"Clump" counting, another 28 units positive, thoughts and discussion

[Boardingbetter]

Ok team,

I recently went to one of the indian casino's in CT. The game was 8 deck, dealer stood on Soft 17, double after split, early surrender, and the penetration was in my opinion, very good.

So, I am a KO-system counter. However, I am not good enough to do it completely into 8 decks, and I also get distracted with the game, remembering basic strategy (I play it basic strategy perfectly, I just have to 'think' about it and then loose the count), and frankly, the emotional ups and downs (i.e. enjoyment) of the game to be a real threat.

So, I brought this up before and got some flame but I am going to bring it up again because it seems to be a successful first step for me. I have done this 5 trips now, and am net up a little over 400 units over those 5 trips.

First, in the KO system, which is unbalanced, the count should rise 4 points every 52 cards on a perfect distribution (for those that are not familiar with KO and I mean no patronistic offense to those that are). I don't know hi lo or any balanced, multi tier, or side count systems, so I couldn't compare systems, and comparing systems is not what this post is about.

So, knowing that the initial count of an 8 deck show is -28, and the key count is -6, when we have the advantage. So, this states that with the remaining cards in the deck, we have the statistical advantage to win.

However, I like to drink, don't need the money, and so this was not working for me, because I was friggin blitz, get distracted, and was hitting on the hottie next to me for 1/2 the night. However, I could keep the count over a 'clump' of cards, and so did some experimenting.

There were 6 players, and the dealer. On average, I assumed that 25 cards came out per hand (I would mentally note situations where everyone stands on a dealer six etc. and not apply this theory).

So, on average 25 cards per round, the count should climb an average of 2 pts per hand. Well, sometimes it did, and sometimes it dropped. However, sometimes there were 30 non-T cards on the table, all low in value etc. The count would climb 20 pts in a single deal to the table.

Well, my thoughts were, assuming a normal distrution, I have the advantage in the next hand. I did not care where in the shoe I was, if the count climbed like 4 pts, I would spread 1 to 2. If the count climbed like 10 points, I would spread 1 to 3, and if it would climb 20 in a single hand, I would spread 1 to 5 or 1 to 6.

I also would take insurance when the count jumped a great deal in the hand before, or the count laying on the table was very very high. I would also divert from taking a hit on 16 when I assumed many face cards left in the shoe. Both things worked well for me all night.

Did this for 10 hours, up 28 units. 10 dollar table. started with 48 units. Have done similar things 3 other times, and 2 other times, broke even.

I know I'll get some heat for this, because I am applying counting theory in a less certain way. But let's think about this...there are 416 cards in an 8 deck shoe, and I know that by counting (using KO at least) that you are certain that of cards remaining in the deck, when we reach and maintain a count at or above -6, we have the advantage, so crank up your bet. However, there is an accepted level of uncertainty in even this theory and that is the penetration. Those unknown cards behind the yellow card are assumed to be normally distributed, or their variation small enough when compared to the larger number of remaining cards to be less than relevant in the long run.

I am simply assuming the same thing, but on smaller runs of cards, am I not? I am simply assuming normal distrution throughout the shoe and betting when I see fluctuations in that normal progression, based on that if the progression is truely normal, the count will return near the plus 4 per 52 that it should.

Anyone else ponder this? Care to talk about it? I would like to say that I continue to practice counting and someday maybe I'll get good enough to do this in a casino environment and have the advanced play memorized etc. I also am not going to learn another system, and don't want to debate them. KO is easy and works for me, I understand the theory, don't have to estimate a true count, etc. and frankly, I am not experienced enough to comment on any system. So if you like one - great! Rock on with your bad self, you have my support!

I am just curious if anyone has done similar thing or thoughts.

Thanks Zengrifter for opening me up to counting... I'm 4.5K richer because of it.

Boarding...

 

[Sonny]

Some bad bews

> I know I'll get some heat for this, because I am applying counting theory in
> a less certain way.

I'm afraid there is plenty of heat to follow, but I promise I will include contructive criticism as well. =)

> So, I am a KO-system counter. However, I am not good enough to do it
> completely into 8 decks, and I also get distracted with the game, remembering
> basic strategy (I play it basic strategy perfectly, I just have to 'think'
> about it and then loose the count), and frankly, the emotional ups and downs
> (i.e. enjoyment) of the game to be a real threat.

So let me get this straight, you are not competent at counting cards and you cannot emotionally stand the variance associated with the game? Well, at least your winning money so far. I appreciate your honesty.

> I have done this 5 trips now, and am net up a little over 400 units over
> those 5 trips.

Unless those trips were 100 hours each then your results are not really significant. Again, this is just the variance that goes with the game. The positive variance isn't so bad, is it?

> However, I like to drink, don't need the money, and so this was not working
> for me, because I was friggin blitz, get distracted, and was hitting on the
> hottie next to me for 1/2 the night.

Again, this goes back to competence. You need more practice. You need to be able to do all the things above AND still keep the count. Until you can get your skills up to casino speed you should not expect to win money in the casinos. Enjoy the money you have won so for before it ends up back in the dealer's tray.

> Well, my thoughts were, assuming a normal distrution, I have the advantage in
> the next hand. I did not care where in the shoe I was, if the count climbed
> like 4 pts, I would spread 1 to 2. If the count climbed like 10 points, I
> would spread 1 to 3, and if it would climb 20 in a single hand, I would
> spread 1 to 5 or 1 to 6.

So you are playing and betting based on the running count of only the current hand, right? Well, that seems like a good idea except for your first sentence above - ASSUMING a normal distribution. This is a BIG assumption to make. In fact, the reason that the count raises and drops is because the shoe does NOT have a normal distribution.

If the first ten hands of the shoe have a -20 running count and the current hand has a +5 running count, you should NOT raise your bet or change your playing based on this. You are still at a disadvantage. One hand does not give you nearly enough information in an eight-deck shoe, just like 5 trips will not give you enough information about a playing strategy.

On top of that, a 1:6 spread will not beat an 8-deck game. You probably won't even break even with such a small apread and perfect play. Since we already know that you do not use perfect play we can start to see the deficiencies in your system.

> I also would take insurance when the count jumped a great deal in the hand
> before, or the count laying on the table was very very high.

Not a very good idea for the same reason as above.

> I am simply assuming the same thing, but on smaller runs of cards, am I not?

Exactly right.

> I am simply assuming normal distrution throughout the shoe and betting when I
> see fluctuations in that normal progression, based on that if the progression
> is truely normal, the count will return near the plus 4 per 52 that it
> should.

The whole concept of card counting is based on AB-normal distribution. We are waiting for lots of small cards to come out all at once. In an 8-deck shoe there is PLENTY of opportunity for "clumps." You are attempting to appraise an entire shoe based on one small "clump's" wirth of information. That is why card counting is so dependant on penetration - the fewer cards that you do not know, the more accurate your count will reflect the remaining cards (as well as the increased posibility for such opportunities).

Your system is like playing an 8-deck game with only 25-card penetration. Even though the dealer is dealing out most of the cards, your strategy is always based on only 25 cards. This is not enough information.

If you are going to take this seriously you will need much more practice. You are trying to make the easiest card counting system even simpler. However, the KO system is really the bare-bones of a counting system. To simpify it any more would only make is uneffective.

-Sonny-

 

[Tom]

neutral decks

I have actualy thought of somewhat the same strategy years ago,except I would first countdown a whole shoe(auto-matic shuffler)-if the"running count,hi-lo" stays within +7 and -7 the next time the shoe came around I would play it as single deck and PRAY all decks would stay in neutral range. Needless to say praying dont help much in a casino,so I backed out. It was the best decision I ever made because Ive found after counting down thousands of shoes since my newbie days that always assuming every deck in a shoe will bounce back to neutral would have been a major DISASTER. It's a losing proposition,I warn you know before the long run does. I think you've been dodging bullets. Keep in mind I'm not trying to critcize the strategy you use and this is just my opinion which happens to also be very true in my real world of blackjack.

Tom

 

[Sonny]

Smart words

> I have actualy thought of somewhat the same strategy years ago,except I would
> first countdown a whole shoe(auto-matic shuffler)-if the"running count,hi-lo"
> stays within +7 and -7 the next time the shoe came around I would play it as
> single deck and PRAY all decks would stay in neutral range. Needless to say
> praying dont help much in a casino,so I backed out. It was the best decision
> I ever made because Ive found after counting down thousands of shoes since my
> newbie days that always assuming every deck in a shoe will bounce back to
> neutral would have been a major DISASTER.

Also, NEUTRAL doesn't always mean COMPLETE. Playing against a complete 52 card deck is one thing, but playing against a neutral 52 card deck (made up of unknown parts of eight decks) is COMPLETELY different. What if those 52 cards where made up of 26 eights and 26 nines? That would be quite a different game, huh?

> It's a losing proposition,I warn you know before the long run does. I think
> you've been dodging bullets. Keep in mind I'm not trying to critcize the
> strategy you use and this is just my opinion which happens to also be very
> true in my real world of blackjack.

Very true indeed.

Boardingbetter, you obviously have a very good start if you are learning card counting and asking questions on this website. Your honesty about your experience and willingness to discuss it show how much you want to become a great player. You've spent some time learning and practicing, but don't quit now! Card counting may seem tough at first, but once you get the hang of it you will be doing it subconsciously at the table. With enough practice your brain will be doing all the hard work for you while you are getting drunk and hitting on the ladies...and impressing them with all the money you are winning!

-Sonny-

P.S.- Besides, I may need to borrow some money from you someday!

 

[Boardingbetter]

Thanks much - makes total sense...

Team,

Thanks much. Yeah the math don't really hold water. I totally understand that if the count is way low, and it jumps back positive, I still have quite a whole to come out of of and could be walking in to a punch.

Also, I'll keep practicing, for sure.

Thanks guys,

Boarding...

 

[Boardingbetter]

One more thing...

Sonny,

In the message above, I just wanted to post one thing in response to your initial response. You read my statment incorrectly (or I didn't convey it properly). I can handle the emotional swings - I love them! I almost get so into it.

The other day a buddy of mine hit like for 7's in a row, topped that off with a number of 4's and some long hits. The table was like on its feet when the dealer was playing the cards hootin and hollarin... It was a blast.

He broke even

Boarding...

 

[Sonny]

The swings

> In the message above, I just wanted to post one thing in response to your
> initial response. You read my statment incorrectly (or I didn't convey it
> properly). I can handle the emotional swings - I love them! I almost get so
> into it.

I probably misread what you had said. Don't take it personally - I don't think ANY of us are immune to the depression of a sustained losing streak.

Yeah, the short-term swings can be fun. Even after a losing trip I still feel good about getting in some playing hours and I always have plenty of stories to tell.

Still, the long-term variance is what can really grind away at your soul. When you play for several months (or a year) without showing a profit (or even digging farther into the hole) you will begin to hate life. You will doubt yourself and your abilities, and you will regret the fact that you thought you could make money gambling. You will despise the fact that you wasted so many hours in these lousy casinos when you could have been doing something else, ANYTHING else.

I have been lucky with my variance. I had several incredibly bad sessions in the beginning which really made me focus and practice my skills. Although my bankroll has continued to grow since then, I know that the next "drought" could come at any time. Even though I know it will happen, I know that I will not be ready for it when it strikes. I will go through all the anxiety and self-doubt that I talked about above. That is just the way it goes.

You will never be able to shake off the gloom, but being able to continue on with your quest is what makes card counting a noble endeavor.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The other side of swings

I hear you man. I started off with incredibly good luck, then a surprising string of bad, then incredibly good, a little bad, now I'm on a good one again. Up about 200 green in my last 4 sessions. Sessions so good they're scary and I can't wait to get away from the table and drop a unit or two in a machine for cover.

In a way you might have been better off starting off with bad, because then you are used to it. Then again I might have not gone through with it if I had started off with bad.