Blackjacks increase as cards left decreases

[JSTAT]

Casinos know that dealing to the single deck level in a 6 deck shoe game can be devastating to them. If 8 aces are left with 16 tens with 52 cards to go, we will get a blackjack every 10.3 hands! About a 2.4% extra advantage. If the normal amount of aces and tens have been played, the percentage of blackjacks increases as the number of cards left decreases.

The blackjacks we will receive at the top of a 6 deck shoe is one in every 21.05 hands. The blackjacks we receive with one deck remaining (assuming 16 tens and four aces) is one every 20.7 hands. The blackjacks we receive with 1/4 deck left (4 tens and one ace) is once every 19.5 hands on average. As you can see, we will receive more blackjacks as the deck decreases if the composition of aces and tens are proportionate.

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://s1.webstarts.com/CardCounting21/index.html)

 

[QFIT]

It is absurd to suggest that there will be more BJs deeper in the shoe as the assumptions you made are clearly unrealistic. Dan Pronovost made this claim in a long article on Henry Tamburin's newsletter some years ago. I think it is still in their archives, despite how embarrassing it is to the author and editor.

Oddly, it can be argued that the opposite is true due to the cut-card effect.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

It is absurd to suggest that there will be more BJs deeper in the shoe as the assumptions you made are clearly unrealistic. Dan Pronovost made this claim in a long article on Henry Tamburin's newsletter some years ago. I think it is still in their archives, despite how embarrassing it is to the author and editor.

Oddly, it can be argued that the opposite is true due to the cut-card effect.

If there are 52 cards left in a 6 deck shoe, with 16 tens and 4 aces, would the frequency of blackjacks not be the exact same as single deck blackjack?

Of course, i doubt very often you have these exact numbers. But i have read about the "floating advantage" Might this have something to do with that?

 

[dumbWinner]

If 8 aces are left with 16 tens with 52 cards to go, we will get a blackjack every 10.3 hands! About a 2.4% extra advantage. If the normal amount of aces and tens have been played, the percentage of blackjacks increases as the number of cards left decreases.
(Dead link: http://s1.webstarts.com/CardCounting21/index.html)

Do you usually implement this ? The point is very valid , that it increases the # of blackjacks as less Aces are dealt until the very end of the shoe. If the ace count rises so high along with the running count , we can push big money in.

 

[zengrifter]

It is absurd to suggest that there will be more BJs deeper in the shoe as the assumptions you made are clearly unrealistic. Dan Pronovost made this claim in a long article on Henry Tamburin's newsletter some years ago. I think it is still in their archives, despite how embarrassing it is to the author and editor.

Oddly, it can be argued that the opposite is true due to the cut-card effect.

But isn't the Revere Floating paradoxically opposed to the cut-card effect in this sense? zg

 

[JSTAT]

It is absurd to suggest that there will be more BJs deeper in the shoe as the assumptions you made are clearly unrealistic. Dan Pronovost made this claim in a long article on Henry Tamburin's newsletter some years ago. I think it is still in their archives, despite how embarrassing it is to the author and editor.

Oddly, it can be argued that the opposite is true due to the cut-card effect.

It is not "absurd" that the mathematics I provided proves that blackjack frequencies improves as a six deck game plays through. Arnold Snyder called it "depth charging." The math I provided proves it! Can your sims disprove it? Can you provide math QFIT instead of psuedo results?

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://s1.webstarts.com/CardCounting21/index.html)

 

[stophon]

Isn't there some law that you can't base math on the fact that the cards will play out proportionally? Or else you could use DD BS when 4/6 decks had been dealt in a 6 deck game.

 

[zengrifter]

Isn't there some law that you can't base math on the fact that the cards will play out proportionally? Or else you could use DD BS when 4/6 decks had been dealt in a 6 deck game.

You can. zg (Right Norm?)

 

[QFIT]

But isn't the Revere Floating paradoxically opposed to the cut-card effect in this sense? zg

Not really. One says that the advantage per true count increases as the shoe depletes. The other says the true count frequencies skew downward in the last rounds of the shoe. Two different effects.

 

[QFIT]

Isn't there some law that you can't base math on the fact that the cards will play out proportionally? Or else you could use DD BS when 4/6 decks had been dealt in a 6 deck game.

On average, the cards will play our proportionally. But, when calculating probabilities, you must always use the whole numbers of cards, not assume a subset has different combination probabilities than the whole.

If in fact, the last 52 cards had a higher chance of a BJ than the first 52, then you could cut the last 52 cards to the front of the shoe and the first 52 cards would have a higher percentage of BJs. Clearly this is absurd.

This is also behind the pitch-game scam run by some casinos. They shuffle six or eight decks, then grab two and pretend it is a double-deck game. Not only is penetration awful, but they are pretending that you get DD odds.

 

[sagefr0g]

...

This is also behind the pitch-game scam run by some casinos. They shuffle six or eight decks, then grab two and pretend it is a double-deck game. Not only is penetration awful, but they are pretending that you get DD odds.

hmm, interesting. i suppose these are the sort of games where they carry in a DD pack from the 'back room' sort of thing.:flame:
that's kind of like this outfit in PA where if you don't know the state law you can innocently be thinking your playing a legit 6deck game when in fact it may be twelve or more. http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=138820&postcount=82 :whip:

 

[JSTAT]

If in fact, the last 52 cards had a higher chance of a BJ than the first 52, then you could cut the last 52 cards to the front of the shoe and the first 52 cards would have a higher percentage of BJs. Clearly this is absurd.

"As cards are left" means the cards that have been played. Cutting the last 52 cards to the top of a six deck shoe, we will still get a blackjack every 21.05 hands off the top. As we PLAY deeper into the shoe (asumming aces and tens are proportional) our chances to get a snapper increases. Simple mathematics proves this.

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://s1.webstarts.com/CardCounting21/index.html)

 

[sagefr0g]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
But isn't the Revere Floating paradoxically opposed to the cut-card effect in this sense? zg

Not really. One says that the advantage per true count increases as the shoe depletes. The other says the true count frequencies skew downward in the last rounds of the shoe. Two different effects.

lmao, well i guess it's not paradoxical for mother nature but it sure seems paradoxical for a clueless player.:laugh:
what ever, it seems the two effects work sort of against each other?:whip:
i mean doesn't the cut card effect work in essence against the basic strategy player and the floating advantage work in essence for the basic strategy player? so maybe the deeper the cut card the better sort of thing?
just curious what the actual ev value is for cut card effect and floating advantage if anyone knows off hand.

 

[QFIT]

"As cards are left" means the cards that have been played. Cutting the last 52 cards to the top of a six deck shoe, we will still get a blackjack every 21.05 hands off the top. As we PLAY deeper into the shoe (asumming aces and tens are proportional) our chances to get a snapper increases. Simple mathematics proves this.

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://s1.webstarts.com/CardCounting21/index.html)

Only your assumption does not reflect casino Blackjack. Unless you shuffle six decks separately and then stack them.

 

[QFIT]

lmao, well i guess it's not paradoxical for mother nature but it sure seems paradoxical for a clueless player.:laugh:
what ever, it seems the two effects work sort of against each other?:whip:
i mean doesn't the cut card effect work in essence against the basic strategy player and the floating advantage work in essence for the basic strategy player? so maybe the deeper the cut card the better sort of thing?
just curious what the actual ev value is for cut card effect and floating advantage if anyone knows off hand.

Floating advantage has no effect on the Basic Strategy player.

 

[ExhibitCAA]

JSTAT, you are completely wrong, and I'm not even sure why I should bother trying to explain this to you, since QFIT's argument was tremendous. I'd like to review his argument first: If the last deck contains more BJs, cut it to the front. You say, "but you have to PLAY the first 5 decks." What difference would it make if you played those first five decks or not? Let's say you sit there and play the first five decks, and just as you are about to enjoy the juicy final deck, a civilian walks up to the table. Are you eligible for the higher frequency of BJs, while he is not? He could just walk up every time at that moment.

Here's another argument: By your logic that the frequency of BJs increases, so would the frequency of T6 (i.e., a hard 16 composed of a Ten-value card and a Six), and many other hands. If all these hands have higher frequencies, they will add up to more than 100%! What hand, by your "logic," would be LESS likely?

The flaw in your "math" (using that word to describe your post is making high-school math students vomit everywhere) is that you cannot assume 16 Tens and 4 Aces left at the 1-deck level. To get the probability of a BJ at the 1-deck level, you would have to weight each of the various possibilities according to its probability. While 16&4 might in fact be the single most likely combo, you can't just use that one alone. (Analogously, EV is computed based on MEAN, not MODE. Do you know the difference?)

If indeed you properly weight every combo of Tens and Aces, and do "the math" correctly, you will end up with ... voila! You will get the BJ probability for a 6-deck game, and it doesn't matter if you deal off the top or at the 5-deck level.

Snyder's depth-charging was a different concept, because he was talking about USING the information from the cards played. Your scenario does not take into account the information from the first five decks played.

Your scenario is CLOSE to a floating-advantage point, except that you have phrased it incorrectly and generalized it incorrectly. If you were to say, "GIVEN a fraction of the pack of 30.769% Tens, and 7.692% Aces, the probability of a blackjack increases as the pack shrinks." But this is no more than a statement that the probability of a BJ is higher in a single-deck game. Your flaw is that you somehow think that a 6-deck game can be magically converted to a 1-deck game merely by playing out the first five decks, and that we can simply assume 30.769%&7.692% Ten&Ace frequencies at the 1-deck level without loss of generality. Wrong.

(Now I'm sick to my stomach that I wrong such a long reply. People like you are what eventually drain the valuable contributors of their energy, and chase real pros and theoreticians off the boards. We don't all have the patience of Job, er, I mean, Sonny.)

 

[sagefr0g]

Floating advantage has no effect on the Basic Strategy player.

lol, i knew i needed to go back and read Don S. again.

so then to realize real gain from floating advantage i guess it's a matter of index plays and maybe some really slick betting for maybe very little gain.

so does the deeper a cut card is placed make for less damage from the cut card effect for the basic strategy player? very slight i should imagine if at all.

so if floating advantage has no effect on the basic strategy player, then essentially floating advantage is part and parcel so to speak of the ev a basic strategy player can expect, no?:whip:

but for a card counter would deeper pen mean that the floating advantage is more significant?:whip:

 

[sagefr0g]

...

(Now I'm sick to my stomach that I wrong such a long reply. People like you are what eventually drain the valuable contributors of their energy, and chase real pros and theoreticians off the boards. We don't all have the patience of Job, er, I mean, Sonny.)

this is a point i believe rjt was trying to make over in the advanced strategies thread.
makes one wonder if a thread could be made write only for real pros and theoreticians and read only for the rest of us. maybe have a sub thread for questions, sort of thing.

 

[QFIT]

lol, i knew i needed to go back and read Don S. again.

so then to realize real gain from floating advantage i guess it's a matter of index plays and maybe some really slick betting for maybe very little gain.

so does the deeper a cut card is placed make for less damage from the cut card effect for the basic strategy player? very slight i should imagine if at all.

so if floating advantage has no effect on the basic strategy player, then essentially floating advantage is part and parcel so to speak of the ev a basic strategy player can expect, no?:whip:

but for a card counter would deeper pen mean that the floating advantage is more significant?:whip:

A couple of things:

Floating Advantage really has no meaning or effect at all for a Basic Strategy player.

Cut-card effect certainly affects the BS player. This is not well known, but the exact placement of the cut-card has little effect on the cut-card effect. That is, the CCE will have about the same effect on a BS player whether the CC is placed one-third or two-thirds into the shoe, assuming the player plays all rounds. Most people would guess otherwise.

 

[JSTAT]

JSTAT, you are completely wrong, and I'm not even sure why I should bother trying to explain this to you, since QFIT's argument was tremendous. I'd like to review his argument first: If the last deck contains more BJs, cut it to the front. You say, "but you have to PLAY the first 5 decks." What difference would it make if you played those first five decks or not? Let's say you sit there and play the first five decks, and just as you are about to enjoy the juicy final deck, a civilian walks up to the table. Are you eligible for the higher frequency of BJs, while he is not? He could just walk up every time at that moment.

Here's another argument: By your logic that the frequency of BJs increases, so would the frequency of T6 (i.e., a hard 16 composed of a Ten-value card and a Six), and many other hands. If all these hands have higher frequencies, they will add up to more than 100%! What hand, by your "logic," would be LESS likely?

The flaw in your "math" (using that word to describe your post is making high-school math students vomit everywhere) is that you cannot assume 16 Tens and 4 Aces left at the 1-deck level. To get the probability of a BJ at the 1-deck level, you would have to weight each of the various possibilities according to its probability. While 16&4 might in fact be the single most likely combo, you can't just use that one alone. (Analogously, EV is computed based on MEAN, not MODE. Do you know the difference?)

If indeed you properly weight every combo of Tens and Aces, and do "the math" correctly, you will end up with ... voila! You will get the BJ probability for a 6-deck game, and it doesn't matter if you deal off the top or at the 5-deck level.

Snyder's depth-charging was a different concept, because he was talking about USING the information from the cards played. Your scenario does not take into account the information from the first five decks played.

Your scenario is CLOSE to a floating-advantage point, except that you have phrased it incorrectly and generalized it incorrectly. If you were to say, "GIVEN a fraction of the pack of 30.769% Tens, and 7.692% Aces, the probability of a blackjack increases as the pack shrinks." But this is no more than a statement that the probability of a BJ is higher in a single-deck game. Your flaw is that you somehow think that a 6-deck game can be magically converted to a 1-deck game merely by playing out the first five decks, and that we can simply assume 30.769%&7.692% Ten&Ace frequencies at the 1-deck level without loss of generality. Wrong.

(Now I'm sick to my stomach that I wrong such a long reply. People like you are what eventually drain the valuable contributors of their energy, and chase real pros and theoreticians off the boards. We don't all have the patience of Job, er, I mean, Sonny.)

Here is a question from the Wizard of Odds FAQ:

Why is the house edge for one deck different than for multiple decks? If I'm not counting cards why does the number of decks matter?

The answer has to do with the fact that once a card is played it has an impact on the distribution of the remaining cards. For example the single deck basic strategy calls for standing on two sevens against a ten, with two more decks the player should hit. In the situation with one deck the probability of drawing a third seven on the third card is only 2/49, or 4.08%. With two decks this probability rises to 6/101 or 5.94%. With the lower probability of catching a 3-card 21 in single deck (the only total that can beat a dealer 20) the best play is to stand. The effect of removing a single card increases as the number of decks decreases. The player has the option to hit or stand on a stiff but the dealer must hit once. In other words stiffs hurt the dealer more than the player. Also, with fewer decks more blackjacks are probable, which pays 3-2 to the player but only 1-1 to the dealer.