Full DD Table vs. Open 6D Table?

[blackjackomaha]

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.

Precisely why I prefer 3rd base. The more information, the better

And to respond to the OP...I would prefer the DD if it's hand shuffled.

 

[Southpaw]

I am really going to try to clear up this whole misconception of the TC having a tendency to drop in magnitude here.

People who mistakenly claim that the TC will have a tendency to drop often say things like the following:

(1) The running count will decrease in magnitude in the later parts of the shoe.

Indeed the RC will have a tendency to decrease in magnitude in the later parts of the shoe, but so will your divisor, thus the TC remains constant on average.

(2) They may also try to talk about what happens when there is only one card left in the shoe or when there are no cards left in the shoe.

Even when there is only one card left in the shoe, the TC will average out over many trials to have been the TC at any arbitrarily chosen point earlier in the shoe. It will hardly ever be exactly the same, but it will average out to be so.

People also mistakenly claim that the TC will have reached zero when there are no cards left in the shoe. They use this to say that the TC must have been on the decline in magnitude if it were to become zero when there were no cards left in the shoe.

However, when there are no cards left in the shoe, the TC is not zero. The RC may have dropped to zero, but so has your divisor. The TC when there are no more cards left in the shoe the TC is undefined. (Zero divided by zero is undefined, not zero, nor is it infinity).

Spaw

 

[bigplayer]

play the shoes

Generally you will win more at a fast shoe game...why you might ask.

1. You have to use cover AND a fairly tight spread to last at double deck.
2. Rules are generally better at shoes and tables are often less crowded.
3. Surrender offered at shoes is a big plus for someone spreading their bets.
4. Shoes are faster
5. You can play with no cover, until you get a big shoe your bets are all about the same.
6. It's easier to avoid the worst negative counts...they come in one big bunch.
7. Like #6 your big plus counts also come in one big bunch...you get your entire session's worth of EV in 3 minutes. You can then leave and don't have to repeatedly expose yourself to max/min bet cycles.
8. Significantly harder for a casino to skill check you on shoes if you play for one big shoe and then leave.
9. Slow crowded double deck means many more off the top cover bets are required as a percentage of total rounds.
10. You have to worry about cheating and preferential shuffling with the pitch game (if the double deck isn't dealt from a shoe).

 

[BJgenius007]

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?

This is the best explanation for the situation. I particular like your "predictive value" concept. And yes, I agree with your logic that the insurance is independent of the seats as everybody should use the true count after counting everybody's 2 cards to determine if he should take the insurance.

 

[Sucker]

However, when there are no cards left in the shoe, the TC is not zero. The RC may have dropped to zero, but so has your divisor. The TC when there are no more cards left in the shoe the TC is undefined. (Zero divided by zero is undefined, not zero, nor is it infinity).

Spaw

I was afraid to include this statement in my post, for fear of confusing the issue. But I must say - You have done an EXCELLENT job of explaining this; much better than I could have. You would make a very good math teacher. Or ARE you one?

 

[Southpaw]

I was afraid to include this statement in my post, for fear of confusing the issue. But I must say - You have done an EXCELLENT job of explaining this; much better than I could have. You would make a very good math teacher. Or ARE you one?

Thanks :toast:

No, I am not a math teacher, although that would be a cool position to hold at the university level, I'd think. I'm not even nearly old enough to hold such a position, though. In fact, it won't be until later this year that I'll be able to play at casinos that aren't on Indian reservations. (I presume you can deduce my age from this.)

Spaw

 

[21gunsalute]

I am really going to try to clear up this whole misconception of the TC having a tendency to drop in magnitude here.

People who mistakenly claim that the TC will have a tendency to drop often say things like the following:

(1) The running count will decrease in magnitude in the later parts of the shoe.

Indeed the RC will have a tendency to decrease in magnitude in the later parts of the shoe, but so will your divisor, thus the TC remains constant on average.

(2) They may also try to talk about what happens when there is only one card left in the shoe or when there are no cards left in the shoe.

Even when there is only one card left in the shoe, the TC will average out over many trials to have been the TC at any arbitrarily chosen point earlier in the shoe. It will hardly ever be exactly the same, but it will average out to be so.

People also mistakenly claim that the TC will have reached zero when there are no cards left in the shoe. They use this to say that the TC must have been on the decline in magnitude if it were to become zero when there were no cards left in the shoe.

However, when there are no cards left in the shoe, the TC is not zero. The RC may have dropped to zero, but so has your divisor. The TC when there are no more cards left in the shoe the TC is undefined. (Zero divided by zero is undefined, not zero, nor is it infinity).

Spaw

1) But the divisor may or may not decrease at the same rate on a round by round basis. In fact it will in all likelihood reach zero in a rather uneven way round by round. Let's say you have an RC of 12 with 2 decks left, for a TC of 6 and 5 players. In the next round everyone including the dealer gets a 20 (10, 10) or a Blackjack. The TC has just dropped from 6 to zero.

2) Moot point. For all practical purposes zero divided by zero is zero.

 

[Sucker]

1) But the divisor may or may not decrease at the same rate on a round by round basis. In fact it will in all likelihood reach zero in a rather uneven way round by round. Let's say you have an RC of 12 with 2 decks left, for a TC of 6 and 5 players. In the next round everyone including the dealer gets a 20 (10, 10) or a Blackjack. The TC has just dropped from 6 to zero.

1) For every time this happens, there will be enough times that; rather than big cards, SMALL cards will come out at a frequency that will EXACTLY offset this.

The True Count Theorem is one of those things that at first glance just doesn't seem to make sense, but I promise you that after careful study; it WILL come together!

2) When I was in 3rd grade I was taught that any number divided by itself is one. But you're right - moot point!

 

[blacksprite]

(1) The running count will decrease in magnitude in the later parts of the shoe.

Indeed the RC will have a tendency to decrease in magnitude in the later parts of the shoe, but so will your divisor, thus the TC remains constant on average.

Very good point. I neglected to consider this since the KO system does not utilize a divisor to convert from a RC to TC. The system uses a single running count only. While this information is not built into KO, the depth into the shoe definitely plays a role in the count's predictive power and I usually adjust my bets accordingly. Obviously a +4 count early in the shoe is much less powerful than a +4 count late in the shoe. Thank you for bringing this up. Third base it is...

 

[21gunsalute]

1) For every time this happens, there will be enough times that; rather than big cards, SMALL cards will come out at a frequency that will EXACTLY offset this.

The True Count Theorem is one of those things that at first glance just doesn't seem to make sense, but I promise you that after careful study; it WILL come together!

2) When I was in 3rd grade I was taught that any number divided by itself is one. But you're right - moot point!

Oh, I agree it will average out. The problem is that using an average in a specific instance such as this is useless IMO because the standard deviation will be so high. There's absolutely no way of knowing how accurate using an average would translate to the actual cards played.

 

[FLASH1296]

A full table at DD better have some awesome penetration.

I would play that game at 4:00 a.m. when the table is probably empty.

If your casino has 7 betting spots then note that 7 players + the dealer will use about 22 cards - nearly a half deck. So …

if the casino is offering only POOR 50% pen' then it is 2.4 hands and shuffle !

The cut-card effect means that IF the count is BAD you will see 3 rounds and if the count is GOOD you will see 2 rounds.

If the casino is offering GREAT 67% pen' (like the notched table at some well known joints) then you will get 3.6 rounds.

That means 4 rounds are likely when the count tanks and 3 rounds when the count is GOOD.

With H17 your expectation is such that playing heads-up is really the only way to go.

Move to the shoe table if penetration is very good there.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Flash, it was already stated that the pen was to the point where it would be worth playing even if it was H17 D10, especially if you can get a spot at third base. And I believe it was said that it was DOA DAS.

H17 doesn't automatically make a game not a great one. As far as I am concerned the difference between H17 DAS DD and S17 nDAS DD is negligible.

 

[Southpaw]

I really can't believe that the True Count theorem is still so frequently debated, using the same incorrect logic, verbatim. Renzey, we need you in here again!

This quote comes to mind:

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."~Max Planck

Taking cards out of a shoe that has a high magnitude TC will not cause the TC to tend towards zero.

Lastly, zero divided by zero is absolutely not considered zero "for all practical purposes."

Spaw

 

[FLASH1296]

Sorry about that; but I was focused on injecting the very important concept of the Cut Card Effect and I lost sight of that.

 

[21gunsalute]

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."~Max Planck

That's not science, that's brainwashing! Don't believe everything you hear. Question authority!

 

[21gunsalute]

Taking cards out of a shoe that has a high magnitude TC will not cause the TC to tend towards zero.

It most certainly will. The TC will not start out at 12 and remain at 12 throughout the shoe, and if it did it would totally defeat the purpose of counting.

 

[Southpaw]

It most certainly will. The TC will not start out at 12 and remain at 12 throughout the shoe, and if it did it would totally defeat the purpose of counting.

On average, the TC will indeed stay at 12. This does not mean that the paint is not going to be hitting the table, though; indeed your RC will be on the decline as the shoe goes on, but the divisor will also drop at such a rate that the TC, will on average, stay the same.

Seriously, do think hard about this. It is a concept that really was solved a long time ago, although it is still continuously pestered with the same erroneous arguments.

Spaw

 

[ohbehave]

21gunsalute has a point. Here is what I found by Norm as what is the True Count Theorem.

"The True Count Theorem tells us that at the end of every round, on average the true count will be zero...The TC Theorem does not say that the distribution of negative and positive counts is the same."

The average TC will be zero, not that the TC doesn't change at the end of a round, i.e. the + TC's are balanced out by the - TC's.

 

[Southpaw]

21gunsalute has a point. Here is what I found by Norm as what is the True Count Theorem.

"The True Count Theorem tells us that at the end of every round, on average the true count will be zero...The TC Theorem does not say that the distribution of negative and positive counts is the same."

The average TC will be zero, not that the TC doesn't change at the end of a round, i.e. the + TC's are balanced out by the - TC's.

Indeed, the average true count for any given round will be zero, but that is certainly, absolutely, positively not to say that the TC will tend towards zero, once the TC has become large in magnitude.

Spaw

 

[ohbehave]

Agreed. The 2 points are equally valid. The actual TC will change but the average TC doesn't.