Why backcount?

I've seen some people on here lately saying they backcount after the shoe has started. To me, it seems like a risky proposition given that you're not sure what the actual count will be. If it reaches say +1, isn't it more likely that you're entering after a period of high cards have already come out? OR say the count is really high, you'll be betting a lot less than you should be. Since you'll neve have as accurate of a count as if you started a new shoes, I'm not sure this can be +EV unless you're playing a great game. Is there something I'm missing?

You stand behind the table and count the cards until they are in your favour (+TC). Then you sit at the table and start playing +EV hands. It means you don't have to play the -EV hands when the count is rubbish

I understand how to backcount, but how do you really know the count is positive if you didn't start at the beginning of the shoe??

No. A positive count means that more low cards have come out. You can never tell what the actual count will be for future hands, but a current positive count means that the rest of the deck should be somewhat rich in high value cards. And why would you be betting a lot less than you should be unless the casino rules keep you at the minimum bet if you enter mid-shoe?

You do

You start counting when they shuffle then sit down at your preferred count. Some casinos don't allow mid-shoe entry though, which totally stops wonging

I believe you do start at the beginning of the shoe.

Ok maybe I wasn't clear enough. Say you start watching a game after 2 decks have already been dealt. You start the count at 0, then decide to come sit down at the table in when it's at +1. What I'm saying is that count of +1 is more than likely, very flawed because it didn't take into account the previous two decks. If anything, it's likely to be lower than +1.

Right, and that's what I do, but I got the impression that some people here were starting their counts off after the shoe had already been played a bit and were calling it "backcounting" Maybe I misunderstood them or they used the wrong term for what they were doing.

Why would anyone do that?

Not everyone who counts is that bright?!?!? I don't know? Last Sunday, I spotted 3 wannabe counters. One of them was wonging and he was alright in t he very short time he was at the table except for his betting spreads but the others?!!! Yikes...

The probably weren't counting. I've seen scores of people lurking over tables who finally enter the shoe when the count has gone negative. Some may be just trying to get up the nerve to actually sit down or some are probably just watching to see if players are winning or how often the dealer is busting to make their decision to sit down.

Well the one guy who was lurking who entered when the count was positive left as soon as it went to -1. That tells me the odds are likely he was wonging. The other two were raising their bets when the count got good and lowered it when the count got bad (over a period of shoes) but had no idea how to play indicies and made a few basic strategy errors.

They may have just been mimicking the betting pattern of someone else at the table.

I have had conversations with people about back-counting a shoe that you haven't been since the start. Typically, you just consider the cards not seen as part of the cut-off amount. The problem is what you stated, you don't know for sure if the count is actually in your benefit.

Just count them off the start of the shoe, jump in, hit them hard and where it hurts!

PS: about dumb counters, There are some really stupid ones out there. I am truly convinced they are not playing with an edge.

Possibly but I doubt it because one of the other two was always looking at his friend whow as sitting next to him and sometimes they placed their bets on the table before me. I was also playing at a very classy joint where I'd be willing to bet there are far more counters than the national average.

This is correct. Suppose about a 1/2 deck has already been played when you walk by and see lots of small cards on the felt. You look at the shoe and see 1D cut off. When you do your TC calcs, you divide by 1.5.

You never really know for sure what the count is, as long as a cut card is used. It's all a probability, which is the purpose of converting to a TC.

Obviously, if 3 decks have already been dealt, the likelihood of getting a +EV count is low (though not impossible), same as if you were half-shoed.

If you only start at the very beginning, you may be missing opportunities.

Ok, noone seems to be answering the question, so here is the deal. Backcounting in the middle of the shoe is a theoretically acceptable strategy. You treat the cards that were already dealt as if they were behind the cut card. So if you start backcounting after 3 decks in a 6 deck shoe, thats already a 50% pen game + whatever the cut card is at.

Sleight, is there any mathematical data to back this up because again, I would think that if the count ever got positive when doing this, it's more likelybecause the count had tanked before hand, therefore negating quite a bit of the counting edge.

Which if you are just a counter is a stupid ass way to play. Really, would you waste time counting shoes with 50% pen or less? If you do then you have no idea what the hell you are doing and you get what you deserve. Most of these friggin counters are just gamblers trying to cover up their obsession. They need to get the money out there and are looking for any possible way to do it, whether its a good idea or not. If you need to rationalize your play you're doing something wrong. Play less but play well. get rid of the need for the juice effect of tossing money out there. If you want more play, then learn how to play better.

True Count Theorum states that the TC is more likely to stay at the same TC after playing at a TC of x. Since each card has an equal probability of coming out in a deck, statistically, the ratio of high to low cards will still remain the same.

That being said, we cannot know what happened before we started backcounting in the middle of the shoe. Yes, all the big cards could have been played, but its just as possible that all the small cards are gone as well. In the end, it averages out to as if we don't know anything, which is why we treat it as behind the cut card.

Yes, its true that its an awful way to play, I was just saying that you can in fact play a +EV game if you do. The OP was questioning the legitimacy of the strategy, not its strength.