Kasi said:
\
Better yet, just stick to BS because maybe the reason all those "babies" just came out was because the deck was negative at the start of the round and might still be and therefore u should still be hitting that 16 vs 10.
By that logic, we might as well pass on cardcounting altogether, since the excess Ts and As might all be stuck behind the cut card.
This statement has some very flawed logic behind it. If you aren't counting the cards from previous rounds, then they are unknowns. If I jump into a 6 deck game with 1 deck cutoff, but after 1 deck has already been dealt, I am in the exact same situtation as had I started fresh on a game with 2 decks cutoff. The fact that the cards have been played is of no meaning to me, because I didn't see them. But that doesn't mean I can't start counting that round. I just have to mentally remove the 1 deck from the discard tray when making TC conversions.
If you aren't counting cards, there are plays close enough that just analyzing the cards on the board in the current round can change the way you play a hand, even in a 6 deck game. Sure, the net count from the previous rounds might have been +12. But maybe it was -12. Or maybe 0. Doesn't matter --- I'm just working off the information I have at hand, the cards currently visible on the board that round. The majority of the gain comes from using that additional info on your 16vT decisions. I don't think its really worth it for a basic strategy player to bother with any other board-dependent plays, but it is possible to alter the way you play your 9v2, 11vA, 8v6, 12v4, 12v3 etc. The problem is, these situations come up so infrequently (due to the fact that they require a 5+ card imbalance on that round in a 6 deck game)
Renzey spends a few pages discussing this in his book, but he concedes that there isn't a huge amount of gain to be realized in shoes. In SD and DD though, there is a lot more value to using board composition to augment your basic strategy.