Late shoe entry

[aslan]

It seems from my few hours of experience that on average it is most advantageous for a non-counting player to only enter a table toward the end of the shoe. Why? Because in my limited experience, the count was generally favorable toward the end. In say ten shoes, I only had one or two shoes that failed to reach a favorable count. Sometimes it turned earlier than others, but the earlier it turned, the more likely it would fall back to an unfaovrable count. But like I said, in most cases it was favorable late in the shoe. Wouldn't a basic strategy player have a greater chance of winning if they only bet during the last stages of each shoe? Certainly they couldn't on average do any worse than betting the entire shoe! I wonder if there are any statistics on this?

 

[schismist]

The expected value at the end of the shoe would be the same as at the beginning of the shoe. The standard error of this mean, however will be larger at the end of the shoe, because the count may be positive or negative. But, unless you saw the cards before, you don't know which. So you will be more likely to win several hands or lose several hands at the end of the shoe instead of win or lose a little at the beginning of the shoe. In the long run, these will cancel each other out and you will still be playing a losing game.

 

[EasyRhino]

You know those "hurricane tracks" that meteorologists do during storm season? The line that predicts where the hurricane will go, with expanding uncertainty zones as time goes on?

That's what the shoe is like. You alwas know the house edge at the beginning. But by the end, you may have the exact same edge, or you may have a massive positive count, or a massive negative count. All in equal proportions.

 

[TENNBEAR]

It seems from my few hours of experience that on average it is most advantageous for a non-counting player to only enter a table toward the end of the shoe. Why? Because in my limited experience, the count was generally favorable toward the end. In say ten shoes, I only had one or two shoes that failed to reach a favorable count. Sometimes it turned earlier than others, but the earlier it turned, the more likely it would fall back to an unfaovrable count. But like I said, in most cases it was favorable late in the shoe. Wouldn't a basic strategy player have a greater chance of winning if they only bet during the last stages of each shoe? Certainly they couldn't on average do any worse than betting the entire shoe! I wonder if there are any statistics on this?

The good cards are as likely to be in the front of the shoe as the back, card counting cannot tell us in advanced what cards are coming until several hands have been played, so we lose the advantage if the good cards are in the front of the shoe. For the BS player it would not have any effect on his play. The cards are randomly shuffled so only counting and advanced techniques can we determine where the good cards are.

 

[aslan]

Solid Advice

Thanks, guys. You probably saved me a ton. It's easy to go off half-cocked based on a single experience thinking you have discovered the holy grail (that nobody else was smart enough to see). I'm sure every angle has been gone over with a fine tooth comb by now and I should stick to what is a proven fact.

 

[sagefr0g]

The expected value at the end of the shoe would be the same as at the beginning of the shoe. The standard error of this mean, however will be larger at the end of the shoe, because the count may be positive or negative. But, unless you saw the cards before, you don't know which. So you will be more likely to win several hands or lose several hands at the end of the shoe instead of win or lose a little at the beginning of the shoe. In the long run, these will cancel each other out and you will still be playing a losing game.

interesting viewpoint. sounds as if it's related to the gist of the true count theorem.