The Shoe From Hell

[Gorgon]

Fundamental Theorem for Shoes?

Yeah, it's the middle portion of the shoe and beyond where the juices start flowing. First half of the shoe I find univiting, so my bet doesn't rise there-disregarding any plus count.
With less cards remaining until the cut-card, the less likely the distribution of cards will be entropical. This is the primary reason shallow penetration is so effective at defeating the counter-causing severe erosions to one's bankroll.
I don't claim to be an authority here, as I am generally known to limit my play to single and double deck games only-which are less challenging.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It's a problem

Thus the huge variance associated with shoe games. Win rate does not increase in direct proportion to high-card density. The higher spread necessary doesn't help either. The funny thing is when you are a shoe player you are used to big, long winning streaks too. So when I play pitch and I'm having a good session, it doesn't feel like a good session compared to what "a good session" can mean when you're playing 8D. But I'll take the money over the thrill any day.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Not a problem

Oh I forgot to add- 300 units is less than a month's take-home pay for me. So when I say I have to make sales and withdrawals to play, that's only if I want to play again next week. It's more the frustration than the financial loss. I do attack this game with a 1:20 or 1:30 spread, and you won't find a table less than $10, that's just the way it is in this part of the country- decent rules, no heat, but because of the large shoes and the crowds you have to grind, grind, grind to make any money.

 

[Tom]

Uh,okay.

I assumed you meant what you said. I sense an attitude problem because of your loss. You say your bet spread is 1 to 20 or 30!!? To find out your TRUE risk of ruin you should stay with a consistent bet. It dont appear to me you are in for the grind,grind,grind as you mention, but rather in it for an agressive bet spread with tremendous variance and a high risk of ruin. Hey,take it for what it's worth,but if I was you,I'd either take a break or save up a few more bucks,lower your bet spread,be patient and grind little bits and pieces at a time. Why screw it all up now? I went through this same trip over 10 years ago,it's a freaking drag.

 

[Tom]

The shoe

"This is the primary reason shallow penetration is so effective at defeating the counter-causing severe erosions to one's bankroll."

Not sure what you're saying,if you're saying there is less variance in shallow shoes I agree.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Attittude and spread

I'll spread 1:20 when I can only play 1 hand and 1:30 when I can play 2. RoR is about the same.

The problem with ruin theory a la Kelly as it applies to non-professional counters is two assumptions: 1) That ruin is infinitely bad and 2) that you have an infinite number of hands to play. Both are somewhat inaccurate for all players and more inaccurate for a part-time player.

See time is just like money, and if I go to the casino and play green (providing I'm playing properly) and lose it all, oh well. I'll earn the money back, maybe in a week or maybe in a couple of months. Odds are I won't lose it, otherwise I wouldn't have an advantage. Now if I go and play red, not likely I'll lose all the money. But what about my time? I don't get that back. That's gone forever.

That's why I schedule my bets for trip ruin now. All I care about is not running out of money for that session and of course the risk of that can never be zero. If you consider the time you spend at the table to have value if you were to be doing something else, run the numbers and you'll see it works out better that way.

 

[Tom]

an eye opener

"All I care about is not running out of money for that session and of course the risk of that can never be zero."

But your risk of ruin can be zero. Session (or trip bankroll) is an oddity by itself. Even a ploppy can play a session at zero risk of ruin,yet sooner or later they'll go broke. If your main concern is not running out of money while maintaining the same bet spread,then the answers are simple. Either a)shorten your session, b) bring more money,c)quit before losing your last bet.

"If you consider the time you spend at the table to have value if you were to be doing something else, run the numbers and you'll see it works out better that way."

That's why it's important to have sufficient funds regardless if you're assuming a 2% risk of ruin during a session or short trip. Let's take a look at what really happens. Here's some numbers;

Using typical 6 deck rules and pen(4.5/6), if a player only has 300 units for his weekly session and has a desire to play at a 2% risk of ruin with a 1-20 spread, then he needs to keep his session short(4 hours at 100/hph).It's kind of a useless trip if you value time. If worse rules apply then the session must be cut even shorter. If he does NOT end his session, then risk of ruin will INCREASE tremendously as each hour passes,REGARDLESS of advantage. If the player refuses to quit and plays an additional 4 more hours,he has unwittingly(or unknowingly) increased his risk of ruin by approximately 450%!! How about a weekend trip session of 24 hours? He now has OVER a 1 in 4 (28%) chance of going broke before the weekend is over. So as you can see tapping out is not at all an unusual occurence. So one may say "Yeah,but I got 500 units,well the same principles apply.

Anyhow, good luck and dont take nothing for granite,

Tom

 

[BJ_Player2004]

Happened to me an hour ago! :-(

Lost just over 5% of my bankroll on two wonged-in shoes!!! Lost damn near every hand and yes, the table looked at me like I was a moron as I pressed my best into the losses while insuring stiffs for big bucks (didn't get one insurance bet tonight, either).

It happens. Just the nature of the game. I did have ample cash to play through the positive counts and the tenacity to not really care about these short-term results. In fact, I had to remember to look disappointed.

 

[gorilla player]

similar result

Played for about 4 hours, scattered around a couple of casinos. Found a $5 DD game, won about 75% of the TC <=1 deals, lost nearly every deal where the TC was 2 or more. Including three consecutive hands where the running count was 6, TC was 12. (heads up 2d game). Two of those hands were dealer 21, with the ace down so no insurance. I got closer on the third, with two 10s, dealer pulls a 5 card 21 out of a TC (when the bet was made) of +10. Case of winning most of the hands I played, but I started with $500, and ended up with $320.

Two of those sessions in a row now. And the bad thing is, I won so many of the negative TC hands, I actually made a good bit of money as I really don't think I want to win 6 in a row and still bet $5. I was spreading $5 to $40 (only had $500 bucks to play with, had not planned on playing until a family memeber made the fatal suggestion. Even at $40 per hand, three aces (split to 3 hands, with a 21 (push), and two doubles against a dealer's stiff 6 that turns into a 21 will really drain the chips in a hurry. Seems that I would catch back up on the small bets slowly, then a big count and smash bang...

Time to see this trend turn around...

Apparently my dealers have not been reading any AP books to discover that big + counts are supposed to be good for _me_ and not them.

I've successfully tossed over $500 over my past two BJ sessions...

 

[Ohio_Jones]

Good Game?

DD with RSA? That's a good start for DD. What were the other rules? What was max bet allowed?

 

[gorilla player]

reply

Everything but LS. Penetration averaged around 65% but on occasion went farther. Played there again last night. Started with $500. Got up to almost $900, one shuffle reached a TC of +12. Made almost every hand, doubles, splits, two consecutive naturals. Won and lost a bit until another big TC, which hit +10 with a whole deck remaining (1/2 deck to play roughly). Train wreck. Ended up with $445 left, my third consecutive losing session. Terrible to get 2 10's, dealer has a 10 up, flips over an ace. Was betting $5 to $40. Won a lot of $5 bets, but lost a lot (near the end) of those $40 bets. That's not the way it is supposed to happen...

Only good news was there was me and one other highly superstitious player, and he quickly bailed out after a few times of hitting a 12 vs dealer's 4 up (index play), standing on a 15 vs 10 up, and the final act came when I doubled on 8 vs 6 and he started complaining bitterly as I got a deuce, for a 10. The next card was an A that would have given me 21 had I not doubled, but he got the A on his 11 vs 6 (he didn't double) and hit again on the 12 and got a 10. The next hand I split a pair of 10's and that was it. head's up for the rest of the session. Note that all of the above nonsense happened prior to my initial big winning streak, which was followed by a losing streak to match and a little more...

1-8 didn't seem to raise any eyebrows, although I never went from 5 to 40 on one hand. More like 5-10-20-40 for TC of <=1, 2, 3, and >= 4. Also made some by doing 5-10 and even 20 on - counts in the middle of winning streaks, for cover. And no, that wasn't what led to my loss. That was actually a bit of my early profit.

As I said, even betting on the low end of the totem-pole ($40 max, although I did go a bit beyond a few times to $50) you can end up with a lot of money at risk on one deal, after splitting to 3 hands with 2's against a 6, getting a 6-9 on two of them for a double, followed by the dealer hitting a 6 card 21 in a deck that shouldn't have even had that many small cards left.

I suppose this is why this is called "gambling with an advantage" as opposed to "going to work to make money."

As far as max bet goes, it wasn't very high. I visited several places, and really don't recall whether it was $500 or more... I am more commonly found at the $25 table, but with $1000 on me for a two-session hit and run, and after losing most of the $500 first session BR, I was pretty sure that going to a $25 table with just over $600 total cash on me was going to invite a quick and dirty early exit if any bad variance happened at all. So I went the "cheap way".

Note this was graveyard shift, not many people playing, even on a weekend. Note also that this wasn't exactly this past weekend. I try to introduce a bit of delay between playing and reporting to make it a little harder to keep up with me if they happen to be so inclined, which I doubt...

 

[Stealth Bomber]

I don't know how you can be so calm

<i>In fact, I had to remember to look disappointed.<i/>

I think I look like I'm about to kill somebody when it happens to me. ;-)

 

[gorilla player]

another update.

Favorite DD game was full. Went to a 6d shoe, just over 1d cut off, good rules including LS. Played for 1.5 hours. Bankroll zoomed from $500 to $517.50. Made me want to throw up. But after three consecutive losing sessions, a "big win" like this is better than the alternative.

Hopefully the cards have begun to turn a bit, but you never know until you play again. The first four shoes I played saw me flat-bet $5, no variance whatsoever, as the TC never got above zero. Total pits. BTW I was spreading from $5 to $100, although I never got anywhere near $100 over that 1.5 hour session. I believe my largest bet was $20 as the TC touched 3 one hand only before a world of 10's came out and drove it back into the toilet where it remained.

$12.00 per hour. Reminds me of my youth.

Of course far better than a -$200.00 per hour. I had at least one of those sessions recently...

 

[BJ_Player2004]

It happens :-(

In fact, I had to remember to look disappointed.

I think I look like I'm about to kill somebody when it happens to me. ;-)

Well, a five figure loss (including a bad session the following night) is nothing to smile about, but it comes with the game, I suppose. I actually had such a good run over the last few months that I knew I was "due", for lack of more statistically precise term. Still have a nice gain overall this year, so I can't complain.