Should I leave the table is the RC goes negative

[solidus4008]

-1?
-2?
-3?

When should I take my chips and try another table?

 

[Sonny]

The advantage is usually gone by TC0 so that's a good place the think about leaving (unless you are using an unbalanced system without a TC conversion). If the casino is very crowded, or there aren't many other tables available, or is is very close to the shuffle you might consider staying a bit longer. Don Schlesinger's book discusses this in much more detail. Here are some links to old threads about this topic:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=7428
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9489
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10129

You can also do a search for "wonging" and "backcounting" for more information.

-Sonny-

 

[Ferretnparrot]

whenever the count is negetive beyond my tolerance, i claim im not "feeling it" and want to sit out a few hands, my magic RC for abandoning a table is 13, i have noticed that some times with negetive counts below that, you still may receive some positive counts at the end of the shoe, and if you already invested 15 minutes counting you shoudl stick around and see, i have no basis for that number, its just what i use, and i have seen many a shoe go to -10 only to come back and be profitable for a few hands at the end.

further in, about 4 or 5 i may bail if the rc is -8 or -9 escpecialy if there is a fresh shoe ready for me to hop into. While a lot of peopel may disagree, i think that since it often takes time to find a new table with a freshly shuffled shoe, sometimes its best to spend that same amoutn of times just weatching the rest fo the shoe to see what happens.

 

[callipygian]

When should I take my chips and try another table?

It depends on how fast you think you can find another game of equally good or better value. The faster you can find another game, the less likely you are to sit through the slightly negative (true) counts of 0 and -1 in hopes the count will go back up.

It also depends on what your purpose for playing is. If you want to win the most money per hand, Wong out at neutral counts. If you want to win the most money per hour, Wong out only at lower counts.

Remember that your win per hour is the product of your EV per hand and the hands per hour you play. When you Wong out, you're lowering the number of hands per hour, but raising your EV per hand. If good games are hard to find, you're probably better sticking it out and spreading more. If good games are easy to find, you're better leaving.

 

[eandre]

Should I leave when the count goes negative...

Do you want to leave? I think it's more of a personal preference since there are a few things you can do to stay in the hunt during negative counts. First, drop your bet to minimum, don't double or split as often and draw on your stiff hands more. Embrace the count and use the information. If the table is empty or 1-2 other players with you, play a 2nd hand at table minimum(betting horizontally) and eat up the small cards. Try to get the other players to do the same to "change the flow"(right).

If you play 6 deck shoes, negative counts exist. You should stop focusing(don't totally ignore) on the theoretical aspect of the game and focus on the realistic aspects. You can still win during negative counts, usually small amounts because you are betting small. If you give up your seat, you may not find a third base seat available or the table minimums have been raised and now you will be playing higher amounts. Lots to concider besides just the count. How about the pen of the dealer, or that the shoe has been making you money, or the lady next to has a great rack? See ,there is more to the game then theory.

 

[Renzey]

Some problems with your practices

Do you want to leave? I think it's more of a personal preference since there are a few things you can do to stay in the hunt during negative counts. First, drop your bet to minimum, don't double or split as often and draw on your stiff hands more.

How to adjust your hand play in negative counts is determined by your negative index numbers. But they will only minimize your expected loss. It's important not to violate them, and not to "wing it" if you don't know them.

If the table is empty or 1-2 other players with you, play a 2nd hand at table minimum(betting horizontally) and eat up the small cards.

Once you're already betting the table minimum, playing a second hand will increase your total overall dollars wagered per card used during that negative count -- counterproductive!

You can still win during negative counts, usually small amounts because you are betting small.

You may win during a negative count, but you will be a definite underdog and will positively lose money on all your negative counts combined.

Lots to consider besides just the count. How about that the shoe has been making you money?

The shoe has been making you money. Those two words are key! If the count is now negative, this shoe has become a liability to you.

 

[eandre]

let's debate

How to adjust your hand play in negative counts is determined by your negative index numbers. But they will only minimize your expected loss. It's important not to violate them, and not to "wing it" if you don't know them.



Once you're already betting the table minimum, playing a second hand will increase your total overall dollars wagered per card used during that negative count -- counterproductive!




Welcome back Renzy. As I posted before, I'm a fan of yours. I just don't see the game quite as black & white as you do. There's always more than 1 way to arrive at most destinations...winning. You are very precise with the facts and figures while I tend to rely on playing instincts and 30+ years of what works for me. I don't agree with everything the theorists/experts tell us laymen, but I respect their abilities never the less. I have spent a lifetime gleaning information and developing my own style of winning.
I could tell you that horizontal betting works and your reply would be"counter productive". Predictable because the math/sims say it's so. I can only tell you that although it may not win more hands, it eats cards, provides cover, and is less costly then all the camo plays that the experts say we need to play for cover. Oh yah, and during those negative counts I also break the rules and play a 1-2 chip progression in an attempt not to lose more on all my negative counts combined and I'm also a composition freak too.





You may win during a negative count, but you will be a definite underdog and will positively lose money on all your negative counts combined.



The shoe has been making you money. Those two words are key! If the count is now negative, this shoe has become a liability to you.

Has the shoe become a liability? What if all table minimums around the casino have been raised beyond your comfort zone, you are grandfathered in and still want to play? Can a negative shoe turn positive without losing or maybe even making money? What if the pen is so great with this dealer, you can't believe it? What if the table is full of ploppies who keep dealing you off their splits and doubles? See, we all have a different opinion of what a liability is. Mine maybe different than yours.
Sorry for the posting error...can't clean up the quote.

 

[21forme]

Sure, you can win in a negative shoe, but that's short term variance. I was playing a shoe a few weeks ago, count went negative and I was waiting for a loss to wong out. I won 8 in a row, but I still know it's a losing situation, long term.

In great pen, the count can go more positive OR more negative than in poor pen. Look at QFIT's Blackjack in Color. You want to stay at that table? Take a phone call, bathroom break, etc. and have them hold your spot.

 

[eandre]

Silly question. Long term? Do the cards know you have played 3 million hands? Are sessions not a bunch of short term events, that are strung together to equal long term? Do the cards know if it's me playing or you? I have always struggled with this concept, I have never been a theorist.
Do the skys brighten up and the sun always shines once I reach long term??
I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but someone edify me...please.

Renzy I would appreciate your take. Thanks.

 

[21forme]

eandre - Suppose you're flippping a coin. I have no doubt, if you flip it 10 times, you may get 7 or 8 heads. However, if you flip it 1000 times (or 100 sessions of 10 times) there's no way you're going to get 700 or 800 heads.

Long term is the sum of all your short terms. If you play a lot of negative counts and add up all your results, it will be negative, despite the fact you remember some great win streaks in negative counts. The house has ~ 1/2% advantage in neutral counts. They have more of an advantage in negative counts. It's that simple.

 

[eandre]

eandre - Suppose you're flippping a coin. I have no doubt, if you flip it 10 times, you may get 7 or 8 heads. However, if you flip it 1000 times (or 100 sessions of 10 times) there's no way you're going to get 700 or 800 heads.

Long term is the sum of all your short terms. If you play a lot of negative counts and add up all your results, it will be negative, despite the fact you remember some great win streaks in negative counts. The house has ~ 1/2% advantage in neutral counts. They have more of an advantage in negative counts. It's that simple.

How can anyone say with such confidence that one's short term sessions(played at different casinos, with different rules, and conditions(heat/spreads/players) will sum up to a long term result that is smoothed out? Also, doesn't your play vary from session to session? Do you get better the more you play? Simulations are just that simulations and not real world play. Although statistically valuable, certainly not infallable. One thing for sure, blackjack is not an E X A C T science.

My point here is just to get you thinking beyond the obvious. If you are winning and winning then discount some of these ideas/posts...or maybe we all need a little help to get better. Technical excellence alone will not provide you with a winning blackjack career.

 

[Bojack1]

How can anyone say with such confidence that one's short term sessions(played at different casinos, with different rules, and conditions(heat/spreads/players) will sum up to a long term result that is smoothed out? Also, doesn't your play vary from session to session? Do you get better the more you play? Simulations are just that simulations and not real world play. Although statistically valuable, certainly not infallable. One thing for sure, blackjack is not an E X A C T science.

It doesn't matter how many different places you play and what rules you play if you are playing a negative game. Negative is negative no matter how you try to spin it. Also your play may vary from session to session, but it should only vary in degrees of positive expectation, not negative. That is of course if you are trying to win money. As far as getting better the more you play, that can really go either way. Some get complacent and lazy over time, others strive for being as good as they can be. I often see both scenarios. Blackjack may not be what you call an exact science but math is undeniable. If you play enough the math will tell you exactly what type of game you are playing. Total luck good and bad is short lived and anybody in the short term can be a winner or loser regardless of how you play. But if you want to see a real easy way in which the math is in fallible, look at the casino profits. No matter how many lucky people beat a casino on any given day, they always come out on top overall. The casinos hold an advantage over most players, and due to the sheer numbers of people playing they reach long term numbers just about everyday, and they win just about everyday. You don't need to look any farther than that. Casino profits will tell you what you don't seem to believe from a sim, if you play with anadvantage long enough you will win, if you play a negative game, you will not.

 

[sagefr0g]

How can anyone say with such confidence that one's short term sessions(played at different casinos, with different rules, and conditions(heat/spreads/players) will sum up to a long term result that is smoothed out? Also, doesn't your play vary from session to session? Do you get better the more you play? Simulations are just that simulations and not real world play. Although statistically valuable, certainly not infallable. One thing for sure, blackjack is not an E X A C T science.

My point here is just to get you thinking beyond the obvious. If you are winning and winning then discount some of these ideas/posts...or maybe we all need a little help to get better. Technical excellence alone will not provide you with a winning blackjack career.

i'm glad you made that statement. i have to say i think along similar lines as
well. so you made me think about some of this stuff. hopefully i got some of it right. lol.
confident? well maybe. a card counter is gonna have some ROR asscociated with his gameplan. so what ever that percentage is you can allways wipe out a bankroll that percent of the time if your that unlucky.
if you have a circa 1% advantage (perhaps a typical advantage experienced by a typical card counter) then on average for every $100 you initially bet in a certain way (according to say some sim) you can expect to win one dollar. but this won't hold true result wise in the short term. thing is what makes for that advantage is positive true counts for which you bet higher and expect to receive a higher percentage of successful blackjacks, double downs and insurance bets than you would when the true count is zero or negative. that being the case you may bet many hundreds of dollars before you even see a positive true count that warrants betting higher. during the waiting betting phase when the true counts are zero or negative you are then playing at a disadvantage to the house wherein the dealer derives her advantage from the fact that when you bust and she busts you lose. this disadvantage may range as high as 2% even if you play perfect basic strategy and matrices. if your playing all you may be experiencing this disadvantage circa 70% of the time on average.
so your betting low when you are at a disadvantage and when you are at an advantage you bet proportionaly higher so as to make up for loss's incurred from your waiting bets made at a disadvantage. but not just high enough bets to make up for loss's at a disadvantage but also high enough to give you a 'safe' (kelly betting sort of approach) profit over the balance. so your betting with some appropriate spread and ramp.
really what your experiencing is a spectrum of advantage and disadvantage that is reflected by the true counts that present as you play. over the long haul the true counts that present pretty much add up to zero. but the point is it takes many hands, many shoes before all of this plays out. when all of this plays out is when you see things even out more or less as you alluded to.
but to complicate matters the results of your bets made at each true count and advantage have associated with them a phenomenon known as standard deviation.
this is where your statement with respect to confidence comes in. the phenomenon of standard deviation shrouds your results in such a way that your effective advantage is not apparent. especially not apparent in the short term. this shrouding affect of standard deviation is so powerful that it may take in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand hands to overcome it. here is an example of how high various degree's of standard deviation can be with respect to your expected value:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=84597&postcount=108
note an expected value of $2,601.00 but a high one standard deviation of $13,675.00 and a low one standard deviation of -$8,472.00. and you can see it's even more extreme for two or three standard deviations. and look in this example these figures are for 2,439 hands played. yes & no lol thats a fairly substantial number of hands from one perspective and a not substantial number of hands from another perspective. i believe the N0 for this game and game plan is circa 80,000 hands or so. the advantage and ROR for this game and game plan is just a little over 1% .
the phenomenon of standard deviation is a fact of life when your playing blackjack card counting or not. the phenomenon of standard deviation is working lol behind your back for each and every hand you play. the thing about standsard deviation though is that the results of standard deviation and expected value fit neatly into a gaussian bell curve. standard deviation is well behaved in that sense and allways influencing it (if you play consistantly according to a winning game plan or even a losing gameplan) is your expected value. the influence of your expected value on standard deviation is such that results are allways either negative standard deviation with your EV added to it or positive standard deviation with your EV subtracted from it.
and then like you say you might be playing a number of differant game types and your skill level could be fluctuating. it's believed that a counters normal level of mistakes don't have a drastic affect on results. so fluctuating skill level might not be a big factor. but a factor none the less and playing differant games and maybe changing up your playing methods is sure going to complicate matters.
but i do IMHO hold on to a sense that one might control ones approach to the game with more than technical excellence. for instance with respect to the idea of playing to some ROR. it's like for me a yes & no sort of thing lol. yes i'm willing to risk some bankroll but no not really lol. i mean heck i'm gonna keep an eye on that bankroll. if it's going up, staying even or maybe dropping very slowly over time i'm golden. but should it take a precipitous drop well i'm gonna back off, examine things. maybe change up on some things. not saying i know what to do or can figure out what to do if and when things seem to be going haywire but i'm sure going to take a look at it. but at least some understanding of standard deviation can help you know if your even in the right ballpark. but i guess that's a luxury i have as a recreational player as opposed to being a pro.

 

[eandre]

It doesn't matter how many different places you play and what rules you play if you are playing a negative game. Negative is negative no matter how you try to spin it. Also your play may vary from session to session, but it should only vary in degrees of positive expectation, not negative.

Duhh! What game in any casino is positive? Yes, we all attempt to garner an advantage so that we are playing in a positive scenario. True. But my point is for everyone to see the fuzzy aspects of the math. You don't enjoy the game because you think of it as a black/white world. I see colors. I would not play the game if I did not derive enjoyment beyond making money. But I would not play if I did not make money.
There are many techniques that can be employed beyond the obvious that most players use to try to catch an edge. Wonging might work but it's no fun and boring. Leaving a shoe every time it goes negative is a pain in the ass. All I have done is developed plays/strategies that suit my style of play and brings home the bacon. How many player can look at their logs and mathematically average a 73.6% win ratio over years???? I can. So although my stlye of play may not be text book perfect, I win.
My point is I am not a Tiger Woods...his swing and play is nearly text book perfect. I'm the rebel who swings his clubs like a baseball bat but some how compensates for that and still plays scratch golf. I never took a lesson, I read and watched and practiced...like blackjack. Get the anology?

And one final question to your post"If you play long enough in a positive scenario you will win"... are you sure? I've lost lots and lots of money during the positive swings...back to my question, when have I reached the long run?

 

[eandre]

sagefrog...I think we agree?

Too much thinking for me. In respect to risk of ruin, I just carry too much money with me every session to go broke. If you are good enough and bring enough ammo, you will win more battles than you lose. You will never win the war, but who cares? Most player fail because they are not willing to risk large sums of money, are under funded, under skilled, not detached enough when playing and way to concerned about heat, table pressures or the simple need to have to win.
I'm just not a fan of short term vs. long term. I tend to believe that blackjack is 1 continous game your entire playing life. Sims are limited by their parameters/variables. Real world playing has too many opportunities to account for in a sim. I just wasn't able to win consistently enough until I moved beyond the technical rules that all the experts extoll upon us. Hey, what ever works. I firmly believe that counting alone will not provide enough of an edge enough of the time to end your blackjack life a winner.
Remember, we once thought the world to be flat.

 

[Canceler]

but should it take a precipitous drop well i'm gonna back off, examine things. maybe change up on some things. not saying i know what to do or can figure out what to do if and when things seem to be going haywire but i'm sure going to take a look at it.

This is not something that should paralyze you, though. A simple review of the Big 3 (playing/betting/counting) should do it. In other words, have you been playing like a good little robot?

You know what happened to me recently in the Weekend Warriors project. Since I lost more than 75% of my winnings, and jackson described it as having walked off the edge of a cliff, I think it qualifies as precipitous. Do I think something is wrong? No, because I’ve been playing like a good little robot. What I’ve been getting is bad hands in good counts, the dealer making some unlikely hands, and double-downs that didn’t work. The usual stuff, in other words. These things are all due solely to the way the cards were arranged in the shoe.

I recognize that things have gone my way before, and I expect they will again.

 

[sagefr0g]

Too much thinking for me. In respect to risk of ruin, I just carry too much money with me every session to go broke. If you are good enough and bring enough ammo, you will win more battles than you lose. You will never win the war, but who cares? Most player fail because they are not willing to risk large sums of money, are under funded, under skilled, not detached enough when playing and way to concerned about heat, table pressures or the simple need to have to win.
I'm just not a fan of short term vs. long term. I tend to believe that blackjack is 1 continous game your entire playing life. Sims are limited by their
parameters/variables. Real world playing has too many opportunities to account for in a sim. I just wasn't able to win consistently enough until I moved beyond the technical rules that all the experts extoll upon us. Hey, what ever works. I firmly believe that counting alone will not provide enough of an edge enough of the time to end your blackjack life a winner.
Remember, we once thought the world to be flat.

there is a lot to think about to be sure. the risk of ruin thing i was talkin bout
was lifetime. terrible thought to me to lose that much. i can't myself really
commit that kind of money. so yeah i kind of take it a trip at a time and let the results sink in. i however try and size my trip roll so as to be adequate but just so. if i lose that i like to mope around about it for a while and then try again.
just try and keep the philosophy of 'nothing life changing' one way or the other.
not sure what you mean by not being a big fan of short term vs long term. i guess i just think of the short term as being wildly unpredictable except you should fall some where within the range of standard deviations while the long term holds forth the promise that your over all results will start getting closer and closer to your expected results.
the game though does keep going and going as long as you play doesn't it?
i pretty much just play the same type games over and over so one sim does pretty much fit my circumstances. thing is the crowding situation can be pretty variable, then the pits like to jerk you around by changing table min's. i'm stuck pretty much in a play all situation to where i only want to play the lowest table minimun possible. if some drastically better game was to appear on my horizon i'd be a lost puppy. but i'd sure put together a game plan for it and play accordingly.
but even as it is the games that i am accustomed to playing well i can sympathize with what your saying about winning consistently enough and moving on beyond the orthodox methods. like where i was trying to play orthodox for 222 trips i had an average loss $167.65 for 40 losing trips and an average win $67.50 for 182 winning trips. that was an average win of $25.15 for those 222 trips (average time per trip about 3 hours). i was feeling golden during that era. excepting for a series of loss's in the latter trips that had one huge loss of near one seventh of my entire bankroll. really that got my attention.
i mean when i reflect upon how a typical trip might go it's like you know you might at first say win a nice little amount of loot (way above your ev) and then play along some more and before you know it you've lost that and dipped into your trip roll. and it's up and down or maybe down and down lol or however it goes. but thing is i can't escape this sense that once i'm up a good amount how futile it seems to play on (counting my little heart out, which is no mean feat for me) only to so often end up with less than that first good amount won. i know the idea is to get in as many hands as you can and rack up that ev, but still i can't escape the mournful sensation of losing that real loot even if i do come out overall some modest amount ahead with ev to boot. i guess i'm pretty much a creature of the moment and i also have this loathsome fear that low as my ROR may be that i'll be the one that loses that whole bankroll. so as irrational as my concerns may be i still pondered over it all and came to the conclusion that from a personal
perspective the nature of how an orthodox counter beats this game isn't suited for my psyche. it's just not efficient enough when weighed against the time and work expended. that's not to mention the risk and to me enormous bankroll required. so still finding some enjoyment in the game i've resolved to bend the orthodox rules some and try and make the effort extended more commensorate with the reward recieved.

so but may i ask you? what is it that you do in practice when you say that you moved beyond the technical rules that all the experts extoll upon us?

This is not something that should paralyze you, though. A simple review of the Big 3 (playing/betting/counting) should do it. In other words, have you been playing like a good little robot?
You know what happened to me recently in the Weekend Warriors project. Since I lost more than 75% of my winnings, and jackson described it as having walked off the edge of a cliff, I think it qualifies as precipitous. Do I think something is wrong? No, because I’ve been playing like a good little robot. What I’ve been getting is bad hands in good counts, the dealer making some unlikely hands, and double-downs that didn’t work. The usual stuff, in other words. These things are all due solely to the way the cards were arranged in the shoe.
I recognize that things have gone my way before, and I expect they will again.

i know it shouldn't paralyze me. lol. you know what paralyze's me worse? when i win a bunch of loot. i mean wow it's hard to play on knowing darn well it's likely that once i walk out of the casino i wont have that much loot in my pocket. and i guess i know it's not anymore unlikely that i'll walk away with less of that loot than it is of when i walked in the door with my trip roll to walk out with that trip roll in tact lol. i guess i'm just a big scaredy cat lol.
but your right about the Big 3. that's a great summary for a check list. gonna
adopt that lol.
and i know your right in your realization that things have gone your way before and that you can expect them to do so once again.
interesting about what you said getting the bad hands in good counts. dealer making unlikely hands, doubles gone bad like you said the usual stuff. lol. dreadful isn't it? and it's all because of how the cards were arranged in the shoe. lol. that's life. i think jj was saying he was down a couple K and had been steaming a bit lol.
i know the last few shoes or so i've been playing i was a bit tipsy from some father's day beers lol. think i was winging it a bit but think i was lucky too.

 

[sagefr0g]

....
My point is I am not a Tiger Woods...his swing and play is nearly text book perfect. I'm the rebel who swings his clubs like a baseball bat but some how compensates for that and still plays scratch golf. I never took a lesson, I read and watched and practiced...like blackjack. Get the anology?

...?

i get the analogy. lol. it's the sort of analogy i try and make about this fuzzy counting thing i'm trying to do. not sayin it works lol.
but yea a skill based sort of thing.
who was it Lee Trevino i think, when he started out golf. think maybe as a kid he said he would hit balls with a golf club fashioned out of a stick with a coke bottle tied to it.

 

[eandre]

sagefrog...

In my humble opinion, never seeing your play, I would only be guessing but if you have not won much in 222 sessions, then I think your spread is the first thing I would change(be sure it's really at least 1-12 min.) with your reluctance to quit worrying about the money. Your posts indicate that you certainly understand the game. If you committed a few dollars to a real life playing experiment, would it effect the way you live? If not try it. If you can swing it, take at least 50 times your average bet as a session bankroll and play without fear. Try enjoying yourself for a change and don't worry about a win...you my friend may only lack playing confidence.

 

[sagefr0g]

In my humble opinion, never seeing your play, I would only be guessing but if you have not won much in 222 sessions, then I think your spread is the first thing I would change(be sure it's really at least 1-12 min.) with your reluctance to quit worrying about the money. Your posts indicate that you certainly understand the game. If you committed a few dollars to a real life playing experiment, would it effect the way you live? If not try it. If you can swing it, take at least 50 times your average bet as a session bankroll and play without fear. Try enjoying yourself for a change and don't worry about a win...you my friend may only lack playing confidence.

lol guilty on all counts (pun intended). for at least two hundred of those sessions my spread was only 1-8 . i never could overcome worrying about the money (truthfuly it i whine over losing $5). there really isn't any hope of me ever changing in that regard. i appreciate the vote of confidence. at least somebody believes i could do it even if it isn't me. lol thanks my friend.
at least i believe i could make enough to buy a big mac if i was down and out. :joker: