Abnormally large TC's
- Thread starter JohnCrover
- Start date
When I played hand shuffled 6D game and dealer performed rough shuffling (he tried to shuffle 6D deck in less than two minutes, some wants to do it under one minutes.), I find deck composition won't change too much all night. Extreme TC will stay with players all night. That means, 50% of the chance you will see extremely high TC at some point. And 50% of the chance you will see at some point extremely negative TC (like -10, most people will Wongout already but I use all indexes dealing with this condition using two side count, so ev stay near 0 for me). So placing the cut card becomes critical. That is why people spent time to do something like ace tracking or high card tracking. On the other hand, the deck can stay between +/-2 TC all night if dealer shuffles roughly for the same reason, balanced deck stays balanced. Even you can't track high cards, with lazy dealer and unbalanced deck already in place, you have good chance to get the high TC shoes until the high card clump gets destroyed on shuffling.
On the other hand, there are dealers who shuffled thoroughly, like taking four minutes. You can see it is card by card shuffling, not chunk by chunk shuffling. He will destroy a high TC deck in the next shoe.
In short, table survey is important. If you see a dealer who rushes to shuffle and the shoe is already unbalanced, either very negative or positive TC is OK. You have good chance to encounter a very positive shoe and it can stay that way for a whole night. You don't want to sit at the table that its dealer does a good job on shuffling. Taking long to shuffle takes away your playing time. And he destroy the unbalanced clumps which is hard to form naturally in the next shoe.
On the other hand, there are dealers who shuffled thoroughly, like taking four minutes. You can see it is card by card shuffling, not chunk by chunk shuffling. He will destroy a high TC deck in the next shoe.
In short, table survey is important. If you see a dealer who rushes to shuffle and the shoe is already unbalanced, either very negative or positive TC is OK. You have good chance to encounter a very positive shoe and it can stay that way for a whole night. You don't want to sit at the table that its dealer does a good job on shuffling. Taking long to shuffle takes away your playing time. And he destroy the unbalanced clumps which is hard to form naturally in the next shoe.
Last edited:
Thank YOU!
And one more aside, if I may, to xengrifter. You don't help matters any by feeling compelled to make inane, knee-jerk responses to every asshole who comes down the pike. All that does is further clutter the board and waste everyone's time. Clearly, sometimes the most intelligent response is no response at all (you have great difficulty with that notion), rather than to extend an invitation to the spammer to "explain," or "clarify" a remark, when it is obvious that he has no intention whatsoever of so doing.
Don
And one more aside, if I may, to xengrifter. You don't help matters any by feeling compelled to make inane, knee-jerk responses to every asshole who comes down the pike. All that does is further clutter the board and waste everyone's time. Clearly, sometimes the most intelligent response is no response at all (you have great difficulty with that notion), rather than to extend an invitation to the spammer to "explain," or "clarify" a remark, when it is obvious that he has no intention whatsoever of so doing.
Don
Last edited:
Yes, I call it lopsided deck.
If the correct side of the imbalance can be determined then the key, as you say, is cut card placement. And also, knowing how to perform the simple count conversion to compensate accordingly. And then those out-of-the-gate rapidly tanking counts are played for what they are: high off-the-top plus counts ...
... Is that what you are trying to say?
This is the part that you explain that throws me off - It makes me think that you are playing it totally wrong, or only half right?
In two deck games hand shuffled and I am making no effort to perform a pell-mell tracking attempt, and I am seeing shuffle after shuffle the count tanks, seemingly far too often to be pure random, I simply place the cut card differently - my cut card placement is fairly consistent when I am typically not shuffle tracking, so that is the one constant I can change up. I think that might be at least a tiny bit scientifically valid, no?
If the correct side of the imbalance can be determined then the key, as you say, is cut card placement. And also, knowing how to perform the simple count conversion to compensate accordingly. And then those out-of-the-gate rapidly tanking counts are played for what they are: high off-the-top plus counts ...
... Is that what you are trying to say?
This is the part that you explain that throws me off - It makes me think that you are playing it totally wrong, or only half right?
In two deck games hand shuffled and I am making no effort to perform a pell-mell tracking attempt, and I am seeing shuffle after shuffle the count tanks, seemingly far too often to be pure random, I simply place the cut card differently - my cut card placement is fairly consistent when I am typically not shuffle tracking, so that is the one constant I can change up. I think that might be at least a tiny bit scientifically valid, no?
Last edited:
If you are saying simply that using a whiz-bang multiparameter approach with bivaluate approximations will render negative counts to a zero house edge ...
... You are sounding like the Baroness LadyTthree d'Dummy!
Are you using the Griffin type multiparameter matrix, like Humble and DHM? Or the more exotic Tarzanesque variety? Or the CORE Count approach?
... You are sounding like the Baroness LadyTthree d'Dummy!
Are you using the Griffin type multiparameter matrix, like Humble and DHM? Or the more exotic Tarzanesque variety? Or the CORE Count approach?
Last edited:
So you are using Zen with side counts, less because you think it adds "power", but more because you believe it buys you cover over using Hi-Lo or vanilla Zen.
Here is why that logic is wrong. While I can't speak to your "local" casino specifically, most casinos now use computer analysis for their evaluations. And if your casino isn't it likely will sooner rather than later. Your assumption, seems to be that the computer default is set to Hi-Lo, so you need to move away from Hi-Lo or a count like Zen that is going to correlate closely with a Hi-Lo analysis.
But the computer evaluation is not set to Hi-lo. It is set to perfect value of each card. So the higher a count you use, the more side counts you use, is going to result in you correlating MORE with the computer not less. So cover is out the window, you are doing more harm than good.
Here is why that logic is wrong. While I can't speak to your "local" casino specifically, most casinos now use computer analysis for their evaluations. And if your casino isn't it likely will sooner rather than later. Your assumption, seems to be that the computer default is set to Hi-Lo, so you need to move away from Hi-Lo or a count like Zen that is going to correlate closely with a Hi-Lo analysis.
But the computer evaluation is not set to Hi-lo. It is set to perfect value of each card. So the higher a count you use, the more side counts you use, is going to result in you correlating MORE with the computer not less. So cover is out the window, you are doing more harm than good.
It is 2020 and if we ever get back to playing blackjack, you have to think outside the box and come up with innovative ways of playing. The same old thinking from the 1980's isn't going to get it done....at least not for very long. Longevity...that is the key.
So higher level counts as a game changer, is just so 1980's. You aren't going to trick the computer software and evaluation process with a higher level count (and or side counts). Like I said, you actually correlate MORE closely.
It is betting patterns that you need to think about. Unless your higher level count is so powerful, that you can win flat betting, every evaluation is going to show basically the same thing. Higher amounts bet at higher player advantages. Any hope of longevity and you have to try to change how those betting patterns look. Snyder took the first step with opposition betting. It was good enough to fool most people, pit people and whoever might be counting from up above, because that is how evaluations where done at the time. But now with computer evaluations, even something like opposition betting isn't going to buy you much time. In the end, a betting pattern where you wager your largest bets at the highest counts will still emerge.
But what if you could make it so that wasn't the pattern that emerged. What if your largest bets were at very moderate counts, with only small advantages. And once you got to the area, say about 2% advantage where most counters get near or at their top wager, you were actually placing your small wager, You could even do it in a manner that at these highest of counts, your wager was ever smaller than at a count of zero.
THAT is going to be a pattern neither human nor computer recognizes as a card counter.
Now of course the downside is variance. Placing your top wager at very moderate counts is going to create huge variance and you will need a much bigger BR. But if you are OK with those two things, no casinos or software is going to peg you as a card counter. Well, I shouldn't say no casino. Any sweaty casino that tosses anyone who varies wagers, even before or without an evaluation, is still going to freak out. But you weren't going to get any play in at such a place anyway.
So higher level counts as a game changer, is just so 1980's. You aren't going to trick the computer software and evaluation process with a higher level count (and or side counts). Like I said, you actually correlate MORE closely.
It is betting patterns that you need to think about. Unless your higher level count is so powerful, that you can win flat betting, every evaluation is going to show basically the same thing. Higher amounts bet at higher player advantages. Any hope of longevity and you have to try to change how those betting patterns look. Snyder took the first step with opposition betting. It was good enough to fool most people, pit people and whoever might be counting from up above, because that is how evaluations where done at the time. But now with computer evaluations, even something like opposition betting isn't going to buy you much time. In the end, a betting pattern where you wager your largest bets at the highest counts will still emerge.
But what if you could make it so that wasn't the pattern that emerged. What if your largest bets were at very moderate counts, with only small advantages. And once you got to the area, say about 2% advantage where most counters get near or at their top wager, you were actually placing your small wager, You could even do it in a manner that at these highest of counts, your wager was ever smaller than at a count of zero.
THAT is going to be a pattern neither human nor computer recognizes as a card counter. Now of course the downside is variance. Placing your top wager at very moderate counts is going to create huge variance and you will need a much bigger BR. But if you are OK with those two things, no casinos or software is going to peg you as a card counter. Well, I shouldn't say no casino. Any sweaty casino that tosses anyone who varies wagers, even before or without an evaluation, is still going to freak out. But you weren't going to get any play in at such a place anyway.
Last edited:
With a large enough sample the computer program is going to tell what % advantage, or disadvantage, you’re playing with. It’s just plain untrue that, for example, just because you’re betting less at TC 5 than you are at 3 a computer program won’t show you’re playing with an advantage, unless of course you’re not actually playing with an advantage. It may be fooling the operator reviewing the programs data enough that you’re able to consistently get away with it and the operator reviewing the data calls it inconclusive or not a threat.
Combine that with say counters basic strategy or something, and yeah you’ll probably get a lot more time because the program will show you have an edge but it’s weak from both strategy and betting errors. It’ll show that because, well, it is weak. Your short enough sessions and leaving some doubt are probably leading you to the erroneous conclusion you’re fooling the software program.
Combine that with say counters basic strategy or something, and yeah you’ll probably get a lot more time because the program will show you have an edge but it’s weak from both strategy and betting errors. It’ll show that because, well, it is weak. Your short enough sessions and leaving some doubt are probably leading you to the erroneous conclusion you’re fooling the software program.
Last edited:
"With a large enough sample size", yes. I wasn't suggesting that this replaces concepts like short sessions (in my case very short sessions) and CBS, both of which I employed and have been an advocate of for years. This is just another thing, another tool in the shed that will go along way towards increasing longevity. Perhaps it was over-zealous for me to have said "no casino will ever toss you". But you are making it much harder to identify you.
Furthermore about half of evaluations are initiated from above, while the other half come from the floor requesting such an evaluation. In the case of the floor initiating an evaluation, with this betting pattern you have a good chance to avoid that evaluation altogether. As an experienced player yourself, I am sure you know when the floor is looking at you and have even experienced many times a pit person come over and flip through the card in discard tray to determine if more low cards had come out. So just imagine if he/she does that or employs any kind of half ass count to determine the count and they know the count is pretty positive and they see you betting small. Not only will you have avoided an evaluation at that particular time but probably in the future with that particular pit critter, as they have pegged you as a non-counter and first impressions are lasting impressions.
Another benefit and thing you are doing differently than traditional card counters is the game selection itself. Card counters look for deeply dealt games. That results in more super high, max bet territory counts. By placing your large bets on the smaller advantage, moderate counts and making your profit on those counts rather than the super high counts, you don't have to seek out and play those deeply dealt games. Very average penetration is going to actually be your best games. So you are not playing the best games, the deeply dealt games, that are closely hawked.
Furthermore about half of evaluations are initiated from above, while the other half come from the floor requesting such an evaluation. In the case of the floor initiating an evaluation, with this betting pattern you have a good chance to avoid that evaluation altogether. As an experienced player yourself, I am sure you know when the floor is looking at you and have even experienced many times a pit person come over and flip through the card in discard tray to determine if more low cards had come out. So just imagine if he/she does that or employs any kind of half ass count to determine the count and they know the count is pretty positive and they see you betting small. Not only will you have avoided an evaluation at that particular time but probably in the future with that particular pit critter, as they have pegged you as a non-counter and first impressions are lasting impressions.
Another benefit and thing you are doing differently than traditional card counters is the game selection itself. Card counters look for deeply dealt games. That results in more super high, max bet territory counts. By placing your large bets on the smaller advantage, moderate counts and making your profit on those counts rather than the super high counts, you don't have to seek out and play those deeply dealt games. Very average penetration is going to actually be your best games. So you are not playing the best games, the deeply dealt games, that are closely hawked.
Last edited:
Don't forget Mason Malmuth consolidation betting.
Don't forget Schlesinger only raising or lowering the bet connected to previous win or loss.
Interestingly, the sainted Lawrence Revere recommended something similar to KJ's reduced bet at the highest counts ...
... In deep single-deck games of the early/mid 70s he advocated a max 1-4u only in the first half deck. In the remaining half, max only 2u.
Things will get better in the top tier casinos because they will use both RFD embedded chips and cards. The house computer will always know the count, though they won't be allowed to shuffle up... The algorithm will ping an alert on someone who is betting with the count...
... easy to knock it out, by using a simple RFD zapper on some of the chips, making a large bet look like a small bet to the algo alert protocol.
Don't forget Schlesinger only raising or lowering the bet connected to previous win or loss.
Interestingly, the sainted Lawrence Revere recommended something similar to KJ's reduced bet at the highest counts ...
... In deep single-deck games of the early/mid 70s he advocated a max 1-4u only in the first half deck. In the remaining half, max only 2u.
Things will get better in the top tier casinos because they will use both RFD embedded chips and cards. The house computer will always know the count, though they won't be allowed to shuffle up... The algorithm will ping an alert on someone who is betting with the count...
... easy to knock it out, by using a simple RFD zapper on some of the chips, making a large bet look like a small bet to the algo alert protocol.
I personally have very little experience with RFD chips. I am aware some of the strip casinos use them in the high limit rooms, but I don't play those levels and avoid those rooms. That is yet another tool in my toolbox for achieving longevity....to play limits that are better tolerated.
However, I think you could run into trouble using such a Zapper under the device laws. Technically you would not be using a device to gain an advantage, only disrupt the monitoring, but I would be very concerned that judges (possible bought and paid for by the casino industry) would rule that way.
Moving on, I don't see your Revere example as a comparison of what I am talking about, other than in very basic terms of moving away from what traditional card counters do and casino personnel and software are looking for.
Let me try to explain it another way. There are some that believe that what happens at the moderate counts, counts with a player advantage of say .5 to 1.5 or 2% doesn't really matter that much. That is the basis for opposition betting. Obviously simulations will show a decline from so called perfect betting, but that the majority of money made comes from the largest bets (max bets) placed at the high true counts, So by that thinking you could use only two different bets, your minimum wager, placed all the way up to an advantage of about 2% and then your max bet placed at 2% or higher. A form of cover. Some cost. Some benefit. But the analysis is still going to look like a pattern of a card conter, just absent the ramping part.
So if you accept that idea, then instead of making your money on a very small number of hands at a higher player advantage, you would completely flip that and being making your money on a larger number of hands played at a smaller advantage, which deviates greatly from the normal card counter model. And at those rounds played at the larger player advantage, which are the rounds a casino might look at, you are at minimum wager. Again, this really looks quite different than the normal card counter model. Yes they will see large bets and more (in frequency) of these large bets, but not placed at the biggest advantage, which again, goes against the norm of card counters. It is more in line with players that just randomly change bets sizes, based on hunches or whatever.
Anyway, I have already said FAR more about this than I intended to.
However, I think you could run into trouble using such a Zapper under the device laws. Technically you would not be using a device to gain an advantage, only disrupt the monitoring, but I would be very concerned that judges (possible bought and paid for by the casino industry) would rule that way.
Moving on, I don't see your Revere example as a comparison of what I am talking about, other than in very basic terms of moving away from what traditional card counters do and casino personnel and software are looking for.
Let me try to explain it another way. There are some that believe that what happens at the moderate counts, counts with a player advantage of say .5 to 1.5 or 2% doesn't really matter that much. That is the basis for opposition betting. Obviously simulations will show a decline from so called perfect betting, but that the majority of money made comes from the largest bets (max bets) placed at the high true counts, So by that thinking you could use only two different bets, your minimum wager, placed all the way up to an advantage of about 2% and then your max bet placed at 2% or higher. A form of cover. Some cost. Some benefit. But the analysis is still going to look like a pattern of a card conter, just absent the ramping part.
So if you accept that idea, then instead of making your money on a very small number of hands at a higher player advantage, you would completely flip that and being making your money on a larger number of hands played at a smaller advantage, which deviates greatly from the normal card counter model. And at those rounds played at the larger player advantage, which are the rounds a casino might look at, you are at minimum wager. Again, this really looks quite different than the normal card counter model. Yes they will see large bets and more (in frequency) of these large bets, but not placed at the biggest advantage, which again, goes against the norm of card counters. It is more in line with players that just randomly change bets sizes, based on hunches or whatever.
Anyway, I have already said FAR more about this than I intended to.
Yes, I had not even thought about the device law, but zapping their gaming tokens could also constitute other forms of crime including malicious destruction of property etc.
That said, it simply needs recognition that chips with RFD can be zapped out simply and inexpensively. It makes no matter until if and when the same casino adds the RFD to the cards. When that happens, there will be some advantage to zapping out a few high-value chips from time to time, and those chips then become invisible to the tracking matrix algos.
Just imagine, the next generation casino with RFD cards and chips always knowing the count and the betting and triggering alerts on players.... The pit and the eye would never be looking for card counters again.
That said, it simply needs recognition that chips with RFD can be zapped out simply and inexpensively. It makes no matter until if and when the same casino adds the RFD to the cards. When that happens, there will be some advantage to zapping out a few high-value chips from time to time, and those chips then become invisible to the tracking matrix algos.
Just imagine, the next generation casino with RFD cards and chips always knowing the count and the betting and triggering alerts on players.... The pit and the eye would never be looking for card counters again.
I really don't think this is the way things are going to go. I am thinking more of a move away from chips, towards a TITO like the video games that are already in use or the stadium blackjack set up which combines a TITO with a single live dealer, still elminating the need for chips.
And this coronavirus crisis may speed up such a movement, as chips are just a magnet for germs.
And this coronavirus crisis may speed up such a movement, as chips are just a magnet for germs.