Adjusting Pivot for Deck Penetration

[Sundown]

Hi this is my first post so here goes.

When playing with Six decks and only 5 are actually dealt, is it possible to adjust your pivot point to take into account the 56-60 cards that will never be dealt out while keeping the advantage?

Example - When playing Casino Verite 6 decks and setting the simulator to 99.9% penetration, I am able to reach my pivot point on multiple occasions. When I adjust it to what I would be playing in the real world, I notice that I can barely reach the pivot and when so, the cards don't go much deeper into a true count advantage.

I play KO with a running count and I set my IRC to O. My pivot would be + 24 which would mean that I have the same number of high cards vs low cards and I would start placing my max bet. In between my pivot, I have ramp bets at + 9 + 12 + 15 + 21 depending on how many decks have been played. The problem that i have now is that I only see my count go up to + 15 or so before the shoe ends. I have not been playing long and it could be do to the fact that it's how the cards come out, but I noticed a big difference in that I am not even able to get my ramp bets in never my my max bet. It appears that I could be missing out on opportunity if I am not able to adjust the pivot to reflect the remaining cards that will never be played.

I'm sure there is some sort of math function that I am not thinking about, but I guess why take into consideration cards that are never going to be played??

Well thank you for any insight that you may have while I continue my journey.

 

[Meistro]

" is it possible to adjust your pivot point to take into account the 56-60 cards that will never be dealt out while keeping the advantage? "

I've never used KO but I can't possibly see how that could be the case.

"Example - When playing Casino Verite 6 decks and setting the simulator to 99.9% penetration, I am able to reach my pivot point on multiple occasions. When I adjust it to what I would be playing in the real world, I notice that I can barely reach the pivot and when so, the cards don't go much deeper into a true count advantage. "

Yes, penetration is important and the deeper the pen the more advantageous situations you will encounter.

 

[Sundown]

Do you know what others do in order to account for the number of cards or decks that they already know will not come out of the shoe? I would think that if you True count, then you will also be using a divisor that doesn't reflect the advantage or disadvantage of these cards.

I know there must be an answer. Can you tell me what card counting method you use and I will do my research to see if any adjustments are being made to account for the cutoff.

Thanks for the response

 

[Meistro]

All unseen cards are treated the same way, you divide your running count by them to get your true count. Whether they will ever be seen or not is irrelevant, all that matters is that you have not seen them.

 

[Red Green]

If you get CVCX from Qfit you can see penetration has a significant effect on returns. But as Meistro notes, anything after the cut off is completely irrelevant.

 

[Sundown]

Yes, I have CVCX and can notice the difference as expected, was wondering if there was away to account for the unused cards that are figured into all calculations even though we know that we will never see them.

 

[Red Green]

I think the point is that the Effect of Removal is what drives the validity of counting. To the extent a card is not removed, it can have no bearing on a specific outcome for a count system. Unremoved cards have potential that is derived from analyzing which cards have been removed which affects changes in probability for the next hand. If I understand your hypothesis, it is the obverse of counting, i.e. you'd end up with the same information you get from counting, namely, what is left and its impact on changes in probability for the next hand. Counting already accounts for that.

That is, if I understood your question correctly.

 

[Sundown]

Hey thanks for your reply. I'm going to have to sleep on that one because what you are saying does make sense. I was just thinking that for those who use the True count, if you are dividing by an increase number of decks, then the less advantage you would get do to the ratio of high cards to low cards remaining. If you knew that 52 cards were not going to come out of the shoe, then instead of dividing by 1 more deck, you would divide by 1 less.

Maybe too much thinking going on.

Thanks