Cause of the floating advantage!!!

I figured out what causes the floating advantage.

This came to me when i was laying in bet in my usualy deep daydreaming state about how i can better my blackjack game.

The problem is, i dont know how to easily explain it, so ill just break it down into various points that need ot be proven.

-for the hi/lo system you ignore cards 7/8/9 this doesnt need to be proven

-cards 7/8/9 have variing effects on the hosue edge depending on what kinds of cards they are coupled with in obscure depleated compositions.

-is it more likely to have....
-----an imballace of low valued cards in contrast of 7/8/9 cards
or
-----an imballance of high valued cards vs 7/8/9 cards
at the end of the shoe, than it is to have the same magnitude of imballance at the begining of the shoe, some large magnitudes of imballance would only be possible at the end of the shoe placing the majority of imbalances at the end of the shoe.
-it was suggested by another member who studied the effects of compositions containing solely 7/8/9 that eith an over abundance or depleation of these cards will reduce the house edge is playing strategy modified accordingly.


Yeah, if you can put all that together, thats where i think the floating advantage effect comes from.

another way to look at it is this way.
deck is comprised of three types of cards

A those counted positive
B those ignored
C those counted negetive

compositions containing A+2B heavily depleted in C where c is more depleated than A but a and c are both depeleated more than B will most likely be found at the end of the shoe
Compositions containign C+2B heavily depleated in A where A is more depleated than C but a and c are both depeleated more than B will also be most likely foudn at the end of the shoe.

The effect of an over or under abundance of B in either case of extreme AB or AC might be positive ass sigeested by another posters findings whch woudl account for the floating advantage.

Wheres my trophy? :joker:

I'm not sure that your assessment is correct, or if it is correct I'm not sure it is of any value except to seek out another counting system.

I think of it more like a decrease in the number of decks used. Fewer decks is better for the BS player, and on average, after each deck played, you will have used 4 of each denomination of card. After two decks played from a 6 deck shoe with a running count of 0, you are on average playing under the conditions of a 4 deck shoe. After 4 decks played with an RC of 0, on average you are playing like off the top of a 2 deck game. Clearly it won't be that way every single shoe, but on average it will. At least that's my take on it.

Definition and interpretation of the term "floating edge" has come up before.

In the past, I have (mistakenly) used it to refer to the fact that the edge in BJ is not fixed (as it is in say roulette or craps) but shifts continuously dependent on the composition of the remaining cards to be played, and those that are cut out of play.

I think floating edge is generally accepted to mean that the advantage one gleans from counting differs depending on the number of decks being used - ie the advantage gained at TC+2 will be far greater in a single deck game than an 8 deck game. The difference, of course, is in the multi-deck game we make an assumption that there is on average an addtional 2 high cards per deck, whereas in single deck you don't have to make an assumption based on an average.

That's the reason. Find a deeply dealt shoe game, and when you get to the end you could be playing the equivalent of a SD game with S17 and DAS. That has a player edge off the top.

One thing to keep in mind is that when you get towards the end of the shoe, neutral and positive counts get better for the player but that is balanced by negative counts being worse for the player. All the more reason to Wong out of that negative shoe, especially if it's H17 where negative counts are really destructive.

I hear what your saying, and agree with this to an extent. But since, the cards, are'nt evenly distrubeted, like they would be in single deck, things IMO, are not quite this cherry. Even though, you could have a running count of zero, there's always gonna be a surplus of shortage of certain cards.

In my experience, with multiple deck games, the fact "that" this happens, always seems to hurt the player, more than it helps.

Im aware, that this sounds like voodoo, but, i would feel much better, playing off the top of a single deck, verses 1deck remaining in a 6deck game, with a RC of 0.

I know mathematically, it should work out the same overtime, but that hardly ever seems to be the case. But could I possibly be right, is the question? And what im descrbing, could be a different version, of FA, as we know it.

i dunno jj, would the cut card effect have something to do with what you perceive?

use wong's halves system, it includes 7's and 9's in the count. 8's are still neutral.

Every single card has the same likelihood of being in that last deck, over time Monkey's assertion should be proved correct.

Maybe its my subconscious playing trick on me again. Not sure. Im not saying, its a big difference. I would guess around .2 or so. Weirder things, have happened in this game. Such as Arnold Snyders article, how it was proven, that players got an edge, if freshly packed cards, werent thoroughly shuffled. Which kinda, has some merit, to my case here. Or wasnt there a discussion once, that ASMs helped to keep the counts neutral more often. Or why, we get less Bjs, with more decks in play. Or why, BS players gain a small edge with CSMs. Until it can proven by a respected mathematician, if there is such a discrepency that exists, in my statement, it will never be taken seriously. Not that I expect anybody to, anyway

Article here>http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/shoeheng.htm

i dunno either sage. There just seems to be a difference.

I had a contentious exchange with Don Schlesinger on this subject recently.

As I see it, FA is not rocket science. Take count zero at the five deck level - the house edge is 0.5%. Now take the same count zero at 52 cards remaining and the house edge is moreorless zero, ie. it's floated down half a percent. The remaining 52 cards are basically a single deck (although we don't know the exact number of cards assuming the hilo count) - the basic strategy for that final 52-card stub is almost the same as actual single deck BS (you double 8 vs 5 and 6, 9 vs 2 and several others); the chances of making blackjack are greater as per single deck, etc etc.

I think the likes of Griffin and other experts back in the day rejecting the idea of FA was a case of failure to see the wood for the trees - counters are so focussed on "the count" and it's apparent fixed yield (+3 equates to +0.5% player edge etc) that they simply missed the fact of fewer decks yielding lower house edge.

You were wrong before and you're still wrong. Why bring it to another board? I won't be participating here. But you don't understand the concept.

Don