zengrifter
Banned
No, he'd just start with the 6D IRC. zgScottH said:
Blackjack team mates for AC
- Thread starter PITSHIT
- Start date
With a balanced system you can just go in at any time and start at 0. But if you wong in halfway through a 6 deck game and start at the 6D IRC, I dont think that would be the same thing.zengrifter said:
With Hi-Lo, you expect the count to always be at 0, so you can assume it is 0 halfway through. But with KO, you assume that the count will go up, since in KO there are more "plus" cards. So it doesn't seem like just using the 6D IRC would work quite right.
I'm with zg on this one
Don't forget the cards in the discard tray must be considered as unplayed cards, since you haven't seen (counted) them. So, for either system, the IRC would be whatever it normally would be. Of course, for either system, the pen would be worse, to the extent of the cards already in the discard tray.
Correct!zengrifter said:
Don't forget the cards in the discard tray must be considered as unplayed cards, since you haven't seen (counted) them. So, for either system, the IRC would be whatever it normally would be. Of course, for either system, the pen would be worse, to the extent of the cards already in the discard tray.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Canceler phrased it best, knowing when to get out of the game requires deck estimation anyway. Unbalanced counts are calibrated to tell you the magnitude of your advantage, not your disadvantage. Also in an 8D game the errors that build up between the beginning and the end of the shoe can be an issue. Especially with indices like 16 vs. 10 which is no where near the pivot point. There are methods of true counting KO which makes it quite a bit stronger, but you're back to true counting.
Another really good reason to use a balanced count is that if you want to get into any kind of shuffle tracking, you don't want to even attempt it with unbalanced.
Another really good reason to use a balanced count is that if you want to get into any kind of shuffle tracking, you don't want to even attempt it with unbalanced.
I still think you would need to use an adjusted IRC, due to the fact that you dont expect the IRC to remain constant throughout the shoe, like you expect the TC to remain at 0 throughout the shoe.Canceler said:
You can assume the TC is 0 jumping in a shoe, but you don't expect the count to be the same as the IRC. Do you get what I'm saying? There are more "plus" cards with KO, so you expect the RC to be higher than the IRC when somewhere in the middle of the shoe.
So basically if you jumped in and used the IRC you would be underestimating the expected RC and would be waiting too long to raise your bet. Add that to the worsened penetration, and it's not a good deal.
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
I would think that the simple cut-off tracking I do would be quite ok for KO or the ilk. zgAutomatic Monkey said:
Once in a while I get to a shoe after one or two hands have been dealt. I just start my IRC where I would have started anyway, thinking of the played cards as cutting the pen. from say 75% to 70%. If there's anything more than 1/2 a deck already played, I just find another shoe to count.ScottH said:
I started counting with KO and have been doing well with it. However, every time I read a thread like this, I wonder if I should switch to Hi Lo. The only deck estimation I've done is the first few decks, to wong out on negative counts. I don't seem to have a problem with it.
Where I play (AC - 6 deck), the tables that permit midshoe entry have machine shuffling at the end of the shoe. Hand shuffling is only done at tables where there is NMS.
So, the big question is would there be enough of an advantage to make it worthwhile to switch if shuffle tracking isn't in the cards? (pun intended)
Valid assumption?
Granted, the reduced penetration won't give you much chance to raise your bet.
On average, this would be correct. But we aren't talking about averages, we're talking about this particular shoe, which may be wildly unaverage. We don't know. Rather than assume anything, the only way to have completely accurate information would be to start at the 6D IRC.ScottH said:
Granted, the reduced penetration won't give you much chance to raise your bet.
Meeting "Normal" people in AC should be no problem. Sounds like you're on the right track. Keep written records and spend some time daily writing about your experiences, where the best comps are, best pen, most favorable games, etc.PITSHIT said:
After spending so much time with Zen no wonder you're having trouble discerning what a "normal" person is :laugh: Try the Spanish tables at the Plaza - nice rules.
On average is key though. If you wong in with a TC system you start at 0 because that is the average count through the shoe, but the average count through the shoe in a RC system is not the IRC.Canceler said:
Starting at 0 with a TC system you could say the same thing, that shoe probably isnt the average shoe, the count may be negative or positive. Since you don't know what it really is, you assume that it is the average count for the amount of cards dealt. In an unbalanced count, the average count for 1 deck dealt would be different than the average count after 2 decks dealt. The average count through the whole shoe using a TC bases system is always 0. But using a RC system the average count INCREASES as more cards are dealt, due to the fact that there are more "plus" cards. So you actually expect the RC to increase as cards are played.
I think I have a point. If you don't take it into account, you not only have to deal with the reduced penetration, but you are also UNDERBETTING because you are starting at a count that is, on average, too low.
Last edited:
Sonny
Well-Known Member
I understand what you guys are saying with regards to average counts in a shoe, but I look at it a little differently.
When you walk up to a partially dealt shoe, it doesn’t really matter what the average count of the used cards is because you are not considering them. You are treating it like a freshly shuffled (undealt) shoe. You are ignoring the cards that have been dealt so it doesn’t matter what their average value is. You would start out at a RC of zero for balanced systems or the IRC for unbalanced systems and assume that none of the cards have been dealt yet. Basically we are treating it like a fresh shoe with worse penetration.
You could use the “average count” if you wanted to but it would be less accurate. Using an unbalanced system you could assume that the dealt portion of the shoe is of average value and just add the imbalance to your IRC. This would be the same as using a balanced system and assuming that the count of the dealt portion is zero. You would then be making up for the lost penetration by assuming that the unseen portion is average, but you cannot expect that to be very accurate.
Simply speaking, when you approach partially dealt shoe you have two options:
1) Assume that the dealt portion is average and continue counting from there.
2) Ignore the dealt portion and start from scratch.
I think that most players choose the latter in order to avoid the errors associated with making assumptions. If only a few rounds have been dealt then you might be safe choosing the first method, but the errors will get larger as the size of the dealt portion increases.
-Sonny-
When you walk up to a partially dealt shoe, it doesn’t really matter what the average count of the used cards is because you are not considering them. You are treating it like a freshly shuffled (undealt) shoe. You are ignoring the cards that have been dealt so it doesn’t matter what their average value is. You would start out at a RC of zero for balanced systems or the IRC for unbalanced systems and assume that none of the cards have been dealt yet. Basically we are treating it like a fresh shoe with worse penetration.
You could use the “average count” if you wanted to but it would be less accurate. Using an unbalanced system you could assume that the dealt portion of the shoe is of average value and just add the imbalance to your IRC. This would be the same as using a balanced system and assuming that the count of the dealt portion is zero. You would then be making up for the lost penetration by assuming that the unseen portion is average, but you cannot expect that to be very accurate.
Simply speaking, when you approach partially dealt shoe you have two options:
1) Assume that the dealt portion is average and continue counting from there.
2) Ignore the dealt portion and start from scratch.
I think that most players choose the latter in order to avoid the errors associated with making assumptions. If only a few rounds have been dealt then you might be safe choosing the first method, but the errors will get larger as the size of the dealt portion increases.
-Sonny-