Red 7 Starting Count Modification

[UnevenSeven]

Hi all,

I was pondering on the following this morning; if I'm playing a 6D shoe and the penetration is 2/3rds (i.e. 4/6ths, which I know is bad) and I'm using Red 7, what is wrong with just modifying the starting count to -2*4=8, as if I was playing a 4D shoe?

Thanks in advance and kind regards

Laurence.

 

[Brock Windsor]

So you would be playing 6 decks as though they were 4? you are not identifying the pivot point accurately if you do that, unless you add those 4 points back in. Think about it, would you play a 6 deck CSM that shuffled every round as though it were a single deck game?
BW

 

[UnevenSeven]

No, of course not, but the example you cite by way of refutation is extreme, albeit valid!

In addition, I do not understand the point about adding 4 to the RC when determining the pivot, since wouldn't that just be the same as starting with an SC of -12 in the first place as per usual?

What I was trying to do was see if the shortfall in the penetration could be made up by adjusting the RC on the assumption that over 6 decks, the cards would be on the whole evenly distributed (which I know will not be the case, but generally speaking).

 

[London Colin]

What I was trying to do was see if the shortfall in the penetration could be made up by adjusting the RC on the assumption that over 6 decks, the cards would be on the whole evenly distributed (which I know will not be the case, but generally speaking).

That assumption is already built into the system; you would in fact be assuming that the cards are not evenly distributed by doing what you propose.

This is the mental model that helps me get my head around what is going on with an unbalanced count :-

The Red-7 count provides an imbalance of +2 per deck; that's +2 for each deck that is shuffled together. It represents a gradient by which you expect the running count to rise as you go through the cards. (If the shoe stays neutral, and assuming that, on average, the red and black sevens get evenly distributed.)

Having shuffled 6 decks together, that gradient is not altered by where the dealer places the cut card.

 

[Renzey]

Hi all,

If I'm playing a 6D shoe and the penetration is 2/3rds (i.e. 4/6ths, which I know is bad) and I'm using Red 7, what is wrong with just modifying the starting count to -2*4=8, as if I was playing a 4D shoe?

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that -- but you can do away with running into negative counts by shifting your initial starting count to a significantly positive number, such as "9".

I know that Red 7 espouses raising your bets when the count has risen 12 points. But that would be a true count of +2.0, which is a little late and misses some advantages that are regularly available at +1.5 true.

My sims have shown that Red 7 performs better overall when the bet begins increasing after the count has risen 11 points, which with a six deck shoe will always equal a true count of between +1.8 very early and +1.0 very late. Hence, ramping up your bets ought to begin at "20" if you start at "9", and at -1 if you start at -12.

The neat thing about +1.8 early and +1.0 late is that it works hand-in-hand with the "floating advantage". For example with 6 decks, S17 and DAS;

:with five decks left and a true count of +1.8, you have about a 0.50% basic strategy advantage.
:with one deck left and a true count of +1.0, you have about a 0.55% basic strategy advantage.

Norm -- please correct me if this last part is not right.