Pitch Games

[southAP]

majority of my play has been playing shoe games with the exception 1 pitch game that i let myself get suckered into playing. ( I say suckered because it was a 6:5 game.) I am lucky enough to be playing in new areas soon and hoping to find some decent pitch games.
I was wondering what should be done during counting. I have noticed that people arent that inclined to cover their cards like they do in poker. The question im trying to get to, is should I be aggressive in trying to see their cards for the count? How much difference in making index plays will that make not knowing what their cards are? Should I play with as little players as possible? Any advice would be great

-South

 

[Sharky]

yes, yes, & yes

 

[bj bob]

majority of my play has been playing shoe games with the exception 1 pitch game that i let myself get suckered into playing. I say suckered because it was a 6:5 game.) I am lucky enough to be playing in new areas soon and hoping to find some decent pitch games.

Yes, suckered by the 'ol 6:5 SD is indeed the correct verb. Playing 6:5 is the same as the pass/don't pass on the crap table, i.e 1.4% HA.

I was wondering what should be done during counting. I have noticed that people arent that inclined to cover their cards like they do in poker. The question im trying to get to, is should I be aggressive in trying to see their cards for the count?

Yes, the more cards seen the better; however, don't make it too obvious or you'll stick out. A quick glance without moving your neck will do the trick. It can get confusing when other players flash their cards to the dealer if there's a side-bet and then re-tuck them as with Lucky Ladies etc.

Should I play with as little players as possible?

Yes, try not play with any more than 2 others at your table.

-South

 

[zengrifter]

...should I be aggressive in trying to see their cards for the count?

Not overly aggressive. Don't worry about it. We use a different counting pattern in pitch games, which compensates somewhat. The important decision - betting - is done with all cards counted regardless.

Sometimes if I have a close play decision I will inquire of a player. Also, players' hand count can often be inferred by their hit cards.

Pitch games counting pattern --

1. Dealer's upcard
2. Your hand
3. Player's hit cards
4. Players busted hand
5. Your hit cards
6. Dealers hole card
7. Dealer's hit cards
8. Players' hands at settlement
​

 

[21forme]

Should I play with as little players as possible?

As other questions have already been answered well, I'll stick to this one.

Best to play alone. Max number of player's depends on penetration. For DD, use the rule of 11. That is the # of players + penetration as a decimal should be less than 11. For example, if 1.0 decks cut off, max players = 1. 0.5 decks cut, max players = 6, and so on.

 

[southAP]

Thanks for the advice, and in my own defense I was only playing for about 2 weeks when I played the 6:5 game and had no idea how baf that payoff really hurt an APs game.

If I stick with 2 or less other players, could I assume to try to sit between them to make it easier to try to see their cards?

 

[SWFL Blackjack]

Should I play with as little players as possible?

-South

I do not believe that the size of the players will affect the game play very much. :laugh:

 

[southAP]

I do not believe that the size of the players will affect the game play very much. :laugh:

Well, not so much affecting game play, moreso the ability to get the info I need from their hand, hard to see the 3rd base guy at 1st with a table full of players lol

 

[Homeschool]

I do not believe that the size of the players will affect the game play very much. :laugh:

The advantage of having less players in a pitch game doesn't come from having more cards to count, but rather from a couple other things. Less other players means you are more likely to end up with the cards you want instead of someone else at the table. We all know how miserable it is to end up with a couple stiffs with a big bet out while the other ploppies at the table get all the naturals. Remember, it takes fewer cards in a 1 or 2 deck game to change the count than in a shoe game.

Also, more players slows down the hands per hour, which ultimately costs you money. I try to play with only 1 other person at the table for a pitch game, 2 max. The best is playing heads up, shoe or pitch, IMO.

I'm at work and don't have any of my books with me to give you a specific advantage, percentage wise. Maybe some of the people who play alot more pitch games than I do will jump in here.....

Homeschool

 

[zengrifter]

The advantage of having less players in a pitch game doesn't come from having more cards to count, but rather ... Less other players means you are more likely to end up with the cards you want instead of someone else at the table.

Wrong. zg

 

[SWFL Blackjack]

Well, not so much affecting game play, moreso the ability to get the info I need from their hand, hard to see the 3rd base guy at 1st with a table full of players lol

My previous post was a failed attempt at a joke. I was implying that the size (height, width) of the players was irrelevant to the game; however the joke was obviously a bad one.

 

[southAP]

My previous post was a failed attempt at a joke. I was implying that the size (height, width) of the players was irrelevant to the game; however the joke was obviously a bad one.

Haha. Maybe try different wording next time?

 

[Homeschool]

Wrong. zg

Upon reading the OPs question again I realize they were referring to seeing the cards held in the other players hands in order to adjust the count for deviations from BS. I misunderstood and replied with the thinking they were stating more players using cards was a good thing because more cards would be used and thus exposed for counting. My bad.

The second part of my post I believe to be correct however. This is what I mean: If I am sitting at a table with one other player and I am playing 2 hands in a positive count, there are my 2 hands, the other players single hand, and the dealers hand. 4 hands total. 8 cards plus whatever cards are taken by us or the dealer. I like those odds better than having 2-3 other players plus the dealer eating up cards. In the second scenario, 12 cards are now used at a minimum.

Am I incorrect?

Homeschool

 

[zengrifter]

This is what I mean: If I am sitting at a table with one other player and I am playing 2 hands in a positive count, there are my 2 hands, the other players single hand, and the dealers hand. 4 hands total. 8 cards plus whatever cards are taken by us or the dealer. I like those odds better than having 2-3 other players plus the dealer eating up cards. In the second scenario, 12 cards are now used at a minimum.

Am I incorrect?

Yes, your logic is still incorrect...( but your instincts are good.)
The main issue is two-fold - more players = 1) fewer hands per hour AND 2) less penetration.

HOWEVER - when you make that plus-count bet, regardless of how many others' hands in play,
EVEN a single hand bet at a FULL TABLE, your odds of 'getting the good cards' is not affected. zg

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

Haha. Maybe try different wording next time?

Ah, but I believe you were the one that said, "as little players as possible," instead of, "as few players as possible..."

I agree with ZG when it comes to the order of operations in pitch games; it's very easy to get confused when you're able to see one player's hole cards but not other players'. If you're in a really close decision regarding index plays, then you might want to find out about a few of the other cards, but you're almost always better off keeping your procedure consistent.

I prefer to play HU or with one other player at DD games, but for SD, you have to take into account the dealing procedure. For example, if it's Ro6, you'll get (6 - # of players) rounds before the shuffle. Your goal is penetration here, so you want whatever format will give you most cards dealt. In this case, assume that each player and the dealer uses an average of 3 cards per hand:

1 player: 30/52 cards seen
2 players: 36/52 cards seen
3 players: 36/52 cards seen
4 players: 32/52 cards seen

So, in this case, the optimal number of players would be 2, making it almost of fast as a HU game but with more cards seen before the shuffle.

 

[SWFL Blackjack]

Ah, but I believe you were the one that said, "as little players as possible," instead of, "as few players as possible..."

Thanks LG. :grin:

I agree with ZG when it comes to the order of operations in pitch games; it's very easy to get confused when you're able to see one player's hole cards but not other players'. If you're in a really close decision regarding index plays, then you might want to find out about a few of the other cards, but you're almost always better off keeping your procedure consistent.

I prefer to play HU or with one other player at DD games, but for SD, you have to take into account the dealing procedure. For example, if it's Ro6, you'll get (6 - # of players) rounds before the shuffle. Your goal is penetration here, so you want whatever format will give you most cards dealt. In this case, assume that each player and the dealer uses an average of 3 cards per hand:

1 player: 30/52 cards seen
2 players: 36/52 cards seen
3 players: 36/52 cards seen
4 players: 32/52 cards seen

So, in this case, the optimal number of players would be 2, making it almost of fast as a HU game but with more cards seen before the shuffle.

This is an idea I thought of from reading some other posts. What if you had a couple teammates play the same SD table that could not only signal card values in some way, but also consume cards when beneficial on a busted hand. (Example: Player has 22, however has a 8 showing. They take another hit to "eat up" cards, especially in negative counts.) This would also allow more cards to be dealt after the cut card and smaller cards to be effectively discarded in negative counts, allowing for a quicker shuffle.

 

[zengrifter]

Ro6 1D --

1 player: 30/52 cards seen
2 players: 36/52 cards seen
3 players: 36/52 cards seen
4 players: 32/52 cards seen

So, in this case, the optimal number of players would be 2, making it almost of fast as a HU game but with more cards seen before the shuffle.

The OPTIMAL is to play two hands HU. zg

 

[zengrifter]

This is an idea I thought of from reading some other posts. What if you had a couple teammates play the same SD table that could not only signal card values in some way, but also consume cards when beneficial on a busted hand. (Example: Player has 22, however has a 8 showing. They take another hit to "eat up" cards, especially in negative counts.) This would also allow more cards to be dealt after the cut card and smaller cards to be effectively discarded in negative counts, allowing for a quicker shuffle.

Yes, that will work, with both of you taking turns making the big bet.
Notwithstanding, the two of you are better EV playing seperate tables with a joint-BR. zg

 

[southAP]

So from my understanding the best scenario is to play with a total of 2 players, not including myself, with the ideal being heads up. The other thing is that NME is on pretty much every SD, and I havent seen any DD games so i wouldn't know anything on that, does that mean no jumping from 1 to 2 or even 3 hands?

LG, yea your right I did say "little" shorter guys make it easier for backcouting. haha

 

[SWFL Blackjack]

LG, yea your right I did say "little" shorter guys make it easier for backcouting. haha

True, but taller players would have to lift their hole cards higher in order to see them.