Full DD Table vs. Open 6D Table?

[blacksprite]

Hi! Rookie on the boards here! I am a relatively new counter using KO preferred. I play casually and am up 600 units since I started counting a year ago. I am now looking to further my knowledge of counting and stumbled upon the boards here.

My local casino only has one DD table (H17, DOA, DAS) which is where I typically play. Lately, I've become frustrated with how crowded the table has become. Counting and bet variation is obviously much less useful when there are multiple other people at the table as the count can completely swing by the time I get my cards. As a result, I've found myself decreasing my ramp from 1:10 to 1:5 when the table is crowded because of my uncertainty. My question is how much does it hurt my odds having multiple other people at the table. Is there ever a point where it becomes advantageous to leave a crowded DD table and move to a less-crowded 6D table? Is it foolish to change my betting ramp depending on the number of other players at the table? After reading these forums, I'm going to begin spreading to more hands when playing with multiple other people to help counter some of the problem. Unfortunately, this will require me to bet 2x the table minimum per hand which will stress my limited bank roll.

As a side-note, I've noticed that using just BS, the expectation changes according to the number of decks being played. To me, this makes sense if one is counting, but how does it affect expectation when playing by basic strategy alone? The decks still contain the some proportion of cards and your chance of receiving any given card is always the same with each turn if you aren't counting. Maybe I'm missing something...

Thanks in advance!

 

[BJgenius007]

Hi! Rookie on the boards here! I am a relatively new counter using KO preferred. I play casually and am up 600 units since I started counting a year ago. I am now looking to further my knowledge of counting and stumbled upon the boards here.

My local casino only has one DD table (H17, DOA, DAS) which is where I typically play. Lately, I've become frustrated with how crowded the table has become. Counting and bet variation is obviously much less useful when there are multiple other people at the table as the count can completely swing by the time I get my cards. As a result, I've found myself decreasing my ramp from 1:10 to 1:5 when the table is crowded because of my uncertainty. My question is how much does it hurt my odds having multiple other people at the table. Is there ever a point where it becomes advantageous to leave a crowded DD table and move to a less-crowded 6D table? Is it foolish to change my betting ramp depending on the number of other players at the table? After reading these forums, I'm going to begin spreading to more hands when playing with multiple other people to help counter some of the problem. Unfortunately, this will require me to bet 2x the table minimum per hand which will stress my limited bank roll.

As a side-note, I've noticed that using just BS, the expectation changes according to the number of decks being played. To me, this makes sense if one is counting, but how does it affect expectation when playing by basic strategy alone? The decks still contain the some proportion of cards and your chance of receiving any given card is always the same with each turn if you aren't counting. Maybe I'm missing something...

Thanks in advance!

I feel the same and asked the same question before. And came to the similar conclusion. Spread only 6:1 when the table is full. If there are 3 or less people, play 2 hands and spread 12:1 to compensate the loss at full table.

Also avoid the third base seat and the one next to it. Many times I had max bet and the true count turned negative when everybody took their cards. The second base is my favorite seat.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

You'll get a helluva lot more hands per hour at the open 6D table, assuming equal dealers. Even a slow dealer at the 6d will beat a fast dealer at the full DD table.
Another thing to consider is with a full table on a DD game, you'll be making more bets off the top. Even if 75% pen is offered, you won't be making as many bets as you'd like in the second deck with all spots being played.

On the other hand, if the 6D table stays unpopulated (whenever one gets a table going, the ploppies are no longer scared to play there) you will get a decent amount of hands in when you're in the final third of the shoe, assuming 5/6 penetration.

What kind of pen on these games are we talking, anyway? That would help make a more accurate determination of which one is best.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

I feel the same and asked the same question before. And came to the similar conclusion. Spread only 6:1 when the table is full. If there are 3 or less people, play 2 hands and spread 12:1 to compensate the loss at full table.

Also avoid the third base seat and the one next to it. Many times I had max bet and the true count turned negative when everybody took their cards. The second base is my favorite seat.

You know that before you placed your bet, those cards were just as likely to go to you as they were to the other players, right?

And I disagree with spreading less. You will have fewer opportunities to bet into an advantage with the full table, therefore one must spread MORE.

 

[Southpaw]

Lately, I've become frustrated with how crowded the table has become. Counting and bet variation is obviously much less useful when there are multiple other people at the table as the count can completely swing by the time I get my cards. As a result, I've found myself decreasing my ramp from 1:10 to 1:5 when the table is crowded because of my uncertainty.

This ideology is incorrect. Become familiar with the True-Count theorem. It doesn't matter that people will be taking cards out of the shoe before you get yours. Your spread should not change.

Spaw

 

[blackjack avenger]

Answers Almost as Fast as I Can Lose a Grand!

Full tables bad
Sitting to the left is slightly better
Don't limit spread due to players, limit spread due to casino tolerance
Generally larger spreads are better tolerated in shoes
BS changes with decks because of the cards in your hand. If you have a 5,5 in single deck you have half the 5's compared to a multi deck game

good cards:joker::whip:

 

[BJgenius007]

You know that before you placed your bet, those cards were just as likely to go to you as they were to the other players, right?

And I disagree with spreading less. You will have fewer opportunities to bet into an advantage with the full table, therefore one must spread MORE.

You'll get a helluva lot more hands per hour at the open 6D table, assuming equal dealers. Even a slow dealer at the 6d will beat a fast dealer at the full DD table.
Another thing to consider is with a full table on a DD game, you'll be making more bets off the top. Even if 75% pen is offered, you won't be making as many bets as you'd like in the second deck with all spots being played.

On the other hand, if the 6D table stays unpopulated (whenever one gets a table going, the ploppies are no longer scared to play there) you will get a decent amount of hands in when you're in the final third of the shoe, assuming 5/6 penetration.

What kind of pen on these games are we talking, anyway? That would help make a more accurate determination of which one is best.

I agree with both of you. But I feel the better attack to this game is that you wait out with mild loss and make a killing when people drop out in group. I have played in the same table. Many times 7 players became 2 or 3 when the dealer has a good winning streak.

By the way, the penetration is about 80% or 85%. But it makes little impact because there are almost always 7 players. So it is always 4 rounds between shuffles at full table (6 or 7 players). Many times there are 5 or less cards left. Sometimes the dealer run out of the cards and need re-shuffle the deck to continue. Ploppies got angry because he ran out of cards. They don't know deep penetration is a GOOD thing.

 

[Southpaw]

I agree with both of you.

I see Blue Efficacy has multiple personalities :joker:

Spaw

 

[Blue Efficacy]

This brings another factor in the equation. When they're dealing practically the whole deck, do whatever you can to get the third base spot. You can get some very accurate playing decisions at this point.

 

[blacksprite]

Thanks for the great feedback so far!

You'll get a helluva lot more hands per hour at the open 6D table, assuming equal dealers. Even a slow dealer at the 6d will beat a fast dealer at the full DD table.

What kind of pen on these games are we talking, anyway? That would help make a more accurate determination of which one is best.

But are more hands per hour enough to counter the loss in EV when switching to the 6D table? I don't know the exact penetration for the DD table, it's probably around 65-75%.

You know that before you placed your bet, those cards were just as likely to go to you as they were to the other players, right?

I realize this, but say I happen to be sitting at 3rd base, the count could be +4 resulting in a 50 unit bet and may sway all the way to a -3 bet before I even receive my first card. If you are playing heads up, you know that the count can't sway more than a few points before receiving your 2 cards.

Full tables bad
Sitting to the left is slightly better
Don't limit spread due to players, limit spread due to casino tolerance

Why is it better to sit to the left (3rd base)? I can see how this maximizes your odds of making a proper strategy play, by seeing all cards on the table before making an action. However, when the table is full, I like to sit at 1st base so I know at least my 1st card will have the predictive power of the count.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Almost There

Why is it better to sit to the left (3rd base)? I can see how this maximizes your odds of making a proper strategy play, by seeing all cards on the table before making an action.

Exactly

However, when the table is full, I like to sit at 1st base so I know at least my 1st card will have the predictive power of the count.

No this is incorrect thinking. Once you place your bet, the same TC comes out wether you are at 1st or 3rd base. It's the same TC on average.

good cards:joker::whip:

 

[Southpaw]

I realize this, but say I happen to be sitting at 3rd base, the count could be +4 resulting in a 50 unit bet and may sway all the way to a -3 bet before I even receive my first card. If you are playing heads up, you know that the count can't sway more than a few points before receiving your 2 cards.

Once again, I see why one might be led to believe this, but this is incorrect ideology. It doesn't matter that people will be taking cards out of the shoe before you get yours.

And yes, it is the case that 3rd base would be HIGHLY preferable if they are dealing that DD game to the last card.

Best,

Spaw

 

[BJgenius007]

Exactly




No this is incorrect thinking. Once you place your bet, the same TC comes out wether you are at 1st or 3rd base. It's the same TC on average.

good cards:joker::whip:

I disagree. The simulation is done using head to head. On 2D full table play, the entire system is so corrupted by so many extra cards for the third base that the whole system is not so reliable, if not very unreliable.

Which seat to take is a small issue. The worst part of it is that the dealer gets his cards last. Initial true count can be +5, then when dealer gets his cards, it could be negative and easy for him to make his hand. This does never occur on the data collected to make the counting system. In short, sitting on the first base might be as close to the original counting system designed to work(one to one or head to head), although sitting on the third base might help to make the best playing decision under that the circumstance, i.e. corrupted hand (like max bet on negative count). I call these corrupted hands because the decision making of each hand is based on data calculated on a very efficient counting system after a very large numbers of hands played. By efficient, I mean it has to be one-to-one.

 

[Sucker]

I disagree. The simulation is done using head to head. On 2D full table play, the entire system is so corrupted by so many extra cards for the third base that the whole system is not so reliable, if not very unreliable.

The OPPOSITE of what you just said is true. The more cards come out, the more information you have, and THEREFORE the deck becomes LESS corrupted (or more correctly put; MORE defined).

As Southpaw has already stated, I would ALSO suggest that you read everything you can about the True Count Theorem, until you FULLY understand the error in your logic. The TC Theorem has been absolutely PROVEN to be correct. It doesn't matter HOW many people are at the table, the true count WILL, on average; be exactly the same after the hand as it was BEFORE the hand.

If your advantage is x, it does not matter which seat you sit in - before the deal, your advantage is x. Third base has EXACTLY the same chance of getting a blackjack as does first base. Third base ALSO has exactly the same chance as first base does, of getting a stiff. You're right that the deck MIGHT go negative by the time the dealer plays his hand, but there's an equal chance that it ALSO might get even MORE positive. It WILL average out. And if you're sitting on 3rd base, you'll have the best vantage point to properly ADJUST to these normal fluctuations. If you're dealt a 15, you're better off at 3rd base with the extra information, than you are at first.

 

[Dopple]

It doesn't matter HOW many people are at the table, the true count WILL, on average; be exactly the same after the hand as it was BEFORE the hand.

I dont see how this can be true because after all the cards are played the count would be zero if there was no cut card and on average the cards behind the cut card will come to TC 0.

If you have a TC 5 then on average the count should go down by some factor I dont want to try and put in an equation. That is why we bet more when the count is high.

I could be wrong but dont you see my point.

 

[jack.jackson]

I had an experiment and very elaborate Sim proposition set up to try and shed some light on this subject, in which DogHand was happy to oblige in this immense project. He ran 2 Ten billion round sims using hi-lo and his results showed the difference for a hi-lo player, where in scenario 1, the TC dropped from +12 to +4. In scenario 2 the TC rose from -4 to +4. He then ran seperate sims that showed what the EV for each hilo player was at +4.

Scenario 1 showed an EV of 2.14%

Scenario 2 showed an EV of 2.50%

I know this isnt exactly the TC therom, but i do believe there is a relation.


http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=17892

 

[blacksprite]

It doesn't matter HOW many people are at the table, the true count WILL, on average; be exactly the same after the hand as it was BEFORE the hand.

I dont see how this can be true because after all the cards are played the count would be zero if there was no cut card and on average the cards behind the cut card will come to TC 0.

If you have a TC 5 then on average the count should go down by some factor I dont want to try and put in an equation. That is why we bet more when the count is high.

I could be wrong but dont you see my point.

I am not yet familiar with the True Count Theorem, but your statement makes sense to me when trying to reason it in my head. When starting at a positive count, there should always be a tendency to decrease to a neutral count on average. The only reason a positive count was reached was because there was a run of low cards in the short-term, which would be balanced out on average in the long-term.

That said, keeping a count that is up to date with the distribution of each card gives some predictive value of each card pulled from the shoe. If the KO count is +1 or higher, there is a higher probability that card being pulled will be a 10-value or Ace than a lower card. Therefore, sitting at first base should be in your favor because you are guaranteed that predictive value on your first card even if the count swings by the time each other player has received his first card.

BUT, is this more favorable than having the additional penetration when determining how to play your hand? My understanding is that most +EV with the KO preferred system comes from bet variation, which I presume would be maximized by sitting at first base according to my logic above. There are only 18 plays that change based on the count, and the one having the most significant influence (insurance) is completely independent of where you are sitting. Therefore, in a deck with 75% penetration, it still seems 1st base is more favorable than 3rd base at a full table. Is my logic incorrect?

 

[blacksprite]

I feel the same and asked the same question before. And came to the similar conclusion. Spread only 6:1 when the table is full. If there are 3 or less people, play 2 hands and spread 12:1 to compensate the loss at full table.

Out of curiosity, are you spreading to 2 hands only at favorable counts or all the time? If the heat is low (which it should be at my low stakes of $5-50), there's really no reason to spread at unfavorable counts, correct?

 

[BJgenius007]

Out of curiosity, are you spreading to 2 hands only at favorable counts or all the time? If the heat is low (which it should be at my low stakes of $5-50), there's really no reason to spread at unfavorable counts, correct?

Correct. Play 1 hand or not play at all when TC is negative.

 

[prankster]

I vote for the empty 6 deck table,end of story!:joker: