When Does Bad Counting Become Worse Than No Counting?

[vonQuux]

Suppose someone is using BS and counting (HI-LO) but not using indices.

At what point does counting errors cause one to lose more than if one didn't bother counting at all? +/-1? +/-2? +/-5?

I'm asking because if I'm at a table and I lose count for some reason, I want to know how "uncertainty" I can rack up before I should either return to straight-up BS or leave the table.

I'm guessing that I should go with what I absolutely "know" and regard the "uncertains" as cards not seen. But suppose I know there were a couple of high cards, I just don't know how many?

TIA,
vQ

[godeem23]

Originally Posted by vonQuux

Suppose someone is using BS and counting (HI-LO) but not using indices.

At what point does counting errors cause one to lose more than if one didn't bother counting at all? +/-1? +/-2? +/-5?

I'm asking because if I'm at a table and I lose count for some reason, I want to know how "uncertainty" I can rack up before I should either return to straight-up BS or leave the table.

I'm guessing that I should go with what I absolutely "know" and regard the "uncertains" as cards not seen. But suppose I know there were a couple of high cards, I just don't know how many?

TIA,
vQ

Since you're not using indices, you're only using your count to vary bet size. If that's the case, you'll be following exact BS and therefore win/lose/push the exact same percentage of hands as you would have if you weren't counting. The only difference will be the size of your bets. Since you're equally likely to overestimate the count as underestimate, your "bad counting" is no worse and no better than playing BS. If I misunderstood your question I'm sorry. Also, if any pros notice a flaw in my logic please straigten me out.

[Renzey]

Originally Posted by godeem23

Since you're not using indices, your win/lose/push percentage of hands will be the same as if you weren't counting. The only difference will be the size of your bets. Since you're equally likely to overestimate the count as underestimate, your "bad counting" is no worse and no better than playing Basic Strategy

I think his overall performance will be better than flat bet basic strategy because he'll raise his bets only when he thinks the count is positive -- never when he thinks it's negative. Thus, his betting errors will centralize around a positive count.

I see one caveat however. Since a given negative count produces a greater negative EV than the positive EV for an equally positive count (not to mention that a smaller negative count occurs more often than a larger positive count), ramping up at too slight an advantage could theoretically produce a net disadvantage after all errors blend together. Saving the ramp up starting point for about a +2.25 TC minimum (but jumping right to a 3 or 4 unit bet) will make it less likely that his mistake will have him betting into a minus EV.

[EasyRhino]

I think it depends on how well correlated your betting is to the count.

If your correlation is +1.0, it means you're sizing your bets perfectly. So your advantage would be the "usual" advantage through counting.

If your correlation is 0.0, then your bets are effectively random. Note that flat betting also counts as a correlation of zero. In this case, since your probably betting more than you were when you were flat betting, it would definitely increase the amount of money lost (it would be the amount of the increase in average bet).

If your correlation is -1.0, then you're betting exactly the OPPOSITE of the count, and have managed to magnify the house advantage magnificently.

So... it's the break-even point is probably somewhere in the positive, but low, category. Like 0.4 (40% correlation to the count), where the house edge becomes zero, but your variance has increased due to betting more.

[jimpenn]

If I lose count during end part of game and shoe is at least +2TC then I'll count down the small verses high cards after each remaining hand. If this continues to remain positive I'll spread 3/1 - 5/1. For example, if shoe has a true count of +2 with two decks remaining (8D) I'll play green verses red remainder of shoe, while making mental counts of each round of remaining cards.

[mdlbj]

He has lost the count, he is not going to know when to wipe the beer off his chin.

Originally Posted by Renzey

I think his overall performance will be better than flat bet basic strategy because he'll raise his bets only when he thinks the count is positive -- never when he thinks it's negative. Thus, his betting errors will centralize around a positive count.

I see one caveat however. Since a given negative count produces a greater negative EV than the positive EV for an equally positive count (not to mention that a smaller negative count occurs more often than a larger positive count), ramping up at too slight an advantage could theoretically produce a net disadvantage after all errors blend together. Saving the ramp up starting point for about a +2.25 TC minimum (but jumping right to a 3 or 4 unit bet) will make it less likely that his mistake will have him betting into a minus EV.

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by vonQuux

Suppose someone is using BS and counting (HI-LO) but not using indices.

At what point does counting errors cause one to lose more than if one didn't bother counting at all? +/-1? +/-2? +/-5?

I'm asking because if I'm at a table and I lose count for some reason, I want to know how "uncertainty" I can rack up before I should either return to straight-up BS or leave the table.

I'm guessing that I should go with what I absolutely "know" and regard the "uncertains" as cards not seen. But suppose I know there were a couple of high cards, I just don't know how many?

TIA,
vQ

You have to make an impossible number of counting errors to not have an advantage in blackjack, well over 50% of the time. Missing 1-5 cards per 8 deck shoe causes your advantage to drop by an amount so small it might not ever become statistically significant in a lifetime of play. Assuming you are using High-Low, the average value of "cards not seen" is always zero, so adjust your count by exactly that- zero.

My advice is to not even think about making errors. It's like thinking about not falling off a bicycle, or trying not to swallow air when you eat. It only makes it worse. I know where you play and you've probably seen me playing there too- most important thing to do for success is just avoid playing bad counts.

[mdlbj]

Errors are ok. Come to my house and buy in, I will deal to you all night.

WOW....

[mdlbj]

How do you know if it is a bad count if you are making errors counting?

You are a ass.

Next time you try to quote SW, be more well, accurate.

Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey

You have to make an impossible number of counting errors to not have an advantage in blackjack, well over 50% of the time. Missing 1-5 cards per 8 deck shoe causes your advantage to drop by an amount so small it might not ever become statistically significant in a lifetime of play. Assuming you are using High-Low, the average value of "cards not seen" is always zero, so adjust your count by exactly that- zero.

My advice is to not even think about making errors. It's like thinking about not falling off a bicycle, or trying not to swallow air when you eat. It only makes it worse. I know where you play and you've probably seen me playing there too- most important thing to do for success is just avoid playing bad counts.

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by mdlbj

How do you know if it is a bad count if you are making errors counting?

Because counting errors are the same as unseen cards. There is no difference. We can count and play with an advantage even though we will miss 25% of the cards in the shoe, every shoe and we can only hope that the cards in the next hand are a reasonable sample of the remainder of the shoe.

Originally Posted by mdlbj

You are a ass.

Now that wasn't very nice. Is that the way the BJI guys taught you to speak to prospective customers?