not playing negative counts question...

I read somewhere that you can eek out a small profit by starting at the beginning of a shoe and wonging out at any negative running count even if you never raise your bet. The rules of the game in question are 6D DAS RSA No surrender H17 (about .6 or .7 off the top) I think someone on bj21 or such a site said he ran the sims and it was about a 12 dollar per hour profit with 100 dollar bets (big ROR of course). This doesnt make sense to me. Can anyone verify this? Maybe its because the .6 or .7 advantage for the house is including all hands played and the negative hands are so much worse than the positive and by avoiding them one can take away the house advantage.

Thanks for your responses,
Rounder

rounder21 said:

I read somewhere that you can eek out a small profit by starting at the beginning of a shoe and wonging out at any negative running count even if you never raise your bet. The rules of the game in question are 6D DAS RSA No surrender H17 (about .6 or .7 off the top) I think someone on bj21 or such a site said he ran the sims and it was about a 12 dollar per hour profit with 100 dollar bets (big ROR of course). This doesnt make sense to me. Can anyone verify this? Maybe its because the .6 or .7 advantage for the house is including all hands played and the negative hands are so much worse than the positive and by avoiding them one can take away the house advantage.

Thanks for your responses,
Rounder

Click to expand...

In most cases this is correct. Those rules are a little weak, I wouldn't try this in a H17 game. But a black chipper who is willing to work for $12 per hour can do this.

cool thanks automonkey...

Another question is which game would be better to do this, 6D, DAS, rsa, no surrender s17 with 50% penetration, or same rules with 75% penetration and H17??? Both garbage I know but we dont have much choice around here. Also, if I would flat bet, should I switch to a system with higher playing strategy correlation such as Omega2? I'm using zen now. I'm working on some new ideas. Thanks for the advice.

Rounder

rounder21 said:

Another question is which game would be better to do this, 6D, DAS, rsa, no surrender s17 with 50% penetration, or same rules with 75% penetration and H17??? Both garbage I know but we dont have much choice around here. Also, if I would flat bet, should I switch to a system with higher playing strategy correlation such as Omega2? I'm using zen now. I'm working on some new ideas. Thanks for the advice.

Rounder

Click to expand...

I really don't know which of those games would be better; I suspect the game with 75% pen but I'd have to plug it into my simulator to be sure.

Technically, you're not exactly flat betting- you're playing a spread of 0 to 1 units, so betting correlation does make a difference. Zen is probably as good a choice as any.

My question is... why? Why not play a regular spread?

Thanks for the advice...

Automatic Monkey said:

Technically, you're not exactly flat betting- you're playing a spread of 0 to 1 units, so betting correlation does make a difference. Zen is probably as good a choice as any.

My question is... why? Why not play a regular spread?

Click to expand...

I guess I'm just tired of losing hands when I raise my bet because the count went up and not being able to bet that high again until the count reaches that level again. My patience has run thin with the game. And I want to get comps if possible. I dont play that often, maybe once a week for 3 hours. I'm curious about some things. Such as using a less aggressive version of the martingale and leaving the shoe when its negative. Kind of hard to explain the things I want to try. Can you recommend an easy to use inexpensive simulator for the things I want to try? Here's another example of what I want to try...

Kind of a series to series martingale as opposed to a hand to hand martingale. I'll give an example to show what I'm talking about. Say youre wonging $10 units (not much profit I know), and your first shoe you wong in when the deck is favorable and out when it becomes even or unfavorable. During that first series, you lose 5 units (down $50). Your next series, you wong in when its favorable, but now your betting unit is $25 (half of what youre down). When you are even for the trip in the middle of a series you start over at $10 units until the deck becomes even or unfavorable. Lets say you lose in the $25 unit series and you are down another $50 ($100 total) when you get out because the deck became even or unfavorable. Now when you get in again, your base unit will be $50 until you become even. My idea is making yourself down no more than 2 units when starting the next series. Then all you have to do is win 2 units to become even again. Your ruin can come when you have several unfavorable series in a row and not enough bank to cover the downswing. Also table max could get in the way if you have the bank, but arent able to increase your bet when you are down more than 2xs the table max. But you would have to lose a lot to get up to table max and you hope that would never happen. You are limiting your profits by only betting $10 when the deck is favorable, and increasing your risk of ruin when youre betting higher after the losing series. I'm wandering how this effects long run profits. Say you have $1000 each trip, or 100 units. I would be curious to see how this system would do if you start it over ($10 base units) with another $1000 every time you lose the $1000 or every time you make a specified amount (which would translate into a stop-win for the day).

Thanks for the help.
Rounder

rounder21 said:

I guess I'm just tired of losing hands when I raise my bet because the count went up and not being able to bet that high again until the count reaches that level again. My patience has run thin with the game.

Click to expand...

You’ll definitely need to get rid of that mindset if you plan on playing successfully. Patience is crucial in this game. You may only see about 20-25 good hands per hour (and often much less) and you need to wait for them. We all know how terrible it feels to get slaughtered during a huge count and feel like you’ll never get another change to get even, but you have to keep your cool. If you get impatient then you will start betting on marginal hands and end up losing money. Or worse, you may raise your stakes in order to get even (called "steaming") only to continue losing and end up broke.

rounder21 said:

Say youre wonging $10 units…During that first series, you lose 5 units (down $50). Your next series, you wong in when its favorable, but now your betting unit is $25 (half of what youre down)...Lets say you lose in the $25 unit series and you are down another $50 ($100 total)…Now when you get in again, your base unit will be $50 until you become even.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are raising your bets very drastically even though your advantage is not increasing. That means that even a short losing streak can wipe out your entire bankroll. If you overbet your bankroll by a factor of two then your ROR jumps to 100%. That means that raising your stakes from $10 units to $20 units will guarantee that you go broke eventually. Raising your stakes from $10 units to $100 units (or more using your system!) is a disaster.

rounder21 said:

Your ruin can come when you have several unfavorable series in a row and not enough bank to cover the downswing.

Click to expand...

I’ll go a step further and say that your ruin will come after several losing streaks. Losing 12 or even 20 hands in a row is not uncommon in blackjack. That is just a fact of life that we all have to deal with. Even with a positive count you will still lose more hands than you win. That is what makes progression systems so dangerous.

-Sonny-

Points taken...

I've played around with my system enough now to know the dangers without even using simulations. Just practicing on yahoo blackjack quickly made me lose a lot of money. But hey, I fail to understand how anyone could ever have a 100% risk of ruin. I know I always overbet according to kelly, but the only way to make much money with a small bankroll is to increase your risk of ruin. For example, even if I wong in at favorable situations only, according to most pros, with a $1000 bankroll, I should bet no more than 10$ per hand which would yeild about a whopping $2 per hour!!! I'd rather increase my risk of ruin (still keeping it under 50%) and have the chance of doubling my bankroll sometime this decade. Blackjack is not my job and my bankroll is always replenishable. I want to play with the odds in my favor, but if I get unlucky enough to get ruined, oh well. Heres my next thought...

If flat betting and getting out when the deck turns negative yeilds a small profit, then why couldnt one improve that profit rate by increasing your bet everytime the running count increases hand to hand and then starting back at your base unit when the count drops. That way you are more likely to have a high bet out when the count drops. It seems like it would only improve the flat betting strategy and give you more chances to raise your bet than you get when counting a 6D shoe normally and waiting for the +3 t.c. you have to have to have the advantage with such crappy rules (+3 using a level 2 system). It doesnt make sense why flat betting and getting out when the deck becomes negative would be slightly profitable when you are only supposed to have an advantage when the count reaches +3. A lot of things in this game dont make sense, but I guess its best just to run the sims and see how it works. I'm curious how a system of raising the bet until the count drop would work. For instance, on one hand if the R.C. is higher than it was on the previous hand you raise your bet. You keep doing that until the count is lower on the next hand than it was on the previous hand then you start at your base unit again. Say you double your bet everytime the r.c. goes up until the count goes lower than it was on the previous hand. The problem is there are some times you will hit table max before the count is ever lower than it was on the previous hand. And of course you have a big risk of ruin. But I'm curious what the chances would be of doubling a bankroll of a specified amount before losing it all using such a system. And of course always starting anew shoe when the count goes negative. Anyone know of a simulator I could use to run such a trial?

Thanks,
Rounder

Rounder, first of all, if you have a limited bankroll, then wonging is an excellent way to stretch it. And it's fairly necessary, if your bankroll requires a $10 max bet, then you can't really waste your time with the table minimum.

It's when you start varying your bets that you're generating the skepticism here, I think. And the main reason is that if you fee like varying your bets, you've already got a really great way to do it: Do it proportionately to the count.

A martingale when you have a favorable count is just as dangerous as a martingale in an unfavorable count.

Now, as for the idea of increasing the bet until the count drops... well, that's similar to betting according to the account, but not as good:

1) If the TC keeps increasing, then increasing your bets according to your scheme is the same as increasing with a better count. No beefs here.

2) Now, let's say the TC gets to +2 and just stays there (equal number of high and low cards get drawn). Well, if you're increasing your bet each handle, it could get really scary and martingale-esque. Betting according to the TC would have you playing an elevated, but non-changing bet.

3) Finally, let's say the TC is +5, and it drops to +2 in one hand. (You've just reaped the count by getting a crapload of high cards, congratulations. So, your system would have you drop down to a min bet. But you still have some advantage left, and you're just leaving money on the table. So reduce the bit, but still leave it bigger than your min.

And if you're just looking for something to mix it up and keep it interesting, then, I would also recommend proportional betting. It's just as interesting as anything else!

Thanks for the advice...

I think youre right in that I may be trying to make it more exciting. I'm looking for something different. I've had a bad run lately. The other day for example I went from table to table, waited and waited and the count finally got juicy and I wonged in only to lose 8 hands in a row before I finally won a few. So frustrating. Maybe it wouldnt be as frustrating if I played everyday and had a chance to get it back more frequently. We're talking realistically 10 favorable hands per hour and 3 hours per week thats 30 hands. Not very exciting. I want to play more. In my scheme I was only going by running count and not true count and I guess that makes it worse. I would like a system that has a higher bet out when the count drops, weather it drops when its +1, +2, +3, +4, or just slightly positive. I dont guess its possible. Also it seems like eveything is going wrong lately. If I'm varying my bets, the count goes up and I raise my bet then lose a hand. then the count goes down and I lower my bet and win a hand. I look like a fool to my girlfriend. She doesnt say it but I know I do. She always cringes when I bet high. Oh well there are a few more things I'm curious about and I would like to try simulations. Can anyone recommend a good program?

Thanks to everyone,
rounder

tenacity

Hey rounder

I share in your frustration as I cannot put two winning sessions back to back. Earlier in the week, played an 8d game with excellent pen and rules, backcounted, and had a great night-32 units won in 1 hour. Tonight, ran into a couple of great shoes, and wouldnt you know it, walked away down 13 units(and this only because I closed the night winning 14 units at the last table I played). You must be tenaciuous in this game; I am learning this more and more. Each time this happens, I analyze my play, and practice even harder. 2-3 hrs a night, working towards being able to track. It seems like us newbies will only hear what we want to. The Bojacks, Sonnys and SSR's all talk about it, but we just dont want to listen-the long run. That is where you WILL find an advantage...I'm betting on it.

best of luck and practice like hell

rounder21 said:

Anyone know of a simulator I could use to run such a trial?

Click to expand...

CVData can do this. But, save your money. It is a poor way to bet.

Thanks...

for the advice golfnut and qfit. I finally had a session yesterday where I doubled my money. Seems like its been forever since I've done that. And I was trying something new. I want to get the CVData, but I first want to know if it can run the sims for what I'm doing. I start a new shoe at my base unit and each time the running count goes up where it is higher than it was on the previous hand, I raise my bet one unit. Each time the count goes down I lower it one unit. I leave the table at any negative running count. I still play according to the true count as I should, its just the betting thats more aggressive. I'm just curious, I know youre probably right, qfit that its not the best way to bet, but I want to be sure. If you can gain a profit by flat betting and getting out at negative, than it would seem you would only increase that profit by "chasing the count around" as I call it. It gives me more chances to alter my bet and I dont raise or lower it more than one unit ever. I just wander how it compares to typical proportional betting. I'm still perplexed at the idea that you dont get an advantage until around +3, yet flat betting and not playing any negative situations yeilds a slight profit. I'm wandering if my system is better because it grabs those times when the count drops from +2 to 0 (TC) where a wonger would not normally be playing, or the typical counter would be betting as low as possible. I am definately a skeptic and very objective about most things in life as I am about this, but there is this slight bit of wander and me wanting to think I've stumbled upon something different and better. I just want to run the sims to be sure. Qfit, will CVData be able to run that type of simulation and if so how much is it and where can I get it. Oh I almost forgot the other part to my system. I leave the bet I have out even when the dealer shuffles and the new shoe is starting. For example, If I am up to a running count of +20 when the dealer shuffles (very frustrating situation), I leave out the higher bet (only raising it or lowering it 1 unit according to the rc of the previous hand). This gives me a chance to still catch a downswing in the count with a high bet. If I leave the table when the count is negative, my next bet is always 1 unit less then it was on my last hand (if its not already at the base unit). The ideal situation is to play until your bets reach a high level and then they go back to the base level. This means you have caught the downswings and bet higher on them while betting lower on the upswings. And lots more excitement in the game. Also better for comps.

Thanks again,
Rounder

Ahh, no. CVData can make a bet based on a combination of the previous bet and current count. But not on a combination of the previous bet, previous count and current count. Frankly, that makes no sense. The point of such betting is cover play. But, the casino has no idea what the previous count was. So, it doesn't help you on cover and substantially harms you on EV.

That's cool...

Thanks Qfit. But if anyone knows a simulator that can run such a scheme let me know. I'm curious if its still a positive game and how much it harms EV.

Thanks,
Rounder

question for QFIT

Would this not be along the lines of 'opposition betting' that Snyder discusses in his 'Blackbelt in Blackjack' ? If you or anyone else have experience with this type of play, care to expound ?

golfnut101 said:

Would this not be along the lines of 'opposition betting' that Snyder discusses in his 'Blackbelt in Blackjack' ? If you or anyone else have experience with this type of play, care to expound ?

Click to expand...

No. Opposition Betting forces a large spread. The method described by rounder is quite different. The method Arnold describes can be simmed by CVData. In fact, CVData is the only available sim that can handle it.

Also, betting by running count is very poor in shoe games. Shoe games, much more than pitch games, depend on accurate betting. And RC is a poor indicator of bet size in shoes in balanced strategies.

Now if you used TC, and you ignored whether the count increased or decreased but simply raised a unit if the count was positive or decreased if negative - this would work better and is supported by CVData. But, it is still far from optimal.

Bc

QFIT

When you say 'betting by RC is very poor for shoe games' do you mean with a balanced system ? Because isnt this how an unbalanced count such as KO determines bet size, by its running count ? As well, in your opinion opposition betting as mentioned by Snyder is not a solid play ?

thankyou

golfnut101 said:

QFIT

When you say 'betting by RC is very poor for shoe games' do you mean with a balanced system ? Because isnt this how an unbalanced count such as KO determines bet size, by its running count ? As well, in your opinion opposition betting as mentioned by Snyder is not a solid play ?

thankyou

Click to expand...

Yes I mean balanced strategies. To the second part, that partly depends on which part of Arnold's discussion. At first he talks of specific shuffles where unplayed cards tend not to be moved into play. Michael Dalton defines this situation in his Blackjack Encyclopedia as the situation for which Opposition Betting was designed. I know of no shuffles where this occurs these days in or out of the US. Arnold then discusses a method of bouncing around bets at low counts and then jumping to a high bet when the count goes up. This is quite different. It will work and will provide good camouflage; but is very costly as variance jumps substantially.

rounder21 said:

I dont play that often, maybe once a week for 3 hours.

Click to expand...

Rounder, that is 165 hours a year, 16,500 hands a year. You will probably win because you are playing with an advantage but you will not win signifiicant money at that rate, as you will not get into the long run at all. But then again, that number is significant to me because I made $297 an hour the first 162 hours as a "real" counter, so it is possible, but you have to play high stakes and large spreads to get those results (plus some luck and and a lot of practice!)

I have had many 3 hour sessions where barely any positive situations come up. This will test your patience immensely unless you play more, have spotters or find some other solution.

Thanks for the responses...

It is appreciated. I would still want to run the sims out of curiousity. I think my system would be better than flat betting but probably not as good as proportional betting. If I can bet more aggressively and it causes to drop a small amount of profit, but will let me get more comps I may do it. Even though it would increase my risk of ruin. My system of chasing the running count is a little different than a system that has a set bet at a certain running count. Not sure if it makes much difference. For one thing, I only raise my bet one unit, whether the rc jumps from 2 to 14 or 2 to 3 one hand to the next. and also only lower my bet one unit when it drops no matter how much it drops. Also, I leave the high bet out even when the dealer shuffles. Always raising my bet after an upswing and always lowering it after a downswing, no matter what the exact running count is. Thinking they should all even out in the long run without going too wild, that way I had my higher bets out when the count dropped and lower bets out when the count climbed. I will never know for sure how it compares without being able to do the sims. Although its possible that I've made a system that cannot be tested by any program available which would make it impossible to debunk.

Kind of like when man invented god. He wanted so much to believe there was more out there than just what was perceivable. So he invented god to comfort his insecurity and then made it impossible for people to prove that god wasnt there. He cannot bet tested, therefore one must rely on faith for the promise of a reward. This may be inadvertently what I have done through my desire for a better reward. I'm an Atheist by the way.

Thanks again everyone,
Rounder21