Winning More towards the end. You really do.

[Canceler]

i don't hardly think anyone is saying that, lol.

Well, yes, they are. YOU said it, and so did H Bomb. ICNT agreed with you, and didn't contradict H Bomb.

...you get to one deck left to be dealt and the tc=0, then you virtually have that single deck advantage, sort of thing. is this correct? :whip:

Let's say you're playing an X deck game with Y decks left and TC = 0. It seems at this point you're essentially playing a Y deck game.

Maverik is the only one thinking about this correctly. I don't know why people persist in thinking that because a card is treated as neutral in HiLo that means it has no effect on anything.

I didn't have the patience or inclination to mess around with this too much, but I do know what would happen if your final deck with a TC of 0 consisted of all "neutral" cards. Yup, -52% player advantage. (Sure, it's an extreme case, but I'm trying to make a point here.)

 

[sagefr0g]

Well, yes, they are. YOU said it, and so did H Bomb. ICNT agreed with you, and didn't contradict H Bomb.



Maverik is the only one thinking about this correctly. I don't know why people persist in thinking that because a card is treated as neutral in HiLo that means it has no effect on anything.

I didn't have the patience or inclination to mess around with this too much, but I do know what would happen if your final deck with a TC of 0 consisted of all "neutral" cards. Yup, -52% player advantage. (Sure, it's an extreme case, but I'm trying to make a point here.)

your point is well taken. i tinkered around a bit with tdca after reading your post. i'm not sure but it looks as if to keep that small one deck advantage the one deck pack remaining would need to have a composition very close to a randomly ordered genuine single deck pack of cards composition.
but really i don't think my question was in the 'spirit' of the way Maverik perceived it. truly hard to say one way or the other on the internet. but not really trying to say that neutral cards have no affect or that once five decks are dealt out of a six deck pack that some how that remaining pack is going to magically have the composition of a randomly ordered genuine single deck pack of cards. lol.
just really didn't realize the point your post made.
2nd edit: just as a side note far as i can see tdca only allows up to 90% pen, to where i think thats about 31 cards wouldn't be dealt once the pack gets down to the one deck point. wouldn't that skew the ev a bit? like the second image shows for single deck same rules as the six deck with 80% pen (that would be down to about 10 cards), a better ev.

 

[Canceler]

i'm not sure but it looks as if to keep that small one deck advantage the one deck pack remaining would need to have a composition very close to a randomly ordered genuine single deck pack of cards composition.

You know, that's what I got, too. Having no neutral cards in the final deck is bad, but not nearly as bad as having all neutral cards. But yeah, it does seem best if the final deck is close to having the composition of a regular single deck.

I can see why pen would make a difference in a sim, but I don't know why the tdca would care about pen. I'm at a total loss to explain the difference in EV between your two images.

 

[sagefr0g]

You know, that's what I got, too. Having no neutral cards in the final deck is bad, but not nearly as bad as having all neutral cards. But yeah, it does seem best if the final deck is close to having the composition of a regular single deck.

I can see why pen would make a difference in a sim, but I don't know why the tdca would care about pen. I'm at a total loss to explain the difference in EV between your two images.

well, i think your right. that was just my assumption that it had something to do with it.
but yeah it's just a basic strategy thing isn't it, so pen wouldn't really matter i guess. cut card effect?:whip: lol, i dunno just grasping at straws here, per usual.
but yeah i took tdca and calc'd the ev for single deck at 80% pen and then did it for 45% pen and got the same ev for both. so you are correct, tdca doesn't care about the pen in that regard.

so ok here is another wild guess, is tdca in the case of my two images (for a six deck pack) you are alluding to, taking into account the affects you and Maveric are pointing out and that icnt is pointing out? a sort of overall long term how it shakes out sort of thing? :whip:

 

[Canceler]

so ok here is another wild guess, is tdca in the case of my two images (for a six deck pack) you are alluding to, taking into account the affects you and Maveric are pointing out and that icnt is pointing out? a sort of overall long term how it shakes out sort of thing? :whip:

Um, I don't know?

Some years ago we had some discussion here about whether the final two decks of a shoe could be considered the same as a DD game. We concluded that it could not. I don't believe anything was said about TC.

Now, today, some people are trying to say that the final deck of a shoe is the same as a single deck game if the TC= 0. Maverik and I are saying that's not a good idea.

 

[sagefr0g]

Um, I don't know?

Some years ago we had some discussion here about whether the final two decks of a shoe could be considered the same as a DD game. We concluded that it could not. I don't believe anything was said about TC.

Now, today, some people are trying to say that the final deck of a shoe is the same as a single deck game if the TC= 0. Maverik and I are saying that's not a good idea.

right, that point on the TC=0 is well taken, imho.
thing is that nobody knows i guess is what would that final deck composition be over a 'Carl Sagan's' number of trials (lol, over billions & billions)?
and anyway sometimes they think of TC=0 as that TC = -0 and TC = +0 stuff, lmao.
but whatever, isn't a TC of zero shows up at the greatest frequency than the other tc's sort of thing? i think Wong says it's 36.63% for single deck packs, even higher for multiple deck packs.

what ever, me i'm just thinking in terms of how folks around here like to say things of equal likelihood tend to even out over time. so the question might be if you start out with equal numbers of positive tag cards and equal numbers of negative tag cards and you look at a final one deck pack left after dealing out some multiple deck pack would that virtual single deck composition crop up most often?
heck if i know.

 

[k_c]

Well, yes, they are. YOU said it, and so did H Bomb. ICNT agreed with you, and didn't contradict H Bomb.



Maverik is the only one thinking about this correctly. I don't know why people persist in thinking that because a card is treated as neutral in HiLo that means it has no effect on anything.

I didn't have the patience or inclination to mess around with this too much, but I do know what would happen if your final deck with a TC of 0 consisted of all "neutral" cards. Yup, -52% player advantage. (Sure, it's an extreme case, but I'm trying to make a point here.)

tdca uses total dependent basic strategy to compute overall EV.

For 1 split allowed player has a +48.29% EV for a composition of 0-0-0-0-0-17-17-18-0-0 (2 through ace.)
Best strategy is:
7-7 v 7 split
7-7 v 8 split
7-7 v 9 hit or stand (equal EV for hit or stand)
7-8, 7-9 v 7,8,9 stand
8-8 v 7 split
8-8 v 8 split
8-8 v 9 stand
8-9 v 7 stand
8-9 v 8 stand
8-9 v 9 stand
9-9 v 7 split
9-9 v 8 split
9-9 v 9 stand

EV for same rules using basic full shoe composition dependent strategy is -47.44%
Following basic strategy after splitting is very negative EV for this composition. For example if sevens are split, basic strategy player busts unless his hand is 7-7-7.

Fortunately for the basic strategy player, this composition is so unlikely that he probably will never encounter it.

 

[k_c]

your point is well taken. i tinkered around a bit with tdca after reading your post. i'm not sure but it looks as if to keep that small one deck advantage the one deck pack remaining would need to have a composition very close to a randomly ordered genuine single deck pack of cards composition.
but really i don't think my question was in the 'spirit' of the way Maverik perceived it. truly hard to say one way or the other on the internet. but not really trying to say that neutral cards have no affect or that once five decks are dealt out of a six deck pack that some how that remaining pack is going to magically have the composition of a randomly ordered genuine single deck pack of cards. lol.
just really didn't realize the point your post made.
2nd edit: just as a side note far as i can see tdca only allows up to 90% pen, to where i think thats about 31 cards wouldn't be dealt once the pack gets down to the one deck point. wouldn't that skew the ev a bit? like the second image shows for single deck same rules as the six deck with 80% pen (that would be down to about 10 cards), a better ev.

tdca uses basic strategy to compute overall EV. Basic strategy for 6 decks is different than basic strategy for 1 deck. That is why the overall EVs are different for the same composition.

 

[Canceler]

Of course!

tdca uses basic strategy to compute overall EV. Basic strategy for 6 decks is different than basic strategy for 1 deck. That is why the overall EVs are different for the same composition.

Thanks, I was hoping you would explain that!

 

[sagefr0g]

Thanks, I was hoping you would explain that!

same here, lmao. kind of make sense doesn't it?:laugh::whip:

 

[H Bomb]

Now, today, some people are trying to say that the final deck of a shoe is the same as a single deck game if the TC= 0. Maverik and I are saying that's not a good idea.

I think we all agree that it’s not going to be the SAME as a SD game (in my original post I said “essentially” but I should’ve said “on average”). In a nutshell, the question is: Given TC = 0 if you have to pick a BS to play out the final deck of an 8D shoe (forget about BS variations), does the 8D BS or SD BS give you the higher EV? I don’t have the answer. I’m leaning towards SD for the following reasons:

1. It’s true there is a MINISCULE probability the final deck is going to play like a regular deck, but there is ZERO probability the final deck is going to play like 8 regular decks.
2. The final deck is, on average, a regular deck (if TC not = 0 all bets are off). Since I have to make a decision (pick the optimal BS) based on an unknown (composition of the final deck), IMO it makes sense to pick a BS based on the average of what the final deck might be.
3. Canceler provided an extreme example of final deck composition given TC = 0. It’s true if someone plays out that deck using SD BS he’s royally screwed. But if he uses 8D BS he’s also royally screwed. IMO this example doesn’t shed light on which BS is better for the general case of 1 deck left, TC = 0.
4. Let’s accept the hypothesis that 8D BS is optimal. Scenario A: 8D shoe, 1 deck left, TC = 0. Scenario B: 6D shoe, 1 deck left, TC = 0. Then this implies that in scenario A 8D BS is optimal but in scenario B 6D BS is optimal. I can’t prove it but somehow there’s something unsettling about this.

 

[iCountNTrack]

the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is not going to be composed like a normal deck. the last deck of a 6 deck shoe has been shuffled with 5 other decks thereby changing the composition of each deck, the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is always going to be composed of different components, to think that the end of 5 decks it is magically going to be distributed into a perfectly proportionate 52 card deck is laughable. the last deck of a 6 deck shoe is like the last 1/6th of one deck of cards, you dont get down to a quarter of a single deck left and go ok since its exactly a quarter of the deck the cards should be exactly the same as the full deck but 3/4 smaller.

Before bashing people's post, i think you should read their post with a clearer mind.
I never said that the last deck in a 6 shoe game will always have a normal composition nor that we can assume as 1D game.
I was giving an example to better explain the floating advantage with TC=0 with one deck left in the shoe. I specifically said that it can VIRTUALLY be treated as a 1D game with normal composition, and made it very clear that this is not entirely true because there are other compositions that will give a TC=0 for the Hi-Lo.

Well, yes, they are. YOU said it, and so did H Bomb. ICNT agreed with you, and didn't contradict H Bomb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
...you get to one deck left to be dealt and the tc=0, then you virtually have that single deck advantage, sort of thing. is this correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by H Bomb View Post
Let's say you're playing an X deck game with Y decks left and TC = 0. It seems at this point you're essentially playing a Y deck game.
Maverik is the only one thinking about this correctly. I don't know why people persist in thinking that because a card is treated as neutral in HiLo that means it has no effect on anything.

I didn't have the patience or inclination to mess around with this too much, but I do know what would happen if your final deck with a TC of 0 consisted of all "neutral" cards. Yup, -52% player advantage. (Sure, it's an extreme case, but I'm trying to make a point here.)

At no point did i mention that the Hi-Lo neutral cards have no effect on anything, in fact if you read my post carefully i clearly mention that at these depths the playing efficiency becomes very important so in an ideal world you would want to side-count those neutral cards (7,8,9) to improve your playing decision.

Actually with the correct plays a deck that is composed entirely of 7, 8, 9s is very advantageous to the player . Anyway the examples you give (all neutral or no neutral) are far from having any reasonable probability of occurring, it is more frequent the last deck will have compositions that are close to the normal composition when TC=0.

 

[creeping panther]

Floating Advantage

I am lucky to be able to play a very fine 6d game with the minimal shuffle card placement at 1/2 deck and DD games that are 70 to 83% placement of the shuffle card. I only play LS games.

What I experience in these games is simply amazing as far as win rate and I have fallen in love with the floating advantage theory.

It is my practice in the 6d to really go to town at the 2 1/2 deck point, and I do mean to go to town. Except for one ugly incident, this practice has never failed me.

I have *come to realize* that the game I play and the way I play it, is really the ULTIMATE GAME, and one that I wish many of you here could have the chance to play, as I do on a very regular basis. And, in those situations when I can control the cut card,....well,, it is even better.

Regards,
CP

 

[sagefr0g]

I am lucky to be able to play a very fine 6d game with the minimal shuffle card placement at 1/2 deck and DD games that are 70 to 83% placement of the shuffle card. I only play LS games.

What I experience in these games is simply amazing as far as win rate and I have fallen in love with the floating advantage theory.

It is my practice in the 6d to really go to town at the 2 1/2 deck point, and I do mean to go to town. Except for one ugly incident, this practice has never failed me.

I have *come to realize* that the game I play and the way I play it, is really the ULTIMATE GAME, and one that I wish many of you here could have the chance to play, as I do on a very regular basis. And, in those situations when I can control the cut card,....well,, it is even better.

Regards,
CP

lmao, ok now that's it, the last word.
i'm gonna go back and really read Don S on floating point advantage.:whip:

 

[Canceler]

Probably a silly question...

While reading the Blackjacks increase as cards left decreases thread, I couldn't help but think how some of the things being said there were applicable here. And it led to what I think is an interesting question:

If you think the final deck of a shoe is on average the same as a single deck, and should be played that way, why don't you think that about the first deck of the shoe?

 

[H Bomb]

If you think the final deck of a shoe is on average the same as a single deck, and should be played that way, why don't you think that about the first deck of the shoe?

For the final deck of a shoe, you're given TC = 0 so you know that the RC for the final deck is 0. You don't that know the RC for the first deck of a shoe is 0.

 

[iCountNTrack]

While reading the Blackjacks increase as cards left decreases thread, I couldn't help but think how some of the things being said there were applicable here. And it led to what I think is an interesting question:

If you think the final deck of a shoe is on average the same as a single deck, and should be played that way, why don't you think that about the first deck of the shoe?

Again, I never said that the final deck of a shoe is one the average the same as a single deck.

I was giving a example to explain the floating advantage at TC=0 when there is 1 deck left. And i said that is a good approximation that we are virtually dealing with one deck game which with combined with good typical shoe games (DAS, S17, DO2, 3:2 payout) would give the player an edge over the house for a TC=0 (TC=0 is the key condition).

To answer your question, you should add the TC=0 condition to the question, and then the answer we ill be pretty evident .

 

[jack.jackson]

Again, I never said that the final deck of a shoe is one the average the same as a single deck.

I was giving a example to explain the floating advantage at TC=0 when there is 1 deck left. And i said that is a good approximation that we are virtually dealing with one deck game which with combined with good typical shoe games (DAS, S17, DO2, 3:2 payout) would give the player an edge over the house for a TC=0 (TC=0 is the key condition).

To answer your question, you should add the TC=0 condition to the question, and then the answer we ill be pretty evident .

I like the way Qfit it, put it here.

On average, the cards will play our proportionally. But, when calculating probabilities, you must always use the whole numbers of cards, not assume a subset has different combination probabilities than the whole.

If in fact, the last 52 cards had a higher chance of a BJ than the first 52, then you could cut the last 52 cards to the front of the shoe and the first 52 cards would have a higher percentage of BJs. Clearly this is absurd.

This is also behind the pitch-game scam run by some casinos. They shuffle six or eight decks, then grab two and pretend it is a double-deck game. Not only is penetration awful, but they are pretending that you get DD odds.

I am lucky to be able to play a very fine 6d game with the minimal shuffle card placement at 1/2 deck and DD games that are 70 to 83% placement of the shuffle card. I only play LS games.

What I experience in these games is simply amazing as far as win rate and I have fallen in love with the floating advantage theory.

It is my practice in the 6d to really go to town at the 2 1/2 deck point, and I do mean to go to town. Except for one ugly incident, this practice has never failed me.

I have *come to realize* that the game I play and the way I play it, is really the ULTIMATE GAME, and one that I wish many of you here could have the chance to play, as I do on a very regular basis. And, in those situations when I can control the cut card,....well,, it is even better.

Regards,
CP

You and I both know it! This is about the same time I get re-adjusted in my chair...:laugh: Once I see those 3 1/2 decks in the discard tray, the lights turn on. IDK what it is, but the cards, really seem to connect better, at this point. Opposed to falling on its face, when theres 3 1/2 or more decks left to be played. I get more aggressive with betting and dds, especially w/the hard-ones. Despite all this, the same TCs, at this point, in the deck, IMO, still dont seem to match, with those of the 2d TCs. For real.

lmao, ok now that's it, the last word.
i'm gonna go back and really read Don S on floating point advantage.:whip:

At least you got the book. Im gonna have to buy the book. If I knew this thread was gonna cost me13.95, I never would of started it

 

[Canceler]

Again, I never said that the final deck of a shoe is one the average the same as a single deck.

I think H Bomb is saying it, though.

To answer your question, you should add the TC=0 condition to the question, and then the answer we ill be pretty evident .

Being a KO user, I might be wrong on this, but I thought the TC was 0 off the top of a new shoe.

As far as this thread is concerned, I think I'm going to fold. Or maybe surrender, since it's blackjack. :joker:

 

[sagefr0g]

At least you got the book. Im gonna have to buy the book. If I knew this thread was gonna cost me13.95, I never would of started it
__________________
Jack Jackson

jj, if it makes you feel any better, i just skim read it a few hours ago, lmao couldn't bring myself to sit down and fully go through it.:devil::whip:
thing is i couldn't still yet find out in essence what the heck makes a floating advantage happen. it's obvious there is such a beast howerver, lol.
:whip:

....
Being a KO user, I might be wrong on this, but I thought the TC was 0 off the top of a new shoe.

As far as this thread is concerned, I think I'm going to fold. Or maybe surrender, since it's blackjack. :joker:

well, yes off the top, but really isn't the point, to understand what the nature of the full first fifty two cards is? that may or may not have a tc=0 as the case may be.

edit: i guess your point would be, that say if the first deck had tc=0 that wouldn't mean it has the composition of a random genuine single deck. what ever it has to have tc=0 if it's going to be a virtual single deck with that small advantage. but yeah no reason to think it would be the case, same for the last deck, far as i know.
i think the salient question would be what would be the over riding nature of the last deck should it happen to be tc=0 over the long haul, if there is a over riding nature. i dunno. think i'll surrender too.:joker::whip: