Spreading for aces

[Dopple]

I would think given any positive account spreading would be justified based on an ace deficiency. Like Mason Malmuth I use UAPC and we keep an ace side count.

Roughly speaking if I was near mid shoe with half a max bet out and the stack was even two light in aces I would think two hands would be justified.

This is for fairly temperate environment in relation to managerial observation.

Little heat:laugh:

 

[Sonny]

I don't understand. So you would spread to multiple hands when there are fewer aces? I guess it would depend on what the count was (after you include the ace side count).

Now if the count were neutral and there were 2 extra aces then you might have a slight advantage, but without knowing the general location of those aces you would have to rely on the count to estimate your advantage.

-Sonny-

 

[BJgenius007]

I would think given any positive account spreading would be justified based on an ace deficiency. Like Mason Malmuth I use UAPC and we keep an ace side count.

Roughly speaking if I was near mid shoe with half a max bet out and the stack was even two light in aces I would think two hands would be justified.

This is for fairly temperate environment in relation to managerial observation.

Little heat:laugh:

Ace deficiency or light on aces in remaining deck should result in decrease in bet size. BJ pays 150% to players but only 100% to the dealer. For players, you want to see ace rich in remaining deck.

 

[Dopple]

Upside down

You guys have me all wrong. The shortage of Aces is in the discards. I should have worded my post in a different way.

I would purport there is a significant EV potential in this modus operandi. Ace side counting is just a diluted form of ace sequencing.

If I had the gear to run a sim I would have it spread to 2 or 3 hands at TC 2 with an extra .25 or .5 aces per remaining deck.

Me think me right.

 

[Meistro]

Isn't this just a simple EOR question? Sure, you have a few more aces, but you also have more fives, which I believe are bad for the player. Or less fives, in the discard tray, to communicate in the bizarre parlance you prefer.

 

[Sucker]

You guys have me all wrong. The shortage of Aces is in the discards. I should have worded my post in a different way.

Yes; you should have. When card counters get together and talk about a deck that's "ace-deficient" (or even MORE correctly "ace-poor"), the correct terminology is that they are ALWAYS talking about the cards remaining in the deck.

I would purport there is a significant EV potential in this modus operandi. Ace side counting is just a diluted form of ace sequencing.

It is a diluted form of ace "tracking", but a VERY diluted one. (Again; the correct terminology that you're looking for is "ace tracking", rather than "ace sequencing". Tracking and sequencing are two very different things).

If I had the gear to run a sim I would have it spread to 2 or 3 hands at TC 2 with an extra .25 or .5 aces per remaining deck.
Me think me right.

Depending upon whether or not your counting system is "ace-reckoned"; you definitely ARE on to something. (I'm not familiar enough with UAPC to know which method you have).

If your counting system counts aces as zero, then by keeping a side count of aces it WILL enable you to identify favorable betting situations more often, at LEAST in borderline decisions. If the remaining cards are rich in aces, your advantage is somewhat stronger than your count indicates. If the deck is ace POOR, then your advantage is NOT as strong as the count is telling you. With this system it's actually POSSIBLE for the deck to be so ace-poor that the count will tell you to that you have the advantage and you should raise your bet; but in REALITY you are at NEGATIVE EV!

If your system counts aces as a negative value (ace-reckoned), then this is already done FOR you.

Why are some systems designed to be ace-reckoned and some are not? Because one that is not ace-reckoned will be able to give you a more accurate PLAYING strategy, and an ace-reckoned system will give you a more accurate BETTING strategy. The former works best for SD and DD, and the latter is best for multiple deck games.

P.S. - I apologize if I came across as someone who was "scolding" you at the beginning of this post; but it IS important that we're all on the same page when communicating with each other.

 

[Dopple]

Sucker and Meistro I did have my terms backward sorry to mix things up.

And thanks for the clarification to all on the systems Sucker. You even gave me a little pat on the back if I am correct by saying I was on to something and for us that do keep an ace side count I think it is common sense.

Say you were down to the last deck in a shoe and you had double the aces or the deck was very rich. I would spread to three to hog the aces and keep them away from the dealer and/or other players especially on very high counts.

For a subpost I would begin to wonder if in fact the value of an ACE in UAPC of +3 to the running count should be the same under all conditions? If you have very low TC your chances of blackjack and your bet are both low but in a high count both your BJ probability and your bet are higher. How could this +3 factor be the same in both worlds?