I agree with that. I think we have just about beat this horse to death. Maybe it's time to stop. Thank you for your patience rrwoods. It has been a pleasure arguing with you Mr. Renzey. By the way, I really enjoyed reading your book. I am still pretty new at all this. I have been arguing about blackjack with a guy who writes books about blackjack. How about that.
Best part about Wonging out!
- Thread starter Gamblor
- Start date
I agree with that. I think we have just about beat this horse to death. Maybe it's time to stop. Thank you for your patience rrwoods. It has been a pleasure arguing with you Mr. Renzey. By the way, I really enjoyed reading your book. I am still pretty new at all this. I have been arguing about blackjack with a guy who writes books about blackjack. How about that.
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
WHY isn't a post like this "busted automatically ? It makes me ill.
Note: Sorry. It was posted about a half hour ago.
Last edited:
psyduck
Well-Known Member
What is wrong with the discussion? You can always skip discussions that do not interest you.
I think to end the discussion we should agree on:
All unseen cards are perfectly equal. Whether they are yet unplayed, behind the cut card, burned, in your neighbors hand - or you missed them during restroom break.
(The only unseen card which is different is the dealers hole card - after she had checked for blackjack)
Now the running count is information about the seen cards - and thus information on ALL unseen cards. And for betting you need to know the running count and the number of unseen cards.
The number of unseen cards are not always identical to the number of unplayed cards in the shoe. So when you come back from your break you should keep your running count the same as when you left the table - but for unseen cards you should not rely on the number of cards you see in the shoe. You have to add the unseen cards which are in the discard pile.
Hence your true count stays EXACTLY the same when you come back.
All unseen cards are perfectly equal. Whether they are yet unplayed, behind the cut card, burned, in your neighbors hand - or you missed them during restroom break.
(The only unseen card which is different is the dealers hole card - after she had checked for blackjack)
Now the running count is information about the seen cards - and thus information on ALL unseen cards. And for betting you need to know the running count and the number of unseen cards.
The number of unseen cards are not always identical to the number of unplayed cards in the shoe. So when you come back from your break you should keep your running count the same as when you left the table - but for unseen cards you should not rely on the number of cards you see in the shoe. You have to add the unseen cards which are in the discard pile.
Hence your true count stays EXACTLY the same when you come back.
I am not going to agree to that. I suggested that we end the discussion because the posts were becoming redundant.
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
To MangoJ and Renzy
I am curious on both your opinion's on this situation.
Alway's a Great Topic!!!!!
6 deck shoe
You have seen 2 decks (rc8), 4 decks remaining.
You miss 2 decks
You return with 2 decks remaining.
Option 1:
You pick up your RC of 8 with 4 decks unseen.
Option 2:
You assume the 2 decks you missed had on average 4 high cards.
So you start RC at 4 with 2 decks unseen.
Thoughts?
good cards:joker::whip:
I am curious on both your opinion's on this situation.
Alway's a Great Topic!!!!!
6 deck shoe
You have seen 2 decks (rc8), 4 decks remaining.
You miss 2 decks
You return with 2 decks remaining.
Option 1:
You pick up your RC of 8 with 4 decks unseen.
Option 2:
You assume the 2 decks you missed had on average 4 high cards.
So you start RC at 4 with 2 decks unseen.
Thoughts?
good cards:joker::whip:
Why would you even consider option #2?--------anyway you look at it there are 4 unseen decks!
BillyC1
Last edited:
I've never said to pick up the running count from your last known state. My thesis is to pick up the TRUE count. When rc is 8 after 2 decks, 4 decks left - true count is 2. Then I miss 2 decks, and estimate the true count to be still 2. I reverse the true count calculation and proceed counting with a running count of 4 (since only 2 decks are left).
Therefore I would completely agree to pick option 2 (rc = 4).
Edit: I would be happy if you could PM me the correct answer.
Last edited:
Definitely option 1. Option 2 you are making assumptions about what happened while you were gone. Option 1 you are using all available information and no assumptions. Not seeing cards is equivalent to worse penetration.
Gamblor
Well-Known Member
Was away at AC for last few days, so didn't get a chance to see my thread mutate into a unseen card debate
Its a valid point that we shouldn't make assumptions on cards unseen. However I'm actually of the opinion that the cards do tend to return to 0 (as others mention), and should actually assume Option 2, namely assume TC remains constant and not RC.
In other words, if the TC is +4 for example, namely the remaining 4 deck has 6-7% more high cards, we should make the same assumption with 2 decks remaining.
I would also tend to think it still gravitates more towards a 0 TC, but this is harder to argue.
For what its worth, empirically (from my own experience), I've never seen a deck that was, e.g., a +16 RC early on in the deck, ever remain that high at the end of the deck, it almost always goes back to 0.
metronome
Well-Known Member
:laugh: I have heard that same remark almost verbatim.
And experienced the whole table stop playing after I told the dealer I was "in time out". Ah , the constant in the Blackjack Universe.
Last edited:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
The rc ALWAYS returns to 0. At any point in a shoe, whatever your count on AVERAGE the excess postive or negative cards will be randomly distritubed throughout the remaining deck(s).
good cards
:joker::whip:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I Missed Something?
I always thought the best part of wonging out of a shoe was $ saved?
good cards
:joker::whip:
I always thought the best part of wonging out of a shoe was $ saved?
good cards
:joker::whip:
Gamblor
Well-Known Member
Yes, certainly true, and I did not suggest otherwise. The question was whether we should keep the RC or TC when we come back to a shoe. My point was we should keep TC.
e.g. with 4 decks remaining, we a TC +4, RC +16. When we come back, and there is two shoes left, what should we assume, a TC +4 or RC +16?
I say definitely TC +4 (and RC +8 now).
I'm totally confused here. Are we talking about walking away from a table, not knowing the count and then trying to guestimate the count based on the amount of cards remaining in the shoe?
If so I think we should assume we don't know what the heck the count is, wait the shoe is done and the dealer shuffles a new one. Otherwise, just forget counting altogether and play basic strategy flat betting.
Gamblor
Well-Known Member
No, we know the count with 4 decks remaining. We leave and there are two decks remaining.
Most people would say keep the RC, and just assume the 2 decks that were dealt are basically unseen cards. So, e.g.:
With 4 decks left, TC +4, RC + 16.
Come back with two decks remaining, assume RC +16, and assume two decks that were dealt are unseen - so RC is still +16, TC is still +4, and still are at 4 decks.
I would argue, since its valid to assume the high card are evenly distributed, when we come back to the 2 remaining decks, can assume TC is +4, RC is +8, and work under the assumption of 2 decks.
Yeah thats right. Your personal RC and TC as best estimate will stay the same when you return. The only thing changing in the game is: be careful when calculating TC from the cards left in the shoe. Since you missed 2 decks, you have to add 2 decks to the remaining cards.
So when the game progresses at a RC=6 with 1 deck remaining the shoe, your TC is 2 (since you don't know 2 additional decks).
A RC=16, TC=4 serves as good as an estimate when you return to the table as when you return to the table. A player who played all cards now has a different RC, and has better knowledge about the remaining cards in the shoe and will make better decisions than you - but since his play is independent from your outcome you don't care (you don't bet against each other!)
So when the game progresses at a RC=6 with 1 deck remaining the shoe, your TC is 2 (since you don't know 2 additional decks).
A RC=16, TC=4 serves as good as an estimate when you return to the table as when you return to the table. A player who played all cards now has a different RC, and has better knowledge about the remaining cards in the shoe and will make better decisions than you - but since his play is independent from your outcome you don't care (you don't bet against each other!)
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
If the cards were evenly distributed you wouldn't have a RC of +16 in the first place. Making any assumptions about 2 decks of unseen cards is dangerous IMO. The actual RC could have gone from +16 to -16 in that span. We all know the old axiom about what happens when we assume.
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
If the cards were evenly distributed you wouldn't have a RC of +16 in the first place. Making any assumptions about 2 decks of unseen cards is dangerous IMO. The actual RC could have gone from +16 to -16 in that span. We all know the old axiom about what happens when we assume.
For the millionth time, card counting is about information we have, information that is contained in the SEEN cards, which is expressed as a running count. Any unseen card is an unseen card, it doesnt matter HOW you failed to see it, it doesnt matter if you didnt see it because it got burnt by the dealer, it doesnt matter that you didnt see it because it was behind the cut card, it doesnt matter whether you failed to see it because you were staring at some droopers. The fact is any card you dont see is effectively reducing the shoe penetration. Missing 2 or 3 cards wont kill ya but missing 2 decks would (if you do it all the time)