Winning More towards the end. You really do.

jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
Trying hard not to take into the effect of frequencies of TCs, and 'floating advantage,' but does anyone notice, they win more(successful DDs, Bjs, XX, bust less, etc) towards the end of a shoe. Seriously, you really do, even at the same TCs. What exactly are the effects of good pen?
 
Well a TC of +2 at the end of the shoe is better than a TC of +2 at the beginning of the shoe. That is the floating advantage though which were supposed to be trying hard not to analyze.
 
jack said:
Trying hard not to take into the effect of frequencies of TCs, and 'floating advantage,' but does anyone notice, they win more(successful DDs, Bjs, XX, bust less, etc) towards the end of a shoe. Seriously, you really do, even at the same TCs. What exactly are the effects of good pen?
Click to expand...

1. At deeper penetration the frequency of high counts would increase because clearly there are more cards dealt so chances of seeing those counts would increase.

2. A given true count is more valuable at deeper penetration because it is more advantageous (floating advantage) for instance in a 6D a TC of +2 is more advantageous when there is 1.5 decks left then when there is 5 decks left.

Effects that you mention but for some reason trying to repress them from you memory :)

Not really a vodoo question. Topic is moved
 
OK then, let's say your using a L2 count, and based on our 'floating advantage' a TC of +1.7 w/2d is = n EV, to a TC +2,(4d) wouldnt it make sense to start raising your bet at +1.7? Or better yet, bet 3 units, instead of 2 @+2 when theres 2d or less. And increase Your MaxBets?
 
Bare in mind ...

The "Floating Advantage" is demonstrable.

However, the effect is statistically significant.

That does not mean that it ought to effect your play.

Keep that in mind.
 
stophon said:
Didn't Scheslinger show that you should up your bets by a unit at a couple different spots in the shoe?

To harness a little extra EV.
Click to expand...

As I recall he spent dozens of pages showing how insignificant the advantage was, and how you shouldn't worry about it or make play changes due to it. Flipping another red chip on your pile during higher bets will more than make up for it.
 
johndoe said:
As I recall he spent dozens of pages showing how insignificant the advantage was, and how you shouldn't worry about it or make play changes due to it. Flipping another red chip on your pile during higher bets will more than make up for it.
Click to expand...

It's not insignificant in a deeply dealt shoe game. Using common shoe rules the player has a slight edge in a neutral count with less than a deck left.

When you find a shoe game dealt out to less than a deck you have a winner, you won't need the floating advantage, but it's nice to know you can add 0.3% or so to your positive counts on that last hand. 1.0% vs. 1.3% is huge over the long term.
 
Automatic Monkey said:
It's not insignificant in a deeply dealt shoe game. Using common shoe rules the player has a slight edge in a neutral count with less than a deck left.

When you find a shoe game dealt out to less than a deck you have a winner, you won't need the floating advantage, but it's nice to know you can add 0.3% or so to your positive counts on that last hand. 1.0% vs. 1.3% is huge over the long term.
Click to expand...

It just goes to show, that pen is the name of the game. Like you said, Floating Advantage(FA) is just an added bonus. Also, I believe theres a cumulative effect, going-on; meaning 'the higher the TC', 'the greater the margin'.

And Thanks, for your reply Stophon and others.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey View Post
It's not insignificant in a deeply dealt shoe game. Using common shoe rules the player has a slight edge in a neutral count with less than a deck left.

When you find a shoe game dealt out to less than a deck you have a winner, you won't need the floating advantage, but it's nice to know you can add 0.3% or so to your positive counts on that last hand. 1.0% vs. 1.3% is huge over the long term.
Click to expand...
jack said:
It just goes to show, that pen is the name of the game. Like you said, Floating Advantage(FA) is just an added bonus. Also, I believe theres a cumulative effect, going-on; meaning 'the higher the TC', 'the greater the margin'.
Click to expand...

probably i just need to go back and read Shlesinger's stuff on floating advantage again.
but anyway, i don't recall reading this in Blackjack Attack but i think i read a post on this site that stated that part of what the floating advantage is, is the fact that single deck with common multiple deck rules can have a player advantage and that essentially the deeper you get in the pack you can approach that advantage. for example say you have pen so good, you get to one deck left to be dealt and the tc=0, then you virtually have that single deck advantage, sort of thing. is this correct? :confused::whip:
 
I'm by no means an expert (found this site a few days ago, this is my 2nd post and really the 1st time discussing BJ in depth with other people, done some research on the internet but never read a BJ book, never done any sim analysis, never heard of floating advantage) so I apologize if I say something idiotic. :laugh:

Let's say you're playing an X deck game with Y decks left and TC = 0. It seems at this point you're essentially playing a Y deck game. If this is the case then (at least for TC = 0):

1. Floating advantage (if I'm grasping this right) = Y deck BS HE - X deck BS HE
2. You should switch to Y deck BS (ex. 6D shoe with 2 decks left, double on 9 vs. 2)
3. You should switch to Y deck BS indices (ex. same situation as #2, insurance index of 2.4)
4. If you're Kelly betting the FA is not going to change your bet, at least not a whole unit. Intuitively guessing, the only situations where the FA is close to 0.5% is at the end of an 8D 85% pen game or 2D 65-70% pen game. Obviously, I could be wrong about this. :grin:

It seems an "FA adjustment" (#2-4 above) is actually a lot more valuable on DD than shoe games because for DD the FA is bigger and BS changes and index changes are more drastic (ex. DD half way through, double on 8 vs. 5 and 6, insurance index of 1.4).
 
sagefr0g said:
probably i just need to go back and read Shlesinger's stuff on floating advantage again.
but anyway, i don't recall reading this in Blackjack Attack but i think i read a post on this site that stated that part of what the floating advantage is, is the fact that single deck with common multiple deck rules can have a player advantage and that essentially the deeper you get in the pack you can approach that advantage. for example say you have pen so good, you get to one deck left to be dealt and the tc=0, then you virtually have that single deck advantage, sort of thing. is this correct? :confused::whip:
Click to expand...

Yep that is correct Sage, it is a good example you give.
The idea is you have a 6D shoe S17 DAS, DO2, BJ 3:2, so when 5 decks have been dealt and TC=0, we virtually have a one deck game with a normal deck composition (not entirely true because you can have different compositions that gives you a TC of 0). When you have a 1D game with the above rules you actually have the advantage over the house (+0.2%).

The other point that is worth mentioning is that the floating advantage is more pronounced for zero to moderately high TCs (1, 2, 3), for instance a TC=2 is over twice more valuable in the last deck when compared to the first or second deck.

One last point (they keep on coming!), at very deep penetration i.e depleted shoe, playing decisions start to weigh in much more, so the playing efficiency starts to kick in, that is why Hi-Opt II (high PE) for instance fairs much better than Hi-Lo as the penetration of the game increases.
H Bomb said:
I'm by no means an expert (found this site a few days ago, this is my 2nd post and really the 1st time discussing BJ in depth with other people, done some research on the internet but never read a BJ book, never done any sim analysis, never heard of floating advantage) so I apologize if I say something idiotic.

Let's say you're playing an X deck game with Y decks left and TC = 0. It seems at this point you're essentially playing a Y deck game. If this is the case then (at least for TC = 0):

1. Floating advantage (if I'm grasping this right) = Y deck BS HE - X deck BS HE
2. You should switch to Y deck BS (ex. 6D shoe with 2 decks left, double on 9 vs. 2)
3. You should switch to Y deck BS indices (ex. same situation as #2, insurance index of 2.4)
4. If you're Kelly betting the FA is not going to change your bet, at least not a whole unit. Intuitively guessing, the only situations where the FA is close to 0.5% is at the end of an 8D 85% pen game or 2D 65-70% pen game. Obviously, I could be wrong about this.

It seems an "FA adjustment" (#2-4 above) is actually a lot more valuable on DD than shoe games because for DD the FA is bigger and BS changes and index changes are more drastic (ex. DD half way through, double on 8 vs. 5 and 6, insurance index of 1.4).
Click to expand...

Actually FA is the advantage of a given card density(True Count) compared at different shoe depths.

Basic Strategy is the optimum playing decisions that would maximize your expectation for a given shoe composition(usually a normal one) and a set of rules. You can't just change your BS or indices halfway at 50%, you need to use the indices of the primary count system, and side-count some cards and use multi-parameter table for improved playing decisions.
 
the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is not going to be composed like a normal deck. the last deck of a 6 deck shoe has been shuffled with 5 other decks thereby changing the composition of each deck, the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is always going to be composed of different components, to think that the end of 5 decks it is magically going to be distributed into a perfectly proportionate 52 card deck is laughable. the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is like the last 1/6th of one deck of cards, you dont get down to a quarter of a single deck left and go ok since its exactly a quarter of the deck the cards should be exactly the same as the full deck but 3/4 smaller.
 
maverik said:
the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is not going to be composed like a normal deck. the last deck of a 6 deck shoe has been shuffled with 5 other decks thereby changing the composition of each deck, the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is always going to be composed of different components, to think that the end of 5 decks it is magically going to be distributed into a perfectly proportionate 52 card deck is laughable. the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is like the last 1/6th of one deck of cards, you dont get down to a quarter of a single deck left and go ok since its exactly a quarter of the deck the cards should be exactly the same as the full deck but 3/4 smaller.
Click to expand...

The blackjacks we will receive at the top of a 6 deck shoe is one in every 21.05 hands. The blackjacks we receive with one deck remaining (assuming 16 tens and four aces) is one every 20.7 hands. The blackjacks we receive with 1/4 deck left (4 tens and one ace) is once every 19.5 hands on average. As you can see, we will receive more blackjacks as the deck decreases if the composition of aces and tens are proportionate.

JSTAT
 
Last edited:
JSTAT said:
The blackjacks we will receive at the top of a 6 deck shoe is one in every 21.05 hands. The blackjacks we receive with one deck remaining (assuming 16 tens and four aces) is one every 20.7 hands. The blackjacks we receive with 1/4 deck left (4 tens and one ace) is once every 19.5 hands on average. As you can see, we will receive more blackjacks as the deck decreases if the composition of aces and tens are proportionate.

JSTAT
Click to expand...

yeah but what i am saying is there is no reason to assume that at 0 decks the ratio to ace to kings will be proportionate
 
maverik said:
the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is not going to be composed like a normal deck. the last deck of a 6 deck shoe has been shuffled with 5 other decks thereby changing the composition of each deck, the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is always going to be composed of different components, to think that the end of 5 decks it is magically going to be distributed into a perfectly proportionate 52 card deck is laughable. the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is like the last 1/6th of one deck of cards, you dont get down to a quarter of a single deck left and go ok since its exactly a quarter of the deck the cards should be exactly the same as the full deck but 3/4 smaller.
Click to expand...
i don't hardly think anyone is saying that, lol.
probably i guess the corollary in the true count theorem holds, maybe.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)
Corollary:
The expected true count after any number of cards are revealed and removed from any deck composition is the same as before the cards were removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards.
 
Last edited:
on this true count theorem i'm wondering about some of the terminology used. http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)
like one time the term expected true count is used and other times expected value of the true count. are these supposed to be the same thing or different concepts?

well but anyway where it's said the "The expected true count after any number of cards are revealed and removed from any deck composition is the same as before the cards were removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards. "
and it's said,
"Theorem: the expected value of the true count after a card is revealed and removed from any deck composition is exactly the same as before the card was removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards. "
i mean could that be taken as the true count one expects isn't expected to change as cards are revealed and removed and and that the expected value of a give true count isn't expected to change as cards are revealed and removed as long as the true count doesn't change, sort of thing.

well anyway, i guess this floating point advantage stuff sort of stands at odds with the expected value of the true count stuff to some degree?
maybe the cut card effect has a play in there as well?
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects1.htm
:rolleyes::confused::whip:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top