard right now for any future issues that may arrive.

Are you in NYC? Can you take the bus to Connecticut?

Quote: kewlj

I played AC for the first 5 and a half years of my career from 2004 through 2009. When I read your post about limiting hands to a single hand and wager to $100, I was flabbergasted. I have been back to AC one time since 2009, so I wasn't aware of any such policies. Really crazy! But I asked a couple guys that I network with, who do still play AC somewhat regularly and they confirmed that yes, several stores have policies in place to limit your action, if you are playing unrated until they have a chance to evaluate your play. I am not sure if this has withstood any legal challenge, but the policy is similar to the bet restricting policies that were in place during the last year or so of my regular play there. That is to say, they limit your wagers and spread to a low limit 1-10 ratio. In my final months and years, I had a min bet $5, max bet $50, card pulled on me a number of times even though I was playing a higher limit ($25 min table).

So based on this info, I don't believe you drew heat either Lemieux66. They are just following policy. A policy, you understandably don't like, but all indications are it is legal and within their right to do so. Your complaint about the other player is not favoritism. Again, the policy appears to be, restrictions are imposed until they have had a chance to evaluate your play and deem you not a threat. The other player, even if also playing unrated, was apparently deemed no threat, so any restrictions were not imposed.

Again, I can understand you being unhappy with the policy. Back in 2009, when I started getting bet restricted, that is when it became clear to me, that I would need to find a different 'playground', one with more stores and less restrictions.

KewlJ,He said he was playing rated.So if that is correct then why would they limit him to one hand and a $100 max?

Quote: 1BB

Are you in NYC? Can you take the bus to Connecticut?

Port Authority is right by my job and schedule wise I can't get to Fox/Mohegan. I have done Foxwoods blackjack and know it's amazing though.

Quote: Hunterhill

KewlJ,He said he was playing rated.So if that is correct then why would they limit him to one hand and a $100 max?

In the other thread on this topic, I thought someone (1BB) indicated or questioned if he was playing rated, because what was described is the exact policy for unrated players. If he was playing rated, then the players card he is playing on is clearly flagged.

Lemeiux66: Wonging out is going to allow you to attack the game with a smaller spread, because you get out of playing at least some of the many negative counts. I wouldn't play an 8 deck game any other way. But, I don't know if it helps all that much as cover, especially if you have already drawn attention and pit/surveillance has become interested in your play, which may be your case. You still need a somewhat reasonable spread, even with wonging out of some of the negative counts and exposing that spread is what is doing you in.

What I do think helps you draw less attention is sort of a cousin of wonging out, is playing short sessions, where you try to limit the information they have to make an evaluation. To be more precise, you exit immediately at the shuffle after showing your spread. In other words, as soon as the count goes positive enough that you are making larger bets, you exit at the shuffle rather than retreat back to a smaller wager. The reason this has value is that it is not really increasing your wager that identifies counters. Many different players, such as progression players, and players parlaying up during winning streaks, as well as just hunch players, raise their bets. The thing that REALLY identifies counters is going back to their small or 'waiting' bet at the start of a new shuffle AFTER placing larger wagers.

This (exiting immediately after showing spread) is the way that I play and it is effective, but the problem is that it results in short sessions and many players don't like to play that way. A second problem for you, is that after your play has already drawn the attention of pit/surveillance is not the time to start trying to fly under the radar. A little of that 'close the barn door after the animals are out', situation.

Just played one hand at a decent count at Borgata. Didn't show them my card. Pit boss knows my name already and says "no more comps, 1 hand only " and tells the dealer to cut the deck. Sounds like heat.

Quote: kewlj

In the other thread on this topic, I thought someone (1BB) indicated or questioned if he was playing rated, because what was described is the exact policy for unrated players. If he was playing rated, then the players card he is playing on is clearly flagged.

Lemeiux66: Wonging out is going to allow you to attack the game with a smaller spread, because you get out of playing at least some of the many negative counts. I wouldn't play an 8 deck game any other way. But, I don't know if it helps all that much as cover, especially if you have already drawn attention and pit/surveillance has become interested in your play, which may be your case. You still need a somewhat reasonable spread, even with wonging out of some of the negative counts and exposing that spread is what is doing you in.

What I do think helps you draw less attention is sort of a cousin of wonging out, is playing short sessions, where you try to limit the information they have to make an evaluation. To be more precise, you exit immediately at the shuffle after showing your spread. In other words, as soon as the count goes positive enough that you are making larger bets, you exit at the shuffle rather than retreat back to a smaller wager. The reason this has value is that it is not really increasing your wager that identifies counters. Many different players, such as progression players, and players parlaying up during winning streaks, as well as just hunch players, raise their bets. The thing that REALLY identifies counters is going back to their small or 'waiting' bet at the start of a new shuffle AFTER placing larger wagers.

This (exiting immediately after showing spread) is the way that I play and it is effective, but the problem is that it results in short sessions and many players don't like to play that way. A second problem for you, is that after your play has already drawn the attention of pit/surveillance is not the time to start trying to fly under the radar. A little of that 'close the barn door after the animals are out', situation.

I was actually doing that. Looking for good counts on newly shuffled shoes and then playing them if the count got good. Roll out when it got bad. My previous post kind of put a hurting on those plans.

They took away everything from me at Borgata. Guess it was heat!

I try to see the good in everything. I have a bit of a Multistrike VP addiction and borgata is the only good one with a 9/6 pay table so this might actually save me money.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Yeah, I don't think he got heat either. Sounds like paranoia to me. (Ok, the half-shoeing was probably heat. The rest of it was just standard operating procedure)

Goodfellas: He thinks I'm paranoid. I should bring him the f*ckin' helicopter. Then we'll see how paranoid I am.