7 7 vs 8

[DSchles]

Is a new book in the works that will publish these 123 ranked indices? Maybe BJA4

Yes. No!

Don

 

[moraine]

Please stop with the "imbecile" reference. Let's just try to have a respectful sharing of ideas, for a change.

***
So I would steer clear of that concept of "pre-set" bet spread. Try to figure out, through experience what YOU can play for each situation. That will be YOUR optimal spread and it will differ from what a computer tells you is optimal spread. It also will increase what I "loosely" call variance", more accurately normal swings. So a player with concerns over that and not willing to trade that off, probably should dismiss everything I say and go back to the cookie cutter approach.

Thank you for your detailed response to a real life betting situation. I used the example of $30,000 bankroll at a $10-to-$500 table to illustrate the possible shortcomings of the traditional "bet-spread/betting ramp" approach. Under that traditional approach, the player will probably bet $10 or 15 at Hi-Lo TC 1 or below, and increase by about $100 or $125 per every increment of 1 TC until the table max of $500 is reached at TC 5. The bet spread is then 1-to-50, not 1-to-12 or even 1-to-18 that people normally assumed for blackjack shoe games.

Is a 1-to-50 bet spread totally infeasible/insane? NOT REALLY. I have seen players (may or may not be card counters) got away with something even wilder, that is, either the table max or the table minimum: POLE VAULTING ONLY, NO BETTING RAMP AT ALL.

 

[KewlJ]

Thank you for your detailed response to a real life betting situation. I used the example of $30,000 bankroll at a $10-to-$500 table to illustrate the possible shortcomings of the traditional "bet-spread/betting ramp" approach. Under that traditional approach, the player will probably bet $10 or 15 at Hi-Lo TC 1 or below, and increase by about $100 or $125 per every increment of 1 TC until the table max of $500 is reached at TC 5. The bet spread is then 1-to-50, not 1-to-12 or even 1-to-18 that people normally assumed for blackjack shoe games.

Is a 1-to-50 bet spread totally infeasible/insane? NOT REALLY. I have seen players (may or may not be card counters) got away with something even wilder, that is, either the table max or the table minimum: POLE VAULTING ONLY, NO BETTING RAMP AT ALL.

What a peculiar post. Pretty much demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the game within the game of card counting and casino tolerance and evaluations works.

You say you have seen players who may not be card counting get away with wild spreads upwards of table max. But of course! Likely an evaluation was done determining that they are not solely moving money with the count, in which case these players are not only welcome, but the casino loves them. You haven't seen players that you know an evaluation was done and failed that evaluation "get way" with what you describe though have you?

Secondly, unless a player sits and plays a long session, any heat and countermeasures from an evaluation usually occurs on subsequent visits. It is often the next or a subsequent visit that the player sits down plays about 3 hands, and gets the tap before even raising their bet. So unless you have witnessed a player spreading wildly, that you believe was moving money with the count and followed him on follow up visits, don't tell us about anybody "getting away" with anything. You have no idea what is happening.

Look, I don't know what kind of player you are, professional, semi-professional, serious recreational, or just a recreationally red chip player. From the knowledge you are showing, I am guessing not professional, But whether a player is a recreational players with a couple local casinos that he plays, or have a greater number of casinos in his regular rotation, or even is constantly traveling to new games, A player is just not going to survive long in this day and age, with a 1-50 spread, as you describe. Casinos will do an evaluation with those spreads and even if a player has a large rotation of games (as I do) or travels a lot, that information (and backoffs) will follow him.

You will note, the highlighted "as described" above, because it is possible to play with a large spread, and achieve some sort of longevity, if that large spread is the result of spreading both ways, which I have already discussed. Then it becomes harder to see the full spread in one sitting. But to just use the old traditional spread of say sitting down at a table and betting $10 and spreading up to a max bet of $500....it isn't even that you will have a short career, you won't really have a career....it will be that quick. (and I use "career" not meaning full-time player, just you blackjack playing career, at whatever level you are trying to play).

One of the problems with a 1-50 type spread, is that you are always spreading 3-4 different colors chips and that gets noticed. A very successful player once told me only spread 2 colors and that has severed me well for my 12 years living and playing in Las Vegas. So if I am max betting at $400 or so as I talked about earlier, I spread $25 or $50 to $400. That is two colors! If I am playing a higher max like $600 or $800 bet where they will pay me in purple, I start out with a first bet of $100. That is a spread of 2 colors! And even if I spread both ways and drop my wager to $50, later spreading to $800, that is 3 colors, BUT someone (pit or EITS) would need to see both ends of spread (negative counts to max bet) in the same shoe to see all 3 colors and like I said, that rarely happens.

But that is just me....what do I know. Please spread your 1-50 through 3-4 colors and tell us how that goes as far as longevity.

 

[KewlJ]

Just a little add on about playing more than 2 color chips. If a player is sitting there with a stack of red chips, a stack of green chips, a stack (even smaller) of black chips and even a couple purple and the pit critter looks at those stacks and sees him betting $15, $25, what do you think that tells the pit critter? Pit has already been tipped that the player is varying wagers wildly, without even having seen it. At that point, he will keep and eye, or request the EITS do so, to figure out if the varying is with the count or not. You have tipped them off....very needlessly. Might as well be wearing an MIT card counting T-shirt.

 

[moraine]

Just a little add on about playing more than 2 color chips. If a player is sitting there with a stack of red chips, a stack of green chips, a stack (even smaller) of black chips and even a couple purple and the pit critter looks at those stacks and sees him betting $15, $25, what do you think that tells the pit critter?

Your comments reflect a lot of traditional thinking. I don't disagree with those "CONVETIONAL WISDOM" completely, but I would add that casinos have become wiser since 1960s. Every time casinos increased the deck number (from 1 to 2, 4, 6, and then to 8 ), the card counting "job" became harder. A card counter today could not rely on the CONVENTIONAL WISDOM completely. NEED TO THINK 'OUTSIDE THE BOX".

I gave the $30,00-bankroll example. Actually if I have $50,000, I should bet the $500-table max already when the Hi-Lo TC is only about 3 or 4.. How to vary/jump bets "MORE NATURALLY" is worthy of serious discussions. A card counter's 1-to-50 bet spread can be achieved NATURALLY if the card counter has the image of being an ERRATIC PLAYER. That is why hands like 7-7 vs. 8, 9-9 vs. A, or A-A vs. A have "IMMESURABLE VALUE."

What you said about the disadvantage of having a variety of different-color chips however gave me something new to think about. Frankly I had never thought of that as a possible telltale sign. But it so happened when I decided to play the table max (most often after a sizable loss at positive counts) I would simply plop down moneys and buy and play with purple chips from then on -- hopefully till I have turned the tables on the house or till the shoe has ended.

 

[KewlJ]

if the card counter has the image of being an ERRATIC PLAYER.

That "image" is not worth what you think it is. Player evaluations are done by computer analysis. Once an evaluation is requested, your "image" or act means nothing. The results will reveal one thing.....more money being wagered at higher player advantages. You aren't going to trick the computer analysis.

That is why hands like 7-7 vs. 8, 9-9 vs. A, or A-A vs. A have "IMMESURABLE VALUE."

If you think these hands offer "Immeasurable value", well nothing really more to say. You couldn't be more wrong, but think whatever you like.

NEED TO THINK 'OUTSIDE THE BOX".

Thank you! I will try to do that.

 

[The G Man]

That is why hands like 7-7 vs. 8, 9-9 vs. A, or A-A vs. A have "IMMESURABLE VALUE."

Completely wrong and we showed it to you with numbers but you aren't listening to anybody. You put way too much value on a single (maybe 2-3) occasional play like the ones you mention. Not mentioning the over gratification you seem to giver yourself about presenting you as an "original thinker" which you are not and by far. With your reference to the 60s and the casinos adding decks, you look like a newbie trying to impress the gallery with your "half knowledge"...

With all due respect to MIT team members, they are very outdated.

I will pass on a long comment I could write about it. But this single sentence shows how far from the truth you are. You're so trapped inside that "box" that you cannot think outside of it nor will you unless you commit to serious study of the game of Blackjack.

The only concern I have when I read "self proclamed expert" like you is about all the nonsense you put on these boards for the new players who have no idea on how incompetent you are. Not much I can do, letting anybody with half a brain occupy the public space seems to be the new "fashion trend".

 

[aceside]

for a 4.5/6 S17 DAS noLS game with an optimal 1-12 Kelly spread (are you listening moraine?), these are the three least valuable plays we looked at period. 2,2 vs 8 ranks 121st out of 123 indices used, 7,7 vs 8 ranks 122nd and 3,3 vs 8 ranks 123rd.
).

It seems to me that the 2,2, vs 8 should rank below the 3,3 vs 8 in all situations, but you are saying the opposite. Can you explain? Also as I said earlier, the 7,7 vs 8 case is unique and should be taken out of the list. Comment?

 

[aceside]

Your comments reflect a lot of traditional thinking.

Do not engage in useless debates. How about we two form a Berkeley team to beat the MIT team?

 

[The G Man]

It seems to me that the 2,2, vs 8 should rank below the 3,3 vs 8 in all situations, but you are saying the opposite. Can you explain? Also as I said earlier, the 7,7 vs 8 case is unique and should be taken out of the list. Comment?

What is it that you cannot understand? This is not a "it seems to ME or you or anybody else" thing: THIS IS SIMULATIONS OF BILLIONS OF BLACKJACK HANDS. Yes, you read it correctly, not hundreds or millions, BILLIONS.

The respective global (not looking at the count) EVs for splitting these hands in a 6 decks game S17 DAS are:
22 vs 8 = -0.176735
33 vs 8 = -0.230584
77 vs 8 = -0.390516

The basic strategy is therefore to hit these hands with EVs for hitting of:
22 vs 8 = -0.156790
33 vs 8 = -0.219182
77 vs 8 = -0.377709
(See BJA3 TABLE A57)

These hands do not improved with the count, in fact they deteriorate to a point where Splitting becomes the defensive play of choice and not Hitting anymore. However, due to the frequency of these required counts (+5, +4 and +3 respectively) I showed you (as Don and Gronbog did) in previous posts that learning these play deviation is SPLITTING HAIRS.

Do you understand that Blackjack calculation is not about opinion but about mathematical facts ?

On another note, good luck with your team .... LOL

 

[aceside]

These hands do not improved with the count, in fact they deteriorate to a point where Splitting becomes the defensive

I like this part. This is what I noticed too. Have fun.

 

[moraine]

Completely wrong and we showed it to you with numbers but you aren't listening to anybody. You put way too much value on a single (maybe 2-3) occasional play like the ones you mention. Not mentioning the over gratification you seem to giver yourself about presenting you as an "original thinker" which you are not and by far. With your reference to the 60s and the casinos adding decks, you look like a newbie trying to impress the gallery with your "half knowledge"...


I will pass on a long comment I could write about it. But this single sentence shows how far from the truth you are. You're so trapped inside that "box" that you cannot think outside of it nor will you unless you commit to serious study of the game of Blackjack.

The only concern I have when I read "self proclamed expert" like you is about all the nonsense you put on these boards for the new players who have no idea on how incompetent you are. Not much I can do, letting anybody with half a brain occupy the public space seems to be the new "fashion trend".

THANKS TO YOU and TO ALL DEFENDERS OF CONVENTIONAL WISDOM OF CARD COUNTING COMMUNITY. I have no more opinions on the hands like 7-7 vs. 8 or 9-9 vs. A or A-A vs. A.
Just curious: Do you think there is any hand that might have "IMMESURABLE VALUE" other than "Illustrious 18 and Fabulous 4"? To me, they are "INFAMOUS 22" in the eye of casinos. Do you agree?

 

[johndoe]

No hand has "immeasurable value". They're all pretty easy to measure, and the ill18 does a fine job of summarizing the most important by definition.

Any effect on heat is negligible.

 

[moraine]

Per dictionary, "IMMEASURABLE" IS NOT NECESSARILY "UNQUANTIFIABLE". Some indices, such as INSURANCE index has very "QUANTIFIABLE VALUE" to players, but has "IMMESURABLE VALUE" to casinos, because they can use it TO IDENTIFY card counters. Some other indices, such as 14 vs. 2 index, has "IMMESURABLE VALUE" to players, because they can use it to pass him/herself as a rank novice blackjack to fool casino, and to "PISS OFF" other players for whatever reasons. May I also add, the "Art" part of blackjack playing is often "IMMESURABLE" while the "Science" part is often "Quantifiable."

 

[KewlJ]

, but has "IMMESURABLE VALUE" to casinos, because they can use it TO IDENTIFY card counters. Some other indices, such as 14 vs. 2 index, has "IMMESURABLE VALUE" to players, because they can use it to pass him/herself as a rank novice blackjack to fool casino

Complete rubbish. Few pit folks and/or surveillance know more than about 3 index plays. They will notice a player talking insurance sometimes and not others. They might notice a player playing 16 vs 10 differently at different times, simply because it is one of the most common hands. And of course they notice a player splitting 10's. Other than that most have no idea, so you aren't fooling anyone with these plays you are talking about. The plays you are talking about, many to most card counters don't even know the index. And it matters very little! Chasing pennies!

 

[moraine]

Complete rubbish. Few pit folks and/or surveillance know more than about 3 index plays. They will notice a player talking insurance sometimes and not others. They might notice a player playing 16 vs 10 differently at different times, simply because it is one of the most common hands. And of course they notice a player splitting 10's. Other than that most have no idea, so you aren't fooling anyone with these plays you are talking about. The plays you are talking about, many to most card counters don't even know the index. And it matters very little! Chasing pennies!

If I were a "pit critter", I could certainly identify those using the "Illustrious 18" to chase dollars, not pennies. As a card counter, I can use penny-chasing indices to "PISS OFF" traditionalists (basic strategy players and ardent believers of Illustrious 18 included). That is "IMMESURABLY VALUABLE" when TC is about to go into medium-high territory.

 

[KewlJ]

I know how to "PISS OFF" traditionalists too. That is "IMMESURABLY VALUABLE" occasionally at blackjack table when TC is about to go into medium-high territory.

You aren't pissing anyone off, just proving what most of us know, that there is no sense in trying to help anyone, because people like you are playing games and trolling, referring to several long-term successful players who have won significant money playing by the mathematics of blackjack as "traditionalist", while somehow trying to convince us that you "thinking outside the box" have discovered the real secret to blackjack and it is 3 or 4 of the very least valuable index plays, which you repeatedly describe as "immesurably valuable".... a phrase you use and misspell over and over again.

 

[moraine]

You aren't pissing anyone off, just proving what most of us know, that there is no sense in trying to help anyone, because people like you are playing games and trolling, referring to several long-term successful players who have won significant money playing by the mathematics of blackjack as "traditionalist", while somehow trying to convince us that you "thinking outside the box" have discovered the real secret to blackjack and it is 3 or 4 of the very least valuable index plays, which you repeatedly describe as "immesurably valuable".... a phrase you use and misspell over and over again.

THANKS for YOUR LECTURING and your pointing out of my need to correct the spelling of "IMME(A?)SURABLE" Please don't be pissed-off by my ignorance of CORRECT ENGLISH . May be I need to improve my English more than I need to improve my card counting knowledge in order to prove a card counting point to you here.

 

[johndoe]

Your English isn't the problem. Your gross misunderstanding of the game, and insistence on the "immeasurable" importance of clear trivialities, and unwillingness to learn from/listen to those with dramatically more knowledge and experience, is the problem.

 

[moraine]

Food for thought: Illustrative 18 vs. Full Indices; Useless vs. Immeasurable; Science vs. Art; and Experienced vs. Newbie

Is there a remote possibility that a "newbie" may bring in a NEW PERSPECTIVE that the experienced have overlooked?