Babies Count (The BS Players' Alternative to Counting)

[Snowman75]

I would appreciate your thoughts on the following idea:

To improve the BS players return, I recommend he doubles - tripple his bet when the board is covered in babies. I've been testing this idea out on computer game. I know its not 10 trillion card simulation, but I've notice that when you are at a table with 4-5 people and the table is covered in babies then you should double or tripple your bet on the next round. After that round u go back to 1 bet. This strategy outperformed BS. It could be just luck, however I noticed that whenever I decided to double my bet the count was also positive (based on the computer's counting using K-O).

While its not counting, by doubling when u see alot of babies you are increasing ur bet when the count is most likely positive. So far I've never doubled on a negative count even though personally I was not counting. The same goes for when u see a lot of tens (opposite thinking).

I've also noticed that after I've doubled and then go back to single (waiting for the next baby layout) if the cards are balanced (~equal amt of high and low cards) and then we get another baby layout, the count is even higher than the first time round.

So while this is not a card counting system, it is an alternative to the BS player who probably will get really bored of playing just 1 chip. The BS player can try this, using a standard of 2 chips, then on baby layouts go to 5, and then to 1 on high layouts. I think this would be both fun to the player and would increase his return.

Sophocles

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Snowman75

I would appreciate your thoughts on the following idea:

To improve the BS players return, I recommend he doubles - tripple his bet when the board is covered in babies. I've been testing this idea out on computer game. I know its not 10 trillion card simulation, but I've notice that when you are at a table with 4-5 people and the table is covered in babies then you should double or tripple your bet on the next round. After that round u go back to 1 bet. This strategy outperformed BS. It could be just luck, however I noticed that whenever I decided to double my bet the count was also positive (based on the computer's counting using K-O).

While its not counting, by doubling when u see alot of babies you are increasing ur bet when the count is most likely positive. So far I've never doubled on a negative count even though personally I was not counting. The same goes for when u see a lot of tens (opposite thinking).

I've also noticed that after I've doubled and then go back to single (waiting for the next baby layout) if the cards are balanced (~equal amt of high and low cards) and then we get another baby layout, the count is even higher than the first time round.

So while this is not a card counting system, it is an alternative to the BS player who probably will get really bored of playing just 1 chip. The BS player can try this, using a standard of 2 chips, then on baby layouts go to 5, and then to 1 on high layouts. I think this would be both fun to the player and would increase his return.

Sophocles

i've used this approach against csm's in the past with mixed results. it may not be to bad of an approach against shoe games if you use it early in the shoe of say a six or eight deck game. the thing would be to only play as far as about two or at most three decks into the shoe.
the problem with this approach is two fold.
for one you won't find many opportunities to bet up as the situation where the table is covered in babies is rare and when it does happen the true count may in fact not really be positive or significantly positive enough to justify betting up.
the second point is that the further you get into the shoe the more possible it is going to be that the true count is infact significantly negative and that could mean that all those babies you are seeing is a result of the true count being negative and that as a result of that fact even more babies are going to continue to come out reaking havoc on your chances.
i find your post interesting in that it is related to some questions i've had in mind with respect to this scenerio and what i've noticed as a relatively regular phenomenon when i practice counting cards and with respect to what's known as the zero true count theorem. (darn that's not the correct name of the theorem, well it's something like that). anyway the point is and the idea of the theorem is that the true count 'tends' towards zero at any point in the shoe. concomittant with that (hopefully not erroneous) interpretation of the theorem what i've noticed on a regular basis while practicing counting down a deck is how the count 'tends' towards zero. it's as if there is a physical pressure or momentum that is exerted (probably as a result of the initial symmetry that exist between the positive and negative weighted cards) such that if a bias exists that 'momentum' brings the count back towards zero. in a sense this idea is whats behind how it is that we as card counters bet proportionally upwards as the true count gets more positive knowing that the count is bent on falling down towards zero and when it does that means high cards are comming out which is good for us players. it's as if that original symmetry that existed between the hi & lo cards seeks to re-exert it's self as the deck is being dealt out. well it's known from simulations and experience that sometimes during times when the true count is negative that the players do infact win. but to my knowledge it is not understood how and why these happy events occur. perhaps it has something to do with the rate at which the true count changes back towards zero when the count is negative. if so then during a negative count if a large number of babies present all at once over some thresh hold number (#=?) then one might apply the idea discussed above with respect to betting up or at least deciding on whether to continue

[Mikeaber]

Snowman:
I think what you are describing is called "card watching." There is some merit to it in my opinion, but be careful....it isn't very reliable for reasons Frog mentioned.

[EasyRhino]

Yeah, I think the advantage to be gained by that method would be a decimal, followed by a lot of zeroes, and then a small number.

Fred Renzey's archives have some articles about "hand tweaking" and the like that do touch on this subject

http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/articles/12160.html
http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/Archives/

[eps6724]

Fred Rezney's book Blackjack Bluebook II covers this and a couple of other plays. His book really helped me in fleshing out Snyder's Red 7 count in his book Blackbelt in Blackjack.

Luck!

[Preston]

Also factor in that is takes two 10's to make 20 versus say four 5's So the excess babies might just be cancelling out the 20 that you got last hand.

It's got some merit to it, and it's somewhat reliable.. but counting is more effective.

This is something I will point out to people at the table if they are having trouble figuring out whether or not to double down 11 against a face card.

[EasyRhino]

Originally Posted by Preston

This is something I will point out to people at the table if they are having trouble figuring out whether or not to double down 11 against a face card.

As I usually play games where the correct basic strategy play is to always double (even moreso in high counts), I usually stick with "stop being a pussy and double that!".

[Snowman75]

I was thinking about the tendancy to go to zero and that is why I thought of this idea. But mainly I've developed this idea because I'll be playing at a casino where u only get a few hands before shuffling in the machine. By counting I may never get the count high enough but by this method I'll get to double and tripple my bet every now and again. Its something for people who have problems getting to good casinos.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Snowman75

I was thinking about the tendancy to go to zero and that is why I thought of this idea. But mainly I've developed this idea because I'll be playing at a casino where u only get a few hands before shuffling in the machine. By counting I may never get the count high enough but by this method I'll get to double and tripple my bet every now and again. Its something for people who have problems getting to good casinos.

i've tryed this on csm machines. was fairly sucessful but i attribute it to mainly luck. the variance can really be wicked. you could try wonging in when the babies hit the table and it doesn't look as if the dealer is going to re-insert the cards. it would likely be a crap shoot. i've never found a simulator that could handle such a tactic. i approximated it with the simulator i have and the appoximation came out with a very small edge. sorry can't recall the specific value.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by Snowman75

By counting I may never get the count high enough but by this method I'll get to double and tripple my bet every now and again.

That indicates exactly how unreliable this method is. If it has you doubling and tripling your bets when you are still at a disadvantage (as indicated by the count) then you will just be losing more money. It’s like driving a car with a broken speedometer. Just because it thinks you’re going 60MPH doesn’t mean that you actually are. Essentially you’re using a less accurate system to “trick” yourself into thinking it’s okay to bet more money.

Originally Posted by Snowman75

Its something for people who have problems getting to good casinos.

I think this is a very dangerous plan. You are using an unreliable system to increase your bets in a terrible game. This will not give you any advantage. In fact, it will only cause you to lose even more money in a game that you shouldn’t be playing in the first place. If you want to play this game for fun, just bet the minimum and play as slowly as you can in order to minimize your losses.

-Sonny-