Renzey's Ace/10 Front Count

[SPX]

Quick question. . .

I was perusing the Bluebook last night and decided to re-read the Ace/10 chapter and it made me wonder. . .

Fred says, "Anytime 36 or fewer Ace/10s come out in the first two decks, you'll have an edge over the house."

So. . . What if a flat bettor (and say they couldn't commit to any sort of bet ramping due to bankroll restrictions) ONLY played shoes that qualified under the Ace/10 front count, wouldn't he technically be playing with a positive expectation even if he only ultimately came out ahead by a very small amount?

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by SPX

Quick question. . .

I was perusing the Bluebook last night and decided to re-read the Ace/10 chapter and it made me wonder. . .

Fred says, "Anytime 36 or fewer Ace/10s come out in the first two decks, you'll have an edge over the house."

So. . . What if a flat bettor (and say they couldn't commit to any sort of bet ramping due to bankroll restrictions) ONLY played shoes that qualified under the Ace/10 front count, wouldn't he technically be playing with a positive expectation even if he only ultimately came out ahead by a very small amount?

i'm not sure about that very small edge you ask about.......
but the ace/ten front count requires a very specific betting ramp and method of wonging into and out of shoes. that being said even then the edge is very small. so if you were to just flat bet using the ace/ten front count that small edge would be even smaller if there even would be an edge at all.

[SPX]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

i'm not sure about that very small edge you ask about.......
but the ace/ten front count requires a very specific betting ramp and method of wonging into and out of shoes. that being said even then the edge is very small. so if you were to just flat bet using the ace/ten front count that small edge would be even smaller if there even would be an edge at all.

Well with the bet ramp it seems that the edge can very between .25% and .40% depending upon the specific conditions of the game.

So I do have to wonder, after thinking about it last night, if a flat better would at least have SOME sort of advantage provided he gets in at the right times and gets out at the right times.

Or, if you wouldn't have an advantage, would you at least NOT have a disadvantage?

Say, a flat bettor who plays perfect BS in a standard 6 deck game, who also employs knowledge of composition-dependent and board condition strategy a la Bluebook chapter 6, and who selects his tables according to Renzey's Ace/10 suggestions so that he only plays when the deck favors the player. . .

Hmm. . .

What do you think?

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by SPX

Well with the bet ramp it seems that the edge can very between .25% and .40% depending upon the specific conditions of the game.

So I do have to wonder, after thinking about it last night, if a flat better would at least have SOME sort of advantage provided he gets in at the right times and gets out at the right times.

Or, if you wouldn't have an advantage, would you at least NOT have a disadvantage?

Say, a flat bettor who plays perfect BS in a standard 6 deck game, who also employs knowledge of composition-dependent and board condition strategy a la Bluebook chapter 6, and who selects his tables according to Renzey's Ace/10 suggestions so that he only plays when the deck favors the player. . .

Hmm. . .

What do you think?

i really couldn't say. but here is where i think the problem with such a scenerio would be. as i remmember the way the tables are selected there are times when the player just sits down and plays (not wonging in). with no bet ramp in those instances a flat bet player would be at a disadvantage.
so i guess if one never just sat at a fresh table but always used the ace/ten count to decide when to wong in and then flat bet perhaps there would be some edge or at least a nearly even playing field.

[Renzey]

Originally Posted by SPX

Quick question. . .Fred says, "Anytime 36 or fewer Ace/10s come out in the first two decks, you'll have an edge over the house."
So. . . What if a flat bettor ONLY played shoes that qualified under the Ace/10 front count, wouldn't he technically be playing with a positive expectation?

In a word, Yes. An Ace/10 Front Count of "36" is virtually equivalent to a Hi/Lo true count of +1.6. If you play only those 6 deck shoes that have a front count of "36" or lower, you'll be playing that 20% of the shoes which start off the last four decks with, and have an average player edge of 0.35% or higher. You'd be playing with a "modified" shoe, and would be using an appropriately modified basic strategy.

It would in effect, be exactly the same as taking a full four deck shoe, pulling out at least four 2's thru 9's at random, and inserting an identical number of extra Ace/10's. Then you'd play a basic strategy tailored to that deck composition. You could flat bet, and have on average, over a half percent advantage (since some front counts will be "35", or "34", etc.).

The reason the standard Ace/10 Front Count strategy yields only around a quarter percent edge is that you play many shoes off the top, without backcounting first to qualify them.

[Renzey]

I should add that it's just a very simple, but somewhat weak counting system a player could use to become a flat betting wonger.

[SPX]

Originally Posted by Renzey

In a word, Yes. An Ace/10 Front Count of "36" is virtually equivalent to a Hi/Lo true count of +1.6. If you play only those 6 deck shoes that have a front count of "36" or lower, you'll be playing that 20% of the shoes which start off the last four decks with, and have an average player edge of 0.35% or higher. You'd be playing with a "modified" shoe, and would be using an appropriately modified basic strategy.

It would in effect, be exactly the same as taking a full four deck shoe, pulling out at least four 2's thru 9's at random, and inserting an identical number of extra Ace/10's. Then you'd play a basic strategy tailored to that deck composition. You could flat bet, and have on average, over a half percent advantage (since some front counts will be "35", or "34", etc.).

The reason the standard Ace/10 Front Count strategy yields only around a quarter percent edge is that you play many shoes off the top, without backcounting first to qualify them.

Thanks for the freedback! That's what I needed to know. If I you ever write Blackjack Bluebook III then it might not be bad to write a little section on this because many people, like myself, are definitely bankroll-challenged.

We don't really have to money to endure the swings of counting but we still would like to play with some sort of advantage, regardless of how small it may be.

I'm glad my mind wandered down this path of reasoning because it seems like sort of a middleground between counting and playing against the house edge. I could, perhaps, couple the Ace/10 with the progression I've been playing lately.

Too bad in Wendover all we have is single deck. As strange a comment as I'm sure it will seem to people around here, in some ways I really do miss the shoe game.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by SPX

..........
We don't really have to money to endure the swings of counting but we still would like to play with some sort of advantage, regardless of how small it may be.

I'm glad my mind wandered down this path of reasoning because it seems like sort of a middleground between counting and playing against the house edge..

.......

i used to use the ace/ten front count. had great success with it but be aware that you will experience big swings with it as much or probably more so than with a full blown count. well i didn't use it precisely as Renzey recommended. i mainly wonged out using it, didn't wong in much with it.
but i do find your reasoning interesting as well. i guess wonging in only with the ace/ten count would be a reasonable midldleground between counting and playing against the house edge.

[SPX]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

i used to use the ace/ten front count. had great success with it but be aware that you will experience big swings with it as much or probably more so than with a full blown count. well i didn't use it precisely as Renzey recommended. i mainly wonged out using it, didn't wong in much with it.
but i do find your reasoning interesting as well. i guess wonging in only with the ace/ten count would be a reasonable midldleground between counting and playing against the house edge.

Well, consider it. It really only takes a bit of time, patience and concentration to sit there in front of a table for the first couple of decks and make sure that it's a good table to play on. And like Renzey said, once it's qualified, even if you are a flat bettor you are no longer playing against the house edge.

Seems like for people who flat bet or play a progression that it would be a good tool to have in their arsenal.

[Doofus]

As somebody who has had difficulty keeping a true count out of a shoe, I used Fred's strategy this past weekend, and it worked out marvelously. I want to thank Fred for his excellent book and for this simplified strategy, which was easy enough for me to employ and still be able to enjoy the game for what it is.