Help on Double deck
- Thread starter JbearY
- Start date
Yes. However, leArning a count and getting an edge does not mean you will be a winner. Most people who learn a count, get the edge and go play live end up being a loser.
You have to learn a count, learn what is a running count and what is a true count, learn basic plYing strategy and deviAtions according to count, learn Risk of Ruin, how much to get at each count and how it relates to your Bank Roll and a lot more.
It ain't easy.
You have to learn a count, learn what is a running count and what is a true count, learn basic plYing strategy and deviAtions according to count, learn Risk of Ruin, how much to get at each count and how it relates to your Bank Roll and a lot more.
It ain't easy.
Ryemo
Well-Known Member
Wow, you weren’t kidding when you said many years ago. 16 years to be exact! No wonder I didn’t recognize his handle.21forme said:
Looks interesting. According to the sims, the ASC seems more valuable to the player utilizing a tight spread and/or playing with bad penetration. The increase in value is marginal for those using bigger spreads and playing games with better penetration. I liked that he included sim charts in his post.
I once posted about using an Ace side count with HiLo and I think it was DOn that reminded me that the Ace was already factored in the HiLO count. For a while, I counted Aces just for doubling 9/2 against a 10 on high positive counts but decided I was screwing it up when I did not double on a few slight Ace rich DD rounds and in the end while I did get an Ace or two and lost the double, I also missed out on getting the double when I was dealt a 10. I figured it was just evening out and no longer count the Aces with HiLo.
Thanks 21forme for the link to the BJ21 post on side counting aces using hi lo. This was helpful! I use hi lo and I've side counted aces from time to time with DD, when the dealer is slow and I get bored. I know it doesn't get me much but it's not hard so I figure why not. The main reason I do it is for insurance, knowing the ace is counted incorrectly in hi lo in this case. I use a crude ace adjustment approach for my insurance decisions, always erroring on the side of caution. For example, if the count is +1 or +2 and I've seen all the aces, which has happened, I'll take insurance. I've thought about moving to Hi Opt 1 with ASC but decided against it since I know hi lo so well. It's good to see other people also use hi lo, with an ace side count.
Does anybody also side count 7s with hi lo? I've also done this from time to time. I use it mostly for insurance and betting decisions.
My method for side counting aces and 7s is really simple. Since I'm always playing with my chips, I just do it with my chips in what looks like a haphazard way. So far it's been working for me, and it takes almost no extra effort.
Does anybody also side count 7s with hi lo? I've also done this from time to time. I use it mostly for insurance and betting decisions.
My method for side counting aces and 7s is really simple. Since I'm always playing with my chips, I just do it with my chips in what looks like a haphazard way. So far it's been working for me, and it takes almost no extra effort.
What you should be doing with your ace side count is a) determining how rich or poor the two decks are in aces and then b) temporarily adjusting your running count to compensate.
So, for example, if there is .5 decks dealt (1.5 remaining) and you have seen 3 aces then you can determine you are now one ace poor. Naturally you expect to see 1 ace per quarter deck. So given that you are one ace poor you would temporarily add +2 to your running count. So if the running count is 2, then you would adjust it to be 4, then do your insurance check (4/1.5 = 2.33) which is higher than your insurance index of 2.2 so you take insurance. Then you "reset" your running count back to 2.
Another example :
3/4 of a deck in and the running count is +5. You have seen 1 ace. Here you figure the deck is ace rich by two aces, as you should have seen 3 by now. So you subtract 4 (2 for each extra ace still in there) from your +5 running count to get +1. Then you divide by 1.25 to get .8, and since this is below 2.2 you do not take insurance.
In terms of betting you would rather the deck be ace rich than ace poor.
So, for example, if there is .5 decks dealt (1.5 remaining) and you have seen 3 aces then you can determine you are now one ace poor. Naturally you expect to see 1 ace per quarter deck. So given that you are one ace poor you would temporarily add +2 to your running count. So if the running count is 2, then you would adjust it to be 4, then do your insurance check (4/1.5 = 2.33) which is higher than your insurance index of 2.2 so you take insurance. Then you "reset" your running count back to 2.
Another example :
3/4 of a deck in and the running count is +5. You have seen 1 ace. Here you figure the deck is ace rich by two aces, as you should have seen 3 by now. So you subtract 4 (2 for each extra ace still in there) from your +5 running count to get +1. Then you divide by 1.25 to get .8, and since this is below 2.2 you do not take insurance.
In terms of betting you would rather the deck be ace rich than ace poor.
Thanks for the examples Meistro! They helped clarify it. I know I need to be more analytical with how I use my ASC, but currently I'm using it more to help me with close calls. This is an area that I know I can improve on.
As far as betting, you say you'd rather the deck be ace rich, rather than ace poor. I understand that concept. The question is does the current hi lo count account for this, or should I increase my bet more when I know the deck is ace rich (above what the TC calls for)? I hope I was able to phase this question in a way where it made sense.
I've also wondered about the dealer's ace when it comes to insurance with hi lo (no side counts). Is the reason the insurance decision is +2.4 for DD (and not +3 like it is for shoes) due to the dealer's ace already being accounted for? Or should the dealer's ace be counted differently (like in your examples) for insurance decisions?
As far as betting, you say you'd rather the deck be ace rich, rather than ace poor. I understand that concept. The question is does the current hi lo count account for this, or should I increase my bet more when I know the deck is ace rich (above what the TC calls for)? I hope I was able to phase this question in a way where it made sense.
I've also wondered about the dealer's ace when it comes to insurance with hi lo (no side counts). Is the reason the insurance decision is +2.4 for DD (and not +3 like it is for shoes) due to the dealer's ace already being accounted for? Or should the dealer's ace be counted differently (like in your examples) for insurance decisions?
"The question is does the current hi lo count account for this"
No, if it did you would be indifferent. What I am saying is that given the same true count you would rather the deck be ace rich than ace poor or ace neutral. But I also think the phenomenon is rather mild, although I don't have any hard data to back up this claim. Like most things this should be determined by simulation.
" Is the reason the insurance decision is +2.4 for DD (and not +3 like it is for shoes) due to the dealer's ace already being accounted for?"
That is a good question. I'm not sure why the insurance index is lower for double deck than for multi deck. It might have something to do with the fact that the fewer decks you have the more common blackjacks are because of removal effects but that is just speculation on my part.
No, if it did you would be indifferent. What I am saying is that given the same true count you would rather the deck be ace rich than ace poor or ace neutral. But I also think the phenomenon is rather mild, although I don't have any hard data to back up this claim. Like most things this should be determined by simulation.
" Is the reason the insurance decision is +2.4 for DD (and not +3 like it is for shoes) due to the dealer's ace already being accounted for?"
That is a good question. I'm not sure why the insurance index is lower for double deck than for multi deck. It might have something to do with the fact that the fewer decks you have the more common blackjacks are because of removal effects but that is just speculation on my part.