This Is Poor Penetration, Right?

Bluest

Well-Known Member
In this video at 9:39, in this game of double deck, the dealer cuts the cards at almost half. That's bad penetration, right? I don't think you can reliably count that, since many of the cards will be unaccounted for.
 
Last edited:

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
In answer to your question, YES 50% pen is bad penetration for a double deck game. If I was forced to play that game because I had traveled a great distance and there was nothing better, I would only play heads up or if absolutely forced to, 1 other player. Any more players than that and you are only going to see 5 rounds and probably only 1 round with a reasonable chance at a good count, which is what you are looking for.

HOWEVER, the game in the video is at El Cortez and El Cortez is a little bit dealer dependent, but pretty reliably cut between 60 and 67%. Where you looked at the 9:39 mark, where the dealer places the cut cards looks to be about 60% to me. It is definitely more than 50%. But a better read, is just before the dealer shuffles, when he/she takes the remaining cards out of the shoe and puts them into the discard rack. If you slow the video down (pausing it) it looks like about 1/3 of the two decks, remained. If you take into account a couple cards played after the cut card came out, I would place that at about 65%. We are looking at an angle, so might be distorted slightly, but from the two chances we get, at the end of the shoe and when the dealer places the cut card after the shuffle, I would call it 60%, or slightly better.

Take another look and slow it down at these two spots and see what you think? The penetration estimation is an important skill that may not get enough discussion, because just small differences, can make a huge difference in the profitability of the game, especially at single and double deck.
 

Hell'nBack

Well-Known Member
If they have the LL side bet available at table max, then the 50% game is highly beatable. Otherwise it's marginally so, with H17 rules.
 

Dog Hand

Well-Known Member
I estimate the dealer cut off precisely 35 cards...

Just kidding! I actually counted. The cut card appeared after the 69th card.

Dog Hand
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
Dog Hand said:
I estimate the dealer cut off precisely 35 cards...

Just kidding! I actually counted. The cut card appeared after the 69th card.

Dog Hand
Didn't think of counting the cards. :p That is about what it looked like when the dealer took the remaining cards from the shoe and placed them in the discard. I said about 2/3 played. But without looking again, when the dealer did the placement for the new shoe, it looked less, more like the 60% that is pretty common at EC. But we were partially blocked and it might have been a funny angle. Definitely more than 50% though.
 

Bluest

Well-Known Member
Extremely helpful answers, thank you KewlJ, thank you guys. Much appreciated. So it's better than 50% in this case, but still not ideal. Are there double deck games where the dealer cuts closer to the end? So you're playing more like 70%?
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
Bluest said:
Extremely helpful answers, thank you KewlJ, thank you guys. Much appreciated. So it's better than 50% in this case, but still not ideal. Are there double deck games where the dealer cuts closer to the end? So you're playing more like 70%?
I prefer 70% or better, but I will play 62%, 65% and frequently do, especially heads up or 1 other player.
 

Bluest

Well-Known Member
I'm curious, in practical terms, about wide bet spreads when the count gets favorable. Like if you went from one spot of 10. dollars to two or three spots of 300. dollars. I can certainly see why that's mathematically sound if you're going to win a lot of hands, but doesn't that likely get you heat, or even backed off? Or are there times you can do that, and they just let you play?
 

Hell'nBack

Well-Known Member
Bluest said:
I'm curious, in practical terms, about wide bet spreads when the count gets favorable. Like if you went from one spot of 10. dollars to two or three spots of 300. dollars. I can certainly see why that's mathematically sound if you're going to win a lot of hands, but doesn't that likely get you heat, or even backed off? Or are there times you can do that, and they just let you play?
Spreading that way at DD is anti-longevity. DD is where you need to be a camoflauge master. I got barred betting large on LL in a deeply dealt H17, 8-decker.
 

Counting_Is_Fun

Well-Known Member
Bluest said:
I'm curious, in practical terms, about wide bet spreads when the count gets favorable. Like if you went from one spot of 10. dollars to two or three spots of 300. dollars. I can certainly see why that's mathematically sound if you're going to win a lot of hands, but doesn't that likely get you heat, or even backed off? Or are there times you can do that, and they just let you play?
You can't really be serious, are you? Your dumb questions are still offensive to players here, everyone here.
You know what google and books are, right?
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
Bluest said:
I'm curious, in practical terms, about wide bet spreads when the count gets favorable. Like if you went from one spot of 10. dollars to two or three spots of 300. dollars. I can certainly see why that's mathematically sound if you're going to win a lot of hands, but doesn't that likely get you heat, or even backed off? Or are there times you can do that, and they just let you play?
If you never heard of the term preferential shuffling before, you will learn about it quickly.
 

Bluest

Well-Known Member
Hell'nBack said:
Spreading that way at DD is anti-longevity. DD is where you need to be a camoflauge master. I got barred betting large on LL in a deeply dealt H17, 8-decker.
Okay, in double deck, makes sense. But let's say in a 6 deck shoe. I heard someone explaining that they went from one spot of 25 dollars to two spots of 1500. I realize that is extremely wide and dramatic bet spread... but it also seemed to me that it would likely draw attention. I mean come on! Anyone is going to notice that. Yet people do it. I think anti-longevity is probably a good description. Maybe at that point you figure, if I get backed off, then that's that. Until then just gonna crush it.
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
Bluest said:
Okay, in double deck, makes sense. But let's say in a 6 deck shoe. I heard someone explaining that they went from one spot of 25 dollars to two spots of 1500. I realize that is extremely wide and dramatic bet spread... but it also seemed to me that it would likely draw attention. I mean come on! Anyone is going to notice that. Yet people do it.
Bluest said:
I think anti-longevity is probably a good description. Maybe at that point you figure, if I get backed off, then that's that. Until then just gonna crush it.
Okay, until then you just crush it. Really, I do not think so. Going to two spots of $1500 each from a $25 bet gives you a rough total for both hands of around $ 45 in positive EV. Along with that $45 in EV you will suddenly see floor people coming out of the woodwork observing you.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
Bluest said:
I think anti-longevity is probably a good description. Maybe at that point you figure, if I get backed off, then that's that. Until then just gonna crush it.
Basically what is being described by bluest is what has come to be known as a slash and burn approach. It came about in the early 2000's when new casinos and casino jurisdictions were exploding all over the US. The idea is that you just play super, super aggressively until you are told "no more" and then move on to the next place (casino or town). The thinking was just too many places to play to bother with trying to achieve any kind of longevity.

The problem is technology works against you. The heat and back offs and barrings, and all the information (and pictures) arrive at the next casino or town before you do, via databases. The guys that tried this approach including some known teams, had pretty short careers.

You can still do that today, slash and burn and get all you can for a few months. But for anything longer than that, you have to come up with a plan that puts your play in a place that is more tolerated. The degree that you do that depends on just what individual circumstances are, like casinos in your playing rotation, ability and willingness to travel.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
For a good example of "slash and burn", I recommend the documentary, Inside the Edge, which was released last year. KC spend a year traveling around the country and some of the places were just waiting for him after backoffs and 86ings at nearby properties. I think one place in the Midwest he didn't even get in the front door.

Inside the Edge is good for other reasons. It is a great example of how variance can work. KC got up over 600k about a third of the way through his trip, then went on an extended losing period losing half that amount before slowly recouping most of that loss. At one point he states that any professional player that has played for a while has experienced losing periods lasting 2 months or more. Amen to that.

And lastly, the documentary shows just how dastardly the casinos and casino industry is. Casino personnel repeatedly stated he was required by law to show ID, when that is not the law. One female pit critter incredulously told him "don't argue with me, it's my job. I know the law". And several places refused to cash out his chips, which is also illegal. KC had to call gaming who helped him get his chips. Hopefully they fined the casinos for this illegal action as well, but probably not.
 
Last edited:

Bluest

Well-Known Member
oh, all good points! Agreed. I have watched it twice now. Love the Weimeraners. ; ) And yeah, they are such morons, and such creeps. He had to take a lot of negativity. Clearly they are low level individuals, and not very bright. What was heartening though (well, aside from the massive amount of cash he made off with), was when he called gaming officials when casinos denied him the cash, they walked him in the door the next day, got him his money, and may have even fined the morons at the casino, so hurt that they got beat for once.

I agree about variance... but I was wondering... if you were up 600k dollars... why not just go home!? Certainly once he got up to 900k that's a substantial amount more, but possibly not if it's a soul sucking grind through a Michigan winter or something. Casey seems compelled to beat every casino and win every dollar he can. I wonder if a strategy for a happier and more fulfilling life would be, once you reach such a high dollar amount as 600k, just pack up and go home. I realize that doesn't fit his personality, and that's fine. No criticism here. I would prefer to make somewhat less money, and spend the next month in a health spa on the west coast of Mexico, with fresh food catered daily.
 
Top