Composition plays and a few other things

[NDN21]

What are some of the composition dependent plays that players use (i.e. five card 16 vs. 10 then stand, rule of 45 by Renzey, ten-2 vs. dealer's 4 then hit)? What are some other composition plays that are out there that you use from time to time and under what circumstances (shoe depth, etc.)?

I know that alot of these composition plays don't add much to your ev in a six deck game but what about when that 6 deck shoe is down to two decks remaining? Are they profitable enough to use then?

I got the CVdata software and was thinking about running a multi-parameter strategy that used composition dependent plays and used them in the last few decks (less than 2.5 decks left) of a shoe. How effective are composition dependent plays when they occur at extreme counts and at the end of shoes?

In CV there is a feature which keeps a running count of a segment. What do counters do with that? I know that every other feature in that awesome software is useful so there has to be a use for that. It seems to me that shuffle trackers could use it to identify an area of the discards that is rich or depleted of high cards and track them through a shuffle in order to get to or avoid that segment. I played at a casino in Kansas a few weeks ago and can recall saying "gee there were +10 high cards above normal distribution in what appears to be a little over the first deck dealt, I think I'll try to keep track of where that segment gets shuffled". Didn't quite work out well but I figure that was due to a lack of practice.

Being aware of the segment feature of CV and wondering what the heck it's for I have come to realize that I can recall if each of the last 5 or 6 rounds of a table with 4 or 5 players (which means 17-22 cards a round on average) were positive or negative and by how much. How can I use that to my advantage? Does it do any good to know (especially late in a shoe) if that shoe has been increasing or decreasing as far as the running count goes?

What do you do when the count has changed dramatically? For instance 20 low cards (2-6) come out in a row and the TC was already high and the shoe is getting close to the cut card so the count must begin to self-correct back toward zero very soon because there aren't as many cards to do so as when the shoe was near full. I know in the end the math will even out but in the short term (very short term like the next few cards) shouldn't there be an even higher chance of a high card being dealt next than if a high card just were dealt? Is this one of those times that pro's call a non-pro trying to act like they have gambling instincts? I was thinking of diverting in a situation like this and using that as cover.

My thinking is probably off but that's why I am asking questions.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by NDN21

What are some of the composition dependent plays that players use (i.e. five card 16 vs. 10 then stand, rule of 45 by Renzey, ten-2 vs. dealer's 4 then hit)? What are some other composition plays that are out there that you use from time to time and under what circumstances (shoe depth, etc.)?

I know that alot of these composition plays don't add much to your ev in a six deck game but what about when that 6 deck shoe is down to two decks remaining? Are they profitable enough to use then?

I got the CVdata software and was thinking about running a multi-parameter strategy that used composition dependent plays and used them in the last few decks (less than 2.5 decks left) of a shoe. How effective are composition dependent plays when they occur at extreme counts and at the end of shoes?

off hand i would think so. especially if you know the true count and apply them accordingly. i'm like you with regards to this issue. i'm not sure but i would suspect this may hold an advantage.

Originally Posted by NDN21

In CV there is a feature which keeps a running count of a segment. What do counters do with that? I know that every other feature in that awesome software is useful so there has to be a use for that. It seems to me that shuffle trackers could use it to identify an area of the discards that is rich or depleted of high cards and track them through a shuffle in order to get to or avoid that segment. I played at a casino in Kansas a few weeks ago and can recall saying "gee there were +10 high cards above normal distribution in what appears to be a little over the first deck dealt, I think I'll try to keep track of where that segment gets shuffled". Didn't quite work out well but I figure that was due to a lack of practice.

i'm not sure what counters do with such information. your consideration of using the information for shuffle tracking seems logical. perhaps it could be used in conjuction with key cards also.

Originally Posted by NDN21

Being aware of the segment feature of CV and wondering what the heck it's for I have come to realize that I can recall if each of the last 5 or 6 rounds of a table with 4 or 5 players (which means 17-22 cards a round on average) were positive or negative and by how much. How can I use that to my advantage? Does it do any good to know (especially late in a shoe) if that shoe has been increasing or decreasing as far as the running count goes?

What do you do when the count has changed dramatically? For instance 20 low cards (2-6) come out in a row and the TC was already high and the shoe is getting close to the cut card so the count must begin to self-correct back toward zero very soon because there aren't as many cards to do so as when the shoe was near full. I know in the end the math will even out but in the short term (very short term like the next few cards) shouldn't there be an even higher chance of a high card being dealt next than if a high card just were dealt? Is this one of those times that pro's call a non-pro trying to act like they have gambling instincts? I was thinking of diverting in a situation like this and using that as cover.

My thinking is probably off but that's why I am asking questions.

this is the portion of your post that particuarly interests me. your thinking may indeed be off. i don't know. this is a question and a point that i've also wondered about. it is my suspicion that this issue flirts with the gambler's fallacy. but i wonder if there isn't some valid point shrouded by the voodoo vale of the gambler's fallacy with respect to this particular issue. we know for a fact that there is a statistical edge for us when the true count is positive and yet the house can sometime prevale over us when we have negative fluctuation during those positive true counts. and we know that the house has the statistical edge when the true count is zero or negative and yet we sometimes win over the house as a result of the house's negative fluctuation during those negative true counts. what this means to me is that there may be areas of advantage in blackjack that have yet to be tapped.
one area of possible advantage that i've never heard discussed has to do with what you have alluded to. what i ponder with respect to this is the rate of change of the running count. normally we only pay attention to the linear increase or decrease of the running count. to pay attention to the rate of change of the running count seems to me to flirt with the gambler's fallacy but it is still an issue that i would like to see investigated with a simulation.

reason being consider the excerpt below:

excerpt from The True Count Theorem
by Abdul Jalib http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm

"The Running Count
-----------------
The theorem applies only to the true count, not to the running count. The running count does not obey the same laws of as the true count.
With regards to the effects of other players at the table and the tendency of the round to stop with a big card, much confusion stems from a mistaken assumption that the behavior of the true count is the same as the behavior of the running count.
The running count must be zero at the end of the deck. Therefore, drawing cards in high counts tends to cause the running count to fall, and drawing cards in low counts tends to cause the running count to rise. But the expected true count is unchanged"
______________________________________________

so i wonder with these points in mind if there may be an advantage when the running count presents a 'high rate of change' (ie. a bunch of low cards comes out all at once).
well i only have cvcx not cvdata. as far as i can tell cvcx is not able to simulate such scenerio's.