any skill to cut the small cards to the end which we wont play

[beyondbj]

whats the skill to cut card?

 

[creeping panther]

beyong

whats the skill to cut card?

The skill, if you can do it.... one hell of an advantage, and you want to be able to do it from any point in the shoe.

Part of the "BJ WARRIORS" heavy arsenal Bro'.:gun:

CP

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Look for sections where the count rises very quickly.

Look where they end up in discards.

The rest is self explanatory.

 

[Nynefingers]

Look for sections where the count rises very quickly.

Look where they end up in discards.

The rest is self explanatory.

Or where the count drops very quickly. Both can been good, but obviously would be handled differently.

 

[1357111317]

The advantage of cutting small cards to the front can be huge. If you look at a TC and advantage at each TC chart just imagine if you moved all the TC's down 1 or 2. Your WR is going to skyrocket.

 

[moo321]

The advantage of cutting small cards to the front can be huge. If you look at a TC and advantage at each TC chart just imagine if you moved all the TC's down 1 or 2. Your WR is going to skyrocket.

Wait, don't you want the small cards out of the way?

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

Cutting good cards to the front or bad cards to the back is all well and good, but make sure you know what adjustments to make after that point (think about what you should be betting in this situation, and the answer is not simply "big"), otherwise you're wasting the opportunity.

 

[SuperSmash]

Wait, don't you want the small cards out of the way?

Yeah, he must have misspoken. When shuffle-tracking, it's the portions where the count dropped fast that you want to cut to the front (meaning the big cards, not the small ones). It's a common mistake... we're so used to worshiping sections of the deck when the RC is high, but that is in reference to the cards to come. When shuffle-tracking, you're thinking about the cards that already went, so you have to reverse your thinking.

 

[Nynefingers]

Someone here explained to me once that they played a game with a weakly trackable shuffle. For that particular shuffle, cutting big cards to the front or small cards to the back wasn't really practical because the density of our cards or interest isn't high enough. This poster was, however, able to cut a slug slightly rich in small cards to the front. They explained to me that by doing this and not adjusting the count in any way, the counting and betting worked as usual, but the likelihood of the high counts later in the shoe goes up. The small cards at the front don't cost much since you are betting min. The theory makes sense to me. You don't gain some of the cover benefits in a case like this, but I think the EV/SCORE are still somewhat better than not tracking at all. I haven't run sims to confirm this, but if it helps manufacture high counts at low cost, there's no reason it shouldn't work. Obviously though if you can move small cards to the back or big cards to the front, that will be much superior.

 

[Sucker]

I see the point, even THOUGH I don't exactly agree. If you cut the small cards to the front, at least you'll be able to verify the accuracy of the game with a high degree of confidence.

Interesting concept; but I STILL think, as nynefingers says; it's much better to do it the other way. If the game's THAT weak, why am I here playing it anyway?

 

[Blue Efficacy]

You're much better off cutting small cards out of play. Suppose you play a game with 5/6 pen, and are tracking a good slug of little cards. Would you rather have at least a mild overall advantage for 5 decks, or a mild overall advantage for 4 decks while playing through 1 deck at a steep disadvantage, albeit at minimum bets?

Also, cutting them to the back makes sure you KNOW the unplayeds are bad. Thus, if at 4 decks you have a high running count, you know you're in for a good time. With the cut low cards to the front method, at this point you can still very well be burned if a lot of high cards end up behind the cut card.

This does manufacture high counts, yes. But having a high count is no guarantee it will drop in time for you to benefit. This method is only advisable for those with weaker slug tracking skills, or perhaps a shuffle that is only marginally trackable.

 

[SuperSmash]

Someone here explained to me once that they played a game with a weakly trackable shuffle. For that particular shuffle, cutting big cards to the front or small cards to the back wasn't really practical because the density of our cards or interest isn't high enough. This poster was, however, able to cut a slug slightly rich in small cards to the front. They explained to me that by doing this and not adjusting the count in any way, the counting and betting worked as usual, but the likelihood of the high counts later in the shoe goes up. The small cards at the front don't cost much since you are betting min. The theory makes sense to me. You don't gain some of the cover benefits in a case like this, but I think the EV/SCORE are still somewhat better than not tracking at all. I haven't run sims to confirm this, but if it helps manufacture high counts at low cost, there's no reason it shouldn't work. Obviously though if you can move small cards to the back or big cards to the front, that will be much superior.

It should just be the difference between making the front of the shoe slightly richer in high cards—allowing bigger bets from the top, allowing for better camouflage—and making later in the shoe (perhaps even further in than is penetrated) slightly richer in high cards. Seems like the obvious choice is to put the high cards at the front.

Think of it this way... The high cards are in the sections of the deck they're in, in the order/density they're in, the cut only moves which section they're in. Thus, if you move small cards to the front, so that the count gets higher faster, the section with the high cards in it is not any more valuable than it would have been at the front, even if the count is now (perhaps) deceptively high... The high count doesn't make that section better than it is if it was at the front of the shoe and the count was at zero. I dunno, I'd go with the camouflage, and the knowledge of knowing that at least I was for sure NOT cutting many high cards inadvertently out of play.

 

[21gunsalute]

I don't know, I've had a lot of success cutting the small cards to the front. When you cut big cards to the front it's harder to judge how big to bet and when exactly to stop betting big. Sure, you may cut some big cards out of play when cutting small cards to the front, but you're going to cut some big cards out of play anyway, so if the pen is good this shouldn't be much of a problem. Cutting big cards to the front gives a clearer indication of when to bet big IMO, and it also keeps the small cards more clumped together, which is actually a good thing. There's nothing worse than having a high count later in the shoe that is infiltrated with with several small cards. Lastly, cutting the small cards to the front keeps you in the game for the entire shoe, which is critical where I play since wonging in and out isn't really an option.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

I don't know, I've had a lot of success cutting the small cards to the front. When you cut big cards to the front it's harder to judge how big to bet and when exactly to stop betting big. Sure, you may cut some big cards out of play when cutting small cards to the front, but you're going to cut some big cards out of play anyway, so if the pen is good this shouldn't be much of a problem. Cutting big cards to the front gives a clearer indication of when to bet big IMO, and it also keeps the small cards more clumped together, which is actually a good thing. There's nothing worse than having a high count later in the shoe that is infiltrated with with several small cards. Lastly, cutting the small cards to the front keeps you in the game for the entire shoe, which is critical where I play since wonging in and out isn't really an option.

But you don't get is that first deck of small cards shouldn't keep you in the game for the entire shoe, as those are cards you'd want to wong away from, aggressively.

This also gives you increased chances of cutting good cards out of play, resulting in getting burned with large bets out in deck 4-5, before the shuffle, versus a blind cut.

It's easier to make mistakes with betting if you cut the small cards to the back, yes. But you're playing with a much better overall edge, so if you're only making minor betting and playing errors as a result, you should still be okay. If sufficient low cards are cut into the netherworld behind the cut card, you are playing the whole shoe at an overall advantage. If the count does in fact go up, you know you're at an even bigger edge.

 

[21gunsalute]

But you don't get is that first deck of small cards shouldn't keep you in the game for the entire shoe, as those are cards you'd want to wong away from, aggressively.

This also gives you increased chances of cutting good cards out of play, resulting in getting burned with large bets out in deck 4-5, before the shuffle, versus a blind cut.

It's easier to make mistakes with betting if you cut the small cards to the back, yes. But you're playing with a much better overall edge, so if you're only making minor betting and playing errors as a result, you should still be okay. If sufficient low cards are cut into the netherworld behind the cut card, you are playing the whole shoe at an overall advantage. If the count does in fact go up, you know you're at an even bigger edge.

Again, I disagree. The small cards are only going to come out for a few hands and your chances of winning these hands are virtually the same as when the big cards come out. If you lose these hands you're only going to lose minimal bets. I'm not sure how you'd vary your bets if you cut the small cards out of play, or do you just make max or near max bets every hand? How do you know when to stop betting big?

Also, double downs are going to be virtually non-existent if you cut small cards out of play. You need a small card or 2 to make a 2-card 9,10 or 11, so cutting them out of play would lower the EV I would think. You're going to miss out on a lot of 5,6 5,5 4,7 3,8 hands ,etc., and get a lot more 8,7 and 9,7 hands. Hard hands of 17 and 18 will be more likely, which will also now be more likely to lose, and if you have to take a hit on a stiff hand you'll be even more likely to bust.

To each his own I guess. If I were playing one on one against the dealer and could easily wong out and know when to do so I might opt for your method. And cutting the small cards out of play certainly makes more sense in single and double deck games. But I think cutting the small cards to the front makes much more sense in shoe games where the penetration is good and wonging in and out isn't really plausible.

 

[SuperSmash]

Also, double downs are going to be virtually non-existent if you cut small cards out of play. You need a small card or 2 to make a 2-card 9,10 or 11, so cutting them out of play would lower the EV I would think. You're going to miss out on a lot of 5,6 5,5 4,7 3,8 hands ,etc., and get a lot more 8,7 and 9,7 hands. Hard hands of 17 and 18 will be more likely, which will also now be more likely to lose, and if you have to take a hit on a stiff hand you'll be even more likely to bust.

. . .

My initial reply to this was a bit long-winded and rude, so I am redoing it. Suffice to say... Uh... Do you know anything about the THEORY of card counting? Namely that more high cards left in the shoe and LESS low cards left in the show is statistically better for the player and worse for the dealer? Cause... I'm pretty sure you just said the exact opposite.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Again, I disagree. The small cards are only going to come out for a few hands and your chances of winning these hands are virtually the same as when the big cards come out. If you lose these hands you're only going to lose minimal bets. I'm not sure how you'd vary your bets if you cut the small cards out of play, or do you just make max or near max bets every hand? How do you know when to stop betting big?

If you are not counting cards you won't know, sure. But hopefully you can count cards as well as shuffle track, otherwise you're wasting your time. Cutting a slug of small cards allows you to know that a neutral count is really slightly positive, slight negative is actually neutral, etc.

You are proclaiming that playing a few definite negative EV hands is no worse than playing a 5 deck shoe that has an overall player advantage, which is absurd.

Also, double downs are going to be virtually non-existent if you cut small cards out of play. You need a small card or 2 to make a 2-card 9,10 or 11, so cutting them out of play would lower the EV I would think. You're going to miss out on a lot of 5,6 5,5 4,7 3,8 hands ,etc., and get a lot more 8,7 and 9,7 hands. Hard hands of 17 and 18 will be more likely, which will also now be more likely to lose, and if you have to take a hit on a stiff hand you'll be even more likely to bust.
This is completely absurd. If I found a small card slug that was huge so as to eliminate double down opportunities, the deck cut to the back must contain nearly every small card in the whole six decks, the odds of which are likely next to zero. Also, if you had to choose between blackjacks and double downs, which one would you choose? There is only one correct answer.

Of course you'll get some 17s and 18s, you will NEVER win more hands than you lose in BJ. Your aim isn't to win more hands than you will lose, your aim is to win more than you lose with the help of splits, doubles, and ESPECIALLY blackjacks.

Lastly, I have somehow received double down hands at very high true counts, going by what you're saying this shouldn't happen. And somehow I have also been burned doubling 11s at ridiculous counts, and we ain't just talking getting the ace. Again, how should this happen? At high counts all the low cards are gone right? :laugh:


To each his own I guess. If I were playing one on one against the dealer and could easily wong out and know when to do so I might opt for your method. And cutting the small cards out of play certainly makes more sense in single and double deck games. But I think cutting the small cards to the front makes much more sense in shoe games where the penetration is good and wonging in and out isn't really plausible.Wonging is much more plausible in shoe games, generally speaking. You don't want to wong out very often at all when cutting a substantial slug of babies to the back, as it would take a much more negative count to justify wonging than in a straight counting situation. But you are right, heads up using your method would be a poor choice because you will be playing even more -EV hands

Sorry if I come off as condescending but you have much to learn, young padawan.

 

[SuperSmash]

Sorry if I come off as condescending but you have much to learn, young padawan.

Convincing defense. Oh wait, no... it contained nothing of substance. In fact, it sounds like the defense of someone who realized he was wrong but can't admit it, so he just resorts to a condescending and unbelievably pointless response. Nice!

EDIT: Whoops, I meant to reply to 21gunsalute. Sorry, Blue, misunderstood your post/the quoting thing.

 

[Sonny]

I'm not sure how you'd vary your bets if you cut the small cards out of play...

It's the easiest method of shuffle tracking and a great place to start. You would estimate the count of the low-card slug and add it to your initial running count. If the slug was small (just a few cards) then you can do your TC conversions and bet sizing normally. If the slug was a significant size then you just subtract it from your discard estimation. For example, if you cut a one-deck segment with 3 extra low cards to the back, start your running count at +3 instead of 0 and consider one deck to be in the discards (since you already counted it and it is out of play). You can use the same betting spread and indices that you normally would. All you are doing is playing against a smaller shoe with a positive running count off the top. It's every card counter's dream! :gaga:

Also, double downs are going to be virtually non-existent if you cut small cards out of play.

The double downs are going to be the same during the "hot" section of the shoe either way. You are not changing the results of your big bets at all, and that is where all of your EV is. The only difference is that you are playing a few -EV hands off the top while waiting for the count to increase.

Also, think about the heat issues with this method. You are turning every shoe into a shoe that turns positive right away, then betting with the count. Imagine how easy it would be to pick off a card counter if every shoe was positive. When you cut those small cards to the back you are betting bigger off the top and maintaining a medium bet size instead of jumping from min to max as the count rises. Cutting the small clump to the back increases your EV and gives you some degree of cover.

Both methods will increase the frequency of high counts, decrease the frequency of low counts and improve your EV. Cutting them to the front is better for beginners who want to verify their results, but they should feel comfortable cutting them to the back soon enough.

-Sonny-

 

[moo321]

Gotta go with Sonny on this one...