Here are all the comments posted on the site, with the most recent discussions listed first.
To participate in any of these discussions, you can reply on the article page.
It is interesting to hear others opinions as I have my own. It is true, a bad player can make or break your hand. Yes it does change the effects of a few hands. If you watch the pattern of the cards, a bad play will straighten itself out after a few hands. Even with new cards it seems to take about 3 shoes to get the cards lined up. If the dealer shuffles correctly, the cards actually stay in order, for the most part. This why the hands don’t change much from shoe to shoe if every player plays by basic strategy, so you need that other “bad” player to mess the shoe up from time to time. There is no need to waste time counting cards, just watch for the patterns, and adjust your bet accordingly. As mentioned, no one is forcing you to stay at one table, you can leave or change tables at any time.
There is no reason to get mad at any table. You can change the cards at any time, the dealer just deals the cards at your request. The dealer has no bearings on the cards dealt.
More nonsense. Bad players don’t have any effect on your expected win or loss. I don’t expect to convince anyone who buys into this myth, but I’ll try anyway. See The Most Common Myth in Blackjack.
The strategy engine does not allow you to pick the rule where you can double after split except aces. Does the fact that you can’t split aces have any bearing on the basic strategy decisions for double deck?
Separately, is there a simple way to explain why in the first place basic strategy changes from 6 deck to double deck. I understand that if you are counting there may be a difference but if you have no idea what is coming (or what has been played) then what does it matter if there is one deck left or 5?
I assume you meant No DAS on Aces in your question. That’s absolutely the normal rule. Split Aces receive only one card on each, although some places will let you resplit if you get another Ace. Hitting or doubling after splitting is not allowed, so all the basic strategy charts and index numbers already assume that is the case.
As for why more decks matter, that would make a good blog topic since it is a common question. I’ll illustrate the basic idea by showing that the “effect of removal” of one card is bigger in 1 deck than in 6. Let’s assume you draw an Ace off the top of a single deck. What is the probability that you will end up with blackjack when you get your second card? There are 16 ten-valued cards left among the 51 cards in the remaining deck. 16/51 = 0.3137
If you are playing a six-deck game instead, now there are 96 ten-valued cards left among 311 cards. 96/311 = 0.3087
You can see that you are slightly more likely to draw a blackjack in a single deck game than in a six-deck game.
This same concept affects all the strategy decisions in a small way.
Since I play double deck where dealer hits soft 17, can double after split (except Aces), can double any two cards and no surrender, what would be the easiest next best counting system to learn once I have mastered hi-lo (the easy one you teach) and what would be the best one if I advance that far? Also, should I count Aces as minus 1 or should they be neutral?
Hi-Lo works just fine in that double deck game (and Aces are minus 1 in that count). In my own play, I use the Wong Halves count which is covered along with Hi-Lo in his book Professional Blackjack.
But to be honest, if I was choosing today, I don’t think I would use anything other than KO or Hi-Lo. The extra profit from a more powerful system is pretty small, so it’s really not worth the extra effort and potential for errors. If you want to feel better about the slightly lower win rate, just play an extra five minutes to make up for it. 🙂
Sure, these are basic strategy plays, and they apply to card counting as well. Of course, card counters can also use their information about the deck composition to alter the strategy using index numbers. (For more on that, see the Advanced Card Set instructions.)
I have now read all your classes and received your advanced strategy cards in the mail.
I seem to have discovered what appears to me an inconsistency in the variations.
For my double deck game (see comments above) advice on card for when I have a 12 against a 2 is to stay if the true count is at least 4. The card would on the other hand have me hit a 13 against that same 2 with the same true count of 4. How does that make sense, to hit the 13 but to stay with the 12 with the exact same circumstances?
To be clear, the card specifically says with my 12 to hit against the 2 as long as the TC is 3 or higher and with my 13 to stay as long as the TC is higher than -1 but that results in the above advice, right?
Perhaps you are being confused by the negative index number?
As you mention in your final paragraph, for a 2-deck H17 game the index for 12v2 is +3. The index for 13v2 is -1.
If the true count is +3 or higher, you should stand with 12v2.
If the true count is -1 or higher, you should stand with 13v2.
In your example, you ask about what happens at a true count of 4.
Since +4 is higher than both of the indexes (+3 and -1), you would stand with both 12v2 and 13v2. There is no inconsistency.
Yes, I seem to be confused as to the relationship between the index number and when you perform the alternative from basic strategy play. I latched on to this statement in your lessons.
“The general rule for understanding the Basic Strategy Variations Matrix is this: If the number in a slot is 0 or a minus, then that play is a Basic Strategy move that you should make as long as the count is higher than the number shown.”
So, 13 v2 with index -1 would mean play stay as long as count is higher than -1, like +4. What am I missing?
Of course it seems fundamental that I understand how to understand the index numbers so I will ask about the general rule above. When is that not the rule or is that always the rule? And what about when the index is positive, same general rule of playing basic strategy move as long as count is not higher than the index? Based upon what you said with 12 v 2 hitting until you get to at least +4 sounds like the answer is yes but it seems important to get this right.
Sorry, I confused myself. Let me restate my reply.
First of all, is it always the case that with an index of 0 or negative that you play basic strategy move only if the count is higher than the index, otherwise play the alternative?
Is it also the general rule that it works the opposite when the index is positive? In other words, you only play the basic strategy move if the count is equal or lower to the index? By general rule here do we also mean “always?”
KO and Hi-Lo are both getting you to the same information, just in slightly different ways. Hi-Lo is not more likely to give you a plus situation than KO.
(The one thing that Hi-Lo CAN do is give you an idea of how big your edge is in a particular spot, not just KO’s Yes-Or-No information. To get that extra info via Hi-Lo, you have to deal with the complexity of converting to a true count, which KO does not require.)
And for your other question, yes, you still need to account for all the unseen decks, even those behind the cut card.
Ken,
I can’t thank you enough for the prompt answers !!! I honestly think you are saving us beginners lots of money and heartaches 🙂
I am the same guy who asked about KO and penetration in another post few days ago. Following up on your answer above … Using KO in a 8 deck game and starting at 0 .., the count rarely gets to the point where it is now even ( starting with 0 and subtracting 28 ) to get to a positive 0 count … Should I focus on learning Hi Low instead … It seems more plausible to get a running count of say + 12 that you divide by say 4 ( 4 decks remaining … Do you actually count the cards that would not even be used ..especially in poor penetration ??) to get a true count of +3 after only the first few hands … With KO , it just never seems to happen !
Yes, that is exactly the reason for converting to a true count. A true count of +4 means the same thing very early in the shoe as it does deep in the shoe.
Yes, starting KO at zero is perfectly fine once you adjust the other key numbers. In fact, I would venture to guess that most people who use KO do this to avoid so much thinking in negative numbers.
There is really not anything you can do to improve the local game. Don’t monkey with the numbers in KO, because that would have you raising your bet into negative situations. This is just a poor game, and the casino almost always has the edge. To beat it for a reasonable hourly earn rate will require a bigger spread to offset the infrequency of the opportunities. Unfortunately that also creates much higher variance in a game where your edge is quite thin. You could play that game perfectly for a long time and still lose money if you’re even a bit unlucky. What’s the old adage? You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Thanks much Ken 🙂
Appreciate your prompt response. I might’ve better served hitting the other casino an hour away then ( a total of two hour drive) . I play with a dealer at this one who deals at the other casino and he commented on the poor penetration by comparing to where he deals stating that it is way better. Is my approach of starting at 0 using KO and subsequently subtracting or in fact adding positives to negatives valid ?
Also what would you suggest in this case because I really like this casino . All the dealers and Pit bosses know me by name and I feel like they genuinely root for me and always ask me not to return any purples once they are in my pocket . I am not naive but I do feel they are small town America type of folks and genuinely friendly and accommodating. I have never raised an eyebrow when I won big but then again when I lose I also lose big at times . Any other words is there a way to account for poor penetration say you multiply by 5 instead of 8 ( decks ) in KO?
That’s exactly the problem with poor penetration. You get few chances to raise your bet, because the shoe rarely reaches a positive situation. If you are only occasionally seeing opportunities to raise your bet in a 4.5 out of 8 deck game, you’re probably doing it right! The KO count itself (or alternatively the Hi-Lo true count) already accounts for the poor penetration.
It is interesting to hear others opinions as I have my own. It is true, a bad player can make or break your hand. Yes it does change the effects of a few hands. If you watch the pattern of the cards, a bad play will straighten itself out after a few hands. Even with new cards it seems to take about 3 shoes to get the cards lined up. If the dealer shuffles correctly, the cards actually stay in order, for the most part. This why the hands don’t change much from shoe to shoe if every player plays by basic strategy, so you need that other “bad” player to mess the shoe up from time to time. There is no need to waste time counting cards, just watch for the patterns, and adjust your bet accordingly. As mentioned, no one is forcing you to stay at one table, you can leave or change tables at any time.
There is no reason to get mad at any table. You can change the cards at any time, the dealer just deals the cards at your request. The dealer has no bearings on the cards dealt.
More nonsense. Bad players don’t have any effect on your expected win or loss. I don’t expect to convince anyone who buys into this myth, but I’ll try anyway. See The Most Common Myth in Blackjack.
Thanks again Ken.
The strategy engine does not allow you to pick the rule where you can double after split except aces. Does the fact that you can’t split aces have any bearing on the basic strategy decisions for double deck?
Separately, is there a simple way to explain why in the first place basic strategy changes from 6 deck to double deck. I understand that if you are counting there may be a difference but if you have no idea what is coming (or what has been played) then what does it matter if there is one deck left or 5?
I assume you meant No DAS on Aces in your question. That’s absolutely the normal rule. Split Aces receive only one card on each, although some places will let you resplit if you get another Ace. Hitting or doubling after splitting is not allowed, so all the basic strategy charts and index numbers already assume that is the case.
As for why more decks matter, that would make a good blog topic since it is a common question. I’ll illustrate the basic idea by showing that the “effect of removal” of one card is bigger in 1 deck than in 6. Let’s assume you draw an Ace off the top of a single deck. What is the probability that you will end up with blackjack when you get your second card? There are 16 ten-valued cards left among the 51 cards in the remaining deck. 16/51 = 0.3137
If you are playing a six-deck game instead, now there are 96 ten-valued cards left among 311 cards. 96/311 = 0.3087
You can see that you are slightly more likely to draw a blackjack in a single deck game than in a six-deck game.
This same concept affects all the strategy decisions in a small way.
Since I play double deck where dealer hits soft 17, can double after split (except Aces), can double any two cards and no surrender, what would be the easiest next best counting system to learn once I have mastered hi-lo (the easy one you teach) and what would be the best one if I advance that far? Also, should I count Aces as minus 1 or should they be neutral?
Thanks!
Hi-Lo works just fine in that double deck game (and Aces are minus 1 in that count). In my own play, I use the Wong Halves count which is covered along with Hi-Lo in his book Professional Blackjack.
But to be honest, if I was choosing today, I don’t think I would use anything other than KO or Hi-Lo. The extra profit from a more powerful system is pretty small, so it’s really not worth the extra effort and potential for errors. If you want to feel better about the slightly lower win rate, just play an extra five minutes to make up for it. 🙂
And these rules applied to the card counter?
Sure, these are basic strategy plays, and they apply to card counting as well. Of course, card counters can also use their information about the deck composition to alter the strategy using index numbers. (For more on that, see the Advanced Card Set instructions.)
I have now read all your classes and received your advanced strategy cards in the mail.
I seem to have discovered what appears to me an inconsistency in the variations.
For my double deck game (see comments above) advice on card for when I have a 12 against a 2 is to stay if the true count is at least 4. The card would on the other hand have me hit a 13 against that same 2 with the same true count of 4. How does that make sense, to hit the 13 but to stay with the 12 with the exact same circumstances?
To be clear, the card specifically says with my 12 to hit against the 2 as long as the TC is 3 or higher and with my 13 to stay as long as the TC is higher than -1 but that results in the above advice, right?
Thanks!
Perhaps you are being confused by the negative index number?
As you mention in your final paragraph, for a 2-deck H17 game the index for 12v2 is +3. The index for 13v2 is -1.
If the true count is +3 or higher, you should stand with 12v2.
If the true count is -1 or higher, you should stand with 13v2.
In your example, you ask about what happens at a true count of 4.
Since +4 is higher than both of the indexes (+3 and -1), you would stand with both 12v2 and 13v2. There is no inconsistency.
Yes, I seem to be confused as to the relationship between the index number and when you perform the alternative from basic strategy play. I latched on to this statement in your lessons.
“The general rule for understanding the Basic Strategy Variations Matrix is this: If the number in a slot is 0 or a minus, then that play is a Basic Strategy move that you should make as long as the count is higher than the number shown.”
So, 13 v2 with index -1 would mean play stay as long as count is higher than -1, like +4. What am I missing?
Of course it seems fundamental that I understand how to understand the index numbers so I will ask about the general rule above. When is that not the rule or is that always the rule? And what about when the index is positive, same general rule of playing basic strategy move as long as count is not higher than the index? Based upon what you said with 12 v 2 hitting until you get to at least +4 sounds like the answer is yes but it seems important to get this right.
Thanks!
Sorry, I confused myself. Let me restate my reply.
First of all, is it always the case that with an index of 0 or negative that you play basic strategy move only if the count is higher than the index, otherwise play the alternative?
Is it also the general rule that it works the opposite when the index is positive? In other words, you only play the basic strategy move if the count is equal or lower to the index? By general rule here do we also mean “always?”
Thanks!
If you play a thousand hands, about how many will you surrender?
KO and Hi-Lo are both getting you to the same information, just in slightly different ways. Hi-Lo is not more likely to give you a plus situation than KO.
(The one thing that Hi-Lo CAN do is give you an idea of how big your edge is in a particular spot, not just KO’s Yes-Or-No information. To get that extra info via Hi-Lo, you have to deal with the complexity of converting to a true count, which KO does not require.)
And for your other question, yes, you still need to account for all the unseen decks, even those behind the cut card.
Ken,
I can’t thank you enough for the prompt answers !!! I honestly think you are saving us beginners lots of money and heartaches 🙂
I am the same guy who asked about KO and penetration in another post few days ago. Following up on your answer above … Using KO in a 8 deck game and starting at 0 .., the count rarely gets to the point where it is now even ( starting with 0 and subtracting 28 ) to get to a positive 0 count … Should I focus on learning Hi Low instead … It seems more plausible to get a running count of say + 12 that you divide by say 4 ( 4 decks remaining … Do you actually count the cards that would not even be used ..especially in poor penetration ??) to get a true count of +3 after only the first few hands … With KO , it just never seems to happen !
Yes, that is exactly the reason for converting to a true count. A true count of +4 means the same thing very early in the shoe as it does deep in the shoe.
Does that mean say the true count is +4 after the first two hands in a 6?decks game, you increase your bet even though there is almost 6 decks left ?
Yes, starting KO at zero is perfectly fine once you adjust the other key numbers. In fact, I would venture to guess that most people who use KO do this to avoid so much thinking in negative numbers.
There is really not anything you can do to improve the local game. Don’t monkey with the numbers in KO, because that would have you raising your bet into negative situations. This is just a poor game, and the casino almost always has the edge. To beat it for a reasonable hourly earn rate will require a bigger spread to offset the infrequency of the opportunities. Unfortunately that also creates much higher variance in a game where your edge is quite thin. You could play that game perfectly for a long time and still lose money if you’re even a bit unlucky. What’s the old adage? You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Thanks much Ken 🙂
Appreciate your prompt response. I might’ve better served hitting the other casino an hour away then ( a total of two hour drive) . I play with a dealer at this one who deals at the other casino and he commented on the poor penetration by comparing to where he deals stating that it is way better. Is my approach of starting at 0 using KO and subsequently subtracting or in fact adding positives to negatives valid ?
Also what would you suggest in this case because I really like this casino . All the dealers and Pit bosses know me by name and I feel like they genuinely root for me and always ask me not to return any purples once they are in my pocket . I am not naive but I do feel they are small town America type of folks and genuinely friendly and accommodating. I have never raised an eyebrow when I won big but then again when I lose I also lose big at times . Any other words is there a way to account for poor penetration say you multiply by 5 instead of 8 ( decks ) in KO?
That’s exactly the problem with poor penetration. You get few chances to raise your bet, because the shoe rarely reaches a positive situation. If you are only occasionally seeing opportunities to raise your bet in a 4.5 out of 8 deck game, you’re probably doing it right! The KO count itself (or alternatively the Hi-Lo true count) already accounts for the poor penetration.