Most effective table counting

[jee_pack]

I'm not sure how to refer to this but lets call it table counting. We'll say you have to be sitting down and playing each hand. That's all, so you could be playing alone or with 6 people.

So what's up with that?

-What amount of players at a table should you consider playing with and which ones should you never play. Can you still win in the long run no matter if you are playing with 6 people, 5, 4, 3, 2 people or by your self? What are the different aspect of each situation, what are the pro and cons of playing alone, with 2 players, 5 players etc...

-Then, me being new to this, is it best to count each card one by one. Or to lets say, count all starting hands in pairs, then count all other cards in singles... What are the best time to peak at the cards? When they are being dealt? Or when the hand is over? Or a combination? And if this answer varies depending on how many players are at the table, please mention it.

-Lastly, this is an easy one, I was just wondering, is it easy to see the cards being dealt to third base? Them being the farthest away from the pack.

-Also, if anyone has a take on this, since its best to verifie the count (21 count) of the dealer's hand. Is it a better approach to count the RC at same time as the total as soon as each new card gets added to the dealer's hand. Or do some of you find it easier to lets say... Count the 21 total, then while he takes all the hands, re-count the new RC by adding all the extra cards the dealer has added to his first face up card... And if you have any "special trick" here, do you also aply it to your hand when it's your turn?

Thanks in advance

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by jee_pack

I'm not sure how to refer to this but lets call it table counting. We'll say you have to be sitting down and playing each hand. That's all, so you could be playing alone or with 6 people.

So what's up with that?

-What amount of players at a table should you consider playing with and which ones should you never play. Can you still win in the long run no matter if you are playing with 6 people, 5, 4, 3, 2 people or by your self? What are the different aspect of each situation, what are the pro and cons of playing alone, with 2 players, 5 players etc...

With certain exceptions, you are better of playing with a smaller number of people. The biggest reason is you will get more hands per hour in that way. Although one thing you have to watch out for is sitting down at a table yourself, eating up all the negative EV hands yourself and as soon as the count goes positive, everybdy in the casino gets interested in your table. That's worse than playing at a full table.

Originally Posted by jee_pack

-Then, me being new to this, is it best to count each card one by one. Or to lets say, count all starting hands in pairs, then count all other cards in singles... What are the best time to peak at the cards? When they are being dealt? Or when the hand is over? Or a combination? And if this answer varies depending on how many players are at the table, please mention it.

-Lastly, this is an easy one, I was just wondering, is it easy to see the cards being dealt to third base? Them being the farthest away from the pack.

-Also, if anyone has a take on this, since its best to verifie the count (21 count) of the dealer's hand. Is it a better approach to count the RC at same time as the total as soon as each new card gets added to the dealer's hand. Or do some of you find it easier to lets say... Count the 21 total, then while he takes all the hands, re-count the new RC by adding all the extra cards the dealer has added to his first face up card... And if you have any "special trick" here, do you also aply it to your hand when it's your turn?

Thanks in advance

These questions all depend on you. How you count/cancel out the cards as they are dealt is whatever is easiest for you, and you'll figure that out after a couple of hours of your head spinning!

When adding up the dealer's hand, it's probably best to take care of the count first, because you'll have time to add up his hand as the dealer is picking up the cards and paying the table. If you have any question about the dealer's total, tell the dealer to wait, that's never a problem.

Sometimes the dealer will make mistakes in your favor (like thinking he has busted when he actually has a 21) and in that case, never distract the dealer or tell them to wait. They tend to do things mechanically and if they get distracted from their routine, they will instinctively go back and look at their hand and they will usually catch the error if they do this.

[jee_pack]

thanks for the input!

[mdlbj]

I play at tabless that allow me to at least bet on 2 spots;which is most of the time.

[EasyRhino]

- Generally, solo or sparsely populated is best, because of sheer speed. However, being at a table has a few other advantages:
- backcounting is possible
- A big bettor may provide some cover
- If you spread to two hands in positive counts, you effectively eat more of the good cards, leaving the civilians to take their unfair share of negative counts while you play only one hand.

- I generally like to count pairs first, followed by singletons.

[Mimosine]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

- I generally like to count pairs first, followed by singletons.

this is the way i do it too, since about ~50% of the time a pair cancels each other.

[biggamejames]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

-
- If you spread to two hands in positive counts, you effectively eat more of the good cards, leaving the civilians to take their unfair share of negative counts while you play only one hand.

- I generally like to count pairs first, followed by singletons.

I am a newbie so i ask this question because i dont know the answer.

But what makes you think that when you spread to two hands, you will be the one to catch the good cards while the "civilians" catch the crap out of the deck.

Let me explain why this particular question is my first post on this forum.

I primarily play double deck games only. And of late i have noticed that when playing at a table with 3 or more, i would lose about 80% of my hands if an extra hand was added with a good positive count. (this would only happen to me when i am sitting at third base)

One clear example i remember from this past friday (in Tunica) we had a good count at about +12 in a dd and this guy had a very annoying habit of waiting until the very last second to add his extra hand. I have no clue as to why the hell the guy would wait for us to place our bets then sneak in an extra hand. (I thought for a second that he was couting as well, but this annoying habit led me to believe he was guesstimating the count then looking at our bet increments to decide his own. But it still baffles me why the guy would still wait for the last very last second when the dealer is just about to begin firing the cards out.

Any way the guy squeezes in a second hand at the last minute when i had raised my bet to 300 (it was a the second hand and i couldnt help myself with such a sweet count). I looked up just in the nick of time to see the extra hand and barked "WAIT!!!" Even the pit boss jumped because i barked so hard. He then stood and watched me pull back a $300 bet and lay down 10 friggin bucks!!!!

All i remember was that the dealer was showing a 6 when we all had our cards. I had king,8 but i was still sure we would lose the hand. And as you would guess the dealer turns her card over its a 5 followed by a jack!!!

I colored up my money and left right away because i couldnt stand this idiots antics, and i knew for a fact that after that small incident, the pit critters would be watching me like a hawk.

So am i wrong to despise those double hand players?

Does it make any sense to play two hands in double deck? if you have two or three people at the table?


Ps..I am guessing playing two hands with a positive count in multi-deck works well, but in that case you have several hands to exploit the count. In single or Double deck you have but a few hands and dealers do win hand or two even with a good count.

[EasyRhino]

james, it sounds like you're straying dangerously near voodoo territory, let's try to look at it two ways:

1) Let's say the count is super-positive, and there are very few cards left in the shoe. There are 3 players at the table (including you). You would, on average, expect to get a lot of high cards, randomly dispersed among the three spots. After that round, the count would drop some (by whatever would was used up by 4 spots being played incuding the dealer). You basically got in one hand before the count dropped.

Now let's say that you spread to two hands. You're still going to get a lot of high cards, this time spread among 4 player spots. But two of them are you! The count at the end of the round would be expected to drop by whatever would be proper for 5 spots playing played (slightly lower than before, but not much). You basically got in two hands at that high count before it dropped.

2) Look at the reverse scenario: negative counts. If the count ws very negative, would you rather be:
a) playing heads up
b) playing with one other player
c) playing at a full table
d) not playing at all

The answer is (d), but (c) is the next best option. However, the preference flips in a positive count. Playing multiple splots is a way to effectively reduce the ratio of non-you/you players at the table.

Here's a link to a thread on another site with a bunch of simulation results on the subject:
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...key=1163651404

By the way, the jerk at the table who was spreading to two hands in positive counts? You want to be that jerk.

[biggamejames]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

james, it sounds like you're straying dangerously near voodoo territory, let's try to look at it two ways:


By the way, the jerk at the table who was spreading to two hands in positive counts? You want to be that jerk.

I didnt mind his two hands. What i hated about it was that he would wait until the last second when we had all placed our bets and he would literally sneak in his second hand which i thought was a bitch ass move. Me and the other guy at the table would give him looks when the count was right so that he would declare his play early.


Also my question was in regards to single deck or double deck. Like i stated before you dont have much wiggle room to exploit a high positive count. This will is not scientific but i will say that the higher your count the fewer cards will be left in the deck.

If you add another hand in the deck, you increase the number of hands coming out of the deck hence reducing your penetration. (If i am wrong about this theory please correct me.)

Regarding the question you asked me about if i would rather opt out of a bad negative count. Well you have to take into the account that you are not going to lose every hand even with a negative count. And with single deck you will only get 5 hands on average. If you are playing $5 a hand you are down 25 bucks if you lose every single hand (which is possible but rare)
I do walk into a casino expecting to lose some hands. But i wanna lose only those hands i am ready for and win my big bets.

I win most when i am playing by myself or with just one more person who is a strong BS player as well, or even a counter. I find it easier to count with two, three at most 4. (my last winning streak had 5 on the table)

I must state again. I only play single deck and DD.. I dont do multi deck at all.

I will check out that link you posted and see if i am all wrong here.

Ps..(Personal experience is one huge hump to get over. Especially if you have lost as many hands as i have with good counts in situations where some one added a hand after the count was good. )

I have read the link and some of it i agree with. I do play two hands with negative counts every now and then. But i have not had much success doing the same with positive counts, and i have not seen some one do it successfully at a table at which i was playing.
But they are still talking about multi deck and they mostly talk about time and profit without explaining exactly how increasing hands is useful.

While they talk about the fact that there are good high cards in the deck and you are competing for them with other players, my question still stands, what makes you think you will get the good hands and not the "ploppies" or even worse yet the dealer. (after all dealers do catch blackjacks with high counts too. If i am wrong about that fact please correct me.)

What i prefer to do is to increase my bet when the count initially rises in my favor. Keeping in mind that its indeed possible to lose a hand even with a high count.
If i lose and the count does not deviate by much, i may double my previous bet or keep it at the original level to win back my last loss.
if the deviation is too great i will decrease my bet units.

But if you played two hands and lost both of them, coupled with the fact that the count got worse then you would be in a hole that you probably wont get out of later on in another shoe. (being that single deck and dd run out really soon after the count rises high).

Again, i am a noob at this stuff so i dont have enough experience on this issue.

[biggamejames]

I have been researching this issue because it was haunting me. Plus i didnt like being called a voodoo practitioner in what i believe to be a simple mathematical equation that one can solve to make some money.


I have played enough games to estimate correctly that i have lost more hands
with a positive count, where a player added and extra hand when the count went positive. I am not a ploppy given to senile ranting about how i lose every time i hit my 16s. NOpe. This is not my mind playing tricks on me whereby i seem to remember a certain category of events that i have some kind of pschological hang up on.

NO. that is not it. I have made these observations in a fair and balanced manner and believe them to be true for a good reason.

Here is an interview i found today from Zengrifter, talking about the grifters gambit.

Ok, let’s say I’m playing a quality two-deck game heads-up. In minus and neutral counts I bet three hands of one unit each. This eats cards fast in order to speed things along and get to the plus deck situations quicker. At true counts of plus one and plus two, I bet three units on one spot. I increase to five units on one spot when the TC gets to plus three and plus four. At plus five or more, I bet one spot of seven units. Playing one spot in plus counts helps preserve the rich deck(s) longer. Per one hundred rounds, the sim showed a gain of four units with an apparent spread of three to seven units - just barely more than a 1 – 2 spread.

For a good single deck game there can be a virtual flat-bet. In minus counts bet three spots of one unit, and in plus counts bet one spot of three or four units - this will yield a similar gain to a traditional 1-4 spread but with higher variance. However, because the minimum bet is 3 x 1 units, the comps are much better. One other thing: you must be playing alone at the table if it’s single deck or with no more than one other at a double decker.

That is the line that intrigued me most. Why would Zengrifter reduce his hands to just one spot if it was a universal truth that the more spots you play in a positive count, the better your edge?

Well he explained it quite clearly. You preserve your positive count longer. The same idea that i had grasped in my short time card counting but didnt even know was valid until confirmed by Zengrifter himself. While its prudent to play low amounts of two or more hands with neutral or negative counts, the logic in that idea is put forward by Zengrifter goes down the tubes if you hold that you should do the same with positive counts. (the idea being that you want to eat up the low cards faster. Well you would do the same thing when the count was high thus limiting your hands.


This actually reminds me of another card counter i played with about 3 weeks ago in tunica. He was doing this exact thing of adding one extra hand every time was in our favor. I dont think he was a legit card counter more like he was simply reading the deck and doubling his hands every time a rash of low cards was exposed on the table. I was counting so i pretty much knew he wasnt off most of the time.

He actually helped me out a whole lot because i was actually reducing my bets to one unit every time we had a high positive count. (which he played two hands) I was playing my higher units when the count was around +3 or +4 (it was a DD game).. And i was making profit doing this. And by the way i was losing about 1 out of every 3 of these high positive count bets where he added an extra hand.

Unknown to me, it seemed like they had been watching our game and they did come and ask this guy to leave the casino. I cant say it was because of his card counting or whatever it was. I really dont know. All i recall was that there was a security guy on a cell phone behind the pit (which is normally not allowed and some one at our table had pointed that out) and a few minutes later this guy was joined by another casino official and they whispered something to the guy, he colored out his chips and the last i saw of him, he was being escorted to the cage.


Lots of info out here. Looks like one has to look really hard to get to the truth.

ps..here is the link where i found the interview.
http://www.bjinsider.com/newsletter_52_grift.shtml