Concept of cards left

First of all I can understand the concept of penetration. For instance, a TC of +1 can be better than ,say, +4 because if there is little group of cards left, the +1 cards will much likely be up next , as compared to +4 if there are a lot of cards left. The high TC of +4 can still mean the high cards can be anywhere in the deck left.



However, I have problems seeing how the concept of penetration is better than the concept of cards left. For instance, Say if we have 8 decks with 75% penetration. It means only 2 decks are left. 75% here is said to be a good penetration. However, if we compare it to 4 decks with 50% penetration, the cards left are the same but the 4 decks at 50% is a supposedly lousy penetration.

Despite deep thinking, I cannot figure out how the high cards position in the remaining 2 decks of the 8 deck 75%penetration can be better positioned than the high cards in the remaining 2 decks of the 4 deck 50% penetration

chessplayer said:

Despite deep thinking, I cannot figure out how the high cards position in the remaining 2 decks of the 8 deck 75%penetration can be better positioned than the high cards in the remaining 2 decks of the 4 deck 50% penetration

Click to expand...

Well we discussed this in chat, but you'd like a posting so here goes . . .

The fact of the matter is that you're right in a way. The position of the cards left would be the same assuming the same TC in both games. But what you're asking isn't what's important about penetration.

What's important is how often you're hitting that +4 before you hit those two decks and the shoe is over. Obviously in an 8 deck game you'd have 6 whole decks to either wong or ride out a longer positive shoe. In a 4 deck game with 2 decks cut off shortly after reaching an advantage it will be taken away with a shuffle.

So I think what you aren't thinking of is the frequency of the true count. How often does it happen comparatively in the two cases? I think this is what you're asking, but I assume SOH is coming in here behind me to one up me with a better answer for you :whip:

chessplayer said:

First of all I can understand the concept of penetration. For instance, a TC of +1 can be better than ,say, +4 because if there is little group of cards left, the +1 cards will much likely be up next , as compared to +4 if there are a lot of cards left. The high TC of +4 can still mean the high cards can be anywhere in the deck left.

Click to expand...

TC does not tell you how many decks remain. A TC of +1 or +4 can have 5 decks remaining or .5 decks remaining. It also does not tell you where the cards are, it tells you the average composition of the decks that remain. It is just as possible for the good cards to be next in line as behind the cut card. This is true for any TC.

However, I have problems seeing how the concept of penetration is better than the concept of cards left. For instance, Say if we have 8 decks with 75% penetration. It means only 2 decks are left. 75% here is said to be a good penetration. However, if we compare it to 4 decks with 50% penetration, the cards left are the same but the 4 decks at 50% is a supposedly lousy penetration.

Despite deep thinking, I cannot figure out how the high cards position in the remaining 2 decks of the 8 deck 75%penetration can be better positioned than the high cards in the remaining 2 decks of the 4 deck 50% penetration

Click to expand...

The % penetration is fairly important because with more cards dealt before the cut card, that means there are more chances for the RC to get really high (or really low). It has nothing to do with the position of cards. With an 8D game with 1.9 decks cut off, 317 cards will be played. If all the small and neutral cards with the least amount of big cards come out, you can get a +100 RC, giving a max of +52 TC. But in a 2D game with 1.9 decks cut off, you will be playing at most 2 hands, where the second hand will always be a -TC. While this is an extreme example, the point is that there needs to be sufficient cards to come out to generate enough variance in the RC to generate enough high TC opportunities to make your big bets and get a strong advantage.

Having read both posts, it seems Deathclutch has focused on what had gone on before

"What's important is how often you're hitting that +4 before you hit those two decks and the shoe is over. Obviously in an 8 deck game you'd have 6 whole decks to either wong or ride out a longer positive shoe. In a 4 deck game with 2 decks cut off shortly after reaching an advantage it will be taken away with a shuffle."

While Sleightofhand has focused on what to look out for BEFORE a game
"The % penetration is fairly important because with more cards dealt before the cut card, that means there are more chances for the RC to get really high (or really low). It has nothing to do with the position of cards. "



However, My puzzle is this. Say you are a Wonger. You are beside two tables. Both have a TC of +2. Both have the same number of cards remaining. However, one came from 4 decks with 2 decks already delt. The other from 8 decks with 6 decks already delt. The puzzle is which table shall I put my money on.

chessplayer said:

Having read both posts, it seems Deathclutch has focused on what had gone on before

"What's important is how often you're hitting that +4 before you hit those two decks and the shoe is over. Obviously in an 8 deck game you'd have 6 whole decks to either wong or ride out a longer positive shoe. In a 4 deck game with 2 decks cut off shortly after reaching an advantage it will be taken away with a shuffle."

While Sleightofhand has focused on what to look out for BEFORE a game
"The % penetration is fairly important because with more cards dealt before the cut card, that means there are more chances for the RC to get really high (or really low). It has nothing to do with the position of cards. "



However, My puzzle is this. Say you are a Wonger. You are beside two tables. Both have a TC of +2. Both have the same number of cards remaining. However, one came from 4 decks with 2 decks already delt. The other from 8 decks with 6 decks already delt. The puzzle is which table shall I put my money on.

Click to expand...

If the same number of decks remain and the deck penetration is the same and the RC is the same, then (assuming the rules are the same) the two games are exactly the same. Therefore, the choice would be to play the game that has better conditions. The game with more decks may be more tolerant to a wider spread. Current players at the table should also be a factor.

Also, if you are planning to continue playing, you may want to go to the 8D table, since you will probably be able to obtain a bigger advantage in the 8 decker (assuiming you can get away with more in the 8D game in terms of wonging and spread).

Nice. This answers it.

SleightOfHand said:

If the same number of decks remain and the deck penetration is the same and the RC is the same, then (assuming the rules are the same) the two games are exactly the same. Therefore, the choice would be to play the game that has better conditions. The game with more decks may be more tolerant to a wider spread. Current players at the table should also be a factor.

Also, if you are planning to continue playing, you may want to go to the 8D table, since you will probably be able to obtain a bigger advantage in the 8 decker (assuiming you can get away with more in the 8D game in terms of wonging and spread).

Click to expand...

Sadly, I have found information saying this is not the case, that they are not equal.

In Arnold's theory, the advantage of the +2,+3,+4 TC plays while the play is from the beginning till the middle of 4 decks are as follows:

+2: +0.53

+3: +0.87

+4: +1.36

+5: +1.58

http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/howtrueisyourtruecount.html



Now, the beginning of 4 decks till 2 decks have been delt is equivalent to middle of 8 decks till 6 decks have been delt.

According to here ,however, the edges are significantly higher:
http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage426.htm

+2: The Chart is difficult to read but it will be an average of the pink, light green and grey values

Significantly more than +0.5

+3: All the colours are more than one and grey almost reaches +2

+4: They appear all to be above +1.6

+5: All values over +2

From Blackjack Attack:

The "floating advantage" isn't what it's cracked up to be. Oh, it
exists all right, just as it was presented in Part 1. But, in simple tenus, it's a question of "too little, too late." Permit me to explain.

Click to expand...

Whereas it is true that, at the start of a 2deck game, for example, a true count of +2 is not as profitable as it is at the 50% (onedeck) level of the same game, and that this level, in tum, is less profitable than the +2 edge that the player has at the 75% (I II2-deck) level, a) the differences are not overly impressive, and b) none differs substantially from the "one true fits all" averaged result that most players use.

Click to expand...

The direct (and sad) consequence of this phenomenon is that there simply aren't enough occasions with the sufficient extra advantage that present themselves so as to permit the bettor to exploit these discrepancies in systematic fashion. Briefly stated, the SAFE method appears to be a waste of time that would not put enough extra money in your pocket to be worth the effort.

Click to expand...

So, yes, Chessyplayer, there is a subtle difference, but for practical purposes we don't use it when we factor in strategy for a game. If you'd like to read more it's in Blackjack Attack 3rd Addition Page 67.

chessplayer said:

Say you are a Wonger. You are beside two tables. Both have a TC of +2. Both have the same number of cards remaining. However, one came from 4 decks with 2 decks already delt. The other from 8 decks with 6 decks already delt. The puzzle is which table shall I put my money on.

Click to expand...

All things being equal, I would probably play the 4D game. The 8D game has already dealt 6 decks so they are probably going to shuffle pretty soon. It would be a waste of time (and heat) to jump in, play 2-3 rounds and walk away at the shuffle. The 4D game will deal more rounds so I will make more bets and earn more money.

As far as penetration vs. cards left, the penetration is more important because it tells you what percent of the cards will be counted. The majority of high counts come at the end of a shoe, so you want the casino to deal as deeply as possible in order to see more high counts. This thread touches on the problem of thinking in terms of cards left:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=166445

-Sonny-

Would there be more swings towards the end of the shoe? Because you can also say that a majority of your extremely low counts occur near the shuffle point as well.

How would one use this to his advantage/disadvantage? Given a TC = -3 at the beginning of the shoe, versus at the end, is one situation more important to wong out? Or are they pretty equal in terms of wonging out? It might be more able to swing positive towards the end of the shoe, or more negative...

assume_R said:

Given a TC = -3 at the beginning of the shoe, versus at the end, is one situation more important to wong out?

Click to expand...

Yes. If you Wong out early in the shoe you have given yourself the opportunity to find a better table elsewhere instead of sitting through a shoe that is not likely to improve. When you reach a negative count at the end of the shoe it is often worthwhile to keep playing since they will be shuffling soon. Blackjack Attack has a good discussion of optimal Wonging points.

-Sonny-