Was in AC yesterday and having been IDed as a counter at a few spots, thought I'd try a few places I've never hit before because of the less desireable games (i.e., 8D shoes.) Boy, those 8D shoes take forever and so few go positive. Any suggestions on decreasing the pain? If the TC hovers in the 0 to +1 range, how many decks will you count before giving up and moving on to another table?
Backcounting 8D shoes is painful!
- Thread starter 21forme
- Start date
Automatic Monkey
Banned
All of them. When the count is staying neutral throughout the shoe, that is a good thing. Because you started out with a 8D shoe. Now it's a 6D shoe, soon it will be a 4D shoe, and so on. The deeper into the shoe you go, the greater the chance that the count is going to go positive. As long as you are patient and are watching good pen, you will get plenty of opportunities. So once I start backcounting a table, I don't leave until the shoe both goes negative and I see another shoe starting that I can backcount.
When backcounting you should be making up for the lost time by betting more aggressively when you do get into the game. It doesn't hurt your RoR because you are not suffering the losses on negative counts.
golfnut101
Well-Known Member
making the best of it
I think this is an excellent post for those of us that are relatively new to the AP world, especially those that only have access to shoe games.We all would love to have DD dream games, but, unfortunately reality says otherwise. So rather than wine about how boring it can be to backcount a shoe, learn from what an experienced player is saying-we can still get something from these games if we choose to.
I think this is an excellent post for those of us that are relatively new to the AP world, especially those that only have access to shoe games.We all would love to have DD dream games, but, unfortunately reality says otherwise. So rather than wine about how boring it can be to backcount a shoe, learn from what an experienced player is saying-we can still get something from these games if we choose to.
xxrenegadexx
Well-Known Member
the 8d shoes down there are too much......... typically the pen is TERRIBLE ... you'll back count shoe after shoe before you find a good situation. Sit down for maybe two or three rounds before the cut card if your lucky
How aggresively? If max bet is to be 1% of BR in play all, how big should it be backcounting?
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Off the top of my head, I'd say about 25% more, but it depends on a lot of things.
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
I'd be wary of substantially increasing your max just because you're backcounting (at least if you're betting large in relation to your bankroll). Wonging into a big count is just as capable of beating your brains in as betting big after playing through a negative count.
The only reason you can afford to bet more in a wonging situation is because you haven't been "spending" your money on minimum bets at negative counts.
The only level increase in aggression that I'd lean towards would be a possibly higher bets and lowish but still positive counts.
The only reason you can afford to bet more in a wonging situation is because you haven't been "spending" your money on minimum bets at negative counts.
The only level increase in aggression that I'd lean towards would be a possibly higher bets and lowish but still positive counts.
moo321
Well-Known Member
When I'm back-counting, if the count is even a little negative after one deck, I usually look elsewhere (i.e. running count of -4 or worse). If I've been counting for awhile, I'll stick around until maybe a true count of -2 or worse, and then I'm looking for another game to count.
Could be, but keep in mine your minimum bet might be up to 1000% more, or even more, depending on alot of things as u say lol. With the same ROR that is.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Exactly. Playing negative counts is just like making a donation to the casino, or drawing expenses from your bankroll. Either will increase risk of ruin significantly.
See I just don't understand this.
If you know you will be playing all negative counts, you'd be using a different ramp/unit to keep the ROR the same compared to whatever else you are doing.
Maybe you'd have a lower win rate but you'd have the same ROR.
Surely you would not play a DD game with the same unit and spread if u quit at TC 0 as u would if u suddenly decided to "play-all" for a while?
Even if u could, would spreading 1-10 as opposed to 1-5 keep your ROR the same for the exact same game? I doubt it.
Apparently everyone here knows exactly the rules of the game and penetration Rhino is talking about, what bankroll he is risking, what the bet ramp is and when, what count he uses, etc., since they're giving such good advice about it.
Rhino, think about investing an hour's expected earnings in a sim and fool around with it. Why risk a, I'm guessing, $25K bankroll, without a very clear idea of ROR and how even dealing 10 more cards in a DD game might effect what u do.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
All right, that is so. But let's say you are doing whatever you have to do to keep your RoR constant. When you switch to backcounting from play-all, your win rate will go up because you are subtracting zero losses at the negative counts from your wins at the positive counts. But the fact that you are not giving away some of your bankroll on negative counts also allows you to play a larger max bet and/or employ a steeper ramp (slightly larger and slightly steeper) and face the same risk of ruin.
See avoidance of ruin depends on a constantly growing bankroll, thus every time you win a hand your risk of ruin goes down. So betting in advantageous situations will decrease your risk. Let's say you are counting High-Low, and your bet maxes out at TC +4. But you set a silly rule for yourself that you will leave the table at TC +8. Even though that means you will be putting fewer big bets into play, that move will increase your risk of ruin because the winnings you can expect from those huge-count hands won't be added to your bankroll.
Last edited:
Getting back to my original question, I was reading Schlesinger's BJA, 3 ed. today, and in chapter 13, he addresses "how long should I backcount a shoe?" I haven't read (and digested) it all yet, but it's shorter than you think. He's basically saying if the count doesn't turn positive soon, get out of there and find another shoe, and towards the end of the shoe, he suggests wonging out even in seemingly advantageous counts in some situations. Hopefully I'll have some time this weekend to read it in detail. If you have the book, check it out.
It's tough to generalize that ur win rate will go up compared to play-all assuming u define win rate on an hourly basis? So many games with so many rules with so many different spreads with so many different levels of penetration wth so many different wong-in points at so many different spreads.
Anyway, that's basically the point, understanding how things are effected by changing whatever.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
The cards are the cards and the counts are the counts, and your win rate cannot go up by placing bets in negative counts. It has to go down. So your win rate has to go up by avoiding the negative counts.
This is assuming ideal backcounting, you play the +EV hands and you don't play the -EV ones. You can make your entry criteria so tough that you rarely get into a shoe and then your win rate will go down, for sure. Compare it to poker opening hands criteria- if you only open with pocket aces you will start with a huge advantage on every hand you play, but you won't play enough to make any money. I suppose a really good poker player at a table full of really bad players could open every hand and still make money, and that's what play-all is like. But he's not going to lose win rate by folding his pocket 8-2 just because that hand is going to be a winner sometimes.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Don Schlesinger said that? I'd love to hear his reasoning.
I suppose backcounting one shoe for a long period could draw a lot of heat, as would sitting down and playing 1 or 2 hands at the end of the shoe, but heat issues aside, if the count is positive I'm not going anywhere except to an open seat to play.
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
The gist of BJA's argument was that if the shoe doesn't turn positive fairly early (let's say first two decks of a 6d shoe), then it's probably best to move on to another. The idea being that the odds of it getting positive with enough cards left is outweighed by the odds of finding a hot shoe elsewhere.
Unfortunately, he didn't go into too much detail in the math behind it.
Unfortunately, he didn't go into too much detail in the math behind it.
xxrenegadexx
Well-Known Member
Another point about backcounting eight deck shoes- most of the lower limit tables get filled up with ploppies while the shoe is in progress. Also many of the higher limit tables tend to be no mid-shoe entry (at least in AC). For the most part its lose/lose unless your playing off peak hours.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
that's pretty much the gist of it as i understood it also. though i must admitt i never fully was able to understand all of the reasoning, math and logic behind it.