Entering Mid-Shoe

[[email protected]]

My friend and I were discussing a recent situation regarding entering a shoe in the middle. Say I started counting a deck in (6 deck shoe) and assuming i counted perfectly, this count that i arrived at has no meaning and gives me no advantage correct? My friends argument is that the deck that came out (and that i did not count) is sort of similar to the two or three decks that I would never see due to a 66% penetration. Thus, one can still use that running count arrived at, divide it by the remaining decks and the one deck that we didnt see as those cards are all unknown. In terms of common sense, it shouldnt make any difference whether someone removes 20 cards from the deck before playing or whether we leave those cards in and know for a fact that we will never see them (due to a lack of penetration). I however, have some issue with this and believe that its due to the fact that the cards are still in there that makes the difference. I dont know though. Any information or opinions regarding this issue would be much appreciated. Sorry about the length of the post

 

[21forme]

Your friend is correct.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Piling On

21forme is correct.

 

[Bojack1]

Yes I agree with the others that your friend is correct, but I will add that with this situation the penetration becomes horrible and for that reason I wouldn't bother counting this shoe.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It all depends. If you see a deck dealt out, and you look down and see a raft of low cards on the table, you are better off playing that shoe than a new one. There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing this way, and it allows you to get a lot more hands in because you can cruise around a big casino and stop at tables seemingly at random that way.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Piles

I agree with the monkey because I don't want him to throw pooh. If you walk by a table with about a deck gone and it is good right now then I would stick around.

I would not spend any time waiting for a hand to be dealt halfway through a shoe.

 

[callipygian]

Yes I agree with the others that your friend is correct, but I will add that with this situation the penetration becomes horrible and for that reason I wouldn't bother counting this shoe.

You're better off playing a TC +2 shoe with 50% penetration than a TC +0 shoe with 66% penetration. Wong out when the count drops.

 

[Bojack1]

You're better off playing a TC +2 shoe with 50% penetration than a TC +0 shoe with 66% penetration. Wong out when the count drops.

Technically sure, but I wouldn't waste my time with either. If it came to the point those were my choices, I would be gone. I do not wish to choose between weak and weaker games. As a matter of fact I would only stick around if I saw a sharp negative count instead of a few small cards, as long as it was a trackable shuffle. At that point the incredibly poor penetration works in my favor in getting the cut card out quickly and may allow for a real advantage for the next shoe. Otherwise I should know where the best pen in the place is located and concentrate on the status of each of those tables. If the average pen is 66% throughout the casino, then the only reason I'm even there is because there is something else besides counting being able to be used in that casino to gain an advantage.

 

[zengrifter]

My friend and I were discussing a recent situation regarding entering a shoe in the middle. Say I started counting a deck in (6 deck shoe) and assuming i counted perfectly, this count that i arrived at has no meaning and gives me no advantage correct? My friends argument is that the deck that came out (and that i did not count) is sort of similar to the two or three decks that I would never see due to a 66% penetration. Thus, one can still use that running count arrived at, divide it by the remaining decks and the one deck that we didnt see as those cards are all unknown.

YES. You are correct. zg