Bet Spread when count changes in one hand

[Boarding]

Ok,

So, I am still studying and learning after my 600 unit win during my first experience. How I did that - I to this day don't know. Luck had a big part to do with it, combined with some good play, and 'sorta' counting.

Looking back I wasn't able to really stay with the count well through an entire 6 shoe deck. At times I could, at times I couldn't. So, looking back, I think what I was doing was 'clump' counting. i.e. if there were 20 cards on the table and the count would change say 5 pts or so towards player-advantage. I would spread. Seemed to work, some.

Is there a known technique for such a thing? It intuitively makes sense to me that for every 15 cards played, the count should change about 1 pt towards player favor... if it changes more. We have the advantage?

No?

Boarding....

 

[The Mayor]

No

>It intuitively makes sense to me that for every 15 cards played, the count should change about 1 pt towards player favor...

No. This is not the case. In fact, the True count tends to stay the same (the "True Count Theorem").

>if it changes more. We have the advantage?

You have the advantage when the TC says you do, and at no other time (unless you are using some other advantage technique, like shuffle tracking). If you had la imited experience where you couldn't keep track of the count but you won anyway, be happy and go study/practice some more.

>No?

You are correct. "No"

--Mayor

 

[Boarding]

This is statistics no?

Mayor,

Thanks for the quick response, and with your knowledge of mathmetics I am almost wondering why I am writing this, but hell... here goes...

When calculating advantage - what sample size is used? If in fact, these advantages are calculated using a number approaching infinity, then we are accepting the mathmatical deviations when applying these figures to say some percentage of a 6 deck shoe. Those unused cards over time, or large enough sample, would behave as the other side of the shoe - i.e a normal progression towards a count of +4 per 52 cards.

If we are tracking counts to bet on the remaining cards in say a 300 deck shoe, we are accepting the known limitations of this.

Why does it not apply equally by simply takeing this sampling method down to two hands of play. I realize that this severly limits the probability of success do to the much great number of cards remaining in the deck. However, we are calulating advantage of 'decks of cards' when we count. Can not the same method be used to calculate 'hands of cards'. With perfect play, it would intuitively appear so. The limitation is here assuming that all remaining cards would average to +4/52 cards as they remain normally distributed in the deck.

However, it does not appear to be mathmatically irrelevant...

I am guessing that it is, but ... hell.. had to type this anyways...

Am I completely in left field?

and by the way, I am still practicing and reading and getting much much better!

Thanks for the site.

Boarding...

 

[The Mayor]

response

>When calculating advantage - what sample size is used?

There are three methods to determine advantage. One is combinatorically, this does not require a sample size. The second is by simulation, in this case the sample size depends on the "standard error" you are working with. The third way is practically, in a casino environment. In this case, it is based on the cumulative experience of the advantage community.

>If in fact, these advantages are calculated using a number approaching infinity,

The numbers 2 and 10000000 are equally close to infinity.

>- i.e a normal progression towards a count of +4 per 52 cards.

I don't know what count you are using, but the normal Hi-Lo count is balanced, so it tends towards a RC and TC of 0 per 52 cards.

>If we are tracking counts to bet on the remaining cards in say a 300 deck shoe, we are accepting the known limitations of this.

I don't know what you mean by "known limitations"

>Why does it not apply equally by simply takeing this sampling method down to two hands of play.

The theory only applies to the current hand being played, that is the only time you can apply the theory, to the current hand.

>The limitation is here assuming that all remaining cards would average to +4/52 cards as they remain normally distributed in the deck.

Again, I don't know what count you are using, but the game does NOT tend towards a player's advantage over the house. If it did, you can be sure that the rules would be changed.

>Am I completely in left field?

Sorry, but yes, I think you are.

>and by the way, I am still practicing and reading and getting much much better!

That's the thing to do. Best wishes for your success, but be patient.

--Mayor

 

[Sohrab]

I think

he is using the unbalanced KO count, which rises as the dealer deals average cards.

But you start this count negative and you have advantage if count rises faster than average would be.

 

[Boardingbetter]

You are correct - KO

You are correct all the way around...

If the count rises faster than 1 pt / 13 cards - do we no have an advantage?

Boarding?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Tough question for Mayor

(Well at least it's tough for me)

"Again, I don't know what count you are using, but the game does NOT tend towards a player's advantage over the house. If it did, you can be sure that the rules would be changed."

It's not intuitive though. Let's say you were playing a 6 deck game with liberal Strip rules, and the dealer was dealing down below one deck. And let's say when he gets down to the 1 deck point, the TC is 0.

Now a person who has a basic understanding of BJ math would say "Ah yes. We are now playing a single deck game, and if you were to play a single deck game with all the liberal Strip rules, the player has an advantage." And if that last deck had the normal distribution of a standard 52 card deck, that would be correct.

On the other hand, my common sense tells me this- if at the beginning of the shoe, the dealer were to grab any 52 cards at random out of the shoe, throw the rest away, and say "OK we're going to play single deck.", the advantage of the next hand would be the same as it would be for 6 deck shoe. This is because you don't get the strong removal effect you do in single deck because of the likelihood of there being more than 4 of certain cards in that pack. In reality we don't know what the advantage is because we don't know what the cards are and that pack could very well be played with an advantage for the player. But being the TC of those cards will be centered on 0, we know the average advantage will be the same as TC=0 in 6D and that is an advantage for the house.

However if you have dealt down to the last deck and the TC is 0, you probably have something pretty close to a standard 52 card deck, at least closer than a random handful of 52 cards would be, with a TC ranging from plus to minus anything. So I believe that the advantage will be tending towards the player as cards are dealt, only in this particular situation, because as decks decrease, the slope of advantage as a function of TC increases, but so does the Y-intercept. I'd love to be proven wrong!

 

[Seeker]

Referring tough question to a book...

Specifically, Blackjack Attack by Don Schlesinger. He discusses the "floating advantage" -- the phenomenon that the player is better off at a true count of 0 with one deck left in a shoe than at the start of the shoe, even thought the true count is the same in both cases.

The subject is interesting, but of little practical importance. You'll seldom find a shoe game that's dealt to the very deep levels that would make the floating advantage a significant consideration in bet sizing.

 

[The Mayor]

Not so tough...

>It's not intuitive though. Let's say you were playing a 6 deck game with liberal Strip rules, and the dealer was dealing down below one deck. And let's say when he gets down to the 1 deck point, the TC is 0.

Isn't this known as the floating advantage? Didn't Don Schlesinger prove that as you deal deeper into the deck, your advantage occured at a lower TC? And in a 6 deck shoe, if you have a TC=0 between 5.25 and 5.50 decks dealt, you have the edge!

I knew this subtlety when I replied to the original writer, but it did not seem reasonable to cover the Floating Advantage in reply to his original questions, as he appears to be having a tough time understanding basic KO.

>So I believe that the advantage will be tending towards the player as cards are dealt, only in this particular situation, because as decks decrease, the slope of advantage as a function of TC increases, but so does the Y-intercept. I'd love to be proven wrong!

I don't think you can be proven wrong because you are right. See Chapter 6 of Blackjack Attack (2nd Edition).

--Mayor

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Thanks!

That explains it... I've never read a blackjack book. It's more fun to figure these things out on my own, and no chance of me reading something and not understanding it that way.