Youngster Rips Reno/Vegas Baffles Geezer

[Bobaloo]

Having nothing else to do in the evenings between ladies in my life, I picked up a copy of Thorp's book BTD in 1975 and basically imprinted its Basic Strategy and hi-lo counting system on my feeble brain through repetition. I took a bus to Reno from nyc. Over three days I played 30 hours or so in as cheap games as I could find, getting barred from games at two casinos before I stopped being so obvious. Gradually I won a total of $200-$300. Head reeling, I departed the banks of the Truckee with a new vision of hell -- condemned to play lo limit blackjack for eternity. The next 31 years were spent away from the tables working on my bankroll so to speak. Last week I was in Vegas for unrelated reasons. I thought why not play a Martingale progression at roulette? (Deep thinking and clear insight have never been my strengths.) But I quickly found myself drawn to the bj tables. After all I had heard about casino countermeasures over the years i was surprised the game was pretty much as I remember it (this was at the mgm grand). One difference was the dealer has an electronic eye peek sometimes right away when he/she gets (a face card?) up to see if its blackjack. It seems to me this must help the player. Is this right? But of course they are playing multi-deck from a shoe rather than single deck as in the old days (I think it was 6 at mgm but it might have been 8). I didn't understand what the dealer was doing on the cut. He gave me a colored card to insert in the decks and then he put the decks in the shoe. What is he doing? Does the colored card determine the penetration? I remembered only dimly Thorp's BS but luckily didn't lose anything over an hour at the $50 min. table. But I realized how much I really like the game, especially now since I can afford it. So I've gone back to Thorp. The game simulators on the web are really great. But the BS seems to have changed slightly. No standing on 7, 7 vs Ten? No DD on 11 vs A? No DD on 8 except 6,2 vs 5 and 6? You don't draw on hard 16 with 2 cards but not three vs a Ten? These are all built into the web simulators but differ from Thorp's 2d Ed. which was refined by Julian Braun's work. Does anyone know how I can trace the changes to see if Thorp's work was modified with better data or if the modern web simulators are incorrect? It occurs to me from reviewing this forum that a lot of you are extremely skilled at this game and I apologize for jumping into these questions as a newcomer to the site and revealing the depth of my ignorance. (I wish to thank Shadroch for confirming to me that Thorp's BS still has validity in some situations. I am now trying to refine that.)

[ChefJJ]

Originally Posted by Bobaloo

Does anyone know how I can trace the changes to see if Thorp's work was modified with better data or if the modern web simulators are incorrect? It occurs to me from reviewing this forum that a lot of you are extremely skilled at this game and I apologize for jumping into these questions as a newcomer to the site and revealing the depth of my ignorance. (I wish to thank Shadroch for confirming to me that Thorp's BS still has validity in some situations. I am now trying to refine that.)

The only thing I can think of is that those minor nuances have changed because of the multiple ranges of BJ rules that different casinos employ. For instance, there's several changes in basic strategy between a game in which the dealer hits or stays on soft 17.

good luck

[shadroch]

Thorp and Braun never reckoned with 8 deck shoes,I don't think.The best move on a single deck may not be the best move on a DD or multi-deck game.
The colored piece of plastic determines where the cards are cut,it has nothing to do with penetration.

[ChefJJ]

Originally Posted by shadroch

The colored piece of plastic determines where the cards are cut,it has nothing to do with penetration.

In a shoe game, does the dealer not typically stop dealing when he/she gets to the colored plastic card in the decks?

[Canceler]

Originally Posted by ChefJJ

In a shoe game, does the dealer not typically stop dealing when he/she gets to the colored plastic card in the decks?

A small percentage of players seem to think that where they cut the cards determines the penetration, because they fail to notice what the dealer does with the cards after the cut, before placing them in the shoe. That's what shadroch was referring to.

[shadroch]

The colored plastic card serves two independant tasks.
When the dealer hands it to you and asks you to place it in the stack of cards,it is only for the cut.It has no effect on penetration if you cut thin(to win)or deep(to weep).All this accomplishs is changing the position of the cards. It has no effect on penetration if you cut thin or deep.
After the dealer puts the cards in the shoe,he then places the colored plastic card at the place where he will cut off the shoe.This is usually determined by the houses policy,and not by the players placement of the plastic card.
One plastic card,two distinct and seperate tasks.

[shadroch]

Bobaloo,
I,for one,would be very interested in reading your thoughts on chnes in casinos in the time you were gone. Especially BJ games.

[Bobaloo]

Thanks for your explanations. Much appreciated.

I may not be all that observant, but I was surprised there weren't more differences vs the game of 30 years ago. Multi-deck is new, players cards are new (at least electronic ones are), and peeking with the electronic eye is new (I don't recall peeking at all from the old days). Oh yes, there used to be lots of silver dollars on the tables as well as chips. All the silver dollars in the country were sucked into Nevada; now it is the Franklins.

I suspect today the casinos code the players card with any suspicions they may have about card counting.

I guess I better look thru some of the other books referred to in this forum to see if the Thorp-Braun data was ever criticized. Thorp appeared to adjust for multi-decks by dividing the count by the number of decks remaining to get a "true count". I need to study the literature more to see how this concept evolved.

[ChefJJ]

Originally Posted by Canceler

A small percentage of players seem to think that where they cut the cards determines the penetration, because they fail to notice what the dealer does with the cards after the cut, before placing them in the shoe. That's what shadroch was referring to.

OK...thought that I was completely missing something with that! Whew!

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by Bobaloo

One difference was the dealer has an electronic eye peek sometimes right away when he/she gets (a face card?) up to see if its blackjack. It seems to me this must help the player.

Not really. It was better when the dealers would peek under their tens and aces because it bent the cards more. It was almost like having the casino mark the deck for you.

Originally Posted by Bobaloo

But the BS seems to have changed slightly. No standing on 7, 7 vs Ten?

Not in multi-deck games. The reason you stand on 7,7 vs. 10 in a SD game is because the card that will give you 21 (another 7) is already in short supply. In a multi-deck game there are plenty of sevens left to help you so you want to hit.

Originally Posted by Bobaloo

No DD on 11 vs A?

Well, it’s a close call. If the dealer hits his soft 17 then you would still double as part of basic strategy. If the dealer stands on soft 17 then you don’t double. I usually always double unless the TC is below +1 so that makes it easier to switch between either game.

Originally Posted by Bobaloo

No DD on 8 except 6,2 vs 5 and 6?

No, the eights you have to wait for a positive TC before you double. Even doubling against a 5 or 6 takes a +TC to be correct.

Originally Posted by Bobaloo

You don't draw on hard 16 with 2 cards but not three vs a Ten?

That’s a bit of a trick. Basic strategy says to always hit 16 vs. 10, but standing on a multi-card 16 is a little trick that will help you out since it’s such a close call. Also, you can stand anytime the running count is positive.

Originally Posted by Bobaloo

Does anyone know how I can trace the changes to see if Thorp's work was modified with better data or if the modern web simulators are incorrect?

I don’t think Thorp’s work was wrong, it was just meant for a different game than we play today. The basic strategy engine on this site lets you select different rules and see what the proper strategy is.

-Sonny-