Archives of CardCounter.com message forums

These archives of the CardCounter.com message boards are provided as-is for reference. If you want to discuss anything about the posts, please post a message to the BlackjackInfo.com message forums.

Threads 271 to 300

Playing Multi Hands
Posted by LA Man on 25-Dec-2002 15:10:13 (#2044)

Watched over the years players playing multi hands - 2 to 3 hands and usually turning out winners -
Haven't seen much written about it (other than a poor condition play multi hands min. wager burn up the cards) -

Anyone with details or articles - I would appreciate it -

LA Man

Re: Playing Multi Hands
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 25-Dec-2002 21:46:10 (#2051)

Playing multi hands will allow you to cut your risk down quite a bit. I should get my M$BJ book out to get the exact #'s.....

page 134 states that when betting 2 hands you can increase your bet size by 15%, 3 by 22% and for four hands 26%, BUT, not if it cuts the number of hands you will be dealt during a positive deck.

Those numbers are wrong *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 27-Dec-2002 07:30:19 (#2063)

Someone once figured out what those numbers probably really meant. This is an error in Million Dollar BJ.

Add 50% to the required bankroll to play 2 hands
Add 100% to play 3 hands

Re: Those numbers are wrong YES...
Posted by zengrifter on 27-Dec-2002 09:03:28 (#2065)

... those are the #s I use - see Snyder also BJAttack. zg

See Wong or Schlesinger *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 27-Dec-2002 11:19:14 (#2067)

Uston's numbers were something closely related, like maybe how much more you win per hand relative to your bankroll. Uston or whoever did the math for his book just put the wrong numbers in that chart.

Interesting!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 27-Dec-2002 10:27:20 (#2066)

He was using the Kelly Criterion, so this would make RoR pretty much the same if you resize your bets more often than not. So you suggest that to keep the same RoR to increase your bank by stated amount? How would you answer LA Man's original question THop?

Playing two hands *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 27-Dec-2002 11:23:39 (#2068)

Always try to play two hands in single deck and see if you get the same number of rounds. Don't jump back and forth, you're more likely to get an early shuffle and/or the dreaded cut card effect.

In a cut card game with a + count, adjust the # of hands to see as many cards as possible PAST the cut card. Do this even if it means overbetting a little bit, you're also increasing your edge by creating deeper penetration. In neutral counts, usually play 2 hands early in the shoe and cut back to 1 hand later.

TH - STOP SPAMMING CC.com...
Posted by zengrifter on 27-Dec-2002 18:00:08 (#2076)

... with the inferior COMMERCIAL BJRnet discussion board - CC.com gets more quality posts in a week than COMMERCIAL BJRnet gets in a month! Go spam CCCafe aka 'spam-city'!

zg (fair is fair as I can no longer post-advocate CC.com at CCCafe)

Ps - thank you in advance...
Posted by zengrifter on 27-Dec-2002 18:01:06 (#2077)

...for your cooperation in this matter! zg

Ancient historical BAD INFO...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 00:43:10 (#2084)

Rob McG writes -
"MDBJ, page 134 states that when betting 2 hands you can increase your bet size by 15%, 3 by 22% and for four hands 26%, BUT, not if it cuts the number of hands you will be dealt during a positive deck."
-----------------------

This is an example of the bad info circa '80 that was still in vogue then and why MDBJ is antiquated for all but the incredible Uston adventure element - THopper's #s on this are correct though he said it wrong - 2hands may bet aggregate 50% (actual44%) more and 3hands may bet 100% (actual90%) more, w/ no increased risk to BR. (my previous post to this thread, notwithstanding) zg

---------------------

whether to play 1-2-3 hands IN POSI-COUNTS is guided
by the number of other spots being played, thus -

0-1 'other' spots: play 1hands
2-3 'other' spots: play 2hands
3-4 'other' spots: play 3hands

I meant it what I said
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 10:55:46 (#2094)

> THopper's #s on this are correct though he said it wrong -Post Response

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address: Private!
Subject:
2hands may bet
> aggregate 50% (actual44%) more and 3hands may bet 100% (actual90%) more

I said increase required BR by 50% and 100% respectively. I don't believe in adjusting unit sizes ala SCORE. You could easily end up with a number like $37.50 units, even using the formula above. I always recommend adjusting BR requirements for REAL-WORLD unit sizes.

OK, that's novel but acceptable *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 14:05:04 (#2114)

Re: Playing Multi Hands
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Dec-2002 21:25:43 (#2059)

whether to play 1-2-3 hands IN POSI-COUNTS is guided by the number of other spots being played, thus -

0-1 'other' spots: play 1hands
2-3 'other' spots: play 2hands
3-4 'other' spots: play 3hands

the above schedule is borrowed from BJAttack where simulated comparison is also provided - the schedule reffers to your +count bets only.

notwittanding the above, there is considerable value playing mulitple hands (1-2u each) when playing heads-up in quality 1-2D games IN NEGATIVE COUNTS.

I like to play like this in quality 1D games -

0 or -counts :
3hands of 1u

+1-2 :
1hand of 3u

+3 or higher: 6u (with parlay)

As you can see, the above scheme looks like a 1-2 spread (ie, 3u to 6u) BUT, it has the gain of a traditional 1-6u spread per 100 rounds(not hands). zg

Re: Playing Multi Hands
Posted by CanKen on 28-Dec-2002 13:44:39 (#2111)

As noted in other posts below, both Wong and Schlesinger give good info on playing simultaneous hands.
For shoe games in particular though, the four-page article "Scoring the Shoe Strategies" by MathProf gives some very practical approaches depending on the conditions you face.
The article can be found at bjmath.com, by using the site's search engine with key words "shoe score" and clicking on same when the search results come up.
I'd like to hear what others think of this article.

I agree with it...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 14:06:59 (#2116)

I'd like to hear what others think of this article.
-------------

..though it doesn't mirror my personal playing style. zg

Merry Christmas!
Posted by The Mayor on 25-Dec-2002 15:17:26 (#2045)

Merry Christmas to all,

the advantage players,

the novices,

the old timers,

the first timers,

the hobbiests,

the professionals,

Wishing you all a very merry Christmas, and
a successful new year at the tables!

Best regards,

--Mayor

Merry Christmas to all *NM*
Posted by BjFool on 25-Dec-2002 15:43:02 (#2046)

"Dynamic Blackjack eBook"...Review.
Posted by phantom007 on 25-Dec-2002 23:01:04 (#2053)

As suggested to me by ZG, that I should not only buy, but also review this eBook FBO CC.com readers, then same shall commence:

Title: Dynamic Blackjack eBook.
Author: Richard Reid.
Publisher EBJ Enterprises.
Order: www.extremebj.com
Price: $39.95 Canadian ($25. US)...NO S/H.

"Dynamic Blackjack eBook" cost me $25., and should profit me about $25,000. over the next 2 years, presuming I can continue my $15,000. Bankroll, $10. minimum bets, etc. To me, at least, the 2-tiered/multi-level betting system is UNIQUE!.

IF YOU ARE:

-----A BEGINNER...you should buy this eBook, read it several times, then buy several of the Basic books, master same, then return to this eBook for the purpose of refinement.

-----A B.S. PLOPPY...same as above.

-----A Semi-Expert...I thought I was...but now, read it, learn it.

-----You Think You are an Expert...same as above.

-----You Are an Expert...You probably do not need this eBook.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE:

-----Hard to Print...even my teenage Son had trouble.

-----Some "Coloured" Charts do not "print off" in color.

-----No Background info. on the author.

-----B.S. is presented as a "given", without justification for same.

-----eBook Presumes that reader will know why CC'ing is GOOD.

-----eBook Presumes that reader will know why TC is needed.

-----All examples presume 6D and LS...excluding LVC Liberal Game, not

usually present in the "real world".

-----"Drop-ins"...lots of things just drop-in, with acceptance presumed,

such as: cSCORE, Ill.18, etc.

WHAT I DID LIKE:

-----Rapid Response to problems!

-----Very Pleasant to View this eBook.

-----Ability to "jump" via tabs to areas desired.

-----Generally well-written.

-----NO EGO TRIPS...credit is given where due.

-----Gives good basis for the Counting System that is promoted.

-----Suggests and/or gives choices as to "Indicies" that one will use.

-----Finally, some #'s for ROR that I can understand.

-----Excellent Buy-in Suggestions.

-----AND Lots of other good suggestions.

Noting above, you should buy this book ONLY for Chapter 8...increase your bets in a negative count and in a positive count, or leave them the same, etc.

Positive value is available in this system.

phantom007.

Re: "Dynamic Blackjack eBook"...Review.
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 26-Dec-2002 06:37:15 (#2054)

What are the security features of this eBook? Do you need a key that will only work on your PC to read it, or can you send it around the world and get your money back? ;>

Encrypted Key-Lock per PC. *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 26-Dec-2002 14:40:03 (#2056)

Re: Encrypted Key-Lock per PC/SW
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 26-Dec-2002 19:05:53 (#2057)

Pretty sure that you can use it on any PC as long as you have the code along with the software. SBA is like that. Stephen King published a book chapter by chapter like this, but went back to ink and paper pretty fast. My shop teacher used to tell the class "locks only keep honset people out." ;> I've been looking into this technology for my next book and I am a still not impressed.

journal
Posted by BradRod on 26-Dec-2002 20:26:57 (#2058)

what information should onbe keep in a journal ?

Re: journal
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Dec-2002 01:06:06 (#2061)

I keep one entry per day in my excel spread sheet, but I also keep a detailed notebook with the session by session results.

For the excel spread sheet, I enter the following data:
Date,
City,
Hours played
Won loss
Cumulative total win/loss
Cumulative total hours played

Then I compute:
Tips
Total win + tips = actual amount won at the game
Average length of winning day
Average length of losing day
Average amount won on winning day
Average amount lost on losing day
Standard deviation per hour (100 hands m/l)
EV per hour (100 hands m/l)

But, this is just my way of doing it...

--Mayor

Re: to Mayor
Posted by Bj Student on 27-Dec-2002 13:30:53 (#2069)

Hi Mayor,

Is it possible for you to let me download your template - exactly what I need but I don't know how to create it in Excel. Thank-you. (I am very sure lots of BJ player would want it too.)

Re: journal
Posted by BradRod on 27-Dec-2002 14:38:11 (#2070)

>>>>>>>>>>>Standard deviation per hour (100 hands m/l)
EV per hour (100 hands m/l)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Where can I read more to understand these terms better and how I should consider them in my game ?

card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 27-Dec-2002 15:06:03 (#2071)

When using the CCC with the KO system , how does one enter the card counting system ? since there is no selection offered for KO on the menu do you chose none or reset or some other ?? and then enter the values for the specific cards ?

also every time I run the program with my game parameters and run it out to 5, 6. or 7 digits i am always ending up with a scary negative BR. Am I playing an ultimately losing game ?? or not using the program correctly ?

values, 6D, min bet $10, max bet $500, initial BR $5,000, spread 1-8, S17, Wong neg counts, 70% pen, DAS,

these parameters are very close to my actual game. I play approx 100 hours/ mo for the past 6+ months and have been having very flat or losing results in real play too. only occassionally do i get the satisfaction of knowing that i am playing an advantaged game.

I'm thinking that the rational decision may be to give the game up. I would like to be talked out of that choice.

Anything I can change to improve my game ? or am i still witing for the advantage to kick in. I think I am profficient in counting skills ---- counting, betting, playing indisces, etc..

Re: card counting computer
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Dec-2002 15:35:52 (#2072)

The CCC does not allow for you to use non-balanced counts like KO.

Also, it uses a generic (not optimal) Basic Strategy for all game rules, and does not have an optimal bet ramp.

In short, it is a toy 8-0

--Mayor

Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 27-Dec-2002 15:55:42 (#2073)

>>>>>>>The CCC does not allow for you to use

non-balanced counts like KO.

Also, it uses a generic (not optimal) Basic

Strategy for all game rules, and does not have an

optimal bet ramp.

In short, it is a toy 8-0

--Mayor <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

whew !! that is a bit of a relief , i guess.

But, then is there any way to computer test the parameters of my game to see if there is any way to improve it, or to demonstrate to me that there is some prediction that I might be playing what will eventually be a winning game ?? i need a little encouragement about now.

thanks,

Brad

Re: card counting computer
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Dec-2002 16:01:41 (#2074)

What do you play? What games, what spread, what count, what unit size?

Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 01:21:25 (#2086)

6D, min bet $10, max bet $500, initial BR $5,000, spread 1-8, S17, Wong neg counts, 70% pen, DAS, color KO count

for all intent...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 01:44:30 (#2089)

...just substitute SilverFox to produce the same results as KO. zg

Re: for all intent...
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 12:01:28 (#2103)

...just substitute SilverFox to produce the same results as KO. zg

what is silver fox ?? also , when one is using the color KO system isnt that the same as having the TC given that the number of remainig decks is taken into account ??

thanks,

Brad

Re: card counting computer
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 11:05:01 (#2097)

Max bet = $500 does not make sense if your spread is 1-8 and your min bet is $10. Besides, a max bet of $500 with a BR of $5000 is lunacy, surely you don't do that.

Thanks.

Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 11:45:15 (#2101)

Max bet = $500 does not make sense if your spread is 1-8 and your min bet is $10. Besides, a max bet of $500 with a BR of $5000 is lunacy, surely you don't do that.

You are right Mayor, I do not do that. I thought the entry was refering to the table max. my betting max is 80 -90.

Thanks,

Brad

Re: card counting computer
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 13:16:28 (#2108)

Besides, a max bet of $500 with a BR of $5000 is lunacy,
surely you don't do that.
---------------

Perhaps his $5000 BR is more of a replenishable 'miniBR' containing 10 max bets? zg (ps- Brad, the silverfox is one of the pre-inputted system selections on EJ's applet)

Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 16:20:23 (#2126)

***Perhaps his $5000 BR is more of a replenishable 'miniBR' containing 10 max bets? zg

I wish that were the case. My efforts in mastering this game have hurt me.

(ps- Brad, the silverfox is one of the
pre-inputted system selections on EJ's applet)

and if I enter the parameters of my game using silver fox then I will see results that will be similar to those that I can expect from KO ?

Re: card counting computer
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 17:09:23 (#2127)

and if I enter the parameters of my game using silver fox then I will see results that will be similar to those that I can expect from KO ?
-------------------

YES

Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 17:42:11 (#2129)

and if I enter the parameters of my game using silver fox then I will see results that will be similar to those that I can expect from KO ?
-------------------

YES

I accept what you are saying but, am wondering how you determine that given that Silver Fox is a balanced system (vs KO being unbalanced )is it the comparison betwen PE (playing efficiency) that we are looking at ? the insurance correlation seems much lower than KO

(from Casino Verite http://www.qfit.com/cvstrat.htm )

also looking at that chart I see that UBZ11 has a higher insurance correlation and PE than KO. are these gains worth the slight increase in difficulty to use ?

Looking at Zen I see that its level of difficulty is greater without that much higher BC, PE, or IC. than either of the unbalanced systems. I guess the advantage is gained in small improvements ..

PS
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 17:47:50 (#2130)

Halves looks brutal.. but, BC, PE, and IC do not seem to be improved.

Halves
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 17:50:51 (#2131)

Halves is a very strong count for shoe games, not great for single deck. It is not that hard to master, certainly easier than systems that use side counts. One wants a fabulous BE for shoe games, PE is just not that important, and IC is really unimportant in shoe games. Knowing when to put out the big bet is what it's all about.

--Mayor

one more question
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 11:57:08 (#2102)

What is: color KO count ?

colorKO
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 12:17:59 (#2104)

http://www.gofor21.com/cko.htm

Re: colorKO
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 14:07:21 (#2117)

I don't know how to sim this system with my simulator 8-O

Re: card counting computer
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 27-Dec-2002 16:02:01 (#2075)

values, 6D, min bet $10, max bet $500, initial BR $5,000, spread 1-8, S17, Wong neg counts, 70% pen, DAS,

I take it the min bet $10 and max bet $500 are the table limits, as you state spread 1-8. Wong neg. counts? You are using KO, so you are starting at a negative count (KO is poor at identification of advantage situations early in a shoe.) Forget this computer sim stuff, you aren't even simming what you actually are doing.

What you can do to actually see some real world results:
1)Forget KO, move to a true count system (or learn TKO, true-counted KO).
2)With a true count system, become disciplined to WONG those shoes.
3)Spread 1-12, do you want to win or break even?
4)Move beyond the I18, sharpen up your insurance taking skills.
5)Shop for pen. Better to spend some time finding the dealer, or waiting for the dealer giving 75% pen, than playing with the dealer giving 70%.

Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 27-Dec-2002 18:01:31 (#2078)

Thanks Abraham de M

1)Forget KO, move to a true count system (or learn TKO, true-counted KO)

I have used Omega II but, in BJ for Blood , B. Carlson does not recommend it for shoe games until one has mastered the basic system in single and double deck games, which are not available to me. After gaining profficiency in the basic system the Advaced System can be effective for multi deck games that are the only ones I have to choose from without having to travel farther. Can you suggest a TC system, Hi- Low ? other ? I think my only limitation at this time in choosing in a counting system would be too many side counts. I think I can handle side count of Aces and a 2 level system

2)With a true count system, become disciplined to WONG those shoes.

I take it that you mean both in and out. Since we are talking about the real world that seems difficult. I have been able to Wong out pretty easily. Wonging in seems to me begging for a lot of attention and whines and criticism from other players. ..."could you wait a hand or two ...", "...the shoe is almost over ...." ".....he messed up the cards..... " and then when you have managed to do it a couple of times I imagine you would run into the problem of runnung out of fresh tables to Wong. If you can manage to get away with it once or twice I think you have to have a real steely disposition to do it over and over and be able to put up with the noise.

It is sensible advice and I am sure it would help my game just not sure about how to put a table face on it to the other players.

3)Spread 1-12, do you want to win or break even?
4)Move beyond the I18, sharpen up your insurance taking skills.
5)Shop for pen. Better to spend some time finding the dealer, or waiting for the dealer giving 75% pen, than playing with the dealer

giving 70%.

High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 27-Dec-2002 18:54:56 (#2079)

I suggest you start with and stick with High Low until you get a better grip on your game, and your abilities. If the Army issued a count to it's G.I.'s, that would be High Low.

Lock n Load!

There is no reason to use High-Low
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 11:15:38 (#2098)

Avoid any system that does not count all the ranks 2-7.

HMMMMMMMM *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 12:44:04 (#2106)

Re: High Low
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 13:19:07 (#2109)

A better grip on my game ,,, in what way ? I must have close to 1000 hours of playing in. I think I have a good sense of my abilities, just trying to figure out how best to apply them

Re: High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 14:58:46 (#2123)

I guess I underestimated your abilities. You seem rather unsure of yourself, but I may be totally wrong. I agree with THop, and you might consider Zen since it is an easy count to master. It should be called the Hi Low II ;>.

Re: High Low
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 17:19:34 (#2128)

well i guess that's 2 recommendations for Zen : )

Re: High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 17:53:12 (#2132)

It includes the 7 as TH suggested, and is a good II level count. I have used it but found that it was not as effective as the Hi Opt II. I don't like giving the 6 a +2, and since I was already "Ace aware" I went back to Hi Opt II. Work smarter not harder as grifter suggests. I want you to make your mind up and get on to more important aspects of advantage play! ;>

Re: High Low
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 22:44:32 (#2151)

Work smarter not harder as grifter suggests.

I want you to make your mind up and get on to more important aspects of advantage play! ;>

Thanks Rob,

I want to do that also. I need to reinfoce my confidence as much as anything else right now.

In one way I feel like chosing a counting system is an investment because you have to acquire the system, internalize it, practice it and then profficiency takes time too. So, I am trying to make the best choice based on the experience that I have so far.

On the hand I think understanding different systems gives you different insights into the game. For example, I think Hi-Lo demonstrates the basic value of 10's and the burden of 5's and 6's,

a 2 level system adds a greater precision to the value of intermediate cards that I was not aware of until I tried Omega II. It let me look at Aces differently too.

From KO I found a kind of visual way of seeing at the dynamic of the shoe. I have felt at times like I am watching an apple card tipping slowly until the balance shifts and it goes beyond the pivot point and all the apples come tumbling out. It really has helped me to visulaize the fluctuation in the cards as the count travels along the average distribution line.

Numbers are okay but, I think more visually as an architect.

Question ?? what did you have in mind as the more important aspects of advantage play ?

Brad

Re: High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 00:03:54 (#2153)

#Numbers are okay but, I think more visually as an architect.

Built up beams and truss joists getting you down? ;> I also work with drawings. Do you design residential or ind / comm properties? Was doing some overtime from home here earlier in the day. I understand what you mean about visualizing the way you see your advantages in a 3D type of way.

#Question ?? what did you have in mind as the more important aspects of advantage play ?

Nothing in particular, just trying to say we should settle on a count first. Right now my attention is focused on internet blackjack where counting is not a big part of my advantage. There is a new casino opening on the US side of Niagara Falls that needs a good drive by though! ;> Hoping the Canuck side will give us a better game to compete, but not holding my breath. Still an hour and a half drive away for an 8 deck game.

Re: High Low
Posted by BradRod on 29-Dec-2002 12:51:39 (#2158)

>>>>>>>>>>> I also work with drawings. Do you design residential or ind / comm properties? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I do mainly residential design of custom single family homes. but, my practice is a bit diverse. i have done carwashes and laundromats, medical and professional offices, day care centers, retail spaces, restaurants,, no casinos,,,, yet.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is a new casino opening on the US side of Niagara Falls that needs a good drive by though! ;> Hoping the Canuck side will give us a better game to compete, but not holding my breath. Still an hour and a half drive away for an 8 deck game.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

i was playing an 8 deck game recently with deep pen and wonging out on low counts it wasn't a bad game at all

Re: High Low
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 13:02:20 (#2159)

I have played and they were going 7 deep and also been there when they go 5.5 or 6 deep, so you never know what you will be facing. I am hoping that I can buy a cottage near one of the casinos and spend the entire summer working the place over. It helps if you know which dealer goes deep, doesn't shuffle properly, etc so you don't have to waste your time looking for a good place to apply your advantage playing pressure. I am also hoping we get a new Mayor in the City of Toronto (relax Eliot! ;>) and get our own casino here.

If you are considering Zen *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 19:10:29 (#2139)

you should also consider the Unbalanced Zen and Bushido systems, both based on Zen. Bushido comes in running and true counted versions, I'm not sure about the UBZ since I think a new version may be out.

Re: If you are considering Zen
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 20:18:45 (#2143)

you should also consider the Unbalanced Zen and Bushido systems, both based on Zen. Bushido comes in running and true

counted versions, I'm not sure about the UBZ since I think a new version may be out.

T Hopper on what basis woudl you make the choice between these systems ?? also did you send the link you wanted to send, The one i see is interesting but, has nothing to do with BJ..

thanks,

Brad

Re: If you are considering Zen *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 23:39:32 (#2152)

There isn't much difference between the three systems in how they will do in a simulation. I feel the Bushido is easier because all but 2 ranks are counted as +2 or -2. Having the option of running or true count with the same system is also nice.

I had just posted that Martin Gardner link to the other board on this site, and it remained in my browser until cleared. Hope you enjoyed it. The link below has some sample system reports and comparisons of the Bushido running count version vs. UBZ and Bushido TC vs. Zen. There is some more material posted at http://www.bjrnet.com/board_systems.htm as well.

**My responses -
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 00:33:21 (#2083)

**My responses -

I have used Omega II but, in BJ for Blood , B. Carlson does not recommend it for shoe games until one has mastered the basic system in single and double deck games, which are not available to me.

**And those of us in the know do NOT recommend AO2 for any game!

After gaining profficiency in the basic system the Advaced System can be effective for multi deck games that are the only ones I have to choose from without having to travel farther. Can you suggest a TC system, Hi- Low ?

**If you were truly comfortable with AO2 then I would recommend switching to ZEN, a simple matter of just swapping the Ace and 9 tag-values (you could even keep the AO2 i#s IF you had many committed to memory (cross-rounded i#s developed specifically for ZEN would be a smidgen better)

**Second to that might be UBZ2 (level-2/no sidecount/noTC) or a TKO (true-counted KO)

I think my only limitation at this time in choosing in a counting system would be too many side counts. I think I can handle side count of Aces and a 2 level system

**Even IF you could handle it, Ace-neutral sidecounting is NOT an intelligent use of your cerebral-matter.

Since we are talking about the real world that seems difficult. I have been able to Wong out pretty easily. Wonging in seems to me begging for a lot of attention and whines and criticism from other players. ..."could you wait a hand or two ...", "...the shoe is almost over ...." ".....he messed up the cards..... " and then when you have managed to do it a couple of times I imagine you would run into the problem of runnung out of fresh tables to Wong. If you can manage to get away with it once or twice I think you have to have a real steely disposition to do it over and over and be able to put up with the noise.

**Think of it as BOTH wong in and out, you'll develop a rhythm to it - but you MUST get over any nagging self-consciousness that arises due to the other players (ie, DUMMIES) at the table having attention on you - in fact you should border on "wierdly oblivious" to it - try this: when they say "hey pal wait a few hands" just roll your eyes in a demented fashion and self-tak "hmmm Killian is lying to me" or some such. After a while there will be other players who will tacitly AVOID playing at your table, which is good! zg

Re: **My responses -
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 01:06:01 (#2085)

I knew that if I read your posts long enough I would get around to using a Zen count. I believe that I will give it a try. I can use a break from playing about now anyway. I will take the time to practice the new system. It's "Blackbelt in Blackjack", right ?

Thanks for your perspective.

Brad

R U sure...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 01:39:33 (#2088)

... that true-count adjustment/estimation is your bag? If you have any doubt in this area, UBZ2 will perform on par w/ZEN w/o TC'ing. But, if you start with Blackbelt's ZEN you can decide whether to base your TC on 1/4D (as published) 1/2D (published i#s x2) or 1D (published i#s x4) - then there is one area where you can improve the i#s a bit: making the #s 'risk-averse', which can be the subject of another post. ZEN's big advantage over UBZ is that you will only need ONE 'composite' set of i#s for any #decks. zg

Re: R U sure...
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 12:41:40 (#2105)

... that true-count adjustment/estimation is your bag?

** I am not really sure about anything at the moment. I thought that colorKO would be an effective system to use because it would be less strenuous than having to determine TC by division each time a decision needed to be made. Tables that I have seen rank its efficiency in categories of betting, playing and insurance as on par with good one and 2 level balanced systems ( I cant find that table right now = still looking) . But, if it is in fact not working out for me than I want to consider which system will work best.

But, if you start with Blackbelt's ZEN you can decide whether to base your TC on 1/4D (as published) 1/2D (published i#s x2) or 1D (published i#s x4) - then there is one area where you can improve the i#s a bit: making the #s 'risk-averse', which can be the subject of another post. ZEN's big advantage over UBZ is that you will only need ONE 'composite' set of i#s for any #decks.

** is 1/4D a 4 deck game ? 1/2D - 2 deck ?

I do not have any games near me less than 6D.

If you are saying that UBZII is as effective and a simpler system than Zen then I would opt for that given the limits of game now available to me. But then I guess my question would be is UBZII a more effective system for me to use than colorKO ?

Re: R U sure...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 13:48:03 (#2112)

But, if it is in fact not working out for me than I want to consider which system will work best.

**Actually, your limited sample of results thus far is not statistically valid - it is ebtirely possible that a far stronger player could have faired worse thus far.

is 1/4D a 4 deck game ? 1/2D - 2 deck ?

**NO - means TC calculated by dividing the RC by remaining quarter-decks, half-decks, or whole decks. All of the methods work eaqually BUT the index#s must be pre-calibrated for the particulaer method - the current ZEN#s as published are calibrated for the 1/4D method, thus you could double the published i#s and then divide the RC by 1/2D (remaining half-decks) and it would work just as well, or even multiply the published#s by 4 and then divide the RC by the remaining #whole-decks. zg

Re: R U sure...
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 14:32:43 (#2121)

**Actually, your limited sample of results thus far is not statistically valid - it is ebtirely possible that a far stronger player could have faired worse thus far.

could you please elaborate on how the sample is limited ( #of hours played ?) and what would constitue a stronger player ( bigger BR ?, wider spread ? )

are you still suggesting that it would be wothwhile trying the Zen or UBZ system ? or carry on as i am until i reach a more statistically meaningful point of playing ?

Thanks,

Brad

Re: R U sure...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 16:08:01 (#2125)

I would say that 1000hrs (150,000 hands?) is by no means a reliable longrun indicator - try setting the cccomputer on hiLo with a similar spread and set for 150,000 hands, then repeat, then repeat - you may be amazed at variance from run to run.

As for stronger player I meant same spread, BR, betting, etc., BUT a STRONGER system, such as Halves w/150 i#s and a diecount of Aces for play variation. zg

Re: card counting computer
Posted by SammyBoy on 30-Dec-2002 14:58:14 (#2181)

Is anyone else having trouble getting the Card Counting Computer to load? I've tried on a few different computers.

Re: card counting computer
Posted by BradRod on 30-Dec-2002 16:33:17 (#2184)

i have 2 versdions of netscape on my computer, i can use CCC on the older version not the updated one ..

Dealer Cheating for you
Posted by Jeff on 27-Dec-2002 19:22:28 (#2082)

Hi! I'm new to this board and I just wanted to know if anybody has ever had an experience like this:

I was at The Las Vegas Club in downtown Vegas about 10 years ago playing bj. I had played for a while for several days but I didn't really get overly friendly with any of the dealers. The dealer I had at this point was an attractive woman but I wasn't flirting. I had played for a while and an old man joined us betting $2 or $3 a hand as I recall. I bet $30 on one hand and got an 11 total. The dealer had a 6 showing so I doubled down and got a 6 for a total of 17. I was sitting at 3rd base and had a good view of the cards coming out of the shoe. The dealer turned over a 3 and then a 5 giving her a 14 total. She then did something very strange. She took the next card out of the shoe and turned it so she could see it. Sitting at 3rd base I could see it too. It was a 5 plain as day. I just lost $60 right? Well not exactly. The dealer let the card fall back down on the table face down and kind of shrugged her shoulders like "oh well I bust". She paid us both and then scooped up the cards really quickly never turning that card over.

I was afraid that the cameras saw this and would accuse me of cheating with the dealer so I think I only played maybe one more hand and then I left. Oh yeah, I did tip the dealer a red chip.

Anyway, since I have read a lot about dealers cheating I just wondered if anybody has ever had one cheat for you. If the Mayor reads this, don't you think i did the only thing I could do under the circumstances? I know we are suppose to play fair but it may have got the girl fired if I had said something.

Three Times
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 10:59:01 (#2095)

I have had dealers "helping me out" which I found rather interesting. All were in LV, and probably didn't like their job, or were hustling for chips. One in particular would ask me "one more hand?" to which I would tell her yes or no depending on the count. When it was posi I would tell her I feel luck is on it's way and play a $ for her to help her out.

Re: Dealer Cheating for you
Posted by Shoeman on 30-Dec-2002 15:48:08 (#2182)

Interesting you should post such an inquiry. I have encountered a few circumstances where the dealer was clearly cheating the house, in all likelihood as an inducement to increase their tip take. In one such instance, the dealer was showing an Ace up. In the casino I frequent, they use a mirror to check, but after they have asked if anyone wanted insurance. On this occasion, she checked for a BJ first, and then inquired. She specifically asked twice, the second time quite pronounced. Being fairly new to the game, I did not pick up on it. Two of the others at the table clearly picked up the hint and took the insurance. Sure enough, she had a BJ.

In another instance, while playing craps in LV, a dealer would occasionally over pay me on a winning bet after I had tipped the crew a few times by playing for them. At first I thought I was mistaken, but it happened a few times in a way that was clearly unmistakable that the dealer was cheating the house.

In these instances, I felt uncomfortable, but did not really know what to do other than remain silent and proceed to play and tip in my customary manner.

Mickey Swift - A GREAT Cheater Profiled...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 01:26:24 (#2087)

... and his ULTIMATE BJ SCAM, now posted on the nonBJ page. zg

Super Sevens side count?
Posted by dude on 28-Dec-2002 08:59:50 (#2092)

This was posting a while ago on the blackjack newsgroup, but no one responded to it. What do people think of think count strategy for super sevens? Does it make sense? Is it worth keeping a 7 count?

I think I have a decent count strategy for the `Super Sevens' game (hereafter
called SS). As explained by David Cantor a while back, the SS is a $1
side bet with payoffs:

1st card not a 7: none

1st card is a 7: $3

1st & 2nd cards are 7's: $50 ($100 if suits match)

1st, 2nd & 3rd cards are 7's: $500 ($5000 if all 3 suits match)

The SS bet is not a good bet for the casual player. The expected value for
various shoe sizes:

decks player advantage
1 -47.5%
2 -35.0
4 -23.6
6 -19.1
8 -16.7
infinite - 9.0

(Someone in r.g has probably done this before - do these numbers agree?)
Even in the infinite deck case (where 7's are not depleted as they are drawn)
the house has a hefty advantage.

Given the number of cards and number of 7's of each suit remaining,
calculating the advantage for the SS bet is straightforward. If you kept track
of this information, in principle you could place a SS bet only when you have
a positive advantage (the `perfect strategy'). I've done some simulations and
found that the SS bet is advantageous a fair amount of the time. For an 8-deck
shoe:

Penetration Fraction of time Average player advantage
(8 decks) SS bet is positive for positive SS bets
50% 14.3% +14.2%
55% 15.4 +15.7
60% 16.5 +17.4
65% 17.4 +19.3
70% 18.3 +21.4
75% 19.1 +23.8
80% 19.7 +26.5
85% 20.3 +29.9
90% 20.7 +34.4

Of course, it would be a pain to keep track of all these separate counts
during game conditions. However, there is a relatively simple count strategy
that turns out to have a very good correlation with the perfect strategy:
ignore suits and just keep track of the number of sevens remaining per deck of
remaining cards, and bet only when this 7's count per deck is 4.4 or more. For
example, if there are 20 sevens and 4 decks remaining, the count is 5.0
7's/deck and you would place the SS bet. The count at the top of a fresh shoe
is 4.0 7's/deck, and you don't bet then, of course. My simulations for an
8-deck shoe show that if you place the SS bet only when this 7's count is 4.4
or more, you play about as often and are about as successful as the perfect
strategy:

Penetration Fraction of time Average player advantage
(8 decks) 7's count >=4.4 when 7's count >=4.4
50% 14.2% +14.2%
55% 15.5 +15.5
60% 16.8 +16.9
65% 18.0 +18.4
70% 19.2 +20.1
75% 20.3 +21.9
80% 21.3 +24.0
85% 22.3 +26.4
90% 23.3 +29.2

Actually, for deeper penetrations the optimal threshhold is >=4.5
85% 18.4 +31.9
90% 19.5 +35.1

Since the SS bet is not played all the time, the net advantage gain per BJ
hand played is much smaller (e.g., .203*.219 = 4.45% for 75% penetration).
The fact that the SS bet is a $1 bet means that for a player with a $5 unit
size (assuming you can find a $5 table), this net advantage gain on a unit
basis is further reduced by a factor of 5 (about 0.9% for 75% penetration).
But this is certainly enough to overcome the negative EV for an 8-deck game;
if in addition you use a conventional BJ count, these games might be
worthwhile. For a $25 player, the SS strategy is only worth about +0.18% (for
75% penetration). Another way of looking at it is that it's worth about
$2.67/hour (assuming 60 hands/hour and 75% penetration).

There is one catch - in order to have a chance at the big payoffs, you must
hit a pair of sevens. Sometimes basic strategy would tell you to stand or
split instead. This will come up in maybe 0.2%-0.3% of total hands, so
employing non-optimal BJ strategy in these few situations might decrease the
BJ expected value by at most 0.1% (my guesstimate). For a $5 player this
doesn't hurt too much, but for a $25 player, it eliminates half of the
advantage gained by using the SS strategy.

I ran many simulations with 2 to 3 million hands in each, and the critical
threshold for the 7's count/deck was very stable at around 4.4 to 4.5,
depending on the penetration. Also, the calculated advantage was fairly stable
from one run to the next, and my simulations gave roughly the standard house
advantage with no counting (given above), which was an exact calculation.
However, the results should be checked independently (anybody interested?).

Summary: this 7's count has potential - it appears to be nearly optimal, and
it would be about as much work as keeping a 10's count for determining
exactly the favorability of the insurance bet.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=super+sevens&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=CHsH7o.3LI%40news.iastate.edu&rnum=3

Re: Super Sevens side count?
Posted by T-Hopper on 28-Dec-2002 10:59:17 (#2096)

> Is it worth keeping a 7 count?

Yes, but not for the Super Sevens side bet. Unless you somehow find an unlicensed version without the $1 max.

The 7 side count for playing strategy is very strong, but I don't recommend it for shoe games because the adjustments are so large. It's easy to mess up a TC adjustment when dealing with awkward multiples like +5 or -7. And that's for a single-level primary count.

Re: Super Sevens side count?
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 11:36:21 (#2099)

Fantastic post, may I archive it?

I developed a count that was similar: each non-7 counts +1, each 7 counts -12. Just keep a RC based on that count, and take the bet when the TC > 4. This is the advice I have been giving for years. It is great to see our results line up. Your research, of course, is much more exhaustive than mine (which was purely combinatoric).

--Mayor

Re: Super Sevens side count?
Posted by dude on 28-Dec-2002 11:44:27 (#2100)

Mayor,

I take no credit for the first post of this thread. It was posted on the blackjack newsgroup in 1993 by

Kerry Whisnant High Energy Physics Group
whisnant@iastate.edu Department of Physics and Astronomy
whisnant@alisuvax.bitnet Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

It piqued my interest and I merely cut and pasted it.

AS THopper pointed out...
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 14:11:14 (#2118)

...7s make for a great sidecount by themselves, but not for the super7s bet. zg

1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a jerk
Posted by Learning to count on 28-Dec-2002 12:53:22 (#2107)

Type vacation: Cruise

Ship:Carnival Legend

Time: Eight days of splendid cruising; Eight nights of BJ nuclear war!

Game: Eight decks/two-3.5 deck cut offs, suggested % -49.

Tools: Hi-Lo; Wonging; Dealer grifting and begging.

Net result: 30 unit loss over all at the end of the week; Roller coaster ride on win/loss.

Highs: $750 win on one shoe with monstrous TC'S. Several 100 to 500 dollar shoe wins. Was able to grift certain dealers to deal out seven decks instead of the casino directive of minimum six decks dealt out! Damn incredible experience for a six deck player. I learned a lot!

Lows: High TC's with $50 to $100 two hand each having 20 totals and end up losing to dealers 15 and 16 becoming 21! I had a plus 3-7 TC count run for three hands at the quarter table. I played three bets on three hands. Two $50 bets and a $25 dollar cap bet on a obliging neighbor. (I recieved 15 and 16 and the dealer had 20. Three Snappers on down the line. I busted and lost my capped bet which was 18!:( Shit that hurt!) No profit to take home:(!

Ploppy stories well that will be in my next post! Just to give a taste I split tens against a six with a plus 6 tc. A high roller who had the personality of Rasputin called me a "jerk" and told every one I did not know what the hell I was doing and that I was F*%$K*NG up the game for every one. I split with a $50 original bet. HAAA A hundred on the table and I get an ace for each split ten. Raspie is shocked and mutters something about me being a dumb F%$*K. The count then rises to a TC of 8. I bet two hands at 75 and get two snappers HAAAAAAAAAAAAA! The SOB gathers up his $500 plus in red chips, yep 500 in red, and walks away swearing. HAAAAAAAAA. I said real loud hey not bad for a begginer and everyone started cheering at the table!!!! This was my shoe from Heaven! Talk to ya later I need sleep.

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 13:40:58 (#2110)

<<<<< Damn incredible experience for a six deck player >>>>

If I come to a table and see only one or two hands have been played. I may start counting at -5, or -7 to cover what I judge the worst count scenario may be, then see what happens in the next few hands. If the count turns positive then my thinking is it must really be positive because I adjusted such a low count. (This was before my enlightenmant. Now I understand that i should Wong the table until the count gets truly favorable)

Twice when I did this the count was growing very positive so, I was of course raising my bet. My lesson was to look before you leap. Both of those times I came to a table w/8D shoes that I was playing to be 6D.

One was a casino that I had not played at before. I checked Trackjack to learn the conditions there and saw that they had a 6D game,, - that was in the other pit though ---. SO, the information was not completely accurate. The other time was in a casino that I was familiar with but, that had changed the one pit area to 8D from 6 - also changed from S17 to H17....since my previous visit. It does pay to scope things out first

Not correct
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 14:06:11 (#2115)

If you enter a table with a shoe already played, you should just view those as unplayed cards, or in other words, you are playing a shoe with crappy penetration. That is the only way to play it. Don't make any assumptions about the worst case -- that will only hurt you.

Re: Not correct
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 14:21:16 (#2120)

...... because you will not be properly playing the low count game , insurance plays ?

I guess I feel like I sometimes have to guard against over exuberance in high counts..

I would not enter a table with more than 1/4 deck played (of 6) for the reason of the poor penetration.

Re: Not correct
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Dec-2002 14:45:26 (#2122)

Unseen cards are the same, whether they are previously played in a shoe, or whether they are behind the cut card. Just as you would make no assumption about the cards behind the cut card (and guard against...), so too you should make no assumption about unseen cards already in the discard tray.

i stand corrected *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 15:38:42 (#2124)

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 14:15:32 (#2119)

Negatory - the cards you do not see are the same AS IF they were behind the shuffle-card. zg

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by Learning to count on 28-Dec-2002 18:03:45 (#2133)

The art and ZEN of Wonging,(Or WHAT I think I learned!) The first thing I did was to start playing at the begining of a shoe with flat bets. I increased my bets with the count. I was only allowed a 1-40 spread because this was the min/max at the tables. I dont have the mathmatical proof but I feel a spread of 1 to 50/60 may be needed to beat this horrible game. If they cut off only a deck.

I know the Mayor or ZG can give more insight to the spread for such a game.

When the count went south of the border -1 True count I would play one more hand to see if there would by any improvement to nuetral or I would play while the count droped as long as I was winning. If not adios. Luckily there were several other tables with opportunity for back counting. Now remember you need at least a minus eight to show a negative count and that is a lot of cards.

Another technique I used was to back count a shoe from its inception and jump in a plus eight or better. At a count higher than plus two (Per the Mayor) I would bet two hands of one unit each. If the count went up I bet my ramp spliting it between two hands. The frustrating thing was that high plus true counts are slow in comming. You need a +16 to get a TC of +2 for at least two hands.

I preferred the first technique of WONGING out.

The other technique I used was to pass and do the scan technique which is to count whats on the table and look for a plus eight or better(plus six for a six decker) and play it until the plus one TC disapeared. LIke the mayor and ZG said you must start at zero and treat the cards in the discard tray as the same as the cards in the shoe. This is hard but after several hours of doing this you get the knack.

The last thing I started doing was shuffle tracking. I kept track of the of the slugs and was able to see when the mix of these slugs and then cut the deck to put them in a playable position when they are dealt out. I had limited success when there was a distinct visible slugs and not low counts which would not amount to a good mix at time of deal. I was also good at getting the table to allow me to make the cuts! I played 5 to 8 hours a night/day continuosly for eight days so I was able to study the shuffle and know which dealers bastardized the official suffle and simplified it so I was able to track the slugs.

IMHO:This my perview and my experience. As far as I know I could be full of it. SO dont take your wife's cookie money and try and bet the bank next trip. LTC

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 18:59:52 (#2138)

>>>>>>>I was only allowed a 1-40 spread because this was the min/max at the tables. I dont have the mathmatical proof but I feel a spread of 1 to 50/60 may be needed to beat this horrible game. If they cut off only a deck.<<<<<<<<<

this seems like a really extreme spread.. at $10 min, you are soon betting $400 - $600. you really do that ?? i had my one lucky bet of $600 that hit a blackjack but, it seems like you would get wiped out pretty quick betting at that level consistently.

>>>>>>>>>>>>When the count went south of the border -1 True count I would play one more hand to see if there would by any improvement to nuetral or I would play while the count droped as long as I was winning. If not adios. <<<<<<<<<<<<

I do that too.. no need to leave while you are ahead and winning. i usually wait for the next losing hand. but, then i do not always leave the table. unless the shoe looks totally hopeless, i sometimes sit and keep counting if the count rises toward the end of the shoe i jump back in for what i hope will be a juicy last hand or 2.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The other technique I used was to pass and do the scan technique which is to count whats on the table and look for a plus eight or better(plus six for a six decker) and play it until the plus one TC disapeared. LIke the mayor and ZG said you must start at zero and treat the cards in the discard tray as the same as the cards in the shoe. This is hard but after several hours of doing this you get the knack.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I wonder if the Mayor, ZG, or other pro would comment on this method of WOnging in the middle of a shoe ?

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by zengrifter on 28-Dec-2002 19:19:16 (#2140)

I wonder if the Mayor, ZG, or other pro would comment on this method of WOnging in the middle of a shoe ?
--------------------------

I've wonged in as deep as 2Ds (as though the top of 6or8Ds) though typically I won't stop and look if more than 1D has been played.

Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 20:04:32 (#2142)

Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3

a 1-120, etc. zg

i do not understand that, can you explain further ?

another question - in using silver fox to approximate KO in the card couting computer i find that if i run the same parameters for 10k, 100k and 1 M hands the SD remains approximately the same, but if i increase the bet spread then the SD also increases. I can intuitively understand the effect of bet spread on SD but, i would think that if i increase the number of hands then the SD should decrease.does that make sense ??

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by Learning to count on 30-Dec-2002 09:47:26 (#2175)

"I've wonged in as deep as 2Ds (as though the top of 6or8Ds) though typically I won't stop and look if more than 1D has been played."

Good point I did wong in after two decks with a triple sized TC for eight decks and found good results.

"Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg "

QUESTION: ZG are you saying that due to the higher expected ev of playing only at the advantage you can risk more money?????

QUESTION: Also you obtain the cover of playing a short period of time and that you are betting large at these advantagious times with out big spreads????????

Please explain in depth if possible! LTC Thanks

Yes, ZG. Do tell . *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 30-Dec-2002 14:00:42 (#2180)

Re: 1001 ploppy tales/splitting tens and called a
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Dec-2002 15:59:59 (#2183)

"Regarding LTC's 1-40 scenario, if he could sit-out 1/2 of the negative hands that would effectively result in a 1-80 spread, sit out 2/3 a 1-120, etc. zg "
QUESTION: ZG are you saying that due to the higher expected ev of playing only at the advantage you can risk more money?????

**NO, I'm saying that if you sit-out 1/2 of the -counts it effectively doubles your spread

QUESTION: Also you obtain the cover of playing a short period of time and that you are betting large at these advantagious times with out big spreads????????

**NO, my "sit-out" scheme applies to a "play-all-counts" scenario. IF you are wonging +counts only then you only need a 1-5 spread (1-10 max). zg

sit out / play -all.....
Posted by BradRod on 30-Dec-2002 16:37:00 (#2185)

??? Sorry ZG still not following . Could you please explain further...

Thanks

Re: sit out / play -all.....
Posted by The Mayor on 30-Dec-2002 19:43:06 (#2186)

If your minimum bet is played during negative counts, then:

scenario 1: you bet $10 for 100 hands in a negative count. $100 at max. 10-1 spread.

scenario 2: you bet $10 for 50 hands, and go to the bathroom for the other 50.

Both take the same amount of time, but effectively, your average bet in S-2 is $5 for each of the 100 hands (= $500 of action). Thus you have a 20-1 spread.

scenario 3: wong out.

In S-3, you find a better game, hence not wasting your time at the table during negative counts.

ZG is right on.

Re: sit out / play -all.....
Posted by BradRod on 30-Dec-2002 20:46:10 (#2188)

scenario 1: you bet $10 for 100 hands in a negative count. $100 at max. 10-1 spread.

scenario 2: you bet $10 for 50 hands, and go to the bathroom for the other 50.

Both take the same amount of time, but effectively, your average bet in S-2 is $5 for each of the 100 hands (= $500 of action). Thus you

have a 20-1 spread.

scenario 3: wong ou
=========================================================

OK, so as i understand it--------

scenario 1: = the play all scenario

scenario 2: = the sit out scenario

scenario 3: = wong out

I do understand the effect not betting all the neagative count hands has on the effective bet spread.

I guess what I am still unclear on are

a. - the size of LTC's basic spread @ 1:40 or 50. Does that mean that as long as it meets the Kelly criteria and as long as it does not btray one's attmpt at camouflage there is no suggested mathematical limit to one's spread at the upper end ?

b. - i have been getting a lot of what i think is good, strong advice to wong the game. When is scenario 1 a good strategic choice ?

The Voodoo princess
Posted by Learning to count on 28-Dec-2002 18:25:36 (#2134)

As I was wonging on my recent trip I pulled up to a table where the count was high and allowed for my entry. I sat next to an older woman who was well dressed and obviously a high roller with a good sense of basic strategy and her progression style of betting. I would bet only when the TC was plus two or better. I was half sitting half standing next to her and would stop playing when the count dropped. The dealer did not seem to care either.

After some time and mediocre success on my part she turned to me and started lecturing me on the spirit or soul of the cards in the shoe. She explained that they had a "FLOW" a life of their own. If the cards liked you and your spirit was in harmony then you must stay at the game. She explained that my constant in and out was bad for her such that she dropped two hundred or more in the past twenty minutes of my "inning and outying". I asked her "so it is a kind of force that can go bad/negative or good/positive". I asked her if she had a handle of this force or power. She said she did until I came along. I answered "I am sorry that I have put a disturbance in the force but how can I control the force".

She answered, "stay or leave but stop with the inny and the outy." The count went south and so did I. Later when I stopped hitting 16 when the tc was 0 or better against a ten she started complaining about the flow. I countered with "yes I have disturbed the flow and obviously have caused a disturbance in the force if you have a complaint lady call darth vader!" She got up scooped her dozen or so chips and stalked off. A new freind of mine an elderly woman named Ruth furthered with "good I was tired of that bitches mouth!"
"Deal!"

Later on the trip I had the luck of winning big bets in front of her causing her to take a disliking of my play and personality. But like grandma ruth said "she needs to get laid". LTC

Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 18:33:26 (#2135)

I enjoyed reading your post! We are the few, and they are the many. All part of the scene.

Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Splitz on 28-Dec-2002 21:32:35 (#2144)

I like funny people.
I stood on a 16 v 10 because the count was positive. the next card just had to be a 4. The dealer felt inclined to point this out to me, then went on to tell me that "when you make bad plays like that you mess up the flow of the cards for everyone!" I didn't say anything... just tried to put on the most embarrassed looking face I could muster :)

Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 21:44:24 (#2145)

Play it up man. You can have a helluvalotafun playing BJ aside from the cash attack you are laying down. Next time you get 16 v 10 up you can go into "here we go again! What should I do now?" Blow everyone away when the count is sucking large and say "I like living dangerously" like Dr. Evil's #2 did when he hit his 17 because he saw a 4 with his X ray goggles. The proper play for that hand was an obvious double, but I guess he didn't want to blow his cover! ;>

F104 VooDoo "Widow Maker"

Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Splitz on 28-Dec-2002 22:06:39 (#2146)

haha
actually this lady sitting next to me kept hitting 17's... I don't think she was counting either! because the RC never went below 0! She was really annoying, she stuffed all her damn white ($1) chips in her cup holder and clamped her hand over it... when it was time for her to double down or split.. oh man... she got her chips stuck in there so we waited a good minute as she struggled with the damn thing.. who is going to steal a damn $1 chip?!?!?!

on the other hand.. this other lady, I think she was table hopping!!!! she looked like a mom! she came up to our table, and was putting down $25-$35 bets!! ($2 table) then somehow she spilt her chips everywhere.. greens flying. Everyone was nice and pointed them out to her. but she had a lot. Then she took off to another table... I dunno maybe she was just rich and lucky though!

Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 22:12:47 (#2147)

If she was watching the cards then you might be right, she could have been table hopping. On the other hand, she could also have been playing the tables like a lot of ploppys play the slots....one for you, one for you, one for you, until they get a win spin, then stick around to see if they hit. There wasn't anyone calling her into the table, not at the green level??

Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 18:46:34 (#2136)

The mother hen of the table,,, just another way of being a control freak,, Mother Hens do not have to be F either..

I ran into a guy once who was telling everyone how to play their hands, he was trying to control the players in and out of the table, even the cut. He christened one player the official lucky table cutter, when that player got up to go to the bathroom during a shuffle, he held the cut card and would not even release it to the dealer until that other player came back, the pit person was on his way over when that designated player finally got back to the table.

He didnt stop talking for more than about 10 seconds, commenting about the smallest thing that happened at the table. I was trying very hard to ignore hime but, when he made a few comments about my play and i very impolitely told him to shut the F** up.

I think that started to rattle him.

One player wanted to shift to 3rd base when that player left and Mother Hen kept trying to talk him out of it because it would upset the order of the cards. When the guy finally didn't listen to him and moved anyway he got up and left in a fit of frustration.

You meet the most interesting people in this game.

Re: The Voodoo princess
Posted by Coug Fan on 29-Dec-2002 19:24:05 (#2167)

You should have offered to stay in/out for a percentage of what it is worth to her (say $10 per hand). After all, if she is asking you to add value for her, then it ought to be worth something.

I once had a lady ask the dealer "can't you stop him from doing that" as I hit my 12 versus dealer 5 in a negative count. Actually, she was running her mouth so much that I may have done it even if the count was a bit positive. I made sure to point out every time my "wrong" plays hurt the table (gee, it looks like I took the dealers bust card again). That seems to get the ploppies off their asses and away from me!

Introduction
Posted by NewToTheGame on 28-Dec-2002 18:58:57 (#2137)

I wanted to introduce myself on the board since I have been reading the posts for a few months now. I sent an email to The Mayor a few weeks ago, and he suggested I post to the board...so here I go.

I am a senior at New York University graduating this May (just 1 more semester of undergraduate life...) with a major in Finance. I have programmed for 2 years at a major investment bank (the same one as Don Schlesinger) and recently made the transition to the trading side (I actually interned with Don's daughter this past summer...just a bunch of coincidences).

Anyhow, I have been an avid fan of cards, and have played poker w/ family and friends for many years. However, I have a strong passion for blackjack because of the ability to remove the house's advantage. As such, I have taken many steps to immerse myself. I learned the Hi-Lo method, can count a deck down in 20-25 secs., and have read a number of books from Blackjack Attack, Beat the Dealer, Shuffle-Tracking for Beginners, etc. I went out to Vegas for my 21st this past summer and spent about 4 days playing blackjack (basic strategy (some deviations w/ Ill. 18), counting, kelly betting, etc...although because of lack of capital, I was playing $5 as my min. bet., but at this point, I am looking for the experience, and honestly, it was amazing in my opinion. It's one thing to read a book and practice, and another to be on the table.

I understand the complexity of the game, and at this point, I am looking to learn and improve. I've always thought about joining a team, and feel that it would be a tremendous experience.

If anyone can offer some suggestions on how I should proceed, or people I should speak with in the NY metro area, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your help, and I hope the cards fall well!

-NewToTheGame

Re: Introduction
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Dec-2002 22:16:15 (#2148)

Nice to meet you. I was approached by a team that runs out of New York about a year ago. I am not sure where I have kept the gents number, but I do know the team has a reputation for winning. They would not disclose the count that they use, and they require you to train with them first and have up front money. I offered the guy my services for $200US an hour to play with their $$ using Hi Opt II with 20 BS departures but he didn't go for it. I'm sure you would be accepted with your credentials, but I am not so sure you will want to put a large BR into play with people you do not know. Intelligence and wisdom are two different things. You have both no doubt... ;>

Re: Introduction
Posted by Learning to count on 29-Dec-2002 10:24:04 (#2154)

IMHO you need to play for your self awhile.

I am building a team now. In this environment you have to be wise not just a good player. Counting cards is hard not because of learning the actual skills but because you then have to apply them. This intails trusting your abilities and having a strong self worth and trust in yourself. We have a natural need to survive and improve. This added with pride and greed etc. has a great affect on our selves. You can become very emotionally involved in the game. Have a deep loosing session where your BR is scarred and see how you feel. Very few counters can actaully walk away from a big loss and not be effected

Being part of a team is like having a family. You are rsponsible for many facets of its inner workings. You need to have first of all hard working subjects who are smarter than the average bear. They have to be trainable and have the want to learn. It is like training an army. They have to be loyal. There are lot of thieves out there.

The good part part of belonging to a good team is how much you will learn fast. Apprenticeship is an excellent way to get to the heart of successful play. Finding such a team is hard. Your life seems filled right now. Learn and play for your self and strive to be a competent player. You will meet others who are similar and the team may form with you involved or you may form one yourself.

For now my team consists of a very close friend, a couple of cousins, and good friends. So far two are distinct begginers, one is a veteran who is an old dog, one is a computer engineer who learned hi-lo in a month including indices but needs experience and my self and I am still learning. The goal of this team is not financiel for now it is for player security, game/casino intelligence, and for backup/esprit de corp. After we make this team thing cohesive and work then maybe we will combine a bankroll and learn the team strategies such as the BP, gorilla, type approaches. From your post I think you would be a candidate for a team but you will have to give a lot of your time. LTC

Re: Introduction
Posted by BradRod on 29-Dec-2002 12:42:26 (#2157)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..........In this environment you have to be wise not just a good player. Counting cards is hard not because of learning the actual skills but because you then have to apply them. This intails trusting your abilities and having a strong self worth and trust in yourself. We have a natural need to survive and improve. This added with pride and greed etc. has a great affect on our selves. You can become very emotionally involved in the game. Have a deep loosing session where your BR is scarred and see how you feel. Very few counters can actaully walk away from a big loss and not be effected<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Very well put LTC

Re: Introduction
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 13:20:59 (#2160)

I know how much work running a team can be. I have an onLine team that I am a part of and we have done nicely over these last two years. In Mar and Apr I was getting $100 per new player I could send to certain casinos and I split the finders fee with each person that followed the instructions to make sure we got the $100. It takes a lot of communication, and a lot of trust on the players part. You need a spotless reputation. It has to be a win/win situation, not one that is only good for you. Anytime I see a good opportunity I sound the bell and hope that people will jump in for the big win. In February there is an amazing opportunity coming up that I am trying to get the best angle on for maximum results. My most recent attack was a $250/$500 "sticky bonus" that we did rather well on.

Your family type team sounds exciting. I wish your team muchos pesos in 2003!

Re: Introduction
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Dec-2002 12:23:57 (#2155)

>I offered the guy my services for $200US an hour to play with their $$ using Hi Opt II with 20 BS departures but he didn't go for it.

I can't imagine they would go for it under any circumstances. Hiring a new member of a team, without capital to invest, should get that person little more than the team-minimum wage until they are proven. I would think $20/hour would be more like it.

--Mayor

Re: Introduction
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 13:28:58 (#2161)

The guy was going hard sell on me so I gave him the hard sell back. I think he was talking about 100K up front so they could afford it if everything was legit. He approached me, not the other way around. I can make $20US an hour from home. I am working some overtime and am making $30US from home this weekend, so it would have to be something that would make it worth my while to fly or drive to NY, take a test, and then play for them.

Re: Introduction
Posted by BradRod on 28-Dec-2002 22:25:09 (#2149)

Welcome NTTG. You are right the game is full of complexities and it takes a lot of practice to work your way through them. I think you found a very supportive forum with many great resources to offer. Take advantage of them.

Good cards to you,

BradRod

Re: Introduction
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Dec-2002 12:27:01 (#2156)

Experience -- that's the only way. Find games wherever you can, and play them. Weak games are OK. Just don't overbet your bankroll, and don't expect anything exciting to happen. You are just there to practice, to be able to count without a hitch, to practice cover, to get used to the ploppy attitudes, to feel the excitement of a high count with max bets out (as the dealer gets 3 burried BJ's in a row, or you split your 8's 4 ways and lose all 4). You need a lot of these experiences, 100's of hours of them.

The primary basic rule: don't overbet your bankroll.
The secondary basic rule: practice at the tables as much as possible.
The third basic rule: don't expect to win.

Best of luck!

--Mayor

Re: Introduction
Posted by ZOD on 29-Dec-2002 15:30:03 (#2162)

Mayor,
You make the game sound SO MUCH FUN!
Zod

Re: Introduction
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Dec-2002 16:17:41 (#2163)

He's being totally honest. All the books and hooplah, movies, you name it can make it sound like a sure thing, but it is a hard row to hoe.

Re: Introduction
Posted by ZOD on 30-Dec-2002 20:08:10 (#2187)

I know. I know. I agree with the Mayor's advice, except for rules 2 and 3. They should both probably read "Don't overbet your bankroll" as well.
ZOD

I agree with you!
Posted by The Mayor on 30-Dec-2002 22:55:57 (#2194)

But, if the top 3 rules are "don't overbet", then rule four should be "don't underbet!" -- that is just as dangerous!

One of my weaknesses on trips is that I take it easy the first few hours, and underbet (kind of ramping up my nerve) and likewise, the last few hours I underbet (kind of a decompression period). I only overbet one trip. That was enough to learn that lesson!

--Mayor

Re: I agree with you! *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 30-Dec-2002 23:03:59 (#2200)

> One of my weaknesses on trips is that I take it easy the first few hours,
> and underbet (kind of ramping up my nerve)

I like to think of it as warming up. Just go to a few casino that sweat the action, where you have to bet small. After a few hours you'll get tired of all the heat and WANT to bet bigger.

I can't really relate to your tendency to bet smaller at the end of a trip. Is this every time, or only when you want to "lock in" a nice win?

Yeah, I know (blush) *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Dec-2002 18:14:19 (#2165)

The ULTIMATE LIST of Free BJ Resources on Web
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Dec-2002 18:49:09 (#2166)

I have recompiled for CC.com members and visitors the single most complete index of bonafide yet free BJ resources and tools that can be found online - counting courses, practice drills, simulation and risk management tools, and enough quality articles to fill 3 cutting edge books about card-counting and advantage play, enjoy. zg

ps - If anyone else has any links to add, I ask that the links NOT be to a commercial board site, a system seller, or to any link that is already contained in the CC.com *links* section at left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Advanced Discussions and Articles
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/toc.htm

Al Krigman - Click 'Blackjack,' etc.
http://www.casinocity.com/krigman/

Audio Discussions - search BJ
http://www.rgtonline.com/audiovegas/audiosearch.cfm

Counting F.A.Q.s
http://www.conjelco.com/faq/bj.html

BJ Data Repository and Staticum
http://bjstats.com/

BJ, Poker, Gambling Book Reviews
by 60+ Reviews Nick Christiansen
http://www.jetcafe.org/~npc/reviews/gambling/index.html

BJSTRAT DOS Index Generator (ZIP D/L)
http://www.bjmath.com/bjcomputer/computer/programs/bjstrat.zip

BR Calculator (from RoR)
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/refer/RevGROR.htm

Basic Strategy Generator
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/2009/BJC/Chart.html

BlackJack in spanish
http://www.bj21.com.ar

Blackjack Insider
newsletter archive
http://www.casino.com/newsletter/blackjack/archive/

Blackjack Online Calculators
BJ online calculators from Norm Wattenberg
http://www.bjstats.com/bjcalc.htm

Bob's BJ University
Counting lessons, drills, and more
http://www.bju21.com/

Card Count Articles from GoCee
http://www.gocee.com/blackjack/bjcount.htm

Card Counting 101 by PB
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/novice/counting.htm

Clark Cante's 'BJ Therapy'
http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BlackjackTherapy.htm

Color KO
Leroy Nimka's Color-coded KO system-enhancments
http://www.gofor21.com/cko.htm

Count Systems Comparison
http://www.qfit.com/cvstrat.htm

E. Jacobs' Count System Analyser
http://cardcounter.com/applets/BJ2.3/Blackjack_Applet.html

GameMaster's Free Counting Course
http://www.gamemasteronline.com/indexa.shtml?GameMasters/GameMasterClassicsIndex.shtml

Gamemaster BJ Articles
http://www.gamemasteronline.com/StrategyContent.shtml

Google search -Shuffle Tracking
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=shuffle+tracking&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&btnG=Google+Search&meta=site%3Dgroups

Grinder's Wherehouse - BJ Articles
http://frontpage.inxpress.net/grinder/warehouse.htm

H.Tamburin BJ Articles
http://www.casino.com/blackjack/archive.asp

Hit Or Stand
Practice Basic Strategy
http://www.hitorstand.net

JAVA Flashcards for BS and Index Practic
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/tcindex/randomnr/random.htm

JensenAlgebraic Index Calc (ZIP DL)
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/tcindex/Generator.zip

Kister's BJ Conditions
http://www.skister.com/bj/

Online table conditions from RGE21.com
http://trackjack.com/

Optimal Results Calculator
Calculates EV and SCORE for various systems/conditions
http://www.bjstats.com/bjre.asp

Remaining #Decks Estimation Drill
http://www.bju21.com/shoe_drill.htm

Rob Tougher's Basic Strategy Drill
Hit, Stand, Double, Split, or Surrender? Test yourself Here!
http://www.robtougher.com/games/blackjack_bs/blackjack.php

Ruchman on BJ - much musings and history
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/blackjack/index.html

Rules - Effects on BS
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/conseq/rules.htm

T-Hopper's spreadsheet analysis tool
http://www.bjmath.com/bjcomputer/computer/programs/thcalc.zip

The BJMATH Archives
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/whatsnew.htm

Various online BJ caculators
http://www.qfit.com/calcP.htm

Great list! *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Dec-2002 20:07:56 (#2170)

qRe: The ULTIMATE LIST of Free BJ Resources on Web
Posted by BradRod on 29-Dec-2002 21:04:17 (#2173)

Thanks ZG nice to have that list handy here. I have gone to it quite a bit.

Brad

Re: The ULTIMATE LIST (more)
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Dec-2002 02:09:35 (#2174)

A few stragglers -

DeepNET Technologies
PDA-based BJ training and simulation products AND ARTICLES
http://www.deepnettech.com/blackjack.html

HOW TO BEAT SINGLE DECK BLACKJACK Version 1.01 Copyright 1991, Michael Hall
MultiParameter HiOpt-1
http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Article/Gaming/hi-opt-1.txt

Shuffle Tracking Treatise
by Michael Hall
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/playing/tracking.htm

Hacking Las Vegas
Wired's article about MIT Team
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vegas_pr.html

Beating Net Casinos
scientific analysis of optimum online strategy
http://www.deepnettech.com/cas_on_net.html

Ben Mezrich MSNBC Interview
author of 'Bringing Down The House' about MIT BJ Team
http://www.msnbc.com/news/818633.asp?cp1=1

Didn't you say no commercial sites? *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 30-Dec-2002 10:44:54 (#2176)

> DeepNET Technologies
> PDA-based BJ training and simulation products AND ARTICLES
> http://www.deepnettech.com/blackjack.html

Clarification -
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Dec-2002 13:52:02 (#2178)

No commercial DISCUSSION BOARDS or SYSTEM SELLERS... where as DeepNET is a software seller with free resources at the site similar to Qfit.com. Ca'pece? zg

Do a search for Dan Kimberg's poker pages *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 30-Dec-2002 11:04:16 (#2177)

I think he may have added a small section on BJ.

He did NOT *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 30-Dec-2002 13:57:28 (#2179)

free software
Posted by Cyber on 26-Jul-2004 14:34:24 (#9503)

I found a great cardcounting program:
http://www.angelfire.com/or/strategy/
I think it's worth adding it to the list.

Free software
Posted by Sonny on 27-Jul-2004 11:26:56 (#9514)

> I found a great cardcounting program:
> http://www.angelfire.com/or/strategy/
> I think it's worth adding it to the list.

Well, if you can weed your way through all the pop-up ads you might be lucky enough to find this warning:

"Warning: Cardcounting or the use of mechanical, electrical or any other type of device to assist players in the gaming activity conducted in a casino is strictly prohibited..."

Not exactly accurate, is it?

"...Violators will be subject to a forfieture of all winnings and to confiscation of any prohibited devices."

I like the part about confiscating the "prohibited device." I guess that means a card counter has to give up all his winnings AND his brain too! Will I have to give up all by blackjack books and my computer too? They are all "devices" that I use to learn and practice "illegal" card counting. You guys won't narc on me, will you?

-Sonny-

stu unger's ability to guess the cards
Posted by darksun on 29-Dec-2002 19:46:20 (#2168)

After watching the 1997 wsop on espn2 on Christmas Eve, I googled Stu Unger to learn a little more about the 3 time winner. In the short biographies that I found was Stu's ability to predict each card in the last 2 decks of a 6 deck shoe

here is an excerpt:

"Stu Unger would bet anyone $10,000 to place 6 decks of cards in a shoe. The bet was that he would correctly identify the final 104 cards (or 2 decks) in the shoe. No one would take the bet. Finally in January 1977, Bob Stupak, former owner of Stupak's Vegas World and Stratosphere Tower, offered Stu $100,000 to identify the final 3 decks in a 6 deck shoe. Without hesitation, Stu counted the final 3 decks (156 cards) and won the $ 100,000 wager. It was the beginning of a life-long friendship."

from: http://www.gregdempson.com/stuungerstory.html

does anyone know how he did this? Some short of shuffle tracking? It's just really interesting and I would like to know more about it.

Re: stu unger's ability to guess the cards *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 29-Dec-2002 20:02:39 (#2169)

Before he came to Las Vegas, Stu was the most feared gin rummy player of all time, while still a teenager. One of his skills from that game would have been remembering how many cards of each rank had been played. With a 6 deck shoe, he'd just have to count a little higher.

As the story at the end of the link below demonstrates, having this information won't do you any good if you don't know how to use it.

Re: stu unger's ability to guess the cards
Posted by BradRod on 29-Dec-2002 20:57:49 (#2172)

That story has given a really great idea for counting using letters.

As a kid I learned how to assign number values to hebrew letters. I still have that ability. I can easily count into the hundreds that way. The first 10 letters have values 1 - 10, the next 9 are 20 - 100, the final 3 are 200 - 400.

It'll be interesting to see what it would be like to count cards that way. Not sure about the division process though for TC. Could be useful with an unbalanced system or to keep a separate side count without confusing the running numbers.

Thanks for the article was very interesting.

Brad

"mnemonic-devices" *link*
Posted by zengrifter on 29-Dec-2002 20:39:20 (#2171)

Typical of many/most 'card-memory' pros are various "mnemonic-devices" or memory tools - the most popular ones are contained in the exceptional link below. zg
http://www.demon.co.uk/mindtool/memory.html

Free Blackjack Book Download *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 30-Dec-2002 22:56:38 (#2195)

T-H Basic Blackjack is now available as a free download.
Adobe Acrobat Reader http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html is required. Visit http://www.bjrnet.com/thop for more information, or post your questions at http://www.bjrnet.com/board_systems.htm.

1D 6:5 vs 6D 3:2
Posted by ace on 31-Dec-2002 07:29:33 (#2201)

I have been pretty vocal in my discontent over the proliferation of the 6:5 games on the Strip before realizing I didnt know what the calculated house advantage is for the typical Strip SD game vs the typical Strip 6D game.

Also, what is a reasonable spread one could get away with at these games on the Strip.

Re: 1D 6:5 vs 6D 3:2
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 08:50:43 (#2203)

For 1D 6:5, spead your legs apart are run out the freakin' door! For 6D 3:2 a typical spread is 2 per deck or 1:12. Good 6 deck games I know of are Ballys, Caesars, Flamingo, MGM, Bellagio, Mirage, Tropicana, T Island, & Mandalay Bay in that order. The conditions change from time to time, and actually from table to table in each casino for that matter.

You may want to go after some of the better 2D games out there if you don't like the swing that you will experience with the 1:12 spread.

Re: 1D 6:5 vs 6D 3:2 **DISAGREE POINTS
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 12:23:06 (#2209)

**Disagree on points -

For 6D 3:2 a typical spread is 2 per deck or 1:12.

**That may be a bit much for wonging, insufficient for play-all.

Good 6 deck games I know of are Ballys, Caesars, Flamingo, MGM, Bellagio, Mirage, Tropicana, T Island, & Mandalay Bay in that order. The conditions change from time to time, and actually from table to table in each casino for that matter.

**The conditions for the 6D games you site chnge VERY LITTLE (if any) from table-to-table as to %pene. Some though are mixed between s17 and h17 rules.

You may want to go after some of the better 2D games out there if you don't like the swing that you will experience with the 1:12 spread.

**The 'spread' doesn't cause greater swings per'se because spread is correctly calculated from the top down - the max bet with a 1D 1-5 spread is THE SAME as the max bet with a 6D 1-20 spread. Notwithstanding a 1-12 spread IS what should be used for many/most 2D games. zg

YES
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 16:11:03 (#2223)

you are right. I don't think he was asking all of the questions that you were answering, but your extrapulations on his original question are beautiful. By wonging he can actually flat bet, and the method for getting 12u on the table for 2D you should go into for this gentleman. And as the Mayor points out, there are still some good 1D 3:2 hanging in there. Pound them out of existance boys! grin

Re: 1D 6:5 vs 6D 3:2
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 10:29:15 (#2205)

The edge for the house with the 6:5 is about 1.3%, compared with a decent 6D game that is .40% or better. In other words, the 6:5 is UNBEATABLE. Go downtown in you want single deck, the horseshoe, las vegas club, western, el cortez, all these places still offer the real thing.

I don't think its "unbeatable,"...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 12:10:55 (#2208)

... heads up, played fast, w/good pene and a 0-10u+ spread its probably only a little worse than sf21. Definately NOT a good game. zg

Re: I don't think its "unbeatable,"...
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 16:15:12 (#2224)

I think we were over this once, even $ BJ at Stupak's house of pain ;> Dealt all the way to the bottom. If you can remember what was dealt properly you could kill that game with it's off the top -2% ev. What were the table limits there??

FREE PROGRAM - Improved CA (version 5.0)
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 31-Dec-2002 09:14:41 (#2204)

One of the previous versions of Eric's program was featured in my newletter found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjack_pro_newsletter/

Posted By: Eric Farmer <erfarmer201@comcast.net>
@ http://www.bjmath.com
Date: Monday, 30 December 2002, at 1:48 p.m.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/erfarmer201/

Hello all,

Having recently stumbled on some extra free time, I have been working
on a substantial revision of my combinatorial analyzer, primarily to
improve my pair-splitting algorithm. For those not familiar with
previous versions, my original design goal was to compute exact
probabilities and expected values as efficiently as possible, but
with an interface that allowed users to do their own analysis of a
wide range of situations, including arbitrary distributions of cards
in the shoe, most of the common rule variations, different playing
strategies such as total-dependent vs. composition-dependent basic
strategy, "mimic the dealer," etc., and card-counting systems (from
evaluation of existing systems to regression-fitting your own).

One aspect of my resulting design which I consistently ignored was
the inaccuracy of my pair-splitting algorithm. The latest version 5.0
(for which the associated game and basic strategy calculator have
been rebuilt) contains two significant changes:

1. The interface for resplitting rules is more general, allowing
specification of a maximum number of split hands for each individual
pair, including no splits at all. (Not sure how useful this really
is, except for not resplitting aces, but it was easy to do.)

2. The pair splitting algorithm has been improved, at a cost of some
increased memory and computation time; in particular, expected values
are exact when no resplits are allowed, assuming that playing
strategy is the same for both halves of the split.

I am posting here for a couple of reasons. First, check out the
software (source code and Windows executables included) at
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/erfarmer201/blackjack/ if you're
interested, and let me know if you find it useful; that's why I enjoy
writing programs like these. I will copy Mr. Reid as well if he would
like to post the software on bjmath.com.

Second, I have done a lot of testing of the new version myself (*),
including scouring posts here and on usenet for (mostly anecdotal)
exact results from Mr. Jacobs, Cacarulo, etc., with which to confirm
my calculations. Any additional input is appreciated. For my own
additional checking, are there expected value tables similar to those
generated by Cacarulo with no resplits allowed (RSP=2, if I read the
notation correctly)?

Let me know what you think,
Eric Farmer

(*) As an interesting "sanity check" of my new algorithm, recall the
discussion some time ago about Thorp's result on basic strategy EV
and its independence of number of hands dealt or of strategies of
other players at the table (see the above web site for a perspective
on this as a simple and neat generalization of the true count
theorem).

We may compute the overall expected value for a hand with an ace
removed from the shoe; repeat with a 2 removed, etc. Average these
expected values, weighted by the probability of each removal.
The "extended" true count theorem states that this average should
equal the expected value for the full shoe (note that this does not
follow from the true count theorem).

With no resplits allowed, the overall expected value is exact, and
equality holds. As before, however, my algorithm for resplitting is a
(better) approximation which is not of the appropriate form (namely,
an expected value of a function of a shoe arrangement, averaged over
all possible arrangements), and so the average is not equal to
the "full shoe" value. (It's closer than it used to be, though, only
differing in the sixth decimal place in my test case.)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/erfarmer201/

Re: FREE PROGRAM - Improved CA (version 5.0)
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 11:23:30 (#2206)

Excellent work, Eric! Thanks for your FREE contribution!!!

--Mayor

What does it do...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 12:01:18 (#2207)

... just analyze BS plays? zg

Rough Night
Posted by SammyBoy on 31-Dec-2002 13:44:09 (#2210)

I got my clock cleaned last night. I was down 60 units at one point before making a comeback at the end where I got back 30 units. I've never lost as many big bets as I did last night, it was almost unbelieveable especially considering I'm playing one of the best games if not the best game around. It was one of those nights where you get high counts but bad cards and the dealer has a 6 showing and doesn't bust. I'll keep plugging along.

Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 14:00:23 (#2212)

... a 30u loss after being down 60u "a rough night"... (you ain't seen nothing yet!) zg

Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 14:09:36 (#2213)

The nights when you get the high counts all night long are the nights you will win/lose the most. The better the game, the more often you will have these wild swings (which is exactly what you want!). I have 100 unit shoe wins/losses -- let alone a night! My biggest losses have come at the best games. That's the way it is.

--Mayor

Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by SammyBoy on 31-Dec-2002 14:24:46 (#2214)

I know I still have MUCH to learn/experience in this game. I'm getting better at thinking about this in the long run and not worrying about what happens in each session or night or trip. But when you lose big bet after big bet with high counts and win small bets with very negative counts, it can work on your nerves.

Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 14:42:16 (#2215)

In case you haven't looked at it lately, look at my journal on this page (link below). Each dot represents one day playing blackjack (average about 5.5 hours). That's 89 days of blackjack, over 500 hours. Try and imagine the emotions you would experience as you go through some of those days. This game is tough! But fun 8-)

http://www.cardcounter.com/images/BJ_journal.JPG

In 2002, the worst experience of a swing I had was a shoe that was +130 units, followed immediately by a shoe that was -110 units!!!

--Mayor

Re: Rough Night / YOU CALL...
Posted by BradRod on 31-Dec-2002 14:42:18 (#2216)

I'm there with you Sammy. Still working on my game. Just more determined.

Name that paradox!
Posted by zengrifter on 31-Dec-2002 14:47:42 (#2217)

CardCounter.Com
The paradox of playing in higher Ev games/sessions

Posted By: zengrifter
Date: 10/17/02 11:36:26 a.m.

The paradox of playing in higher Ev games/sessions...
-------------------------
... that are due to various good-conditions (like deep pene% and high count betting opps) is that they are often the ones where we experience our biggest losses. we need a good name for this apparent paradox. zg

suggested answer: "advantage play" *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 31-Dec-2002 14:52:02 (#2218)

Re: Name that paradox!
Posted by BradRod on 31-Dec-2002 14:54:35 (#2219)

i have to struggle to push "compulsive gambling" out of my head.

The "Why do ya think they call it gambling" effect

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Home

Basic Strategy Engine

Rules of Blackjack

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game

Card Counting

Interviews

Blackjack Blog

Message Boards

Blackjack Tournaments

Gambling Online

Newsletter Archive

Books & Software

Get Strategy Cards

Threads 271 to 300

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Strategy Trainer / Free Blackjack Game

Threads 271 to 300

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game