Why backcount?

[Automatic Monkey]

Ok maybe I wasn't clear enough. Say you start watching a game after 2 decks have already been dealt. You start the count at 0, then decide to come sit down at the table in when it's at +1. What I'm saying is that count of +1 is more than likely, very flawed because it didn't take into account the previous two decks. If anything, it's likely to be lower than +1.

Generally with 2 decks dealt out its not worth it. Backcounting after the start of the shoe is normally done when you are cruising around the casino and see a bunch of low cards on the felt, after some hands are already dealt and in the discards. Typically a deck or less. The reason you would play that is depending on the rules and the number of low cards burned, you already have the advantage. Although the penetration has been decreased, it is typically not enough to offset the benefits of already having an advantage when you start playing/backcounting the shoe.

Count likely to be lower than +1, absolutely not! The true count of the cards in the discards is exactly the same as the true count of the cards coming out in the next round, provided you have calculated the true count correctly. All you have to do is visualize the discards as being still behind the cut card from now until the end of the shoe.

Side note: If you use an unbalanced, running-count system you play a shoe you entered in the middle exactly like you would play from the top. Same IRC, no changes whatsoever. This is a benefit of a running-count betting system but also illustrates the weaknesses of such a system when used in shoe games.

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

If less than 1 deck has been dealt and I notice the count go through the roof, I have no problem sitting down. If you see enough low cards in two rounds to bring the RC up +6 and 1 deck has been used up by the time the round ends, you just add the 1 deck to the cards behind the cut card. If it's a game where they're only cutting 1 deck, you now have a 4/6D game with "starting" TC of +1. Anything higher than that and you may have a small edge. If you see counters starting to backcount when 2 decks are already out, it probably won't go well for them.

 

[Thunder]

Count likely to be lower than +1, absolutely not! The true count of the cards in the discards is exactly the same as the true count of the cards coming out in the next round, provided you have calculated the true count correctly. All you have to do is visualize the discards as being still behind the cut card from now until the end of the shoe.

Ok let me ask you this AM. If say one deck has already been played. You start watching the game and from the time you started watching the game, the RC is +3. Which is more likely to have happened. There have been a higher proportion of high cards that have gone out already, the RC has been neutral, or the count was already high? I'm saying the first scenario is the likeliest. From what I understand, you're saying absolutely no. Can you explain why mathematically?

 

[Thunder]

Nevermind, I just saw Sleight's second post and he did a pretty good job of explaining it. That said, I agree with MAZ, that unless you have zero patience and are playing an excellent game, it's not the way to go.

 

[IcedTea23]

If you are playing a game, 4/6 pen, and the running count as the cut card comes out is 15, you just played a shoe lacking in high cards playable.

If you are playing a game, 5/6 pen, and the running count after you started back counting a deck in is 15, you are playing the scenario above. You now have a 4/6 game with a running count of 15.

If it helps, think of the situation as the casino burning a deck, instead of a card.

 

[Renzey]

Ok let me ask you this AM. If say one deck has already been played. You start watching the game and from the time you started watching the game, the RC is +3. Which is more likely to have happened. There have been a higher proportion of high cards that have gone out already, the RC has been neutral, or the count was already high? I'm saying the first scenario is the likeliest. From what I understand, you're saying absolutely no. Can you explain why mathematically?

Look at the question conceptually. Suppose you begin backcounting off the top of a six deck shoe using the Hi/Lo Count. One-and-a-half decks have been cut off behind the cut card. After getting a half deck into the shoe, the RC is +11 -- making your current TC +2.0.

Question #1: What RC are those 1.5 decks behind the cut card likely to be? Remember now, everything you know about the unseen cards is most likely to be proportionally distributed throughout. Therefore, your best answer is +3 (creating a +2.0 TC for those "dead" cards). That leaves a +8 RC for the remaining four decks yet to be dealt (also a +2.0 TC).

Now, what if instead, you began backcounting that shoe after the first 1.5 decks had been dealt -- but this shoe had no cards cut off and was going to be dealt down to the last card! It just so happens that again, after counting a half deck, you also had a +11 RC. What you've now got is 2 decks in the discard tray and 4 decks yet to be dealt.

Question #2: How are those first 1.5 decks in this discard tray any different than the 1.5 decks behind the cut card from the first scenario? Put another way, what if instead of cutting off 1.5 decks with a cut card, the dealer burned 1.5 decks into the discard tray? Both ways, you're merely sampling and counting 26 random cards from somewhere in the pack!

So you simply again must assign an anticipated +3 RC to the first 1.5 decks that you didn't see come out, leaving a +8 RC for the 4 decks that remain to be dealt -- all due to the +11 RC in the half deck that you observed!

So backcounting after the shoe has begun basically just puts those dealt cards behind the cut card, thereby decreasing penetration.

Whether to backcount a shoe already in progress depends largely upon how many players are at that table. If 1 deck has already been dealt at a 2 handed table, should it go positive after another deck, you'll get in 10 rounds playing two spots at a time before the cut card pops out. If it were a 5 handed table and you backcounted right off the top, and then it went positive after one deck, you'll get in 9 rounds on that shoe playing 2 at a time.

I think an offsetting factor to that would be that counting right off the top will give you more sharply abnormal counts late in the shoe due to effectively deeper penetration. Someone check me out on this -- I'm tired of writing.

 

[Thunder]

Fred, I think you gave a very, very detailed explanation. In essence what you're saying is you have decreased penetration when you backcount after the shoe has started, which is perfectly logical. Going one step further, I think you can then go on to say that decreased penetration = a lower betting correlation which in turn lowers your SCORE.

P.S. Remind me never to write when I'm tired. My writing is atrocious!!!

 

[Brock Windsor]

Nevermind, I just saw Sleight's second post and he did a pretty good job of explaining it. That said, I agree with MAZ, that unless you have zero patience and are playing an excellent game, it's not the way to go.

Snyder mentions in Blackbelt in BJ that this type of table hopping is an excellent strategy for low stakes singe deck games. I would summize it would be effective in double-deck as well. Provided MSE permitted.
-BW

 

[Thunder]

Too bad those games with MSE, are extremely rare

 

[politcat]

as a newbie i've been wondering about this. i thought you should always wait for s shuffle. but if some cards are cut off that's essentially the same thing

i think i'll try it in practice, i.e., start counting only after about a deck has gone by and see how i do

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Fred, I think you gave a very, very detailed explanation. In essence what you're saying is you have decreased penetration when you backcount after the shoe has started, which is perfectly logical. Going one step further, I think you can then go on to say that decreased penetration = a lower betting correlation which in turn lowers your SCORE.

P.S. Remind me never to write when I'm tired. My writing is atrocious!!!

Decreased penetration results in a lower SCORE. Starting your session with low cards removed raises your SCORE. It's just a matter of by how much penetration has been reduced, and how many low cards have been removed.

 

[chichow]

Too bad those games with MSE, are extremely rare

they still exist in Vegas

 

[Thunder]

At maybe 3 joints in the whole place I'm guessing. Remember it has to have MSE.

 

[sagefr0g]

different strokes for different folks

Which if you are just a counter is a stupid ass way to play. Really, would you waste time counting shoes with 50% pen or less? If you do then you have no idea what the hell you are doing and you get what you deserve. Most of these friggin counters are just gamblers trying to cover up their obsession. They need to get the money out there and are looking for any possible way to do it, whether its a good idea or not. If you need to rationalize your play you're doing something wrong. Play less but play well. get rid of the need for the juice effect of tossing money out there. If you want more play, then learn how to play better.

well yes, a fifty percent pen shoe would suck, thing is this situation being discussed isn't a shoe that is fifty percent pen. granted far as we know from our perspective it is. thing is, and maybe i've got my statistics fouled up( http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration1.htm), but i believe over the long haul the place where we'll mostly find juicy true counts is deeper in the shoe. the point is, yes our knowledge is what it is far as the true count when we observe a pack being dealt after a few decks have been burned that we didn't see, but ok, if we come up with a playable positive count and decide to play, well we might just be in one of those juicy advantage situations that tend to occur in the later rounds of a pack.
but yes, there will be fewer rounds for us to enjoy the advantage, but it is also often the case that it works out that way anyway while counting down say a six deck shoe, since it's so often that the count is zero or negative in the early stages.
just me maybe, cause like i'm no high caliber pro player or anything, but i'm lucky enough now to have other advantage stuff to deal with that fits in with wonging in on tables (tables that have minimums to high for me to effectively play all but are just fine for wonging). thing is though back counting a shoe from the get go isn't always practical to where taking a shot at a shoe already in progress can be an attractive prospect.
but yeah, i'm one hundred percent with you on getting rid of the juice effect of throwing money out there, personally i disdain that, even though i can't seem to shake the desire to get the money out there cause i know that is a great part of how a multiple deck shoe player makes his money. granted i for one could play better if i was willing to put in the effort required.

 

[chichow]

At maybe 3 joints in the whole place I'm guessing. Remember it has to have MSE.

this is true, but its still 3 joints and at higher table maxes.

and example of one would be one of the MGM joints so you're not going to get thrown out in 45 min