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.
Ken. I am interested in counting double blackjack. I purchased the advanced wallet cards. My issue is that the matrix under lesson 23 is inconsistent with your double deck basic strategy. For example, on the matrix it says if you have a pair of 2s and dealer has a 2 you should just hit (no number so doesn’t matter what the count is). On your basic strategy engine for double deck (leaving the default drop downs for everything but # of decks) it says for this same hand to split (split up to dealer having a 7 in fact). Is this a mistake and if so which one is right? Thanks,
The matrix from the GameMaster assumes you cannot double after split in the 2-deck game. If you change the engine settings to not allow DAS, the results will much more closely align with the matrix he provides. That was easy; it’s just a rule difference. If you dig deeper and begin to look at the index numbers themselves, it gets more complicated.
I am sure there are differences in the GameMaster’s index matrix numbers and the ones on my advanced card. Generating indexes involves making a lot of decisions on the conditions. I spent months fine-tuning my numbers, and my assumptions may be slightly different than his. In addition, his indexes were risk-adjusted in a few spots, and for the vast majority of players I think risk-adjusted indexes are misguided because most players do not actually bet the relevant percentage of their effective bankroll. Most players have a replenishable bankroll, whether they are willing to admit it or not. For that reason, I chose to not risk-adjust the indexes. (The effect of RA indexes is minimal and only a handful of decisions are even affected at all, so it’s not a big thing.) Another possible reason for discrepancies is the technology used to generate the indexes. There have been improvements since GM did his matrix (not in basic strategy, just index generation). I used CVData from QFIT to generate mine, in an iterative process that took many simulations for fine-tuning.
The bottom line is… For basic strategy, inputting the correct rules in the Strategy Engine will give you a chart that you can trust whenever there are differences vs other source materials. For card counting indexes, the situation is far more nuanced, but I am confident of the utility of the numbers published on my Advanced Strategy Cards.
First off, thanks so much for the quick reply; it makes sense (I didn’t know the acronyms well enough to see that I was looking at two different sets of rules).
So, I have basic strategy memorized although I never knew it varied for double deck so there are about 9 hands I have to memorize to be 100%. Now I am contemplating moving on to the index variation piece by using your cards. I am looking for guidance on cost vs. benefit. For all my purposes by the way I am dealing with Mandalay Bay or Palazzo, which means H17, Da2, das (except Aces), no surrender and I am starting with at least basic strategy and counting where I will up my bet by up to 8 times minimum (sometimes more).
First of all, assuming penetration of about 66% (deck + 1/3rd deck) and varying bet up to 8 times, about what are my odds (i.e. 1.5%)? Second, if I completely incorporate the index variation piece, what impact does that have on my odds? Lastly, is there an in between that you recommend that is a starting point for my next trip to Vegas that would provide me the most bang for my mental buck? For example maybe I skip the ones where I have a pair as those are a lot less common I think than soft hands and the rest or maybe I just disregard all the ones where the variation starts above 3 or below – 3 because those are less common counts. If you have a suggestion please make it and let me know if you can about what improvement to my odds that might offer vs. just counting with basic strategy.
Last question, how much leverage do I get by upping my bet by more than 8 times? I usually pay $25 minimum and sometimes find myself doing two or three hands each with a $200 bet when the count is high towards the end of the two deck shoe (in particular when there are a bunch of Aces left). While this has risk of being asked to leave for counting I wonder if this is actually more impactful in terms of my odds then worrying about the index variations in the first place, thoughts?
Bet sizing is far more important than strategy changes. I would recommend that you not worry about indexes at all yet. When I started, I played a year or two without any strategy variations at all. The huge majority of your profit comes from bet variation. Once bet variation is solid, you can expect strategy changes to add maybe 20% to your win rate. You’ll know you are ready when counting and just varying your bet starts to get boring. 🙂
It is interesting to hear others opinions as I have my own. It is true, a bad player can make or break your hand. Yes it does change the effects of a few hands. If you watch the pattern of the cards, a bad play will straighten itself out after a few hands. Even with new cards it seems to take about 3 shoes to get the cards lined up. If the dealer shuffles correctly, the cards actually stay in order, for the most part. This why the hands don’t change much from shoe to shoe if every player plays by basic strategy, so you need that other “bad” player to mess the shoe up from time to time. There is no need to waste time counting cards, just watch for the patterns, and adjust your bet accordingly. As mentioned, no one is forcing you to stay at one table, you can leave or change tables at any time. There is no reason to get mad at any table. You can change the cards at any time, the dealer just deals the cards at your request. The dealer has no bearings on the cards dealt.
More nonsense. Bad players don’t have any effect on your expected win or loss. I don’t expect to convince anyone who buys into this myth, but I’ll try anyway. See The Most Common Myth in Blackjack.
The strategy engine does not allow you to pick the rule where you can double after split except aces. Does the fact that you can’t split aces have any bearing on the basic strategy decisions for double deck?
Separately, is there a simple way to explain why in the first place basic strategy changes from 6 deck to double deck. I understand that if you are counting there may be a difference but if you have no idea what is coming (or what has been played) then what does it matter if there is one deck left or 5?
I assume you meant No DAS on Aces in your question. That’s absolutely the normal rule. Split Aces receive only one card on each, although some places will let you resplit if you get another Ace. Hitting or doubling after splitting is not allowed, so all the basic strategy charts and index numbers already assume that is the case.
As for why more decks matter, that would make a good blog topic since it is a common question. I’ll illustrate the basic idea by showing that the “effect of removal” of one card is bigger in 1 deck than in 6. Let’s assume you draw an Ace off the top of a single deck. What is the probability that you will end up with blackjack when you get your second card? There are 16 ten-valued cards left among the 51 cards in the remaining deck. 16/51 = 0.3137 If you are playing a six-deck game instead, now there are 96 ten-valued cards left among 311 cards. 96/311 = 0.3087 You can see that you are slightly more likely to draw a blackjack in a single deck game than in a six-deck game.
This same concept affects all the strategy decisions in a small way.
Since I play double deck where dealer hits soft 17, can double after split (except Aces), can double any two cards and no surrender, what would be the easiest next best counting system to learn once I have mastered hi-lo (the easy one you teach) and what would be the best one if I advance that far? Also, should I count Aces as minus 1 or should they be neutral?
Hi-Lo works just fine in that double deck game (and Aces are minus 1 in that count). In my own play, I use the Wong Halves count which is covered along with Hi-Lo in his book Professional Blackjack.
But to be honest, if I was choosing today, I don’t think I would use anything other than KO or Hi-Lo. The extra profit from a more powerful system is pretty small, so it’s really not worth the extra effort and potential for errors. If you want to feel better about the slightly lower win rate, just play an extra five minutes to make up for it. 🙂
Sure, these are basic strategy plays, and they apply to card counting as well. Of course, card counters can also use their information about the deck composition to alter the strategy using index numbers. (For more on that, see the Advanced Card Set instructions.)
Ken, I can’t thank you enough for the prompt answers !!! I honestly think you are saving us beginners lots of money and heartaches 🙂 I am the same guy who asked about KO and penetration in another post few days ago. Following up on your answer above … Using KO in a 8 deck game and starting at 0 .., the count rarely gets to the point where it is now even ( starting with 0 and subtracting 28 ) to get to a positive 0 count … Should I focus on learning Hi Low instead … It seems more plausible to get a running count of say + 12 that you divide by say 4 ( 4 decks remaining … Do you actually count the cards that would not even be used ..especially in poor penetration ??) to get a true count of +3 after only the first few hands … With KO , it just never seems to happen !
Yes, that is exactly the reason for converting to a true count. A true count of +4 means the same thing very early in the shoe as it does deep in the shoe.
Yes, starting KO at zero is perfectly fine once you adjust the other key numbers. In fact, I would venture to guess that most people who use KO do this to avoid so much thinking in negative numbers.
There is really not anything you can do to improve the local game. Don’t monkey with the numbers in KO, because that would have you raising your bet into negative situations. This is just a poor game, and the casino almost always has the edge. To beat it for a reasonable hourly earn rate will require a bigger spread to offset the infrequency of the opportunities. Unfortunately that also creates much higher variance in a game where your edge is quite thin. You could play that game perfectly for a long time and still lose money if you’re even a bit unlucky. What’s the old adage? You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Thanks much Ken 🙂 Appreciate your prompt response. I might’ve better served hitting the other casino an hour away then ( a total of two hour drive) . I play with a dealer at this one who deals at the other casino and he commented on the poor penetration by comparing to where he deals stating that it is way better. Is my approach of starting at 0 using KO and subsequently subtracting or in fact adding positives to negatives valid ? Also what would you suggest in this case because I really like this casino . All the dealers and Pit bosses know me by name and I feel like they genuinely root for me and always ask me not to return any purples once they are in my pocket . I am not naive but I do feel they are small town America type of folks and genuinely friendly and accommodating. I have never raised an eyebrow when I won big but then again when I lose I also lose big at times . Any other words is there a way to account for poor penetration say you multiply by 5 instead of 8 ( decks ) in KO?
That’s exactly the problem with poor penetration. You get few chances to raise your bet, because the shoe rarely reaches a positive situation. If you are only occasionally seeing opportunities to raise your bet in a 4.5 out of 8 deck game, you’re probably doing it right! The KO count itself (or alternatively the Hi-Lo true count) already accounts for the poor penetration.
I have a question about penetration and keeping track of the TC I play an eight deck game. The dealer probably discards about 3 1/2 decks when he shuffles and the player cuts . I am considering both the pros and cons of hi & lo and KO. With KO for example, the count starts at -28 ( 4-4*8). What I usually do is I start the count at 0. And say the RC is 28 ( including the 7s as +1), I now know that the shoe is getting warmer if it goes to +4 ( or in other words +32 -28), I raise my bet because now allegedly the deck is rich in high cards. Here where I am confused : if the dealer discards almost half of the shoe aka bad penetration, I rarely see a positive count as high as what I described . I am doing something wrong by not accounting for the bad penetration ? Thanks all !! First time poster 🙂 Love this forum
Ken. I am interested in counting double blackjack. I purchased the advanced wallet cards. My issue is that the matrix under lesson 23 is inconsistent with your double deck basic strategy. For example, on the matrix it says if you have a pair of 2s and dealer has a 2 you should just hit (no number so doesn’t matter what the count is). On your basic strategy engine for double deck (leaving the default drop downs for everything but # of decks) it says for this same hand to split (split up to dealer having a 7 in fact). Is this a mistake and if so which one is right? Thanks,
The matrix from the GameMaster assumes you cannot double after split in the 2-deck game. If you change the engine settings to not allow DAS, the results will much more closely align with the matrix he provides. That was easy; it’s just a rule difference. If you dig deeper and begin to look at the index numbers themselves, it gets more complicated.
I am sure there are differences in the GameMaster’s index matrix numbers and the ones on my advanced card. Generating indexes involves making a lot of decisions on the conditions. I spent months fine-tuning my numbers, and my assumptions may be slightly different than his. In addition, his indexes were risk-adjusted in a few spots, and for the vast majority of players I think risk-adjusted indexes are misguided because most players do not actually bet the relevant percentage of their effective bankroll. Most players have a replenishable bankroll, whether they are willing to admit it or not. For that reason, I chose to not risk-adjust the indexes. (The effect of RA indexes is minimal and only a handful of decisions are even affected at all, so it’s not a big thing.) Another possible reason for discrepancies is the technology used to generate the indexes. There have been improvements since GM did his matrix (not in basic strategy, just index generation). I used CVData from QFIT to generate mine, in an iterative process that took many simulations for fine-tuning.
The bottom line is… For basic strategy, inputting the correct rules in the Strategy Engine will give you a chart that you can trust whenever there are differences vs other source materials. For card counting indexes, the situation is far more nuanced, but I am confident of the utility of the numbers published on my Advanced Strategy Cards.
Ken,
First off, thanks so much for the quick reply; it makes sense (I didn’t know the acronyms well enough to see that I was looking at two different sets of rules).
So, I have basic strategy memorized although I never knew it varied for double deck so there are about 9 hands I have to memorize to be 100%. Now I am contemplating moving on to the index variation piece by using your cards. I am looking for guidance on cost vs. benefit. For all my purposes by the way I am dealing with Mandalay Bay or Palazzo, which means H17, Da2, das (except Aces), no surrender and I am starting with at least basic strategy and counting where I will up my bet by up to 8 times minimum (sometimes more).
First of all, assuming penetration of about 66% (deck + 1/3rd deck) and varying bet up to 8 times, about what are my odds (i.e. 1.5%)? Second, if I completely incorporate the index variation piece, what impact does that have on my odds? Lastly, is there an in between that you recommend that is a starting point for my next trip to Vegas that would provide me the most bang for my mental buck? For example maybe I skip the ones where I have a pair as those are a lot less common I think than soft hands and the rest or maybe I just disregard all the ones where the variation starts above 3 or below – 3 because those are less common counts. If you have a suggestion please make it and let me know if you can about what improvement to my odds that might offer vs. just counting with basic strategy.
Last question, how much leverage do I get by upping my bet by more than 8 times? I usually pay $25 minimum and sometimes find myself doing two or three hands each with a $200 bet when the count is high towards the end of the two deck shoe (in particular when there are a bunch of Aces left). While this has risk of being asked to leave for counting I wonder if this is actually more impactful in terms of my odds then worrying about the index variations in the first place, thoughts?
I really appreciate it.
Kind regards,
Thanks!
Bet sizing is far more important than strategy changes. I would recommend that you not worry about indexes at all yet. When I started, I played a year or two without any strategy variations at all. The huge majority of your profit comes from bet variation. Once bet variation is solid, you can expect strategy changes to add maybe 20% to your win rate. You’ll know you are ready when counting and just varying your bet starts to get boring. 🙂
It is interesting to hear others opinions as I have my own. It is true, a bad player can make or break your hand. Yes it does change the effects of a few hands. If you watch the pattern of the cards, a bad play will straighten itself out after a few hands. Even with new cards it seems to take about 3 shoes to get the cards lined up. If the dealer shuffles correctly, the cards actually stay in order, for the most part. This why the hands don’t change much from shoe to shoe if every player plays by basic strategy, so you need that other “bad” player to mess the shoe up from time to time. There is no need to waste time counting cards, just watch for the patterns, and adjust your bet accordingly. As mentioned, no one is forcing you to stay at one table, you can leave or change tables at any time.
There is no reason to get mad at any table. You can change the cards at any time, the dealer just deals the cards at your request. The dealer has no bearings on the cards dealt.
More nonsense. Bad players don’t have any effect on your expected win or loss. I don’t expect to convince anyone who buys into this myth, but I’ll try anyway. See The Most Common Myth in Blackjack.
Thanks again Ken.
The strategy engine does not allow you to pick the rule where you can double after split except aces. Does the fact that you can’t split aces have any bearing on the basic strategy decisions for double deck?
Separately, is there a simple way to explain why in the first place basic strategy changes from 6 deck to double deck. I understand that if you are counting there may be a difference but if you have no idea what is coming (or what has been played) then what does it matter if there is one deck left or 5?
I assume you meant No DAS on Aces in your question. That’s absolutely the normal rule. Split Aces receive only one card on each, although some places will let you resplit if you get another Ace. Hitting or doubling after splitting is not allowed, so all the basic strategy charts and index numbers already assume that is the case.
As for why more decks matter, that would make a good blog topic since it is a common question. I’ll illustrate the basic idea by showing that the “effect of removal” of one card is bigger in 1 deck than in 6. Let’s assume you draw an Ace off the top of a single deck. What is the probability that you will end up with blackjack when you get your second card? There are 16 ten-valued cards left among the 51 cards in the remaining deck. 16/51 = 0.3137
If you are playing a six-deck game instead, now there are 96 ten-valued cards left among 311 cards. 96/311 = 0.3087
You can see that you are slightly more likely to draw a blackjack in a single deck game than in a six-deck game.
This same concept affects all the strategy decisions in a small way.
Since I play double deck where dealer hits soft 17, can double after split (except Aces), can double any two cards and no surrender, what would be the easiest next best counting system to learn once I have mastered hi-lo (the easy one you teach) and what would be the best one if I advance that far? Also, should I count Aces as minus 1 or should they be neutral?
Thanks!
Hi-Lo works just fine in that double deck game (and Aces are minus 1 in that count). In my own play, I use the Wong Halves count which is covered along with Hi-Lo in his book Professional Blackjack.
But to be honest, if I was choosing today, I don’t think I would use anything other than KO or Hi-Lo. The extra profit from a more powerful system is pretty small, so it’s really not worth the extra effort and potential for errors. If you want to feel better about the slightly lower win rate, just play an extra five minutes to make up for it. 🙂
And these rules applied to the card counter?
Sure, these are basic strategy plays, and they apply to card counting as well. Of course, card counters can also use their information about the deck composition to alter the strategy using index numbers. (For more on that, see the Advanced Card Set instructions.)
Ken,
I can’t thank you enough for the prompt answers !!! I honestly think you are saving us beginners lots of money and heartaches 🙂
I am the same guy who asked about KO and penetration in another post few days ago. Following up on your answer above … Using KO in a 8 deck game and starting at 0 .., the count rarely gets to the point where it is now even ( starting with 0 and subtracting 28 ) to get to a positive 0 count … Should I focus on learning Hi Low instead … It seems more plausible to get a running count of say + 12 that you divide by say 4 ( 4 decks remaining … Do you actually count the cards that would not even be used ..especially in poor penetration ??) to get a true count of +3 after only the first few hands … With KO , it just never seems to happen !
Yes, that is exactly the reason for converting to a true count. A true count of +4 means the same thing very early in the shoe as it does deep in the shoe.
Does that mean say the true count is +4 after the first two hands in a 6?decks game, you increase your bet even though there is almost 6 decks left ?
Yes, starting KO at zero is perfectly fine once you adjust the other key numbers. In fact, I would venture to guess that most people who use KO do this to avoid so much thinking in negative numbers.
There is really not anything you can do to improve the local game. Don’t monkey with the numbers in KO, because that would have you raising your bet into negative situations. This is just a poor game, and the casino almost always has the edge. To beat it for a reasonable hourly earn rate will require a bigger spread to offset the infrequency of the opportunities. Unfortunately that also creates much higher variance in a game where your edge is quite thin. You could play that game perfectly for a long time and still lose money if you’re even a bit unlucky. What’s the old adage? You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Thanks much Ken 🙂
Appreciate your prompt response. I might’ve better served hitting the other casino an hour away then ( a total of two hour drive) . I play with a dealer at this one who deals at the other casino and he commented on the poor penetration by comparing to where he deals stating that it is way better. Is my approach of starting at 0 using KO and subsequently subtracting or in fact adding positives to negatives valid ?
Also what would you suggest in this case because I really like this casino . All the dealers and Pit bosses know me by name and I feel like they genuinely root for me and always ask me not to return any purples once they are in my pocket . I am not naive but I do feel they are small town America type of folks and genuinely friendly and accommodating. I have never raised an eyebrow when I won big but then again when I lose I also lose big at times . Any other words is there a way to account for poor penetration say you multiply by 5 instead of 8 ( decks ) in KO?
That’s exactly the problem with poor penetration. You get few chances to raise your bet, because the shoe rarely reaches a positive situation. If you are only occasionally seeing opportunities to raise your bet in a 4.5 out of 8 deck game, you’re probably doing it right! The KO count itself (or alternatively the Hi-Lo true count) already accounts for the poor penetration.
I have a question about penetration and keeping track of the TC
I play an eight deck game. The dealer probably discards about 3 1/2 decks when he shuffles and the player cuts . I am considering both the pros and cons of hi & lo and KO. With KO for example, the count starts at -28 ( 4-4*8). What I usually do is I start the count at 0. And say the RC is 28 ( including the 7s as +1), I now know that the shoe is getting warmer if it goes to +4 ( or in other words +32 -28), I raise my bet because now allegedly the deck is rich in high cards. Here where I am confused : if the dealer discards almost half of the shoe aka bad penetration, I rarely see a positive count as high as what I described . I am doing something wrong by not accounting for the bad penetration ?
Thanks all !! First time poster 🙂
Love this forum
Always the true count.