Heads up in multi-deck.

[ScottH]

Normally it is better to play with fewer players. Is it still better to play heads up even in a multideck game? It seems like you would have a lot more hands with the disadvantage. I suppose when you get to the positive situations it would last longer also. I guess it wouldn't be great to play heads up because you couldn't wong in or out as easily either. Just wondering...

[Cass]

Originally Posted by ScottH

Normally it is better to play with fewer players. Is it still better to play heads up even in a multideck game? It seems like you would have a lot more hands with the disadvantage. I suppose when you get to the positive situations it would last longer also. I guess it wouldn't be great to play heads up because you couldn't wong in or out as easily either. Just wondering...

you've answered your own question. If you are wonging in and out the ideal situation would be for one other player on the table to let them eat all the negative cards. I always look for tables with the fewest players.

[Sonny]

Playing alone will actually have you playing less hands at a disadantage because you are playing less hands right after the shuffle. With multiple players at the table there will be more shuffles per hour which means that you will be playing more hands off-the-top against the house edge.

Still, backcounting will always be the best option. You will not be playing any hands at a disadvantage and will be able to play more hands at an advantage because you are abandoning "hopelessly negative" shoes in order to find a positive one.

-Sonny

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Sonny

Playing alone will actually have you playing less hands at a disadantage because you are playing less hands right after the shuffle. With multiple players at the table there will be more shuffles per hour which means that you will be playing more hands off-the-top against the house edge.

I've been contemplating this comment... and I can't decide if you are correct. zg

[tedloc]

Originally Posted by Sonny

Playing alone will actually have you playing less hands at a disadantage because you are playing less hands right after the shuffle. With multiple players at the table there will be more shuffles per hour which means that you will be playing more hands off-the-top against the house edge.
-Sonny

With a fresh deck, you are a 101 to100 underdog because of the house edge. This is sometimes as close to even money as you will get in that deck. As each 10 that comes out gets you a more negative count, you become more of an underdog.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by tedloc

With a fresh deck, you are a 101 to100 underdog because of the house edge. This is sometimes as close to even money as you will get in that deck. As each 10 that comes out gets you a more negative count, you become more of an underdog.

I think it’s closer to a 48/43 underdog off the top (the other 9% are ties). Hopefully someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pulling that off the top of my head (where the disadvantage is greater :D ).

You're right that the count might drop from there, but the count is just as likely to go positive and wipe out the house edge. As Scott mentioned, a positive count wil tend to last longer in shoe games which is why they are so valuable to Wong into.

Also, as you get deeper into the shoe your indices become more valuable and help to reduce the disadvantage of those negative counts.

-Sonny-

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

I've been contemplating this comment... and I can't decide if you are correct. zg

I remember that it was a big concern playing in pitch games. It is the second most important reason that you don't want to play at crowded tables (the most important reason is given below). I'm sure it is less of a problem in shoes (especially since you should be Wonging anyway!), but I don't know to what extent.

I imagine that it will be noticeable since you are also placing your bets at deeper penetration levels when you play alone as opposed to having multiple players eating cards during each round. Not only are you making more bets at deep penetration levels, you are also playing more hands closer to the cut card (those last few cards are as deep as you can get!).

-Sonny-

[KenSmith]

Originally Posted by Sonny

Playing alone will actually have you playing less hands at a disadantage because you are playing less hands right after the shuffle. With multiple players at the table there will be more shuffles per hour which means that you will be playing more hands off-the-top against the house edge.

Originally Posted by zengrifter

I've been contemplating this comment... and I can't decide if you are correct. zg

Originally Posted by Sonny

I remember that it was a big concern playing in pitch games. It is the second most important reason that you don't want to play at crowded tables (the most important reason is given below). I'm sure it is less of a problem in shoes (especially since you should be Wonging anyway!), but I don't know to what extent.

This is an interesting notion, and I, like zg, can't decide whether it is true or not. I'm leaning toward not true, for this reason:

Yes, with multiple players shuffles happen more often, and therefore you'll play more off-the-top. However, you'll play fewer hands in the earliest portion of the shoe, because those hands are spread around the table. Those two effects would seem to balance out, so there would be no difference. But I really don't know for sure. Interesting.

[ScottH]

Originally Posted by KenSmith

This is an interesting notion, and I, like zg, can't decide whether it is true or not. I'm leaning toward not true, for this reason:

Yes, with multiple players shuffles happen more often, and therefore you'll play more off-the-top. However, you'll play fewer hands in the earliest portion of the shoe, because those hands are spread around the table. Those two effects would seem to balance out, so there would be no difference. But I really don't know for sure. Interesting.

You'll play fewer hands earlier in the shoe, but you will also play fewer hands later in the shoe. I suppose that is why it's better to play heads up, you can play more hands when there is an advantage.

[tedloc]

[QUOTE=Sonny]I think it’s closer to a 48/43 underdog off the top (the other 9% are ties). Hopefully someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pulling that off the top of my head (where the disadvantage is greater :D ).

When I said 101/100 underdog, it means that the house is a slight favorite to WIN the next hand.. In this case a tie is in your favor as you do not lose when you push. The numbers you are quoting are the percentages for winning/losing/push. In plain English: Your odds of losing the hand in a new deck, are 101/100