Observing the QUANTITY of cards as a Basic Strategy Player...

[Fun_at_21]

As a Basic Strategy player that only looks to play for fun and not income, I don't look to gain outright advantages. I know better than to assume I can overcome the math as long as I remain a hair on this side of the disadvantage fence.

However, I'm not above innocently utilizing "advantage plays" within my disadvantage if it shaves a few notches off and brings me closer to dead even with the house.

One aspect I've always been casually intrigued by is the QUANTITY of cards seen for any given hand (the total seen between just me and the dealer, ideally).

I'm sure this has been thouroghly explored and, I suspect, proven to only be of minimal relevance, but I still was wondering precisely what tiny advantage is there to taking note of, say, 9+ card hands between you and the dealer? My rough guess is that without even "counting" individual cards, you would be likely to now face a slightly more advantageous deck on the next hand (until you and the dealer both total 5 or less cards together that is...)

I realize there are problems with this vague quantity awareness. Namely that any advantage is surely miniscule and inprecise. Second, I also realized that in some cases, Aces may be adding to this high quantity and thus, in effect, a high quantity just HURT you for future hands as some of the Aces are now out of the game.

But just to satisfy my curiosity as a Basic Strategy player, has anyone ever run simulations/studies on this? Are there even a few hundredths of a percent to be gained by playing perfect basic strategy and only raising bets after 9+ card hands or LOWERING them after seeing a 4 card total (between you and the dealer)? I like to think this might be a "good" lazy man's way to still play good basic strategy yet maybe add some tiny advantage just by having some blind quantity awareness (is that term even possible). LOL

I guess I'm not so much asking if this is an advantageous concept, for I know it isn't (to any precise degree), but rather, this awareness can't HURT a basic strategy player that is otherwise playing at only a small disadvantage to begin with can it?

Thanks for any thoughts!

 

[21gunsalute]

Technically this would be counting cards, so as long as you're counting cards why not use an established system that works?

 

[FLASH1296]

If your motivation is weak just learn the simplest card counting system of all.

Count (only) Aces & Fives.

A game with extra ACES favors you, and extra FIVES favor the house.

Adjust your bets accordingly and use the correct Basic Strategy.

This is admittedly a very weak for a shoe game, but easy to use.

Your post says that you merely want to cut down the house edge.

This will reduce the house edge as long as you vary your bets aggressively.

 

[FLASH1296]

Here is a very reputable link to the Ace-Five Count:

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/wizardcount.html

You should at least take a moment to read and print out the page.

 

[tribute]

If your motivation is weak just learn the simplest card counting system of all.

Count (only) Aces & Fives.

A game with extra ACES favors you, and extra FIVES favor the house.

Adjust your bets accordingly and use the correct Basic Strategy.

This is admittedly a very weak for a shoe game, but easy to use.

Your post says that you merely want to cut down the house edge.

This will reduce the house edge as long as you vary your bets aggressively.

As for strength, how does the Ace-Five compare to the A/10 Front Count?

 

[sagefr0g]

As a Basic Strategy player that only looks to play for fun and not income, I don't look to gain outright advantages. I know better than to assume I can overcome the math as long as I remain a hair on this side of the disadvantage fence.

However, I'm not above innocently utilizing "advantage plays" within my disadvantage if it shaves a few notches off and brings me closer to dead even with the house.

One aspect I've always been casually intrigued by is the QUANTITY of cards seen for any given hand (the total seen between just me and the dealer, ideally).

I'm sure this has been thouroghly explored and, I suspect, proven to only be of minimal relevance, but I still was wondering precisely what tiny advantage is there to taking note of, say, 9+ card hands between you and the dealer? My rough guess is that without even "counting" individual cards, you would be likely to now face a slightly more advantageous deck on the next hand (until you and the dealer both total 5 or less cards together that is...)

I realize there are problems with this vague quantity awareness. Namely that any advantage is surely miniscule and inprecise. Second, I also realized that in some cases, Aces may be adding to this high quantity and thus, in effect, a high quantity just HURT you for future hands as some of the Aces are now out of the game.

But just to satisfy my curiosity as a Basic Strategy player, has anyone ever run simulations/studies on this? Are there even a few hundredths of a percent to be gained by playing perfect basic strategy and only raising bets after 9+ card hands or LOWERING them after seeing a 4 card total (between you and the dealer)? I like to think this might be a "good" lazy man's way to still play good basic strategy yet maybe add some tiny advantage just by having some blind quantity awareness (is that term even possible). LOL

I guess I'm not so much asking if this is an advantageous concept, for I know it isn't (to any precise degree), but rather, this awareness can't HURT a basic strategy player that is otherwise playing at only a small disadvantage to begin with can it?

Thanks for any thoughts!

there is a book written on essentially the same stuff you discuss above.
there are some sims discussed about this approach as well that are in the book. the book is No Need To Count by Leon B. Dubey, Jr.
Arnold Snyder wrote a bit on this stuff as well:
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm
i tried to create a simulator in excel that could test such an approach but wasn't able to get past the complexity of splitting hands. even if i had completed the simulator it would have taken it years of running and a hard drive the size of texas to run enough rounds to get results.:sad:

 

[Fun_at_21]

Thanks for the link Sagefrog.

That Arnold Snyder article sounds exactly like what I do, and what I expected in terms of any slight benefit.

#8 on his list is particularly what I was getting at and is the way I play (as just a basic strategy player). I'm even a bit more "selective" and just essentially flat bet unless I see that my hand and the dealer's combine to at least 8 cards (only zero to one Ace present) and then I may "raise" my bet a little (not high enough to make any difference of course). Or I will drop my flat bet a little only after my hand and the dealer's BOTH end at just two cards each (4 total). But on average, I really just flat bet and play specific basic strategy as well as I can. I do play "quality" six deck games when in Vegas, meaning I'm okay with playing six decks but only with all other rules optimal - S17, DAS, double on any two cards, re-splits allowed, etc.

So from what I gather, adding the good rules to my benefit, I likely play with around a 0.40-50 of a percent disadvantage. From the comps, simple fun of playing, and the dabbling use of these vague "hand quantity" plays, I'd say I play pretty close to dead even yet can just freely and "blindly" enjoy myself.

I have read and understand the theory of the Ace/Five system (mostly due to Edward Thorp's classic Beat the Dealer book) but even as simple as it is, it still involves counting (work) in my eyes.

However, I won't lie and say I've never (involuntarily) raised/lowered a bet a few dollars after seeing a couple aces or fives on a single hand. Even as a happy basic strategy player, the relationship of fives to Aces is just something one can't pretend to not notice (once you learn about it).

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

I will say, it's very refreshing to see a BS player with realistic expectations on here. It may not be what you're looking for, but this thread touches on composition-dependent strategies (eg. multi-card 16 v T).

 

[paddywhack]

Agree completely

I will say, it's very refreshing to see a BS player with realistic expectations on here.

Too many think they have it all figured out and are destined to win. Some even do, for a while....

Solid BS against the best games you can find, take a lot of breaks to minimize your losses, and look for those opportunities to "spot" when a larger bet is more likely to win. Enjoy the recreational playing, counting can be a lot of work sometimes for little or negative compensation.

 

[Fun_at_21]

I will say, it's very refreshing to see a BS player with realistic expectations on here. It may not be what you're looking for, but this thread touches on composition-dependent strategies (eg. multi-card 16 v T).

Thanks! I do always keep my play realistic. Even though I don't count per se, I 'm definitely one who fully trusts and accepts the math. In other words, I never let my enjoyment of playing basic strategy as well as I can or any situational plays I might make from it, get confused with having any long term edge. Fortunately, I've always been able to keep the two separated. And with no less enjoyment of the game actually!

I think the reason I'm able to stay realistic with Blackjack and not "care" about an advantage is because I've always been more drawn to just the HAND probabilities, subtleties rather than a "big picture" philosophy. This might be a backwards or un-productive way to enjoy the game but it's just what allures me more. With the game close to being even as it is, I'm not so much fascinated by whether I could get ahead of the house by a half percent, one percent as much as I'm just easily drawn to the hand possibilities of the game - how big an advantage/disadvantage this hand is against that one etc. In other words, the long term frequencies and advantages of the specific hands and situations fascinate me more than the OVERALL picture. Again, that may be a bit backwards but what allures you is what allures you.

I do need to get more comfortable with some of the composition dependant plays. I'm sure that adds a bit more towards that true dead even mark (without doing any real work). Again, for ease sake, I mostly just play correct basic strategy as if every hand I have is just off the top of the deck.

 

[KimLee]

OPP Count

 

[QFIT]

The OPP article grossly exaggerates results. Sims by Cacarulo, MathProf and me agree with each other and disagree dramatically with the OPP sims.

 

[Fun_at_21]

The "method" I sometimes use (and I admittedly say method loosely) is to simply keep a vague "running count" of low quantity hands vs high quantity hands. I know this is surely inprecise and leaves plenty of loopholes, but I try to only count extreme examples of quantity hands.

I guess I would call it my 4/7 system. I'm sure it would take the world by storm...

It basically just revolves around flat-betting until I see either a 4 quantity hand (between me and the dealer) or a 7+ quantity hand (between the both of us).

I treat a 4 card total as -1 and a 7+ total as +1. If MORE than one Ace is on the table comprising the +7 quantity hand, then I DON'T count it as a +1.

I never really raise my flat bet until the "count" is at least +2, and even then I might raise it just one unit. Higher still if the "count" remains at +4 or +5 (this rarely happens to be honest). Furthermore, I'll simply leave the game (or at least the current shoe) if I ever get as low as -3.

The only problem, besides the fact the whole concept may do little to begin with, is the fact that I really have no idea what I might be gaining when this "count" of mine hits a +3 or a +4. I'm just literally increasing my bets blindly, knowing I must have SOME advantage going within the current shoe. Seeing I know of no sims etc on something as vague as hand quantities, I don't really know how many 7+ quantity hands are "needed" (relative to 4 card hand totals) to make a given shoe noticeably advantageous?

I just "ignore" 5 card totals or 6 card totals. Even though I suspect 5 card totals may be mostly a bad thing and 6 card totals often a good thing, I sort of just cancel them out as neutral with each other.

Well, that's about it. I have no real idea how something like this might compare to, say, the Ace/Five system - if its worse, a bit better or about the same? I know that just truly counting would be a much more accurate way to go. But on the plus side, I assume this "method" is at least not HURTING my disadvantage? I can only assume its doing better than the -.45 I'd otherwise be playing at.

I'm sure it may sound a bit ridiculous for me to say I don't count yet I do this...LOL. But its actually easier for me to blindly scan without real "work" than it is to explain (or to count for real)...

 

[QFIT]

But on the plus side, I assume this "method" is at least not HURTING my disadvantage? I can only assume its doing better than the -.45 I'd otherwise be playing at.

Technically correct, but not a safe assumption when you take into account risk. See Modern Blackjack Pages 197-198. In those pages, I simmed OPP, but called it WS.

 

[Fun_at_21]

Technically correct, but not a safe assumption when you take into account risk. See Modern Blackjack Pages 197-198. In those pages, I simmed OPP, but called it WS.

Thanks for the link. It makes sense. I "raise" my bets so conservatively that essentially I am just flat-betting all the time anyways (on average).

I also always bet with cut-off points so that I end up simply quitting before I could ever go bust. I might play with, say, a $50 loss limit and by that time, whether I've hit that quit point or ahead, I've had my 20-30 minutes of fun for the day and can gladly walk away. Indeed, sometimes I do hit that -$50 and I consider that a "bust" (for what I'm willing to accept) and simply quit for that visit. I definitly don't recklessly gamble. Or, rather, I gamble enjoyably and always in modest proportions.

But I know what you mean. I certainly could last even a little longer at times with that $50 cut-off if I ALWAYS flat-betted as opposed to ocassionally dabbling with these quantity raises here and there.