disadvantage

[mjbballar23]

say a 6 deck shoe has an off the top disadvantage of .56.(TC of 0 with 6 decks left). and then later on in the shoe, with only 4 decks left, the true count is still 0, is the disadvantage still .56 at that point or is it better?

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by mjbballar23

say a 6 deck shoe has an off the top disadvantage of .56.(TC of 0 with 6 decks left). and then later on in the shoe, with only 4 decks left, the true count is still 0, is the disadvantage still .56 at that point or is it better?

i'd say a little better but that is probably superficial as then the penetration is more significant.

[double4more]

As the frog stated, the disadvantage would decrease, although it would not necessarily be significant enough for you to make use of it. This phenomenon is called the floating advantage. You can get more information about it in Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition in chapter 6.

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

ya, im guessing here that no matter how many decks are left in your example, the edge will still be at least -.5%

[double4more]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

ya, im guessing here that no matter how many decks are left in your example, the edge will still be at least -.5%

Read the book. IIRC, you work in a library and have access to all of the books on blackjack.

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Originally Posted by double4more

Read the book. IIRC, you work in a library and have access to all of the books on blackjack.

sonny or one of the other "elders" told me that the floating advantage thing is highly exaggerated, and yes i read an entire article on it on a website, and it made it seem extremely important, and since its pretty much ignored when your counting, i would tend to believe sonny more than this article

[double4more]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

sonny or one of the other "elders" told me that the floating advantage thing is highly exaggerated, and yes i read an entire article on it on a website, and it made it seem extremely important, and since its pretty much ignored when your counting, i would tend to believe sonny more than this article

I already stated that "it would not necessarily be significant enough for you to make use of it" in a previous post. However, your "guess" that the house edge will be at least -.5% at all points is incorrect. Let's do a little deductive reasoning. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, with all of the reading you have done, that you know that playing single deck blackjack with Las Vegas rules actually gives the player an advantage off the top of the deck if s/he plays perfect basic strategy. What would the true count be at that point? Naturally, it would be 0, the same as that which mjbballar23 had originally questioned. If the case is that at the 1 deck level the player actually has an advantage at a TC of 0, wouldn't it be fair to reason that in all likelihood, a game played with multiple decks which has reached the 1 deck point with a TC of 0 may not have a house edge of -.5%? I don't go by simply what an "elder" has stated. I want empirical proof. Heck, anyone can make mistakes in a post. I am also a firm believer that those that seek to be enlightened should not be just given the answers all of the time. So again, I suggest that you go directly to the authoritative source and read chapter 6 of BJA3. Find out why Schlesinger says it is a matter of "too little, too late."

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Originally Posted by double4more

I already stated that "it would not necessarily be significant enough for you to make use of it" in a previous post. However, your "guess" that the house edge will be at least -.5% at all points is incorrect. Let's do a little deductive reasoning. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, with all of the reading you have done, that you know that playing single deck blackjack with Las Vegas rules actually gives the player an advantage off the top of the deck if s/he plays perfect basic strategy. What would the true count be at that point? Naturally, it would be 0, the same as that which mjbballar23 had originally questioned. If the case is that at the 1 deck level the player actually has an advantage at a TC of 0, wouldn't it be fair to reason that in all likelihood, a game played with multiple decks which has reached the 1 deck point with a TC of 0 may not have a house edge of -.5%? I don't go by simply what an "elder" has stated. I want empirical proof. Heck, anyone can make mistakes in a post. I am also a firm believer that those that seek to be enlightened should not be just given the answers all of the time. So again, I suggest that you go directly to the authoritative source and read chapter 6 of BJA3. Find out why Schlesinger says it is a matter of "too little, too late."

thats completely wrong, and others will agree with me, as that last deck is not a standard deck, because lets say you were using hi-lo.. how many 7s 8s 9s are in that last deck? how many 10s compared to As? that deck could be entirely 7s 8s and 9s, or there could be no aces left, etc.. you are going by 1 book, i am going by several people on here, and i read a 5 page article on that, which probably was directly out of the book you speak of, and you could tell it was highly exaggerated, because if it wasnt, where is everybody that talks about it? it would be in every book.. that doesnt prove its wrong, but still.. som1 here give some answers on floating advantage, or start a thread on it, because if its true, counting systems would be significantly inaccurate.. the article was from bjmath.com i think

[double4more]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

thats completely wrong, and others will agree with me, as that last deck is not a standard deck, because lets say you were using hi-lo.. how many 7s 8s 9s are in that last deck? how many 10s compared to As? that deck could be entirely 7s 8s and 9s, or there could be no aces left, etc.. you are going by 1 book, i am going by several people on here, and i read a 5 page article on that, which probably was directly out of the book you speak of, and you could tell it was highly exaggerated, because if it wasnt, where is everybody that talks about it? it would be in every book.. that doesnt prove its wrong, but still.. som1 here give some answers on floating advantage, or start a thread on it, because if its true, counting systems would be significantly inaccurate.. the article was from bjmath.com i think

That is exactly the point. Perchance, the remaining deck was all tens and aces. As such, the house edge will not always be "at least" -.5%, as you guessed previously.

"You can lead a horse to the water..."

[EasyRhino]

Sure, the last deck could be entirely 7s, 8s, and 9s, and you'd still have a TC of 0, but on average (which is what counting's all about anyway), you could start treating it like a single deck game.

I found Schlesinger's work on the subject to be both very interesting, and very, very worthless.