Here are all the comments posted on the site, with the most recent discussions listed first.
To participate in any of these discussions, you can reply on the article page.
Just want to be sure I understand . . . it is possible in a game with only 75% penetration (standard deck and half cut out from a six deck shoe) to have a true-count north of +9, right. It doesn’t happen that often but there have definitely been times when 1/2 of the six deck shoe has been cashed and the running count is 20 thus making the true-count – if I understand your teachings correctly – +10, right?
Make sure you are including the cards behind the cut card in your unseen decks. In your example, when we are halfway through six decks, that means 3 decks have been dealt, and 3 decks are still unseen. It doesn’t matter that many of the unseen cards will never be used because they are behind the cut card. You still use them in the calculation. So a running count of +20 would convert to a true count of +20/3, or +6.66. With the same true count one deck later (4 decks used, 2 unseen), the true count would by +20/2 = +10.
I have been counting for about three years now using this course and made about 13K. Unfortunately, I have been banned from four casinos. Admittedly, I am constantly helping others and more or less always make the minimum bet . . . no fanny-pack, either.
I am presently using the Zen count, working on memorizing indices, and am coming up against a logic problem that my mind can’t seem to wrap itself around. In the index section involving hard doubles, the counts are as low as -19 (11v7). As a secondary note I am using the True count method, not the 1/4 deck True edge. The translation of this index, 11v7 stand @TC>-19 makes very little sense to me in logical analysis. In doubling down, it makes sense to avoid doing so at lower counts when more face value cards have been outweighed by the smaller cards available. However, unless I’m totally out to lunch on this one, this index specifies that I double against a seven, only at times where it would be terribly unlikely for me to receive a strong hand making card as well as being relatively advantageous to the dealer in advantage, and to avoid doing so, when the cards would be favorable to double as well. Am I interpreting this wrong, or is my logic simply wrong?
Also, thank you so much Ken for keeping up and running this sight. The information here has been invaluable on my card counting training, and has made for a greater resource than most of the money I will probably make in recreational play.
Secondary note, if there are any Tarantino fans out there, there are 88 indices to memorize for the Zen Count. Made my day ^_^
Indexes can be confusing because they mean different things for different decisions. The 11v7 index is a doubling index, where you should hit when the count is below the index, and double when the count is at or above the index number. In this case, that means hit 11v7 if the count is -20 or worse, and double 11v7 if the count is -19 or better. That should make sense to you.
While this specific conversation is about the Zen count (and users of Hi-Lo are probably thinking “-19, what?!”), the same principle applies to any system’s indexes. If you aren’t sure how to interpret the different types of indexes, I recommend my explanation under the header “What are the different kinds of Index Numbers?” on this page: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/card/advanced-strategy-card-instructions/
If I am playing in the European style, with no hole card and I am the last player in the table. I have 16 against a dealer 10. Basic strategy says you must hit. But in the European style, the next card can be for the player (if he hits) or for the dealer (if he stands). If the player hits good cards for the player are A, 2, 3, 4, 5. But, except for the Ace, all other is also good for the player since it is possible he bust with the next card. It is the same for a 15 against 10, or a 15 against 9 etc.
My question: Should I change the basic strategy in this case? In which cases.
No, do not change basic strategy in any of these situations. By deciding to take or leave the next card in the shoe, you cannot impact the dealer’s expected outcome in any way. Think of it this way. If the dealer always burned a card before drawing, would it make any difference? No. Play your hand by basic strategy. That’s all you can do.
How about asking the complainer: “So you think the casino purposely put the Blackjack cards in just the right order so that YOUR hand would win and that OTHER GUY screwed it up for YOU? Wow, that’s so nice of the casino to try to give YOU money!”
Thanks! You may be right about the surrender issue, although it is possible that the surrender may only work if the dealer does NOT have blackjack. I’m not bothering to check because the new version is coming soon anyway, which is a complete rewrite.
Hello,
I think there is one issue in trainer program.
When is using late surrender with the dealer ace trainer first offers surrendering instead of insurance.
And again I continue to win.
May be there is a reason to imitate dealers shuffling, instead of mathematical random shuffling.
Ignore any unseen cards. It essentially reduces penetration by one card. The new version of the trainer won’t have this issue. Thanks for reminding me!
Hi again Ken.
I was using your trainer with surrender as an option to practice BS and was going to practice a little counting as well but when surrendering it doesn’t show the dealer’s hole card. Is there a way to get it to show the dealers hole card or should I count it as a -1, or 0?
Because KO is an unbalanced count, your ability to use indexes is sharply reduced. Really, if you want to use indexes with KO, they need to be generated exactly for your game. Changing the penetration will change the indexes. And you always have less accuracy for strategy variation when you don’t have a true count to use for it. KO is powerful and simple, but this is one of the downsides.
There is a new version of the KO book coming out soon. Perhaps it will talk more about this.
Just want to be sure I understand . . . it is possible in a game with only 75% penetration (standard deck and half cut out from a six deck shoe) to have a true-count north of +9, right. It doesn’t happen that often but there have definitely been times when 1/2 of the six deck shoe has been cashed and the running count is 20 thus making the true-count – if I understand your teachings correctly – +10, right?
Make sure you are including the cards behind the cut card in your unseen decks. In your example, when we are halfway through six decks, that means 3 decks have been dealt, and 3 decks are still unseen. It doesn’t matter that many of the unseen cards will never be used because they are behind the cut card. You still use them in the calculation. So a running count of +20 would convert to a true count of +20/3, or +6.66. With the same true count one deck later (4 decks used, 2 unseen), the true count would by +20/2 = +10.
I have been counting for about three years now using this course and made about 13K. Unfortunately, I have been banned from four casinos. Admittedly, I am constantly helping others and more or less always make the minimum bet . . . no fanny-pack, either.
minimum bet a beginning of new shoe
I am presently using the Zen count, working on memorizing indices, and am coming up against a logic problem that my mind can’t seem to wrap itself around. In the index section involving hard doubles, the counts are as low as -19 (11v7). As a secondary note I am using the True count method, not the 1/4 deck True edge. The translation of this index, 11v7 stand @TC>-19 makes very little sense to me in logical analysis. In doubling down, it makes sense to avoid doing so at lower counts when more face value cards have been outweighed by the smaller cards available. However, unless I’m totally out to lunch on this one, this index specifies that I double against a seven, only at times where it would be terribly unlikely for me to receive a strong hand making card as well as being relatively advantageous to the dealer in advantage, and to avoid doing so, when the cards would be favorable to double as well. Am I interpreting this wrong, or is my logic simply wrong?
Also, thank you so much Ken for keeping up and running this sight. The information here has been invaluable on my card counting training, and has made for a greater resource than most of the money I will probably make in recreational play.
Secondary note, if there are any Tarantino fans out there, there are 88 indices to memorize for the Zen Count. Made my day ^_^
http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm
Indexes can be confusing because they mean different things for different decisions. The 11v7 index is a doubling index, where you should hit when the count is below the index, and double when the count is at or above the index number. In this case, that means hit 11v7 if the count is -20 or worse, and double 11v7 if the count is -19 or better. That should make sense to you.
While this specific conversation is about the Zen count (and users of Hi-Lo are probably thinking “-19, what?!”), the same principle applies to any system’s indexes. If you aren’t sure how to interpret the different types of indexes, I recommend my explanation under the header “What are the different kinds of Index Numbers?” on this page: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/card/advanced-strategy-card-instructions/
If I am playing in the European style, with no hole card and I am the last player in the table. I have 16 against a dealer 10. Basic strategy says you must hit. But in the European style, the next card can be for the player (if he hits) or for the dealer (if he stands). If the player hits good cards for the player are A, 2, 3, 4, 5. But, except for the Ace, all other is also good for the player since it is possible he bust with the next card. It is the same for a 15 against 10, or a 15 against 9 etc.
My question: Should I change the basic strategy in this case? In which cases.
No, do not change basic strategy in any of these situations. By deciding to take or leave the next card in the shoe, you cannot impact the dealer’s expected outcome in any way. Think of it this way. If the dealer always burned a card before drawing, would it make any difference? No. Play your hand by basic strategy. That’s all you can do.
How about asking the complainer: “So you think the casino purposely put the Blackjack cards in just the right order so that YOUR hand would win and that OTHER GUY screwed it up for YOU? Wow, that’s so nice of the casino to try to give YOU money!”
Hey,
So when you say that you need to be able to get through 2 decks in 40 seconds, is that doing one card at a time or in pairs?
Thanks
That would be in pairs. Cancelling out cards really speeds up the process.
Awesome thanks for you help!
Thanks! You may be right about the surrender issue, although it is possible that the surrender may only work if the dealer does NOT have blackjack. I’m not bothering to check because the new version is coming soon anyway, which is a complete rewrite.
Hello,
I think there is one issue in trainer program.
When is using late surrender with the dealer ace trainer first offers surrendering instead of insurance.
And again I continue to win.
May be there is a reason to imitate dealers shuffling, instead of mathematical random shuffling.
Ignore any unseen cards. It essentially reduces penetration by one card. The new version of the trainer won’t have this issue. Thanks for reminding me!
The cards are only available in physical form, and I have moved all distribution to Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982119178/?tag=theblackjacbasic
Hi again Ken.
I was using your trainer with surrender as an option to practice BS and was going to practice a little counting as well but when surrendering it doesn’t show the dealer’s hole card. Is there a way to get it to show the dealers hole card or should I count it as a -1, or 0?
Thanks for that. I’ll just use the HiLo system in that case and get the cards. It’s worth it just to support this site!
Question: when I buy them, can you send them electronically or do I have to wait for them in the mail?
Because KO is an unbalanced count, your ability to use indexes is sharply reduced. Really, if you want to use indexes with KO, they need to be generated exactly for your game. Changing the penetration will change the indexes. And you always have less accuracy for strategy variation when you don’t have a true count to use for it. KO is powerful and simple, but this is one of the downsides.
There is a new version of the KO book coming out soon. Perhaps it will talk more about this.
Whoops, forgot to mention the key difference: I use KO, not Hi-Lo