Tracking vs straight counting
- Thread starter lol6deck
- Start date
SleightOfHand
Well-Known Member
Blue Efficacy
Well-Known Member
Spelling/grammar nazi here...
I think the OP meant "effectiveness!"
I think the OP meant "effectiveness!"
The BEST edge that someone can realistically expect from straight counting is probably something like 2%. Shuffle tracking however (depending upon WHAT you're tracking), can commonly yield advantages as high as 25% & more, depending upon: 1)How good the game is, and: 2)the skill level of the AP. But if you get lucky & find a super dynamite game; it's not even out of the question to obtain coups with 100%-200% advantages.
I hate to sound negative here, but most of what you read and see is theoretical advantage when it comes to shuffle tracking. It is very rare to see anyone practically apply what needs to be done to garner such advantages with ST. Not to mention very few who ever get the mechanical skills down, ever understand what advantage they actually have and how to bet it. There are a few decent books on ST, and there is software that can aid in understanding it, but be warned, trying to apply it in real live play has killed many a bankroll. There are so few that can pull it off, but I will not say its impossible, I see it work for those that can do it. Its just not a realistic goal of play for most IMHO.
Brock Windsor
Well-Known Member
I will second what Bojack says and add that the most important skill is vision and estimation with control of the cut card being another must. Sucker is way off, a human can not retain the exact sequence of cards long enough get an advantage like that in BJ. Im not saying you can't pick up a cinch winner if you're great and the shuffle is a mess... but they would be freak occurences. A great ST might get a much better edge than a counter by cutting a fat slug directly to their hand, but the practical play is to cut a bad slug out or a rich slug into play and just use it to augment your counting game to give you a greater edge.
-BW
-BW
This might be a newbie ST question, but what's wrong with seeing the RC drop a whole bunch, and seeing how many decks that goes into? So if the RC drops 16 in 1/4 decks, and you see that 1/4 deck get spread into 1 decks, you know the RC is going to drop an average of 4 per deck. Seems like it doesn't take extraordinary skill to determine that you could have an advantage for that 1 deck slug.Brock Windsor said:
Not only is there nothing WRONG with that line of thinking, that's the first step to shuffle tracking success. The next step is to watch for the slug which mates with it, and combine both values. When you realize that the dealers are required to shuffle the exact same way every time; you'll find that this is easier than you might think.assume_R said:
And after you do this for a while, your mind will then start to open up to almost unlimited possibilities......
As an aside, it's interesting to note that everybody at the table is playing with the exact same advantage, but some people are more aware of it. For example, the B.S. player is aware his advantage is closer to -0.5%, compared to the average ploppy. Yet the counter is aware that the advantage is either closer to 2% or closer to -2%, based on the count. Yet even above that, the shuffle tracker is even more "exact" in his approximation of his advantage. And even above that, the player who knows an ace is coming in that round is even more aware of what the "true" advantage is for that round. Yet all players are playing the same round.
Brock Windsor
Well-Known Member
Some points to think about:assume_R said:
-A level one running count can't drop 16 in a 1/4 deck.
-Those high cards are not getting shuffled back into neutral decks. They are going back into a deck that is now more rich is low cards by virtue of the fact that high cards had been depleted from the remaining composition.
-ok so you have now figured out the calculation above and can appropriately size your bet into the slug... Here's what can happen next:
-What if your deck estimation is off by say 3 cards, then the cut is off by 3 cards? What if you make your big bet one round early?... or leave it up one round too long? The house edge on those rounds will be greater than 0.5%. -With these errors your 'kelly' bet into the slug might now be bigger.
ST has been something that looked great on computer sims but the table application of the play vs humans shuffling cards is another matter. Do your own research starting with Snyder and Forte, everyone is an expert on the internet just like at the table.
-BW
Tarzan
Banned
Experimentation
I have been working on the shuffletracking equation for a long time. What I have noticed is that if you have a relatively complex count, even if you can do your count practically in your sleep you will have quite a time trying to watch those 1/4 deck slugs (of extreme value) going into the discard rack and following them through the shuffle. This leaves me to be all but totally reliant upon the count and much less reliant on shuffletracking. I doubt I will ever be able to count (using my count) and effectively shuffletrack at the same time.
I've often thought about what it would be like to have someone very specifically trained to shuffletrack and work them in conjunction somehow. By this I mean take someone who would be a "natural" at this, someone who has never even PLAYED blackjack before (preferably) so they could be taught from scratch with no preconceived notions of anything. Drill them into exactly what I am looking for using my methods that I have been working on and go with it. This is the only way I can see shuffletracking working for me to it's full potential.
Easier said than done! Although I know the exact scenario that makes sense with this and how it could work, the time and training to properly pull it off is no simple task and nothing that could be taken lightly. The time required to train to pull it off and do it right makes it a daunting task even if I was lucky enough to find the right candidate for such an endeavor... meaning it will likely never happen.
I feel that shuffletracking is a very worthwhile undertaking and a viable tool for achieving a greater degree of success. I have seen some (limited) positive results with it all but don't feel that it could be truly effective in the overall scheme of things in itself with no other additional means of advantage play, such as in a highly effective count.
I have been working on the shuffletracking equation for a long time. What I have noticed is that if you have a relatively complex count, even if you can do your count practically in your sleep you will have quite a time trying to watch those 1/4 deck slugs (of extreme value) going into the discard rack and following them through the shuffle. This leaves me to be all but totally reliant upon the count and much less reliant on shuffletracking. I doubt I will ever be able to count (using my count) and effectively shuffletrack at the same time.
I've often thought about what it would be like to have someone very specifically trained to shuffletrack and work them in conjunction somehow. By this I mean take someone who would be a "natural" at this, someone who has never even PLAYED blackjack before (preferably) so they could be taught from scratch with no preconceived notions of anything. Drill them into exactly what I am looking for using my methods that I have been working on and go with it. This is the only way I can see shuffletracking working for me to it's full potential.
Easier said than done! Although I know the exact scenario that makes sense with this and how it could work, the time and training to properly pull it off is no simple task and nothing that could be taken lightly. The time required to train to pull it off and do it right makes it a daunting task even if I was lucky enough to find the right candidate for such an endeavor... meaning it will likely never happen.
I feel that shuffletracking is a very worthwhile undertaking and a viable tool for achieving a greater degree of success. I have seen some (limited) positive results with it all but don't feel that it could be truly effective in the overall scheme of things in itself with no other additional means of advantage play, such as in a highly effective count.
blackchipjim
Well-Known Member
any advantage used
I beg to differ on the effectiveness of shuffle tracking question. When shuffle tracking is used in conjuction with counting you can really increase your effectiveness. By tracking the shuffles and cutting if you are the cutter of the deck you can take immense advantage of the shoe. There is alot to consider here but alot of books deal with the theory. I do it all the time but it doesn't always work the way I want nonetheless it is one tool an ap can use.
I beg to differ on the effectiveness of shuffle tracking question. When shuffle tracking is used in conjuction with counting you can really increase your effectiveness. By tracking the shuffles and cutting if you are the cutter of the deck you can take immense advantage of the shoe. There is alot to consider here but alot of books deal with the theory. I do it all the time but it doesn't always work the way I want nonetheless it is one tool an ap can use.
This is my point. There are very few that would dispute the theoretical advantage ST will get you. The problem is when it is taken from theory to the practical application. Very few can actually perform what in theory is an advantage. I could make more money betting those who are willing to take a test on their tracking skills that they aren't right, then actually playing it right myself. No disrespect bcj, but you say you do this all the time. If you are tracking slugs, thats a good start, but are you tracking what they are shuffled with, or if not what is the composition of the tracked slug after the other random cards are shuffled into it? Are you considering the removal/addition of the value of your tracked slug into the rest of the shoe after the shuffle when figuring your random cards? Are you fairly certain what advantage your final track after shuffle has given you, and with that know what to bet and for how long? Following a few cards is a way to start tracking, but I wouldn't bet a nickel if I wasn't sure about the effects of the other variables connected with ST. I found most people do not train to ST, they just kind of let it happen and hope they get lucky. Most counters train to count, and for a lot of them thats even a lot to handle. If you don't put in even more time with training to ST then you do counting, I am willing to bet you are playing a losing tracking game. Not to mention, its not enough to train to ST, you need to train right. That I have seen to be about a 50/50 proposition among the players I have encountered claiming to be tracking. I hope all here that are tracking are part of the very small minority that can actually do it correctly. But that is probably just wishful thinking.blackchipjim said:
kewljason
Well-Known Member
I am very new to shuffletracking, only been attempting such for several months and my efforts are very, very elementary. Basically as Bojack suggested I will attempt to track a very high slug of cards through the shuffle. Becasue I am not skilled enough to track many different slugs at the same time, I basically do not know the value of the cards they are being mixed with, so I don't attempt to figure out exactly what my advantage may be. If my very high slug was mixed with a low slug, the advantage could be much less than what I am hoping for. If it is mixed with a very low slug, which seems less likely, I may not have an advantage at all. It is even possible, but even less likely that my very high slug was offset by an even bigger low slug, creating a disadvantage.
So as I said, I don't try to figure my advantage, but instead figure that when this high slug arrives, I will have at least some slight advantage more times than not, so I raise my wager marginally. Not anywhere near my max bet of 16 units, but usually just bump up a couple units from what I would normally be betting at that count. If the count is neutral and I would bet 1 unit, perhaps I wager 3. I like to think as blackchipjim, that it is just another tool to compliment my counting and bump up my advantage slightly rather than a whole new method of AP. (at least in my case)
So, I may be one of the players Bojack is referring to that may be doing myself more harm than good. Time will tell. In the meantime I figure I have the added benefit of a wee bit of cover by bumping up some when the count doesn't call for it.
So as I said, I don't try to figure my advantage, but instead figure that when this high slug arrives, I will have at least some slight advantage more times than not, so I raise my wager marginally. Not anywhere near my max bet of 16 units, but usually just bump up a couple units from what I would normally be betting at that count. If the count is neutral and I would bet 1 unit, perhaps I wager 3. I like to think as blackchipjim, that it is just another tool to compliment my counting and bump up my advantage slightly rather than a whole new method of AP. (at least in my case)
So, I may be one of the players Bojack is referring to that may be doing myself more harm than good. Time will tell. In the meantime I figure I have the added benefit of a wee bit of cover by bumping up some when the count doesn't call for it.
aslan
Well-Known Member
I have no expertise in the area of ST. However, if anyone could track a slug of cards through the shuffles I generally see at the casinos, then I would put it close to the realm of magic. The cards are mixed so well, one must know not only the initial slug of cards, but also the composition of the cards being shuffled into it. Then on the next shuffle go round, how in the world will anyone know the composition of the new cards being shuffled into the already shuffled into slug? To me it's more magic than skill, and I don't believe in magic. To me, the only use of shuffle tracking is when one has scouted high and low and found a casino or certain dealer that has settled for an atypically weak form of shuffle that mere humans have a chance of tracking through. Like I said at the beginning, I am no expert at ST, but I think I do possess a certain amount of common sense. Others may differ. lol
kewljason
Well-Known Member
Well, I don't know how magical it all is. :laugh: And as I said, my efforts are very elementary, but you will notice my emphasis on 'very high slug'. Say you are playing a 6 deck game. You track a half deck slug that was +12. After 2 shuffles your half deck is now mixed into a 2 deck portion of the shoe. Now, I am not saying that 2 deck portion is +12. It may be deleted to +6 or +4 or even wiped out completely. It may even be +16 by now. A whole lot of unknown. But doesn't your "common sense" tells you, that 2 deck segment of the shoe has a better chance of being positive than negative? Again, I am not willing to risk 10, 12 or 16 units with all this unknown, but a marginal bump up seems reasonable to me, common sense-wise.aslan said:
