Aspect of the demon 6/5 game ?

[UK-21]

I understand why the 6/5 games are such a touchy subject amongst those players who see a valuable income stream they've come to know being diluted away, but not everyone who plays BJ falls into that category.

Bearing in mind another posting of mine regarding the playing time necessary before Std Dev can be overcome (200+ hours), for a typical recreational player will the Std Dev remain greater than the increase in the house edge (in which case the difference between a 6/5 game and a 3/2 game is that between gambling and gambling??)? For a recreational (amateur) counter, who won't be able to put the time in at the tables to overcome the Std Dev, would it be better to play the 6/5 SD games rather than the 3/2 ones if it means that they're likely to draw less heat and get away with bigger bet spreads, thereby overcoming the increased house edge?

I did query something similar in another thread - whether it would be more advantageous to play a 6/5 SD game heads up (or perhaps one other player) than a 3/2 6 or 8 deck shoe (perhaps at a crowded table)? I only really got one response - and that was more or less someone pulling out a crucifix and damning me to hell for even suggesting such a thing!


Newb99

 

[cardcounter0]

I'll take a stab at it. Counting under the most ideal condtions will give you a 2% advantage minus the off-the-top house edge.

So an 8 deck game with .40 house edge, theoretically a 1.6% advantage can be obtained. Make it a 6:5 game with it's close to 1% edge, and only a 1% advantage can be made.

So given a recreational player, with only a limited amount of time, do you want to spend that time making 1% on your money or 1.6%?

Bigger spread on the 6:5 game? Well, that increases variance. That means MORE hands and time are required to safely say you will be ahead. Larger variance means a bigger bankroll is required to avoid going broke in the short run until you overcome variance and hit your long run return.

Bigger bankroll requirements and bigger swings sounds like the opposite of what a recreational player would be looking for in trying to make a profit.

 

[cardcounter0]

Here is another try. Let's extend your logic of playing a lower EV game because you don't have the time to put in to overcome Std. Dev. of the higher EV game.

Someone is only going to play 10 hands of blackjack. That's it, just 10 hands and then they quit. Should they follow Basic Strategy? Basic Strategy is based on the best move to make based on millions and millions of combinations and hands. The player is going to only play 10 hands, they have 0% chance of every playing enough hands to overcome Std. Dev. and getting the increased EV results that Basic Strategy gives.

So they get dealt 11 vs a dealer's 6. Should they double down? They only have 9 more hands to play, hitting slightly increases there chance of winning (of course, they miss out on potentially winning 2 units instead of 1, which might help their bank over the next few hands). So do they have a better chance of walking away a winner after 10 hands by doubling down or hitting?

If fact, since 10 hands is such a miniscule, tiny, totally insignificent sample and the Std. Dev. is so large, should they even hit 11 vs 6? Maybe they will get lucky, not take the dealer's bust card, and win by standing on 11.

So to have the best chance of walking away a winner, should they stand, hit, or double down? Does it matter? Answer this question regarding Basic Strategy, then you can extend it to playing a lower EV game.

 

[rollem411]

I understand why the 6/5 games are such a touchy subject amongst those players who see a valuable income stream they've come to know being diluted away, but not everyone who plays BJ falls into that category.

Bearing in mind another posting of mine regarding the playing time necessary before Std Dev can be overcome (200+ hours), for a typical recreational player will the Std Dev remain greater than the increase in the house edge (in which case the difference between a 6/5 game and a 3/2 game is that between gambling and gambling??)? For a recreational (amateur) counter, who won't be able to put the time in at the tables to overcome the Std Dev, would it be better to play the 6/5 SD games rather than the 3/2 ones if it means that they're likely to draw less heat and get away with bigger bet spreads, thereby overcoming the increased house edge?

I did query something similar in another thread - whether it would be more advantageous to play a 6/5 SD game heads up (or perhaps one other player) than a 3/2 6 or 8 deck shoe (perhaps at a crowded table)? I only really got one response - and that was more or less someone pulling out a crucifix and damning me to hell for even suggesting such a thing!


Newb99

Never going to work...A great deal of your profits come from blackjacks, so you will never be able to overcome a 6/5 game. Even a 1:20 spread is no good and you would never get away with it.

 

[UK-21]

Thanks for that Cardcounter0. By taking the example of playing just 10 hands, the answer is of course (to my mind) to play BS and keep your fingers crossed. And if recreational players do that, although there is along term negative EV, they will still be playing a game with the lowest edge in the house and where the short term swings may leave them up on the deal.

On comparing playing SD 6/5 heads up, and a crowded 3/2 6-deck table, I' m still not entirely convinced that the latter would provide an automatic better game. Playing the SD game could mean playing 50%-75% more hands, thereby having 50-75% more winners and 50-75% more BJs (albeit they aren't paid out at full odds). The advantage would shift back and forth more frequently, and when it came the player's way they wouldn't have to share the cards with other players. True, a bigger shift is needed to overcome the increased house edge - I don't have Mr Snyder's charts to refer to so I'd be interested to know the frequency of a TC+3 count in SD as opposed to a TC+1 with a shoe. Can anyone help?

It of course makes sense to always choose the better game when all things are equal (why do people play double-zero roulette when they can play a table with a single zero close by?), but as a combination of differing factors affect the EV of a BJ game, simply comparing off-the-top house edges (minus average AP gain) is a somewhat simplistic comparison. It would be useful if Mr Snyder could add the "Blackjack pays 6/5" within his profit index calculation table as a means of assessing this.

That's really the crux of my question - is playing SD 6/5 ALWAYS the worst option? On the surface it may seem so, but I'm still to be convinced.

Thanks again. Apologies if I'm trying anyone's patience by raising this again.

Newb99

 

[cardcounter0]

if you accept that the best strategy for playing 10 hands is to play BS then:

"Playing the SD game could mean playing 50%-75% more hands"

You have to accept that this is not an advantage. Playing a larger number of hands against a game with a larger -EV is bad. Playing fewer hands at a lower -EV has to be the better option.

"the frequency of a TC+3 count in SD as opposed to a TC+1 with a shoe"

You are ignoring the other side of the coin. If SD TC+3 is more frequent than a shoe TC+1, then it follows the SD TC-3 is also more frequent. In fact, the negative counts occur slightly more often.

After all, the game has a higher house edge, that can't be possible if the count shows an advantage more often. The higher the house edge, then the more often negative non-advantage situations have to occur. The house edge has to come from someplace.

The other thing you are overlooking is that in a 6:5 game the +3 count is not as valuable as in the shoe game. A positive count indicates a higher likelyhood of getting Aces and Faces, and the advantage to that is in a large part based on getting Blackjacks. If you aren't getting paid properly on those blackjacks, then the +3 increased likelyhood doesn't do much for you.

Remember -- if the house paid even money on blackjacks -- and 6:5 is pretty damm close to even money -- it adds 2% to the house edge. That exceeds what you can overcome by counting. Getting 20x more hands per hour, or sometimes you get a big advantage (and just as often get a slightly even bigger disadvantage) isn't going to help make things better.

OF COURSE:

You might find an 8 deck shoe game with poor pen, only double down on 10 or 11, no double after split, etc. where the 6:5 game would be a better option, but the correct answer would be DON'T PLAY EITHER GAME.

 

[Kasi]

Someone is only going to play 10 hands of blackjack. That's it, just 10 hands and then they quit. Should they follow Basic Strategy? Basic Strategy is based on the best move to make based on millions and millions of combinations and hands. The player is going to only play 10 hands, they have 0% chance of every playing enough hands to overcome Std. Dev. and getting the increased EV results that Basic Strategy gives.

Any player, BS and AP alike, always has the same chance to be 1 stan dev ahead of EV. That's the definition of 1 stan dev. It doesn't matter how many hands they play.

So, if a flat-betting BS player finishes 3 or more units up in 10 hands, he's probably about 1 stand dev ahead. This will happen 1 out of 6 times to every BS player playing 10 hands.

 

[Kasi]

I don't have Mr Snyder's charts to refer to so I'd be interested to know the frequency of a TC+3 count in SD as opposed to a TC+1 with a shoe. Can anyone help?

A TC+3 will never occur in a SD game using hi-low and flooring and quarter-deck estimation.

That's really the crux of my question - is playing SD 6/5 ALWAYS the worst option?

Of course not.

Happy now?

May you know when it is and when it isn't

 

[sagefr0g]

A TC+3 will never occur in a SD game using hi-low and flooring and quarter-deck estimation.

i know your right but where am i wrong?
rc=12
12/4 = 3 tc = 3 no?
maybe i didn't floor? maybe i don't know how to figure quarter deck estimation tc?

 

[cardcounter0]

I ignored the specific example of +3 and the anomoly of +3 not occuring in single deck.

The question and answer is what is the frequency of count X occuring in 6/5 SD vs a Shoe Y count and the answer remains the same:

The count of X in 6/5 does not represent as large of an advantage as it does in a standard 3/2 BJ game, and a positive count of X will be outweighed by a more frequent negative count of X (and corresponding negative counts will occur more freqently in the 6/5 game, hence the higher house edge).

 

[Kasi]

i know your right but where am i wrong?
rc=12 12/4 = 3 tc = 3 no?
maybe i didn't floor? maybe i don't know how to figure quarter deck estimation tc?

Spare me that "I know your're right" stuff. You never do, cause I ain't. Just remember that :grin:

And, no, before you ask, I've never said that to my wife lol. Of course she's never actually said that in the first place either :grin:

Although, overall, maybe I do prefer it compared to just asking for a fact-checker on aisle 5 lmao.

Anyway, for example, with quarter-deck estimation and flooring TC's and a RC of +2, if you estimate there are 3 one-quarter decks remaining, you would divide 2 by 3/4 and get 2.66 TC. That would floor, or truncate, to TC+2. If the RC were +3 instead of +2, then 3/.75=TC+4.

Likewise, you will never get a TC +7 either under these assumptions lol.

 

[sagefr0g]

Spare me that "I know your're right" stuff. You never do, cause I ain't. Just remember that :grin:

And, no, before you ask, I've never said that to my wife lol. Of course she's never actually said that in the first place either :grin:

Although, overall, maybe I do prefer it compared to just asking for a fact-checker on aisle 5 lmao.

Anyway, for example, with quarter-deck estimation and flooring TC's and a RC of +2, if you estimate there are 3 one-quarter decks remaining, you would divide 2 by 3/4 and get 2.66 TC. That would floor, or truncate, to TC+2. If the RC were +3 instead of +2, then 3/.75=TC+4.

Likewise, you will never get a TC +7 either under these assumptions lol.

wow that's other worldly for a six and eight deck player that figures tc by dividing by full decks unseen.
so for my example the true count is actually 48 going by quarter deck estimation. a tc of 48 good God. mind boggling. unheard of in a six or eight deck game but i guess unheard of in a single deck game as well.
so i think i see the math for the tc = 3 anomolie. so i guess that means if you set up a sim to go by quarter deck estimation for a single deck game the tc=3 wouldn't even show up? think i'll try and run a sim like that for the heck of it.
don't wifes usually tell us you know i'm right? lmao

edit: ok so tc=3 hardly shows at all tiny fraction and tc=7 is non existant.
hmmph learn somethin new every day round here.

 

[Kasi]

so i guess that means if you set up a sim to go by quarter deck estimation for a single deck game the tc=3 wouldn't even show up?

It won't. It can't. It's not possible. Neither will a TC +7. If you use Hi-Lo. And nearest quarter-deck estimation. And floor. Or truncate. Same thing in + counts.

With an RC +12, and you estimate one quarter-deck remaining, TC=+48. With an estimate of 3 one-quarter decks remaining, TC=+16.

 

[sagefr0g]

It won't. It can't. It's not possible. Neither will a TC +7. If you use Hi-Lo. And nearest quarter-deck estimation. And floor. Or truncate. Same thing in + counts.

With an RC +12, and you estimate one quarter-deck remaining, TC=+48. With an estimate of 3 one-quarter decks remaining, TC=+16.

this is crazy looking at the sim i mean cause look at tc = 5 frequency seems unusually small and tc 9 frequency is so tiny but tc 10 frequency is realtively large. and tc 8 frequency is bigger than tc 6 frequency.
tc 2 frequency larger than tc 1 frequency???
is that all maybe this math thing you were explaining.

 

[Kasi]

edit: ok so tc=3 hardly shows at all tiny fraction and tc=7 is non existant.hmmph learn somethin new every day round here.

Hey maybe I'm learning something new too.

Told you so lmao.

Just don't tell my wife :grin:

After your sim, thinking further about it, and, you know, recognizing that sims might even possibly be the final arbiter above my stupid-ass thinking, let me look into my crystal ball and guess this was a heads-up game vs dealer in your sim.

With you and at least one other player(s) at the table, it will never happen. Should have added that assumption too lmao.

If your sim was heads-up, which is the only thing I can see that would make it possible, could you re-run it with 2 (or more) players (and dealer) and see if it's zero then?

If it's not then, I really do need a fact-checker on aisle 5 :grin:

 

[sagefr0g]

Hey maybe I'm learning something new too.

Told you so lmao.

Just don't tell my wife :grin:

After your sim, thinking further about it, and, you know, recognizing that sims might even possibly be the final arbiter above my stupid-ass thinking, let me look into my crystal ball and guess this was a heads-up game vs dealer in your sim.

With you and at least one other player(s) at the table, it will never happen. Should have added that assumption too lmao.

If your sim was heads-up, which is the only thing I can see that would make it possible, could you re-run it with 2 (or more) players (and dealer) and see if it's zero then?

If it's not then, I really do need a fact-checker on aisle 5 :grin:

lmao your starting to scare me again. your right it was one player and here is one with two players. the tc=3 magically disapears.
isle check on lane 5:

 

[Kasi]

the tc=3 magically disapears.

Thanks Wise One for taking everything one step further to convince yourself and helping me in the process. Needed the confirmation lol.

The reason is you could have RC+3 with 6 or fewer cards dealt heads-up while the denominator would still be 4 one-fourth decks (aka 1) lol. After 7 cards dealt, the denominator is .75.

So TC+3 can't happen with 2 or more players (I'm pretty sure) lol.

 

[Kasi]

this is crazy looking at the sim i mean cause look at tc = 5 frequency seems unusually small and tc 9 frequency is so tiny but tc 10 frequency is realtively large. and tc 8 frequency is bigger than tc 6 frequency.
tc 2 frequency larger than tc 1 frequency???
is that all maybe this math thing you were explaining.

Small or large compared to what? You pick your game, choose your assumptions and it is what it is.

Truncate everything and TC=0 suddenly has a huge range.

Choose exact card estimation or half-deck estimation if you want. Sure the frequencies will change at each TC but so will the adv and stand dev at each TC so that, ultimately, the overall game might not really change that much after all.

Let's not even get into indexes and whether or not they also are calculated under the same assumptions as your TC

But, you know, ideally, they would be. Except then you'd have to learn a whole new set of index tables each time lol. OK, only a few would probably change lol.

 

[sagefr0g]

Thanks Wise One for taking everything one step further to convince yourself and helping me in the process. Needed the confirmation lol.

The reason is you could have RC+3 with 6 or fewer cards dealt heads-up while the denominator would still be 4 one-fourth decks (aka 1) lol. After 7 cards dealt, the denominator is .75.

So TC+3 can't happen with 2 or more players (I'm pretty sure) lol.

what ever. i'm gonna think about all this after i sober up. lmao.
so but what's really bothering me about all this is well it's messy. the sim values for the tc's are messy, it's messy dividing by fractions and estimating quarter decks is messy. but what really bothers me is cause i've started playing double deck games and i've just been going by full decks like how i did with six and eight deck games. so but i'm getting the unhappy feeling that maybe going by full decks in a double deck game isn't so good?. thing is the dam games have the cut card nearly 50% pen anyway. so i've just been looking at it as if just dividing the rc by two was ok. i don't think i'd like this dividing by quarter decks thing. no i know i wouldn't like it. lmao. well really i'm just doing the fuzzy count thing anyway. like back when ever i think you said the fuzzy approach might not be as bad for double deck. back when you asked if i'd ever tryed the games in Reno or Tahoe or something.

 

[sagefr0g]

Small or large compared to what? You pick your game, choose your assumptions and it is what it is.

.....

well like for the 2 player sim image. the tc freq for tc=2 is 7.47% and the tc freq for tc = 4 (lmao cause tc=3 doesn't exist) is 7.16% .
that's like notin i've seen in the six and eight deck worlds lol.
but the advantage for the tc =2 is 1.62%
the advantage for the tc =4 is 2.64%
so but the weird thing is you get the better 2.64% advantage almost as often as the crappier 1.62% advantage.
so but anyway where you ask small or large compared to what? look at the sim i put up for the one on one single deck game.
tc=1 the frequency is 5.65% ie. small
tc=2 the frequency is 8.61% ie larger comparatively speaking.
but not just larger it's from what i'm used to looking at for six and eight deck games out of whack. i mean for the six and eight deck games you might expect the orders at which those frequencies mentioned above present to be switched. such as tc=1 & freq 8.61% then tc=2 & freq 5.65%....
no big deal it's just looks weird to me.