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. If you want to discuss any of these topics, please do so at the BlackjackInfo Forums.

CardCounter.com Messages: Page 12

Threads 331 to 360

An interesting exercise
Posted by BradRod on 11-Jan-2003 21:30:01 (#2505)

At the Mayor's suggestion I recently performed an interesting exercise. I wanted to share my observations from that exercise with the forum.

It goes like this:

Deal hands as if playing one on one with the dealer using only 6 cards. 3 - T value cards, A, 5, 6. The equivalent TC is 18. Play 100 hands.

With such a rich deck to play from I expected it to be a very player friendly run. It was. The end result put me up 20 units after the 100 hands. These were maximum bets because of the high count. What was eye opening was that I lost nearly half of the hands. Still did well because of blackjacks and successful double downs.

I did not count the hands where the dealer got BJ with an ace up. Since I would have bought insurance and would have won the insurance bets. Thses hands were the only (effective) push hands possible with the cards being used.

These Ace up dealer BJ's demonstrated to me that there was not so much to fear in the long run of a dealer BJ in a high count with a big bet out. Because
a. insurance offsets the potential losses and
b. a dealer BJ is still just a 1:1 loss. While the 3:2 player BJ payoff far offset those.

This got me wondering. What are the odds (if surmisable ) of a dealer BJ being Ace up or T up ? is it even ?

Re: An interesting exercise
Posted by AsZehn on 11-Jan-2003 22:02:07 (#2506)

It couldn't be even. There are 16 cards with a 10 value and only 4 aces per deck.

Explain further please.
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 11:27:06 (#2519)

>>It couldn't be even. There are 16 cards with a 10 value and only 4 aces per deck.<<

I guess this is the same source for Rob McG's assertion that 1 in 4 BJ would be Ace up.

My confusion is. I can understand how the 1:4 ratio of Ace to T would effect the possibilty of the hand being a BJ at all-- rather than a T and any other card. I just do not understand how that ratio effects the order in which that A-T combination would be dealt.

Thanks

1 of 2 BJs will be ace up *NM*
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 11:31:42 (#2520)

Re: 1 of 2 BJs will be ace up
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 11:45:29 (#2522)

Thank you TH

What does the 1:4 ratio explain then ?

Yes, here is the argument
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Jan-2003 11:54:10 (#2523)

Yes, half of the blackjack's will be face up.

Here is how it is done (with an infinite deck)...

Let X = BJ.
Let Y = A is showing.
Let Z = T is showing.

Then
P(X given Y) = 4/13.
P(X given Z) = 1/13.
P(Y) = 1/13.
P(Z) = 4/13.

Blackjack and an A is showing:
P(X and Y) = P(X given Y)*P(Y) = 4/13*1/13 = 4/169.

Blackjack and a T is showing:
P(X and Z) = P(X given Z)*P(Z) = 1/13*4/13 = 4/169.

They are equal.

--Mayor

The Fact of The Matter Is
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Jan-2003 12:18:31 (#2526)

A BJ is composed of two cards, one an Ace the other a 10. The ratio of 10 to A will be 4 to 1, and over the long run your BJs will be A,10 A,J A,Q, and A,K, half A up and half the 10 J Q K up.

Re: The Fact of The Matter Is
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Jan-2003 13:55:41 (#2532)

I am not sure you understand the question, Rob.

But, the answer is that 1/2 of the dealer's BJ's occur via an A up, and 1/2 occur via a T up. That is just how it goes. Now, if an A, the dealer is 4 times as likely to have a BJ as if he is showing a T, but on the other hand, the dealer gets a T up 4 times as often as an A. Hence it evens out.

--Mayor

Re: The Fact of The Matter Is
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Jan-2003 15:00:01 (#2539)

"I am not sure you understand the question, Rob.

I'm sure I didn't get the drift, as I said from my first post, if I am understanding the question correctly, or the point of the exercise. I assume there is a point to it somewhere, and that it had to do with betting the advatage to some degree. This written medium and pop up posting leaves a lot to be desired.

"But, the answer is that 1/2 of the dealer's BJ's occur via an A up, and 1/2 occur via a T up.

Of course.

"Now, if an A, the dealer is 4 times as likely to have a BJ as if he is showing a T, but on the other hand, the dealer gets a T up 4 times as often as an A. Hence it evens out.

All makes sense. 1 out of 13 will be A up, 4 out of 13 ten up, 8 out of 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 up, and if and when the dealer has a BJ it will be 50% A up and 50% ten up.

What is the point of the original exercise you set the man out to do? That would help in this discussion.

The point of the exercise
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Jan-2003 18:39:11 (#2578)

The point is that even with fabulous cards and a huge count, horrible things happen. If one does this exercise enough (and 100 hands is not enough) then you will find the dealer pulling 3 21's in a row with a 5 showing, or the dealer getting 10 BJ's for your 1. Just enough to make you realize that even with a huge + count, life can really suck. And with these cards, that's exactly what happens, either you get a great run of cards or the dealer does, there is not much middle ground. It gives an experiential idea why the variance is so large when the count gets high.

The point.

--Mayor

Re: The point of the exercise
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Jan-2003 18:45:57 (#2579)

That is why I posted "You were also rather lucky." in the original reply. You can have an amazing edge and still get killed as you well know. That is why I mentioned minimum boldness, and using it to grind your edge instead of throwing yourself at it like a fly into the spiders web.

I must say that the quality of discussion...
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Jan-2003 17:09:31 (#2546)

... is climbing fast around here! zg

Re: I must say that the quality of discussion...
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 17:31:38 (#2548)

.. is climbing fast around here! zg

has a way to with your contribution .... although i must say that i find your messages mostly abit cryptic ...

brad

Re: I must say that the quality of discussion...
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Jan-2003 17:49:24 (#2549)

I told you "it depends who's dealing"! zg

LOL ,, Thar ye go ! *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 18:56:18 (#2553)

Half
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Jan-2003 12:32:57 (#2527)

you can insure against, the other half not.

Re: An interesting exercise
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Jan-2003 22:26:40 (#2507)

This got me wondering. What are the odds (if surmisable ) of a dealer BJ being Ace up or T up ? is it even ?
--------------------------------

It would depend who's dealing! zg

Re: An interesting exercise
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 11-Jan-2003 23:02:26 (#2509)

"This got me wondering. What are the odds (if surmisable ) of a dealer BJ being Ace up or T up ? is it even ?

If I am understanding your question properly, dealer BJ happens 1 out of 5 with an A showing. In the case you are talking about below 1 per 4 BJ's would be A up.

"Deal hands as if playing one on one with the dealer using only 6 cards. 3 - T value cards, A, 5, 6. The equivalent TC is 18. Play 100 hands.

"With such a rich deck to play from I expected it to be a very player friendly run. It was. The end result put me up 20 units after the 100 hands. These were maximum bets because of the high count. What was eye opening was that I lost nearly half of the hands. Still did well because of blackjacks and successful double downs.

You were also rather lucky. In The World's Greatest Blackjack Book on page 201 it shows two different scenarios. One where you have a 2% advantage and one where you have a 2% disadvantage. You have a 49% chance of doubling your roll betting it all on one chance with the -2 and 51% with the +2. BUT, by playing with smaller amounts, you can increase your chances of doubling by making 100 even sized bets over 100 hands. You have a 98.2% chance of doubling after these 100 hands. On the contrary side, you will have a 1.8% chance of doubling your roll after 100 -2% hands. Better NOT to bet at all against a -2% game, and bet small amounts to grind out the time against your 2% edge on the quick side of this game.

"I did not count the hands where the dealer got BJ with an ace up. Since I would have bought insurance and would have won the insurance bets. Thses hands were the only (effective) push hands possible with the cards being used.

"These Ace up dealer BJ's demonstrated to me that there was not so much to fear in the long run of a dealer BJ in a high count with a big bet out. Because
a. insurance offsets the potential losses and
b. a dealer BJ is still just a 1:1 loss. While the 3:2 player BJ payoff far offset those.

It's great to know what every card left in the deck is isn't it? smile

Re: An interesting exercise
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 11:37:12 (#2521)

>>>>>>>If I am understanding your question properly, dealer BJ happens 1 out of 5 with an A showing. In the case you are talking about below 1 per 4 BJ's would be A up.<<<<<<<<<<<

Please see my question in the next post.

"Deal hands as if playing one on one with the dealer using only 6 cards. 3 - T value cards, A, 5, 6. The equivalent TC is 18. Play 100 hands.

>>>>You were also rather lucky. In The World's Greatest Blackjack Book on page 201 it shows two different scenarios. One where you have a 2% advantage and one where you have a 2% disadvantage. <<<<<

What is the player's advantage with a + 18 count ?

>>>>> by playing with smaller amounts, you can increase your chances of doubling by making 100 even sized bets over 100 hands. <<<<<<

Are you saying I shouldn't be making maximum bets with a +18 count. Or did I not play this oversimplimfied simulation correctly ??

>>>It's great to know what every card left in the deck is isn't it? smile <<<

Although it is true that I did know what the remaining cards were , my decision to take insurance or not would have been based solely on the count , not on knowledge of remaing counts.

Re: An interesting exercise
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Jan-2003 12:47:03 (#2531)

>>>>You were also rather lucky. In The World's Greatest Blackjack Book on page 201 it shows two different scenarios. One where you have a 2% advantage and one where you have a 2% disadvantage. <<<<<

What is the player's advantage with a + 18 count?

Let us guess that it is 9%. With TC+1 we play even in multi deck, TC+2 we get the edge, so using .5% per C ruff estimate let's say 9%.

>>>>> by playing with smaller amounts, you can increase your chances of doubling by making 100 even sized bets over 100 hands. <<<<<<

Are you saying I shouldn't be making maximum bets with a +18 count. Or did I not play this oversimplimfied simulation correctly??

If we are going to use 9% of our bankroll as our max bet, yes, we would be betting too much. Half Kelly or quarter Kelly, or a top max bet no matter how high the count gets, possibly 2% is what Igor K (Humble) is suggesting in the long run grind of the house. He uses 1/100th of the bankroll, or 1%.

>>>It's great to know what every card left in the deck is isn't it? smile <<<

Although it is true that I did know what the remaining cards were , my decision to take insurance or not would have been based solely on the count , not on knowledge of remaing counts.

Very good. Was this exercise only an insurance exercise? I think there is a lot to learn from exercises like these, and that is why I thru the maximum and minimum boldness as it is called in the book into the exercise.

Re: An interesting exercise
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 14:15:17 (#2535)

<<<<<<<If we are going to use 9% of our bankroll as our max bet, yes, we would be betting too much. Half Kelly or quarter Kelly, or a top max bet no matter how high the count gets, possibly 2% is what Igor K (Humble) is suggesting in the long run grind of the house. He uses 1/100th of the bankroll, or 1%.<<<<<<<<

I thought that kelly criteria was based on player advantage. No more no less in order to double the BR before depleting it.

You are suggesting that there is another criteria to follow for bet ceiling based on something other than BR and TC ? This seems to disregard the players advantage in betting. At what counts would you do that ?

>>>>>>Very good. Was this exercise only an insurance exercise? I think there is a lot to learn from exercises like these,<<<<<<<

The exercise was not only for insurace but, I think for general expectation at a high count.

>>>>>>>>> and that is why I thru the maximum and minimum boldness as it is called in the book into the exercise.<<<<<<<<

i did not understand this

Re: An interesting exercise
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Jan-2003 15:08:06 (#2540)

<<<<<<I thought that kelly criteria was based on player advantage. No more no less in order to double the BR before depleting it.

I am justing pointing out "minimum boldness" to you, many small bets instead of larger ones. "Max boldness" is plunging your entire roll on one shot, the proper play against a neg ex game. Some players will never bet more than 1% of their bank, some use 2%, even if your advantage is 9%. We are still working with risk of ruin here.

>>>>>>Very good. Was this exercise only an insurance exercise? I think there is a lot to learn from exercises like these,<<<<<<<

The exercise was not only for insurace but, I think for general expectation at a high count.

>>>>>>>>> and that is why I thru the maximum and minimum boldness as it is called in the book into the exercise.<<<<<<<<

i did not understand this

If I had a flat bed scanner I would put the pages up here for you to view. It's hard to get a grip on things this way.

Re: An interesting exercise
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 18:29:11 (#2551)

sorry rob , we do seem to be miscommunicating...

Wrong
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 15:57:57 (#2543)

You were also rather lucky. In The World's Greatest Blackjack Book on page 201 it shows two different scenarios. One where you have a 2% advantage and one where you have a 2% disadvantage. You have a 49% chance of doubling your roll betting it all on one chance with the -2 and 51% with the +2. BUT, by playing with smaller amounts, you can increase your chances of doubling by making 100 even sized bets over 100 hands. You have a 98.2% chance of doubling after these 100 hands.

I'm sure the book says nothing about having a 98% chance of winning after just 100 hands.

Re: Wrong
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Jan-2003 20:00:30 (#2555)

You don't have the book obviously. I will photocopy it scan it so you can read it.

It makes absolutely no sense
Posted by T-Hopper on 13-Jan-2003 09:52:25 (#2566)

How about with 100 UNITS and not after 100 HANDS?

Re: It makes absolutely no sense
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Jan-2003 13:43:21 (#2572)

100 hands of 1 unit each more like?? How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? Or is it would?? I photocopied that page so we can all look at it tonight.

When is ground hog day anyway?

Boss!! De Page! De Page!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Jan-2003 16:36:19 (#2575)

Re: Boss!! De Page! De Page!
Posted by T-Hopper on 13-Jan-2003 20:38:35 (#2580)

What you said:

In The World's Greatest Blackjack Book on page 201 it shows two different scenarios. One where you have a 2% advantage and one where you have a 2% disadvantage. You have a 49% chance of doubling your roll betting it all on one chance with the -2 and 51% with the +2. BUT, by playing with smaller amounts, you can increase your chances of doubling by making 100 even sized bets over 100 hands. You have a 98.2% chance of doubling after these 100 hands. On the contrary side, you will have a 1.8% chance of doubling your roll after 100 -2% hands.

That supposed to be 100 UNITS, not 100 hands. Obviously it is almost certain to take more than 100 hands to win or lose 100 bets.

T-Hopper: Errata?
Posted by Cyrano on 12-Jan-2003 08:54:14 (#2514)

Ok, I FINALLY got around to reading your TH Basic.... Sorry it took so long.

Excerpt from your T-H Basic book, pg. 31:

The T-H Basic playing strategy is not designed to have the highest possible expectation at all times. In fact, the expectation is lower than standard basic strategy if the same amount is bet at all times.

**I think you're mistaken. Consider: if the above-statement is true, why even vary playing in accordance to counts? It's to obtain a higher EV, no? If you can obtain a higher expectation with standard BS, then you certainly will only play BS. I think you touched on what you mean is what you state in the latter sentence, "it is a dollar-weighted strategy, which means the expectation will be greater in the higher counts when more money is bet..." Any descent count system will have an expectation that's higher than BS with just the play variations--that's why you start off with BS and then vary your play in accordance to the count. What's different about most UB systems is the fact that they have a higher BE, whereas TC'ing produces a higher PE.

Also, on page 66, I'm not sure if this is a mistake, but, if you scan the ROI/100 for the 2-player table, the % goes down with more decks. At the full tables, they jump dramatically at the 4D, basically implying that the 4D games at FULL TABLES are superior to all the 2-player games?

Re: T-Hopper: Errata?
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 10:32:06 (#2515)

Regarding your title, yes. I just got an email from someone giving me two small corrections to make, and I've noticed a more serious one myself (page 26 is a duplicate of page 25).

The T-H Basic playing strategy is not designed to have the highest possible expectation at all times. In fact, the expectation is lower than standard basic strategy if the same amount is bet at all times.
**I think you're mistaken. Consider: if the above-statement is true, why even vary playing in accordance to counts? It's to obtain a higher EV, no? If you can obtain a higher expectation with standard BS, then you certainly will only play BS. I think you touched on what you mean is what you state in the latter sentence, "it is a dollar-weighted strategy, which means the expectation will be greater in the higher counts when more money is bet..." Any descent count system will have an expectation that's higher than BS with just the play variations--that's why you start off with BS and then vary your play in accordance to the count.

The above statement refers to the fixed T-H Basic playing strategy, which is independent of any count system. It will underperform basic strategy if you are flat betting/play all, but no card counter does that. Once you include a bet spread and/or table hopping, T-H Basic is much more efficient than standard BS.

The complete T-H Basic system includes the following elements:

<UL>
<LI>T-H Basic playing strategy
<LI>Single-level unbalanced count (2-7 +1 10, A -1)
<LI>Running count indices for only insurance and even money
</UL>

The same betting charts can be used for the multi-level Bushido Basic system as well, as detailed in the Appendix. There is no significant difference between the performance of these two counts at the Basic level.

Also, on page 66, I'm not sure if this is a mistake, but, if you scan the ROI/100 for the 2-player table, the % goes down with more decks. At the full tables, they jump dramatically at the 4D, basically implying that the 4D games at FULL TABLES are superior to all the 2-player games?

The 4, 6, and 8 deck System Reports include table depature, while the 1 and 2 deck System Reports. See page 75 for the table departure strategy used by all systems. Even the systems that use TC for betting use this simple running count departure strategy to ensure that all systems play the same hands.

Finishing a sentence
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 10:51:58 (#2516)

The 4, 6, and 8 deck System Reports include table departure, while the 1 and 2 deck System Reports

do not.

Re: Finishing a sentence
Posted by Cyrano on 12-Jan-2003 10:57:15 (#2517)

Table departure--Does that also include the 2-player tables 4-8D numbers? It seems the top table does not include Table Departure play, while the bottom table does.

That is correct
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 11:19:21 (#2518)

Table departure is used only for 4-8 decks with 6 players at the table. That's because it is easier to do in real life when the casino is crowded. Also, you need the extra edge to make up for the slower pace. I report the ROI/100 hands, not the ROI/Hour.

trip question
Posted by hammer on 12-Jan-2003 12:00:54 (#2525)

You are goinhg for a quick 3 day trip, you have yur goals and
loss limits(I know Mayor doesn't use stop losses), you reach your
goal and make loads of cash on the first day 3rd session.

Now what?
reduce remaining sessions? and just cruise around
continue with same strategy?

or what?

Re: trip question
Posted by Learning to count on 12-Jan-2003 12:37:13 (#2528)

"You are going for a quick 3 day trip,"

I preume you mean a cruise like Carnival? I was recently on a cruise see my post "1001 ploppy tales; Splitting tens and being called a jerk".

"you have your goals and
loss limits(I know Mayor doesn't use stop losses),"

If your are protecting your BR. Which is rsponsible. Then try and play at a higher EV: Wong, Wong out, The past few threads are about playing AC eight deck games. There is a lot of Excellent INFO on the topic of eight deckers and mierda two deck cuts.

My stop limit is when I cant take the losses any more. I am emotionaly drained so I stop. Also watch for steaming this can cause you to bet progressively. Trying to get that loss back. DANGEROUS. I takes a lot of experience and self knowledge to be a cold hearted no feeling player. One stop measure I have is being tired. If you are tired; quit; rest up and come back later or tomorrow.

"you reach your
goal and make loads of cash on the first day 3rd session."

Depends I always said if I double bank roll I would continue playing but at a low ROR or if I hit the jackpot I would go buy a house. Since this is probably not going to happen keep on counting! The reason counters go on playing is that they understand that the full benifit of the game is gained in the long run. For some it is an experiment in life not just a way to make money(the greed factor). They want to see if all that math will work itself out and reveal the advantage. Since this is based on infinity make up your own style of play just remember the big picture as well.

"Now what?
reduce remaining sessions? and just cruise around
continue with same strategy?
or what?"

Knowing how bad the games can be on the ship you will probably ride the roller coaster and keep playing looking for the advantage. I found that you actually end up playing even on those ships. One thing to shoot for is calculate what the whole trip will cost and try for that. Then the trip is free. Then go up to the pool put on the shades and have that pina colada. LTC

Re: trip question
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 12:37:35 (#2529)

IMHO

Take a break to reevalute based on your new bank roll. Create a new goal and loss limit and keep playing in games with positive counts until you reach your new limits. Re-evaluate . Repeat.

Re: trip question
Posted by The Mayor on 12-Jan-2003 13:57:49 (#2533)

Win goals are meaningless -- they don't earn money for you, they lose money -- bigtime. If you won as much as you hoped to win, good for you, but keep playing. The rest of the hours you play are also with a positive EV, and hence they earn even more for you (this is not a "maybe they earn more" -- simply put, they DO earn more).

--Mayor

T-Hopper. where are posts ?
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 13:58:33 (#2534)

I am trying to locate

"6D Bombshell: Playing Strtegy is Key"

and

comprison chart of side count vs non side count (www.bjnet.com/thop/sample3dchart)

Please advise..

thanks

Brad

Re: T-Hopper. where are posts ?
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Jan-2003 14:18:54 (#2536)

I couldn't find the link, but TH is saying that, contrary to popular opinion emergent from megalaDON's paradigm, learning an extra 50+ i#s CAN make a not-insignificant improvement in 6-8D games. zg

Re: T-Hopper. where are posts ?
Posted by BradRod on 12-Jan-2003 14:46:36 (#2538)

LOL, I love your editorial snippets ZG but, didnt you also give accolades to Adam N subtractum's post on the validity and applicablity of side counting in multi deck shoes. (POM)

In that post ANS made frequent refernce to TH's postings.

Thank you for your synopsis of those posts. : ) I do think there must be value to reviewing them first hand as well as Reid, Humble, Griffin and others...

Brad

Re: T-Hopper. where are posts ?
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Jan-2003 16:59:08 (#2545)

LOL, I love your editorial snippets ZG but, didnt you also give accolades to Adam N subtractum's post on the validity and applicablity of side counting in multi deck shoes. (POM)
---------------------------

The main thrust of Adam's '21st Century' post was that there is an easier yet more accurate method of side-counting Aces, for play-efficiency, not about shoes per'se, but the shoes can improve close to 20% with more i#s, etc. zg

Re: T-Hopper. where are posts ?
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 15:26:48 (#2541)

My original post has finally cycled off the Card Counting Systems board and into the members only archives. That is why I reposted it just a few days ago on this site. You may have noticed my follow-up post, "Single Deck Bombshell: Playing Strategy is Everything" still on the board at http://www.bjrnet.com/thop/board_systems.htm

Here is what you asked for:

http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl/read=2430 (embedded link doesn't work)
http://www.bjrnet.com/thop
http://www.bjrnet.com/thop/sample3dchart.png

Or download T-H Basic Blackjack and get all 4 charts along with everything else.

http://www.bjrnet.com/thop/T-H_Basic_Blackjack.zip

The 3D charts in Bushido Blackjack are slightly different, covering the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced versions of that count.

Bad link
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 15:40:49 (#2542)

http://www.bjrnet.com/thop/board_systems.htm should just be
http://www.bjrnet.com/board_systems.htm

Re: Bad link WHERE...
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Jan-2003 16:41:39 (#2544)

... is the 6D Bombshell post? zg

Repost: 6D Bombshell:
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 18:23:57 (#2550)

..Playing Strategy Is Key

[Note: My simulator now has even more powerful systems for both betting and playing than the T-H Expert/Dirty 32 combined system. I plan to update this material and make it a permanent part of my web site]

I ran a series of simulations using my series of systems and also K-O Core from Knock-Out Blackjack by Ken Fuchs and Olaf Vancura and the "Dirty 32" from James Grosjean's book Beyond Counting. In all of these simulations, the same count was used for betting(2-7 +1 10, Ace -1).

6 decks 4.5 dealt S17 DAS No Splitting 10s 2 players 1-10 unit bet spread

 

Playing Strategy     ROI  Strategy Variations  

K-O Core            0.10% Insurance only; "generic" basic strategy  

T-H Basic           0.13% Insurance only; dollar-weighted basic strategy  

T-H Intermediate    0.15% Top 2 dozen plays  

T-H Advanced        0.17% Full set  

T-H Expert          0.19% Extended set with ace side count  

Dirty 32            0.20% Top 32 plays with custom multi-level counts for each  

T-H Expert/Dirty 32 0.22% Combination of the above 2 systems

ROI is defined as the Win/100 Hands divided by the bankroll necessary for a 10% risk of ruin.

These numbers clearly show that even in a 6D game with a mediocre cut, there is a lot to be gained by using proper count-based playing strategy variation.

You can refer anyone
Posted by T-Hopper on 12-Jan-2003 18:32:11 (#2552)

who says "it doesn't matter what system you use" to this post. If they still disagree, send 'em to me!

Can you roughly quantify...
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Jan-2003 19:09:12 (#2554)

...for us the approximate relative extra gain that 60 i#s will garner versus 20 in a 6D decent pene game? 20%? zg

Roughly quantified...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 12-Jan-2003 20:52:12 (#2558)

zg, the following is an excerpt from a post by chem nerd at BJMath.com, in which he presents his final analysis (for 6D) after a few threads of discussion.
I believe T-hop participated in these threads as well, and perhaps he will comment more on the subject.

-60 Hi-Lo Indices-

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

Game: 6D, S17, 75% pen, Hi-Lo (indices from Wong's PBJ)
Betting scheme: 1 at TC<=1, 2 at TC 2, 4 at TC 3, 6 at TC 4, 2 hands of 6 at TC 5.

play dev_index_%gain_cum_rel
insurance 3 0.114 0.114 33.4
16 v. 10 0 0.041 0.155 45.3
15 v. 10 4 0.019 0.174 51.0
12 v. 4 0 0.018 0.192 56.3
12 v. 3 2 0.015 0.207 60.6
11 v. A 1 0.012 0.219 64.2
13 v. 2 0 0.012 0.231 67.7
10 v. 10 4 0.008 0.239 69.9
12 v. 5 -1 0.007 0.246 72.0
12 v. 2 3 0.007 0.253 74.0
16 v. A 8 0.006 0.259 75.8
10 v. A 4 0.006 0.264 77.4
9 v. 2 1 0.005 0.270 79.0
13 v. 3 -1 0.005 0.275 80.4
9 v. 3 0 0.004 0.278 81.5
soft 19 v. 6 1 0.004 0.282 82.6
16 v. 9 5 0.004 0.285 83.6
9 v. 7 3 0.003 0.289 84.6
15 v. A 10 0.003 0.292 85.5
8 v. 6 1 0.003 0.295 86.3
13 v. 4 -3 0.002 0.297 87.0
12 v. 6 0 0.002 0.300 87.7
10 v. 9 -1 0.002 0.302 88.4
soft 19 v. 5 1 0.002 0.304 89.0
8 v. 5 3 0.002 0.306 89.5
14 v. 2 -3 0.002 0.308 90.1
soft 20 v. 6 4 0.002 0.309 90.6
soft 13 v. 5 0 0.002 0.311 91.0
16 v. 8 7 0.001 0.312 91.4
6-6 v. 3 0 0.001 0.314 91.8
soft 19 v. 4 3 0.001 0.315 92.2
13 v. 5 -4 0.001 0.316 92.6
9 v. 4 -2 0.001 0.317 92.9
soft 18 v. 2 0 0.001 0.318 93.2
soft 20 v. 5 5 0.001 0.319 93.6
14 v. 3 -4 0.001 0.321 93.9
15 v. 9 8 0.001 0.322 94.2
soft 14 v. 5 -1 0.001 0.322 94.4
3-3 v. 4 0 0.001 0.323 94.7
11 v. 10 -4 0.001 0.324 95.0
15 v. 2 -5 0.001 0.325 95.2
soft 15 v. 4 0 0.001 0.326 95.4
6-6 v. 2 2 0.001 0.327 95.6
soft 13 v. 4 3 0.001 0.327 95.8
17 v. A -6 0.001 0.328 96.0
8 v. 4 5 0.001 0.329 96.2
14 v. 4 -6 0.001 0.329 96.4
16 v. 7 9 0.001 0.330 96.6
soft 14 v. 4 1 0.001 0.330 96.7
9 v. 5 -4 0.001 0.331 96.9
9-9 v. 2 0 0.000 0.331 97.0
soft 19 v. 3 5 0.000 0.332 97.2
soft 20 v. 4 6 0.000 0.332 97.3
15 v. 3 -6 0.000 0.333 97.5
9 v. 8 7 0.000 0.333 97.6
10 v. 8 -4 0.000 0.334 97.7
soft 17 v. 2 1 0.000 0.334 97.9
15 v. 8 10 0.000 0.335 98.0
14 v. 5 -7 0.000 0.335 98.1
soft 13 v. 6 -1 0.000 0.335 98.2

Re: quantify
Posted by BradRod on 13-Jan-2003 08:51:05 (#2559)

play dev_index_%gain_cum_rel

what are cum and rel ?

cumulative & relative *NM*
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 13-Jan-2003 08:58:11 (#2560)

Re: cum. and rel.
Posted by BradRod on 13-Jan-2003 10:57:50 (#2568)

What do these describe ?

Do You Split Tens?
Posted by SammyBoy on 13-Jan-2003 09:18:10 (#2561)

This is a move that I have never made. Maybe in the right situation I would try it, but when the count calls for it I grit my teeth and stand pat. My feelings are that I'm scared to draw any unneccessary attention towards my play, from either the dealer, other players or the pit critters. What do you do?

Re: Do You Split Tens?
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Jan-2003 09:26:20 (#2562)

I've done it once (in 3 months' of play). The count was pretty high in a 2-D game--9 (UBZ count), with more than 2/3's of a deck dealt. The dealer had a 5 out. The correct strategy was to stand in H17 games. This was one, but I just wanted to mix it up a little and thought it couldn't hurt. I got a 9 and another 10 (which I didn't split). The dealer received a 7, and busted with a 10. Seldom, it's right to split 10's. If you never split 10's, I don't think you'd lose much in winnings.

Quite Frequently
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 13-Jan-2003 09:29:23 (#2563)

With a minimum bet out, and several slow playing obnoxious ploppies at the table, I split and re-split 10s every time.

90% effective at getting heads-up play for the next few shuffles.

Damn counter~
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Jan-2003 09:32:44 (#2564)

So THAT was you who screwed up the flow of the cards for me!!! :-P

LOL: *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 13-Jan-2003 11:00:35 (#2569)

The best quote I've heard...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 13-Jan-2003 09:38:59 (#2565)

...on the subject:

"The only people who split tens are idiots...and idiot savants."

Though splitting tens is a very valuable strategy deviation, this is almost always negated by the heat it generates. Even if a PC isn't near you when you make the play, the complaints and groaning of ploppies will assuredly call attention to your action. This play is best left for the better "actors", who are known to the pit as "wild" or "crazy" gamblers. I should point out that there are some places where ploppies do split tens more than usual, and this would obviously allow you to blend in much easier. All in all, its probably best avoided. Comfort yourself with the fact that splitting tens increases variance, which would offset some of the ev gain anyway.

ANS

Re: what's the loss?
Posted by Todd on 13-Jan-2003 11:02:18 (#2570)

Since I dont split tens I was wanting to know the ev that is lost by not splitting. I use hi-lo (4tc or better to split).

thank you.

Re: Do You Split Tens?
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Jan-2003 10:52:08 (#2567)

I don't do it except if I am playing heads up in a heat free environment (not very often).

Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Jan-2003 14:04:42 (#2573)

Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins

I'm an enthusiastic 10s-splitter, though I fancy that my 10s get split at a higher count typically than the strict Ev-based indices suggest, thus a bit more RA (risk-averse)... and as the #splits increases, my index rises higher into RA territory.

As ADM has suggested, I also establish myself early-on as a 10-splitter by splitting and re-splitting 10s incorrectly with small bets out, even against a 3 or a 7 perhaps - and, yes it is an excellent way to clear the table of excess players - and if I'm 'lucky enough' to 'cause' the loss of others' bets due to the split(s) I laugh without mercy at the other's loss and announce that "it will work better next time! Now, hurry up and deal some more 10s!" (the others get the message)

As some have heard me fond of saying, if a ploppy invades my table I will often immediately ask them in mock surveyesque fashion "would you play at the same table as some crazy yahoo who splits 10s?" More times than not they will passionately reply "NO!" to which I turn to the dealer and say "hurry up Sally, deal me some 10s!"

Notwithstanding the above, I m also fond of getting another player at the table to split their 10s - usually a wild redneck or one of 'the brothers' - I put up the other half ("partners") - in which case the index need only be BELOW what even doubling on 10 would be.

"Magic Coin"

Flipping coins at the table is an additional flourish that, if done adroitly, can add to one's 'cover' of various plays including 10-splitting.

A beautiful example of this application occurred last November when I was playing at a 2D table with my ploppy-driver - she was at the table w/me because I had two LVA 3-1 BJ coups to play - the count was sky-high and she got 10s. I signaled her to split 10s and immediately the shift-boss was camped-leaning over 1st base and I said "WAIT!" He said "she should do it!" I said "oh no, arrgghh, ok" - she splits and gets a 7 and a 10 - SB says "split'em again, I think you'll win!" I wanted to split BUT I hesitated for her and then said to her "lets flip a coin, heads we split again, ok?" - SB tells me to flip it on the felt "where we can all see it" (apparently he thought I might call it wrong on purpose) - Heads, we split again - another 10 "oh no!," again the SB tells her to split, we flip, heads, split and catch a 9 and an Ace - SB says "doubledown I think you'll win, flip the coin!" I put the coin away and borrowed a line from Robin Williams in Club Paradise - "I may be crazy but I'm not stupid" - we won and I thanked the SB for giving us the courage.

Flipping a coin at the table can be a good subterfuge - at the wide-area/coin-toss-zone, where it doesn't matter which way you decide hit/stand, etc., noticeably going with the coin in almost superstitious fashion, visibly, suggests that there is no strategy, strictly random-decision making. If the flips are working it becomes the "magic-coin" and I may flip it for others as well.

With a noticeably large bet out, I can call the pitcritter over and have him flip the coin for hit/stand/double, etc. - or, even for occasional bet-sizing where there's a close call - heads we let it ride, etc.

If the coin-toss is missing, I can announce that the coin is now (borrowing from Gen. Custer in 'Little Big Man') "a perfect reverse barometer" and do the opposite of what the coin says, thus confusing everybody.

More on "intuitive-process" decision-making when in the 'wide-area-zone' (WAZ) -

In one of the threads below, TH suggested that intuition in the WAZ should not be used unless one can demonstrate that its exceeding the results that would otherwise occur by random-guess... BUT I say that its ok to only achieve the random-guess result because it frees one from over-reliance on so-called "precise index#s - my logic being that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EXACT INDEX LINE OF DEMARCATION ANYWAY!

So... when you are in the WAZ be guided by the FORCE (or the coin, perhaps).

splitting 10's etc
Posted by BradRod on 13-Jan-2003 16:15:39 (#2574)

you mean we are supposed to have fun at this game ?

Re: Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins
Posted by T-Hopper on 13-Jan-2003 20:52:20 (#2581)

In one of the threads below, TH suggested that intuition in the WAZ should not be used unless one can demonstrate that its exceeding the results that would otherwise occur by random-guess...

The point I was really trying to make is that a good practice program should be able to measure the effect of such techniques. It's not good enough for the program to know the count; it should know the exact EV for every possible play. I believe Eric Farmer's practice program probably has this capability.

Re: Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Jan-2003 22:16:12 (#2584)

I stand corrected - this would make for a potentially powerful practice and and verification simulator. Is Eric Farmer by chance related to Eudemonicn Pie's Doyne Farmer? zg

5 + 5, Coolest Man Alive.....
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Jan-2003 08:47:09 (#2593)

There is an exact index for each play, but since that number is based upon the overall effect of + or - cards and not each card individually, there is room for this exact point to move up or down. RA makes sure you are not guessing. And in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you have made mistakes playing at the table like hitting a hand or doubling a hand that "the book" tells you not to and pulled off a winner by chance. We have the edge, but luck, or variance as it is technically called, will have its way with you.

Re: 5 + 5, Coolest Man Alive.....NO
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Jan-2003 11:12:03 (#2599)

NO, I disagree - there is NOT a true-precice-exact index# for every play without taking into account the penetration of the particular game, not to mention #decks, rule-subset, hand composition, etc. ALL INDEX#s are an approximation and whether one hits or stands within a couple of integers makes NO real word difference. zg

Re: 5 + 5, Coolest Man Alive.....YES, oh Yes!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Jan-2003 12:38:54 (#2602)

We are both right. We don't know where that point is with our simplified counting systems, but it DOES exist. RA is like jumping across a river by an extra foot or two, rather than landing with your heel wet and your toes dry.

Apples and oranges, my man...
Posted by zengrifter on 15-Jan-2003 01:23:47 (#2627)

... or does Christians and Buddhists ring truer? zg

also...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 14-Jan-2003 17:02:11 (#2615)

...depending on where you are (how deep) in deck/pack affects the indice.

Exactly
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 15-Jan-2003 08:49:32 (#2630)

Like where you are jumping across the river.

'Don't push the river' *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 15-Jan-2003 13:13:04 (#2639)

Tunica Trip Report (for entertainment only)!
Posted by phantom007 on 13-Jan-2003 18:23:14 (#2576)

Within the last week, I spent 3 days in Tunica, MS. I netted $1250. in BJ profits, $89. in Texas Hold-em profits, and $100. "cash-back" bonus, or $1438. for the trip. When I got home, I gave my wife $1,300.: That is our deal, she gets my profits, and then does not gripe (too much) about my absences for investment trips. OK, $138. for 3 days work...about the same as McDonald's.

The trip starts off as they all do. While at work, I called my favorite casino/hotel, GoldStrike, for reservations. I LOVE the GS...great restaurants, many open 24 hours, great buffet, great cafe, great gourmet, decent pizza, etc., etc. Weekdays, GS usually has 2 $10. SD and DD games available, and when times are hard, about 15 $5. 6D's for one's playing pleasure. And did I mention 24-hour Room Service? GS is even better for me, in that "I learned to play there", thus, as a LTL (Long-Term Loser), am fully, and I mean, FULLY comp'd.

GS was booked! But I have a "VIP" Card! Does not matter, the World Series of Poker (WSOP) playoffs are in full swing, and there are quite simply no rooms to be had.

No problem. I get to Tunica about once a month. I usually stay at GS, but I also try to spread my business "around". So I called Horseshoe (next door to GS)..."No Room at the INN"...FxxxKing WSOP.

Again, No problem. Once or twice a year, I stay (and play) at Fitzgerald's...small casino, small hotel, GREAT Restaurants, only 2D and 6D BJ, AND DEALER's KEEP THEIR OWN TIPS! Fellow CC's should know that this destination has, at least, potential..."No Room at the INN"...FxxxKing WSOP.

Again, No problem. Sheraton is right next to GS and Horseshoe...by now I was out of phone #'s, so I hit the internet. My query to Sheraton informed me that they also were full for the desired dates (FxxxKing WSOP), but that a room was available in another PPE Property (Grand). And so, I checked in to the Grand.
As I made my reservation via Credit Card, I did note that the "little padlock symbol" was absent in the right lower corner of my viewing screen, but I did not worry, because this was a reputible organization.

In doing same, I was informed that via my registration, I could now view info. on 29 PPE properties world-wide...does this mean that if I should be barred at a PPE property, that I will now be barred from 29 world-wide?

After my night-shift ended, I drove the 4-hour drive to Tunica. When I checked into the Grand, the Credit Card that I had used to make the reservation was "Declined". My protests that "it was good 8 hours ago" had no weight...fortunately, I had other CC's to chose from in order to cover my expenses.

When I got to my room, very nice by all standards, this CC issue had me "Pissed off". So I called my CC company. I was informed that some outfit called "Planet Telecom" was making multiple charges against my CC. I told them that I had not authorized these charges. They told me to contact the "fraudulent biller" and get them to take the charges off! I spent close to an hour trying to get this straightened out, but to no avail.

I was PISSED! I was VERY PISSED! I needed a drink, or several! I opened up the Grand Room Service menu, for the purpose of ordering several of their $4.50 Beers....it was 12:05pm...weekdays, Grand's Room Service closes from noon to 5pm.

DAMN!

I went to the Giftshop in the lobby, and purchased #4 Amstel Lights...at $2. each, a great bargain! Back to my room, twist off the cap, OUCH!

DAMN! They ain't twist-offs!

Metal framework on the headboard (why do they call it a "headboard"?)...beer is now open!

And I need to Shit, and I mean, I need to shit bad! So I did. As part of my New Year's Resolution, I went on a high fiber diet...same is medically likely to result in small but frequent BM's...my ass does not read the literature...I had a "4-pounder" with laterally squirting liquid, and used nearly a whole roll of TP for the purpose of Anal Cleansing!

And I PLUGGED the toilet! While "my cup does not runneth over", my bowl sure does.

Compliments to the Grand, and their plumber...response time, less than 5 minutes. I tipped the guy $5. for his trouble.

Got some sleep, then went to the Casino. In Session #1, spent 5 hours straight at a DD table, betting $10. in Negative Decks, $20. on 2 hands in (+) decks, and $40. in two hands in (++) decks. Won $600.

Then went to Grand's Poker Room and won $88. from their professioals!

Had to work (in the geographic area) the following day, then revisited Grand for 5 straight hours on SD, same parameters as above. Won $650.

In general, penetration was 55% for both SD and DD...did NOT vary by dealer, thus I suspect was set "by the house".

Curious, either a Big Compliment, and/or a Big Warning, in that towards the end of my second 5-hour session, the Dealer told me: "You are an Excellent Money Manager!". When I asked what she meant, she said: "You are the type that could hurt a casino, big-time!" When the Dealer's changed, she got the PC's attention, pointed to me, and said, "He is an Excellent Money Manager".

He did not (seem) to have a clue. She said again, "He is an excellent money manager!" He still did not (seem) to have a clue, so she walked off, and I cashed in, and went back to my room to take one last SHIT!

And when I got home, and tried to settle this CC situation, they decided to cancel my Card, and re-issue another, once this issue of Fraudulent Billing is settled.

More information than I need 8-)
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Jan-2003 18:33:01 (#2577)

But a nice report, full of the kind of stuff that really happens on trips -- a good bathroom can be hard to find.

Congrats on the win!

--Mayor

Re: Tunica Trip Report (for entertainment only)!
Posted by SammyBoy on 14-Jan-2003 09:37:43 (#2595)

I've been to Tunica twice, the first time I played the GoldStrike and enjoyed it. The second time was on a weekend and it was packed tighter than a... well, the place was so full you could barely walk around. Lots of hotties strutting around too. Anyway, all the SD and DD tables were $25 minimums. Too rich for me.

Thanks for the report. A little too detailed, but enjoyed it anyway. Thanks.

Question for T-Hopper
Posted by joe_r_black on 13-Jan-2003 22:38:14 (#2585)

In your free ebook it states the TH Basic performs 30% better than KO Core or High Low. While most systems use generic basic strategy and then have indices for basic strategy departures, you seem to have combined the two to create a modified basic strategy that utilizes the higher betting units at the departure points and incorporates that into the modified basic strategy.

How does your TH Basic system compare to HighLow with the Catch 22 or with say 50 High Low indices?

How does it compare to Zen with the Catch 22 and with 50 indices?

Re: Question for T-Hopper
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Jan-2003 09:14:33 (#2594)

I asked a similar question at the CCC:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/17704

RM:Great news! Please tell us how it stacks up against already
available systems like Hi Low, Zen, Hi Opt II, etc."

> That's what http://www.bjrnet.com/thop is for.

RM:Yes, but all I see is "rating." What are you using to rate the
systems with? What is the PE and BE of each system. I think it
might be a good idea to show how they stack up against each other
using the standard methods of comparisions already being used.

> Extensive simulation results and the risk vs. return using optimal
bets.

> What is the PE and BE of each system.

PE and BC(not BE) measure the potential of each set of possible
point count values, not the real-world performace of a complete
system. The T-H point count values have a theoretical BC of .98,
and PE .56 (.70 with ace side count). I don't have the Bushido
numbers handy, but it is very similar to UBZ (.97/.63).

> I think it
> might be a good idea to show how they stack up against each other
> using the standard methods of comparisions already being used.

ROI is equivalent to SCORE, DI, and N0. In fact, a page of
conversion charts between these measures is given in the Advanced
section of each series. The system comparison rating is calculated
as System ROI/T-H ROI * 100 for each game. I grouped systems for
comparison purposes according to the following levels:

Basic: Running count for betting and insurance only
Intermediate: Running count for playing and betting, partial set of
indices (usually 16-24)
Advanced: True count for playing and betting, full set of indices
Expert: True count with one side count

RM:Super! Your different approach should be well received by newer
players, and possibly frowned upon by "The Old Boys" network, which
means you made the grade! Congratzi......

Are YOU convinced?? smile

Re: Question for T-Hopper
Posted by T-Hopper on 14-Jan-2003 10:42:20 (#2596)

In your free ebook it states the TH Basic performs 30% better than KO Core or High Low. While most systems use generic basic strategy and then have indices for basic strategy departures, you seem to have combined the two to create a modified basic strategy that utilizes the higher betting units at the departure points and incorporates that into the modified basic strategy.

Yes, I call it a "dollar-weighted" strategy. Normal BS is unweughted, leading to poor results for a card counter.

How does your TH Basic system compare to HighLow with the Catch 22 or with say 50 High Low indices?
How does it compare to Zen with the Catch 22 and with 50 indices?

I didn't create any new subsets of systems for my comparisons. I used entire systems exactly as published. You can see how High-Low Lite Sweet 16 from Blackbelt in Blackjack compares to T-H/Bushido Intermediate at http:/www.bjrnet.com/thop/intsystems.htm , and how the complete Zen compares to T-H and Bushido Advanced at http://www.advsystems.htm . If you want to compare systems of different levels, you can either eyeball the scale from my 3D System Charts, or buy the books and have the EV, SD, and ROI available for any game or spread you might choose.

If I sell enough books, there will be an interactive CD-ROM version later that will include the System Reports for other counts. For now, I've gone out of my way to make it easy for anyone else to reproduce my results.

How about a SCORE comparision? *NM*
Posted by koko on 14-Jan-2003 13:33:17 (#2608)

The theory of Bj
Posted by tweety on 14-Jan-2003 07:32:10 (#2592)

Does anyone know how it gets the values for expectation on page22 of the theory of BJ(eg.+1, -0.5)? Does it make up the no.s?

Thanks
Tweety

Re: The theory of Bj
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 14-Jan-2003 12:40:07 (#2603)

The chart is based on a set of 5 cards. [5,6,8,9,T]
So playing basic strategy with the hands and dealer upcard given, just exhaust all the hits/stands possible with the remaining 2 cards. Add up all the wins/losses, divide by the number of hands played, and you get the expectation.

About the only thing made up in "Theory of Blackjack" is Griffin teaching the elephant the correct way to play a blackjack (Sue, the elephant in question, already knew how).

11 vs 10 Index?
Posted by SammyBoy on 14-Jan-2003 10:45:28 (#2597)

For single deck? I usually don't double in a negative count. What is the actual index? Thanks.

Re: 11 vs 10 Index? CLICK. ON 'INDICES' (left) *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Jan-2003 11:32:54 (#2600)

Player 11 VS Dealer 10 is not listed. *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 14-Jan-2003 11:42:48 (#2601)

Try -4.
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 14-Jan-2003 12:45:35 (#2604)

Anything less than -4 (and 0 is way less) and you are leaving money on the table. Basic strategy of always doubling will make you more than only doubling in positive counts on this play. So just hit it in the high negative counts only.

Wow, That's Low!
Posted by SammyBoy on 14-Jan-2003 13:18:15 (#2605)

Thanks Abe! I'll make the neccessary adjustment.

11 vs 9 is the same, so now you know 1 more. *NM*
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 14-Jan-2003 13:25:16 (#2606)

Necessary adjustment
Posted by The Mayor on 14-Jan-2003 13:27:16 (#2607)

Go out and buy Wong's PBJ and learn a bunch of indices.

But, if you have to choose, also choose indices that have + values to learn, since they will be critical when you have big bets out. Who cares about a -4 index with a min bet out? It has almost no value.

I learned it.
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 14-Jan-2003 13:42:36 (#2609)

Simply because the double down on 11 when looking at a dealer's 10 up card was kind of a pet peeve. Much like the ploppie who doesn't like to split 8s because it involves putting up additional money, it just ticked me off to double a bet (even a small bet) in a highly negative count when I knew I wasn't going to get the cards.

You are right however. Positive indices are much more valuable than Negative ones. And indices for frequent hands (like 16 and 12) are much better than hands like A,A vs A.

Soft 18 vs A is another one of my pet peeves. Stand at +1.

Re: Necessary adjustment
Posted by SammyBoy on 14-Jan-2003 13:51:57 (#2610)

At one time I owned Wong's PBJ, before I knew how to count. At the time counting seemed so complicated that I thought I'd never learn to do it. I got so frustrated after several big losing sessions as a BS ploppy, that I swore off all gambling. I gave or threw away all of my gambling books. About six months later I went back to playing blackjack, and still could not win. This time it just made me more determined to learn how to play a winning game. So I began reading online and practicing everyday, until it became almost second nature. Now I'm practicing with the flash cards to learn the indices. I've also noticed that even though I'm playing often in casinos or playing with SAGE blackjack on the computer, I still need to do the counting drills with actual cards to keep me sharp. Wong's PBJ is the only book I really regret getting rid of. I will buy another copy this week.

I've become much more disciplined about my gambling since becoming a counter. I've gone into many casinos and then walked right back out because there were no decent games. Two years ago I couldn't do that because it was more about the action than it was about making money. I can honestly say that the day I can no longer find a good game of BJ is the day I no longer visit casinos. OK, maybe that's too strong of a statement. That's probably the day I start playing poker instead. :-)

This one IS worth learning
Posted by T-Hopper on 14-Jan-2003 15:34:25 (#2611)

First of all, the dealer will have a 10 up 4x as often as any other card. Second, you are lowering risk by not doubling, rather than increasing risk by finding another hand to double on. Finally, the value of this double plummets as the count drops further below -4.

Another important risk-reducing index to learn is when NOT to split 8,8 vs. 10 at high counts.

...unless you only play shoes *NM*
Posted by T-Hopper on 14-Jan-2003 15:39:01 (#2612)

Excellent points...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 14-Jan-2003 17:14:52 (#2617)

The true effect of play deviations like 11 v T, 8/8 v T, and s18 v A often goes overlooked. Along with the ever so slight increases in ev, there is also the reduction of variance that needs to be factored in when determining the value of plays like these.

ANS

# for not splitting 8's?
Posted by Todd on 14-Jan-2003 18:52:34 (#2621)

In a shoe game, is it about 7 or 8?

Do you (or anybody) here, know what the loss in ev is for not splitting tens against 5 and 6 when at a tc of 5 and 4? I would think this should be an important question for those who care about ev losses.

thanks.

Re: # for not splitting 8's?
Posted by Learning to count on 14-Jan-2003 21:35:52 (#2625)

"In a shoe game, is it about 7 or 8?"

I looked up in PBJ, Wong, page 48:h17;no das; 88 split 2-9, 10/6* (* reverse the meaning. Split only if the count per deck is less than the number in the table, split id ealer has ace. If DAS allowed then 10/8*. Same for s17 game.

"Do you (or anybody) here, know what the loss in ev is for not splitting tens against 5 and 6 when at a tc of 5 and 4? I would think this should be an important question for those who care about ev losses.

thanks."

Per Schlesinger page 191 in BJA I "refusing to split tens costs about 0.05-0.10 units per hour." Sorry this is best I can do without staying up all night. Hope this helps.

R-A 8/8 v T........ +4 *NM*
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 15-Jan-2003 18:36:25 (#2642)

DAS can make a difference *NM*
Posted by T-Hopper on 16-Jan-2003 10:47:33 (#2651)

At Neggy 4
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Jan-2003 17:16:32 (#2618)

That's why it isn't in the Ill 18. You won't find any of my $$ on the table, unless we are playing single or double decky.

New Page: "The Best"
Posted by The Mayor on 14-Jan-2003 17:12:15 (#2616)

I have started a new page on this site, consisting of the best posts. I will be the sole judge of what is put on that page, but if you want to suggest a post, please do! I chose a starting 8 already.

--Mayor

3 of 8
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Jan-2003 17:22:54 (#2619)

I will call these wonderful guys "3 of 8" Not as hot as 7 of 9 is, but heck, they're just counters! Congratz dudes! You've been crowned by the Mayor!

Re: New Page: "The Best"
Posted by Learning to count on 14-Jan-2003 19:25:13 (#2622)

I know I will get razzed for this but I would like to nominate the following:

"Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins

Posted By: zengrifter
Date: 1/13/03 12:04:42 p.m.

Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins

"Magic Coin"

Flipping coins at the table is an additional flourish that, if done adroitly, can add to one's 'cover' of various plays including 10-splitting.

More on "intuitive-process" decision-making when in the 'wide-area-zone' (WAZ) -

So... when you are in the WAZ be guided by the FORCE (or the coin, perhaps).

zg"

I nominated this post because it is an excellent example of what this site is about: "Learning from each other and learning from the Sensei's of blackjack and card counter.com."

Zengrifters application of his "loony" style of play is exactly what we should be adding to our play..."FUN". Time after time I spot the profile card counter; cold, focussed, concentrated effort. Then you watch the bet spread up with the count and NO DONT SPLIT DOSE TENS BROTHA! This is what we need here more ideas more creativity. I like to clown around too. My goofyness has a determined objective, to win, and take thier minds off my successes.

ZG has not only showed us a technique but he added when, how and why he does split. Though unorthodox it works. Some times ZG gets above my altitude but all in all he teaches. Splitting tens is a big tell for the eye and the PC. This is a counter or a goofball ploppy. ZG one of these days I want to play with you and your liberterian independent streak. Your still a grouch though...Merry Christmas!!! LTC

gracias amigo!
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Jan-2003 20:24:30 (#2623)

I was hoping to get more challenges to this unconventional example! zg

Re: gracias amigo!
Posted by Learning to count on 14-Jan-2003 21:11:05 (#2624)

De Nada Hombre de nada. Once I watched a counter play so cold and determined that even the dealer said "its so obvious". I saw the same counter six months later playing the extreme drunk and recklace gambler. This time the only thing that was said was "hey buddy you've had enough to drink". All the while he was stuffing green chips in his pocket. He even made $100 dollar cold cash plays and won and got away with it. Interesting approach but he was obnoxious.

Thank you very much!
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 15-Jan-2003 10:15:56 (#2632)

I feel very honored for having my 'enemy' posts included in your selection.

I would also like to point out the post 'Re: Know the Enemy II', not because I want another post on your 'best' page, but because I also feel this post contains some good cover advice.

PS -- You going to be in Vegas over Superbowl Weekend?

Thanks Mayor...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 15-Jan-2003 19:41:15 (#2643)

This is a great addition to the site, and I'm honored to have a post included.

ANS

Same goes for me *NM*
Posted by alienated on 15-Jan-2003 21:06:23 (#2647)

Is the Travel Channel trying to encourage counting
Posted by ace on 15-Jan-2003 12:29:28 (#2634)

(also posted on bj21.com)

I am a bit of a Vegas junkie so of course in between trips I love watching Vegas Week on the Travel Channel. So far in two of the shows, they have tried to paint counting in such a light that everyone should do it, and hey its legal! So if you are going to play blackjack, "learn how to count"

In a show titled something like "Top Ten Ways to Win in Vegas", "Learn How To Count Cards" was number TWO! I mean I am not agruing with the logic or the reasoning, but who are these shows aimed at? Not advantage players, in my opinion they are more aimed at Ma and Pa Ploppy who make a visit or two a year and miss being in Vegas. So this is the #2 suggestion you are giving them? In this show they went out of there way to point out that card counting is not against the law but that "casinos dont really like it."

In a show shown last night called "Las Vegas Quiz", there was a question regarding card counting in which the correct answer was, of course, that card counting is legal. Again, they state that casinos dont really like it and can refuse your service, but that it is not against the law. They even had the head of the GCB Enforcement Division on to say yeah its not against the law but casinos dont like it because its taking away their edge.

Is there a bad/good/any precedent being set here? I have watched these types of shows for years and NEVER have they given this much press to counting. Are they encouraging people who shouldnt be counting to try it? And is this a bad thing for APs?

Just looking to get some thoughts going on the recent publicity.

Same old story
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 15-Jan-2003 12:45:31 (#2635)

Blackjack has been touted as a beatable game ever since Edward O. Thorp published "Beat the Dealer" in 1962.

Why do you think blackjack surpassed craps as the most popular table game? In the 40s and 50s, Craps was king.

The casinos telling Ma and Pa Ploppy that blackjack can be beat by counting, and then offering single deck with bad payoffs, CSMs, multideck games with poor penetration and rules, is just good business.

Re: Is the Travel Channel trying to encourage coun
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 15-Jan-2003 12:48:50 (#2636)

Media hype, gets people excited, and no, it is not good for real counters.

Re: Is the Travel Channel trying to encourage coun
Posted by ZOD on 15-Jan-2003 19:56:09 (#2644)

I think media hype from "The Vegas Channel" or "Bringing Down the House" is good for the game. More excitement means more players and more players means the house is happier. I do my best work when the house is happy to see me...

ZOD

Re: Is the Travel Channel trying to encourage coun
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Jan-2003 13:00:08 (#2653)

They are only happy to see me for about 15 minutes....grin. You could be right. Thorp did the most damage to the game. Do you think it will get worse or better with the new flood of losers? I mean, tables will be crowded, even good games will get swamped. Ploppies don't know what you are doing when you split 10's at a table. In fact, they could start doing it and eating the count own to zippo by the time the dealer hits!! grin

Re: Is the Travel Channel trying to encourage coun
Posted by ZOD on 16-Jan-2003 18:33:02 (#2662)

Let everyone hype blackjack as a "beatable game". Saturday night I'm playing 6D at the Mirage. Three ploppies at the table who have just finished reading "Bring Down the House" take pity on the poor "drunk bastard" at third base (me) and proceed to spend the next hour and a half giving me conflicting advice as they part with their money. I spread $10 to $250 with nary a glance from the floor and took any advice that happened to be right. The ploppies were happy just betting on a beatable game. The house was happy because the ploppies were losing money even faster than I could win it. And I was happy (of course) to stagger away from the table with an extra grand in my pocket...

ZOD

I Hear That!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Jan-2003 18:41:26 (#2663)

It is a laugh to watch people that know just enough to think they can beat the game at work. Now were you really drunk or fakin' it? grin I like my free toddies at the table. In fact I make sure I suck back enough juice to cover my tips to the waitress and the dealer, and then ask for my free din din to help sober me up! ;>

Re: Is the Travel Channel trying to encourage coun
Posted by Cyrano on 15-Jan-2003 13:01:27 (#2637)

--what was number 1?

In a show titled something like "Top Ten Ways to Win in Vegas", "Learn How To Count Cards" was number TWO!

Re: Is the Travel Channel trying to encourage coun
Posted by ace on 15-Jan-2003 13:08:18 (#2638)

Dont play with money you cant afford to lose.

Re: Is the Travel Channel trying to encourage coun
Posted by Learning to count on 15-Jan-2003 15:26:09 (#2640)

The vegas channel is fun. I just wish they would stop using old film to make new shows. I did happen to see some of my favorite dealers in the last few days.

A lot of the shows on how to play/win/lose in vegas are all hype. The best two are the vegas challenge and suckers bet. In Vegas Challenge the hot asian chick one big at Back A Rat...and the book store historian dude lost every thing at Blackjack. Well we know his story from last years nuclear fallout over him and PPE. Thats another story.

Now sucker bet was great...Anthony Curtis Vs MAX (lose a buck for every ten bucks in free stuff)Rubin. They went at it at craps, BJ, roulette, slots, vid poker etc. It was billed as intelligent playing versus let it all hang out ploppyism. The Ploppy won $75 over $62.50. These shows are fantasy and definitely make our world look simple. I do love the photography. Vegas is a pretty town.

The show on how they built Vegas was great. So thats how that ship sinks! I love "two for vegas" too. I laugh every time I see those Elvis reverends marry off that days contestants. My cousin got married there a year ago and we had a family reunion to celebrate it. Better her than me! I cant wait for thier reunion! All in all the vegas channel is harmless unless you buy into the meirda del toro!

Risk Aversion
Posted by Learning to count on 15-Jan-2003 16:02:31 (#2641)

Could someone please discuss/explain in english the theory behind Risk Aversion. I am starting that section in BJAII. In english or some tips to understand this would be helpful as I study this. Thanks. Risk Aversion page 311-316, 328-329. BJAII. Thanks! LTC

Re: Risk Aversion
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Jan-2003 12:53:22 (#2652)

Simply put, you avoid risky plays (ie double your bet for pennies) until they are worth taking the risk for. The EXACT indice # is say +3. At that point after playing 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 hands you will be ahead by five freakin cents. By wating until the TC is +4, you will be ahead by a full dollar! grin It is also easier to remember index #'s if they are all +2 +4 +6 +8 or -2 -4 etc RA works the other way around on the neggy side. -3 you go RA to -4, but with small bets as the Mayor suggests, min bet out, just keep couting and watchin those flashy waitresses shakin it.

SHAKE YO ASS
WATCH YO CARDS
DANGER!!

(at home pounding casinos, sorry, got carried away!)

Re: Risk Aversion DRUGGED
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 14:57:20 (#2656)

"...just keep couting and watchin those flashy waitresses shakin it.
SHAKE YO ASS
WATCH YO CARDS
DANGER!!
(at home pounding casinos, sorry, got carried away!) "
---------------------------

See LTC, gambling IS A DRUG! zg

Damn Straight!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Jan-2003 16:07:08 (#2657)

I'm so high...in fact, I'm $350US higher than I was when I wrote that first bling bling! Don't take much to make me happy, so you may think I'm overdosin', but I come from the factory like this.

Risk Aversion, eCasino Subversion
Takin the Cake, Right Out the Gate
Play by the Rules, Dis off them Fools
Put it all Together, No one does it Better
Pump and McGrind, Time after Time
You and me, and my Bobby Mac Gee

(Higher than Janice Joplin, without gettin' dead)

"I stand right next to a mountain".....na, I'll leave that til tomorrow. I can play all of those tunes on my Strat with my teeth! ;>

Re: Risk Aversion DRUGGED
Posted by Learning to count on 16-Jan-2003 20:00:28 (#2668)

Well I will agree he is a jovial fellow and he is a canuk so I guess I will excuse his eccentricities. Your right about the addiction part...degenerite gamblers all of us.

Re: Risk Aversion
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 14:49:39 (#2655)

I have been asking for a simple-quantified 'universal RA adjustment' - 6-10 i#s shift to RA - rule of thumb (ie, 10v10 increase index by 70%, etc.) - perhaps someone here will take a stab at it, they are certainly easy enough to safely guess at it. zg

Re: Risk Aversion
Posted by V-man on 17-Jan-2003 08:07:15 (#2679)

My understanding of RA is like this:
The traditional way of caculating indices are based on EV alone. Play like 10 vs dealer's 10, if you double down when TC is +4 or more, you stand a better EV but at the same time, your risk is larger. If you can play a trillion hands throughout your entire life than in the long, very long long run, only EV is concerned, but no one will play that many hands, hence EV should not be the only basis, obviously risk must be accounted for. RA indices account for EV and risk, just like the Sharp ratio. Myself, I like the RA indices, even though playing with RA reduces my EV, but my SD is also smaller.

Re: Risk Aversion ONLY 10...
Posted by zengrifter on 18-Jan-2003 01:07:44 (#2684)

... or so iindex#s need to be adjusted - 1 index (10v10) garners over 1/2 of the available RA-adjusted gain. So, someone please QUANTIFY THE PRIMARY index-adjustments for RA, please. zg

Stanford Wong on the Travel Channel
Posted by The Mayor on 15-Jan-2003 20:38:45 (#2645)

I just saw Stanford on TV, in the episode "The top 10 casinos in Vegas." He was explaining why the single deck game at the Horseshoe was a good one.

Incredibly, his only disguise was a hat.

Way to go SW!

--Mayor

Re: Stanford Wong on the Travel Channel
Posted by Learning to count on 15-Jan-2003 20:46:36 (#2646)

He was on a few nights earlier and was talking about vid poker payouts and later about Counting with one of the KO BJ guys I think it was Vancura. Last time I was at the horseshoe the single deck was sweaty and shallow.

HS 1D sucks
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 00:14:21 (#2648)

"I just saw Stanford on TV, in the episode "The top 10 casinos in Vegas." He was explaining why the single deck game at the Horseshoe was a good one."
---------------------------

How did he justify HS 1D as a good game? (The best game at HS currently are the two 2D games with 80+% pene. zg

Re: HS 1D sucks
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 16-Jan-2003 16:08:22 (#2658)

He may have been presented in some twisted context. I didn't see the show with Mr. Wong, but the Travel channel has been showing some pretty screwball propaganda about card counting lately.

Building Up
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Jan-2003 18:48:35 (#2664)

to go postal with the MIT crap they are working on in the back room.

I believe he was speaking of BS play... *NM*
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 16-Jan-2003 23:36:49 (#2672)

Re: HS 1D sucks
Posted by LVBear584 on 16-Jan-2003 23:54:50 (#2675)

"He was explaining why the single deck game at the Horseshoe was a good one."

It must have been an old taping.

Re: HS 1D sucks REAL OLD...
Posted by zengrifter on 17-Jan-2003 00:00:40 (#2677)

... for the uninformed - at a marginal 'Ro6' game like HS 1D, IF you can get 4rounds to 2hands, but only 5rounds to 1hand - play 2hands heads-up thru most counts +/-... this is how the best pene is achieved. Other DT 1D games such as LVC, Western, EC (days) currently are superior. zg

excellent point zg...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 17-Jan-2003 01:56:45 (#2678)

...4 to 2 is clearly superior to 5 to 1, and I have a series of posts at BJ21 where I tried to explain this to a particularly dense poster. The posts showed a marked improvement in penetration, for both betting and playing purposes, as well as what kind of substantial effect these improvments could have on our edge. I'll try to re-post it up here as soon as I get a chance, I think some may find it of interest.

ANS

Re: HS 1D sucks
Posted by BlackJackHack on 20-Jan-2003 18:08:48 (#2706)

IMO, HS 1D is not that bad IF it is not crowded. I like to play green, and, unfortunately, most downtown 1D joints will call the national guard if you play green. HS is really the only 1D joint that will take green action pretty well. I've spread 1-6 (25-150) many times there without getting unusual heat.

The problem with HS 1D, in my opinion, is that it is typically too crowded. As anybody on this board knows, a crowded 1D game is totally useless.

Never played the 2D game at HS -- usually I don't look too closely at an H17 2D game with no DAS. But if it is 80% pen, it probably is worth a look.

Top 4 reasons for playing @ El Cortez & Western
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 01:15:33 (#2649)

El Cortez and Western, downtown Las Vegas, have been crticized by Don Schlesinger and others as "toilets" and "sweatshops" to be avoided - I enjoy visiting both whenever I am in town and playing low to moderate stakes. Here are my top 4 reasons for playing at these joints. zg

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

Top 4 reasons for playing @ El Cortez & Western

4. The best 1D games in LV

3. The ambviance of an authentic '50s casino

2. Fine Tuner's highest SCORE rating.

And, the #1 reason for playing at the El Cortez & Western...

1. NEVER running into Don Schlesinger as he madly spins and hops, whirling dervish style, wonging from table to table constantly checking his watch, and chattering incessantly like a Lewis Carrol 'Looking Glass' character,
"I'm late, I'm late, I really must be going!"

Re: Top 4 reasons for playing @ El Cortez & Wester
Posted by Learning to count on 16-Jan-2003 05:49:52 (#2650)

Ha ha. Your right it does have a good game except for the penentration but sometimes face up or even two can get past the middle of the deck. The chicken fried steak is good in the cafe which is a blink of an eye away.

They do sweat though. The little Filipino pit critter gets nosy after they call out on a bet over $30 bucks. And if you start out in green they emediatley run for the phone.

MY best opportunities come in the morning and betting two hands to keep the bets broke up. The $35 dollar mark seems to be the catch all. It is hit or miss
at $30 if they will yell check play. So I go two hands of thirty.

The Western well that is a different story. Good game. They only sweat when you bet over twenty five bucks. They dont sweat the thought of you being a counter. They sweat wondering if they can pay you if you do win. The western is just that a "WESTERN". The John Wayne security/door man,, The drunk Mexican at the front one peso Blackjack table, A town drunk sleeping under a vid poker machine towards the back, the old half grey half bleached blonde haired waitress, and the lipstick stained coffee cup. I always look to see if a gunfight will start in the street. ZG versus DS....????? "Its not just a western its an adventure".

Hey ZG how agout answering my question on RA below!

Re: Top 4 reasons for playing @ El Cortez & Wester
Posted by reddevil on 16-Jan-2003 13:06:30 (#2654)

Dont forget at the Western
#5 The 60 year old cocktail waitresses that if you tip them will be the fastest servers in LV
#6 No one has name tags and most wont tell you their real names so you get to make names up. My personal favorite is the grave PC I call "Bones", though he does not seem to like that too much

On the note of penetration I was there on New Years playing with two other players at the table and twice in a 2 hour period a dealer had to reshuffel to fininsh out the hand. It was the first time i had seen this anywhere.

Red

Excellent Post!
Posted by The Mayor on 16-Jan-2003 16:41:35 (#2659)

And funny
and to the point

But then again, Don Schlesinger, when invited as guest of honor to the GC party for BJ21, had to have his room paid for by BJ21, because he did not have any comps in Vegas available.

Maybe he does play at the Western after all!

--Mayor

Re: Top 4 reasons for playing @ El Cortez & Wester
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 17-Jan-2003 08:46:42 (#2680)

The dealers at the El Cortez are often young Chinese girls straight off the boat, so they don't speak english. This means no idle dealer chit-chat slowing down the game.

A $1 tip is truely appreciated.

The Careful Kitty Cafe Breakfast Special can't be beat.

Renzey on Table Propositions
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 17:32:24 (#2661)

Wheeling and Dealing with Players at the Blackjack Table

by Fred Renzey

The player at third base had about $8000 in front of him with five $100 chips riding on his hand -- and he was the small bettor at the table!

Did I get your attention with that opening line? This happened in the High Limit room at one of the local casinos. I was just watching. Third Base was dealt a pair of 9s against the dealer's 8 up. The only other person at the table was routinely betting two to four purples ($500 chips) per hand. He had 17 and stood.

Third base hesitated pensively, apparently knowing that he should split -- but this was one of his biggest bets. "You know what you gotta' do," commented Big Purple with nonchalant confidence. Third Base remained frozen like a statue.

"Here. I'll take one of your 9s", Big Purple finally blurted out as he tossed Third Base a $500 chip. "Then I gotta break up my 18 and start all over with 9? Naw -- I need more than $500 to do that," beckoned Third Base. So Big Purple, ever the sport, tossed Third Base a $25 chip to go along with the original purple. "There's a guaranteed $25 profit on your 9 of hearts. I'll take that and you play the 9 of spades," suggested Big Purple in a final tone.

Third Base was on the spot. He could split his two 9s for $500 apiece, play a pat 18 for $500 total, or play one 9 against an 8 for $500 starting out $25 ahead. "How 'bout I keep the quarter, we split the 9s and divide up the results 50-50?" Third Base countered. "Sounds like a partnership to me -- deal the cards Mr. Dealer man," said Big Purple.

At uncrowded high stakes tables, these things go on fairly regularly. But the point is, it doesn't have to be a high stakes table. If you've got the blackjack "card sense" and can be quick and smooth about it, you too can wheel a profitable deal here and there -- be it on your own hand or somebody else's.

Once you become a perfect basic strategy player, you're either stuck with a 1/2% disadvantage or you have to move forward. The realm of "hand interaction" is a wide open area that almost nobody seems to pay any attention to. To use it to your advantage though, you have to know the odds.

How many times have you seen a player at your table split say, a pair of 6s against a 4, catch a 5 on the first 6, double down and buy a deuce? Then on the second 6 he catches a 3 and won't double there because he already has three bets riding with two of them on a bad hand. Well, his loss in perspective is your opportunity! You should know that any proper basic strategy double will win more often than it loses. So get your chips over there and grab that edge!

It doesn't necessarily work that way with pair splits though. Suppose you have a pair of 6s against the dealer's 3. Basic strategy tells you to split that, but it's only because splitting will lose less money than playing your 12. However, playing only one 6 against a 3 loses less money than either hitting 12 or splitting two 6s.

So the next time you've got a pair of 6s against a 3, ask somebody next to you if he wants one of your 6s. Since it's a basic strategy move, you may get a taker, and that'll save some money -- long term.

Sometimes you can even buy another player's hand outright. How? By taking advantage of their own false beliefs. For example, how do you feel when you have 19 against the dealer's 10 up? If you're like most players you're praying, "Please no 10 in the hole -- p-l-e-a-s-e no 10." But did you know that a made 19 is the outright favorite against a playable dealer's 10 up? Yet, many players half expect to lose that hand.

So what can you do? When the guy next to you has 19 against a 10 up for, say, $25 -- offer him a guaranteed $1 profit for his hand by proposing to buy it for $26. If he takes it you'll have manufactured a 3% edge out of nothing!

By the way, who was the hustler and who was the "mark" in the deal between our two high rollers at the beginning of this story? Well, both 9 against an 8 and 18 against an 8 are 6-to-5 favorites to win. Big Purple saw an edge and bought his way into it. Third Base sold out half of his edge for too cheap a price, cutting his total expected gain down by one fourth.

How did the hand turn out? One winner, one loser and the sucker made $25 off of the "suckee" -- that time.

- January 12, 2003

See Playing Other Peoples Hands
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Jan-2003 18:54:45 (#2665)

in Aces and Faces Blackjack, and pick up the exel table I created over at the Card Counters Cafe. Wong into a game at +2TC with a flat bet and while you are waiting offer your services to help "fund" + EV bets. As discussed earlier, make sure everyone knows what you are doing, splitting the win or the loss when you play together, or you take all if you buy them out up front.

McGrind's TABLE PARTNERS CHART
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 23:31:41 (#2671)

HERE - http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=559

playing others hands.. is old news...
Posted by hammer on 16-Jan-2003 23:50:50 (#2673)

Many casinos now have no play on others hands too,just the latest
from the real world of worried casinos. just like no mid entry.
the c and the western,,,old news too...there are others now that are
actually more worried too,.can we gueaa

Still play left...
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 23:56:37 (#2676)

... on this angle - I have MANY times been told by a dealer "No, cannot play another's hand" and then I proceeded without incident to do it anyway. zg

Everything Is Old News
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 17-Jan-2003 09:47:38 (#2681)

if you think about it. We can re-fry these beans 100 times, and they are still re-fried beans. Every so often some twist is thrown into it making "everything old is new again," and for new players, BJ is the bomb. Even George Bush is refried banana wars, cept now them bananas are growing in the desert. Maybe that's why they left Sad Man Who Sane in power? At least we don't have to hunt them down on the back of Jackasses with Springfields. We can do it Pee Diddy style in a Hummer and our life takers on full auto. ;>

small Clarification:
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 17-Jan-2003 09:58:54 (#2682)

McGarvey's Grind or McGrind is not a part of my XL Player Double & Split table. McGarvey's Grind is a "stand alone" entity used entirely for hustling bonuses. Coupled with certain constants, no weapon formed against it shall prosper! ;>

Anthology of my better posts @ CC.com
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 19:01:14 (#2666)

Anthology of zg's best posts @ CC.com

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

50+ INDICES, lazy goldbricks!
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=1250

The ULTIMATE LIST of FREE BJ Resources Online
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=2166

Of Splitting 10s and Flipping Coins
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=2573

Eureka! (and deja'vu)
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=96

Clever cover ploy # 128
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=109

The Uston Hit
http://www.cardcounter.com/nonBJ.pl?read=774

El Cortez, and the 'art' of 1D play...
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=147

Debating the issue of "precision" indices
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=161

My last visit to Tahoe...
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=141

Major BJ Breakthrough?
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=162

Consolidation Betting Revealed
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=299

Easy Shuffle-Tracking - CT 101
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=343

Birth of a Couponero
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=345

The things we do, Cover Ploy #94
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=370

EV Booster #22 "Partners on the double"...
http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=539

Zengrifter teaches "TRUTH"
http://www.cardcounter.com/nonBJ.pl?read=323

Re: Anthology of my better posts @ CC.com
Posted by The Mayor on 16-Jan-2003 19:22:56 (#2667)

I agree, you have put up many excellent posts here.

I have made a sort of informal policy that reposting a post that previously appeared elsewhere precludes its inclusion in "The Best." That may or may not be a good policy, as I certainly want to encourage such reposts.

--Mayor

Re: Anthology of my better posts @ CC.com
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 21:19:31 (#2669)

I have made a sort of informal policy that reposting a post that previously appeared elsewhere precludes its inclusion in "The Best."
-------------

Thats like saying that a film that gets recognition at Sundance can't be awarded at Cannes. zen-griper

True...
Posted by The Mayor on 16-Jan-2003 22:53:01 (#2670)

I may re-think it 8-)

Tons
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 21-Jan-2003 23:25:10 (#2748)

There are tons of excellent posts at the Card Counters Cafe found in the rubble and garbage heeps of other not so BJ posts. And at BJ21, BJMath, etc. We can build this place out of old bricks, or new ones. They all meet the building code ;>

Parker Reviews 'Cellini's Guide' to Surveillance
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Jan-2003 23:54:04 (#2674)

The Card Counter's Guide to Casino Surveillance
by D.V. Cellini

Review by Parker/rge21

It has been many years since a book created a stir in the advantage player community comparable to that surrounding The Card Counter's Guide to Casino Surveillance, by D.V. Cellini. Written by a veteran surveillance agent, this book could have been titled, "Everything a card counter ever wanted to know about casino surveillance, but was afraid to ask, and probably wouln't have gotten a straight answer anyway."

The book is not physically impressive, expecially considering its $100 price tag (our online catalog has it on sale for $79.99). Printed on letter size (8.5 x 11 inch) paper, it weighs in at a mere 88 pages, and rather resembles something put together at the local Kinko's. I found this somewhat surprising, as the book is published by Anthony Curtis' Huntington Press. My hardbound copy of Ian Andersen's "Burning the Tables in Las Vegas" (another HP title) is a top quality book.

However, we are paying for information, not mere paper and ink. The question is, does the book live up to the hype. For those "cut to the chase" types, the answer is, "Yes, indeed." Others, read on.

The book consists of two parts. The first, entitled "Inside Surveillance" is essentially a "behind the curtain" look into the shadowy world of casino surveillance. We learn about the day-to-day routine of surveillance work, the equipment used, the records kept, and surveillance organizations and networks. We learn the jargon of surveillance - terms such as "Grill Shot" (a request for a facial shot of an advantage player), "Headstone" (a player who stays at a blackjack table for an entire shift), and "Buzzard" (a big player who circles the pit too much while waiting to be called into a game by spotters).

Much of this information has never before been made available outside the industry. To anyone who has ever spent much time in a casino, this is fascinating stuff.

The second section is even more intriguing. It seems that, at some point in his long and varied career, the author was a card counter himself, actually playing on a team, and section two is entitled, "The Card Counters' Survival Guide." It gets down to specifics as to what methods surveillance uses to detect card counters, and what an enterprising advantage player can do to thwart them. Player tracking software and Facial Recognition Software (FRS) are discussed.

For example, regarding player tracking software, Cellini writes: "Here is an easy method for confusing all computer-tracking software programs. Simply make one really stupid play, such as standing on your first two-card total of anything less than 12 against any dealer's up card, or double down on a two-card total of 12 or more vs. ANY dealer up card, etc. Yes, you read it right. Just one truly knuckle-headed play can reduce Survey Voice's overall analysis of your playing skill level to "moron.""

How to look, how to act, how to dress, how to play, what surveillance looks for and how to fool them - it is all here, in great detail.

Regarding Internet websites, Cellini writes: "The Internet is another major source of information for casino surveillance spies. If you're a frequent user of site like bj21.com, advantageplayer.com, or the Card Counters' Cafe, you've been had! These sites have more casino surveillance and floor people on them than there are feds monitoring the Web sites that sell plans for homemade explosives."

Of course, anyone with half a brain should have already realized this, but we now have official confirmation.

Naturally, there is a problem with all this. I would bet my entire bankroll that copies of this book are popping up in casino surveillance breakrooms all over the country even as I write this. In a few months, they will all know what we know about them, making the information of much less use. There will be software patches and updates going out, indeed, it may have already happened.

Nonetheless, knowledge is always preferable to ignorance. I have already made several changes both in the way I play and the way I act when inside a casino, as will anyone reading this.

Anyone playing at green chip levels or above, or anyone who aspires to ever play at those levels, simply cannot afford to NOT have this book.

###

Re: Parker Reviews 'Cellini's Guide' to Surveillan
Posted by sighguy on 19-Jan-2003 00:41:42 (#2690)

Hello all...reading the posts since I've been gone..."rumor" that I'm a Surveillance person? Gee, nice to be the subject of rumors. I just finished reading Cellini's book and it's interesting. However, I have to say that I came away with a "subjective" feeling..meaning I can't believe that this is the definitive guide, merely one persons take. The thought of it being counter [no pun intended] intelligence and a form of propaganda kept creeping into my wittle pea brain. I don't know whether it's real or not, but the thought of a hoarde of counters ponying up $100 bucks for made up crap would be a hoot. Umm, wait a minute, I ponied up $100 bucks too and I am not a world class -worthy to be in all of your exalted presence - counter...great read, worth every penny..yeah, I feel much better now.

If "surveillance observers" are such underpaid, underappreciated moronic grunts, why would he do it as long as he supposedly did?

Thank you For the "Casino Rebuttal" *NM*
Posted by Bob Turner on 21-Jan-2003 02:32:58 (#2714)

Probably Taking Kick Backs and Freebies *NM*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 21-Jan-2003 13:57:03 (#2723)

Statement concerning the CCCafe is untrue
Posted by John May on 20-Jan-2003 06:24:39 (#2704)

If you're a frequent user of site like bj21.com, advantageplayer.com, or the Card Counters' Cafe, you've been had! These sites have more casino surveillance and floor people on them than there are feds monitoring the Web sites that sell plans for homemade explosives."

This is untrue. Even if it was not untrue, there is no way Cellini could have that information, since he has no experience or knowledge of the moderation powers of a group owner or moderator at a yahoo group. This is just a generalization unsubstantiated by fact. The few attempts by casino personnel to get into the CCCafe were painfully obvious and dealt with easily.

Cellini was caught red-handed creating fake positive reviews of his book at bj21.com, which alone is a good reason not to buy this book. As a surveillance operative his work may not be without value, but I'd caution readers not to place too much weight on the writings of one, eccentric surveillance operative. I have collected half a dozen writings of casino personnel on internal procedure and they rarely correlate with each other-the advice of any one individual is of limited utility because casino policy in this area is scarcely consistent within a given chain of properties let alone in general.

More John May Nonsense
Posted by Bob Turner on 21-Jan-2003 02:31:39 (#2713)

The few attempts by casino personnel to get into the CCCafe were painfully obvious and dealt with easily.

There is no way in hell you could keep out any casino employees through the yahoo moderation process. you're really reaching here, even for you.

Cellini was caught red-handed creating fake positive reviews of his book at bj21.com, which alone is a good reason not to buy this book.

Please cite your source for this nonsense. Wong? 'nough said.

John May's Defense of the CCC is Inaccurate
Posted by LVHC Hitman on 21-Jan-2003 02:59:05 (#2715)

Oh yeah, yahoo groups are VERY secure...please. I'm just sorry to see this has occured at such a reputable site as cardcounter.com (another surveillance person haven, some of whom are even guest book signees). Can you please confine yourself to bj21.com where you are now revered as an "expert" by the masses of counters and surveillance people? No real players go there anymore. When they shut the site down and changed it, they killed it, and it is now far more worthless than ever.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand, the unsubstantiated statements in all of this are that you have (a) had few attempted by casino personnel to get into the CCCafe and (b) been able to root them out. Yahoo email accounts are entirely anonymous; you have absolutely no way of knowing who is behind a yahoo id, whether you're a group moderator or not. If Cellini and a few of his casino-employee friends have joined CCC under aliases, you'd never know it, or would you have us believe that you have personnally screened and know all of the 1000+ members (granted, half are probably Rob McGarvey's aliases) there, the vast majority of whom have never made a post? The funny thing is that you claim they were painfully obvious but yet I have seen you answer more than one surveillance person's questions on bj21.

Re: John May's Defense of the CCC is Inaccurate
Posted by John May on 21-Jan-2003 11:55:05 (#2719)

Yes, I do screen individual members. And yes its painfully obvious who the casino guys are. Since I already caught Cellini creating multiple aliases at a site where I don't even have moderation powers I could certainly do it at the CCCafe. If you can't figure out how use your imagination.

Your last sentence is full of the usual LVCHM baseless bravado but it seems to me very unlikely you would know who the surveillance people are. Someone who gets himself busted for something as anachronistic as hole-card play deserves neither time nor respect when talking about cover.

Btw save the big man talk for those who believe it. Its the small yapping dog syndrome all over.

Re: John May's Defense of the CCC is Inaccurate
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Jan-2003 16:20:56 (#2729)

I think Eliot is trying to run a "No Voodoo, No Bullshit" site here, so I don't see how you would be happy trying to live within the confines of this policy. You have been streching the facts, and debating the what the definition of "is" is, for so long I think you are starting to lose touch with reality.

You KNOW that there are no casino spies on your site? How can you possibly make such an absurd statement, and then try to defend it? How do you know that casino spies haven't set up anon e-mail accounts, route access to your site thru anon routers, etc. and daily monitor your site activity? How do you know that Mr. Smith in Bucktooth, Arkansas isn't really Steve Wynn himself?

I never realized your "all knowing" and "knows all" and "I am most knowledgeable expert around" attitude extended to the internet and telecommunications.

John May, put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by LVHC Hitman on 22-Jan-2003 01:41:45 (#2754)

Let's just cut to the chase. I have joined CCC with four separate accounts since its creation. I defy you to tell me which four are mine. If you can list my four separate CCC member identities in one guess of four names here at CCC, I'll give you $5,000 and buy you a round trip, first-class ticket to Las Vegas from Ireland (or where ever it is you are now) so you can come collect it. And, for the duration of your Las Vegas trip, I'll put you up in a suite in the resort of your choice for up to two weeks. I'll also show you a couple of the best baccarat games around town so you can make some money on your own while you're here. And, I won't even spit on you or sock you in the eye or anything like that. There is no downside here for you to take your best guess, so let's have it. Now, I'm sure you'll accuse me of being a proposition hustler or run off to South America or something to save face, but there's my offer. Go ahead and begin the sidestepping routine and your leisure.

Try as you may, I'm sure you cannot even come close. And now pretend for a minute that I'm a casino spy lurking silently at your site, taking whatever information I can get (how do you know I'm not?). Why you would try to dupe people and lull them into a false sense of security by insisting that you can accurately monitor the memberships of a public yahoo group is beyond me.

At least McGarvey had the backbone and integrity to come out and say what we all know is true about CCC anyway. He is fully aware that rooting out all of the casino spies there, especially those who are just lurkers, would be an impossible task.

This coming from a $10 internet bonus hustler whose bankroll dwindled so much in recent years that he had to move from England to Ireland, where the cost of living is lower. Think what you will, but the Mayor's guestbook has been signed by more than one surveillance person. And more than one surveillance person checks these messages. I even posted the name and address of one such person who was snooping this site from the Stratosphere but the Mayor got a little nervous and decided to bust that. I make it my business to know about surveillance people...their shifts, their names, their hobbies, their level of blackjack skill, their home addresses, their phone numbers, their intimate relationsihps, their educational background, the churches they attend, the cars they drive, their ethnicity, their spouses' names and anything else I can get my hands on. It's in my interest financially to know these things and it is a fun, and potentially psychopathically rewarding, hobby to watch those who watch me.

Notes to "the edge"
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Jan-2003 10:02:58 (#2761)

I want you to know that I have been editing your posts, removing language that is inflammatory, but leaving your points as you make them. It would make my job easier if you would make your points, but leave out the direct insults.

Also, I find it heartening that you refer to some of your actions as "psychopathic..." You have come a long way!

Finally, as usual, I recognize and respect your experience and skill, and your writing isn't bad either. I want your voice to be heard here. Keep to the board policies, and what you have to say is welcome.

--Mayor

Re: Notes to both sides
Posted by Learning to count on 24-Jan-2003 12:02:14 (#2811)

To put it midly keep your fueds to the other sites who are willing to allow them. I my self appreciate any knowledge you can give us here but if it is going to a be fight. Please take it else where.

Re: John May, put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by John May on 24-Jan-2003 08:33:27 (#2808)

Let's just cut to the chase. I have joined CCC with four separate accounts since its creation.

We've done this before. I picked out several of your identities at bj21. You denied they were all you, even though it was fairly obvious. No one is quite as interested in hole-card play as you, as obsessed with me or as truculent as you. It should be fairly obvious to the neutral observer why that is the case.
Btw Even if I didn't know your character, Schlesinger has noted several mannerisms your writing style betrays, you just have to run suspect posts through a wordprocessor with an optimized grammar check.
I also managed to pick out the identities of various other trolls such as Cellini and Puiu, allegations which were subsequently confirmed.

Naturally, I can call those identities correctly and you will deny it. Someone who spends all his time trolling, issues death threats and virtually destroyed one blackjack website can't be trusted to play fair on a contest like this.

In any case, you aren't a casino employee. I had/have no reason to keep you out, nor any reason to care what you do.

In addition,I really don't know what the Mayor does to keep casino people out but I think he is probably smarter than you make out.

Finally, your comments about $10 bonus hustling are quite badly informed. I'm guessing but I probably make more in a day than you do in a year, if only because you seem to spend most of your time trying to screw over people who were initially sympathetic and helpful towards you.

Another John May End Run
Posted by BobTurner on 24-Jan-2003 14:43:42 (#2813)

Btw Even if I didn't know your character, Schlesinger has noted several mannerisms your writing style betrays, you just have to run suspect posts through a wordprocessor with an optimized grammar check.
I also managed to pick out the identities of various other trolls such as Cellini and Puiu, allegations which were subsequently confirmed.

You really seem to be quite insane. Why is it you can never stick to the point? Again, there is absolutely no way to identify casinos through the Yahoo software.

enough is enough
Posted by stalker on 24-Jan-2003 18:38:34 (#2814)

i've about had it with your baseless allegations against me.

no, you have not. you continue to claim this but i've told you before there are several posters with the same low opinion of you. this is the same tired bj21 tactic of trying to pin every dissenter with the "single poster" label. matthews will never admit it but i'm sure the mayor can confirm this.

perhaps you should update your "grammer optimizer" software (or would that require more laborious calculations?). you are obviously unable to differentiate between individual and vastly different posting styles. as far as cellini and puiu, you've proved nothing.

more john may baseless allegations. more john may sidesteps. for instance, you insist i am the lvhc hitman. i am not, never have been, and the mayor can confirm this. how about your paramilitary rge theory? or your snyder/nacht conspiracy theory? where is the "mysterious e-mail"? everyone who is anyone in the subculture knows they are no longer affiliated. but not john may.

Finally, your comments about $10 bonus hustling are quite badly informed. I'm guessing but I probably make more in a day than you do in a year,

i highly doubt that.

if only because you seem to spend most of your time trying to screw over people who were initially sympathetic and helpful towards you.

this is rich. i was once sympathetic to how you were treated on bj21 which in hindsight was a mistake on my part. to a man, every single professional player i know, and i know a lot, consider you a charlatan.

now, dazzle us some more with your phony "fake loader" posts and such. you are a menace to advantage players everywhere.

stalker

------------+YlfAkUee2ZifMI4qBltsf

A brief message
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Jan-2003 11:10:50 (#2837)

I will confirm that stalker send this message from a server that has never been used by LVHC Hitman. As to these individuals being the same or different, the information I have is that they are different. But they know each other quite well.

--Mayor

Re: A brief message
Posted by John May on 28-Jan-2003 07:44:24 (#2848)

Your post would seem to render further discussion on this issue irrelevant.

I will try to assist this forum by not posting here in future as I don't want it to degenerate into a flame-fest on my account. Good luck.

Re: A brief message
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Jan-2003 11:43:40 (#2855)

John,

I for one do not share the opinion of Stalker, LVHC *, et. al, about you and your work. In fact, I think you have made certain forms of advantage play clear to the masses in a way that no one else has. While you book is not appropriate for professionals, it certainly provides insight into the possibilities for the novice or hobbiest.

I sincerely hope you will continue to post here. I welcome your contributions. Saying this, I also recognize that others have a right to disagree with you. Open discourse is the best medicine, I hope you will stay.

--Mayor

Oh, and regarding the bj21 attacks
Posted by John May on 24-Jan-2003 08:50:42 (#2809)

Btw you might stop, however temporarily from trying to damage bj21 (the Matthews matchmaking post etc). I'm hardly one of Wong's apostles but attacking the site after the guy's mother just died is scummy even by your standards. And please don't insult my intelligence by telling me you weren't responsible.

Funny Guy
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 21-Jan-2003 13:15:52 (#2722)

I have one alias on yahoo, blackjackpro2000. Some "funny people" have created fake ID's for me in the recent past. We get about 15-20 new sign ups every week, and I can't tell you who these people are. Most are just curious people that want a look at the club info areas that probably never come back, and never post. Casino peeps are nothing to me, and I would never buy a book from a casino troll mole. The anonaminity of the interent protects you from them, as it does them from you. It is glad and happy people that go talking about their little excursion into casino land to "beat the game" that allow casino peeps to watch them in action. I know there are onLine casino peeps at CCC. That is where my bread and butter comes from, so they get to see so much. There are deals out there no one will ever know about. I know nothing about LVHC simply because he keeps his mouth shut. He knows everything about everyone else tho, simply because he reads and looks around, just like casino peeps can. He has the advantage of knowledge in this respect. Otherwise, he's just another dude that puts hit pants on one leg at a time ;>

"Of all the spirits I have seen tonight, I fear LVHC the most"

America's "Shadow Capital"...
Posted by zengrifter on 17-Jan-2003 10:52:46 (#2683)

...as Roger Denton and Sally Harris call Las Vegas in their book 'The Money and the Power' is afforded a rare glimpse of its global/money-laundering/shadow reach on the NON-BJ page here -
----------
Vegas, Milken, and the Funding of Sharon's Likud (views: 6)
zengrifter -- 1/16/03 8:37:14 p.m.
-----------

A great book
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Jan-2003 00:06:42 (#2712)

but not really a book about blackjack 8-)

Stupid or Overly Generous
Posted by Paul Cheng on 18-Jan-2003 13:01:56 (#2685)

I was playing BJ at a casino in Joliet, Illinois, recently. They had new dealers who obviously had just gotten out of school. The player to my right had $100 down on his had, which by the cards, he had lost the hand. The dealer made a mistake and paid him instead of taking his money. No one said a thing at the table. Later, the pit boss informed the player that they had seen the mistake on tape and asked for the money back. The player to my horror complied. I'm just curious to know:
1) what if the player had refused
2) what should that player have done
I personally would have said no, but I'm curious as to what you all think.

Correct
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Jan-2003 21:20:58 (#2708)

The player was correct, he risks being barred from the casino for money that was not properly gained. Of course, once the mistake is made, he properly accepted the gratuity, but once caught, he correctly gave it back.

A good game is worth more than a sloppy $100. Preserving the game is where it's at.

--Mayor

I would have asked to see the tape.
Posted by Coug Fan on 21-Jan-2003 13:06:49 (#2721)

I would have politely but sternly requested to see the tape where this "alleged" mistake occurred. I doubt they would let you in to the surveilance room, so they would either have to set up a TV and VCR somewhere that the player is allowed, or they would have to demand their money without offering any proof. These are reasonable requests, but neither option is very attractive for the casino.

Actually, while I was at it, I would probably ask to see the tapes from the entire session (and maybe some past sessions as well) to make sure there were no offsetting "errors" that went the other way - "you know, I could have sworn that the dealer actually busted last Thursday night when I had a $100 bet out, but he picked up the cards too fast. Lets check that one as well". These are all things that the casino would have to prove in a court of law in order to get their money back (assuming we are not in Nevada where the casino's get to make up the laws). Bottom line is that I can't imagine that even the little mini casinos in my local area would want to make a big scene out of this for a measly $100, so that is the choice that I would try to give them.

Of course, there are alot of decent games in my area and competition between the casinos is fairly intense, which means that I can probably get away with more than some others. If I was in an area where this was one of only a few good games, then I would not make a big deal out of it, as Mayor suggests.

Re: I would have asked to see the tape.
Posted by Learning to count on 23-Jan-2003 16:57:19 (#2795)

If confronted and you knew it was a mistake. Give it back and see thee PC's reaction. If the mistake happens and there is no instant realization then maybe it is time to go and eat lunch...in the next state prefferably. Better to be safe than sorry. I have alwasy been honest when confronted and have recieved better treatment and less heat. If you are a jerk you will be treated like one. On the other hand I have the spirit of the grifter in me. SO dinner may be ready and I have to leave. Just dont do anything that will be blamed on you. If it is the dealers fault then it is just that. His mistake.

what is DI ?
Posted by BradRod on 18-Jan-2003 13:26:00 (#2686)

I am reading Andersen - Burning the Tables in Las Vegas. I was searching messages to see what discussion there has been about the book and came upon this from ZG

>>>>>>IA's gambit creates a very poor DI and SCORE and is NOT for small stakes play in any event...<<<<<<<.

What are DI and SCORE ?

Thanks,

BradRod

DI & SCORE...factoring risk into the equation...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 18-Jan-2003 19:30:58 (#2688)

I believe both of these terms were coined by Donald Schlesinger in his "Blackjack Attack", don't qoute me though.

DI = 1000 * (win rate / standard deviation)

SCORE = (win rate / standard deviation) ^ 2

These ratings allow a fair comparo of different games by taking variance into consideration, and not just advantage, which is a poor "measuring stick" for making comparisons.

Another effective method is ROI, or return on investment (used extensively by T-hopper), which divides gains by the bankroll required for a specified amount of risk.

ROI = win rate / bankroll required for n% RoR

The importance of risk cannot be overstated, and it needs to be factored in when making any kind of comparison.

ANS

What's The Score?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 18-Jan-2003 21:17:33 (#2689)

Did you know that blackjack has a score? Dealer 4, you 5? Not that kind of score! Don Schlesinger's SCORE is considered the "gold standard" for comparing various blackjack games. S-tandardized C-omparision O-f R-isk and E-xpectation. Using the High Low count, these are the numbers that were produced using the best games found in Las Vegas last month:

Fine Tuner's February LV SCOREs - LAS VEGAS CASINO RATINGS

FEBRUARY 2002*

*Assumes $10k BR/bets optimized/CBJN data
Spreads - 1D 1-4, 2D 1-2x4, 6-8D 1-2x4 (wonging only)

Lady Luck 1 deck 92.99
Treasure Island 2d S17 84.59
Flamingo 6 deck 70.67
Riviera 2 deck 68.03
Mirage 2 deck 68.03
Bellagio 2 deck 68.03
Horseshoe 2 deck 65.77
Lady Luck 2 deck 65.77
Treasure Island 2d H17 65.68
Palms 6 deck H17 59.80
Texas Station 2 deck 58.74
Venetian 2 deck 58.74
Mandalay Bay 2 deck 58.74
MGM 6 deck S17 55.82
Ballys 6 deck 55.82
Bellagio 6 deck 55.82
Mirage 6 deck 55.82
Treasure Island 6d S17 55.82
NYNY 6 deck H17 54.37
Plaza 6 deck 52.89
Caesars 6 deck S17 51.82
Casino Royale 2 deck 51.54
Eldorado 2 deck 51.54
Flamingo 2 deck 51.54
Wildfire 2 deck 51.54
Terrible' s 2 deck 51.54
Palms 2 deck 51.47

Using a more advanced count will give better numbers than those above. Hi Opt II, AO II, Zen, UAPC, or RAPC will increase these numbers.

WOW ! 39 Hits and No Answer *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 19-Jan-2003 12:22:06 (#2694)

Re: WOW ! 39 Hits and No Answer
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 19-Jan-2003 23:40:00 (#2702)

I replied LONG ago, but my posts are moderated and the Mayor is away, probably playing BJ. Sorry! You can always post at the Card Counters Cafe where I can respond instantly to any questions.

DI and SCORE *LINK*
Posted by LVBear584 on 19-Jan-2003 16:16:11 (#2698)

From the BJ Glossary at BJ21.com:

Desirability Index. A term coined by Don Schlesinger in his book Blackjack Attack. It is a number derived by dividing the win rate by the standard deviation for the particular game being examined and multiplying the result by 100. The lowest desirability index number given in Schlesinger's book is -0.52 and the highest is 16.04. The higher the number, the better the game. In general terms, a player would look for a desirability index of 6.6 or higher to find game which would be considered to be playable to most counters.

See Blackjack Attack for further discussion of DI and SCORE.

Thanks *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 19-Jan-2003 16:33:53 (#2699)

New Twist, Good or Bad?
Posted by Qdini on 18-Jan-2003 15:51:03 (#2687)

Hi Guys,

I need your opinion on something. Recently I went to a casino that offered the standard 6-Deck, HS17, etc etc. However, they recently added a new promotional offer, somewhat of a side bet. There's a circle where you put ur chips on and basically your betting on whether or not you'll get "the 1st two cards dealt = 20". For example, an "A" and a "9" pays 4-1 etc etc. Now the question is, is this a suckerbet? or is there a way to capitalize on this?

-Qdini

This is lucky ladies
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Jan-2003 21:25:38 (#2710)

This bet is called "Lucky Ladies" and is worth about $10 per hour if you play it right. See the strategy article on this site's home page.

Re: This is lucky ladies
Posted by Learning to count on 23-Jan-2003 17:02:10 (#2796)

Wong wong wong!

Good Advice
Posted by Coug Fan on 23-Jan-2003 20:12:52 (#2804)

It sure seems like you could make a killing if you have enough patience. Also interesting is that the DD game payouts are higher, but it is easier to keep a side count of the key cards at a DD game (since there are only two of them). Opportunities abound for the intelligent player.

the "Averse Eight"?...quantifying R-A
Posted by Adam N Subtractum on 19-Jan-2003 02:43:51 (#2691)

As per zg's request, I took a little time to examine the data I have concerning risk-averse indices, to see if we can get an idea of the most important modifications to "ev maximizing" strategy adjustments. Keep in mind the data I have on this subject is limited (Karel Janeck's Blackjack Risk Manager will give you exact answers specific to your system/conditions), so consider this a rough quantification, and treat it as such.

To keep this synapsis (& my research:-) brief I've assumed players will be using Catch 22 for 1D, Catch 22 + Fab Four for 6D, and do not want to add any additional indices to their set.

-Single Deck Risk-Averse Plays-

T v T
9 v 7
8 v 6

The indice for T v T and 9 v 7 will probably be raised by 1 to 2 TC points, and the number for 8 v 6 will probably raise by 3 to 4 points. I suspect A,8 v 5 & 6 will be altered as well, but I do not have the data at hand to make a conclusion.

-Six Deck Risk-Averse Plays-

T v T
T v A
9 v 7
8 v 5
8 v 6
15 v A (LS)

In the shoe scenario T v T and 9 v 7 should be raised more than in 1D, perhaps 4, or even as much as 5 points. T v A should only be adjusted upward by about 1 TC point, and 8 v 5 & 6 maybe 2 or 3 points. And finally, for the Late Surrender rule, we'll adjust the 15 v A indice DOWNward by about 1. See above concerning A,8 v 5 & 6.

From the info I have available to me at this time, these are the only plays affected by Risk-Aversion in the Catch 22 / Fab Four set. If one was willing to add on additional indices (or already use more) there definitely is more to be gained, but is beyond me quantifying at this time. Intuitively, I presume A,2 v 5 and 8,8 v T will be amongst the top contenders for immmediate addition.

Another avenue I'll briefly touch on here is the use of Risk-Averse INSURANCE indices. In other words, it is sometimes optimal to insure different hands at different times, in order to reduce variance, and in turn increase favorability. The following is a general rule of thumb.

-Composition Dependant Risk-Averse Insurance-

stiff hands = indice + 1
T,T or T,A = indice - 1
all others = usual indice

I wish I had some more conclusive data, but perhaps someone will follow-up with additional info to solidify/modify these estimations.

ANS

Re: the "Averse Eight"?...further research...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 21-Jan-2003 04:45:30 (#2716)

...has uncovered some unlikely additions to our risk-averse set. With a little help from Michael Hall, it has come to my attention (kind of embarrassed I missed this) that risk-aversion does NOT just affect double, split, and surrender hands, as would be assumed intuitively, as R-A can have an affect on hit/stand hands as well. (Bonus question: can anybody guess why??? Not you T-H, let somebody else try:-)

Also the rule of thumb I gave for insurance is being revised as we speak, and will be modified. Hopefully I will be able to post the follow-up sometime tomorrow.

ANS

Re: the "Averse Eight"?...further research...
Posted by alienated on 21-Jan-2003 09:09:18 (#2718)

"it has come to my attention (kind of embarrassed I missed this) that risk-aversion does NOT just affect double, split, and surrender hands, as would be assumed intuitively, as R-A can have an affect on hit/stand hands as well. (Bonus question: can anybody guess why??? Not you T-H, let somebody else try:-)"

This is news to me, too. This is a wild guess, but is an example A,7 v A in S17 games? The hit and stand expectations are very similar for this hand, but hitting has more downside (and upside). I also wondered about A,7 v 9,T and A,6 v 7, but the expectations seem too far apart in those cases.

Bonus answer...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 21-Jan-2003 22:44:47 (#2747)

"This is news to me, too. This is a wild guess, but is an example A,7 v A in S17 games? The hit and stand expectations are very similar for this hand, but hitting has more downside (and upside). I also wondered about A,7 v 9,T and A,6 v 7, but the expectations seem too far apart in those cases."

I think you're on the right track here, I haven't looked at these plays specifically yet. A similar example I can give is 16 v. T, another close play. Now the "stock" KO indice is +1, while the R-A # is +2. Waiting until +2 to stand is the more optimal play...why is this? Because there is a DECREASE in variance by _hitting more aggressively_ in this instance. The simple reason for this, which previously alluded me, is that by standing on a hand of less than 17 there is no chance of a push! By hitting these hands we have possible outcomes of +1, 0, -1....there is a chance that we will neither vary up, nor down, therefore REDUCING VARIANCE.

When this variance reduction is more beneficial than the ev loss is detrimental, it would be optimal to adjust the indice accordingly.

ANS

Ted, re:on the right track...A,7 v A
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 22-Jan-2003 01:38:07 (#2753)

I checked the data on A,7 v A, and your intuition was correct Ted, the indice is adjusted. In this case we _already have_ a chance of pushing by standing, and reduce that chance by hitting, because there is the possibility of busting (obviously not immediately, after subsequent hits). The more we bust, the less we win and PUSH. So we would want to adjust the indice downward by one, in this case, so we will stop hitting sooner, and therefore lower variance.

Interestingly, the 16 v T example I gave in my prior post required a +1 increase for R-A KO, yet this apparently does not apply to Hi-Lo (from what I have available to me). What I do know is that this affects only a very few hit/stand plays, because most of the time the R-A difference is so minimal that we'd have to use fractional increases/decreases. Now my theory as to why 16 v T is adjusted with KO and not Hi-Lo, is that the +1 increase to KO is applied to the running count, which basically allows for fractional increases in TC, does that make sense?

The other plays mentioned were not affected as you presumed. I'll include all the affected hit/stand hands in my revised post.

ANS

Re: A,7 v A...Correction...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 24-Jan-2003 02:56:50 (#2807)

I said:

"The more we bust, the less we win and PUSH"

This is obviously incorrect, as we wouldn't be hitting if we didn't win more often, but the main point still stands...we do push less by hitting in this situation.

ANS

"Finding the Edge"
Posted by Cyrano on 19-Jan-2003 12:10:09 (#2693)

Let me tell you guys about a book I read a little while ago that has really impressed me. It's called "Finding the Edge", edited by Vancura, Cornelius, and Eadington. It's more of a analysis book, similar to "BJA2" but without all the ego. Contributions were made by notables in both the gambling as well as the academic communities, including such names as Mason Malmuth (of poker fame), Ken Fuchs and Olaf Vancura (KO Authors), Edward Thorp, and Peter Griffin. Though this book isn't expressly focused on BJ, there are articles here that deals with BJ, as well as other games. One of the most interesting artcles I read was the "Study of Index Rounding in Card-Counting". Fuchs and Vancura make a terrific case for using rounded index numbers, compared to exact numbers, saying that there's a negligible loss in EV (about -0.01 when comparing rounded indices of the top 16 plays to exact indices of the top 16 plays). If you learn 63 playes, your gain is only +10% of EV. Imagine that! You can skew your PLAYING indices +/- 4 points and you will still be playing much better than BS! They say, though, that betting is much more closely dependent on the count. Oh, by the way, Thorp's treatise on the Kelly Criterion in this book is legendary.

This was only one article. There is a section for BJ, Variations in BJ, Gambling in general, Kelly Criterion, New games and wagers, and Other casino games. Though this book is geared mostly for the academic (the articles were presented in the Ninth International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, 1994) who is interested in the "why's", I think the average gambler would be able to learn much from this book.

Best Posts
Posted by BradRod on 19-Jan-2003 14:25:19 (#2696)

I like the idea of a best posts page...Most of the posts that you have chosen are ones that I have bookmarked for future reference. It makes it easier to find them in this one location. I also salute the posters chosen . It is a fitting tribute to the minds that take the time to chew this game up and help make it digestable for those of us of lesser analytic ability that are eager to learn how to play the game properly.

I would like to propose that ZG" recent post "Renzey on Table Propositions "
[ http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?noframes;read=2661 ]be included in the list. I found this to be a real eye opener since he posted it just when I was reading Andersen's Ultimate Gambit chapter. Together these 2 readings and Rob Mcg's spreadsheet analysis gave me a broader perspective on the real life playing advantages of various BS plays.

I like ZG's anthology too.

May I suggest as a frequent user of these postings that they be referred to by the heading "ResourceTopics" and that as the list grows, which I am sure it will that the postings be organized and/or headed, if possible (and if it doesnt create too much work) by the topic covered in easy to understand and accessable languge. I think this would help make the list a most valuble resource. I will offer myself to assist in this organization and archiving, if that could be done technically and if it would be helpful.

Now would someone please tell me what DI and SCORE are : )

Brad Rod

Re: Best Posts
Posted by BradRod on 19-Jan-2003 21:28:45 (#2700)

.......Out winning lots of money I hope. It seems like the only ones here today besides me are the casino moles......

Don't worry Mayor, I have everything under control. With the exception of a few posts you will find things just the way you left them when you get back.

While I seem to have the floor all to myself and on the topic of best posts. I think the Mayor's essay on the Real Cost of Mistakes should qualify. Not that his other essays and postings havent been quite valuable and informative. This one just stands out in my mind as one that supports and gives confidence to a beginning counter.

Re: Best Posts
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 19-Jan-2003 23:45:56 (#2703)

This can be done from any place on the net. Zen's recent post about the best online resources comes from the links section at the Card Counters Cafe, where many of these sites were added by ZedGee himself. There are tons of great posts out there in cyberspace. All it takes is a little time and a little HTML to gather them up in one spot. I'm currently updating my Players Page at my site, and hope to link to some of the messages here if need be.

DI and SCORE.
Posted by phantom007 on 20-Jan-2003 21:37:16 (#2711)

I am sorry that nobody wants to answer your questions. Likely means that no one can! But I will give one attempt to be helpful.

I must presume that SCORE is from BJA-2e, pp. 271-300 and others.

It stands for "Standardized Comparison Of Risk and Expectation".

And it appears that "DI" stands for "Desirability Index", as initially mentioned on p. 272 of same book.

Must admit to only "scanning" same info. Still trying to memorize the tables of about 100 pages earlier.

Since your original question was in regards to a post by ZG, ultimitately he should anwser your questions.

However, this may take a while...he is now filming the sequel to "A Beautiful Mind" entitled "ZG---A Liberal Mind"!

phantom007

Thanks for your thoughts
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Jan-2003 21:24:11 (#2709)

I agree it is a good post, but Mr. Rezney did not post it. Hmmm... this "best" site is tough territory.

I will consider your other ideas, thanks!

--Mayor

Las Vegas and loving it
Posted by Learning to count on 20-Jan-2003 14:42:41 (#2705)

Hey guys just a note to let ya know its going ok here in LV. First two days at single deck games up 85 units. Last night at six deckers down 90 units. Today is another day.

On saturday night we had the first CC.COM degenerite gamblers fiesta at a unnamed location in LV. We had two top advantage players (names with held of course). We had twelve attendees and had a blast! Next one will be extended to other members soon. I can say that we did eat like Bears!!!! Trip report end of the week.

Mayor we will talk!!!1:)

Re: Las Vegas and loving it
Posted by phantom007 on 20-Jan-2003 21:06:37 (#2707)

Missouri and HATING it.

Yesterday, had to use the 4WD option on my truck to get down my lane, so as to get home, due to ice and snow. Today was 65 degrees!

LTC...GOOD CARDS to you, sir.

???Will be in LV for a time in late Feb.???...How do I meet fellow CC's for fellowship, strategy, education, and the like???

Something I found re: UBZ
Posted by Cyrano on 21-Jan-2003 08:31:55 (#2717)

Hey guys, I was scanning other boards when I came across this post and noticed the same problem with the UBZII. I'm interested in the answers so I'm reposting it here too. Does anybody know the answers especially to the first and the fourth questions?

I've purchased the UBZ2 book and it looks like Greek to me.
First, do you happen to know why the Index numbers for the 10,10 split on p. 1-9 is different than the 10,10 split on p. 2-12?
Second, how do you read the departures on p. 2-12? Say, for A,9 vs. 6 with an index number of 8. Does that mean Double at 8 or more, otherwise Hit (or otherwise Stand)?
Finally, the region around me has great single and double deck games. Do you suggest I memorize both the 1D and the 2D+ indices or do you suggest I memorize one or the other?

I tried to simulate the indices with PBA, but the numbers I get are radically different than the ones George C. has. Who's right? Thanks in advance.

Re: Something I found re: UBZ
Posted by BradRod on 21-Jan-2003 12:51:05 (#2720)

Hey cyrano.

I just got UBZ2 also . Used it for the first time last night. I only played for 2 hours but, got up almost 6 units . so, it was a positive trial run. I also had some questions about the system before using it. I have some more now that I have actually tried it. I will post more about this soon.

Basically in my play last night I just when on faith and did not try applying too many varations. Basically just insurance and 16 v T. I remain a little bit confused about establishing the pivot point. I also found the book a little sparse on development and explanation of the system but, Geo C. is very responsive to e-mail inquiries.

Re: Something I found re: UBZ
Posted by Cyrano on 21-Jan-2003 19:22:28 (#2732)

Grats on the win! So far, I'm +127 units in about 30 hours of play. It was pretty easy to learn the system, so I was hoping to sim it and get more indices. That's why the last question was of particular interest, since I ran across the same problem with SBA.

My Bet Ramp
Posted by SammyBoy on 21-Jan-2003 15:07:54 (#2724)

I'm looking for some comments about this change to my betting spread. Please let me know what you think.

Here is my old ramp:
0 or Less = $10
+1 = $20
+2 = $30
+3 = $40
+4 or more = $50

Here is my new ramp:
-1 or less = $10
0 = $15
+1 = $20
+2 = $30
+3 = $40
+4 or +5 = $50
+6 or more $60 (If no heat)

I'm mainly interested in your thoughts about the $15 at 0 instead of $10. Also, because when doing the true count conversion you don't always get an exact count, I will often bet $25 if the true count is less than 3 but more than 2. I do the same type thing at +1.5, +3.5 and +4.5. Thanks in advance.

Re: My Bet Ramp
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Jan-2003 15:23:49 (#2725)

Depends on rules and number of decks, count system, etc. before one could make a value judgement. Off hand, I would say either spread is pretty weak. You probably don't have an advantage at 0, so why bet more?

Re: My Bet Ramp
Posted by SammyBoy on 21-Jan-2003 15:27:33 (#2726)

Sorry, this is for a single deck game, DAS, DA2, S17.

no one has a game like that
Posted by hammer on 21-Jan-2003 19:46:59 (#2735)

unless its a hokey version of bjack.

If so where,and I will eat my words.

Yes They Do!
Posted by SammyBoy on 21-Jan-2003 22:06:22 (#2744)

And it's not a hokey version of BJ. It's the real thing. Get the latest version of CBJN and you'll know where it is.

SAMMY
Posted by hammer on 21-Jan-2003 22:13:24 (#2745)

Please send me an email with the local,as I donot get the newsletter.
email-
dragonsago@yahoo.com

thaks in advance.
maybe we can meet there if its not too far for me.

Re: no one has a game like that
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Jan-2003 22:32:19 (#2746)

There are even better SD games around -- as far as rules -- for example at the Barcelona in North Vegas, and at Barona Casino in San Diego.

Re: no one has a game like that
Posted by hammer on 21-Jan-2003 23:40:21 (#2750)

He mentioned s17, the others do no have s17. gotta love it. where??
Bar-now cranked to 100 min-pure greed of course surrender is grand.
brl-decent nice 2 to 1 payouts, when they are open.

Re: My Bet Ramp
Posted by SammyBoy on 21-Jan-2003 15:34:56 (#2727)

Using Hi/Lo

Re: My Bet Ramp
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Jan-2003 15:48:46 (#2728)

Don't increase your bet past your min until +1. Hit your max bet at +5, not +6.

Re: My Bet Ramp
Posted by Cyrano on 21-Jan-2003 19:40:01 (#2734)

It seems the $60 at +6 is just a bonus and his max bet is actually the $50 at +5. Why not add more at a higher count? Does the Hi/Lo system become less accurate at higher counts?

Re: My Bet Ramp
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Jan-2003 20:03:54 (#2736)

The point of putting your max bet at +5 is that as the count gets > +5, your certainty of winning the max bet increases, thereby decreasing variance. If you continue to raise your bets, forever, with the count, you are betting true kelly, which has a much larger variance. Of course it can be done, but traditionally, if you have a max bet, then win rate is maximized with this bet at +5 on non-surrender games, and +4 in surrender games.

Re: My Bet Ramp
Posted by Cyrano on 21-Jan-2003 21:47:13 (#2742)

That's interesting, Mayor. Do you know how much the variance increases with each bet level increase?

How about this?
Posted by easyrider on 22-Jan-2003 05:37:12 (#2756)

Wouldn't a single deck game favor a more conservative bet spread?

Higher true counts are acheived much more frequently in an SD game, so a counter could really take a bite out of variance by incrementing a 1-5 spread every +2 or even +3 TC and still push out big bets due to frequently high TCs. Playing strategy is more important than bet spread in a single deck game anyway (assuming your not commando spreading or trying to hit and run), so a sophisticated play strategy, an ace side count, and a conservative spread may be the way to go in SD.

Of course, it would depend on your goals. For low rollers, I think slashing variance at the cost of minimum EV gains is a sound play, but maybe for those who've built a sufficient bankroll, aggressive spreading is tolerable...

Did you really mean to say that?
Posted by Coug Fan on 22-Jan-2003 15:11:27 (#2767)

You said, "Playing strategy is more important than bet spread in a single deck game anyway (assuming your not commando spreading or trying to hit and run), so a sophisticated play strategy, an ace side count, and a conservative spread may be the way to go in SD."

Playing strategy is much more important in SD than it is in Multiple Decks, but the EV gain from bet spreads dwarfs the EV gain from playing variations even in SD.

Sure I did...
Posted by easyrider on 24-Jan-2003 02:27:27 (#2806)

that's why I wrote it.

Again, I was commenting on an SD spread that wasn't Rambo-esque. Somewhere in Fred Roger's Friendly Neighborhood of 1-5. Most SD casino's will tolerate this and given this spread, strategy gains are more important...of course. If you want to spread more, more power (and money) to ya, just bring a fat roll to ride the roller coaster....yeehaw!

I must beg to differ...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 24-Jan-2003 23:40:31 (#2818)

In my opinion, 1-5 is a very aggressive spread (for SD), and unnecessary if you use a good set of indices. Also your point about playing having more of an impact than betting, would only be true with a VERY timid spread (definitely not 1-5) and a deeply dealt game (at LEAST 7 rounds). See Griffin's TOB page 28 for info.

ANS

ps: I couldn't see Mr. Roger's spreadin' more than 1-3...;-)

It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood *NM*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 25-Jan-2003 07:15:48 (#2819)

I should qualify this
Posted by easyrider on 28-Jan-2003 22:15:57 (#2866)

I strictly play the downtown garden variety SD H17 games, where RO6 normally applies...sometimes I get more. I use UAPC with all the indices (except unreasonable splits) and a side of aces, I'm also working to perfect a blocked multiparameter side with 25 indices or so. Perfecting this count is more valuable than a 1-5 bet spread given the game I play.

I haven't played in a while because on-line is so lucrative right now, that it's hard to justify jetting out west to actually gamble (which I hate to do) on a finite trip.

Look at the evidence *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 25-Jan-2003 10:31:04 (#2821)

The charts in the link below measures maximum possible EV relative to the max bet. In a deeply dealt single deck game with good rules, the betting gain is trivial!

Question for the Mayor
Posted by SammyBoy on 24-Jan-2003 10:56:56 (#2810)

According to what I've read in Professional BJ, the advantage a BS player has in the game I play is .01% (single deck) + .14% because of the rules. This comes out to a +.15% advantage (I've also seen it listed as +.13 for this game) on the first round of cards dealt. Would it not then make sense to bet slightly more in this scenario when the count is 0 ($15 in my case) and less in negative counts ($10)? Thanks.

Re: Question
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Jan-2003 13:20:29 (#2812)

If your numbers are right it will make little difference, but you are correct. With a +.15 advantage a $15 bet would reflect .15% of a 10K bankroll. Your spread from $10-? would take place from -1 instead of from 0 and up.

Optimal Bet Ramp
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 22-Jan-2003 08:47:29 (#2757)

For the rules you mention, given a 400 unit bet ramp, an optimal spread would look something like this:

<0 0
+0 1 (more like .8 to be precise)
+1 3
+2 5
+3 7
+4 8
+5 10
+6 12

Of course, as a pratical matter, I doubt you would be able to get down this 1:10 spread for very long.
And the continual jumping of bets (from 1 unit at 0, to 5 units at +2, down to 3 units at +1, etc.) would be a dead give-away.

Test what the max spread they will tolerate, and you will probably find you are hitting this max limit at +3, and might be able to add a chip or two if the count goes even higher. You might consider a parlay scheme of doubling your bet which will basically give you some appearance of playing a progression, and staying pretty close to the optimal bet amounts:

<0 1
+0 1
+1 2
+2 4
+3 8
+4 8
+5 8
+6 10

Remember, the more you vary from the optimal amounts in the frequently occuring -1 to +1 count range, the more your results will vary from the ideal.

Thanks Abe *NM*
Posted by SammyBoy on 22-Jan-2003 10:01:20 (#2760)

Theory vs Practice?
Posted by CanKen on 21-Jan-2003 18:26:58 (#2730)

Playing this afternoon, the first shoe did nothing, but in the second the count rose to the +3,+4 level. I bet the count and ended the shoe up 50 units, winning most hands.
Next shoe, the count rose quickly to the +4 to +6 range and I bet the count right through in spite of losing almost every hand, and losing the 50 units and more. In theory, I think I did the right thing, but from a practical point of view, I wonder if I should have put say 30 units in my pocket after the good shoe and left after losing the other 20? I certainly would have gone home happier.
Any advice on dealing with this kind of situation would be appreciated.

Re: Theory vs Practice?
Posted by BradRod on 22-Jan-2003 09:07:47 (#2758)

i think its always a good idea to take a breather after any major event like a big win or a big loss. the game will always be there and you have to be sure you are playing with a clear head at all times.

otherwise the answer is short term it SUCKS, long term you have the advantage or will eventually if you stay with it long enough. or so they tell me.

More Good variations than bad

Re: Theory vs Practice?
Posted by SammyBoy on 22-Jan-2003 09:32:30 (#2759)

My feelings are this...

1. You must have a bankroll that is big enough to sustain several big losses in a row (at least 125 max bets)

2. This bankroll MUST be kept completely separate from the money you use to pay bills, buy groceries, etc. The bankroll is for gambling/blackjack only.

3. You have to know that you have the advantage in the long run and that it doesn't matter what happened on the last bet, session, or trip. (this can be tough).

4. You have to make the big bets when you have the advantage, regardless of how many hands in a row you have lost (another tough one).

5. You can never bet more than YOUR minimum bet in negative counts. In other words, pressing your bets to get your money back will kill you.

6. You have to be disciplined and follow your betting ramp like the gospel.

Probably the most important thing for me is number 2. I'm much more at ease with the short term losses knowing that the bills will still get paid and that I will still have lunch money for the week after a big loss.

I'm sure you already know all of this, but it doesn't hurt to hear it again. Good luck!

Re: Theory vs Practice?
Posted by ZOD on 22-Jan-2003 18:57:03 (#2777)

You did the right thing in betting the next shoe properly, regardless of the outcome. The kind of run and reversal you had will happen again and again. Just don't get to excited when you win (except for show) or down when you lose. Every single penny in my bankroll was earned one disciplined bet at a time. In short, don't trust your emotions; trust the math. Best...
ZOD

Re: Theory vs Practice?
Posted by CanKen on 23-Jan-2003 19:09:01 (#2799)

Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses. I really do agree with your comments and advice. My head and mathematical background gave me the same answers, but I guess I needed some reassurance so that I can avoid emotional reactions in future.

This helps me
Posted by Coug Fan on 23-Jan-2003 19:30:03 (#2801)

Whenever I find myself getting hesitant about putting out another max bet (usually after losing a number of them in a row), I just think about how I would love to have the opportunity to be betting at a +4 TC at all times, and think about all those bets that I have had to make at neutral or negative counts.

Also, whenever I do chicken out and underbet I always seem to get BJ. I try to sear those instances into my memory as well.

Regarding: Red 7 or KO
Posted by Cyrano on 21-Jan-2003 19:35:55 (#2733)

Strange, when I clicked on "post a response" to Acesfool's message 2 threads down, it sent me back to the threads list.

Anyway, Red7 is actually a veiled attempt to make a level 2 count into a level 1 count. By counting only the red 7's, you're actually counting each 7 as 1/2 the values. The problem comes if you have one color of 7's clumped near the front or the back of the shoe, then your count becomes a little screwy. It's more accurate if you just count all 7's as 1s and just double all the other values. http://www.bjmath.com/main.htm <--note how close their performance is to each other. It's a tossup, but I would suggest KO if you're not used to count the colored 7's. I've actually heard of a guy who sometimes gets mixed-up because he ignores the black 7's and then forgets to count the red 7's.

Knock Out *LINK*
Posted by Johnny Johansson on 19-Oct-2004 04:29:28 (#10523)

Hi!

1. What is the correct bet spread for the Knock Out system?

2. In analogy to High-Low's "leave as soon as the count drops below -1", could the same directive be employed with the Knock Out system? (although it would be leave below Knock Out's IRC -20)

Re: color doesn't have dramatic impact...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 21-Jan-2003 20:45:23 (#2738)

According to Dr. Brett Harris and Fred Renzy the loss in effiency by counting the colored cards instead of each as .5 is only around 1% each to BC and PE.

I can't fathom anyone having difficulty distinguishing the colors in their count after a little practice. Geez, I take notice of the red sevens just from from having read about the system, lol. Anyway doubling the tags is definitely not recommended IMO, its MUCH more difficult to count up and down by 2. You end up "adding" and "subtracting", instead of just simply "counting". JMO

ANS

Re: color doesn't have dramatic impact...
Posted by BradRod on 21-Jan-2003 21:25:53 (#2739)

I know very little about red 7's but, i have used 2 level counting systems. I was using AOII for a short time and now have begun using UBZ2.

I think a 2 level system is very much in the category of counting because for one thing like value cards still cancel and do not have to be counted at all.
example......T and 6(or 5,4,3) are respectively -2 and +2 , net to zero. Likewise A and 2 (or 7) -1 and +1 net to zero.

Once you have neutralized the offsetting cards. Then you are scaling the numbers up or down. counting by 2's is just odds or evens. It seems second nature. But, I guess it all comes down to what you are used to

<<<<<................its MUCH more difficult to count up and down by 2. You end up "adding" and "subtracting", instead of just simply "counting". JMO

ANS >>>>>>>>

point taken...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 22-Jan-2003 18:13:48 (#2776)

I see you point BR, perhaps I did overstate the difficulty. It really is relative for each individual though, in my case I just want to keep the main count as simple (yet effective) as possible, so have plenty of RAM, Mb, or whatever left over, for other techniques. Just out of curiousity, did you start with a level 2 system?

ANS

Re: point taken...
Posted by BradRod on 22-Jan-2003 19:33:46 (#2780)

Actually I have alternated, I have just this week started using UBZ2, the 4th system I have used.

briefly , i started w/ Hi-Lo and found it a little vague.

AOII was my first 2 level system. I thought the power of it was more effective I did not find the 2 level that hard in itself but, found it hard to use because of the TC conversion and need for separate Ace count . Plus it was not strongly recommended for multi deck play that I most easily find near me.

So, tried KO and it was real easy after AOII but, I still wanted a more powerful system and that took me to UBZ2.

Its still early in my first trials but, so far so good.

BradRod

Re: color doesn't have dramatic impact...
Posted by Cyrano on 21-Jan-2003 21:45:17 (#2741)

Yeah, it's funny. He graduated with honors in Electrical Engineering/Computer Science--a real number-cruncher, but terrible at multi-tasking. He has a hard time side counting and even the rule to NOT count black 7's and to count red 7's throws him. Different people have different caveats.

__
According to Dr. Brett Harris and Fred Renzy the loss in effiency by counting the colored cards instead of each as .5 is only around 1% each to BC and PE.

ANS

Thankyou to everyone who responded NM *NM*
Posted by AcesFool on 21-Jan-2003 21:54:53 (#2743)

Blackjack Message Archive from CardCounter.com

CardCounter.com Messages: Page 12

Threads 331 to 360

Site Features

Other Languages