Try this thought experiment. Imagine that you are playing heads up on a 6 deck shoe, only the cards are never seen. They are all dealt face down, but imagine that somehow you still managed to play the right strategy. After 10 hands, take all of the used chards and put them behind the cut card and begin playing as usual, with the cards visible. Is this any different than if the shoe had been cut there to begin with? The same can be said for every single hand you play. The odds are just the same as if the shoe had been cut there to start with. The point I'm trying to make is that basic strategy is still completely valid in a shoe game even when you aren't on the very first hand. You are correct that we can make some improvements to this strategy based on knowing the count, since we know more information about the composition of the remaining cards, but you don't have to use the info gained from counting to play "correctly" on a shoe game. If the shoe game has the same rules and same number of decks as the CSM game, the house edge will be almost exactly the same for a non-counting, basic strategy player.
Has Black Jack Strategy passed its use by date?
- Thread starter elkobar
- Start date
The cut card effect comes into play for the basic strategy player. It is a small disadvantage for the BS player because they would be playing more low counts. Low counts tend to increase the number of cards played per round since people are hitting more. If there are high counts, there are more tens and less low cards so fewer cards are played per round. When the small cards are coming out, the count is increasing. When the big cards are coming out, the count is decreasing. If the count is high at the end of the shoe, fewer cards will be played after the cut card comes out with the high count.
Hi, Nynefingers & Tensplitter,
This is getting a bit confusing for me as I cannot count cards, and as was indicated by previous folk, I got the impression that Basic strategy works best with a full deck, less 3 cards; as this was the way it was originally formulated.
So my logic is that the CSM gives you 6 full decks all the time, less the cards just played, so in my view basic strategy and the CSM should work together perfectly.
And card counting with basic stategy works better with the shoe.
Any thoughts, or views on this,?
Thank you,
Elkobar..
This is getting a bit confusing for me as I cannot count cards, and as was indicated by previous folk, I got the impression that Basic strategy works best with a full deck, less 3 cards; as this was the way it was originally formulated.
So my logic is that the CSM gives you 6 full decks all the time, less the cards just played, so in my view basic strategy and the CSM should work together perfectly.
And card counting with basic stategy works better with the shoe.
Any thoughts, or views on this,?
Thank you,
Elkobar..
CSM/Basic
Renzy also wrote an article, where he said that the odds on winning your hand on a full deck is 101/100. That is your best chance as a 'NON-COUNTER' to raise your bet, as you will not be aware of your advantage or disadvantage, on other hands.
So it seems logical, that as a NON-COUNTER, you would best play BS, with a CSM.
Renzy also wrote an article, where he said that the odds on winning your hand on a full deck is 101/100. That is your best chance as a 'NON-COUNTER' to raise your bet, as you will not be aware of your advantage or disadvantage, on other hands.
So it seems logical, that as a NON-COUNTER, you would best play BS, with a CSM.
Hi Tedloc,
Thanks for reply, I thought as much, although I understand that the cards fall sometimes differently than mathematicaly predicted, it still gives folk a chance to play if they cannot count cards, and as CSM's are getting more popular, playing them is at least possible with basic stategy only, and if you apply Mr Thomason's progressive money management, it will give you the best of both systems..
Obviously if you can count cards then that is better, but for those who can't then the above is also a good option;
thanks again,
Elkobar..
Thanks for reply, I thought as much, although I understand that the cards fall sometimes differently than mathematicaly predicted, it still gives folk a chance to play if they cannot count cards, and as CSM's are getting more popular, playing them is at least possible with basic stategy only, and if you apply Mr Thomason's progressive money management, it will give you the best of both systems..
Obviously if you can count cards then that is better, but for those who can't then the above is also a good option;
thanks again,
Elkobar..
Yes, it would seem logical for a non-counting basic strategy player to stick with the CSM. However, the CSM speeds up the game so much more, (no down time for shuffling), the player plays a losing game faster, thus loses more money per hour. Really, a basic strategy player would lose less by playing on a crowded table with a hand-shuffled, multi-deck shoe game.
Hi Tedloc,
Thanks for your comment, but my only intention in suggesting matching basic strategy with the CSM, was in the first place most logical, and that there are a lot of folk who cannot count cards, and who do not have the luxury of playing with a shoe; and it gives everyone a chance of playing.
As for lossing more in the long run is getting a bit depressing, what is "long run"? players are only interested in now, not long run;
The overwhelming opinion would seem to be that there is no chance of ever making an income however small, from this game,So why are you all playing,? I do not agree with this scenerio, as the house has only 1/2% advantage over the player, and if you play correctly using either the CSM or counting, and do not get greedy, and leave the table when you are in front, which I suggest occurs many times in a session, then I see no reason why it cannot be both profitable and pleasurable.
Of course if you travel a long way to play, then this causes a problem of when to leave the table, in these cases I guess you have to keep playing and hope to come out in front at the end of the session;
Thanks again,
Elkobar..
Thanks for your comment, but my only intention in suggesting matching basic strategy with the CSM, was in the first place most logical, and that there are a lot of folk who cannot count cards, and who do not have the luxury of playing with a shoe; and it gives everyone a chance of playing.
As for lossing more in the long run is getting a bit depressing, what is "long run"? players are only interested in now, not long run;
The overwhelming opinion would seem to be that there is no chance of ever making an income however small, from this game,So why are you all playing,? I do not agree with this scenerio, as the house has only 1/2% advantage over the player, and if you play correctly using either the CSM or counting, and do not get greedy, and leave the table when you are in front, which I suggest occurs many times in a session, then I see no reason why it cannot be both profitable and pleasurable.
Of course if you travel a long way to play, then this causes a problem of when to leave the table, in these cases I guess you have to keep playing and hope to come out in front at the end of the session;
Thanks again,
Elkobar..