Likelihood of -TC shoe returning to + TC
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
That one thing that I am very interested in. If I was to wong out everytime the count hit TC -1 I would need a restroom stall with my name on it.
I have been starting to half wong just to keep my seat maybe stay out 3 in a row play three, sit three at say TC -1 to TC -2.
I suppose you could just sit out about half the 6D shoe, chatting and sipping a drink if you did not worry about cover. Jumping back in at TC 1 perhaps.
I have been starting to half wong just to keep my seat maybe stay out 3 in a row play three, sit three at say TC -1 to TC -2.
I suppose you could just sit out about half the 6D shoe, chatting and sipping a drink if you did not worry about cover. Jumping back in at TC 1 perhaps.
you would probably find the first part of chapter 13 in Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack interesting with regard to your inquiry. it has to do with optimal departure points, ie. when is it time to leave the table, sorta thing.
edit: i find those sort of scenario's, questions interesting as i'm really lazy about counting, so if there was a point where say the tc gets negative at some depth of play to where it's unlikely the rest of the shoe will ever get positive and afford an advantage, errhh well then heck just min bet and play basic strategy and forget counting or better yet wong out. i tried all sorts of ways to make a study of such scenarios with a shuffler i made in excel from which one could analyze the true counts in latter parts of a given shoe after having known true counts for earlier parts of a given shoe. never got very far with it though. example of what i was trying to come up with below:
edit: i find those sort of scenario's, questions interesting as i'm really lazy about counting, so if there was a point where say the tc gets negative at some depth of play to where it's unlikely the rest of the shoe will ever get positive and afford an advantage, errhh well then heck just min bet and play basic strategy and forget counting or better yet wong out. i tried all sorts of ways to make a study of such scenarios with a shuffler i made in excel from which one could analyze the true counts in latter parts of a given shoe after having known true counts for earlier parts of a given shoe. never got very far with it though. example of what i was trying to come up with below:
Attachments
I'm also interested in this. I don't like to wong much either (when I have to use the bathroom, I REALLY use the bathroom, I just do so at convenient times 
) I look around at different pits, and if I see better opportunities I move... Otherwise I stick it out for most counts in the hopes that a neg count will turn pos. I don't tend to leave for any particular TC, but I think that the bad TC's near the end of a shoe have a greater chance of turning if you stick around (not necessarily play).
) I look around at different pits, and if I see better opportunities I move... Otherwise I stick it out for most counts in the hopes that a neg count will turn pos. I don't tend to leave for any particular TC, but I think that the bad TC's near the end of a shoe have a greater chance of turning if you stick around (not necessarily play).
wrong place right timing
I would think many shoes can come back from negative territory. The deeper the cut the more likely this could happen.
Don Sch. covers when to leave a shoe for a better opportunity.
It seems the issue for many is what if the casino is crowded and you are playing all at the same table and do not want to appear to leave to often. This sounds more like a time issue?
If one were to know the percentage of shoes that become:
tc -1
tc -2
tc -3
tc -4
and picks the tc -X they wish to leave this does not quite help us because you may face back to back bad shoes. Is one willing to leave back to back shoes?
Another issue is would one be willing to leave after just a few hands?
Probably a reasonable answer is to leave between tc -2 to tc -3 with at least 2 decks played. Leave when a civilian would leave ie, dealer bj, dealer A under bj, pushed bj, lose a double, lose a split, push 20, dealer pulls multiple card 21, losing 3 hands in a row, phone call, player lights cig, you light cig, a good looking person walks by and you give chase. Then just decide how often you think you can get away with this. How often do other players take a break? How do the players, dealer or pit react when you do? Is there a lot of pressure to play or give up your seat?
For camo one should probably not employ the same strategy over and over in a session at the same casino. Always entering tc 1 and always leaving at tc -1 being an example, mix it up. This is why I mention above a range of exit tc's and examples of specific loss or situation triggers.
:joker::whip:
sagefrog you appear to be a busy lazy frog
I would think many shoes can come back from negative territory. The deeper the cut the more likely this could happen.
Don Sch. covers when to leave a shoe for a better opportunity.
It seems the issue for many is what if the casino is crowded and you are playing all at the same table and do not want to appear to leave to often. This sounds more like a time issue?
If one were to know the percentage of shoes that become:
tc -1
tc -2
tc -3
tc -4
and picks the tc -X they wish to leave this does not quite help us because you may face back to back bad shoes. Is one willing to leave back to back shoes?
Another issue is would one be willing to leave after just a few hands?
Probably a reasonable answer is to leave between tc -2 to tc -3 with at least 2 decks played. Leave when a civilian would leave ie, dealer bj, dealer A under bj, pushed bj, lose a double, lose a split, push 20, dealer pulls multiple card 21, losing 3 hands in a row, phone call, player lights cig, you light cig, a good looking person walks by and you give chase. Then just decide how often you think you can get away with this. How often do other players take a break? How do the players, dealer or pit react when you do? Is there a lot of pressure to play or give up your seat?
For camo one should probably not employ the same strategy over and over in a session at the same casino. Always entering tc 1 and always leaving at tc -1 being an example, mix it up. This is why I mention above a range of exit tc's and examples of specific loss or situation triggers.
:joker::whip:
sagefrog you appear to be a busy lazy frog
imho excellent points dotted out,
lazy? yeah but yeah hopefully not working to hard to get out of work that if done would have been easier, :laugh::whip:
i thought Schlesinger's articles were part of the solution with respect to the OP's inquiry, but just me maybe but i find wonging in distasteful for the most part, wonging out a more palatable action. even more palatable would be knowing when to flat bet and when to make some elevated optimal bet after having done only a deck or two worth of counting in say a six deck shoe and still come out with a profit.
but anyway i think Renzy in Blackjack Bluebook II addressed the OP's inquiry in a sense (unfortunately not revealing an underlying study or stats) when he discussed the ace/ten count. where he points out how multiple deck games are more sluggish than single deck or even double deck games as far as how an advantage tends to stick around, sorta thing. where he discusses at some count just go ahead and forget counting and make some elevated bet through the rest of the shoe, or if the count isn't high enough at some specific point then wong out (or my hope, be able to just flat bet with a profit overall, all things considered) ,sorta thing.
whatever unfortunately i haven't seen any statistical studies that show advantage 'behavior' after having known some true count at some point to which the pack has been dealt. that seems to be what the OP is looking for.:fish::fish:
edit: OMG!!! is this some sort of true count theorem thing??:devil::whip:
lazy? yeah
but yeah hopefully not working to hard to get out of work that if done would have been easier, :laugh::whip:i thought Schlesinger's articles were part of the solution with respect to the OP's inquiry, but just me maybe but i find wonging in distasteful for the most part, wonging out a more palatable action. even more palatable would be knowing when to flat bet and when to make some elevated optimal bet after having done only a deck or two worth of counting in say a six deck shoe and still come out with a profit.
but anyway i think Renzy in Blackjack Bluebook II addressed the OP's inquiry in a sense (unfortunately not revealing an underlying study or stats) when he discussed the ace/ten count. where he points out how multiple deck games are more sluggish than single deck or even double deck games as far as how an advantage tends to stick around, sorta thing. where he discusses at some count just go ahead and forget counting and make some elevated bet through the rest of the shoe, or if the count isn't high enough at some specific point then wong out (or my hope, be able to just flat bet with a profit overall, all things considered) ,sorta thing.
whatever unfortunately i haven't seen any statistical studies that show advantage 'behavior' after having known some true count at some point to which the pack has been dealt. that seems to be what the OP is looking for.:fish::fish:
edit: OMG!!! is this some sort of true count theorem thing??:devil::whip:
What Are You Talking About
Had to read the above 3 times, very good and so true. You truly are a sage or smoke it.:devil:
true count theorm? What is that?
Once one has a true count, on average that tc remains the same regardless of how many cards are seen or unseen!
When one reaches any posive expectation TC one could turn off counting and flat bet the rest of the shoe, but with great variance. Also, what about indicies, one would not be able to use them as frequently and their accuracy would be compromised. The larger the + TC before one turns off counting the more likely one will be safe from the shoe drifting back to negative.
As one moves away from optimal betting, the more of a price one pays regarding SCORE and NO.
Rather then turning off counting; with it's high variance, probably better to learn a simple unbalanced system with the most important indicies in groups.
Wonging in on the first +rc hand is not the worst thing.
:joker::whip:
sagefr0g said:
imho excellent points dotted out,
lazy? yeah but yeah hopefully not working to hard to get out of work that if done would have been easier, :laugh::whip:
lazy? yeah
but yeah hopefully not working to hard to get out of work that if done would have been easier, :laugh::whip:
more palatable would be knowing when to flat bet and when to make some elevated optimal bet after having done only a deck or two worth of counting in say a six deck shoe and still come out with a profit.
edit: OMG!!! is this some sort of true count theorem thing??:devil::whip:
edit: OMG!!! is this some sort of true count theorem thing??:devil::whip:
Once one has a true count, on average that tc remains the same regardless of how many cards are seen or unseen!
When one reaches any posive expectation TC one could turn off counting and flat bet the rest of the shoe, but with great variance. Also, what about indicies, one would not be able to use them as frequently and their accuracy would be compromised. The larger the + TC before one turns off counting the more likely one will be safe from the shoe drifting back to negative.
As one moves away from optimal betting, the more of a price one pays regarding SCORE and NO.
Rather then turning off counting; with it's high variance, probably better to learn a simple unbalanced system with the most important indicies in groups.
Wonging in on the first +rc hand is not the worst thing.
:joker::whip:
It strikes me that it shouldn't be too hard to answer the OP's question and verify the TC Theorem at the same time. Maybe a little time-consuming to set up, but not theoretically difficult. There's little motivation for me to do it since I use an unbalanced count, but I'm still kind of thinking about it.
Don't tell me I'm not the only unbalanced one around here!
View attachment 7423
Do you use Red 7 or KO?
Attachments
Sometimes think I get more unbalanced every day...
I use KO.
aslan said:
don't tell me i'm not the only unbalanced one around here!
View attachment 7423
do you use red 7 or ko?
Despite an apparently total lack of interest in me doing anything with this, I did it anyway. I wanted to count through about a hundred million shoes, but I couldn’t think of any way to collect all the statistics and then present them in any way that was useful. So I gave up on that, and decided to supply raw data instead, to let people dig whatever info they can out of it themselves.
The attached zip file contains an Excel workbook with 5,000* six-deck shoes, with the TC (Hi-Lo, TCs were rounded) calculated after 1 deck, 2 decks, 3 decks, 4 decks, 70% pen, 75% pen, 80% pen, after 5 decks, and with one card left.
(* It was originally 10,000 shoes, but I had to delete half of them to make the file small enough to upload. To generate 10,000 new shoes, you can run the macro called “Main”.)
Maybe this will settle some arguments. Maybe it will just add fuel to the fire. :joker: Maybe it’s completely useless.
The attached zip file contains an Excel workbook with 5,000* six-deck shoes, with the TC (Hi-Lo, TCs were rounded) calculated after 1 deck, 2 decks, 3 decks, 4 decks, 70% pen, 75% pen, 80% pen, after 5 decks, and with one card left.
(* It was originally 10,000 shoes, but I had to delete half of them to make the file small enough to upload. To generate 10,000 new shoes, you can run the macro called “Main”.)
Maybe this will settle some arguments.
Maybe it will just add fuel to the fire. :joker: Maybe it’s completely useless. 5000 shoes is way to low, but if there is a macro to generate more - nice job!
In order to prove the TC theorem one should sort the data according to the TC(first deck). Then for each TC(first deck) region, average over the TC(4th deck).
One can do that again with the any other pair of TC's. (i.e. comparing TC(second deck) to TC(last card).
"Magically" this average should be the same as the TC one chose for averaging.
I'll do it tonight I guess, but I'm not sure I can run the macro....
In order to prove the TC theorem one should sort the data according to the TC(first deck). Then for each TC(first deck) region, average over the TC(4th deck).
One can do that again with the any other pair of TC's. (i.e. comparing TC(second deck) to TC(last card).
"Magically" this average should be the same as the TC one chose for averaging.
I'll do it tonight I guess, but I'm not sure I can run the macro....
I agree that 5000 shoes isn’t enough to say much about the TC Theorem. Although, in my limited playing around with the limited data, it does seem to generally hold up.
But the TC Theorem was just a side note to answering the original question about the likelihood of a negative shoe turning positive. Here’s an example of digging information on that out of the 5000 shoes:
If I sort first by “After 1 deck”, then by “70% pen” I can find out that of the 5000 shoes, 407 of them were at TC -2 after 1 deck. Of those 407 shoes, 120 of them were at a TC greater than zero 70% of the way through the shoe. If I re-sort the same way, only with a “then by” of “80% pen”, I can find that 138 of those 407 shoes were at a TC greater than zero 80% of the way through the shoe.
I don’t know how statistically significant the above is, but I expect it’s good enough to get some idea of what’s going on.
But the TC Theorem was just a side note to answering the original question about the likelihood of a negative shoe turning positive. Here’s an example of digging information on that out of the 5000 shoes:
If I sort first by “After 1 deck”, then by “70% pen” I can find out that of the 5000 shoes, 407 of them were at TC -2 after 1 deck. Of those 407 shoes, 120 of them were at a TC greater than zero 70% of the way through the shoe. If I re-sort the same way, only with a “then by” of “80% pen”, I can find that 138 of those 407 shoes were at a TC greater than zero 80% of the way through the shoe.
I don’t know how statistically significant the above is, but I expect it’s good enough to get some idea of what’s going on.