Wonging Count

[assume_R]

If I Wong out with 4/8 decks left and come back is it safe to assume the true count hasn't changed?

 

[Sucker]

Yes, as long as you remember to convert your RC to TC as though there are still 4 decks left, even if it's the last hand of the shoe.

 

[assume_R]

Next shoe?

So if I take a break, and the RC is -10 with 4 decks left, after I come back, I just assume the RC is still -10 and there are still 4 unseen decks? In that case I'm assuming that on average it would be better to wait for the next shoe?

 

[sagefr0g]

So if I take a break, and the RC is -10 with 4 decks left, after I come back, I just assume the RC is still -10 and there are still 4 unseen decks? In that case I'm assuming that on average it would be better to wait for the next shoe?

for this stuff i think you need to think in terms of true count, note in the link the difference in behavior for true count and running count:
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)

 

[assume_R]

for this stuff i think you need to think in terms of true count, note in the link the difference in behavior for true count and running count:
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)

So if the TC used to be -2.5, and on average it didn't change, and I still have 4 unseen decks when I get back from the break, the RC will still be -10 on average, right?

 

[sagefr0g]

So if the TC used to be -2.5, and on average it didn't change, and I still have 4 unseen decks when I get back from the break, the RC will still be -10 on average, right?

from when you wonged out until you got back, some number of decks was played, i believe you'd want to add that number to the four decks on your re-entry, as far as making your true count calculation at that point.
so now your 'theoretical' running count would be even more negative than the -10, but you'd still as far as you 'know' would be going with a TC of -2.5.
errhh, i think this is how one should look at the situation, i'm not sure so i hope someone who does know will correct me if i'm wrong.
whatever, to me the interesting point about all this is how one endeavors in this situation to 'go with what one knows', sorta thing.
in this case it appears the 'news' wouldn't be so good.:laugh:

 

[blackjack avenger]

TC theorem

The TC stays the same while the RC changes
So
if you leave a shoe at TCx
when you return it is still TCx

you need to adjust the RC to give you the appropriate TCx

example
you leave at 4 out of 8 decks, running count is 8 TC is 2
you return at 6 out of 8 decks, TC is 2 and you have to assume a running count of 4 because of tc theorem

there will be wild variance but on average this is what it will be
:joker::whip:

 

[Ferretnparrot]

You must observe and take not of the number of cards you missed while you were away, and continue your running count as normal. The cards you missed you will treat as if they were behind the cut card.

For example, you leave at 4/8 decks and return to see that 5/8 decks have been dealt. In this case you missed 1 deck of cards

continue your running count from where you left off, but when you convert to TC you must add 1 deck to the remaining undealt (unknown) cards before dividing

Blackjack avengers method on the TC theorum is also valid

 

[blackjack avenger]

In Second Person

The TC stays the same while the RC changes
So
if you leave a shoe at TCx
when you return it is still TCx

you need to adjust the RC to give you the appropriate TCx

example
you leave at 4 out of 8 decks, running count is 8 TC is 2
you return at 6 out of 8 decks, TC is 2 and you have to assume a running count of 4 because of tc theorem

there will be wild variance but on average this is what it will be
:joker::whip:

with my method you make the one RC adjustment then you play as normal. A one step process.

With Ferrets method you have to remember to add that one deck behind the cut card every time you convert RC to TC

I think mine is easer, but it's subjective
:joker::whip:

 

[Sucker]

The TC stays the same while the RC changes
So
if you leave a shoe at TCx
when you return it is still TCx

you need to adjust the RC to give you the appropriate TCx

example
you leave at 4 out of 8 decks, running count is 8 TC is 2
you return at 6 out of 8 decks, TC is 2 and you have to assume a running count of 4 because of tc theorem

there will be wild variance but on average this is what it will be
:joker::whip:

I have to agree; this is an excellent idea. Simple and sweet.

 

[kewljason]

I understand the true count theorem. I don't really see how it's application is practical. If the count is negative enough to warrent leaving, why would I even consider coming back later in the shoe unless I had reason to believe that the count had changed dramatically, like observing a large number of small cards on the felt as I walk up.

 

[rrwoods]

with my method you make the one RC adjustment then you play as normal. A one step process.

With Ferrets method you have to remember to add that one deck behind the cut card every time you convert RC to TC

I think mine is easer, but it's subjective
:joker::whip:

No offense but your method is wrong.

Your method treats the cards you didn't see as though you had seen them, and counted them, and found that they increased the RC by the appropriate amount.

Think of it this way: Let's say I'm five decks into an eight deck shoe dealt to six and a half decks. My RC is +3 at this point. That would mean my TC is +1. Why don't I just pretend that the dealer takes a deck from behind the cut card and puts it in the discard tray? It's all unseen cards, so it shouldn't matter, right? But using your method, I could say that now I'm six decks into the shoe instead, and adjust my RC to +2, yes?

 

[kewljason]

No offense but your method is wrong.

Your method treats the cards you didn't see as though you had seen them, and counted them, and found that they increased the RC by the appropriate amount.

Think of it this way: Let's say I'm five decks into an eight deck shoe dealt to six and a half decks. My RC is +3 at this point. That would mean my TC is +1. Why don't I just pretend that the dealer takes a deck from behind the cut card and puts it in the discard tray? It's all unseen cards, so it shouldn't matter, right? But using your method, I could say that now I'm six decks into the shoe instead, and adjust my RC to +2, yes?

You are using different methodology to come to your conclusions. You are using a card counters methods, based on all available information from the cards seen from that particular shoe. The true count theorem uses the previous history to conclude that more often than not the true count remains fairly constant.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Not Quite So

No offense but your method is wrong.

Your method treats the cards you didn't see as though you had seen them, and counted them, and found that they increased the RC by the appropriate amount.

Think of it this way: Let's say I'm five decks into an eight deck shoe dealt to six and a half decks. My RC is +3 at this point. That would mean my TC is +1. Why don't I just pretend that the dealer takes a deck from behind the cut card and puts it in the discard tray? It's all unseen cards, so it shouldn't matter, right? But using your method, I could say that now I'm six decks into the shoe instead, and adjust my RC to +2, yes?

you have to have an understaing of the "true count theorem" to understand this example:

you are watching a table
you are at the 4 out of 8 deck mark with a running cout of 8
you have tc2

you are distracted for 1 deck and have no idea its RC
what do you do?

The "true count theorem" tells us that the running count changes while the TC "tends" to stay the same.

so we are now at the 5 out of 8 deck level. The TC is still 2 on "average" so we have to ask ourselves what RC gives us a TC of 2? It's RC 6.

Another way to understand the TC theorem
4 out of 8 decks TC of 2
so there are 8 extra big cards?
On average how many will come out per deck? answer is 2
so the RC would become 6 on "average" at the 5 out of 8 deck level

another way to look at it
every shoe starts at tc0 and ends tc0
the RC moves all around

all the above would be with wide variance

:joker::whip:

 

[Automatic Monkey]

No offense but your method is wrong.

Your method treats the cards you didn't see as though you had seen them, and counted them, and found that they increased the RC by the appropriate amount.

Think of it this way: Let's say I'm five decks into an eight deck shoe dealt to six and a half decks. My RC is +3 at this point. That would mean my TC is +1. Why don't I just pretend that the dealer takes a deck from behind the cut card and puts it in the discard tray? It's all unseen cards, so it shouldn't matter, right? But using your method, I could say that now I'm six decks into the shoe instead, and adjust my RC to +2, yes?

Both are correct.

With no additional information, and let's say one hand left to play in the orphaned shoe, you can treat the playing TC as exactly what it was when you left. If you were to visualize the cards you missed as behind the cut card, you would get the exact same result. I normally use this method because if I have to come back to an abandoned shoe there's not going to be more than a hand left and it's going to be a minimum bet- I'm just interested in knowing if I should hit my 12 vs. 5.

If for some reason you had to leave a shoe in an emergency and wanted to pick up where you left off and play for real, treating all unseen cards as "behind the cut card" is the more accurate way to go, because you are going to mixing observed information with implied information at each hand.

 

[21gunsalute]

I don't like either method. Way too many unseen cards to draw any type of conclusions. There's a good chance the count changed quite a bit while you were gone. Wait until the next shoe-it's not that far away.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Respons to Automonkey and 21gunsalute

I would not advocate as a general guide to play this way, but if it were to happen the method I showed would allow one to return and continue to play a positive expectation game. It's not much different then playing a decent count early in the shoe. One is not sure where the big cards actually are. If you left a TC2 shoe and returned a deck later and used the TC theorem the shoe will be worth more then:
1) starting a new shoe
2) putting the unseen cards behind the cut card
3) worse waiting for the current shoe to finish.

If you decide not to play you are losing ev.
If you decide to not emply the TC theorem but to put that deck I mention behind the cut card you are also losing EV, because the TC theorem does give us information on the unseen cards. Of course waiting for the shoe to finish and start another would be the most costly choice.

Are you guys saying if you had to leave a TC5 shoe you would not come back and employ the TC theorem to recover the shoe and play it?

Also, in the example I give we are only talking about adjusting the RC from 8 to 6, not a big deal, comparing certain counts would show a greater difference then this at this depth.

:joker::whip:

 

[sagefr0g]

I would not advocate as a general guide to play this way, but if it were to happen the method I showed would allow one to return and continue to play a positive expectation game. It's not much different then playing a decent count early in the shoe. One is not sure where the big cards actually are. If you left a TC2 shoe and returned a deck later and used the TC theorem the shoe will be worth more then:
1) starting a new shoe
2) putting the unseen cards behind the cut card
3) worse waiting for the current shoe to finish.

If you decide not to play you are losing ev.
If you decide to not emply the TC theorem but to put that deck I mention behind the cut card you are also losing EV, because the TC theorem does give us information on the unseen cards. Of course waiting for the shoe to finish and start another would be the most costly choice.

Are you guys saying if you had to leave a TC5 shoe you would not come back and employ the TC theorem to recover the shoe and play it?

Also, in the example I give we are only talking about adjusting the RC from 8 to 6, not a big deal, comparing certain counts would show a greater difference then this at this depth.

:joker::whip:

what your saying is far as i know correct theory.
thing is certain questions make one wonder about all this.
like ok, say your two decks into a six deck shoe and the tc=+4
also say at tc=+4 is when you make your max bet.
but say for whatever reason you must temporarily get up from your seat and are not able to monitor the next two decks worth of play.
and say there is a round worth of play left before the shuffle and you can sit back in and make that play.
are you gonna lay out your max bet?:whip:

 

[rrwoods]

the TC theorem does give us information on the unseen cards.

Disagree. The TC theorem tells you the *expected* count of those cards based on what the count of the shoe was at the time you left. It doesn't give you information about which cards were actually dealt. Important distinction.

 

[assume_R]

The TC stays the same while the RC changes
So
if you leave a shoe at TCx
when you return it is still TCx

you need to adjust the RC to give you the appropriate TCx

example
you leave at 4 out of 8 decks, running count is 8 TC is 2
you return at 6 out of 8 decks, TC is 2 and you have to assume a running count of 4 because of tc theorem

there will be wild variance but on average this is what it will be
:joker::whip:

Okay this is what I initially was doing and it seemed logical.

Thanks.