Blackjack Message Archive from CardCounter.com

At one time, the website CardCounter.com held an active message forum with many contributors. When the previous site owner planned to shut down the site, he allowed us to archive the messages here at BlackjackInfo. They are formatted as they originally appeared, but no further comments on threads are permitted. Also be aware that we have a much larger archive of messages over at the BlackjackInfo Forums.


FiltersFast

CardCounter.com Messages: Page 10

Threads 271 to 300

Playing Multi Hands
Posted by LA Man on 25-Dec-2002 15:10:13 (#2044)

Watched over the years players playing multi hands - 2 to 3 hands and usually turning out winners -
Haven't seen much written about it (other than a poor condition play multi hands min. wager burn up the cards) -

Anyone with details or articles - I would appreciate it -

LA Man


Re: Playing Multi Hands
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 25-Dec-2002 21:46:10 (#2051)

Playing multi hands will allow you to cut your risk down quite a bit. I should get my M$BJ book out to get the exact #'s.....

page 134 states that when betting 2 hands you can increase your bet size by 15%, 3 by 22% and for four hands 26%, BUT, not if it cuts the number of hands you will be dealt during a positive deck.


Those numbers are wrong *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 27-Dec-2002 07:30:19 (#2063)

Someone once figured out what those numbers probably really meant. This is an error in Million Dollar BJ.

Add 50% to the required bankroll to play 2 hands
Add 100% to play 3 hands


Re: Those numbers are wrong YES...
Posted by zengrifter on 27-Dec-2002 09:03:28 (#2065)

... those are the #s I use - see Snyder also BJAttack. zg


See Wong or Schlesinger *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 27-Dec-2002 11:19:14 (#2067)

Uston's numbers were something closely related, like maybe how much more you win per hand relative to your bankroll. Uston or whoever did the math for his book just put the wrong numbers in that chart.


Interesting!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 27-Dec-2002 10:27:20 (#2066)

He was using the Kelly Criterion, so this would make RoR pretty much the same if you resize your bets more often than not. So you suggest that to keep the same RoR to increase your bank by stated amount? How would you answer LA Man's original question THop?


Playing two hands *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 27-Dec-2002 11:23:39 (#2068)

Always try to play two hands in single deck and see if you get the same number of rounds. Don't jump back and forth, you're more likely to get an early shuffle and/or the dreaded cut card effect.

In a cut card game with a + count, adjust the # of hands to see as many cards as possible PAST the cut card. Do this even if it means overbetting a little bit, you're also increasing your edge by creating deeper penetration. In neutral counts, usually play 2 hands early in the shoe and cut back to 1 hand later.


TH - STOP SPAMMING CC.com...
Posted by zengrifter on 27-Dec-2002 18:00:08 (#2076)

... with the inferior COMMERCIAL BJRnet discussion board - CC.com gets more quality posts in a week than COMMERCIAL BJRnet gets in a month! Go spam CCCafe aka 'spam-city'!

zg (fair is fair as I can no longer post-advocate CC.com at CCCafe)


Ps - thank you in advance...
Posted by zengrifter on 27-Dec-2002 18:01:06 (#2077)

...for your cooperation in this matter! zg


Ancient historical BAD INFO...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 00:43:10 (#2084)

Rob McG writes -
"MDBJ, page 134 states that when betting 2 hands you can increase your bet size by 15%, 3 by 22% and for four hands 26%, BUT, not if it cuts the number of hands you will be dealt during a positive deck."
-----------------------

This is an example of the bad info circa '80 that was still in vogue then and why MDBJ is antiquated for all but the incredible Uston adventure element - THopper's #s on this are correct though he said it wrong - 2hands may bet aggregate 50% (actual44%) more and 3hands may bet 100% (actual90%) more, w/ no increased risk to BR. (my previous post to this thread, notwithstanding) zg

---------------------

whether to play 1-2-3 hands IN POSI-COUNTS is guided
by the number of other spots being played, thus -

0-1 'other' spots: play 1hands
2-3 'other' spots: play 2hands
3-4 'other' spots: play 3hands


I meant it what I said
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 10:55:46 (#2094)

> THopper's #s on this are correct though he said it wrong -Post Response

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address: Private!
Subject:
2hands may bet
> aggregate 50% (actual44%) more and 3hands may bet 100% (actual90%) more

I said increase required BR by 50% and 100% respectively. I don't believe in adjusting unit sizes ala SCORE. You could easily end up with a number like $37.50 units, even using the formula above. I always recommend adjusting BR requirements for REAL-WORLD unit sizes.


OK, that's novel but acceptable *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 14:05:04 (#2114)


Re: Playing Multi Hands
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Dec-2002 21:25:43 (#2059)

whether to play 1-2-3 hands IN POSI-COUNTS is guided by the number of other spots being played, thus -

0-1 'other' spots: play 1hands
2-3 'other' spots: play 2hands
3-4 'other' spots: play 3hands

the above schedule is borrowed from BJAttack where simulated comparison is also provided - the schedule reffers to your +count bets only.

notwittanding the above, there is considerable value playing mulitple hands (1-2u each) when playing heads-up in quality 1-2D games IN NEGATIVE COUNTS.

I like to play like this in quality 1D games -

0 or -counts :
3hands of 1u

+1-2 :
1hand of 3u

+3 or higher: 6u (with parlay)

As you can see, the above scheme looks like a 1-2 spread (ie, 3u to 6u) BUT, it has the gain of a traditional 1-6u spread per 100 rounds(not hands). zg


Re: Playing Multi Hands
Posted by CanKen on 28-Dec-2002 13:44:39 (#2111)

As noted in other posts below, both Wong and Schlesinger give good info on playing simultaneous hands.
For shoe games in particular though, the four-page article "Scoring the Shoe Strategies" by MathProf gives some very practical approaches depending on the conditions you face.
The article can be found at bjmath.com, by using the site's search engine with key words "shoe score" and clicking on same when the search results come up.
I'd like to hear what others think of this article.


I agree with it...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 14:06:59 (#2116)

I'd like to hear what others think of this article.
-------------

..though it doesn't mirror my personal playing style. zg


Merry Christmas!
Posted by The Mayor on 25-Dec-2002 15:17:26 (#2045)

Merry Christmas to all,

the advantage players,

the novices,

the old timers,

the first timers,

the hobbiests,

the professionals,

Wishing you all a very merry Christmas, and
a successful new year at the tables!

Best regards,

--Mayor


Merry Christmas to all *NM*
Posted by BjFool on 25-Dec-2002 15:43:02 (#2046)


"Dynamic Blackjack eBook"...Review.
Posted by phantom007 on 25-Dec-2002 23:01:04 (#2053)

As suggested to me by ZG, that I should not only buy, but also review this eBook FBO CC.com readers, then same shall commence:

Title: Dynamic Blackjack eBook.
Author: Richard Reid.
Publisher EBJ Enterprises.
Order: www.extremebj.com
Price: $39.95 Canadian ($25. US)...NO S/H.

"Dynamic Blackjack eBook" cost me $25., and should profit me about $25,000. over the next 2 years, presuming I can continue my $15,000. Bankroll, $10. minimum bets, etc. To me, at least, the 2-tiered/multi-level betting system is UNIQUE!.

IF YOU ARE:

-----A BEGINNER...you should buy this eBook, read it several times, then buy several of the Basic books, master same, then return to this eBook for the purpose of refinement.

-----A B.S. PLOPPY...same as above.

-----A Semi-Expert...I thought I was...but now, read it, learn it.

-----You Think You are an Expert...same as above.

-----You Are an Expert...You probably do not need this eBook.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE:

-----Hard to Print...even my teenage Son had trouble.

-----Some "Coloured" Charts do not "print off" in color.

-----No Background info. on the author.

-----B.S. is presented as a "given", without justification for same.

-----eBook Presumes that reader will know why CC'ing is GOOD.

-----eBook Presumes that reader will know why TC is needed.

-----All examples presume 6D and LS...excluding LVC Liberal Game, not

usually present in the "real world".

-----"Drop-ins"...lots of things just drop-in, with acceptance presumed,

such as: cSCORE, Ill.18, etc.

WHAT I DID LIKE:

-----Rapid Response to problems!

-----Very Pleasant to View this eBook.

-----Ability to "jump" via tabs to areas desired.

-----Generally well-written.

-----NO EGO TRIPS...credit is given where due.

-----Gives good basis for the Counting System that is promoted.

-----Suggests and/or gives choices as to "Indicies" that one will use.

-----Finally, some #'s for ROR that I can understand.

-----Excellent Buy-in Suggestions.

-----AND Lots of other good suggestions.

Noting above, you should buy this book ONLY for Chapter 8...increase your bets in a negative count and in a positive count, or leave them the same, etc.

Positive value is available in this system.

phantom007.


Re: "Dynamic Blackjack eBook"...Review.
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 26-Dec-2002 06:37:15 (#2054)

What are the security features of this eBook? Do you need a key that will only work on your PC to read it, or can you send it around the world and get your money back? ;>


Encrypted Key-Lock per PC. *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Dec-2002 14:40:03 (#2056)


Re: Encrypted Key-Lock per PC/SW
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 26-Dec-2002 19:05:53 (#2057)

Pretty sure that you can use it on any PC as long as you have the code along with the software. SBA is like that. Stephen King published a book chapter by chapter like this, but went back to ink and paper pretty fast. My shop teacher used to tell the class "locks only keep honset people out." ;> I've been looking into this technology for my next book and I am a still not impressed.


journal
Posted by BradRod on 26-Dec-2002 20:26:57 (#2058)

what information should onbe keep in a journal ?


Re: journal
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Dec-2002 01:06:06 (#2061)

I keep one entry per day in my excel spread sheet, but I also keep a detailed notebook with the session by session results.

For the excel spread sheet, I enter the following data:
Date,
City,
Hours played
Won loss
Cumulative total win/loss
Cumulative total hours played

Then I compute:
Tips
Total win + tips = actual amount won at the game
Average length of winning day
Average length of losing day
Average amount won on winning day
Average amount lost on losing day
Standard deviation per hour (100 hands m/l)
EV per hour (100 hands m/l)

But, this is just my way of doing it...

--Mayor


Re: to Mayor
Posted by Bj Student on 27-Dec-2002 13:30:53 (#2069)

Hi Mayor,

Is it possible for you to let me download your template - exactly what I need but I don't know how to create it in Excel. Thank-you. (I am very sure lots of BJ player would want it too.)


Re: journal
Posted by BradRod on 27-Dec-2002 14:38:11 (#2070)

>>>>>>>>>>>Standard deviation per hour (100 hands m/l)
EV per hour (100 hands m/l)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Where can I read more to understand these terms better and how I should consider them in my game ?


card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 27-Dec-2002 15:06:03 (#2071)

When using the CCC with the KO system , how does one enter the card counting system ? since there is no selection offered for KO on the menu do you chose none or reset or some other ?? and then enter the values for the specific cards ?

also every time I run the program with my game parameters and run it out to 5, 6. or 7 digits i am always ending up with a scary negative BR. Am I playing an ultimately losing game ?? or not using the program correctly ?

values, 6D, min bet $10, max bet $500, initial BR $5,000, spread 1-8, S17, Wong neg counts, 70% pen, DAS,

these parameters are very close to my actual game. I play approx 100 hours/ mo for the past 6+ months and have been having very flat or losing results in real play too. only occassionally do i get the satisfaction of knowing that i am playing an advantaged game.

I'm thinking that the rational decision may be to give the game up. I would like to be talked out of that choice.

Anything I can change to improve my game ? or am i still witing for the advantage to kick in. I think I am profficient in counting skills ---- counting, betting, playing indisces, etc..


Re: card counting computer
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Dec-2002 15:35:52 (#2072)

The CCC does not allow for you to use non-balanced counts like KO.

Also, it uses a generic (not optimal) Basic Strategy for all game rules, and does not have an optimal bet ramp.

In short, it is a toy 8-0

--Mayor


Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 27-Dec-2002 15:55:42 (#2073)

>>>>>>>The CCC does not allow for you to use

non-balanced counts like KO.

Also, it uses a generic (not optimal) Basic

Strategy for all game rules, and does not have an

optimal bet ramp.

In short, it is a toy 8-0

--Mayor <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

whew !! that is a bit of a relief , i guess.

But, then is there any way to computer test the parameters of my game to see if there is any way to improve it, or to demonstrate to me that there is some prediction that I might be playing what will eventually be a winning game ?? i need a little encouragement about now.

thanks,

Brad


Re: card counting computer
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Dec-2002 16:01:41 (#2074)

What do you play? What games, what spread, what count, what unit size?


Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 01:21:25 (#2086)

6D, min bet $10, max bet $500, initial BR $5,000, spread 1-8, S17, Wong neg counts, 70% pen, DAS, color KO count


for all intent...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 01:44:30 (#2089)

...just substitute SilverFox to produce the same results as KO. zg


Re: for all intent...
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 12:01:28 (#2103)

...just substitute SilverFox to produce the same results as KO. zg

what is silver fox ?? also , when one is using the color KO system isnt that the same as having the TC given that the number of remainig decks is taken into account ??

thanks,

Brad


Re: card counting computer
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 11:05:01 (#2097)

Max bet = $500 does not make sense if your spread is 1-8 and your min bet is $10. Besides, a max bet of $500 with a BR of $5000 is lunacy, surely you don't do that.

Thanks.


Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 11:45:15 (#2101)

Max bet = $500 does not make sense if your spread is 1-8 and your min bet is $10. Besides, a max bet of $500 with a BR of $5000 is lunacy, surely you don't do that.

You are right Mayor, I do not do that. I thought the entry was refering to the table max. my betting max is 80 -90.

Thanks,

Brad


Re: card counting computer
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 13:16:28 (#2108)

Besides, a max bet of $500 with a BR of $5000 is lunacy,
surely you don't do that.
---------------

Perhaps his $5000 BR is more of a replenishable 'miniBR' containing 10 max bets? zg (ps- Brad, the silverfox is one of the pre-inputted system selections on EJ's applet)


Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 16:20:23 (#2126)

***Perhaps his $5000 BR is more of a replenishable 'miniBR' containing 10 max bets? zg

I wish that were the case. My efforts in mastering this game have hurt me.

(ps- Brad, the silverfox is one of the
pre-inputted system selections on EJ's applet)

and if I enter the parameters of my game using silver fox then I will see results that will be similar to those that I can expect from KO ?


Re: card counting computer
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 17:09:23 (#2127)

and if I enter the parameters of my game using silver fox then I will see results that will be similar to those that I can expect from KO ?
-------------------

YES


Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 17:42:11 (#2129)

and if I enter the parameters of my game using silver fox then I will see results that will be similar to those that I can expect from KO ?
-------------------

YES

I accept what you are saying but, am wondering how you determine that given that Silver Fox is a balanced system (vs KO being unbalanced )is it the comparison betwen PE (playing efficiency) that we are looking at ? the insurance correlation seems much lower than KO

(from Casino Verite http://www.qfit.com/cvstrat.htm )

also looking at that chart I see that UBZ11 has a higher insurance correlation and PE than KO. are these gains worth the slight increase in difficulty to use ?

Looking at Zen I see that its level of difficulty is greater without that much higher BC, PE, or IC. than either of the unbalanced systems. I guess the advantage is gained in small improvements ..


PS
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 17:47:50 (#2130)

Halves looks brutal.. but, BC, PE, and IC do not seem to be improved.


Halves
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 17:50:51 (#2131)

Halves is a very strong count for shoe games, not great for single deck. It is not that hard to master, certainly easier than systems that use side counts. One wants a fabulous BE for shoe games, PE is just not that important, and IC is really unimportant in shoe games. Knowing when to put out the big bet is what it's all about.

--Mayor


one more question
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 11:57:08 (#2102)

What is: color KO count ?


colorKO
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 12:17:59 (#2104)

http://www.gofor21.com/cko.htm


Re: colorKO
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 14:07:21 (#2117)

I don't know how to sim this system with my simulator 8-O


Re: card counting computer
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 27-Dec-2002 16:02:01 (#2075)

values, 6D, min bet $10, max bet $500, initial BR $5,000, spread 1-8, S17, Wong neg counts, 70% pen, DAS,

I take it the min bet $10 and max bet $500 are the table limits, as you state spread 1-8. Wong neg. counts? You are using KO, so you are starting at a negative count (KO is poor at identification of advantage situations early in a shoe.) Forget this computer sim stuff, you aren't even simming what you actually are doing.

What you can do to actually see some real world results:
1)Forget KO, move to a true count system (or learn TKO, true-counted KO).
2)With a true count system, become disciplined to WONG those shoes.
3)Spread 1-12, do you want to win or break even?
4)Move beyond the I18, sharpen up your insurance taking skills.
5)Shop for pen. Better to spend some time finding the dealer, or waiting for the dealer giving 75% pen, than playing with the dealer giving 70%.


Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 27-Dec-2002 18:01:31 (#2078)

Thanks Abraham de M

1)Forget KO, move to a true count system (or learn TKO, true-counted KO)

I have used Omega II but, in BJ for Blood , B. Carlson does not recommend it for shoe games until one has mastered the basic system in single and double deck games, which are not available to me. After gaining profficiency in the basic system the Advaced System can be effective for multi deck games that are the only ones I have to choose from without having to travel farther. Can you suggest a TC system, Hi- Low ? other ? I think my only limitation at this time in choosing in a counting system would be too many side counts. I think I can handle side count of Aces and a 2 level system

2)With a true count system, become disciplined to WONG those shoes.

I take it that you mean both in and out. Since we are talking about the real world that seems difficult. I have been able to Wong out pretty easily. Wonging in seems to me begging for a lot of attention and whines and criticism from other players. ..."could you wait a hand or two ...", "...the shoe is almost over ...." ".....he messed up the cards..... " and then when you have managed to do it a couple of times I imagine you would run into the problem of runnung out of fresh tables to Wong. If you can manage to get away with it once or twice I think you have to have a real steely disposition to do it over and over and be able to put up with the noise.

It is sensible advice and I am sure it would help my game just not sure about how to put a table face on it to the other players.

3)Spread 1-12, do you want to win or break even?
4)Move beyond the I18, sharpen up your insurance taking skills.
5)Shop for pen. Better to spend some time finding the dealer, or waiting for the dealer giving 75% pen, than playing with the dealer

giving 70%.


High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 27-Dec-2002 18:54:56 (#2079)

I suggest you start with and stick with High Low until you get a better grip on your game, and your abilities. If the Army issued a count to it's G.I.'s, that would be High Low.

Lock n Load!


There is no reason to use High-Low
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 11:15:38 (#2098)

Avoid any system that does not count all the ranks 2-7.


HMMMMMMMM *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 12:44:04 (#2106)


Re: High Low
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 13:19:07 (#2109)

A better grip on my game ,,, in what way ? I must have close to 1000 hours of playing in. I think I have a good sense of my abilities, just trying to figure out how best to apply them


Re: High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 14:58:46 (#2123)

I guess I underestimated your abilities. You seem rather unsure of yourself, but I may be totally wrong. I agree with THop, and you might consider Zen since it is an easy count to master. It should be called the Hi Low II ;>.


Re: High Low
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 17:19:34 (#2128)

well i guess that's 2 recommendations for Zen : )


Re: High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 17:53:12 (#2132)

It includes the 7 as TH suggested, and is a good II level count. I have used it but found that it was not as effective as the Hi Opt II. I don't like giving the 6 a +2, and since I was already "Ace aware" I went back to Hi Opt II. Work smarter not harder as grifter suggests. I want you to make your mind up and get on to more important aspects of advantage play! ;>


Re: High Low
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 22:44:32 (#2151)

Work smarter not harder as grifter suggests.

I want you to make your mind up and get on to more important aspects of advantage play! ;>

Thanks Rob,

I want to do that also. I need to reinfoce my confidence as much as anything else right now.

In one way I feel like chosing a counting system is an investment because you have to acquire the system, internalize it, practice it and then profficiency takes time too. So, I am trying to make the best choice based on the experience that I have so far.

On the hand I think understanding different systems gives you different insights into the game. For example, I think Hi-Lo demonstrates the basic value of 10's and the burden of 5's and 6's,

a 2 level system adds a greater precision to the value of intermediate cards that I was not aware of until I tried Omega II. It let me look at Aces differently too.

From KO I found a kind of visual way of seeing at the dynamic of the shoe. I have felt at times like I am watching an apple card tipping slowly until the balance shifts and it goes beyond the pivot point and all the apples come tumbling out. It really has helped me to visulaize the fluctuation in the cards as the count travels along the average distribution line.

Numbers are okay but, I think more visually as an architect.

Question ?? what did you have in mind as the more important aspects of advantage play ?

Brad


Re: High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 00:03:54 (#2153)

#Numbers are okay but, I think more visually as an architect.

Built up beams and truss joists getting you down? ;> I also work with drawings. Do you design residential or ind / comm properties? Was doing some overtime from home here earlier in the day. I understand what you mean about visualizing the way you see your advantages in a 3D type of way.

#Question ?? what did you have in mind as the more important aspects of advantage play ?

Nothing in particular, just trying to say we should settle on a count first. Right now my attention is focused on internet blackjack where counting is not a big part of my advantage. There is a new casino opening on the US side of Niagara Falls that needs a good drive by though! ;> Hoping the Canuck side will give us a better game to compete, but not holding my breath. Still an hour and a half drive away for an 8 deck game.


Re: High Low
Posted by BradRod on 29-Dec-2002 12:51:39 (#2158)

>>>>>>>>>>> I also work with drawings. Do you design residential or ind / comm properties? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I do mainly residential design of custom single family homes. but, my practice is a bit diverse. i have done carwashes and laundromats, medical and professional offices, day care centers, retail spaces, restaurants,, no casinos,,,, yet.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is a new casino opening on the US side of Niagara Falls that needs a good drive by though! ;> Hoping the Canuck side will give us a better game to compete, but not holding my breath. Still an hour and a half drive away for an 8 deck game.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

i was playing an 8 deck game recently with deep pen and wonging out on low counts it wasn't a bad game at all


Re: High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 13:02:20 (#2159)

I have played and they were going 7 deep and also been there when they go 5.5 or 6 deep, so you never know what you will be facing. I am hoping that I can buy a cottage near one of the casinos and spend the entire summer working the place over. It helps if you know which dealer goes deep, doesn't shuffle properly, etc so you don't have to waste your time looking for a good place to apply your advantage playing pressure. I am also hoping we get a new Mayor in the City of Toronto (relax Eliot! ;>) and get our own casino here.


If you are considering Zen *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 19:10:29 (#2139)

you should also consider the Unbalanced Zen and Bushido systems, both based on Zen. Bushido comes in running and true counted versions, I'm not sure about the UBZ since I think a new version may be out.


Re: If you are considering Zen
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 20:18:45 (#2143)

you should also consider the Unbalanced Zen and Bushido systems, both based on Zen. Bushido comes in running and true

counted versions, I'm not sure about the UBZ since I think a new version may be out.

T Hopper on what basis woudl you make the choice between these systems ?? also did you send the link you wanted to send, The one i see is interesting but, has nothing to do with BJ..

thanks,

Brad


Re: If you are considering Zen *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 23:39:32 (#2152)

There isn't much difference between the three systems in how they will do in a simulation. I feel the Bushido is easier because all but 2 ranks are counted as +2 or -2. Having the option of running or true count with the same system is also nice.

I had just posted that Martin Gardner link to the other board on this site, and it remained in my browser until cleared. Hope you enjoyed it. The link below has some sample system reports and comparisons of the Bushido running count version vs. UBZ and Bushido TC vs. Zen. There is some more material posted at http://www.bjrnet.com/board_systems.htm as well.


**My responses -
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 00:33:21 (#2083)

**My responses -

I have used Omega II but, in BJ for Blood , B. Carlson does not recommend it for shoe games until one has mastered the basic system in single and double deck games, which are not available to me.

**And those of us in the know do NOT recommend AO2 for any game!

After gaining profficiency in the basic system the Advaced System can be effective for multi deck games that are the only ones I have to choose from without having to travel farther. Can you suggest a TC system, Hi- Low ?

**If you were truly comfortable with AO2 then I would recommend switching to ZEN, a simple matter of just swapping the Ace and 9 tag-values (you could even keep the AO2 i#s IF you had many committed to memory (cross-rounded i#s developed specifically for ZEN would be a smidgen better)

**Second to that might be UBZ2 (level-2/no sidecount/noTC) or a TKO (true-counted KO)

I think my only limitation at this time in choosing in a counting system would be too many side counts. I think I can handle side count of Aces and a 2 level system

**Even IF you could handle it, Ace-neutral sidecounting is NOT an intelligent use of your cerebral-matter.

Since we are talking about the real world that seems difficult. I have been able to Wong out pretty easily. Wonging in seems to me begging for a lot of attention and whines and criticism from other players. ..."could you wait a hand or two ...", "...the shoe is almost over ...." ".....he messed up the cards..... " and then when you have managed to do it a couple of times I imagine you would run into the problem of runnung out of fresh tables to Wong. If you can manage to get away with it once or twice I think you have to have a real steely disposition to do it over and over and be able to put up with the noise.

**Think of it as BOTH wong in and out, you'll develop a rhythm to it - but you MUST get over any nagging self-consciousness that arises due to the other players (ie, DUMMIES) at the table having attention on you - in fact you should border on "wierdly oblivious" to it - try this: when they say "hey pal wait a few hands" just roll your eyes in a demented fashion and self-tak "hmmm Killian is lying to me" or some such. After a while there will be other players who will tacitly AVOID playing at your table, which is good! zg


Re: **My responses -
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 01:06:01 (#2085)

ZG

I knew that if I read your posts long enough I would get around to using a Zen count. I believe that I will give it a try. I can use a break from playing about now anyway. I will take the time to practice the new system. It's "Blackbelt in Blackjack", right ?

Thanks for your perspective.

Brad


R U sure...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 01:39:33 (#2088)

... that true-count adjustment/estimation is your bag? If you have any doubt in this area, UBZ2 will perform on par w/ZEN w/o TC'ing. But, if you start with Blackbelt's ZEN you can decide whether to base your TC on 1/4D (as published) 1/2D (published i#s x2) or 1D (published i#s x4) - then there is one area where you can improve the i#s a bit: making the #s 'risk-averse', which can be the subject of another post. ZEN's big advantage over UBZ is that you will only need ONE 'composite' set of i#s for any #decks. zg


Re: R U sure...
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 12:41:40 (#2105)

... that true-count adjustment/estimation is your bag?

** I am not really sure about anything at the moment. I thought that colorKO would be an effective system to use because it would be less strenuous than having to determine TC by division each time a decision needed to be made. Tables that I have seen rank its efficiency in categories of betting, playing and insurance as on par with good one and 2 level balanced systems ( I cant find that table right now = still looking) . But, if it is in fact not working out for me than I want to consider which system will work best.

But, if you start with Blackbelt's ZEN you can decide whether to base your TC on 1/4D (as published) 1/2D (published i#s x2) or 1D (published i#s x4) - then there is one area where you can improve the i#s a bit: making the #s 'risk-averse', which can be the subject of another post. ZEN's big advantage over UBZ is that you will only need ONE 'composite' set of i#s for any #decks.

** is 1/4D a 4 deck game ? 1/2D - 2 deck ?

I do not have any games near me less than 6D.

If you are saying that UBZII is as effective and a simpler system than Zen then I would opt for that given the limits of game now available to me. But then I guess my question would be is UBZII a more effective system for me to use than colorKO ?


Re: R U sure...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 13:48:03 (#2112)

But, if it is in fact not working out for me than I want to consider which system will work best.

**Actually, your limited sample of results thus far is not statistically valid - it is ebtirely possible that a far stronger player could have faired worse thus far.

is 1/4D a 4 deck game ? 1/2D - 2 deck ?

**NO - means TC calculated by dividing the RC by remaining quarter-decks, half-decks, or whole decks. All of the methods work eaqually BUT the index#s must be pre-calibrated for the particulaer method - the current ZEN#s as published are calibrated for the 1/4D method, thus you could double the published i#s and then divide the RC by 1/2D (remaining half-decks) and it would work just as well, or even multiply the published#s by 4 and then divide the RC by the remaining #whole-decks. zg


Re: R U sure...
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 14:32:43 (#2121)

**Actually, your limited sample of results thus far is not statistically valid - it is ebtirely possible that a far stronger player could have faired worse thus far.

could you please elaborate on how the sample is limited ( #of hours played ?) and what would constitue a stronger player ( bigger BR ?, wider spread ? )

are you still suggesting that it would be wothwhile trying the Zen or UBZ system ? or carry on as i am until i reach a more statistically meaningful point of playing ?

Thanks,

Brad


Re: R U sure...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 16:08:01 (#2125)

I would say that 1000hrs (150,000 hands?) is by no means a reliable longrun indicator - try setting the cccomputer on hiLo with a similar spread and set for 150,000 hands, then repeat, then repeat - you may be amazed at variance from run to run.

As for stronger player I meant same spread, BR, betting, etc., BUT a STRONGER system, such as Halves w/150 i#s and a diecount of Aces for play variation. zg


Re: card counting computer
Posted by SammyBoy on 30-Dec-2002 14:58:14 (#2181)

Is anyone else having trouble getting the Card Counting Computer to load? I've tried on a few different computers.


Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 30-Dec-2002 16:33:17 (#2184)

i have 2 versdions of netscape on my computer, i can use CCC on the older version not the updated one ..


EBay

Dealer Cheating for you
Posted by Jeff on 27-Dec-2002 19:22:28 (#2082)

Hi! I'm new to this board and I just wanted to know if anybody has ever had an experience like this:

I was at The Las Vegas Club in downtown Vegas about 10 years ago playing bj. I had played for a while for several days but I didn't really get overly friendly with any of the dealers. The dealer I had at this point was an attractive woman but I wasn't flirting. I had played for a while and an old man joined us betting $2 or $3 a hand as I recall. I bet $30 on one hand and got an 11 total. The dealer had a 6 showing so I doubled down and got a 6 for a total of 17. I was sitting at 3rd base and had a good view of the cards coming out of the shoe. The dealer turned over a 3 and then a 5 giving her a 14 total. She then did something very strange. She took the next card out of the shoe and turned it so she could see it. Sitting at 3rd base I could see it too. It was a 5 plain as day. I just lost $60 right? Well not exactly. The dealer let the card fall back down on the table face down and kind of shrugged her shoulders like "oh well I bust". She paid us both and then scooped up the cards really quickly never turning that card over.

I was afraid that the cameras saw this and would accuse me of cheating with the dealer so I think I only played maybe one more hand and then I left. Oh yeah, I did tip the dealer a red chip.

Anyway, since I have read a lot about dealers cheating I just wondered if anybody has ever had one cheat for you. If the Mayor reads this, don't you think i did the only thing I could do under the circumstances? I know we are suppose to play fair but it may have got the girl fired if I had said something.


Three Times
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 10:59:01 (#2095)

I have had dealers "helping me out" which I found rather interesting. All were in LV, and probably didn't like their job, or were hustling for chips. One in particular would ask me "one more hand?" to which I would tell her yes or no depending on the count. When it was posi I would tell her I feel luck is on it's way and play a $ for her to help her out.


Re: Dealer Cheating for you
Posted by Shoeman on 30-Dec-2002 15:48:08 (#2182)

Interesting you should post such an inquiry. I have encountered a few circumstances where the dealer was clearly cheating the house, in all likelihood as an inducement to increase their tip take. In one such instance, the dealer was showing an Ace up. In the casino I frequent, they use a mirror to check, but after they have asked if anyone wanted insurance. On this occasion, she checked for a BJ first, and then inquired. She specifically asked twice, the second time quite pronounced. Being fairly new to the game, I did not pick up on it. Two of the others at the table clearly picked up the hint and took the insurance. Sure enough, she had a BJ.

In another instance, while playing craps in LV, a dealer would occasionally over pay me on a winning bet after I had tipped the crew a few times by playing for them. At first I thought I was mistaken, but it happened a few times in a way that was clearly unmistakable that the dealer was cheating the house.

In these instances, I felt uncomfortable, but did not really know what to do other than remain silent and proceed to play and tip in my customary manner.


Mickey Swift - A GREAT Cheater Profiled...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 01:26:24 (#2087)

... and his ULTIMATE BJ SCAM, now posted on the nonBJ page. zg


Super Sevens side count?
Posted by dude on 28-Dec-2002 08:59:50 (#2092)

This was posting a while ago on the blackjack newsgroup, but no one responded to it. What do people think of think count strategy for super sevens? Does it make sense? Is it worth keeping a 7 count?

I think I have a decent count strategy for the `Super Sevens' game (hereafter
called SS). As explained by David Cantor a while back, the SS is a $1
side bet with payoffs:

1st card not a 7: none

1st card is a 7: $3

1st & 2nd cards are 7's: $50 ($100 if suits match)

1st, 2nd & 3rd cards are 7's: $500 ($5000 if all 3 suits match)

The SS bet is not a good bet for the casual player. The expected value for
various shoe sizes:

decks player advantage
1 -47.5%
2 -35.0
4 -23.6
6 -19.1
8 -16.7
infinite - 9.0

(Someone in r.g has probably done this before - do these numbers agree?)
Even in the infinite deck case (where 7's are not depleted as they are drawn)
the house has a hefty advantage.

Given the number of cards and number of 7's of each suit remaining,
calculating the advantage for the SS bet is straightforward. If you kept track
of this information, in principle you could place a SS bet only when you have
a positive advantage (the `perfect strategy'). I've done some simulations and
found that the SS bet is advantageous a fair amount of the time. For an 8-deck
shoe:

Penetration Fraction of time Average player advantage
(8 decks) SS bet is positive for positive SS bets
50% 14.3% +14.2%
55% 15.4 +15.7
60% 16.5 +17.4
65% 17.4 +19.3
70% 18.3 +21.4
75% 19.1 +23.8
80% 19.7 +26.5
85% 20.3 +29.9
90% 20.7 +34.4

Of course, it would be a pain to keep track of all these separate counts
during game conditions. However, there is a relatively simple count strategy
that turns out to have a very good correlation with the perfect strategy:
ignore suits and just keep track of the number of sevens remaining per deck of
remaining cards, and bet only when this 7's count per deck is 4.4 or more. For
example, if there are 20 sevens and 4 decks remaining, the count is 5.0
7's/deck and you would place the SS bet. The count at the top of a fresh shoe
is 4.0 7's/deck, and you don't bet then, of course. My simulations for an
8-deck shoe show that if you place the SS bet only when this 7's count is 4.4
or more, you play about as often and are about as successful as the perfect
strategy:

Penetration Fraction of time Average player advantage
(8 decks) 7's count >=4.4 when 7's count >=4.4
50% 14.2% +14.2%
55% 15.5 +15.5
60% 16.8 +16.9
65% 18.0 +18.4
70% 19.2 +20.1
75% 20.3 +21.9
80% 21.3 +24.0
85% 22.3 +26.4
90% 23.3 +29.2

Actually, for deeper penetrations the optimal threshhold is >=4.5
85% 18.4 +31.9
90% 19.5 +35.1

Since the SS bet is not played all the time, the net advantage gain per BJ
hand played is much smaller (e.g., .203*.219 = 4.45% for 75% penetration).
The fact that the SS bet is a $1 bet means that for a player with a $5 unit
size (assuming you can find a $5 table), this net advantage gain on a unit
basis is further reduced by a factor of 5 (about 0.9% for 75% penetration).
But this is certainly enough to overcome the negative EV for an 8-deck game;
if in addition you use a conventional BJ count, these games might be
worthwhile. For a $25 player, the SS strategy is only worth about +0.18% (for
75% penetration). Another way of looking at it is that it's worth about
$2.67/hour (assuming 60 hands/hour and 75% penetration).

There is one catch - in order to have a chance at the big payoffs, you must
hit a pair of sevens. Sometimes basic strategy would tell you to stand or
split instead. This will come up in maybe 0.2%-0.3% of total hands, so
employing non-optimal BJ strategy in these few situations might decrease the
BJ expected value by at most 0.1% (my guesstimate). For a $5 player this
doesn't hurt too much, but for a $25 player, it eliminates half of the
advantage gained by using the SS strategy.

I ran many simulations with 2 to 3 million hands in each, and the critical
threshold for the 7's count/deck was very stable at around 4.4 to 4.5,
depending on the penetration. Also, the calculated advantage was fairly stable
from one run to the next, and my simulations gave roughly the standard house
advantage with no counting (given above), which was an exact calculation.
However, the results should be checked independently (anybody interested?).

Summary: this 7's count has potential - it appears to be nearly optimal, and
it would be about as much work as keeping a 10's count for determining
exactly the favorability of the insurance bet.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=super+sevens&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=CHsH7o.3LI%40news.iastate.edu&rnum=3


Re: Super Sevens side count?
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 10:59:17 (#2096)

> Is it worth keeping a 7 count?

Yes, but not for the Super Sevens side bet. Unless you somehow find an unlicensed version without the $1 max.

The 7 side count for playing strategy is very strong, but I don't recommend it for shoe games because the adjustments are so large. It's easy to mess up a TC adjustment when dealing with awkward multiples like +5 or -7. And that's for a single-level primary count.


Re: Super Sevens side count?
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 11:36:21 (#2099)

Fantastic post, may I archive it?

I developed a count that was similar: each non-7 counts +1, each 7 counts -12. Just keep a RC based on that count, and take the bet when the TC > 4. This is the advice I have been giving for years. It is great to see our results line up. Your research, of course, is much more exhaustive than mine (which was purely combinatoric).

--Mayor


Re: Super Sevens side count?
Posted by dude on 28-Dec-2002 11:44:27 (#2100)

Mayor,

I take no credit for the first post of this thread. It was posted on the blackjack newsgroup in 1993 by

Kerry Whisnant High Energy Physics Group
whisnant@iastate.edu Department of Physics and Astronomy
whisnant@alisuvax.bitnet Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

It piqued my interest and I merely cut and pasted it.

d


AS THopper pointed out...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 14:11:14 (#2118)

...7s make for a great sidecount by themselves, but not for the super7s bet. zg


1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a jerk
Posted by Learning to count on 28-Dec-2002 12:53:22 (#2107)

Type vacation: Cruise

Ship:Carnival Legend

Time: Eight days of splendid cruising; Eight nights of BJ nuclear war!

Game: Eight decks/two-3.5 deck cut offs, suggested % -49.

Tools: Hi-Lo; Wonging; Dealer grifting and begging.

Net result: 30 unit loss over all at the end of the week; Roller coaster ride on win/loss.

Highs: $750 win on one shoe with monstrous TC'S. Several 100 to 500 dollar shoe wins. Was able to grift certain dealers to deal out seven decks instead of the casino directive of minimum six decks dealt out! Damn incredible experience for a six deck player. I learned a lot!

Lows: High TC's with $50 to $100 two hand each having 20 totals and end up losing to dealers 15 and 16 becoming 21! I had a plus 3-7 TC count run for three hands at the quarter table. I played three bets on three hands. Two $50 bets and a $25 dollar cap bet on a obliging neighbor. (I recieved 15 and 16 and the dealer had 20. Three Snappers on down the line. I busted and lost my capped bet which was 18!:( Shit that hurt!) No profit to take home:(!

Ploppy stories well that will be in my next post! Just to give a taste I split tens against a six with a plus 6 tc. A high roller who had the personality of Rasputin called me a "jerk" and told every one I did not know what the hell I was doing and that I was F*%$K*NG up the game for every one. I split with a $50 original bet. HAAA A hundred on the table and I get an ace for each split ten. Raspie is shocked and mutters something about me being a dumb F%$*K. The count then rises to a TC of 8. I bet two hands at 75 and get two snappers HAAAAAAAAAAAAA! The SOB gathers up his $500 plus in red chips, yep 500 in red, and walks away swearing. HAAAAAAAAA. I said real loud hey not bad for a begginer and everyone started cheering at the table!!!! This was my shoe from Heaven! Talk to ya later I need sleep.


Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 13:40:58 (#2110)

<<<<< Damn incredible experience for a six deck player >>>>

If I come to a table and see only one or two hands have been played. I may start counting at -5, or -7 to cover what I judge the worst count scenario may be, then see what happens in the next few hands. If the count turns positive then my thinking is it must really be positive because I adjusted such a low count. (This was before my enlightenmant. Now I understand that i should Wong the table until the count gets truly favorable)

Twice when I did this the count was growing very positive so, I was of course raising my bet. My lesson was to look before you leap. Both of those times I came to a table w/8D shoes that I was playing to be 6D.

One was a casino that I had not played at before. I checked Trackjack to learn the conditions there and saw that they had a 6D game,, - that was in the other pit though ---. SO, the information was not completely accurate. The other time was in a casino that I was familiar with but, that had changed the one pit area to 8D from 6 - also changed from S17 to H17....since my previous visit. It does pay to scope things out first


Not correct
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 14:06:11 (#2115)

If you enter a table with a shoe already played, you should just view those as unplayed cards, or in other words, you are playing a shoe with crappy penetration. That is the only way to play it. Don't make any assumptions about the worst case -- that will only hurt you.


Re: Not correct
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 14:21:16 (#2120)

If you enter a table with a shoe already played, you should just view those as unplayed cards, or in other words, you are playing a shoe with crappy penetration. That is the only way to play it. Don't make any assumptions about the worst case -- that will only hurt you.

...... because you will not be properly playing the low count game , insurance plays ?

I guess I feel like I sometimes have to guard against over exuberance in high counts..

I would not enter a table with more than 1/4 deck played (of 6) for the reason of the poor penetration.


Re: Not correct
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 14:45:26 (#2122)

Unseen cards are the same, whether they are previously played in a shoe, or whether they are behind the cut card. Just as you would make no assumption about the cards behind the cut card (and guard against...), so too you should make no assumption about unseen cards already in the discard tray.


i stand corrected *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 15:38:42 (#2124)


Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 14:15:32 (#2119)

If I come to a table and see only one or two hands have been played. I may start counting at -5, or -7 to cover what I judge the worst count scenario may be, then see what happens in the next few hands.
-----------------

Negatory - the cards you do not see are the same AS IF they were behind the shuffle-card. zg


Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by Learning to count on 28-Dec-2002 18:03:45 (#2133)

The art and ZEN of Wonging,(Or WHAT I think I learned!) The first thing I did was to start playing at the begining of a shoe with flat bets. I increased my bets with the count. I was only allowed a 1-40 spread because this was the min/max at the tables. I dont have the mathmatical proof but I feel a spread of 1 to 50/60 may be needed to beat this horrible game. If they cut off only a deck.

I know the Mayor or ZG can give more insight to the spread for such a game.

When the count went south of the border -1 True count I would play one more hand to see if there would by any improvement to nuetral or I would play while the count droped as long as I was winning. If not adios. Luckily there were several other tables with opportunity for back counting. Now remember you need at least a minus eight to show a negative count and that is a lot of cards.

Another technique I used was to back count a shoe from its inception and jump in a plus eight or better. At a count higher than plus two (Per the Mayor) I would bet two hands of one unit each. If the count went up I bet my ramp spliting it between two hands. The frustrating thing was that high plus true counts are slow in comming. You need a +16 to get a TC of +2 for at least two hands.

I preferred the first technique of WONGING out.

The other technique I used was to pass and do the scan technique which is to count whats on the table and look for a plus eight or better(plus six for a six decker) and play it until the plus one TC disapeared. LIke the mayor and ZG said you must start at zero and treat the cards in the discard tray as the same as the cards in the shoe. This is hard but after several hours of doing this you get the knack.

The last thing I started doing was shuffle tracking. I kept track of the of the slugs and was able to see when the mix of these slugs and then cut the deck to put them in a playable position when they are dealt out. I had limited success when there was a distinct visible slugs and not low counts which would not amount to a good mix at time of deal. I was also good at getting the table to allow me to make the cuts! I played 5 to 8 hours a night/day continuosly for eight days so I was able to study the shuffle and know which dealers bastardized the official suffle and simplified it so I was able to track the slugs.

IMHO:This my perview and my experience. As far as I know I could be full of it. SO dont take your wife's cookie money and try and bet the bank next trip. LTC


Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 18:59:52 (#2138)

>>>>>>>I was only allowed a 1-40 spread because this was the min/max at the tables. I dont have the mathmatical proof but I feel a spread of 1 to 50/60 may be needed to beat this horrible game. If they cut off only a deck.<<<<<<<<<

this seems like a really extreme spread.. at $10 min, you are soon betting $400 - $600. you really do that ?? i had my one lucky bet of $600 that hit a blackjack but, it seems like you would get wiped out pretty quick betting at that level consistently.

>>>>>>>>>>>>When the count went south of the border -1 True count I would play one more hand to see if there would by any improvement to nuetral or I would play while the count droped as long as I was winning. If not adios. <<<<<<<<<<<<

I do that too.. no need to leave while you are ahead and winning. i usually wait for the next losing hand. but, then i do not always leave the table. unless the shoe looks totally hopeless, i sometimes sit and keep counting if the count rises toward the end of the shoe i jump back in for what i hope will be a juicy last hand or 2.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The other technique I used was to pass and do the scan technique which is to count whats on the table and look for a plus eight or better(plus six for a six decker) and play it until the plus one TC disapeared. LIke the mayor and ZG said you must start at zero and treat the cards in the discard tray as the same as the cards in the shoe. This is hard but after several hours of doing this you get the knack.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I wonder if the Mayor, ZG, or other pro would comment on this method of WOnging in the middle of a shoe ?


Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 19:19:16 (#2140)

I wonder if the Mayor, ZG, or other pro would comment on this method of WOnging in the middle of a shoe ?
--------------------------

I've wonged in as deep as 2Ds (as though the top of 6or8Ds) though typically I won't stop and look if more than 1D has been played.

Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg


Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 20:04:32 (#2142)

Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3

a 1-120, etc. zg

i do not understand that, can you explain further ?

another question - in using silver fox to approximate KO in the card couting computer i find that if i run the same parameters for 10k, 100k and 1 M hands the SD remains approximately the same, but if i increase the bet spread then the SD also increases. I can intuitively understand the effect of bet spread on SD but, i would think that if i increase the number of hands then the SD should decrease.does that make sense ??


Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by Learning to count on 30-Dec-2002 09:47:26 (#2175)

"I've wonged in as deep as 2Ds (as though the top of 6or8Ds) though typically I won't stop and look if more than 1D has been played."

Good point I did wong in after two decks with a triple sized TC for eight decks and found good results.

"Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg "

QUESTION: ZG are you saying that due to the higher expected ev of playing only at the advantage you can risk more money?????

QUESTION: Also you obtain the cover of playing a short period of time and that you are betting large at these advantagious times with out big spreads????????

Please explain in depth if possible! LTC Thanks


Yes, ZG. Do tell . *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 30-Dec-2002 14:00:42 (#2180)


Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Dec-2002 15:59:59 (#2183)

"Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg "
QUESTION: ZG are you saying that due to the higher expected ev of playing only at the advantage you can risk more money?????

**NO, I'm saying that if you sit-out 1/2 of the -counts it effectively doubles your spread

QUESTION: Also you obtain the cover of playing a short period of time and that you are betting large at these advantagious times with out big spreads????????

**NO, my "sit-out" scheme applies to a "play-all-counts" scenario. IF you are wonging +counts only then you only need a 1-5 spread (1-10 max). zg


sit out / play -all.....
Posted by BradRod on 30-Dec-2002 16:37:00 (#2185)

??? Sorry ZG still not following . Could you please explain further...

Thanks


Re: sit out / play -all.....
Posted by The Mayor on 30-Dec-2002 19:43:06 (#2186)

If your minimum bet is played during negative counts, then:

scenario 1: you bet $10 for 100 hands in a negative count. $100 at max. 10-1 spread.

scenario 2: you bet $10 for 50 hands, and go to the bathroom for the other 50.

Both take the same amount of time, but effectively, your average bet in S-2 is $5 for each of the 100 hands (= $500 of action). Thus you have a 20-1 spread.

scenario 3: wong out.

In S-3, you find a better game, hence not wasting your time at the table during negative counts.

ZG is right on.


Re: sit out / play -all.....
Posted by BradRod on 30-Dec-2002 20:46:10 (#2188)

scenario 1: you bet $10 for 100 hands in a negative count. $100 at max. 10-1 spread.

scenario 2: you bet $10 for 50 hands, and go to the bathroom for the other 50.

Both take the same amount of time, but effectively, your average bet in S-2 is $5 for each of the 100 hands (= $500 of action). Thus you

have a 20-1 spread.

scenario 3: wong ou
=========================================================

OK, so as i understand it--------

scenario 1: = the play all scenario

scenario 2: = the sit out scenario

scenario 3: = wong out

I do understand the effect not betting all the neagative count hands has on the effective bet spread.

I guess what I am still unclear on are

a. - the size of LTC's basic spread @ 1:40 or 50. Does that mean that as long as it meets the Kelly criteria and as long as it does not btray one's attmpt at camouflage there is no suggested mathematical limit to one's spread at the upper end ?

b. - i have been getting a lot of what i think is good, strong advice to wong the game. When is scenario 1 a good strategic choice ?


The Voodoo princess
Posted by Learning to count on 28-Dec-2002 18:25:36 (#2134)

As I was wonging on my recent trip I pulled up to a table where the count was high and allowed for my entry. I sat next to an older woman who was well dressed and obviously a high roller with a good sense of basic strategy and her progression style of betting. I would bet only when the TC was plus two or better. I was half sitting half standing next to her and would stop playing when the count dropped. The dealer did not seem to care either.

After some time and mediocre success on my part she turned to me and started lecturing me on the spirit or soul of the cards in the shoe. She explained that they had a "FLOW" a life of their own. If the cards liked you and your spirit was in harmony then you must stay at the game. She explained that my constant in and out was bad for her such that she dropped two hundred or more in the past twenty minutes of my "inning and outying". I asked her "so it is a kind of force that can go bad/negative or good/positive". I asked her if she had a handle of this force or power. She said she did until I came along. I answered "I am sorry that I have put a disturbance in the force but how can I control the force".

She answered, "stay or leave but stop with the inny and the outy." The count went south and so did I. Later when I stopped hitting 16 when the tc was 0 or better against a ten she started complaining about the flow. I countered with "yes I have disturbed the flow and obviously have caused a disturbance in the force if you have a complaint lady call darth vader!" She got up scooped her dozen or so chips and stalked off. A new freind of mine an elderly woman named Ruth furthered with "good I was tired of that bitches mouth!"
"Deal!"

Later on the trip I had the luck of winning big bets in front of her causing her to take a disliking of my play and personality. But like grandma ruth said "she needs to get laid". LTC


Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 18:33:26 (#2135)

I enjoyed reading your post! We are the few, and they are the many. All part of the scene.


Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Splitz on 28-Dec-2002 21:32:35 (#2144)

I like funny people.
I stood on a 16 v 10 because the count was positive. the next card just had to be a 4. The dealer felt inclined to point this out to me, then went on to tell me that "when you make bad plays like that you mess up the flow of the cards for everyone!" I didn't say anything... just tried to put on the most embarrassed looking face I could muster :)


Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 21:44:24 (#2145)

Play it up man. You can have a helluvalotafun playing BJ aside from the cash attack you are laying down. Next time you get 16 v 10 up you can go into "here we go again! What should I do now?" Blow everyone away when the count is sucking large and say "I like living dangerously" like Dr. Evil's #2 did when he hit his 17 because he saw a 4 with his X ray goggles. The proper play for that hand was an obvious double, but I guess he didn't want to blow his cover! ;>

F104 VooDoo "Widow Maker"


Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Splitz on 28-Dec-2002 22:06:39 (#2146)

haha
actually this lady sitting next to me kept hitting 17's... I don't think she was counting either! because the RC never went below 0! She was really annoying, she stuffed all her damn white ($1) chips in her cup holder and clamped her hand over it... when it was time for her to double down or split.. oh man... she got her chips stuck in there so we waited a good minute as she struggled with the damn thing.. who is going to steal a damn $1 chip?!?!?!

on the other hand.. this other lady, I think she was table hopping!!!! she looked like a mom! she came up to our table, and was putting down $25-$35 bets!! ($2 table) then somehow she spilt her chips everywhere.. greens flying. Everyone was nice and pointed them out to her. but she had a lot. Then she took off to another table... I dunno maybe she was just rich and lucky though!


Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 22:12:47 (#2147)

If she was watching the cards then you might be right, she could have been table hopping. On the other hand, she could also have been playing the tables like a lot of ploppys play the slots....one for you, one for you, one for you, until they get a win spin, then stick around to see if they hit. There wasn't anyone calling her into the table, not at the green level??


Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 18:46:34 (#2136)

The mother hen of the table,,, just another way of being a control freak,, Mother Hens do not have to be F either..

I ran into a guy once who was telling everyone how to play their hands, he was trying to control the players in and out of the table, even the cut. He christened one player the official lucky table cutter, when that player got up to go to the bathroom during a shuffle, he held the cut card and would not even release it to the dealer until that other player came back, the pit person was on his way over when that designated player finally got back to the table.

He didnt stop talking for more than about 10 seconds, commenting about the smallest thing that happened at the table. I was trying very hard to ignore hime but, when he made a few comments about my play and i very impolitely told him to shut the F** up.

I think that started to rattle him.

One player wanted to shift to 3rd base when that player left and Mother Hen kept trying to talk him out of it because it would upset the order of the cards. When the guy finally didn't listen to him and moved anyway he got up and left in a fit of frustration.

You meet the most interesting people in this game.


Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Coug Fan on 29-Dec-2002 19:24:05 (#2167)

You should have offered to stay in/out for a percentage of what it is worth to her (say $10 per hand). After all, if she is asking you to add value for her, then it ought to be worth something.

I once had a lady ask the dealer "can't you stop him from doing that" as I hit my 12 versus dealer 5 in a negative count. Actually, she was running her mouth so much that I may have done it even if the count was a bit positive. I made sure to point out every time my "wrong" plays hurt the table (gee, it looks like I took the dealers bust card again). That seems to get the ploppies off their asses and away from me!


Introduction
Posted by NewToTheGame on 28-Dec-2002 18:58:57 (#2137)

I wanted to introduce myself on the board since I have been reading the posts for a few months now. I sent an email to The Mayor a few weeks ago, and he suggested I post to the board...so here I go.

I am a senior at New York University graduating this May (just 1 more semester of undergraduate life...) with a major in Finance. I have programmed for 2 years at a major investment bank (the same one as Don Schlesinger) and recently made the transition to the trading side (I actually interned with Don's daughter this past summer...just a bunch of coincidences).

Anyhow, I have been an avid fan of cards, and have played poker w/ family and friends for many years. However, I have a strong passion for blackjack because of the ability to remove the house's advantage. As such, I have taken many steps to immerse myself. I learned the Hi-Lo method, can count a deck down in 20-25 secs., and have read a number of books from Blackjack Attack, Beat the Dealer, Shuffle-Tracking for Beginners, etc. I went out to Vegas for my 21st this past summer and spent about 4 days playing blackjack (basic strategy (some deviations w/ Ill. 18), counting, kelly betting, etc...although because of lack of capital, I was playing $5 as my min. bet., but at this point, I am looking for the experience, and honestly, it was amazing in my opinion. It's one thing to read a book and practice, and another to be on the table.

I understand the complexity of the game, and at this point, I am looking to learn and improve. I've always thought about joining a team, and feel that it would be a tremendous experience.

If anyone can offer some suggestions on how I should proceed, or people I should speak with in the NY metro area, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your help, and I hope the cards fall well!

-NewToTheGame


Re: Introduction
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 22:16:15 (#2148)

Nice to meet you. I was approached by a team that runs out of New York about a year ago. I am not sure where I have kept the gents number, but I do know the team has a reputation for winning. They would not disclose the count that they use, and they require you to train with them first and have up front money. I offered the guy my services for $200US an hour to play with their $$ using Hi Opt II with 20 BS departures but he didn't go for it. I'm sure you would be accepted with your credentials, but I am not so sure you will want to put a large BR into play with people you do not know. Intelligence and wisdom are two different things. You have both no doubt... ;>


Re: Introduction
Posted by Learning to count on 29-Dec-2002 10:24:04 (#2154)

IMHO you need to play for your self awhile.

I am building a team now. In this environment you have to be wise not just a good player. Counting cards is hard not because of learning the actual skills but because you then have to apply them. This intails trusting your abilities and having a strong self worth and trust in yourself. We have a natural need to survive and improve. This added with pride and greed etc. has a great affect on our selves. You can become very emotionally involved in the game. Have a deep loosing session where your BR is scarred and see how you feel. Very few counters can actaully walk away from a big loss and not be effected

Being part of a team is like having a family. You are rsponsible for many facets of its inner workings. You need to have first of all hard working subjects who are smarter than the average bear. They have to be trainable and have the want to learn. It is like training an army. They have to be loyal. There are lot of thieves out there.

The good part part of belonging to a good team is how much you will learn fast. Apprenticeship is an excellent way to get to the heart of successful play. Finding such a team is hard. Your life seems filled right now. Learn and play for your self and strive to be a competent player. You will meet others who are similar and the team may form with you involved or you may form one yourself.

For now my team consists of a very close friend, a couple of cousins, and good friends. So far two are distinct begginers, one is a veteran who is an old dog, one is a computer engineer who learned hi-lo in a month including indices but needs experience and my self and I am still learning. The goal of this team is not financiel for now it is for player security, game/casino intelligence, and for backup/esprit de corp. After we make this team thing cohesive and work then maybe we will combine a bankroll and learn the team strategies such as the BP, gorilla, type approaches. From your post I think you would be a candidate for a team but you will have to give a lot of your time. LTC


Re: Introduction
Posted by BradRod on 29-Dec-2002 12:42:26 (#2157)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..........In this environment you have to be wise not just a good player. Counting cards is hard not because of learning the actual skills but because you then have to apply them. This intails trusting your abilities and having a strong self worth and trust in yourself. We have a natural need to survive and improve. This added with pride and greed etc. has a great affect on our selves. You can become very emotionally involved in the game. Have a deep loosing session where your BR is scarred and see how you feel. Very few counters can actaully walk away from a big loss and not be effected<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Very well put LTC


Re: Introduction
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 13:20:59 (#2160)

I know how much work running a team can be. I have an onLine team that I am a part of and we have done nicely over these last two years. In Mar and Apr I was getting $100 per new player I could send to certain casinos and I split the finders fee with each person that followed the instructions to make sure we got the $100. It takes a lot of communication, and a lot of trust on the players part. You need a spotless reputation. It has to be a win/win situation, not one that is only good for you. Anytime I see a good opportunity I sound the bell and hope that people will jump in for the big win. In February there is an amazing opportunity coming up that I am trying to get the best angle on for maximum results. My most recent attack was a $250/$500 "sticky bonus" that we did rather well on.

Your family type team sounds exciting. I wish your team muchos pesos in 2003!


Re: Introduction
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Dec-2002 12:23:57 (#2155)

>I offered the guy my services for $200US an hour to play with their $$ using Hi Opt II with 20 BS departures but he didn't go for it.

I can't imagine they would go for it under any circumstances. Hiring a new member of a team, without capital to invest, should get that person little more than the team-minimum wage until they are proven. I would think $20/hour would be more like it.

--Mayor


Re: Introduction
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 13:28:58 (#2161)

The guy was going hard sell on me so I gave him the hard sell back. I think he was talking about 100K up front so they could afford it if everything was legit. He approached me, not the other way around. I can make $20US an hour from home. I am working some overtime and am making $30US from home this weekend, so it would have to be something that would make it worth my while to fly or drive to NY, take a test, and then play for them.


Re: Introduction
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 22:25:09 (#2149)

Welcome NTTG. You are right the game is full of complexities and it takes a lot of practice to work your way through them. I think you found a very supportive forum with many great resources to offer. Take advantage of them.

Good cards to you,

BradRod


Re: Introduction
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Dec-2002 12:27:01 (#2156)

Experience -- that's the only way. Find games wherever you can, and play them. Weak games are OK. Just don't overbet your bankroll, and don't expect anything exciting to happen. You are just there to practice, to be able to count without a hitch, to practice cover, to get used to the ploppy attitudes, to feel the excitement of a high count with max bets out (as the dealer gets 3 burried BJ's in a row, or you split your 8's 4 ways and lose all 4). You need a lot of these experiences, 100's of hours of them.

The primary basic rule: don't overbet your bankroll.
The secondary basic rule: practice at the tables as much as possible.
The third basic rule: don't expect to win.

Best of luck!

--Mayor


Re: Introduction
Posted by ZOD on 29-Dec-2002 15:30:03 (#2162)

Mayor,
You make the game sound SO MUCH FUN!
Zod


Re: Introduction
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 16:17:41 (#2163)

He's being totally honest. All the books and hooplah, movies, you name it can make it sound like a sure thing, but it is a hard row to hoe.


Re: Introduction
Posted by ZOD on 30-Dec-2002 20:08:10 (#2187)

I know. I know. I agree with the Mayor's advice, except for rules 2 and 3. They should both probably read "Don't overbet your bankroll" as well.
ZOD


I agree with you!
Posted by The Mayor on 30-Dec-2002 22:55:57 (#2194)

But, if the top 3 rules are "don't overbet", then rule four should be "don't underbet!" -- that is just as dangerous!

One of my weaknesses on trips is that I take it easy the first few hours, and underbet (kind of ramping up my nerve) and likewise, the last few hours I underbet (kind of a decompression period). I only overbet one trip. That was enough to learn that lesson!

--Mayor


Re: I agree with you! *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 30-Dec-2002 23:03:59 (#2200)

> One of my weaknesses on trips is that I take it easy the first few hours,
> and underbet (kind of ramping up my nerve)

I like to think of it as warming up. Just go to a few casino that sweat the action, where you have to bet small. After a few hours you'll get tired of all the heat and WANT to bet bigger.

I can't really relate to your tendency to bet smaller at the end of a trip. Is this every time, or only when you want to "lock in" a nice win?


Yeah, I know (blush) *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Dec-2002 18:14:19 (#2165)


WorldWinner.com

The ULTIMATE LIST of Free BJ Resources on Web
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Dec-2002 18:49:09 (#2166)

I have recompiled for CC.com members and visitors the single most complete index of bonafide yet free BJ resources and tools that can be found online - counting courses, practice drills, simulation and risk management tools, and enough quality articles to fill 3 cutting edge books about card-counting and advantage play, enjoy. zg

ps - If anyone else has any links to add, I ask that the links NOT be to a commercial board site, a system seller, or to any link that is already contained in the CC.com *links* section at left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Advanced Discussions and Articles
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/toc.htm

Al Krigman - Click 'Blackjack,' etc.
http://www.casinocity.com/krigman/

Audio Discussions - search BJ
http://www.rgtonline.com/audiovegas/audiosearch.cfm

Counting F.A.Q.s
http://www.conjelco.com/faq/bj.html

BJ Data Repository and Staticum
http://bjstats.com/

BJ, Poker, Gambling Book Reviews
by 60+ Reviews Nick Christiansen
http://www.jetcafe.org/~npc/reviews/gambling/index.html

BJSTRAT DOS Index Generator (ZIP D/L)
http://www.bjmath.com/bjcomputer/computer/programs/bjstrat.zip

BR Calculator (from RoR)
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/refer/RevGROR.htm

Basic Strategy Generator
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/2009/BJC/Chart.html

BlackJack in spanish
http://www.bj21.com.ar

Blackjack Insider
newsletter archive
http://www.casino.com/newsletter/blackjack/archive/

Blackjack Online Calculators
BJ online calculators from Norm Wattenberg
http://www.bjstats.com/bjcalc.htm

Bob's BJ University
Counting lessons, drills, and more
http://www.bju21.com/

Card Count Articles from GoCee
http://www.gocee.com/blackjack/bjcount.htm

Card Counting 101 by PB
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/novice/counting.htm

Clark Cante's 'BJ Therapy'
http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BlackjackTherapy.htm

Color KO
Leroy Nimka's Color-coded KO system-enhancments
http://www.gofor21.com/cko.htm

Count Systems Comparison
http://www.qfit.com/cvstrat.htm

E. Jacobs' Count System Analyser
http://cardcounter.com/applets/BJ2.3/Blackjack_Applet.html

GameMaster's Free Counting Course
http://www.gamemasteronline.com/indexa.shtml?GameMasters/GameMasterClassicsIndex.shtml

Gamemaster BJ Articles
http://www.gamemasteronline.com/StrategyContent.shtml

Google search -Shuffle Tracking
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=shuffle+tracking&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&btnG=Google+Search&meta=site%3Dgroups

Grinder's Wherehouse - BJ Articles
http://frontpage.inxpress.net/grinder/warehouse.htm

H.Tamburin BJ Articles
http://www.casino.com/blackjack/archive.asp

Hit Or Stand
Practice Basic Strategy
http://www.hitorstand.net

JAVA Flashcards for BS and Index Practic
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/tcindex/randomnr/random.htm

JensenAlgebraic Index Calc (ZIP DL)
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/tcindex/Generator.zip

Kister's BJ Conditions
http://www.skister.com/bj/

Online table conditions from RGE21.com
http://trackjack.com/

Optimal Results Calculator
Calculates EV and SCORE for various systems/conditions
http://www.bjstats.com/bjre.asp

Remaining #Decks Estimation Drill
http://www.bju21.com/shoe_drill.htm

Rob Tougher's Basic Strategy Drill
Hit, Stand, Double, Split, or Surrender? Test yourself Here!
http://www.robtougher.com/games/blackjack_bs/blackjack.php

Ruchman on BJ - much musings and history
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/blackjack/index.html

Rules - Effects on BS
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/conseq/rules.htm

T-Hopper's spreadsheet analysis tool
http://www.bjmath.com/bjcomputer/computer/programs/thcalc.zip

The BJMATH Archives
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/whatsnew.htm

Various online BJ caculators
http://www.qfit.com/calcP.htm


Great list! *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Dec-2002 20:07:56 (#2170)


qRe: The ULTIMATE LIST of Free BJ Resources on Web
Posted by BradRod on 29-Dec-2002 21:04:17 (#2173)

Thanks ZG nice to have that list handy here. I have gone to it quite a bit.

Brad


Re: The ULTIMATE LIST (more)
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Dec-2002 02:09:35 (#2174)

A few stragglers -

DeepNET Technologies
PDA-based BJ training and simulation products AND ARTICLES
http://www.deepnettech.com/blackjack.html

HOW TO BEAT SINGLE DECK BLACKJACK Version 1.01 Copyright 1991, Michael Hall
MultiParameter HiOpt-1
http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Article/Gaming/hi-opt-1.txt

Shuffle Tracking Treatise
by Michael Hall
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/playing/tracking.htm

Hacking Las Vegas
Wired's article about MIT Team
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vegas_pr.html

Beating Net Casinos
scientific analysis of optimum online strategy
http://www.deepnettech.com/cas_on_net.html

Ben Mezrich MSNBC Interview
author of 'Bringing Down The House' about MIT BJ Team
http://www.msnbc.com/news/818633.asp?cp1=1


Didn't you say no commercial sites? *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 30-Dec-2002 10:44:54 (#2176)

> DeepNET Technologies
> PDA-based BJ training and simulation products AND ARTICLES
> http://www.deepnettech.com/blackjack.html


Clarification -
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Dec-2002 13:52:02 (#2178)

No commercial DISCUSSION BOARDS or SYSTEM SELLERS... where as DeepNET is a software seller with free resources at the site similar to Qfit.com. Ca'pece? zg


Do a search for Dan Kimberg's poker pages *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 30-Dec-2002 11:04:16 (#2177)

I think he may have added a small section on BJ.


He did NOT *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Dec-2002 13:57:28 (#2179)


free software
Posted by Cyber on 26-Jul-2004 14:34:24 (#9503)

I found a great cardcounting program:
http://www.angelfire.com/or/strategy/
I think it's worth adding it to the list.


Free software
Posted by Sonny on 27-Jul-2004 11:26:56 (#9514)

> I found a great cardcounting program:
> http://www.angelfire.com/or/strategy/
> I think it's worth adding it to the list.

Well, if you can weed your way through all the pop-up ads you might be lucky enough to find this warning:

"Warning: Cardcounting or the use of mechanical, electrical or any other type of device to assist players in the gaming activity conducted in a casino is strictly prohibited..."

Not exactly accurate, is it?

"...Violators will be subject to a forfieture of all winnings and to confiscation of any prohibited devices."

I like the part about confiscating the "prohibited device." I guess that means a card counter has to give up all his winnings AND his brain too! Will I have to give up all by blackjack books and my computer too? They are all "devices" that I use to learn and practice "illegal" card counting. You guys won't narc on me, will you?

-Sonny-


stu unger's ability to guess the cards
Posted by darksun on 29-Dec-2002 19:46:20 (#2168)

After watching the 1997 wsop on espn2 on Christmas Eve, I googled Stu Unger to learn a little more about the 3 time winner. In the short biographies that I found was Stu's ability to predict each card in the last 2 decks of a 6 deck shoe

here is an excerpt:

"Stu Unger would bet anyone $10,000 to place 6 decks of cards in a shoe. The bet was that he would correctly identify the final 104 cards (or 2 decks) in the shoe. No one would take the bet. Finally in January 1977, Bob Stupak, former owner of Stupak's Vegas World and Stratosphere Tower, offered Stu $100,000 to identify the final 3 decks in a 6 deck shoe. Without hesitation, Stu counted the final 3 decks (156 cards) and won the $ 100,000 wager. It was the beginning of a life-long friendship."

from: http://www.gregdempson.com/stuungerstory.html

does anyone know how he did this? Some short of shuffle tracking? It's just really interesting and I would like to know more about it.


Re: stu unger's ability to guess the cards *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 29-Dec-2002 20:02:39 (#2169)

Before he came to Las Vegas, Stu was the most feared gin rummy player of all time, while still a teenager. One of his skills from that game would have been remembering how many cards of each rank had been played. With a 6 deck shoe, he'd just have to count a little higher.

As the story at the end of the link below demonstrates, having this information won't do you any good if you don't know how to use it.


Re: stu unger's ability to guess the cards
Posted by BradRod on 29-Dec-2002 20:57:49 (#2172)

That story has given a really great idea for counting using letters.

As a kid I learned how to assign number values to hebrew letters. I still have that ability. I can easily count into the hundreds that way. The first 10 letters have values 1 - 10, the next 9 are 20 - 100, the final 3 are 200 - 400.

It'll be interesting to see what it would be like to count cards that way. Not sure about the division process though for TC. Could be useful with an unbalanced system or to keep a separate side count without confusing the running numbers.

Thanks for the article was very interesting.

Brad


"mnemonic-devices" *link*
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Dec-2002 20:39:20 (#2171)

Typical of many/most 'card-memory' pros are various "mnemonic-devices" or memory tools - the most popular ones are contained in the exceptional link below. zg
http://www.demon.co.uk/mindtool/memory.html


Free Blackjack Book Download *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 30-Dec-2002 22:56:38 (#2195)

T-H Basic Blackjack is now available as a free download.
Adobe Acrobat Reader http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html is required. Visit http://www.bjrnet.com/thop for more information, or post your questions at http://www.bjrnet.com/board_systems.htm.


1D 6:5 vs 6D 3:2
Posted by ace on 31-Dec-2002 07:29:33 (#2201)

I have been pretty vocal in my discontent over the proliferation of the 6:5 games on the Strip before realizing I didnt know what the calculated house advantage is for the typical Strip SD game vs the typical Strip 6D game.

Also, what is a reasonable spread one could get away with at these games on the Strip.


Re: 1D 6:5 vs 6D 3:2
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 08:50:43 (#2203)

For 1D 6:5, spead your legs apart are run out the freakin' door! For 6D 3:2 a typical spread is 2 per deck or 1:12. Good 6 deck games I know of are Ballys, Caesars, Flamingo, MGM, Bellagio, Mirage, Tropicana, T Island, & Mandalay Bay in that order. The conditions change from time to time, and actually from table to table in each casino for that matter.

You may want to go after some of the better 2D games out there if you don't like the swing that you will experience with the 1:12 spread.


Re: 1D 6:5 vs 6D 3:2 **DISAGREE POINTS
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 12:23:06 (#2209)

**Disagree on points -

For 6D 3:2 a typical spread is 2 per deck or 1:12.

**That may be a bit much for wonging, insufficient for play-all.

Good 6 deck games I know of are Ballys, Caesars, Flamingo, MGM, Bellagio, Mirage, Tropicana, T Island, & Mandalay Bay in that order. The conditions change from time to time, and actually from table to table in each casino for that matter.

**The conditions for the 6D games you site chnge VERY LITTLE (if any) from table-to-table as to %pene. Some though are mixed between s17 and h17 rules.

You may want to go after some of the better 2D games out there if you don't like the swing that you will experience with the 1:12 spread.

**The 'spread' doesn't cause greater swings per'se because spread is correctly calculated from the top down - the max bet with a 1D 1-5 spread is THE SAME as the max bet with a 6D 1-20 spread. Notwithstanding a 1-12 spread IS what should be used for many/most 2D games. zg


YES
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 16:11:03 (#2223)

you are right. I don't think he was asking all of the questions that you were answering, but your extrapulations on his original question are beautiful. By wonging he can actually flat bet, and the method for getting 12u on the table for 2D you should go into for this gentleman. And as the Mayor points out, there are still some good 1D 3:2 hanging in there. Pound them out of existance boys! grin


Re: 1D 6:5 vs 6D 3:2
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 10:29:15 (#2205)

The edge for the house with the 6:5 is about 1.3%, compared with a decent 6D game that is .40% or better. In other words, the 6:5 is UNBEATABLE. Go downtown in you want single deck, the horseshoe, las vegas club, western, el cortez, all these places still offer the real thing.


I don't think its "unbeatable,"...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 12:10:55 (#2208)

... heads up, played fast, w/good pene and a 0-10u+ spread its probably only a little worse than sf21. Definately NOT a good game. zg


Re: I don't think its "unbeatable,"...
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 16:15:12 (#2224)

I think we were over this once, even $ BJ at Stupak's house of pain ;> Dealt all the way to the bottom. If you can remember what was dealt properly you could kill that game with it's off the top -2% ev. What were the table limits there??


FREE PROGRAM - Improved CA (version 5.0)
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 09:14:41 (#2204)

One of the previous versions of Eric's program was featured in my newletter found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjack_pro_newsletter/

Posted By: Eric Farmer <erfarmer201@comcast.net>
@ http://www.bjmath.com
Date: Monday, 30 December 2002, at 1:48 p.m.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/erfarmer201/

Hello all,

Having recently stumbled on some extra free time, I have been working
on a substantial revision of my combinatorial analyzer, primarily to
improve my pair-splitting algorithm. For those not familiar with
previous versions, my original design goal was to compute exact
probabilities and expected values as efficiently as possible, but
with an interface that allowed users to do their own analysis of a
wide range of situations, including arbitrary distributions of cards
in the shoe, most of the common rule variations, different playing
strategies such as total-dependent vs. composition-dependent basic
strategy, "mimic the dealer," etc., and card-counting systems (from
evaluation of existing systems to regression-fitting your own).

One aspect of my resulting design which I consistently ignored was
the inaccuracy of my pair-splitting algorithm. The latest version 5.0
(for which the associated game and basic strategy calculator have
been rebuilt) contains two significant changes:

1. The interface for resplitting rules is more general, allowing
specification of a maximum number of split hands for each individual
pair, including no splits at all. (Not sure how useful this really
is, except for not resplitting aces, but it was easy to do.)

2. The pair splitting algorithm has been improved, at a cost of some
increased memory and computation time; in particular, expected values
are exact when no resplits are allowed, assuming that playing
strategy is the same for both halves of the split.

I am posting here for a couple of reasons. First, check out the
software (source code and Windows executables included) at
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/erfarmer201/blackjack/ if you're
interested, and let me know if you find it useful; that's why I enjoy
writing programs like these. I will copy Mr. Reid as well if he would
like to post the software on bjmath.com.

Second, I have done a lot of testing of the new version myself (*),
including scouring posts here and on usenet for (mostly anecdotal)
exact results from Mr. Jacobs, Cacarulo, etc., with which to confirm
my calculations. Any additional input is appreciated. For my own
additional checking, are there expected value tables similar to those
generated by Cacarulo with no resplits allowed (RSP=2, if I read the
notation correctly)?

Let me know what you think,
Eric Farmer

(*) As an interesting "sanity check" of my new algorithm, recall the
discussion some time ago about Thorp's result on basic strategy EV
and its independence of number of hands dealt or of strategies of
other players at the table (see the above web site for a perspective
on this as a simple and neat generalization of the true count
theorem).

We may compute the overall expected value for a hand with an ace
removed from the shoe; repeat with a 2 removed, etc. Average these
expected values, weighted by the probability of each removal.
The "extended" true count theorem states that this average should
equal the expected value for the full shoe (note that this does not
follow from the true count theorem).

With no resplits allowed, the overall expected value is exact, and
equality holds. As before, however, my algorithm for resplitting is a
(better) approximation which is not of the appropriate form (namely,
an expected value of a function of a shoe arrangement, averaged over
all possible arrangements), and so the average is not equal to
the "full shoe" value. (It's closer than it used to be, though, only
differing in the sixth decimal place in my test case.)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/erfarmer201/


Re: FREE PROGRAM - Improved CA (version 5.0)
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 11:23:30 (#2206)

Excellent work, Eric! Thanks for your FREE contribution!!!

--Mayor


What does it do...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 12:01:18 (#2207)

... just analyze BS plays? zg


Rough Night
Posted by SammyBoy on 31-Dec-2002 13:44:09 (#2210)

I got my clock cleaned last night. I was down 60 units at one point before making a comeback at the end where I got back 30 units. I've never lost as many big bets as I did last night, it was almost unbelieveable especially considering I'm playing one of the best games if not the best game around. It was one of those nights where you get high counts but bad cards and the dealer has a 6 showing and doesn't bust. I'll keep plugging along.


Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 14:00:23 (#2212)

... a 30u loss after being down 60u "a rough night"... (you ain't seen nothing yet!) zg


Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 14:09:36 (#2213)

The nights when you get the high counts all night long are the nights you will win/lose the most. The better the game, the more often you will have these wild swings (which is exactly what you want!). I have 100 unit shoe wins/losses -- let alone a night! My biggest losses have come at the best games. That's the way it is.

--Mayor


Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by SammyBoy on 31-Dec-2002 14:24:46 (#2214)

I know I still have MUCH to learn/experience in this game. I'm getting better at thinking about this in the long run and not worrying about what happens in each session or night or trip. But when you lose big bet after big bet with high counts and win small bets with very negative counts, it can work on your nerves.


Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 14:42:16 (#2215)

In case you haven't looked at it lately, look at my journal on this page (link below). Each dot represents one day playing blackjack (average about 5.5 hours). That's 89 days of blackjack, over 500 hours. Try and imagine the emotions you would experience as you go through some of those days. This game is tough! But fun 8-)

http://www.cardcounter.com/images/BJ_journal.JPG

In 2002, the worst experience of a swing I had was a shoe that was +130 units, followed immediately by a shoe that was -110 units!!!

--Mayor


Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by BradRod on 31-Dec-2002 14:42:18 (#2216)

I'm there with you Sammy. Still working on my game. Just more determined.


Name that paradox!
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 14:47:42 (#2217)

CardCounter.Com
The paradox of playing in higher Ev games/sessions

Posted By: zengrifter
Date: 10/17/02 11:36:26 a.m.

The paradox of playing in higher Ev games/sessions...
-------------------------
... that are due to various good-conditions (like deep pene% and high count betting opps) is that they are often the ones where we experience our biggest losses. we need a good name for this apparent paradox. zg


suggested answer: "advantage play" *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 14:52:02 (#2218)


Re: Name that paradox!
Posted by BradRod on 31-Dec-2002 14:54:35 (#2219)

i have to struggle to push "compulsive gambling" out of my head.


The "Why do ya think they call it gambling" effect *NM*
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 31-Dec-2002 14:55:53 (#2220)


Big Fish, Little Fish
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 16:32:37 (#2226)

Hey, don't let these big fish make you feel like a nobody. I know they are trying to tell you that it is not a big loss, and they are right, but when you lose your first few times, or have a small BR, it can feel like you lost the farm. Just keep nibbling away and soon you'll rule the tank like they do. Start with shrimp and before you know it you will be munchin sea turtles to keep your teeth clean.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, I love turtles! ;>


Re: Big Fish, Little Fish
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Jan-2003 11:00:07 (#2269)

Rob,

Thanks for the encouragement!


WorldWinner.com

Excellent Article by The Mayor's Wife! *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 31-Dec-2002 13:59:24 (#2211)


Re: Excellent Article by The Mayor's Wife!
Posted by Learning to count on 31-Dec-2002 15:01:44 (#2221)

YEP Definately a life times worth of positive EV. Some counters get all the advantages! ;)


Re: Excellent Article by The Mayor's Wife!..Ditto! *NM*
Posted by Slowhand on 01-Jan-2003 08:55:42 (#2240)


By the looks of that first new photo Mayor,
Posted by Learning to count on 31-Dec-2002 15:11:34 (#2222)

I hope you did not stay at the western? If you did I hope you had all your shots. I hope the sheets were there. They usually use them to wrap the bodies in. I like to go there and play just to live on the edge for a feww hours every trip but staying there you have to be a risk taker/gambler! :) I have two guesses on the sock shot. its either X. X. or XXXX X.! Am I right?! LTC


Re: By the looks of that first new photo Mayor,
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 16:21:50 (#2225)

I played, but did not stay, at the Western. The Western has some of the best Single Deck in town, but it is a low roller joint, so don't expect to bet your typical max. Most of the trays have very few green, and no black.

As for the person in photo 3, I don't know who you mean by your x's, but even if I did, I would not be able to answer 8-)

--Mayor


Re: By the looks of that first new photo Mayor,
Posted by Learning to count on 31-Dec-2002 18:16:17 (#2229)

I once bet a five red chips and lost there. They rolled out the carpet and comped us coffee creme and equal! You are right about the single deck there. we always have fun and win enough to buy breakfast at the El Cortez...country fried steak, three eegs over medium, and grits. Last time the dealer was so bad I gave him a few tips on how to shuffle: Riffle, strip, riffle,riffle strip, riffle...I told him it was the benny binion shuffle! He ate it up. Make sure you play from 6am to noon though unless you carry a gun! LTC


photos ? ...article by wife ?
Posted by BradRod on 31-Dec-2002 19:04:46 (#2230)

May I ask where these can be seen ?

thanks ,

brad.


Re: photos ? ...article by wife ?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 19:32:46 (#2231)

Click Home page and look under new stuff. His podium speach is also up now.


oh ! ok, new items - home page *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 31-Dec-2002 20:20:32 (#2232)


Western HO!
Posted by Sonny on 01-Jan-2003 14:03:14 (#2250)

>The Western has some of the best Single Deck in town, but it is a
>low roller joint, so don't expect to bet your typical max. Most
>of the trays have very few green, and no black.

If you're a red-chipper, the Western is the place to be! They have a great game, and you can come off the top of a deck with a $5 bet, then drop down to $2 or $1 if the count drops. It's almost like Wonging a SD game! I used this method to spread from $1-$40 two weeks ago. The pit crew (two young guys who looked more like interns than employees)didn't even seem to care. There was one smart Asian boss-ette who was eyeing me (and not because of my rugged good looks) one day, but I threw her off by ploppily playing a few Royal Match bets. Sometimes that $1 in the tiny RM square can make all the difference!

I have to agree with LTC about only going there from 6am-12pm. Also, the cage phones the pit EVERY TIME a green chip is cashed. For this reason, you might want to cash in a few chips at a time if you win a lot. Also, be sure to stash some chips when you hit a winning streak. The pit gets nervous (jealous maybe?) when they see too many of their chips in front of the players!

-Sonny-


questions
Posted by Splitz on 31-Dec-2002 16:34:28 (#2227)

1.) Can someone verify a couple of these Ill 18 indices for me

13 v 2 hit at < 0
12 v 4 hit at < or equal 0

next, I got BJA by Don S. and as Rob M. said.. it is an advanced book. (I knew I should taken statistics this yr instead of pre-calc!)

after reading through a few sections, I am a little confused about: S.D. and RoR. How do I make real use of this info? or is it just merely for peace of mind.


Re: questions
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 17:22:39 (#2228)

13 v 2 hit at < 0 YES
12 v 4 hit at < or equal 0 YES

http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/flashadv.htm

next, I got BJA by Don S. and as Rob M. said.. it is an advanced book. (I knew I should taken statistics this yr instead of pre-calc!)

$It will begin to mean more to you as time goes by. Hang onto that book.

after reading through a few sections, I am a little confused about: S.D. and RoR. How do I make real use of this info? or is it just merely for peace of mind.

$ Bell curve got you down? Afraid of losing all of your money? Do a little looking around on the net for some more understandable info on these two items.

In simple terms, SD is A statistic used as a measure of the dispersion or variation in a distribution, equal to the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of the deviations from the arithmetic mean.

WHAT? Crazy eh? If you bet $5 hand all night long vs bj you should win or lose X amount above and below the -ev of the game. This number changes when you bet more and your ev changes.

coin flip is usually used for this to give you an example. You could end up at x below or above 0. With bj using bs no indices no increase in bets it will be x below or above -$y.00 With indices and increase in bets re the count it will be xx above or below +$z.00

example
http://www.beyondtechnology.com/tips016.shtml

RoR
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/ror/ror.htm

here is a calculator to help you out:

http://www.qfit.com/CVRoRC.htm

Hope this will help you understand these two important issues.


Re: Questions
Posted by BradRod on 31-Dec-2002 21:52:28 (#2234)

Rob,

Thanks for your comments about SD and RoR. Together with the links they were vbery helpful in understanding.

regarding : "13 v 2 hit at < 0 YES". Did that change since BJA or am I misreading it ? My version says -1.

Thanks,

Brad


Re: Questions
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 22:06:02 (#2235)

The actual # could be somewhere in between these two numbers, say -0.41, so you can play it as -1 to be on the safe side, risk aversive. Hit at -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 etc with minimum bet out and play basic otherwise.


Re: Questions NOT RA -
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Jan-2003 11:27:03 (#2244)

"... so you can play it as -1 to be on the safe side, risk aversive. "
---------------

Thats not an example of risk-averse play or logic. And, we already covered that whether he chooses intermittantly to hit or stand at -1 will have NO statistical impact on his results.

zg(not qualified to explain Rob's mistake, only to point it out, in this instance)


Re: Questions NOT RA -
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Jan-2003 11:40:31 (#2246)

RA - my uninformed opinion.

There are two ways to choose between making a decision. One way is to always make the play that increases EV. That is the normal index. The other way is to always choose (only in those cases when we have the advantage!) to increase the quotient EV/SD. In the second case, we make the play that increases the SCORE of the game, not the EV, that is the RA scheme, and the RA indices are those that make a decision based on producing the largest value of EV/SD. RA does not apply to negative EV situations.

Please correct me!

--Mayor


In Your Estimation....
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 01-Jan-2003 16:28:08 (#2253)

how many times will this situation pop up and how much of a difference does it make in dollars and cents to the player by hitting at 0 instead of -1TC? I think we will all agree that it is not worth our time to figure this out because the diff is so small. The exact point of making this play could be at a running count point between 0 and -1 which will move as we go from 6 to 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 decks. At the end of the day you may want to hit or stand depending on who you want to piss off or throw off at the table! ;>


Re: Questions ROUNDING...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 23:19:06 (#2237)

"regarding : "13 v 2 hit at < 0 YES". Did that change since BJA or am I misreading it ? My version says -1. "
-------------------

"Cross index rounding" of the radical kind, is a speed and intuition facilitator - for example: all index#s of +1,0,-1 can be rounded to 0, and +2,+3,+4 rounded to +3, etc, with NO loss of statistical-power, at least not enough that you could experience the loss in 5 lifetimes of full-time play. zg


Re: Questions
Posted by BradRod on 31-Dec-2002 20:30:37 (#2233)

*****RESPONSES ARE IN CAPS*******

1.) Can someone verify a couple of these Ill 18 indices for me

13 v 2 hit at < 0 THE ACTUAL INDEX IS -1
12 v 4 hit at < or equal 0 THIS IS CORRECT
next, I got BJA by Don S. and as Rob M. said.. it is an advanced book. (I knew I should taken statistics this yr instead of pre-calc!)

SEE TABLE 5.1 OF BJA

after reading through a few sections, I am a little confused about: S.D. and RoR. How do I make real use of this info? or is it just merely for peace of mind.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS ALSO ..


Questions from newcomer
Posted by wongway21 on 01-Jan-2003 05:02:04 (#2239)

First I'd like to thank the Mayor for setting up this great site and people who have contributed comments. It's been helpful for me. Now I have lots of questions; a few of which I'll ask now.

What I'd most like to know is whether anyone has experience playing casino's in the Seattle, WA area and/or could recommend casinos and suitable play strategy for the local casinos. There are quite a few around from small casino's right in town to larger casino's on Indian Reservations about 30 minutes away.

The closest Casino on a reservation is in Tulalip where they have 18 BJ tables $5min-$500max. They seem to offer decent games 2D or 6D tables with basic rules H17, DOA, SPL3, NRSA, NS, BJ3:2.

Some of the small local casino's seem to offer very favorable rules. Many offer Spanish 21, is this common? and are there suitable counting/betting strategies for this game? For example, one local casino has Spanish 21 with the following rules: Blackjack is paid immediately 3:2 (without checking for dealer blackjack), DAN, DAS/SPL3, RSA(SPL3), a double down rescue option, higher payoffs for multiple card 21, and some other bonuses for certain card combinations.

I learned to use the revere point count strategy many years ago, and played occasionally as a hobby but eventually quit because I had to spend hours to get to the nearest casino. I recently moved close to a number of casino's so I'm looking into BJ strategy methods once again. It looks like many new counting systems have been developed. Can anyone give me recommendations where I might best spend my time learning a new strategy and what I might expect at casino's in the Seattle area?

Thanks, :-)


Re: Questions
Posted by BradRod on 01-Jan-2003 20:40:29 (#2261)

The closest Casino on a reservation is in Tulalip where they have 18 BJ tables $5min-$500max. They seem to offer decent games 2D or 6D tables with basic rules H17, DOA, SPL3, NRSA, NS, BJ3:2.

Some of the small local casino's seem to offer very favorable rules. Many offer Spanish 21, is this common? and are there suitable counting/betting strategies for this game? For example, one local casino has Spanish 21 with the following rules: Blackjack is paid immediately 3:2 (without checking for dealer blackjack), DAN, DAS/SPL3, RSA(SPL3), a double down rescue option, higher payoffs for multiple card 21, and some other bonuses for certain card combinations.
===========================================
Welocme to the forum.
I do not know about your other questions. I can comment about these 2, I believe without fear of being contradicted.

I dont believe a game w/ H17 is a decent game. I t cuts into your adavantage also NS is not favorable to you. What is the pentration situation there ?

I think that mosr serious players would consider Spanish 21 a serious BJ game. Did you know that all the numbered ten cards are removed from the deck ?

Good luck with your game.

Brad


Re: Questions
Posted by wongway21 on 03-Jan-2003 12:15:38 (#2290)

Thanks for the info, I'm glad you mention that the tens are removed from the deck in spanish 21. I guess this explains why so many of the other rules are favorable. Incidentally, I did find basic strategy and counting methods online for playing Spanish 21, but I think I'll stay away from those tables for now. Looks like if I want to play local I'll have to live with conditions that are not ideal, but still beatable.


Dynamic Blackjack by Richard Reid
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Jan-2003 09:16:30 (#2241)

Dynamic Blackjack
http://www.extremebj.com
reviewed by zengrifter

Dynamic Blackjack ('DBJ'), by Richard Reid, is the first real "e-book" that I have read, and that is one of the ways that DBJ promises to live up to its name. DBJ pledges to be a 'work-in-progress' with updates and revisions available instantly to those who purchase it once. The e-book format is very pleasing to the eye and mouse-click, and it adapted equally well to both my desktop and notebook - I have heard that it doesn't print well, but that wasn't a problem for me as I read it as intended on screen - a small gripe, the e-book didn't provide for the customary autograph that is typically included with the comp-review copies that I occaisionally receive.

As a BJ teaching text, DBJ is at once both condensed to a rather short read, and yet simultaneously covers a broader span of BJ applied expertise than any past or recent book that I can readily think of.

DBJ is the brainchild of Richard Reid, founder of the marvelous BJMath.com website that hosts discussions by BJ luminaries and novices, and contains a plethora of BJ resources ranging from free index generators and other tools to esoteric theorems and vintage historical documents. Reid has previously been the creative force behind one of the best BJ training programs - SmartCards, sold at his commercial site.

But does the world need yet another book on counting cards at BJ? Well despite my initial skepticism on the subject I actually learned a few things, principal among those is the difference between 'static-counting' and 'dynamic-counting' - no, I will not explain the difference here but I will say that I have found many of the 'top' counters to be terribly STATIC in their approach to the game and that explains why so many of them have trouble getting a decent game and suffer so much ejection.

System wise, one might expect that a be-speckled math-guy like Reid would needlessly burden DBJ with excess math and hundreds of pages of so-called "optimized-betting" charts of dubious-questionable worth (as in the unfortunate case of the new and somewhat over-priced THopper series). Reid advocates both 'generic' basic-strategy and a simple 21 index-matrix - his 4D indices are IMHO good for any #decks, though he does provides index-sets for 1-8Ds. His 'EBJ-II system is a balanced level-2 Ace-reckoned count that has not previously been published and ranks beyond either ZEN or RPC when it comes to raw betting efficiency.

On the oft-debated Ace sidecounting, Reid offers a new 'secondary-count' approach that is marvelous in its simplicity, for insurance and close play accuracy only (11v9 for example).

Despite its study-course beginner-to-expert format, DBJ offers some fresh material not to be found in the other recent 'me too' entries to counting application and science - his shuffle-tracking chapter is very likely the BEST of its genre, simplifying the path previously laid out by Snyder's Blackbelt and GeoC's ST For Dummies.

It is Reid's chapter on 'Betting Structure' where he distinguishes himself with original-new (for this reviewer) tactics that cement the book's theme of playing 'dynamically' - "multi-tiered" betting is a unique camouflage method that I have never seen discussed among the BJ web-discussion boards - it is both simple yet diabolical in its potential for hiding your skill from the house.

DBJ is topped off with excellent guidelines for trip and play preparation, recording results, and analysis-formulae for gaining insight into one's results, application and mastery (or a teammate's honesty, perhaps).

I will end this review by noting that Reid is missing the boat in one area - DBJ's e-book format would lend itself perfectly to being integrated with the author's SmartCards software training system - DBJ I believe could make the perfect course-material module to that otherwise brilliant drills-suite - though the two products are not yet integrated, they make a marvelous 1-2 punch for any budding novice-counter.

zengrifter's rating: 4 out of 5 stars


Re: Dynamic Blackjack by Richard Reid
Posted by alienated on 01-Jan-2003 10:14:38 (#2242)

Thanks for the review, zg. Does the material on shuffle-tracking contain anything new, or is it just a synthesis of previous work?


Re: Dynamic Blackjack by Richard Reid
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Jan-2003 11:06:23 (#2243)

i would say 'synthisis' - he does reintroduce the simplified cut-off tracking (COT) and 'bestHalf' techqs that I'm capable of and advocate (although the shuffles that are susceptiple to simpleCOT are relatively scarce, when you know how to recognize and exploit one it makes for an exceptional shoe game) - he has simplified ST, including terminology, to an essential "i18" of the art and combined it with photos that make the basics easier to grasp than does Blackbelt or GeoC. Perhaps it is the ST treatment that makes the book worth the hefty price of $50 (I think its a high price w/o the SmartCards integration, but I may be out of touch since I rarely purchase BJ books and accessories). zg


Thanks. *NM*
Posted by alienated on 01-Jan-2003 16:50:57 (#2255)


My 2002 results
Posted by The Mayor on 01-Jan-2003 11:35:58 (#2245)

Blackjack: 138.5 hours, +78.4 units
(only positive because of my last trip of 2002, this was negative all year! It was a tough year).

What about your results?

--Mayor


Re: My 2002 results LOOK LIKE...
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Jan-2003 11:47:09 (#2247)

... about a $25/hr guy straight down the list. zg


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by Learning to count on 01-Jan-2003 12:42:35 (#2248)

First of all Happy New Year to all and especially to El Alcade(the Mayor). Second my new years resolution is to learn the math behind stuff like ROR, Standard Deviation/Expected Value, Indices probabilities, and how to use my new BJRM2000 program!!!!!

This year has been great. I was divorced two years ago and I decided that since I got rid of the baggage I needed to do some things for me. I always wanted to play BJ like a pro. I wanted to be able to count/true count,Bet,make play decisions and have great time doing so. Most of all I wanted to make money!!!!

This year has been great. I came to this website and evolved into a better person and a better player. Everyday I get to learn here and improve myself. I also get to actually give advice and share experience. I sometimes am shocked that I sometimes get it right. I am thankful for the mayor leading me to the right path and for ZG for his blackjack wisdom and insight to other intellectual venues. Thanks Rob Mcgarvey for your insight and views. To the rest of you we have a great thing here, lets protect it, and incourage each other and welcome newcomers to progress in our Blackjack skills and talents. We will beat the house!

Second this year has been profitable I over doubled my BR and have tripled my knowledge. I joined Greenchip and I subscribe to trackjack and cbjn. I have had five trips:
March: Nowegian Sky Cruise win 82 units (wong six deckers avg bet $25)
April: Las Vegas (Single double and six deckers; wong out at -1, wong, avg bet 50)

Lowest point 55 units red

High point 240 units

Win overall 195 units
June: Carnival cruise 6 five days win $1000 BJ, $1200 five dollar slots(oops) avg bet $50 wong wong wong)
August: Las Vegas Eight days WOW

Lowest point -120 units red and sweating

High point: 200 units and final win 180 units red!!!!!
October: Las Vegas: Five days YES!

Low point $1480 down(maybmore maybe less) I was too upset to keep an accurate count.

High point over two grand when I got even. Too happy to care at his point I breezed through my wallet.

Total win at end of the trip $245 units taken Home!!!!!!!!!
December: Carnival Cruise ship LEGEND Eight deckers whew! I played all day all night! Wonged like a madman.

Lowest point: 30 units red

Highest win on one shoe 150 units

Loss 30 units.

I'm ahead but last trip may be a cautionary forecast of a coming negative deviation ride. I was up to 95k on casino verite and I am down to 51k. This corresponded with this last trip loss. VOODOO watch out. We will see. Ce la vie ce la guerre, ce l'amor!


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by koko on 01-Jan-2003 13:57:14 (#2249)

I started playing seroius BJ for the past six months all in Reno and Lake tahoe.

Before my last trip I was up by 200 units in four trips.
I was down by 140 unit in my last trip which I think negative variance started
catching up.

Overall I am up by 60 units for 2002 playing around 100 hours total.


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by Coug Fan on 01-Jan-2003 15:10:11 (#2251)

This was my first year. I started learning in early January and started playing in mid February. My results were unbelievebly good the first half of the year (up 500 units by the end of July), which meant that my BR increased 500%. Since then I have added 30 units a month to my bankroll and have seen my bankroll decrease by 100 units, so that is a BJ loss of 280 units.

Note that I resized my BR several times along the way, and have used my ending unit size throughout this summary to keep it less confusing. In other words, no I did not start with just 100 units of BR.

All in all still a net positive result of 220 units. Plus, I have learned a ton.


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by ZOD on 01-Jan-2003 16:14:55 (#2252)

288 hours, +342 units. I hope everyone has a happy and prosperous 2003. Good cards...
ZOD


Re: My 2002 results *LINK*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 01-Jan-2003 18:20:29 (#2259)

I didn't put a lot of hours in at the table this last year simply because the expectation doesn't meet what it does online. I did enjoy the times that I spent at these casinos tracking, wonging, playing other peoples hands with them when I could, and the awesome single pass shuffle that was easily tracked. Overall advantage estimated at around 3%-5%.

Number of hours spend playing online? I should start keeping track of that. I would have to say it was less than last year, but more productive $$ wise as I took bigger chances with their money, not mine. Overall advantage estimated at around 15% with a return on investment of well over 100%.

Like Wong said to the Mayor, he sees him just passing through the bj world onto bigger and better things. Thinking like an advantage player makes you into one in all business decisions, and I am venturing into other areas. Again I am starting off in a small way, typical and similar to playing red chip first, then moving your game up a notch as you get into the groove. Knowledge can be rewarded by more than 1-2%, or 15%, or ? Bottom line is that you have to apply your time against the highest advantage you can find, SO....

I will not be doing much posting here, there, or anywhere this year. Jan and Feb I will be packing to move into our new house, which is beyond the second floor, roof on, ready for interior finishing. It doesn't look like a bomb shelter anymore! ;> My Yahoo messenger is usually on, or you can contact me at blakjack@idirect.com I will always be available to support your bj questions.

Any time I have to be onLine will be for advantage playing, or working on my site at

http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/index.html

Everyone have a GREAT year!


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by ElementX on 01-Jan-2003 21:15:06 (#2263)

7 trips, average of 17 units per trip = 119 units. Was down at beginning of year but since moving to AOII, it's gone a lot better. Thanks a lot to everyone and happy new year.

ElementX


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by SammyBoy on 02-Jan-2003 11:27:31 (#2270)

Over the last 40 hours I'm up 46 units. I did not keep records prior to this. My New Years resolution is to keep very detailed records.


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by Theef on 02-Jan-2003 13:27:20 (#2273)

approx. 50 hours, approx. +70 units.

My records exist on smudged crib notes and someday I will actually type them up. I know my all-time net to the nearest $100, but my hours only to the nearest 10.

I also know that my legitimate small-stakes winnings this year were dwarfed by the positive deviation I enjoyed while playing coupons. I got 13 snappers in the Golden Gate 2-1 hour, for instance. My 3-1 coupon sessions went something like 5-and-1.


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 02-Jan-2003 13:45:12 (#2274)

Due to changes in my employment and other factors, I was unable to put in as much time at the tables as I would have liked. Hopefully, this year I will get back on track to putting in the normal amount of hours.

2002: 288 hours @$65 per hour win. Mostly double deck, a little 6 deck shoes thrown in.


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by Shoeman on 02-Jan-2003 16:44:23 (#2276)

As a recreational newbie, the results have been quite encouraging. Starting the year with my first game using Basic Strategy, I have increased my skills to adequately use an unbalanced counting system written about by Fred Rensy (Black Ace). I do not really keep track of units so to speak, just dollars. I guess I am trying to find an appropriate level to play where my risk is acceptable. By the way, being somewhat anal, I keep pretty detailed records of all the gambling, BJ included. With a total of 49 sessions over the course of 76 hours of playing time, I am up $805 with an average bet of about $21, all at 6 deck games. Mayor, contrary to your experience, my last trip gave me a $1100 set back in just 4 hours of play. Good counts - bad cards.


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jan-2003 18:40:34 (#2278)

>Mayor, contrary to your experience, my last trip gave me a $1100 set back in just 4 hours of play. Good counts - bad cards.

I wish I knew what you were talking about when you said "my experience". My experience has me winning and losing in all counts, in all ways. There is certainly no rule that I win in good counts, although I wish there was!

--Mayor


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by Shoeman on 03-Jan-2003 09:20:45 (#2285)

I was referring to your last trip which had a very positive swing for you for the year. My last trip was in the other direction. Although I was still positive for the year, it decreased my total win by over 50%


Re: My 2002 results
Posted by MrPill on 08-Jan-2003 08:04:27 (#2424)

Blackjack: 177hrs 307units 1.74 units/hr

Would have been better without my Vegas trip. Ended up losing 80 units in the great 6 deck game at the Bellagio.

I'm a red chip player using Red 7 count and for the most part spreading 1-12 or 1-16 in 6 deck shoes. Played limited single and double deck during my one 6 day trip to Vegas. Most of my play is in the Michigan area.

Pill


Motor City Madness
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 08-Jan-2003 08:10:43 (#2425)

Hey Pillster! Great to see you here. How's the Motor City Madness these days? ;>


Re: Motor City Madness
Posted by MrPill on 08-Jan-2003 15:40:01 (#2442)

Rob,

Yeah, I'm still around. Keeping pretty busy with a new computer system at work at present and have not had much time to play lately. Actually I have not played since November. Started re-reading some of the books from "my library" this past week and gave yours another read. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Motor City Madness, I should have stuck with Detroit. Took a 6 day trip to Vegas this past October. When it was all said and done I had dropped 80 units over the six days (40hrs of play). It's a crazy game, but I like it! Had a great time even though I was there on business ;). Actually only 3 days was job related.

I'm hoping to get a chance to hit the felt again in a couple of weeks. May be too late though, sounds like all the Detroit games are going to 8D. I might just have to put Windsor back on play list.

Take care,
Pill


DoubleDown Casino

Cutting Edge BJ?
Posted by Cyrano on 01-Jan-2003 17:33:04 (#2256)

Has anybody heard of this book? Is it worth the money?


Re: Cutting Edge BJ? YOU SHOULD...
Posted by zengrifter on 01-Jan-2003 17:41:37 (#2257)

... obtain and review it, for us all! zg

--------------------------------------------

Cutting Edge Blackjack
by Richard Harvey

...The most revolutionary new blackjack book

in more than 40 years!...

------

Its many historical breakthroughs include

the first-ever method to identify

the face-down cards at 1- & 2-deck tables!
--------------------------
Blackjack The SMART Way
Preparing YOU To WIN
SALES & Products
Free Monthly Advice
Take A Seminar!
Author Profile
News/Meet The Author!
Quiz -- Test Your Skill!
-------------------------

The first great blackjack book of the 21st Century is here. This explosive new best-seller is the product of a monumental and historic computer research project resulting in the first new and better way to approach the game in more than four decades! Las Vegas gaming expert
--Howard Schwartz echoed that sentiment in a glowing recommendation on casinogaming.com, saying it "(blazes) new territory."

Written by one of world's foremost blackjack innovators, Cutting Edge Blackjack is packed with leading-edge new techniques. The chapter that teaches you how to identify the face-down cards at 1- and 2-deck tables is worth the price alone.

Another first is the author's identification and correcting of mistakes and faulty assumptions made by past researchers. The computer is just a research tool. You must use it carefully to arrive at the truth. Mr. Harvey's research began with a new twist: with the exacting shuffling, dealing and card collection as is done by casino dealers, to uncover many heretofore undiscovered phenomenon that occur with the actual handling of cards. Older studies that only simulated the game, using the computer's random number generator to invent pretend rounds of blackjack, were missing the point: the cards do NOT play out randomly, as you will see! Mr. Harvey's revelations about how to profit from the non-random nature of standardized dealer shuffling, for instance, are awesome (and if you don't know where the cards go during the shuffle, this book is a must read)!

This book leaves the others in the dust! Here are some other things you'll learn about:

An amazing method to uncover the identity of the dealer's hole card!

New discoveries revealing when each of the dealer's up cards is vulnerable -- information from which you can really profit. (Every up card has its weak and its strong periods, and you will learn to identify these phases!)

How dealer up card realities, such as busting rates, are NOT constant, but are in constant flux! The old ways based upon "constants" are therefore faulty!

A new, flexible, mathematically more accurate Real-time Card Strategy that adjusts to the realities of the cards that have been dealt.

Newly-discovered repeating phenomena, from shuffle to shuffle, which open up all kinds of avenues by which you can take advantage of them.

New betting spot behavior discoveries, which resulted in new methods for more precise betting, and scientific loss limits that tell you exactly when to leave.

Strategic Card Analysis: the author's invention that teaches you to understand (like a language) what the cards are telling you, to predict future events.

How to benefit from the many predictable elements of the game (some newly-uncovered!). Predict what the hole card is; what your hit card will be; etc.

How to understand and profit from the concept of mathematical probability.

A powerful new way to mathematically predict the dealer's likely outcome!

How dealer shuffling affects your game -- and how to make money off this! (Find out where to put the cut card! Or how to adjust your bet if someone else does it!)

Newly-discovered repeating phenomena, and how to use these to your benefit.

How the relative supply of each card affects your fortunes in the future.

How the number of players affects your likelihood of winning! Plus, the necessary adjustments you must make when the number of players changes.

A scientific new measure of how good the table is for you.

AND THERE'S MUCH, MUCH MORE! No other book can touch this!


Re: Cutting Edge BJ? YOU SHOULD...
Posted by Cyrano on 01-Jan-2003 17:55:52 (#2258)

Time constraints prevented me from reading deep into the book (in Vegas for the weekend), but there was one chapter that caught my eye, but I'm not sure if it's grounded on much fact. He says that you can predict the cards in a pitch game by seeing who hits what. The most extreme case is in a single-level count, if someone hits and receives a 10 and then hits and receives a 5 and stands. It would seem that there are 2 small cards, right? What if the cards were A/small? Anyway, he gives some stats for how likely each card can be in that hand.

Unfortunately, the bookstores around my area don't carry this book. :( If anybody decides to get this book, let me know.


Re: Cutting Edge BJ? YOU SHOULD..see.....
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 01-Jan-2003 22:39:49 (#2264)

Wong's BJ Secrets, pages 62-63, entitled "Temporary Correction".
He recommends adjusting the RC *temporarily*, based on the actions of other players at the table. The adjusted RC is reset to the original RC after completion of the particular play strategy. He mentions a few adjustments, the two that I remember analyzing (and the two most significant) were:

Other plyrs action = TempCorr
stand pat(2) v pat = -1
hit(any) vs. stiff = +1

The plays are mathematically sound, based on hand frequencies. I did some fairly in-depth work on this a little while back, I could dig up the files if you are interested in more plays, but the effects are not substantial. I can say this, after doing the analysis it would seem foolish not to use the information given to you (by their actions).
As for the Harvey book, the little that I've heard of him, has been negative. I must admit some topics in the book sound intruiging, but seems a little too gimmicky.

ANS


A waste of money, time, and paper
Posted by LVBear584 on 01-Jan-2003 22:58:23 (#2266)

You can safely put Mr. Harvey's books into the same class as John Patrick's and Jerry Patterson's "work."

Throw the book in the trash. There is nothing worthwhile in it.


LV Conditions
Posted by Cyrano on 01-Jan-2003 18:34:35 (#2260)

I just came back from LV and I noticed something very disturbing. It seems most strip casinos have started hitting soft 17 hands for shoe games. Is it only on the strip or also downtown too? I've also seen a considerably more number of CSMs. Though, it seems that the heat was less at all the places. I was even able to wong into a 2-D game at Primm Valley (outside LV).


Re: LV Conditions
Posted by ElementX on 01-Jan-2003 21:07:06 (#2262)

Yes you are absolutely right- the traditional shoe games are disappearing rapidly. In the fancier places the shoe games have high minimums and everything else is CSM. Is there anywhere else where you can wong 2-D games in and around Vegas?

ElementX


Re: LV Conditions
Posted by Cyrano on 01-Jan-2003 23:00:32 (#2267)

That was the only place I saw which had low limit pitch BJ.


Questions/comments on team play
Posted by wongway21 on 02-Jan-2003 06:49:28 (#2268)

I was intrigued by some of the comments posted here on team play. I've been going crazy the last couple of days thinking about this and maybe some of you can help me out. Recommended good books on team play? or better yet, personal experience or knowledge of team play would be interesting to me?

I noticed there was emphasis placed on total bankroll in a few of the comments. It seems to me that with a BP scheme the betting spread and lower risk of being identified as a counter are just as important to consider. I've been driving myself crazy trying to come up with a simplistic analysis to understand the advantages of team play and also the effect of betting spread with BP scheme vs. higher bankroll alone. I'll lay what I've come up with so far on the table for you to comment on (please). Please especially let me know where the logic might be flawed, so that I can get a more solid understanding of calculating advantage, return, risk, etc.

As one way to consider team play, compare the case for 5 players playing individually versus 5 players playing as a team under equivalent conditions. When playing individually, each of the 5 players has a modest $6,000 bank roll, plays a simple hi/lo counting system with a 1:8 spread, in a 6D game with H17/DAS and 75% penetration (for stats on this I grabbed info from bjstats.com). Each player is comfortable that with a $5 betting unit and $60 max bet, there is reasonable safety cushion for the bankroll (100 times max bet).

For team play consider the same playing conditions where the team combines their bankroll. 4 of the 5 players (spotters) play only 1-unit bets ($5) and in the long run lose money according to the house advantage. The 5th player (BP) is switching tables signaled by the spotters so as to play at a table only when the true count is +2 or higher. The 4 spotters each play with a bank of $500, leaving the BP with $28,000 of their combined bankroll. The BP consistently bets a stake of $300. This gives the team a betting spread of $5 to $300 while not making it obvious that the spotters are counting.

Now for a simple analysis of the return of investment for the two cases; individual vs. team play with BP.

For team play, assume that the spotters played 100 hands/hr and the BP was able to play 25 hands/hr with time taken to switch tables (this may be a bit of a stretch since the count at a given spotters table would only be +2 or higher 7.65% of the time for these conditions, and at times two or more of the spotters tables would have the desired conditions simultaneously). In the long run, the spotters would be losing $2.55/hr while the BP would be gaining ~$141/hr (this was calculated by using the expected distribution of counts +2 or higher and their respective advantages for average play of 25 hands/hr). The overall team gain would then be $130.80/hr; which divided between players is $26.16/hr/player. For the individual play case the return would be $2.19/hr; very small in comparison to the $26.16/hr average for the team play scenario. If a single player were to play with the combined bankroll and raised the betting unit from $5 to $25, the gain would then be $10.95/hr; which divided 5 ways still gives each player the much lower $2.19/hr. The players could also play alternating shifts with the higher betting unit increasing their total return to $10.95/hr; still quite a bit lower than the $26.16/hr average for the BP scheme. Is this primarily because of the higher spread? I also questioned whether all five players could safely play simultaneously with the higher betting unit for a combined bankroll (mainly wondering if they would have to shift money back and forth between players to cover swings). Of course their return could be raised compared to the BP case by increasing the spread to 1:12 instead of 1:8, but the overall return would still be quite a bit lower than the BP scheme (plus how fun would it be to play the BP role).

I noticed the Mayor referred to the Uston book as a source for team play. Would this be one of the better books on the subject? And does he go into much depth on the advantages/disadvantages of team play or compare different approaches to team play? I also wonder how practical it is to use the BP scheme; what is the relative risk of being suspected as a counter vs wonging in and out or playing through with a 1:12 spread. It seems like the attention would mostly be directed to the BP and not so much to the spotters if everyone were pretty capable. Maybe a committed team of spotters could cycle through a number of part-time BP's to help avoid detection.

OK, enough rambling, I'd better get back to my day job.


Some errors.....and some thoughts..
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 03-Jan-2003 04:55:23 (#2284)

"As one way to consider team play, compare the case for 5 players playing individually versus 5 players playing as a team under equivalent conditions. When playing individually, each of the 5 players has a modest $6,000 bank roll, plays a simple hi/lo counting system with a 1:8 spread, in a 6D game with H17/DAS and 75% penetration (for stats on this I grabbed info from bjstats.com). Each player is comfortable that with a $5 betting unit and $60 max bet, there is reasonable safety cushion for the bankroll (100 times max bet)."

First of all, $5 to $60 is a 1-12 spread, not 1:8. Also, I'm interested as to why you chose H17 for the example...but its your scenario. Secondly, your assumptions on joint bankroll appear to be flawed. The WHOLE POINT of combining bankrolls is so each player can bet proportionately to the WHOLE COMBINED BANKROLL, and not each individual bankroll, as your stating. What would be the point of that kind of team?

In response to a point you brought up later in the post, yes, players with a joint BR have to "share" the swings they each encounter. Obviously the main factors here are trust and competence of the other team members.
Note that you treatment of the individual team players provided an unfair comparo with the BP/spotter team. No self-respecting counter would be spreading 1-12 against 6D,H17(NDAS,I presume?) while playing-all. Hell, most self-respecting counters won't play-all anything except the most favorable conditions. For a more fair comparo with the same spreads, have the individual counters wong out at -1 (this isn't possible on the BJstats calculators).

Another number you mentioned that I am questioning is the frequency of >+2 that you mentioned. This should be in the neighborhood of 11% to 15%, depending on penetration.

Obviously the BP method has substantial income potential, but the difficulties of this method need to be factored in, as well as the aforementioned problem of trust and competence. I should also point out that the enemy is very much aware of the BP method, so variations often need to be employed for cover purposes. Also, teams spend countless hours developing strategies and practicing intensly to coordinate signals (verbal,manual,etc) and techniques, in order to implement these strategies. Do not underestimate these factors. A team of noobs and novices would inevitably be destined to ruin or constant barrings.

I would recommend some simple "Partner Play" to someone interested in the possibilities of team play, to get an idea of the intricacies of the matter, but do not attempt this without some research, and a well thought out plan. I could give you some more ideas on this via e-mail if your interested.

As for recommended reading, Uston's book (M$BJ) was the original, and only writings on team play for quite some time. I definitely recommend it even though it is so dated, the information provided is an excellent foundation for the aspiring TP'er. Other than that, the only other book that you'll find on the subject (that I know of) is "Blackjack Blueprint", which I don't own but have heard good things about.

ANS

p.s.:another note, Ben Mezrich's "Bringing Down the House", a novel about one of the MIT teams, might be of interest, and it speaks of "cycling" the BP role amongst members.


Re: Some errors.....and some thoughts..
Posted by wongway21 on 03-Jan-2003 12:10:10 (#2289)

ANS, Thanks for pointing out some of the errors and your thorough response. I chose the less favorable playing conditions to see what kind of advantage team play with BP strategy might be able to get with very common playing conditions (including local in my area). The main point was just comparison of the three scenarios; return on individual vs team play vs team play with BP (under the same playing conditions). Of course, as you mentioned, if you weren't playing the BP scenario, you might try 1 or 2 deck instead of 6D. But if you find more favorable 6D conditions, the returns should scale similarly for individual vs team play with BP.

You are right about the stat being off for % of time count is +2 or higher, I mistakenly claimed +2 but calculated everything based on +3 or higher (including winnings). For +3 or higher it is 7.65% for +2 or higher I got 14.9%. The other error is that I intended to look at a 1:12 spread for non-BP play, but ended up just using the stats available on bjstats.com for a 1:8 spread. I calculated that the return/hr goes up from $2.19/hr for single player with 1:8 spread to $3.79/hr with 1:12 spread (but I'm not sure I calculated that correctly). These returns are definitely pathetic and I don't think anyone would waste their time trying to play under that scenario.

The interesting thing to me is again the comparison individual vs. team play vs. team play with BP. If I'm looking at it correctly, the different returns are $3.79/hr for individual, $18.95/hr for team due to higher bankroll, $26.16/hr for team with BP that I described. Keep in mind I calculated this with the BP bets at only 25 plays/hr (all others at 100 plays/hr). By actually going with the +2 count or higher, it seems a team of 4-5 players should be able to get the BP playing 50+ hands an hour (via higher frequency of count at +2). For that case, I calculate that the return for team with BP is $38.39/hr. Seems like quite an advantage in return for the team play BP method. I wonder if it is worth the effort given the disadvantages of team play you describe. I'm really curious what methods people use to try and signal the BP in and out and how casinos try to detect it. I'll have to get into some more reading. Thanks for the tips on available books.

I did find one comment re team play online that was hilarious. It was regarding a casino manager barring a player by telling him that he was observed on cameras to hop in and out of tables where all but one had a positive count when he joined. He asked if he could see the videotape and when asked why, he said he wanted to see which idiot called him in on a negative count.

Thanks again, WW21


Re: Some errors.....and some thoughts..
Posted by Z on 04-Jan-2003 13:55:47 (#2303)

You wrote:
I'm really curious what methods people use to try and signal the BP in and out and how casinos try to detect it.

If you're interested in this, Mezrich's book is a MUST READ!!! I can't emphasize it enough. It is entertaining, inspiring to counters, and despite being a novel offers a lot of info on relaying information.

Some expamles from the book:

Arms crossed in front - Calls in BP
Hand in/through hair - Get the **** out!

1 - Tree
2 - Switch
3 - Stool
4 - Car
5 - Glove
6 - Gun
7 - Craps
8 - Pool
.
.
.
13 - Witch
.
16 - Sweet
.
.
etc.

There is a logic to the words, other alternative lists can be invented rather quickly. The MIT team actually relayed running count, for obvious reasons; to offer you a taste from the book:

"It is colder than a witch's tit in here, Al. Don't you guys pay for heat?"

Needless to say the dealer laughed as the BP placed a $2500 bet :)

Z


bets and computers
Posted by dude on 02-Jan-2003 11:36:14 (#2271)

I have two questions for the group:

1. I am looking to spread 1-10 or 1-12 at an 8-deck game at $5 or $10 tables (hopefully drawing no heat for that), and I am looking on how to vary my bet based on the count. I haven't found any particularly illuminating tutorial on the Kelly Criterion or other betting strategies. Does anyone know any Internet sources or books that would help me with a multi-deck game? Or can anyone help me here?

2. I am currently coding a computer program that simulates my local casino perfectly. I want to test out different betting and playing strategies over a few million hands. I have written 200 lines of code so far, and I will need a few hundred more. Currently, the computer player and computer dealer play the same type of game (min. bet, no basic strategy, simply s17), and the computer has a 7.8 - 8.4% advantage over a few 100,000 hand simulations, which seems like the correct house advantage before basic strategy is incorporated. But it will take tens of hours of my time to perfect the program. Is this a worthwhile endevor? Or is there a free blackjack program that will allow me to simulate my local casino perfectly? I haven't found one yet. Thanks!

dude


Re: bets and computers
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 02-Jan-2003 13:02:26 (#2272)

1) Try spreading 1-16 or 1-20. Doubt if a 1-12 spread in an 8 deck game is worth minimum wage per hour. Even with a 1-10 spread, the standard deviation in 8 decks is huge. I assume you have about a $15,000 bankroll ready to commit to blackjack so you don't waste your time and go broke, right? No? Then you are wasting your time.

For the answers on "What do I bet?", "When do I bet?", "How much money do I need?", "Will I break the bank or go broke trying?", and other questions of this nature -- You need "Blackjack Attack: Playing the Pros Way" by Don Schlesinger. $19.95 is all it takes to find out what your bet spread should be, or how much per hour you are expected to win, and methods of insuring you do win.

2) The software you are writing has already been written. It is called CVSIM. It is not free, but then nothing worthwhile is ever free. You are wasting your time. There are unseen bugs you haven't considered that this software has already taken care of. For example, what are you using for your random number generator? Simply calling a random function supplied by your language isn't going to cut it. Over sims of several million hands, a bias will develop due to weaknesses in your RNG, possibly causing erroneous results. Plus, CVSIM will allow you to sim a wide array of games and rules.


Is this a good game?
Posted by Red514LX on 02-Jan-2003 15:38:44 (#2275)

A local casino offers an 8D shoe-game. They usually reshuffle w/ a little more than 2D remaining. The rules are: 21 pays 3:2, DA2, DAS, S17, LSR.

Is this a favorable game? Would this game be more or less favorable if it was a 6D shoe-game?

Thanks.


Re: Is this a good game?
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jan-2003 17:01:29 (#2277)

A bad game (but not VERY bad).

It would be MUCH better if the penetration were deeper (2+ decks cut off is too much).

S17 and LSR are good, rules.

6D or 8D doesn't matter, what matters is the penetration. If it was 6D with the same penetration, it would also be of little value. If you could get 6D with 4.5 decks dealt, it would be a good game. If you could get 6D with 5 dealt, it would be a great game.

--Mayor


Re: Is this a good game?
Posted by Learning to count on 02-Jan-2003 19:36:08 (#2281)

The problem with a two deck cut off is that the dealers get assinine and cut off 2.5 or even three because they get board dealing six decks or more in the two deck game. Like a shuffle will improve their dispositions.

The Mayor is right about the surrender and the s17. The only thing I wonder about when it is s17 if the dealer checks and there in no ten underneath when would you surrender or not surrender 16 against an ace? What indices? I mean thin because with a possible soft hand under that Ace. What negative TC would tell you to hit instead of surrender.??? Mayor if you could comment on this please. LTC


Penetration on 6D vs. 8D
Posted by Skug on 03-Jan-2003 11:03:16 (#2288)

Neophyte here, so please forgive the remedial question.

Wouldn't 2D penetration on an 8D shoe be equivalent to 1.5D penetration on a 6D shoe? I realize the remaining decks is important as the minimum denominator in the true count, but isn't the percentage of cards unplayed the essential variable -- meaning rough equivalency between 2D/8D and 1.5D/6D penetration (or 75 percent), setting aside the non-counting issue of each deck increasing the house advantage?


More decks == greater penetration
Posted by The Mayor on 03-Jan-2003 13:45:49 (#2292)

In my opinion, the more decks in the game, the better the penetration required to have the games be "equivalent". I think of the following as the break-off points for marginal games.

In single deck, R06 (this is typically under 60%).

In double deck, 60-65%.

In six deck, 75% (4.5 out of 6).

In eight decks, 80% or better.

The function is not linear. 75% at 6 deck is marginal. 75% at single deck and you can retire.

--Mayor


Re: Is this a good game? NOT BAD...
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Jan-2003 20:40:24 (#2283)

A local casino offers an 8D shoe-game. They usually reshuffle w/ a little more than 2D remaining. The rules are: 21 pays 3:2, DA2, DAS, S17, LSR. Is this a favorable game? Would this game be more or less favorable if it was a 6D shoe-game?
---------------------

...It would be slightly more favorable w/6D (still 75% pene)and RSA.

Two important issues - one is that your spread is sufficient, two is that you avoid neg-counts and go to another fresh shoe if the TC drops below -3. zg


Re: Is this a good game? NOT BAD...
Posted by Learning to count on 03-Jan-2003 10:43:56 (#2287)

Why minus three versus minus one as suggested by most Wong exponents?


Re: Is this a good game? NOT BAD...
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Jan-2003 12:18:23 (#2291)

-1 is actually too soon (depending on what portion of the pack remains), also he wasn't clear as to whether its a wong in/out or a play-all game. zg


6 & 8 deck SCORE comparo...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 03-Jan-2003 16:03:52 (#2293)

Here are some 6 & 8 deck SCORE numbers from a post by Bootlegger:

Here is some data from BJRM, assuming $10,000 bank and $25 units with OPTIMAL BETS:

GAME SCORE PLAY ALL SCORE WONG
4/6 S17DAS $11.97 $27.14
6/8 S17DAS $11.42 $27.35
4/6 S17DASLS $20.88 $40.83
6/8 S17DASLS $19.80 $40.45

Again, Hi-LO Ill 18 and fab 4, $10,000 bank, Optimal bets and units:

GAME SCORE PLAY ALL SCORE WONG
5/6 S17DAS $33.64 $63.84
7/8 S17DAS $26.42 $55.20
5/6 S17DASLS $52.27 $90.44
7/8 S17DASLS $42.64 $78.50

Here the 6 deck game is CLEARLY superior!

------------------------------------------

Note that with shallow pen there is little difference, but as pen increases, the 6 decker takes off.

ANS

p.s.: I have to disagree with zg's -3 wong out recommendation. This game requires a much more aggressive approach. Without getting into detail, a shoe with that shallow penetration tends to stay fairly neutral more often than usual, resulting in less times spent at higher/lower counts. I don't have an exact number on hand, but I would venture to guess that this shoe would reach -3 as infrequently as 5%-6% of the time (maybe 7%-8%), which would allow far too many hands to be played at -2, -1, and 0, causing high variance and a stunted ev.


I must agree...
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Jan-2003 21:18:50 (#2310)

...with the preceeding analysis by Boot/Adam - Of course, anyone familiar with my posts knows that I universally advise counters to avoid neg-shoes and to wong.

In the instant case the querant's playing style was indetirminant. I would tend to maintain, however, that a 75% 'semi-playall' 8D w/1-40 spread, betting 1u every other hand/negEv and exit at -3TC approach (such as I might play aboard a cruise ship or other limited table enviroment) might offer an acceptable advantage (in fact your playall stats virtually confirm it).

Prefferably, wonging in w/ 1-6+ spread is superior to the above, and wonging out TC is a function of remaining #decks. zg


all wins should be based on % of bk roll.N.M *NM*
Posted by hammer on 02-Jan-2003 18:51:36 (#2279)


Good point
Posted by The Mayor on 02-Jan-2003 19:27:05 (#2280)

But not the traditional way... usually it's simply how many units...

But, in the spirit of your post, I won 54% of my BR in 2001, and 7% of my BR in 2002.


That looks alot better for me
Posted by Coug Fan on 02-Jan-2003 20:23:02 (#2282)

On a percentage basis, I won 125% of my starting bankroll+additions during 2002.


ThinkGeek.com