Playing zero hands an hour.

[shadroch]

I'm in AC right now,and just thought I'd share this.
I went down to play this morning at 8AM.I decided I would back count and join the games only at Plus 4 or better.Two and a half hours later,I had played exactly zero hands,dispite walking thru Ballys and its two annexes.
Did I set my sights too high or just hit bad variance?

 

[sagefr0g]

I'm in AC right now,and just thought I'd share this.
I went down to play this morning at 8AM.I decided I would back count and join the games only at Plus 4 or better.Two and a half hours later,I had played exactly zero hands,dispite walking thru Ballys and its two annexes.
Did I set my sights too high or just hit bad variance?

i think you set your sights too high. i'm guessing you might see a true count of four or more about twelve percent of the time in the long haul.......
but when will those counts present is another question maybe all together, maybe in short spurts inbetween, maybe after long stretchs of crap.
i think a sort of rule of thumb is that a 'worthwhile' shoe might present in one out of five shoes..... but that sure ain't at tc>= +4 ......... and there would be a good bit of variance even then, at least thats been my experience.
i keep remmembering the comment QFIT made a while back that made me realize that with the game conditions we face today one needs to be a bit more aggressive than our conservative natures might lead us.
well thats just my guess on all this. going on lower TC's and more aggressive might result in considerable pain or gain lol .....
good luck over there.

 

[RJT]

i'm guessing you might see a true count of four or more about twelve percent of the time in the long haul.......

What was that guess based on? Try 1% of the time in a deaply dealt 6 deck game.
Shadrock - your results are perfectly normal. Drop your entry point - the most of your money is made at moderate not high TC's.

RJT.

 

[sagefr0g]

What was that guess based on? Try 1% of the time in a deaply dealt 6 deck game.
Shadrock - your results are perfectly normal. Drop your entry point - the most of your money is made at moderate not high TC's.

RJT.

interesting comment about most money made at moderate TC's .......

uhmm i based the finding a TC>=+4 on a sim i figure is fairly typical for an 8 deck game one might find in Atlantic City.......
see below:

 

[RJT]

interesting comment about most money made at moderate TC's .......

uhmm i based the finding a TC>=+4 on a sim i figure is fairly typical for an 8 deck game one might find in Atlantic City.......
see below:

Funny i took mine straight out of 'Beat the 6D Game'... 85%
You don't have any TC<1 in there - you've got your CVCX set on wonging! You won't get an accurate estimate of how often a TC>=4 occurs like that, only what % of the hands you play will be TC>=4.

RJT.

 

[rogue1]

wow

The casinos would go belly up if only guys like us played blackjack! Let's declare this ploppy appreciation day!

 

[sagefr0g]

Funny i took mine straight out of 'Beat the 6D Game'... 85%
You don't have any TC<1 in there - you've got your CVCX set on wonging! You won't get an accurate estimate of how often a TC>=4 occurs like that, only what % of the hands you play will be TC>=4.

RJT.

yeah that is probably it..... just looked up the frequencies in Wong's Professional Blackjack....... page 289 appendix for six deck shuffle at 42 cards.......

tc=4 2.5%
tc=5 1.6%
tc>=6 3.02%

total tc>=4 circa 7.12% still quite a bit higher than what your finding from Snyder's publication ........
well maybe Snyder's figure is for an exact tc=4, i know Wong's figures are for a range example tc=4, 4.1, 4.2 ....

but your right look at the differance with wonging off....

but wouldn't it be more accurate for Shad with wonging on since that's what he's doing, wonging?

 

[21forme]

Problem with setting your wong-in point so high is you are playing so little. Besides the boredom factor, you're variance is likely to be fairly high due to so few hands played. Personally, I wong in at +1.5. With 6D shoes is not bad. With 8D shoes, even this is somewhat painful.

BTW, we just missed each other Shad. I was in AC for the last few days, and left this morning about 10 AM. In case you didn't notice, Ballys main casino now has some H17 tables.

 

[RJT]

total tc>=4 circa 7.12% still quite a bit higher than what your finding from Snyder's publication ........

LMAO - That's because i read off % advantage instead of TC - in an 85% penetration 6D game a TC of 4 or more (assuminging TC-1) would be approx 11% (rather than a % advantage of 4 or greater which only occurs 1% of the time). In a 75% game that answer would be closer to 9%.

RJT.

 

[RJT]

but wouldn't it be more accurate for Shad with wonging on since that's what he's doing, wonging?

That wouldn't give him the answer he was looking for - If he's not jumping in until a TC of 4 or more then 100% of the hands he plays are at a TC>=4.
He was asking whether it was normal for him to go hours without seeing these TC's and as you have to count many hands at lower counts - even if you don't actually play them - knowing how often they occur when all TC's are considered is a more valuable piece of information.

RJT.

 

[cmon46345]

The casinos would go belly up if only guys like us played blackjack! Let's declare this ploppy appreciation day!

who's gonna play while the cards are bad,the cards have to be dealt to someone while the count goes up or down

 

[sagefr0g]

That wouldn't give him the answer he was looking for - If he's not jumping in until a TC of 4 or more then 100% of the hands he plays are at a TC>=4.
He was asking whether it was normal for him to go hours without seeing these TC's and as you have to count many hands at lower counts - even if you don't actually play them - knowing how often they occur when all TC's are considered is a more valuable piece of information.

RJT.

duh, right you are lol.
anyway he needs to jump in a bit earlier...... lol.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I'm in AC right now,and just thought I'd share this.
I went down to play this morning at 8AM.I decided I would back count and join the games only at Plus 4 or better.Two and a half hours later,I had played exactly zero hands,dispite walking thru Ballys and its two annexes.
Did I set my sights too high or just hit bad variance?

Dumb question: what count are you using?

 

[shadroch]

My unique variation of Renzeys Kiss( I call it KISS 2.5).
Slightly better results in the later sessions but still way too much standing around for me.If I want to stand around doing nothing,I might as well go to work.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

My unique variation of Renzeys Kiss( I call it KISS 2.5).
Slightly better results in the later sessions but still way too much standing around for me.If I want to stand around doing nothing,I might as well go to work.

OK some people might have been confused when you said +4, means different things in different counts.

Standing around doing nothing beats handing your money to the casino, which is exactly what you are doing when you play negative counts. We all have to do it sometimes, more or less depending on what kind of game you're playing.

If I'm strictly backcounting I usually set my entrance point to where I'll be playing 1/4 to 1/3 of the hands. The best hands, of course. Another method to smooth it out is to watch a set number of hands at the beginning of a shoe (3 for 6D and 4 for 8D is a good place to start) and entering only if the count is positive. This will get you into about 50% of shoes, and just missing those first few hands will have a significant benefit to your overall advantage.

You don't want to spend too much time stalking around a casino without playing, because it might start to look like you are up to some criminal behavior and attract the attention of security.

 

[moo321]

If you were flat-betting, and on a short bankroll, I still wouldn't go any higher than +3 for an entry point in 6 deckers. If you're willing to spread 1-6 or 1-8, it should probably be under 2. +1 with a 1-8 or 1-2X4 is usually best.