BoSox said:
The player’s advantage as a function of TC should not differ very much from a 6-deck shoe to an 8-deck shoe; however, the variance for an 8-deck should be a lot larger. This means the 0.77 factor cannot be generalized from 6-deck to 8-deck shoes. I lost a lot of money playing 8-decks and thus am looking for tricks to improve my skills. Thank you in advance.moraine said:
These much I know:aceside said:
The advantage per TC doesn't change much but the true count frequencies change greatly from 8 deck to 6 deck (or the other way), which can make the profitability much, greater or less depending on which way you are going 6 deck to 8 deck or 8 deck to 6 deck. When I moved to Las Vegas over a decade ago, I was actually stunned at the difference after playing mostly 8 deck in Atlantic city for 5+ years. Of course you can verify or even just understand this easily with either software or Don's book.aceside said:
I understand your being stunned at Las Vegas, but I have slightly different views on this part. I believe the true count frequency is a minor cause for not beating 8-decks, but the variance introduced by added cards is the main cause. The TC frequency is determined by the number of unplayed cards behind the cut card. For 8-decks, there are often two decks of unplayed cards, causing a narrower frequency distribution, as compared to 6-decks with 1.5 decks of unplayed cards. Most of my big losses in 8-decks were in those situations when the running counts were still as high as +24 but the shoes were finished. I incorrectly gambled on the number of aces and ten valued cards behind the cut card.KewlJ said:
Your analysis is exactly opposite from the mathematical truth. You even mention a "narrower frequency distribution" for the eight-deck game, which is correct. But, somehow, you then interpret that to imply greater variance, when, in fact, just the opposite is true. If all the true counts are squeezed into a narrower width, then there is clearly LESS variance. To take it to the absurd, suppose all the true count could ever be was -1, 0, or +1. Results and bet sizes would hardly vary at all! It's precisely because, with fewer decks, there is a wider distribution of true counts that the variance for these games is, obviously, greater.aceside said:
Absurd, but not THAT far off unfortunately. Maybe more like -3 to +3. with an occasional +4's occurring just before the shuffle. I didn't understand it at the time, but these 8 deck games with mediocre penetration, resulting in minimal higher true count frequencies at the higher counts and less variance, is why someone like me with a small bankroll was able to survive Atlantic City, especially my first couple years. Game was just enough to have a tiny advantage, especially escaping some of the negative counts, while minimizing variance. The variance that I routinely see today, would have wiped me out 10 times, during those first 2 years. And I was blind to it at the time.DSchles said:
Yes, I am aware Don gave a hypothetical example. One which he prefaced with "absurd". I was just pointing out that sadly that "absurd" isn't that far off for those crappy 8 deck games.BoSox said:
I can't tell if you are being sincere or not, so will give you the benefit of doubt. Yes, I am guilty of using "variance" in a looser manner, to describe negative losses or runs. I do this because I participate on several forums that not all are educated card counters. So when I describe an extended period of losing, which can be months a time for me, 40, 50 thousand rounds, dropping 30, 40 thousands dollars (usually with a slow recovery), I almost always get questions like why are you losing if playing with an advantage. So I try to express that this kind of swing is very "normal", well within several standard deviations and I have taken to describing it as normal variance in that effort, which of course is different from that mathematical definition of variance.moraine said:
Seemingly we are talking about two different variances. You are talking about the global variance on total EV for a card counter when flat betting all the way through the shoe, and I agree with you that it will decrease as the deck number increases. However, I am talking about the instantaneous local variance that I use to adjust my bet amount at that moment. The local variance varies swiftly as a 8-deck shoe is dealt out, it is a lot larger than that of 6-decks. I am still learning about Kelly. Is this correct?DSchles said: