How do you beat a 6-deck game?

[jack.jackson]

I agree with Bojack on this one! I will fight for every edge possible, even if it is pennies. For example: Once you factor in mistakes, level 1 vs level 2, rounded Indices, fuzzy betting, risk averse Indices, guessing on soft doubles,splits,S17,Sr, gratuity,......etc. Well you've just seen your potential advantage slip from about .5 to about .2 Now this may not look like much on paper, but as the Bishop mentioned in "can sidecounting make you a superstar" your winrate will start to multiply as your advantage increases ie.10x10=100,but,20x20=400,40x40=1600etc.
Above and Beyond that, your ROR is heavily influenced by your EV. Just adding slight EV to your advantage, substanially cuts into your ROR.

 

[aslan]

I will second that, Jack

I strive to be a pefect in my newly-learned trade as humanly possible. I hope that the only mistakes I make are the intended ones that I might deem necessary for longevity. If I am wrong in how far I carry my camo, I am always open to learning something new. For me it is the beginning of a long experimental run until I find the happy medium between brazen flawless play that will get me barred where I don't want to be barred and carefully orchestrated camo that will give me years of profitable play where I want to play. Yes, there are places where I don't care much if I get push back--in a way, it's affirming my play. But that is not the case where I generally play. In the final analysis, it's my decision as to where and how I play--I just don't want to be kidding myself that it is my play that is winning the bucks and not just a run of good luck. I think we have to be brutally honest with ourselves if we want to become the best that we can be.

 

[sagefr0g]

Why?.

why would you work harder to get the same result if you don't have to? thats why.

It seems people will work so hard to weaken their game but still try to turn whatever profits are left, instead of putting forth that effort to maximize gain. I can't understand this thinking. So much has been said about still making profits even with mistakes even if it decreases them slightly. That just sounds stupid to me. I would rather maximize my time at anything I do than settle for what being lazy will hand me.
.

so i suppose you and your team use some fancy level two count and all of the indices instead of something simpler such as hi/lo or ko since you insist on getting the most bang for your buck, right?

And regardless what others say, if you settle for 1 mistake you will settle for 2 and so on. From there starts a phsycological effect that doesn't really effect strong counters of, how bad can I actually be without it getting away from me. At that point you will never know because you will lose sight of how to tell.
.

this sounds like fear talking. but it is understandable that a team leader such as your self would be concerned about mistakes since if your team mates are making mistakes the affect of the mistakes would be multiplied by the number of team members you have that are making mistakes.

The only way a sim can tell you about your game is if you feed it accurate info. If you don't really know how you're playing then neither will your sim.
.

not necessarily. one can model ones play after a given sim to what ever degree of accuracy one desires.

Listen, I say play as you want. I have seen whats good and also whats bad. I have not seen too many bad players make money, as a matter of fact the casinos will welcome you. But if you say you are making money playing in a style which allows mistakes and isn't in need of real accuracy, to you sagefrog, automatic monkey, more power to you. My thinking is different, as is most successful players I associate with. But Monkey if you say you are reaching your EV, great. It's of no importance to me if its the truth or not. As long as you know and can live with it. I'm quite sure I could not have lived and played any way other than the best I possibly could all these years. So I will squeeze out as much as I can from the game by trying to be perfect. If it only means pennies so be it, but the character it takes to do it is priceless.

can't speak for Automatic Monkey. nor can i put forth anecdotal evidence about my own success using such methods and making real money. i have however played about four N0's worth of six and eight deck games using such methods with great success. now please don't laugh at that. you do believe in practice, right?

 

[Bojack1]

why would you work harder to get the same result if you don't have to? thats why.

so i suppose you and your team use some fancy level two count and all of the indices instead of something simpler such as hi/lo or ko since you insist on getting the most bang for your buck, right?

this sounds like fear talking. but it is understandable that a team leader such as your self would be concerned about mistakes since if your team mates are making mistakes the affect of the mistakes would be multiplied by the number of team members you have that are making mistakes.

not necessarily. one can model ones play after a given sim to what ever degree of accuracy one desires.

can't speak for Automatic Monkey. nor can i put forth anecdotal evidence about my own success using such methods and making real money. i have however played about four N0's worth of six and eight deck games using such methods with great success. now please don't laugh at that. you do believe in practice, right?

You just don't get it and I'm done trying to help. Good luck to you which ever way you choose to play the game.

 

[RJT]

It's funny, but some old adages carry a lot of weight when applied correctly and in this case the one about learning from past mistakes is very valid. It doesn't just carry on a personal level though, you should try to learn from the mistakes of those that came before you as well.
I do wonder the rational that people here are using when they start going on about the number of mistakes you can make and still keep winning. Do you think that so many successful players from the MIT team - note i said players, not authors - advise keeping a higher standard just to encourage you to buy the Institute's products?
These players have been there and done it at levels that none of you have even come close to. You've have had it spelled out to you by far more serious and successful players than yourselves or me plenty of times, if you want to ignore their advice why would you listen to anyone else?
As i said before - this discussion topic just goes round in circles, with some shouting "sims, sims, sims" while others perfer to rely on actual experience. Nobody's convincing either side to change their stance and no new points are being made.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I agree with Bojack on this one! I will fight for every edge possible, even if it is pennies. For example: Once you factor in mistakes, level 1 vs level 2, rounded Indices, fuzzy betting, risk averse Indices, guessing on soft doubles,splits,S17,Sr, gratuity,......etc. Well you've just seen your potential advantage slip from about .5 to about .2 Now this may not look like much on paper, but as the Bishop mentioned in "can sidecounting make you a superstar" your winrate will start to multiply as your advantage increases ie.10x10=100,but,20x20=400,40x40=1600etc.
Above and Beyond that, your ROR is heavily influenced by your EV. Just adding slight EV to your advantage, substanially cuts into your ROR.

Actually, not necessarily. Some plays increase EV a little and standard deviation a lot thus increasing both EV and RoR. That usually happens with exotic split and double plays. The double 10 vs. 10 index has to be considerably higher than the one that gives you +EV to not increase RoR.

You're a guy who's familiar with multiparameter and multilevel counts. You can figure this out- how many counting errors does a level 2 player (RPC, Mentor) have to make per 6D shoe to be playing with the same SCORE as a High-Low player who makes none? The answer will be higher than a few people here realize thus you could say a High-Low player is wasting his time trying to eliminate a bunch of mistakes per shoe and should concentrate on learning level 2 instead. Or realize that it will take a lifetime of play for the differences to become manifest.

There's an example from engineering that comes up often with rookies, trying to eliminate little errors that are dwarfed by other systematic ones. Working on a circuit design that required two current paths to have equal resistance, I caught a designer at spending his time ensuring the copper traces on the printed circuit board were the same length.

"Do you realize how tiny a resistance change trace length contributes?"

"Well yeah, but why not make the circuit as accurate as we can?"

"But we're using 1% resistors. We can use 0.1% if you can justify adding $2 in component costs per unit. But we'd have to match resistors to 0.000001% in order for trace length to make a significant difference. So why are you wasting your time with this?"

"But... but... the voltage drops, they're supposed to be equal, aren't they?"

"Yes, and they won't be, even after you make the trace lengths perfectly equal. But they'll be close enough if you don't. So enough with the embroidery project you little sissy, let's get this done!"

 

[EasyRhino]

I don't know if I've ever heard the word sissy bantered about in engineering conversations.

Anyway, I think a remember the Arnold Snyder article that Jack mentioned, here it is. The gist was that if you do a more difficult count (a sidecount in this case), then it might increase your win rate ever so slightly. But then if you bet proportionally more in conjunction with the win rate, then the effect is amplified. Not a lot of hard math in that particular article, though.

 

[aslan]

I guess I'm right in the middle. I use a system that already gives up a lot of EV for simplicity's sake, yet I try to use it to perfection within my overall gameplan. If I had a more precise methodology than KO, I would likely feel more at ease to make a few errors here and there, but since I am already pushing up against nearly an even money situation with the house, I feel I have to be more attentive to playing as flawlessly as possible. I guess it's the trade-off you make when you opt for a system to use.

And I might add that sometimes in specific situations, I feel that I give up more than my advantage for cover's sake, since I am adamant about longevity in certain places. This gives me up to no end of agonizing over what I'm doing and inspires me to the greatest attention to detail so that I can recover from these deliberately self-inflicted wounds. I hope I make sense.

 

[sagefr0g]

1. Only play with 70% or better pen?

2. Only play with 75% or better pen?

3. Always wong out at the prescribed exit points?

4. Only play when you can wong in?

5. Spread at least 8X?

6. Spread at least 10X?

7. Spread at least 12X?

8. Spread at least 16X?

9. Ramp up more aggressively (ex, 2, 4, 8, 16) according to % advantage?

10. Stay aways from 6-deck games?

11. Other?

What are the most important factors to you in beating a 6-deck game?

number 11 . which entails using your brain. given the conditions most of us who are not professional are likely to encounter points one through nine alone will prove difficult to apply. they are all good points but considering the preponderance of lousy conditions i believe point 3 & point 9 are the most practical. point 9 will require a robust bankroll and nerves of steel, lol .
but number 11 is most important because it begs the question, Who are you? what is appropriate for you with regards to your personal goals, how often you are able to play, at what level of risk do you want to play. what is important to you with regards to satisfaction regarding losing and winning money and what you have to do to achieve that satisfaction when it comes to playing the six deck game of blackjack that you are likely to encounter considering the real conditons that exist? ask your self to what degree do you truly understand the six deck game of blackjack as it exists according to the conditions that you are likely to play under. realize that in the short run and even the long run what you are doing is truly a gamble. come to an understanding of what that means to you. that will shape your decisions that you make with regards to all of the points above.
the point being don't factor your self out of the equation when you make you decisions about how you are going to beat the six deck game.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

...
I do wonder the rational that people here are using when they start going on about the number of mistakes you can make and still keep winning.

Math.

Do you think that so many successful players from the MIT team - note i said players, not authors - advise keeping a higher standard just to encourage you to buy the Institute's products?

Yes.

These players have been there and done it at levels that none of you have even come close to. You've have had it spelled out to you by far more serious and successful players than yourselves or me plenty of times, if you want to ignore their advice why would you listen to anyone else?

How do you know? Jerry Patterson claims he's a very successful player and also has a system to sell me that isn't supported by the numbers. Should I believe him?

The truth is, we can never be sure who is a successful player, and who is a bloviator, phony or con man. This includes me. For all you know I'm a nut who has never actually played, and for all I know the "MIT team" is a self-written legend who exaggerates their successes to sell books and movies. Neither of these situations would be a first. The difference is that I'm willing to provide facts that anyone with a computer can recreate and investigate for themselves, and people associated with gaming who ask you for money for their services, typically, are not.

 

[RJT]

The truth is, we can never be sure who is a successful player, and who is a bloviator, phony or con man. This includes me. For all you know I'm a nut who has never actually played, and for all I know the "MIT team" is a self-written legend who exaggerates their successes to sell books and movies. Neither of these situations would be a first. The difference is that I'm willing to provide facts that anyone with a computer can recreate and investigate for themselves, and people associated with gaming who ask you for money for their services, typically, are not.

You know the very people who showed you the way with the maths are selling books. But of course you invented all this for yourself, you didn't just use other peoples work. You started from first principals and develop this bit by bit then just happen across the fact that Thorp et al did it years earlier. LMAO.
The same people who you learned all of your knowledge from in the first instance also lend credence to the success of the MIT team. Think Wong, Snyder, Schlesinger, Watterberger etc etc. These people all have knowledge of the people involved and certainly wouldn't decry their success. You however have yourself flapping about how they're all lying to you in one instance yet readily prepared to accept in the other where they confirm what you already believe.
Your little paranoid fantasies are just that, but i do love that you want to set yourself up as a stand alone authority on the game. Automatic Monkey - i'm not making any money so i must be right. You should try that as a slogan. I'm sure the double meaning won't be lost on anyone.
If you want to take a straight double shot of theory and assume that it must represent reality perfectly then on you go. The advice i will give will always be different to that.

RJT.

P.S. I'd love for you to pop on over to the BJI board and say that last bit - you know the bit about how people offering a product aren't willing to justify what they are recommending with facts and figures. Some might reckon that you'd be a very small fish in a very big pond.

 

[jack.jackson]

When push comes to shove!

Actually, not necessarily. Some plays increase EV a little and standard deviation a lot thus increasing both EV and RoR. That usually happens with exotic split and double plays. The double 10 vs. 10 index has to be considerably higher than the one that gives you +EV to not increase RoR.

You're a guy who's familiar with multiparameter and multilevel counts. You can figure this out- how many counting errors does a level 2 player (RPC, Mentor) have to make per 6D shoe to be playing with the same SCORE as a High-Low player who makes none? The answer will be higher than a few people here realize thus you could say a High-Low player is wasting his time trying to eliminate a bunch of mistakes per shoe and should concentrate on learning level 2 instead. Or realize that it will take a lifetime of play for the differences to become manifest.

There's an example from engineering that comes up often with rookies, trying to eliminate little errors that are dwarfed by other systematic ones. Working on a circuit design that required two current paths to have equal resistance, I caught a designer at spending his time ensuring the copper traces on the printed circuit board were the same length.

"Do you realize how tiny a resistance change trace length contributes?"

"Well yeah, but why not make the circuit as accurate as we can?"

"But we're using 1% resistors. We can use 0.1% if you can justify adding $2 in component costs per unit. But we'd have to match resistors to 0.000001% in order for trace length to make a significant difference. So why are you wasting your time with this?"

"But... but... the voltage drops, they're supposed to be equal, aren't they?"

"Yes, and they won't be, even after you make the trace lengths perfectly equal. But they'll be close enough if you don't. So enough with the embroidery project you little sissy, let's get this done!"

Well it sounded real good, until I got to the last sentence. Not exactly sure where or what, Invoked the Insult. I was simply aggreing that the Xtra effort and hard work, goes a long way. Cause lord knows Ive put in some serious time. So naturally Ill agree with anyone that says the Xtra effort pays. I wasnt taking sides here,(thats not me)just simply agrreing. As a matter of fact Bojacks post was the only post I read from this thread, and still is.
I realize I got some crazy Ideas and say alot off the wall ****, and probably deserved it. But lets keep it clean and keep the name callin to ourselves. An apology would be acceptable.

 

[RJT]

JJ,
You know i'm not trying to defend any of AM's points here, because i think we all know my feelings about AM's advice, but i think that 'sissy' comment was actually part of his quaint little story, where he was referring to this supposed engineer as a 'sissy' for what he phrased as embroidery.

RJT.

 

[jack.jackson]

JJ,
You know i'm not trying to defend any of AM's points here, because i think we all know my feelings about AM's advice, but i think that 'sissy' comment was actually part of his quaint little story, where he was referring to this supposed engineer as a 'sissy' for what he phrased as embroidery.

RJT.

OOOO, OK, excuse me for my ignorance Sorry AM!

IM actually very happy to here that. Thankyou RJT for clearing that up. Sorry AM!

I think were all in this together, and should work toward building freindlier relations

 

[Automatic Monkey]

OOOO, OK, excuse me for my ignorance Sorry AM!

IM actually very happy to here that. Thankyou RJT for clearing that up. Sorry AM!

I think were all in this together, and should work toward building freindlier relations

Aw no problem! I only call people sissies in person. But I really do talk like that, and have been written up at work for bad language. One of my first engineering professors was a Navy guy, and we had two girls in the class. The girls both happened to be out on the same day, and he spent half the lecture telling all these filthy stories he had been holding in all year.

 

[sagefr0g]

,,,,,,,. ,I do wonder the rational that people here are using when they start going on about the number of mistakes you can make and still keep winning. ,,,,,,,
RJT.

the rational is two fold in my case.
on the one hand it's a good thing to keep the fear factor concerning mistakes in perspective.
on the other hand understanding the true cost of mistakes can provide you an idea of how much 'wiggle room' with respect to accuracy one can get away with.

 

[zengrifter]

Once you factor in ... level 1 vs level 2, rounded Indices, fuzzy betting, risk averse Indices, guessing on soft doubles,splits,S17,Sr, .... Well you've just seen your potential advantage slip from about .5 to about .2

Naaaw. Not the above items, only the mistakes. zg

 

[Automatic Monkey]

the rational is two fold in my case.
on the one hand it's a good thing to keep the fear factor concerning mistakes in perspective.
on the other hand understanding the true cost of mistakes can provide you an idea of how much 'wiggle room' with respect to accuracy one can get away with.

One important factor is the fact that a mistake will help you almost as often as it will hurt you.

See we always lose more hands than win, and the likelihood of winning a hand increases only a small amount as the count increases. How many times has it happened to you- you have a monster count and nonetheless you get every stiff and the dealer gets every 20 and natural? Suppose you misunderestimate the count and believe it is lower than it is, put out a smaller bet than you should and lose the hand. Has the mistake helped or hurt you? Now suppose you misoverestimate it, put out a big bet and win. Same thing right?

Now not to say that the count doesn't matter, which is what you get if you extend the reasoning drawn form this fact to the extreme, but we can't forget that the count is only a very, very rough approximation of our likelihood of winning the next hand, and no matter what we do we can't make it any better than very very rough. So don't fret over trying to perfect something that is intrinsically very imperfect.

 

[aslan]

number 11 . which entails using your brain. given the conditions most of us who are not professional are likely to encounter points one through nine alone will prove difficult to apply. they are all good points but considering the preponderance of lousy conditions i believe point 3 & point 9 are the most practical. point 9 will require a robust bankroll and nerves of steel, lol .
but number 11 is most important because it begs the question, Who are you? what is appropriate for you with regards to your personal goals, how often you are able to play, at what level of risk do you want to play. what is important to you with regards to satisfaction regarding losing and winning money and what you have to do to achieve that satisfaction when it comes to playing the six deck game of blackjack that you are likely to encounter considering the real conditons that exist? ask your self to what degree do you truly understand the six deck game of blackjack as it exists according to the conditions that you are likely to play under. realize that in the short run and even the long run what you are doing is truly a gamble. come to an understanding of what that means to you. that will shape your decisions that you make with regards to all of the points above.
the point being don't factor your self out of the equation when you make you decisions about how you are going to beat the six deck game.

Good answer, Mr. Frog.

 

[MAZ]

One important factor is the fact that a mistake will help you almost as often as it will hurt you.

See we always lose more hands than win, and the likelihood of winning a hand increases only a small amount as the count increases. How many times has it happened to you- you have a monster count and nonetheless you get every stiff and the dealer gets every 20 and natural? Suppose you misunderestimate the count and believe it is lower than it is, put out a smaller bet than you should and lose the hand. Has the mistake helped or hurt you? Now suppose you misoverestimate it, put out a big bet and win. Same thing right?

Now not to say that the count doesn't matter, which is what you get if you extend the reasoning drawn form this fact to the extreme, but we can't forget that the count is only a very, very rough approximation of our likelihood of winning the next hand, and no matter what we do we can't make it any better than very very rough. So don't fret over trying to perfect something that is intrinsically very imperfect.

You really aren't that bright are you. You claim to understand quantitive properties yet you at the same time use ploppy logic. So you're giving the example of getting a high count but you get bad cards and the dealer gets the good ones, aww too friggin bad. Thats like saying every time I double my 11 against a 6 today I lose so I'll stop doing it. Do it right enough times an it will work out, thats what math implies. If you want to use math as your point it can't be a contradictory one. And you can't depend on mistakes canceling out all the time as many times they are habits that are tendencies that are also quantitive. If you don't have a control over your practice environment and learn how to play correctly you would not be able to recognize this, least of all correct it. Oh yeah, I agree MIT was a hoax. That makes your point of view on everything seem so much more valid. I mean you must be an expert, look at how many posts you have. Who needs to really play when you can spend so many more hours spreading your vast knowledge about it online. Better yet learn to holecard and forget counting altogether.