Backcounting 8D shoes is painful!

[Kasi]

The cards are the cards and the counts are the counts, and your win rate cannot go up by placing bets in negative counts. It has to go down. So your win rate has to go up by avoiding the negative counts.

First define win rate for me.

Assuming a fixed bankroll, and a same ROR, would u rather play all hands spreading 1-16 in a 5/6 S17 game or a 5.5/6 game with a 1-8 spread?

Would u rather play a 50% DD game spreading 1-8 or a 60% DD game spreading 1-4?

In all cases you are placing bets in negative counts yet ur win rate differs.

How do those win rates compare if I wong-in at a Tc +3 with a flat-bet never playing a single hand in a negative count?

Clearly, given the right game, one can win more money playing all than another game where u never play a negative count.

The key is ur unit will change in the various games in order to keep the same ROR with the same bankroll.

 

[moo321]

Edit: never mind. Your questions were rhetorical.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The gist of BJA's argument was that if the shoe doesn't turn positive fairly early (let's say first two decks of a 6d shoe), then it's probably best to move on to another. The idea being that the odds of it getting positive with enough cards left is outweighed by the odds of finding a hot shoe elsewhere.

Unfortunately, he didn't go into too much detail in the math behind it.

Does not scan. Suppose you are backcounting an 8D shoe, two decks are dealt out, and the count remains neutral. You are now backcounting a 6D shoe. Now you have a choice of continuing to backcount that 6D shoe or going off to backcount an 8D shoe. Why would someone want to do the latter?

I suppose if you are looking at really bad pen (like 8/2.0) and you get down to 2.5 decks, there isn't much of a chance of getting a good count. But still, you're not sacrificing all that much time by watching that last half deck. Maybe if it was a really small casino and there was another shoe I saw just starting, it would be a better decision, but not after just two decks.

 

[zengrifter]

Don Schlesinger said that? I'd love to hear his reasoning.

Yes, he did say that. Late in the shoe it may be more advantageous to bail, even if its slightly positive. zg

 

[Automatic Monkey]

First define win rate for me.

Assuming a fixed bankroll, and a same ROR, would u rather play all hands spreading 1-16 in a 5/6 S17 game or a 5.5/6 game with a 1-8 spread?

Would u rather play a 50% DD game spreading 1-8 or a 60% DD game spreading 1-4?

In all cases you are placing bets in negative counts yet ur win rate differs.

How do those win rates compare if I wong-in at a Tc +3 with a flat-bet never playing a single hand in a negative count?

Clearly, given the right game, one can win more money playing all than another game where u never play a negative count.

The key is ur unit will change in the various games in order to keep the same ROR with the same bankroll.

Win rate = dollars per hour.

Of course some games play-all are going to be better than Wonging other games. But I'm talking about comparing different ways of playing one game. Given any particular game, you will always win more backcounting than playing all with a constant risk of ruin, assuming you are betting optimally in each situation. If you are not betting optimally, it's like saying "Which is better, playing all and using the correct plays for each hand, or backcounting and forgetting Basic Strategy and guessing?" The assumption is always that an AP is playing the hands correctly and using a Kelly-proportional betting system, within the constraints of a maximum and minimum bet.

 

[EasyRhino]

I suppose if you are looking at really bad pen (like 8/2.0) and you get down to 2.5 decks, there isn't much of a chance of getting a good count. But still, you're not sacrificing all that much time by watching that last half deck.

I think the "bad penetration" case is where the idea of abandoning observation early might make sense. I'm going to make up a little hypothesis, who knows it might even be right.

Would you rather count a 8D game with 1.5D cut off (heck yeah!), or a 6D game with 1.5D cut off (okay) or a 2D game with 1.5D cut off (um, no?)? If an 8D game off of the top has the count move somewhere good, there's a better chance of more opportunities throughout the shoe. Heck, it might even go positive on multiple seperate occassions. In other words, the chance of a count turning positive is about the same with any number of cards dealt, but the opportunity of that positive count is greater the more cards left.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I think the "bad penetration" case is where the idea of abandoning observation early might make sense. I'm going to make up a little hypothesis, who knows it might even be right.

Would you rather count a 8D game with 1.5D cut off (heck yeah!), or a 6D game with 1.5D cut off (okay) or a 2D game with 1.5D cut off (um, no?)? If an 8D game off of the top has the count move somewhere good, there's a better chance of more opportunities throughout the shoe. Heck, it might even go positive on multiple seperate occassions. In other words, the chance of a count turning positive is about the same with any number of cards dealt, but the opportunity of that positive count is greater the more cards left.

With pen to 1.5, the 6D game would be better than 8D and also better than 4D. It's kind of a funny looking graph, not linear at all. That's why a simulator is so important; it's hard to believe these things until you see them.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

With pen to 1.5, the 6D game would be better than 8D and also better than 4D. It's kind of a funny looking graph, not linear at all. That's why a simulator is so important; it's hard to believe these things until you see them.

Ah OK, putting this together with post #23 in this thread provides the answer.

So if you are backcounting 8D (which I usually am, and how this thread started), pen is 1.5D, and you are neutral at 6D, you are better off remaining, but if you get down to 4D it is starting to turn around again. But if the pen is 1.0D or less, the game is still getting better with a neutral count at 4D. However 2D/1.0 pen sucks.

So it all depends on the penetration. For each level of penetration, there is an ideal number of initial decks and a point in the shoe where the value of a neutral count is equivalent to a new shoe. I'd bet QFIT already has these graphs, but he's pissed at us so I'll work them out myself.

 

[21forme]

Why is QFIT pissed at us? Did I miss something?

 

[ScottH]

Why is QFIT pissed at us? Did I miss something?

He got into a big argument with CrapsMaster. He got mad and left.

 

[21forme]

That's too bad. Guess I missed it because I skipped most of the Crapsmaster crap.

Norm, please come back.

 

[ScottH]

That's too bad. Guess I missed it because I skipped most of the Crapsmaster crap.

Norm, please come back.

You better email him, since he said he wouldn't read the forums much anymore.