players @ table

[Sage]

I understand that an AP would want to play at BJ tables with fewer players to get more hands per hour. But isn’t their a second advantage?
Fewer players means when the count is high you share the good cards with less players. Take a table with 2 players [3 total hands per round] you get 1 card in three or 33% of the decks to be dealt. While with 5 players [6 hands per round] you get 1 in 6 or 16% of the remaining high cards.
Could this argue for picking a table to play with fewer players & a very slow dealer over a table with more players and a fast dealer ? Is their a trade off between number of hands played per hour & number of players?

 

[Momige]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that an AP would want to play at BJ tables with fewer players to get more hands per hour. But isn’t their a second advantage?
Fewer players means when the count is high you share the good cards with less players. Take a table with 2 players [3 total hands per round] you get 1 card in three or 33% of the decks to be dealt. While with 5 players [6 hands per round] you get 1 in 6 or 16% of the remaining high cards.
Could this argue for picking a table to play with fewer players & a very slow dealer over a table with more players and a fast dealer ? Is their a trade off between number of hands played per hour & number of players?

I am just a beginner, but I think this could work the opposite with lower counts. If you cannot leave the table when the count goes negative then it is better to have mroe people at the table to absorb the low cards.
I do agree that an AP would want to play as many hands per hour as possible.

 

[aslan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am just a beginner, but I think this could work the opposite with lower counts. If you cannot leave the table when the count goes negative then it is better to have mroe people at the table to absorb the low cards.
I do agree that an AP would want to play as many hands per hour as possible.

So, having one other person at the table gives you the ability to do a bathroom break or two, while still maintaining the benefits of a less than full table. It also gives you the leverage of spreading to two hands as deemed appropriate.

 

[prankster]

also: crowded table has the effect of lessened pen!:joker:

 

[21gunsalute]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am just a beginner, but I think this could work the opposite with lower counts. If you cannot leave the table when the count goes negative then it is better to have mroe people at the table to absorb the low cards.
I do agree that an AP would want to play as many hands per hour as possible.

You'll be making minimum bets @ negative counts and probably playing just one hand.

 

[Renzey]

So, having one other person at the table gives you the ability to do a bathroom break or two, while still maintaining the benefits of a less than full table. It also gives you the leverage of spreading to two hands as deemed appropriate.

.......except for those frustrating times that you come back from the john to find that the other player waited for you so as to not corrupt the "sacred flow".

Many were the times I returned from a john break to hear protests that , "Man -- you left the table and we got hammered! You screwed up the whole shoe!" They blamed it on the "sacred flow" rather than the "light" shoe.

 

[aslan]

.......except for those frustrating times that you come back from the john to find that the other player waited for you so as to not corrupt the "sacred flow".

Many were the times I returned from a john break to hear protests that , "Man -- you left the table and we got hammered! You screwed up the whole shoe!" They blamed it on the "sacred flow" rather than the "light" shoe.

:laugh: :laugh:
Your first comment has no answer. You're toast. Maybe, you look at your watch and comment it's later than you realized as you head for the door. :laugh: Or maybe you eat some negative count with hopes of good variance.

But the second... I just tell them, "Man. Did I ever have to go. You don't want to know! So sorry!" :laugh:

I know Fred. There are situations where you just can't win! :laugh:

But we have to live up to the AP code-- it does mean Always Positive, doesn't it? :laugh: :whip::whip:

 

[matt21]

I understand that an AP would want to play at BJ tables with fewer players to get more hands per hour. But isn’t their a second advantage?
Fewer players means when the count is high you share the good cards with less players. Take a table with 2 players [3 total hands per round] you get 1 card in three or 33% of the decks to be dealt. While with 5 players [6 hands per round] you get 1 in 6 or 16% of the remaining high cards.
Could this argue for picking a table to play with fewer players & a very slow dealer over a table with more players and a fast dealer ? Is their a trade off between number of hands played per hour & number of players?

You raise a great question here. I have often thought about this and was not quite sure as to the answer - and I think I might have been misunderstanding this for a long time.

Initially I would have said that by playing alone ("heads-up") you get a bigger share of the good cards in positive counts (particularly when spreading from one hand to two hands), and that this additional gain more than makes up for the additional loss you suffer from getting a bigger share of the bad cards in negative counts.
Re-running some numbers I am thinking that this may not be right. I ran two different set of numbers for same pen and bet ramp. The only thing I varied is the number of players at the table.

6d, 75pen, 4 shoes per hour, heads-up - results in 194 hands (153 rounds) to the player and win rate of $141
6d, 75pen, 4 shoes per hour, with 1 other player who plays 1 hand throughout the whole shoe - results in 134 hands (106 rounds) to the player and win rate of $98

But if we increase the number of shoes played per hour to a level where the hands played by the AP increases to 194, then the win rate is actually still $141 - the number of shoes per hour would need to rise to approx 5.8 for this to happen. Thus I think that my original thinking (that the additional gain more than makes up for the additional loss you suffer from getting a bigger share of the bad cards in negative counts) is wrong! If my thinking had been right then I would have expected my win rate to be lower for when I got my 194 hands in during the 5.8 shoes, but it's not!

It's simply not realistic for the number of shoes dealt to increase from 4 to 5.8 by virtue of having an additional player at the table. Thus the AP is more likely to achieve the higher hands/hour (and thus the better win rate) by playing heads-up.

Do we want a slow dealer in hands-up situation? Well no if that was the case then we may end up with the same number of hands that we would get if playing at a full-table and thus the same win rate. In other words when actually playing heads-up you want the dealer to deal as quickly as possible (not slowly) so that you maximise the hands/hour. I typically hit the range of 200-230 hands per hour :grin: the only time I went for bathroom breaks is when I really couldn't hold it any longer!!

 

[Sage]

thanks matt21,
From your sims, it appears that the only thing that effects the win rate is the number of hands. More hands, more $$, less hands less $$. Do you agree the numbers indicate that number of hands is the 100% variable for win rate?
So why was your first thinking incorrect? If head up you get more hands per hour, that should be the best way to play.

 

[zengrifter]

.......Many were the times I returned from a john break to hear protests that , "Man -- you left the table and we got hammered! You screwed up the whole shoe!" They blamed it on the "sacred flow" rather than the "light" shoe.

I've heard that many times and have often offered the others to "pay me to stay." zg

 

[aslan]

I've heard that many times and have often offered the others to "pay me to stay." zg

And nary a taker, I presume?

 

[Baberuth]

F bombed on return to table

I will leave negative shoes often. On return you gotta expect the math has worked. In AC a thug f bombed me for leaving. I told him I would leave again shortly and he should play 2 hands to keep the flow. He was a bully to the guy between us and blamed him or the dealer for every loss. I enjoyed seeing him loose 2K and pulling more cash from his pocket 4-5 times to lose that too. I left the table 2 more times in an hour. I may get a beer or go to the rest room, but I am not playing terrible shoes. Mr. Bully lost thousands and was miserable even on a winning hand.

You gotta love it!

 

[paddywhack]

Many were the times I returned from a john break to hear protests that , "Man -- you left the table and we got hammered! You screwed up the whole shoe!"

It's hard to keep a straight face sometimes when I return. I "knew" it would get ugly. Sorry guys :laugh:

I generally play 2 hands and find it even funnier when the other players fill in my hands when I'm gone and still get hammered. They aren't so concerned about that precious "flow" then.

 

[prankster]

The Sacred Flow

:laugh:How in the world do people get into this "sacred flow of the cards" stuff? I mean, ok, in their own minds how do they arrive at this idea? Just what is it they're thinking? I really don't get it. Any of you ever ask them what is meant by the "sacred flow"? Like how did the "flow" become "sacred"?:joker:

 

[aslan]

:laugh:How in the world do people get into this "sacred flow of the cards" stuff? I mean, ok, in their own minds how do they arrive at this idea? Just what is it they're thinking? I really don't get it. Any of you ever ask them what is meant by the "sacred flow"? Like how did the "flow" become "sacred"?:joker:

I never heard a ploppy actually call it sacred, but they treat it as if it were, just the same. It comes from the fact that luck runs in streaks. There is just as much luck or variance on one side of the curve as the other. So people rightly think that sooner or later things will change for the better, and except for the house edge, they are right. Where they fail is when they believe that runs of good luck are somehow related to previous runs of bad luck (they're due!), and that any change in the cards (a second burn card for a new dealer, a person taking a bathroom break, a misdeal, a stupid hit) will alter their rightful fate. They were just about to get lucky when you split your tens, you idiot!!! And to top it off, you doubled down on your ace/ten after the split. You should be shot!

It's crazy!

I've stopped preaching that what another player does does not alter the odds. That IDs me as either a good player or an AP. I now readily admit when I "stupidly" take the dealer's bust card. I'm just not a good player. I play my hunches (or so I tell them:devil.

 

[matt21]

thanks matt21,
From your sims, it appears that the only thing that effects the win rate is the number of hands. More hands, more $$, less hands less $$. Do you agree the numbers indicate that number of hands is the 100% variable for win rate?
So why was your first thinking incorrect? If head up you get more hands per hour, that should be the best way to play.

Hi Sage,
yes it seems that the hands/hour is the 100% variable when comparing heads-up play to sharing the table with other players (assuming constant pen, rules, bet ramp for the two scenarios).

I was meaning to say that I had been incorrect in thinking that the difference between the scenarios related to another factor in addition to the hands/hour. The factor I ahd considered was gaining an additional net advantage from having a higher share of the good cards during positive counts. It seems that this is in fact not the case in that is is offset by also getting a higher share of the bad cards during negative counts. I proved my wrongness to myself by running through the numbers above.

Yes, go for heads-up play if you can. Overall, even if this means you need to play-all, you should come out with more EV than if you were wonging out on a populated table.

Good luck

 

[Sage]

Matt21
Does your math also prove that the win rate per hand would stay the same even if the table was full? Would you run another test with 5 or 6 players at the table? When the AP get 194 hands [regardless of the number of rounds] will the win still be $141?
I have always thought the more players, the less chance I would have of getting the good cards. So I have been staying away from full tables, thus I will go to the small local casino and if it was crowded I would not play. Since you have proven the win rate per hand [not per hour] is the same regardless of the number of players, I will begin to play more. Thanks!

 

[Southpaw]

Matt21
Does your math also prove that the win rate per hand would stay the same even if the table was full? Would you run another test with 5 or 6 players at the table? When the AP get 194 hands [regardless of the number of rounds] will the win still be $141?
I have always thought the more players, the less chance I would have of getting the good cards. So I have been staying away from full tables, thus I will go to the small local casino and if it was crowded I would not play. Since you have proven the win rate per hand [not per hour] is the same regardless of the number of players, I will begin to play more. Thanks!

I ran tests on this yesterday. I ran one sim with the player playing heads-up, another with the player playing at a full-table (with the seat effect removed), and another one where the player was playing at a full table sitting at third-base. There was NO appreciable difference in SCORE across the games (i.e, $22.13, $22.30, and $22.17). In the games, the player always played one hand and played all.

However, I do think that there becomes an a significant difference between the games when the player begins to play multiple hands at high counts. Perhaps I will check into this later today. Wonging may or may not have an effect as well.

SP

 

[Sage]

Hi Southpaw,
If the win rate per hand is only a function of total hands played, how does all this fit into penetration? In looking for deeper pen are you simply trying to get more hands played? Or is the goal the calculation of TC that yields more opportunities for betting up?
How do win rate per hand and pen interact?

 

[matt21]

Matt21
Does your math also prove that the win rate per hand would stay the same even if the table was full? Would you run another test with 5 or 6 players at the table? When the AP get 194 hands [regardless of the number of rounds] will the win still be $141?

I checked this. Yes the win rate would stay the same even if you had 5 other players sharing the table with you. However, the crucial point is that you will need a much higher number of shoes to complete the required number of hands. Running with the 194 hands I computed very similar win rates (a little different from yesterday's rate because I couldn't recall the exact parameters)

Heads-up, 4 shoes, 194 hands, win rate $134
With 1 other, 5.8 shoes, 195 hands, win rate $135
With 3 others, 9.3 shoes, 194 hands, win rate $134
With 5 others, 12.8 shoes, 194 hands, win rate $134

(by the way the ramp used here is 1x25-2x350 - this was on a starting roll of $50k)

Notice how the number of shoes required to hit your 194 hands really increases as the table becomes more populated. In my counting I found that the number of shoes completed per hour didnt really change significantly as players increased - this implies that you are really lowering your EV rate by playing at a full table.

Another way of looking at it is to keep the number of shoes/hour the same, and see what happens to the AP's hands/hour and thus the win rate.

Heads-up, 4 shoes, 194 hands, win rate $134
With 1 other, 4 shoes, 134 hands, win rate $93
With 3 others, 4 shoes, 83 hands, win rate $58
With 5 others, 4 shoes, 60 hands, win rate $42

the numbers are from my own spreadsheets, but they correlate fairly well with outputs from CVD.

I have always thought the more players, the less chance I would have of getting the good cards. So I have been staying away from full tables, thus I will go to the small local casino and if it was crowded I would not play. Since you have proven the win rate per hand [not per hour] is the same regardless of the number of players, I will begin to play more. Thanks!

This is the same thinking that I had always adopted and have argued about furiously with some fellow counters in the past. But running through some of my models yesterday made me realise that this thinking is not correct.

As Southpaw already pointed, the EV can be increased by wonging on full tables - so there are ways you can increase the EV on populated tables. But all in all I am sometimes amazed at why counters are happy to play at full tables!!

An alternative approach is to think of your EV per shoe - the EV/shoe for a full table is lower than for EV/shoe for heads-up table.