Help me understand "card eating"

#1
Using the standard 2.7 cards per player, let's assume there is a 54 "negative run" of cards . We would see the following number of rounds for this run

1 player vs dealer: 10 rounds
2 players vs dealer: 6 2/3 rounds

I've seen it recommended to play 2 hands at min bet in negative counts to eat cards and I don't understand why we don't want to let the dealer "help" us eat the % of negative cards.

1 hand for 10 rounds = 10 units wagered
2 hands for 6 2/3 rounds = 13 1/3 units wagered

Why is card eating considered viable? Are we saying that the loss of -EV is made up for by increasing the speed of play? This seems unlikely to me since headsup play is often pretty fast but I don't have numbers to back that up

Has this been simmed? Am I off somewhere in my assumption/math?
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#2
The "eating" exhausts the cards faster so you can get on with winning.

Imagine the following:

[This is purely hypothetical, of course.]

You play heads up and when the count is low you bet 4 hands of $5 each.

When the count is profitable you bet $300 on one hand.

This is NOT a $20 to $200 [Fifteen to One] spread

How do you think you will do ?

Hmmmm ?
 
#3
FLASH1296 said:
The "eating" exhausts the cards faster so you can get on with winning.

Imagine the following:

[This is purely hypothetical, of course.]

You play heads up and when the count is low you bet 4 hands of $5 each.

When the count is profitable you bet $300 on one hand.

This is NOT a $20 to $200 [Fifteen to One] spread

How do you think you will do ?

Hmmmm ?
Hmm agreed, it is not a 1:15 spread. I've been trying to wrap my head around the math with spread hands. Spreading 5-2x50 is not spreading 1:20 - you would need 5-2x75 to do that.

Using my 54 card example, you would go through 4 rounds betting $20 a round (4x$5) for $80 total wagered vs 10 rounds of betting $5 a hand for $50 total. So essentially your base unit when you spread 4 hands is 60% higher than the one hand bet - in this case $8 vs $5. Of course, since you are spreading $8-$300 a 1:37 spread should be quite profitable :)

So I'm assuming when card eating you adjust your bet sizes using your theoretical $8 unit. Otherwise a bettor spreading $5-$100 is only using a 1:12 spread when he is card-eating. I don't have the ability to run sims but I doubt that increased game speed offsets the decreased spread.
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#4
I will blame my poorly articulated example. No mysteries here.

If I sit and play [with a girlfriend or a gumba] and I am spreading 16 to in a shoe game, she will Wong-Out when my bet rises past a pre-determined level.

That would be the signal to stop betting [the minimum] and take a hike.

The point of "card eating" is to avoid betting more than trivial sums without an advantage; while betting as much as you can get away with when an advantageous True Count develops.

That is the essential underlying foundation of old-fashioned Team Play, utilizing a "Big Player"

The "spotters" are occupied "eating" cards — permitting the B.P., to bet large enough to more than overcome any (projected) losses accrued.

Perhaps a hypothetical example in extremes will assist you.

You and five friends sit down and everybody — you included — bet $5 all of the time EXCEPT at Hi-Lo +2 when everybody bets $500 a hand; thus creating a 100-1 spread. If you are the sole highly skilled player, your friends can Wong-Out, when the True Count is sufficiently high, [not when it is low], and leave you to bet the Table Maximum.

This is little different from Team play — except that you will be without the huge advantage of having numerous tables monitored and exploited.

Remember this is purely hypothetical. In real life — you and your friends will only be able to bet one (1) $500 round before the Shift manager tells you where the exit is.
 

bejammin075

Active Member
#5
I think the idea is simple

With card eating, you cruize quickly through the beginning part of a deck and/or negative counts, so that in a given unit of time (let's say 1 hour) you have more opportunities to place your max bet. But I'm just a noob. Uston wrote a bit about it in Million Dollar Blackjack.
 
#7
ARK said:
Using the standard 2.7 cards per player, let's assume there is a 54 "negative run" of cards . We would see the following number of rounds for this run

1 player vs dealer: 10 rounds
2 players vs dealer: 6 2/3 rounds

I've seen it recommended to play 2 hands at min bet in negative counts to eat cards and I don't understand why we don't want to let the dealer "help" us eat the % of negative cards.

1 hand for 10 rounds = 10 units wagered
2 hands for 6 2/3 rounds = 13 1/3 units wagered

Why is card eating considered viable? Are we saying that the loss of -EV is made up for by increasing the speed of play? This seems unlikely to me since headsup play is often pretty fast but I don't have numbers to back that up

Has this been simmed? Am I off somewhere in my assumption/math?
Some related discussion and simulations here --
"Grifter Gambit" for 6D Shoes
.
.
.
 
Top