OMG!, this ia good one!! for real this time!

[Ferretnparrot]

the sims in the past, to my knowledge aim to maximise your profit the instanatnious hand hand being played when it figures and index, sureley they are correct in figuring that when the expected EV of one play MEETS the ev from the formerly correct play at a caertain count, that this number would work for an index to maximise profit that *VERY HAND*, however, they do not consider that you may be playing heads up and when you are, the EV for the play that does not draw cards does not have to COMPLETELY meet or exceed the EV from the formerly correct play. because it now has the added benefit of gaining you extra rounds toward the end of the shoe at the same avdantage that the index takes place at, and the total ev gained from all hands played prior to the shoe ending *WILL BE HIGHER*, which in the past was never considered when creating indexes. This would meen that you should stand at lower counts for hands like 16 and 15 in a head up environment at lower counts, and it IS the correct move!!!! You will make more money! I like making more money!!

The only arguement that there should be here is wether or not the reduction of the index number is substancial

the higher the cont the index play takes place at, the more play you have inbetween the correct play and the new correct play that does not draw additional cards, if the current index number takes place at an avearge 2% advanateg you will have 0.37% ev that the play that does not draw card could fall short of the play that does draw cards, as the count gets higher, you have more play because the cards become worth more and more, this may lower some formerly less usable indexes into usable territory.

 

[Sonny]

The only arguement that there should be here is wether or not the reduction of the index number is substancial

I would imagine that most of the numbers will not change at all. The small gain from possibly playing an extra hand at an unknown count is probably trivial compared to the penalty for misplaying the current hand with a big bet in a positive count. Even if you only misplayed hands with minimum bets in negative counts I don't think you would find enough deviations to consistently save five cards per deck/shoe...and even then you would get an extra hand in a negative count.

Instead, you can just use the technique of card eating (like the Grifter’s Gambit) to achieve the same result without the disadvantage of misplaying any hands. The method you describe can be useful but only when applied to the last hand of the deck/shoe. As others have pointed out, there is plenty of info regarding the floating advantage, effects of playing multiple hands, cost of misplaying hands, cut card effect and card eating to get you started on solving this problem.

-Sonny-

 

[blackjack avenger]

Sims are Simulations of Reality

the sims in the past, to my knowledge aim to maximise your profit the instanatnious hand hand being played when it figures and index, sureley they are correct in figuring that when the expected EV of one play MEETS the ev from the formerly correct play at a caertain count, that this number would work for an index to maximise profit that *VERY HAND*

Sims are "simulations" of play. So they take into consideration one or more players, the penetration of the shoe. They are simulations of actual play so they take into consideration any saving or using of cards based on hits or stands. So in checking the value of different BS plays a sim takes into consideration cards used or saved.

There are ways to determine BS based on math formulas, but that is not a simulation!:joker::whip:

 

[Ferretnparrot]

if the sims consider this fact already than they shoudl show that there is a lower index for 16vs9 playin head up than there is for a play all, it wont though because its attemting to maximise the ev for how that hand plays out when it sims it, not how much total ev you gain from all plays, of all hands.

Its lower, that what it was formerly thought to be, unless somebody can explain why the saving of cards doesnt have a somwhat large gain of EV
--------------
to sonny, it wont be an unknown count since on average once you are at a count, the TC will on average be the same untill the cut card is dealt.

The effect of each card save is high when playing head up but not high when playing at a full table, sicne each card represents essentically a fraction of another hand played at the current advanatge.

 

[zengrifter]

Somebody help me here - this is the first I've heard of heads-up indices being appreicably different than multi-player indices.

Would be the same as deeper pene indices, right? zg

 

[blackjack avenger]

A Sim Shall Lead Them

Let's take 16 v 10
halves

Algabraic approximation indice 0
Powersim simulation indice 0
cv data ev indice 0
cv data ra indice 0

Now the algabra indice considers the value at the time.
the sims take into consideration the value of the indice playing many shoes.

The sims take into consideration any cards saved by standing.

yet they are all the same

If there was value in standing more frequently to save cards then the sims would have a different valued indice.:joker::whip:

 

[blackjack avenger]

No, No, No

if the sims consider this fact already than they shoudl show that there is a lower index for 16vs9 playin head up than there is for a play all, it wont though because its attemting to maximise the ev for how that hand plays out when it sims it, not how much total ev you gain from all plays, of all hands.

Its lower, that what it was formerly thought to be, unless somebody can explain why the saving of cards doesnt have a somwhat large gain of EV

Let's take 16 v 10
stand all
vs
hit all

Now you run a sim of hands and shoes being played. So this is like playing many hands and shoes extremely quickly! A "simulation"

Now, when you stand on all 16s you will get the occasional extra round because you have saved cards. However, obviously it does not make up for the error of the misplays or standing would have a higher SCORE. Remember, in a simulation you are actually playing!

Hitting all the time uses more cards and you would receive fewer rounds, but playing the 16 correctly overcomes the fewer overall rounds played.

The sim looks at the total play and which is the best choice. To hit and use cards or stand and save cards. The sim tells us it is better to hit and use cards, even if that means fewer rounds played per shoe!

The sim can take individual plays into acount. Keep everything the same but stand or hit 16 and that shows you the total value for one play vs another, also it considers the cards used or not because it is simulating actual play!

Saving of cards does have value, if those cards are worth saving. That does not mean that one should misplay hands in order to save cards. One does not automatically lead to the other.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

If sims consider maximising the ev for all hands played total, as in the total gain after how ever many hands simmmed, then you should find that there is a slight difference in the calculated index number for plays such as 16vs9 15vs10, 15vs9 or any index that calls for standing at high counts. Because while playing heads up the fact that you are not taking cards has a LARGER impact on your total ev for all hands played.

****Perhaps the error is coming from this strategy generating extra hands, and hand for hand you still make ~ the same amount of money, but per period of time in real life you will be dealt more hands that you can bet on.

So while the sim may be calulating the edge from all hands to be the same, you will notice a higher number of hands dealt at an advanatge per shoe, as a result of the modified index numbers.

Plays like 16vs10 will not be affected, the value of the cards is proportional to the advanatge at the instantanious count that the index takes place at, so saving cards at 0 counts will have no change in EV,

Likewise, i think that this strategy could be applied for you to draw cards at negetive counts as well alse being done by optimising indexes for heads up

Keep in mind also im not saying, just flat out misplay hands to save cards, im saying that instead of standing at +4, it may be correct to stand at +3.5 in head up play, or instead of standing at +8, perhaps +7 is truely correct when you are playing heads up, there most definately will be a difference in index numbers that occur at high counts in head up vs multiple peopel at the table, even if it is by only a tiny difference such as +7.95 instead of +8

 

[Automatic Monkey]

If sims consider maximising the ev for all hands played total, as in the total gain after how ever many hands simmmed, then you should find that there is a slight difference in the calculated index number for plays such as 16vs9 15vs10, 15vs9 or any index that calls for standing at high counts. Because while playing heads up the fact that you are not taking cards has a LARGER impact on your total ev for all hands played.

****Perhaps the error is coming from this strategy generating extra hands, and hand for hand you still make ~ the same amount of money, but per period of time in real life you will be dealt more hands that you can bet on.

So while the sim may be calulating the edge from all hands to be the same, you will notice a higher number of hands dealt at an advanatge per shoe, as a result of the modified index numbers.

Plays like 16vs10 will not be affected, the value of the cards is proportional to the advanatge at the instantanious count that the index takes place at, so saving cards at 0 counts will have no change in EV,

Likewise, i think that this strategy could be applied for you to draw cards at negetive counts as well alse being done by optimising indexes for heads up

Keep in mind also im not saying, just flat out misplay hands to save cards, im saying that instead of standing at +4, it may be correct to stand at +3.5 in head up play, or instead of standing at +8, perhaps +7 is truely correct when you are playing heads up, there most definately will be a difference in index numbers that occur at high counts in head up vs multiple peopel at the table, even if it is by only a tiny difference such as +7.95 instead of +8

You are correct in that conserving cards by standing or surrendering will incrementally increase the likelihood of seeing an additional round at high count. For this very reason a non-AP at the table will lose slightly less money playing with a play-all counter than playing alone or with other civilians.

In pitch games it's not uncommon to draw extra cards after you have busted in negative counts to get rid of a bad shoe/deck. There's no loss associated with that because you only do it when you have already lost the hand, but I wouldn't do it too much unless you have a really good act.

Still, this is all a very small effect and I don't believe any of us are calculating true count down to the second decimal point, so I don't think the effect you describe has much real-world application, particularly in shoe games. Only in DD could it have significance.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

I dont thin that for all hands it would be the second decimal point, i think at least one hand may be a good candidate, the reason being is that as the count gets higehr and your advantage gets higher, each card is increasingly worth more and more, combining that with the posibility where a play such as not splitting could save you more than one card on average and you may have a "play region" of over 2% for really high indexes, meaning that you could make the deviation when the ev for not splitting is a whole 2% lower than formerly beleived to be correct play of splitting.

I think to be able to tell if it will effectively reduce the index number of a play, or for slipts, we wouldnt be splittign them untill higher counts. You would need to target plays that, as the count gets higher and higher, the value of the play for standing APPROACHES the value of the plays for hitting, at a slow rate so that for every point coutn increase, the play for standing gets closer to the play for hitting by only a tiny amount such as 0.5%, again, coming CLOSER to the play for hitting by 0.5%, not the slope of its increase by point count. By doing this, you would target ONLY plays where the index would be effected by a full point value when playing heads up vs plaaying at a ful table, since the effect of saving cards is signifiagantly less at a full table.

It shoudl become more and more effective at very high index plays, i think this will be usable in heads up play at double deck games where midshoe entry probibly isnt allowed and higher indexes become more usable.

 

[Kasi]

Alright so last night, while laying in bed thinking about blackjack, ...
if you increase it by one card, on average it will score you about 1/5th of a hand dealt,

I'd hate to tell you what I think about laying in bed but it ain't BJ

Is this 1/5th stuff something like 1/4.4 total cards for the round? If so, that's not an average unless it happens every round.

Like take 6D dealt at 234 cards (75%). On average, heads up, you will play 44 rounds at 5.4 cards per round or 237.6 cards.

So, say you stand instead of hit once a shoe, now you still play 44 rounds but in only 236.6 cards. So now your avg cards per round is 2.69 instead of 2.70. And you misplayed a hand for no reason at all.

Does this change anything in your thinking? Would your 0.3% now be 0.006% kind of thing?

But then again, if Taco Bell had never told me I was thinking "outside the box" when I ordered a burrito I never would have even known it

 

[Ferretnparrot]

the 1/5th was me rounding for ease of explanation the fact that, if you add one card to the number of cards to be dealt prior to shuffling, you will get 1/5.4th of a round on average when playing head up, thi si not so when you are playign at a full table because you will instead get 1/16.2th of a hand per shoe, per time you add one card.

It is of value because, once you are at a count, on average every hand after that count will be at the same advanatge, so saving a card has a real measurabel value to you, which in heads up play woudl be 1/5.4th of the current ev for whatever coutn it is that you are at.

The card do not have as much value when playing at a full table.

Since the cards have real value to card counters in positive count environments, you should, and can use their value to optimise index numbers.

say at a high count you are at a 5.4% advanatge, now each card is worth a whole 1 percent of whatever it is you are betting, now say that you have the choice to split because the index for splitting a hand happens to be the current TC you are playign at, if on average, you save 2 cards by not splitting this hypothetical hand, you are saving 2% by not splittign it, if the ev for splitting is +25% and the ev for standing is +24 percent, splitting would be the correct play to mximise the profit in the given hand, however by standing, the REAL EV of standing is 24% +2% (which on average you gain later in the shoe)for a total of 26% and is TRUELY the correct play. If you wernt playing head up though, instead of each card being worth 1% it woudl instead be worth 0.33% such as a a nearly full table, in this case the 24% plus the 0.66% for two card would not be more valuabel than splitting, and splittign would be the correct play

All of this means that index numbers for playing heads up should be lower or higher depending on the type of hand when playing heads up rather than at a full table to maximise gain from the remainder of the cards.

They should be differnt by some amount

 

[Kasi]

you will get 1/5.4th of a round on average when playing head up,

Yes you're right - I actually meant 1/5.4, not 1/4.4.

Either way, it's not an average over all rounds played. It's an absolute, more or less, for only that particular round played.

If you want to use risk-averse indexes, fine. If you want to have a fellow team guy maybe spread to multiple hands in neg counts eating up bad cards, fine.

Even do what you propose, fortunately for you, it won't make any difference anyway in your lifetime even if it may not be justified by theory.

I don't know really know anyway. It just strikes me as wrong on so many levels lol.

Even by your absurd 0.3% numbers, how many times a shoe are you planning on misplaying a hand creating a one-card less avg for that round?

Vaya con Dios, mon ami.

 

[MAZ]

the 1/5th was me rounding for ease of explanation the fact that, if you add one card to the number of cards to be dealt prior to shuffling, you will get 1/5.4th of a round on average when playing head up, thi si not so when you are playign at a full table because you will instead get 1/16.2th of a hand per shoe, per time you add one card.

It is of value because, once you are at a count, on average every hand after that count will be at the same advanatge, so saving a card has a real measurabel value to you, which in heads up play woudl be 1/5.4th of the current ev for whatever coutn it is that you are at.

The card do not have as much value when playing at a full table.

Since the cards have real value to card counters in positive count environments, you should, and can use their value to optimise index numbers.

say at a high count you are at a 5.4% advanatge, now each card is worth a whole 1 percent of whatever it is you are betting, now say that you have the choice to split because the index for splitting a hand happens to be the current TC you are playign at, if on average, you save 2 cards by not splitting this hypothetical hand, you are saving 2% by not splittign it, if the ev for splitting is +25% and the ev for standing is +24 percent, splitting would be the correct play to mximise the profit in the given hand, however by standing, the REAL EV of standing is 24% +2% (which on average you gain later in the shoe)for a total of 26% and is TRUELY the correct play. If you wernt playing head up though, instead of each card being worth 1% it woudl instead be worth 0.33% such as a a nearly full table, in this case the 24% plus the 0.66% for two card would not be more valuabel than splitting, and splittign would be the correct play

All of this means that index numbers for playing heads up should be lower or higher depending on the type of hand when playing heads up rather than at a full table to maximise gain from the remainder of the cards.

They should be differnt by some amount

Yo dude you are totally blowing it by pursuing this line of thinking. Take your ideas into different directions not based on decimal point advanyages that really don't exist in real play. Nice try but you are wrong.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Why?

The card do not have as much value when playing at a full table.

Since the cards have real value to card counters in positive count environments, you should, and can use their value to optimise index numbers.

say at a high count you are at a 5.4% advanatge, now each card is worth a whole 1 percent of whatever it is you are betting, now say that you have the choice to split because the index for splitting a hand happens to be the current TC you are playign at, if on average, you save 2 cards by not splitting this hypothetical hand, you are saving 2% by not splittign it, if the ev for splitting is +25% and the ev for standing is +24 percent, splitting would be the correct play to mximise the profit in the given hand, however by standing, the REAL EV of standing is 24% +2% (which on average you gain later in the shoe)for a total of 26% and is TRUELY the correct play. If you wernt playing head up though, instead of each card being worth 1% it woudl instead be worth 0.33% such as a a nearly full table, in this case the 24% plus the 0.66% for two card would not be more valuabel than splitting, and splittign would be the correct play

All of this means that index numbers for playing heads up should be lower or higher depending on the type of hand when playing heads up rather than at a full table to maximise gain from the remainder of the cards.

They should be differnt by some amount

The cards have the same value at a full table, we bet the same if a full or an empty table.

In your example you are assuming that you nail the next round. Again if you are 2 cards in front of the cut card you would get the extra round without the misplay, if you are beyond the cut card then you misplayed the hand for no extra value. Misplaying the hand costs you money if you do not get the value of an extra round!

Again, one can set up a scenario where your thinking is correct even if you are off in card estimation by quite a bit, but the scenarios are probably rare.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

what if there is a play where, as the coutn gets higher the EV for not drawing cards aproches the EV for a play that draws card at a very slow rate, because both of the graphs of change in EV by count for each action have a very similer slope.

If there are hands like this then surely this will reduce the index number for that hand in heads up play considerably because the ev gained from not drawing a crad in heads up vs not drawing a card at a full table could bridge the gap of severy points for the index value by filling in the missing EV to make it the correct play.

-------------------------------------------------------
Cards are worth less to you at a ful table because each one represents a smaller portion of an entire rond played.

If you save one card at a ful table on average you will have to play 16 shoes to see an aditional round on average

Playing head up you wil only have to play 5.4 on average

So in head up play each card is worth 1/5.4th fo the current EV at the current count
But in a full table it is worth only 1/16.2th of the current EV at the current count and is signifigantly less valuable to you.

You are never goign to be able to know the exact number of cards to a tolerance high enough to NOT make the number of undealt card left "unknown" as long as the number of cards is unkown, on avearge each card added will score you a/5.4th of a round in each shoe for each card saved, if each round is worth a certain EV to you, each card is worth 1/5.4th of that ev

 

[ortango]

I apply this concept regularly, but it's only because I can get away with it in my casino. If I have a min bet out with 1d left of a 6d shoe, then we are +6 TC all of a sudden because of a good round of cards, I will easily give up a borderline decision to ensure I get one more round of cards. Once again, it is only because I can get away with crazy spreads in my casino.

 

[HarryKuntz]

Am I missing something?

If you want to play deeper into the shoe and get past the cut card, then why not just do what I do? Spread to more hands, I usally try to play heads up or just with the misses. If the count warrents it, I'll spread from 1-2 hands to playing the full table just before the cut card, usally making some ploppy remark like "lucky last hand". I've even had dealers looking out for the cut card and telling me when it will make an appearance to help me with my ploppie ritual. Ok, so the varience might be high but if it's +EV and your not over better your BR, then who gives a ****. It's gotta be better than playing incorrectly for the same results.

 

[FLASH1296]

Nearly all of the casinos that I play at limit a player to 3 spots.

Where are you playing ?

 

[EasyRhino]

Nearly all of the casinos that I play at limit a player to 3 spots.

I played every spot one round at one place.

It wasn't even a special AP move, I just wanted to try it, and they let me.