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 211 to 240

reno
Posted by hammer on 11-Dec-2002 09:27:23 (#1512)

The large Silver Legacy/
Hilton are good..
The little places are what they are little.
a few decent...though

Lucky Ladies
Posted by Lapper on 11-Dec-2002 09:28:53 (#1513)

The Palms Casino in Las Vegas I believe has pioneered a side bet that they call, "Lucky Ladies". I have noticed it turning up at a few other casinos also. The bet is as follows, you place $1 - $25 in a circle to the right of your normal bet and if your first two cards are a twenty (either two tens or an Ace-9) you get paid 4 - 1. If the cards match in suit the payoff is 9 - 1 and if the cards match in both suit and number the payoff is 19 - 1. If the first two cards are both Queen of Hearts then the payoff is 125 - 1 and finally if your first two cards are the Queen of Hearts and the dealer shows blackjack, the payoff is 1000 - 1.

Has anybody studied if a tens count, like the one first proposed in the seminal work by Edward O. Thorpe, "Beat The Dealer", could be used to get an advantage in this side bet. If so it could be a good camouflage to occasionally switch to a tens count, flat bet your blackjack game and try to take advantage of the side bet.

I don't imagine that the usual counts that we use, KO, Hi-Opt, Wong's Hi-LO, etc. would be of much use here as they do not weight the ten sufficiently.

Re: Lucky Ladies
Posted by in the know on 11-Dec-2002 16:30:12 (#1533)

Terrible game dont play it. A true carnival game. A suckers bet.

Re: Lucky Ladies
Posted by The Mayor on 11-Dec-2002 17:45:22 (#1539)

If you join bj21 green pages, they have a lot of information about this bet. I don't want to say anything here. That alone should say something.

--Mayor

There is another new side bet...
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 22:14:10 (#1594)

...I saw recently around town - similar to the LL bet, its for a variety 20s next hand first two cards. As beatable as LLs from a glance. IMO there is NO REASON to NOT dicuss these side-bets here - the casinos know that they are susceptible to counting, as is some varieties of RoyalMatch, Over-Under, etc. zg

Need Advice, Again!
Posted by SammyBoy on 11-Dec-2002 13:39:33 (#1523)

I'll be staying at a particular Hotel/Casino this weekend. I will have the family with me, so I surely don't want to be kicked out for counting. Am I better off not playing there at all? Or should I limit my sessions to an hour a day? What do you do when in this situation? Thanks!

Re: Need Advice, Again!
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 11-Dec-2002 17:29:04 (#1537)

Unless you are spreading like a California forestfire I think you will be fine. Watch for any heat and limit your play time to short sessions. Normally they will give you signs of a back off or tell you not to play BJ, especially if the missus is losing it on slots as fast as you can make it with blackjack. ;> Much depends on which casino you will be staying at. E-mail the Mayor with this critical info and he will give you a run down of the heat situation at that casino.

Re: Need Advice, Again!
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Dec-2002 18:05:51 (#1540)

Don't email if you are playing less than a $25min, and IF you intend to receive some comps just limit your play at your host resort to 1hr per shift daily. zg

Thanks for the replies
Posted by SammyBoy on 12-Dec-2002 09:32:43 (#1556)

Yes, I'm still a red chipper, so I guess I shouldn't sweat it too much. I've been getting away with a 1 to 5 spread at a few different places I play (single and double deck). Should I stick with that or should I test the waters with a 1 to 6 spread?

1-6
Posted by Theef on 12-Dec-2002 09:43:42 (#1558)

If they don't checks-play you at 5-25, they probably won't at 5-30, so go for it. Plus, you can put a red chip on top of a green one so your bet might not catch the pit critter's attention as often as just a green one, although that's usually just wishful thinking.

Re: 1-6
Posted by SammyBoy on 12-Dec-2002 09:55:16 (#1561)

Thanks Theef!

I'm actually spreading 10 to 50 right now and I always feel like I stick out like a sore thumb when I go from 10 straight to 50 on the next hand. I'll try using green like you said.

1:5 1:6 in Red
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Dec-2002 09:51:05 (#1559)

Give it a try, I doubt the $5 difference will make them sweat. Enjoy yourself while you are still playing at that level. It will make for some great memories later on. ;>

just call out red action and bet all red chips
Posted by Steve on 12-Dec-2002 19:52:56 (#1576)

Whenever I'm playing at a low stakes table and they call out green action for a one green chip bet I put all my green in my pocket and then bet only in red, and if I bet more than 2 red i call out "red action". Putting some red on top of the green usually works out. When you bet table minimum you can use five white ones and call out "white action". I like to fool around like this to lighten things up.

Have Fun!!

Steve

Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by RDM on 11-Dec-2002 22:58:55 (#1554)

Hello,

I haven't been counting that long so maybe this is something I'll learn in time, but it is hard for me to add my cards the dealer cards and keep a running count at the same time. Any advice or is this just an experience thing?

thanks,

RDM

Re: Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Dec-2002 09:40:58 (#1557)

First you have to practice at home. Turn the deck upside down and pull them off one at a time and count them down. When you can do that start pulling off two at a time and get that down. Move up to batches of cards of three and four until you can go thru the deck in no time. You have to be able to look at a players hand and know its total value. When the dealer is picking the cards up you switch into betting mode using the count to tell you how much to bet, sit out, or to leave the table. Practice......

Re: Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by RDM on 12-Dec-2002 13:21:52 (#1566)

Thank you guys, I think Rob is close to what I'm trying to describe, but I'll rephrase my question (scenario). Simple head to head, sometimes you might each be dealt 4 or 5 cards, now do you simultaneously add the total sum of your cards and dealer cards with the running count, or do you momentarily drop the running count add the sum and revert back? I hope that makes sense.

Also a side note; I want to personally thank "The Mayor" for this forum, I trade commodities and the forums we have are a valuable link to "common ground."

RDM

Re: Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 12-Dec-2002 14:57:18 (#1568)

This is how I do it, others might do it differently, people's brains work in different ways, you have to find the way that works easiest for you.

I keep the running count seperate. As already pointed out, You only need the running count (in order to convert to true count) twice a round. Once, when you are about to bet, and then when you play your hand.

So I add up all the exposed cards (canceling out pairs, etc.) I then take this total and add it to the running count (the count I was left with at the end of the last round, or whatever) which I store seperately in my brain. This becomes my new running count total. If any more cards are exposed, I take the total of them, and add/subtract it to the seperately stored running count.

There is a certain pace that cards get exposed in, and you get used to when to sum exposed cards, and when to add that sum to your running count.

Be careful, when the dealer flips a blackjack! Then you are going to see all the cards at once, very quickly, while the dealer scoops them all up. Remember to moan real loud like a ploppie when this happens.

Re: Counting your cards: my way to avoid errors
Posted by jnubro on 12-Dec-2002 17:58:11 (#1571)

I often revert to A de Moivre's method at times when I am fully alert. But bj can be rather dull for extended periods and I needed to reduce my counting errors. The following is my current approach which ultimately derived from somewhere in Ken Uston's fine book:

I use my left hand to store the count after all hands are collected. I let this hand rest on my thigh under the table and use a combination of finger and wrist positions. Whether the fingers are in a very slight push vs. pull state indicates whether the count is pos vs. neg, thumb=1..pinky=5, any one or two finger combination makes a number from 1-9, raised vs collapsed knuckle and wrist position takes care of tens. Sounds harder than it is. You can use flexed/extended toes within your rt and left shoe to mean the same thing as ten/twenty/pos/neg...whatever makes sense or is easier for you. My right hand does the chips and handles cards. (The left hand is usually useless anyway at the tables except for those who smoke.)
I start with my left hand storing the count at whatever is appropriate for the #decks. I adjust it during play for blackjacks and busts since these cards are removed from play. I only mentally adjust this stored count for those cards that are exposed/spied including my own hand and use this for the running count I play my own hand with. I adjust my left stored count for my own hand after I've already played it, whether it busts or not.
When a round is over I quickly count all the cards but my own, as the dealer reveals them. I do so based on zero and just add the positive or negative number to whatever my left hand's stored count is. My left hand now has the current count for making the initial bet so I now relax.
I find this method enables me to socialize while playing because I only have to count/work in spurts. Previously, I would try to keep track of which cards I haven't already counted while trying to remember the current count as some sort of mantra going through my head. I found I couldn't resist adjusting the count for cards I happened to spy; but then I couldn't always remember which cards I didn't spy/count and what the running count was before I lost track. If I got dealt multiple split pairs and had to make a series of quick bet/play decisions, I would lose the count more often than not. Now, having the most recent stored count available to me, this scenario allows me to revert to a good recent value and revise it to a nearly correct current value, even when I can't remember exactly what cards the dealer scarfed up when, let's say, my three split-pair hands busted, causing wholesale disruption to any logical thought processes(it happens!).

Re: Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 22:15:29 (#1595)

playing head to head seems to be more challenging than at a tanble with other players. playing head to head. you are always "on" and things move pretty quickly. youy have to at the same time adjust the count and decide how to play your hand. it may be easier to practice in casino setting playing with other players first until you get more fluent.

Re: Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by SammyBoy on 12-Dec-2002 09:52:54 (#1560)

RDM,

I'm fairly new to counting myself. The main thing that has helped me is being able to quickly glance at the cards and be able to cancel values. In other words, when I play shoe games, I do not even look at the first round of cards dealt. As he begins dealing the second card, I'm looking to either cancel the cards (K & 6 = 0) or add them up (2 + 3 = 2) (J + Q = -2). I'm also continuously repeating the running count in my head. The more you practice the easier it gets.

http://www.robtougher.com/ has counting drills that will really help you to see what I mean about canceling cards. Good luck and stick with it!

Re: Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by hinoon on 12-Dec-2002 10:59:58 (#1562)

Another thought from a new guy. I've found that I don't continuously adjust the true count while the deal is happening. I match pairs and when the cards are out and the rest of the table is trying to figure out "how to play"...I'm processing and adjusting the true count. For me, it's a matter of practice. Repetition. Ultimately, counting should be as rote as basic strategy...not something you think about...just someting you DO. I'm not there yet. But I will be, job be damned. heheh

Re: Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by SammyBoy on 12-Dec-2002 11:14:54 (#1563)

Hinoon,

Excellent point. There are only two times when I calculate the true count. Before I place my bet and while I'm deciding how to play my hand.

Re: Counting your cards/dealer cards/running count
Posted by ace on 12-Dec-2002 13:58:17 (#1567)

Thanks for that link, that trainer seems like a big help.

when in doubt about the count ask the dealer
Posted by Steve on 12-Dec-2002 19:44:42 (#1575)

Whenever i am in doubt as to what the current count is, I just ask the dealer, most dealers count cards, gives them something to do when dealing.

Steve

That can be a clever cover ruse *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 00:07:05 (#1609)

Re: when in doubt about the count ask the dealer
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 13-Dec-2002 08:40:54 (#1613)

I agree. Here is the conversation I heard a couple of weeks ago:

clueless ploppy: "Should I hit or stand on this 13 against your 3?"
smartass dealer: "It depends on what the count is."
clueless ploppy: "But what does the book say?"
smartass dealer: "Depends on which book you are talking about."

moral of the story: No tips for you.

ask dealer to deal slower so you can count easier
Posted by Steve on 13-Dec-2002 14:05:16 (#1632)

I once told a dealer (someone I have a great rapport with) to stop dealing so fast, he said "why", I said "because I can't count the cards when you deal so fast", so the dealer started exagerrating dealing really s-l-o-w. The pit boss, on hearing the word "count" started paying us a lot of attention, so I started counting outloud, "one, two, three, four....." counting EVERY card as it was dealt out, the dealer, the pit boss, and everyone at the table were laughing and laughing.

Steve

How accurate are bj-strat indices?
Posted by koko on 12-Dec-2002 17:23:20 (#1570)

How accurate are indices generated by bj-strat compared to the one generated
by a simulator?

Thanks,
KOKO

Re: How accurate are bj-strat indices?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Dec-2002 18:56:13 (#1572)

They are a composite of every card that can make up that play. There are a number of ways to make a hand of 16 v 10 up, and there can be any number of cards played prior to getting that 16, so the computer will calculate every possibility and spit out a number. They are basically accurate, but rounding them up or down will not make that much of a difference. Some players like indices that are -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4 +6 to make it easier for them to remember them.

Fine, more than adequate! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 20:27:37 (#1579)

Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 20:04:07 (#1577)

I cannot figure out why I cannot get my game going.

I play 6D, DOA, DAS, S17, 4.5 -5 deck pen. I have been using Leroy Nimka's color KO.

I play at 10 and 15 $ tables mostly.

The count rarely gets into a rich level and when it does my high bets all lose add to that the often ineffective insurance bet.

The count is never very low either so that I have no reason to quit the game.

It does not make sense but, I start to think that the casino has removed at least 2 Ts to every deck or added 2 5's.

Any advice ??

Thanks,

Brad

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 20:26:45 (#1578)

How many hours of play has this been occuring, and do you play all counts or most just +counts? What's your spread from $10/$15min to $_ max? zg

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 20:35:39 (#1582)

How many hours of play has this been occuring, and do you play all counts or most just +counts? What's your spread from $10/$15min to $_ max? zg

my high bets range from $40 to $90 when my BR allows. hours are as long as it takes, i usually play for about 2 days in 4 hour sessions.

I usually play from the beginning of each shoe until it starts to look hopeless after 1 or 2 decks played. Then i take a bathroom break or just sit out if i think i can get away with that.

Usually it is other players that will gripe, as they do when i hit soft 18 V 9+ or stand on 16 V 10, etc.

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by Double21 on 12-Dec-2002 20:58:40 (#1583)

Your response was unclear but it sounds like you are betting from $10-$15 to a maximum of $90---"when your bankroll allows". The very lowest spread I've read for a six deck game is 12-1 unless you are Wonging which it doesn't look like you are doing. "When your bankroll allows" you are betting a max of 9 to 1.

Again--how many hours have you played? Eight total hours? Four hours a day for how many days? For us to help you we'll need clear answers.

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 22:30:54 (#1599)

Your response was unclear but it sounds like you are betting from $10-$15 to a maximum of $90---"when your bankroll allows". The very lowest spread I've read for a six

deck game is 12-1 unless you are Wonging which it doesn't look like you are doing. "When your bankroll allows" you are betting a max of 9 to 1.

Again--how many hours have you played? Eight total hours? Four hours a day for how many days? For us to help you we'll need clear answers.

Don't mean to be vague. I guess I am still learning to think in counting terms. so, I have not really kept good track but, my playing is very extensive..

in my recent negative streak as you may have seen by now i am estimating over 60 hours.

for me to bet 12-1 i would need a BR of over $5k which i do not have right now. do you think i should quit the game until i build it back it back up from other sources or is there a way i can use the game to help build up my BR ?

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 22:56:17 (#1601)

>> for me to bet 12-1 i would need a BR of over $5k which i do not have right now. do you think i should quit the game until i build it back it back up from other sources or is there a way i can use the game to help build up my BR?<<
---------------------
Think of the BR as 'cumulative' (ie, you can replenish along the way when/if necessary... AND avoid betting into -Ev decks! zg

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 21:28:14 (#1585)

How many TOTAL hours has your play been generating a neg-result? The time to exit with HiLo is at TC-2, and exit you must if your spread is only 1-8. zg

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 21:39:16 (#1587)

How many TOTAL hours has your play been generating a neg-result? The time to exit with HiLo is at TC-2, and exit you must if your spread is only 1-8. zg

I am not sure how to translate to TC.

using the color KO system I start the count @ 16 at the beginning of the shoe. unless i am able to actually see the burn card i assume it is T,

if the count falls below 15 after 1 shoe i leave, 20 after 2 shoes and 25 after 3 shoes.

Total hours i would estimate @ 60

ZG - i know you like to promote the Zen count, i thought i might try that next. i chose the KO system for now because of its simplicity and it seems to work well for the type of shoe game that I play. I was previously using OmegaII, i was able to handle to 2 level count faily well but, it did not seem to accommodate itself well to multi deck games.

Thanks,

Brad

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 21:57:51 (#1591)

I think that the ColorKO is fine, as is Red7 - the premier UB'd system is UBZ2. 60hrs/6000-10000 hands does NOT a longrun make. I can't translate TC into KO but just make sure that you are not playing too much into a neg-count. zg

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 22:04:50 (#1592)

the premier UB'd system is UBZ2. 60hrs/6000-10000 hands does NOT a longrun make.

is UBZ2 explained in --- Blackbelt in Blackjack ?

what can i think of as a long run ?

thanks again

Brad

Re: Crashed and Burned -- AGAIN!
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 22:09:41 (#1593)

UBZ2 is sold seperately by GeoC by several sources -

tags 2-A
ZEN: 112221 00-2-1
UBZ: 122221 00-2-1

At a minimum I'd say 100,000 hands, but actually thats not really it either, but that would be 10x your 60hr sample.

Play with the count-simulator at this site, it will open your eyes. zg

count-simulator ? *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 22:21:34 (#1598)

Re: count-simulator ? HERE
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 22:59:07 (#1603)

HERE - http://cardcounter.com/CCC_start.htm

Re: count-simulator ? HERE
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 23:11:30 (#1604)

this is very interesting but, i am not sure of its use. when i run the program with the same critria over again it gives me wildly different results is this a function of SD ?

if so, how can i know which change of variables accounts for the most reliable indicator of the outcome ?

Re: count-simulator ? HERE
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 23:31:04 (#1605)

this is very interesting but, i am not sure of its use. when i run the program with the same critria over again it gives me wildly different results is this a function of SD ?
------------------------

Runs of 10,000-100,000 hands will differ wildly, demonstrating the high-degree of variance involved in such 'short-samplings' zg

Six decks
Posted by Learning to count on 13-Dec-2002 06:37:41 (#1612)

I have had those days. This just an oppinion and I am still learning so please dont run to the casino and bet the house on my advise.

This is what I do when I play six deck shoes. First I check the penetration. Is it less than a 1.5 cut. I try and find 1 deck cut or close to. Second is it the best rules available. I look for at the least late surrender. Third spread is very important. I used to have a one to twenty spread at red chip but the mayor and ZG straightened me out on that. I now spread 1-30(40 if i can get away with it.I use a serious ramp also 5,25/40,50/75,100/150,two hands of 150/200 if I can get away with it. With a limited BR you should be wonging seriously. I start playing at the beggining of the shoe and leave at -1 tc. I wong out.

Now I am a HI-LO player and I have to divide for TC. Now the following statement is just my feeling and oppinion based on so far limited knowledge.

I have heard and (have seen) that KO is excellent for single and double deck but not as good as hi-lo for six deck. The reason I have heard this is that with a tc conversion you can make better strategy and bet decisions. I have yet to see more evidence to prove this. I am presently looking to verify this. Ko has been very deadly with single deck and especially for Super Fun 21. But I have heard little raving for six deck use. Still looking for for the Truth;LTC.

Re: Six decks
Posted by BradRod on 13-Dec-2002 09:22:42 (#1616)

>>>>>>Second is it the best rules available. I look for at the least late surrender.

Thanks for the advice,,, no games near me have surrender or are single deck. though i sometimes travel to connecticut or indiana where it is available. otherwise rules seem pretty good.

>>>>>>>Third spread is very important. I used to have a one to twenty

spread at red chip but the mayor and ZG straightened me out on that. I now spread 1-30(40 if i can get away with it.I use a serious ramp

also 5,25/40,50/75,100/150,two hands of 150/200 if I can get away with it.
With a limited BR you should be wonging seriously. I start

playing at the beggining of the shoe and leave at -1 tc. I wong out.

spread and bankroll do seem to be my weakpoints right now. that is why it is so devastating having days like i just had. i was in the midst of trying to build up the bankroll gradually but it is hard when one must bet cautiosly and without the ability to really spread.

i may have been a little slow in leaving the table but i have been staying at the table until i lose a hand. sometimes while i am still at the table the count restores to a reasonable range but, maybe that is where i have been erring, i guess that if a shoe is not strong by one or two decks it is not going to be. so, i do seem to be playing in some very mediocre shoes.

>>>>>>>>>I have heard and (have seen) that KO is excellent for single and double deck but not as good as hi-lo for six deck. The reason I have

heard this is that with a tc conversion you can make better strategy and bet decisions.

May be true of the basic KO sytem. The color sytem of KO allows you to make all the playing decisions you need to without having to divide for TC in a multi deck game. the way it does is that you do all the math ahead of time . During play you only need to compare the nuber of decks played or remaining to the count that you are at ; if higher play one way , lower another. the simplicity of the system lets me play longer with less stresss.

Thanks for your response. it's very helpful.

Brad

Re: Six decks
Posted by CanKen on 15-Dec-2002 13:37:38 (#1739)

I've been using KO for a couple of years and have gradually customized and added indices to suit myself and the game I play in.
I had never heard of "ColorKO". Can someone tell me what it is, or where to get info on it?

Join GC @BJ21 *NM*
Posted by V-man on 15-Dec-2002 21:07:24 (#1749)

Re: Six decks
Posted by BradRod on 15-Dec-2002 22:27:15 (#1753)

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

trackjack
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 21:25:35 (#1584)

i have tried logging on to trackjack tonight but, am unable to. i verified my user name and password via e-mail and tried both netscape and internet explorer. anybody else having a problem ?

Re: trackjack
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Dec-2002 21:44:00 (#1588)

I found trackjack a real pain. I couldn't update stats for Ontario casinos. These programs should be user friendly but often are not. Keep trying and ask the programmer questions. I find it much easier to ask around and find out game conditions that way.

Trackjack VERY FRIENDLY *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 12-Dec-2002 22:15:39 (#1596)

Re: trackjack
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 22:19:05 (#1597)

i wanted to update them about MGM Detroit going to 8D and H17.. i play in windsor sometimes. used to play at niagra but found the 8D game too exhausting. seems like niagara will have some competition soon with the new seneca casino opening soon

Niagara
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 12-Dec-2002 22:53:29 (#1600)

Yes! I think the competition will do us some good. Possibly six decks? Two?? I know there is supposed to be a permanent casino built on the Canuck side. The one that is there is not supposed to be permanent. I know the mechanical engineer that designed the HVAC system for the place. I will glady go to the US side to play with US chips. I enjoyed playing Hogansburg using both US and CAN chips for a wider spread. "Checks played" at $100US and CAN, so I could spread from $5CAN to $100US ($150CAN) if I wanted to. Easy shuffle to track I found. After I move I will get back into playing onLand again.

Re: Niagara
Posted by V-man on 13-Dec-2002 06:19:20 (#1611)

Where is Hogansburg ?
Akwasasne casino in the US across from Cornwall no longer allows you to spread from $CAN to $US. If you play the hand with $CAN, you can only double in $CAN.

Hogy
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Dec-2002 10:37:18 (#1622)

Been a while since I was there. I could never double or split with US while playing with CAN chips, but could switch between CAN and US on the hands. ie count is +3TC I switched to US clay. Have you tried that yet?

Re: Hogy
Posted by V-man on 13-Dec-2002 17:51:08 (#1667)

Yes, that's exactly what I did. Since I could not double down US on CAN hand, the first thing running thru my mind is putting out US in the circle when the count went up. I don't know whether I can fool the pit, some PC are ok but got a slight heat from one lady PC (maybe I stayed a bit long, almost 3 hours that night), I stayed through the new shift and the new lady PC gave me some staring)

Re: Niagara
Posted by BradRod on 13-Dec-2002 08:53:54 (#1614)

Yes! I think the competition will do us some good. Possibly six decks? Two?? ............................................................................... I enjoyed playing Hogansburg using both US and CAN chips

for a wider spread. "Checks played" at $100US and CAN, so I could spread from $5CAN to $100US ($150CAN) if I wanted to. Easy

shuffle to track I found. After I move I will get back into playing onLand again.

And maybe some more liberal comps as well. Niagara is the only casino I have been to that actually charges you for parking. Where is Hogansburg ?

Re: Niagara
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Dec-2002 10:34:46 (#1621)

Hogy is at the other end of Lake Ontario, across from Cornwall. Use your players card when at the table and when you check out they will cover your $10 parking fee for you. It to prevent people that use the parking garage from using it to go shopping instead of losing at the casino ;> Take a short trip up Lundy's Lane and you can park for $4 if you don't want to use your players card in the casino.

Parking info above for Niagara *NM*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Dec-2002 11:28:03 (#1625)

'advantage-parking' should only be...
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 15:05:42 (#1642)

discussed via private-email! If everyone knows these parking tricks than they won't be any good! zg

LOL *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 14-Dec-2002 11:08:19 (#1688)

Re: Niagara
Posted by BradRod on 14-Dec-2002 11:07:18 (#1687)

Take a short trip up Lundy's Lane and you can park for

$4 if you don't want to use your players card in the casino.

and have some tim hortons donuts along the way : )

Re: Niagara
Posted by Felix Rue-de-Guerre on 17-Dec-2002 22:01:16 (#1856)

Casino Niagra is the single worst Casino I have ever experienced for comps. Also, $50 minimums on about half of the main-floor tables on weekends.

I'm a Clevelander too, BradRod. Have played mostly in Windsor. You get good food comps, free parking and automatic toll re-embursements at the kiosks for out of towners.

I won't be playing in Canada much in the future for several reasons, though. Exchange rates, keeping two small stakes instead of 1 larger one while knowing full well I'm understaked in both countries, more accessable U.S casinos, occasional border hassles (always coming back into my own country, never a problem getting in to Canada).

Have you discovered The Blue Chip Yet?(Indiana, 5.5 hour drive). I have only been there once. Six decks with one (or even slightly less) cut off. Same rules as Detroit, but better penetration. Always 5 dollar tables. Even on weekends. Tables a bit less crowded than anywhere in the Detroit/Windsor market. Many nice, probably inexpensive motels nearby, too. (I paid under 40 bucks on Saturday night at the Super 8).

My personal plan is to make fewer, full-weekend trips to Indiana instead of day trips to Windsor. But, I am currently in re-evaluation mode and won't be playing anywhere for awhile.

-Felix

oops ! time to renew,,never mind *NM*
Posted by BradRod on 12-Dec-2002 21:46:40 (#1589)

side bets
Posted by hammer on 12-Dec-2002 23:44:04 (#1606)

which places have decent side bets-
and how many decks...
what about the palms...

I can see lvhitman point about being pissed, if we discuss some
new interesting strategies and acts and the pitties read then
then know..

seroius players betting serious dollars...you know...
.

Re: side bets
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 00:06:01 (#1608)

The beatable side bets usually require special counts (ie, Over/Under, Royal Match) but some newer ones such as LLadies and the '20s' bet at GGate (I don't know what its called) are exploitable via regular counting, though I don't know what the triggering counts would be for these, anyone? zg

Re: side bets
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Dec-2002 09:30:41 (#1617)

We could drive vans with speakers mounted on top announcing how to beat blackjack by counting and it would not change a thing. Almost all blackjack players have heard of "counting" and every decent bookstore has great books describing just how to beat the game.

As Alexander Pope said: "A little learning is a dangerous thing."

A "little learning" is exactly what the casinos are banking on, and that is exactly why we can talk about almost anything we like here and only improve our condition.

I said "almost anything"

Here are some threads I would rather not see here:

-- naming dealers who expose hole cards.
-- naming casinos offering promotions like 2/1 blackjack.
-- discussing how to beat side bets that are highly beatable.
-- discussing new ways of thoroughly trashing known games.

If these topics come up, I will just use my common sense to protect the games for the general advantage gaming community. I also hear an earful from my pro friends everytime this site crosses a boundary that is uncomfortable for them. They know I am listening to what they have to say.

--Mayor

Re: side bets DISAGREE
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 10:14:21 (#1618)

-- naming casinos offering promotions like 2/1 blackjack.
-- discussing how to beat side bets that are highly beatable.
-- discussing new ways of thoroughly trashing known games.
--------------------

I respectfully disagree on the above-three - what gives Snyder or Grosjean or Wong the right to publish and mass-distribute such things in their time - why would we wait untill one of them spills the beans? Side-bets come and go, promotions come and go - Wong has special high-priced boards and email alerts, Snyder publishes shuffle-tracking series and Over/Under reports, why should CC.com members be penalized UNTIL one of them spills the beans? As you know "information wants to be free," to quote Mitch Kapor. zg

Ps - I think that CC.com should acknowledge a POM every month.

Re: side bets/mayor
Posted by hammer on 13-Dec-2002 10:18:16 (#1619)

Mayor,
you are correct, but some of the strategies discussed by a few here
are more than pure counting. I would like to see this board
take a more anti-griffin,anti surveillance approach. Its already
starting-the casinos will have cameras that take your photo and scan
as you walk into the door,they filter through the system to see if you
are one of the better players,heaven forbid.

As far a side bets I did email you directly for a report,but did not
hear back,guess you are involved perhaps with some other projects.

please send me that email again!
Posted by Mayor on 13-Dec-2002 10:38:09 (#1623)

Hammer, please send me that email again, my apologies.

As you correctly stated, I have many things going on at the same time, things do fall through the cracks.

--Mayor

"photo and scan" SURE(hint)
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 14:13:24 (#1635)

Its already starting-the casinos will have cameras that take your photo and scan as you walk into the door,they filter through the system to see if you
are one of the better players,heaven forbid.
--------------

Oh SURE, we got that covered, send me an email... whats the difference if everyone who wants to slip thru the FRS writes me an email and I respond with the tech for___ and for___ and where to___?? zg

(this has only been a hint, if it had contained the real juice you would not now be emailing me)

Re: side bets
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 13-Dec-2002 10:23:20 (#1620)

Alexander Pope:

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."

moral: Don't do things half-assed.

Hammer Time
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Dec-2002 11:41:51 (#1626)

"seroius players betting serious dollars...you know..."

That is what one would expect, but from what I know they are not betting large. They are betting head long into a massive advantage. Take a look at Humble's World's Greatest Blackjack Book to see the effect of betting many bets into an advantage. Knowing what the hole card is gives you a 6% advantage. Knowing that the next card you will be dealt is an Ace will give you around a 50% advantage. You can use your imagination to figure out what is being done.

Do the casinos know their side bets are beatable?
Posted by Steve on 13-Dec-2002 13:30:48 (#1627)

According to Mr. Ko, www.gambology.com, he makes part of his living advising casinos that side bets that they have instituted are beatable. So, according to him, they did not know that the side bet was beatable before he sold them his consulting services. I find this a bit difficult to swallow, I have to think that part of due diligence in purchasing a new game for a casino is to independently verify the beatability of the game. I could be wrong, I guess, perhaps the casinos just accept the game's author's numbers for their "edge" and don't worry about "beatability" as part of their due diligence.

If Mr. Ko is right, if casinos do buy beatable games without checking "beatability" out first, then it is very foolish to be discussing these side bets in public. I, for one, would keep such information a closely guarded secret, share it with only trusted colleagues.

There are three options as to the casino's attitudes toward bj games with side bets: 1)they buy them based on edge and don't investigate "beatability" until/unless counters hammer them (the way over/under got hammered), 2) they know the side bet is "beatable" but simply don't care because they think the non-counters will give them more money than the counters take, or, 3) they know the side bet is "beatable" and plan on backing off any counters they run into.

I have beat 21 +3 by counting the suits, such an obvious ploy I just cannot imagine that any casino offering that game doesn't "know" that someone could do that.

I never, however, discussed publicly exactly HOW I do this. And, i wouldn't. It is too easy to watch someone playing 21 + 3 and tell by their betting pattern that they are using this count, once you know what it is. I found though that 21 + 3 moves so fast and is so difficult to pay out accurately and keep up with (for the poor dealer) that the casinos (the ones I play at anyway) just don't worry about watching this game for counters.

I think that if a new game with a beatable side bet came out that we should assume that the casino doesn't know it is beatable and be very circumspect about discussing that information in public. I think the risks associated with exposing beatability information outweigh the benefits. Besides, Mr. Ko charges casinos for this information, why give it away to them for free?

Just my opinion.

Steve

OK, Everbody here...
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 15:44:35 (#1652)

... who knows any new sidebet technique/theory please immediately email me, your confidence is assured - any new info that I receive I will only share in confidence via email with handles who seem trustworthy. zg(not kidding around)

Re: OK, Everbody here...
Posted by Learning to count on 13-Dec-2002 16:04:40 (#1655)

Too many loose lips sink ships. We should only share this with the inner corp of our comrades. Now ZG do you know the secret handshake? Okay if you know it then will you promise only to give it to your close freinds like Mcgarvey and LVHCM.

You know I think this secret society thing is catching on! I nominate ZG to be the Grand Puba. I want to take care of the secrets of winning I could be the sgt at arms and watch the vault. The Mayor could be the grand wizard like that dude on the movie the wizard of oz. All the progressionists could be all the evil monkeys. The only thing we need is a dorothy. Make sure she is a FOX! Lets all follow the gold and diamond brick layed road. :)

LTC Secret tip of the month: is dont bet at the big wheel unless you have a stop watch and time how long it takes until the joker shows back up. Beware though make sure that the spinner gal or guy has the tendacy to use the same pull on the wheel. Read more on this in "Beyond Counting" Grossjean, RGE Publishing.

Re: OK, Everbody here...
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 13-Dec-2002 16:10:04 (#1657)

I always wanted one of those flying monkeys. I think they would make great pets.

Imagine the cover possibilities you could have with a flying monkey at the table!

Re: OK, Everbody here... YA!
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 16:19:53 (#1661)

YA! About as much cover as I get from the FLYING MONKEY that I brought over to CC.com! zg

OH NO!...
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 16:18:14 (#1660)

... I will NEVER rob a bank with LTC!

Re: side bets
Posted by Learning to count on 13-Dec-2002 14:51:27 (#1640)

This is one issue I have to give my humble 1.9 cent oppinion. It is the nature of advantage play to discover weaknesses and screw ups of the casino. It is the tendancy of the counter mentality to keep those secrets that are at hand.
This information is quietly shared by the ones in the know. I have worked for several years to get where I am as far as advantage play goes. Only recently I have been able to meet the right counter breathern and benifit from such intelligence.
The counter community is made up of many different personalities. The one thing that this culture has is the talent of being grifters. They are breed amongst themselves. So when a good thing comes along there is a historical/cultural and social chain of command here.
You have to make your bones; you have to pay your dues; you have to be accepted. Only the masonic fraternities, CIA, MAfia, and other similar organizations/societies are this careful and quiet. I have travelled east to learn knowledge and now I fly west to lay in green fields. Fraternally yours LTC

Re: side betsTHE BS
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 15:04:05 (#1641)

The BS, though, is that MOST of the posters who would share the info without a secret handshake, via email with a faceless/nameless handle whom they've threaded with a bit, got the info themselves thru a paysite or secret-handshake board. I have NO secret handshake or pay site or alert service that I am beholden to.

zg(refuses to belong to any group who would have me as a member)

Groucho Marx
Posted by Mayor on 13-Dec-2002 15:12:17 (#1644)

I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER.

Groucho Marx

Re: Groucho Marx
Posted by Learning to count on 13-Dec-2002 15:41:54 (#1651)

Ha ha ha LMAO! Touchee. Hey zg I think we all belong here even if you deny it. LTC

3 Ques. For THopper
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 00:02:32 (#1607)

HERE - http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=1530

Re: 3 Ques. For ANYONE? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 14:38:56 (#1639)

Re: 3 Ques. For ANYONE?
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 15:20:47 (#1645)

--Assuming they both perform equally, I'd rather memorize 55 more indices numbers (think of it as your home (10 digits), cell (10), work (10), and fax (10) numbers, social security number (9), address (4)--a total of 53 numbers, than have a separate side-count. Once it's engrained, it's easy to spit out, whereas if I need to keep multiple counts, I'll lose track. Remember in elementary school and we needed to memorize the states along with the state capitals, and sometimes counties (parish, in my case)? That is comparable to memorizing 50 indices. Also consider, if you forget 1 index number, it's not such a big deal as if you lose count altogether and need to flat-bet.

--Consider, on the other hand, if we've rounded the indices so we only focus on.. say... -3, 1, 3, and 5. No question, I'd rather just have a single parameter count with more index deviations to memorize.

Another question of relevancy - which would perform better - HO2 w/ 20 indices and an Ace-density per 1/4D bet adjustment -or- HiLo w/75 indices and NO sidecount. Which would likely be easier to employ? zg

Try 1 at a time *NM*
Posted by T-Hopper on 13-Dec-2002 22:53:44 (#1674)

Re: 1-Ques. For THopper at-a-time
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 23:11:37 (#1676)

The subject is the "antiquated 1/4D Ace-density-estimate method" that Robo is pushing - do you agree or disagree with Snyder and Uston as to the value of THAT method being insufficient to generate a reasonable proper gain over and above what a simpler level-2 single parameter count? zg

Re: 1-Ques. For THopper at-a-time
Posted by T-Hopper on 14-Dec-2002 00:22:51 (#1677)

The old method of ace adjustment involves some extra steps, but it should become automatic after a while in handheld games. I can't think of anyone who doesn't hate doing this in a 6 deck shoe.

ZG ---UBZ2
Posted by BradRod on 13-Dec-2002 11:19:08 (#1624)

>>>>UBZ2 is sold seperately by GeoC by several sources -

tags 2-A

ZEN: 112221 00-2-1

UBZ: 122221 00-2-1 <<<<<<<

on Amazon ? other site ?

UBZ2
Posted by BradRod on 13-Dec-2002 13:38:05 (#1628)

i am trying to locate information on this system, anyone know a source ?

thanks

Re: UBZ2
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 14:00:33 (#1629)

www.rge21.com <---they sell it... I ordered it and I really like it. Though it's a level-2 count, I don't need to convert to TC, which saves a lot of energy, more than makes up for counting 2's. You can also do a search for UBZ, unbalanced zen, UBZII coupled with the would "count" or "blackjack" or "George C" and it should hit. I think the book is a little lacking on a few indices (he only gives you about 20), and you'll need to find somewhere (a lot of places have it) that has basic strategy for the prospective games you want. I suggest you buy CVCX or SBA to run some sims and get some more indices as well as the BS for the rules and decks you play.

Re: UBZ2 THE IRONY
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 14:30:18 (#1638)

The ironic-beauty of UBZ is that it requires neither TCadjusts nor Ace-betting adjusts, yet compared to AO2 or HO2 users that only deploy top20 or so i#s and the rudimentry Ace adjusts, UBZ will perform on par with those typical of practioers of those systems - so UBZ2 is a SMARTER choice than ZEN even for a novice. And, UBZ can be evolved upwards with an increase of i#s, TCadjust, and even side-counts - the resultant 'TUBZ' is a hybrid unbalanced/TC'd system with a higher SCORE than ZEN.

I recommend that interested parties purchase UBZ directly from its author GeoC - BJGeo@aol.com , or from gamblersboockclub.com (you may need to email them.

Cyrano, can you create a simple conversion for us whereby us ZEN users can understand the the corellation between the 2 systems counts? zg

Re: UBZ2 THE IRONY
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 15:07:11 (#1643)

**I'm not sure I quite understand what do you mean by "simple conversion". Like, the Pivot point for the UBZ vs. the pivot for Zen? Please explain.

**Currently, I'm running sims on rounding the matrix numbers (per George C. in the intro) so instead of learning 50 different numbers for deviation of BS, I only need 3-4 (grouped sets are so much easier to remember)--SD and DD games.

Cyrano, can you create a simple conversion for us whereby us ZEN users can understand the the corellation between the 2 systems counts?

Re: UBZ2 THE IRONY
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 15:34:24 (#1649)

I'd like to know count-correlates, such as +10UBZ= +_ZEN, etc. zg

Re: UBZ2 THE IRONY
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 16:27:17 (#1663)

I'm not sure how accurate this would be, since we're comparing a TC to a RC. Because of this, I decided to sim SD, since that's probably the closest.

On 20M Hands: SD no DAS, D/10-11

UBZ Zen
Count Edge Edge
-3 -1.67 -1.26
-2 -1.50 -0.81
-1 -1.05 -0.63
0 -0.45 -0.29
1 -0.22 0.24
2 0.12 0.50
3 0.69 0.86
4 0.92 1.33
5 1.32 1.72
6 1.82 1.92
7 2.21 2.42

It's similar... UBZ's edge per each count is slightly lower though, for UBZ, you play more hands at various counts, where ZEN plays more hands near the O.

Re: UBZ2
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Dec-2002 14:03:12 (#1630)

The only thing I can find by GC is here:

http://rge21.safeshopper.com/3/1.htm?

40 pages, 40 beans.

I am not sure if it includes UBZII or not. I can take a look at SBA tonight and see if it is in the list of counts and fire off a sim for you if you wish. 1 2 6 or 8 deck?

Re: UBZ2
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 15:26:17 (#1646)

UBZ2 isn't in SBA. For your info, here's a comparison... http://www.qfit.com/cvstrat.htm

Here's another place you can order from:
http://www.bjrnet.com/shop/cat_brep.htm

Buy it direct from GeoC...
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 15:36:59 (#1650)

...so you receive the booklet and a first inquiry-relationship with GeoC. zg

thanks for all the info
Posted by BradRod on 14-Dec-2002 11:14:58 (#1690)

i play a 6 deck game, DOA, DAS, NS, S17

Re: UBZ2
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Dec-2002 14:11:56 (#1633)

Here is the link to the UBZII.

http://rge21.safeshopper.com/3/403.htm?

$20

tnx

The Next Step?
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 14:04:07 (#1631)

Other than counting, what else should I look at to improve my advantage? For instance, shuffle-tracking, card-clumping, etc? Since I'm playing mostly single and double-decks, should I even care about those two? Also, should I learn separate BS for SD, DD, Multi-D games? What's the loss in EV by not using the right BS? Suggestions for which one I SHOULD use?

Re: The Next Step?
Posted by Steve on 13-Dec-2002 14:12:09 (#1634)

Your next step is to find games with excellent conditions. Beneficial rules, great penetration, friendly dealers, no heat. For me the "atmosphere" conditions are as important as the game being dealt. I don't know about you. Write down what you consider to be "critical success factors" in the game you play. I have to have friendly dealers, my brain shuts off when I am around negative energy. I have to have a pit crew that is friendly and isn't paranoid about counters. I have to have friendly waitresses. I have to be able to "cut up" and "fool around" with the other players. If I don't get that it won't matter what game is being dealt.

Other players could care less about "atmosphere". Write down what you care about, then seek excellent games in terms of rules and penetration that have those other factors that you care about.

Wong out of negative counts and back count into positive counts.

That is what I would focus on next.

Steve

Re: The Next Step?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 13-Dec-2002 14:20:39 (#1636)

You can skip tracking for SD and DD games. They get shuffled so well because there are fewer cards. If you are having trouble remembering the differences between SD and DD deck than I would stick with DD BS. Keep your eyes peeled for anything out of the ordinary with the dealer. Do they show you the bottom card of the deck? Can you cut it into play? How well can you cut? Can you cut the deck so well that you can bring an Ace into position behind the burned top card? Much of your advantage has to do with what you understand of the game and how you can apply it to the situations that you alone can see.

Re: The Next Step?
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 15:29:35 (#1648)

--I've been able to "shuffle-track" 1-2 tiles in Pai-gow. I'm sure I can track ONE ace. Of course, I won't know until I've tried. Maybe there's an edge in doing that for a 1-2 D game, no?

two hand wonging
Posted by Steve on 13-Dec-2002 14:22:48 (#1637)

I read an article a few years ago, not sure where I saw it, that discussed two hand wonging. Its premise was basically this: figure out your bet at TC = 2 based on your expectation and bankroll, then multiply that bet by 1.3 and divide that by 2 to get your per hand bet size with TC = 2, for any TC < 2, bet one hand of table minimum. The assumption was that you would play at a table where the table minimum would be significantly less than your optimal bet size at TC = 2.

Let's say you determine that your optimal bet size is $25 at a TC = 2, with two hands you can bet 30% more than that without increasing risk, round this off to $30, now play two hands of $15. For TC > 2 bet ((optimal bet size X (TC -1)) X 1.3) / 2 on each of two hands. For TC < 2 bet $5 (table minimum).

I used this approach a few times and I liked it because one of the things i hated about Wonging was constantly being on the prowl for a "good game", I liked being able to sit at one table and play without interruption.

Is anyone familiar with this approach?

Steve

Re: two hand wonging
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 16:24:24 (#1662)

Fairly standard, we won't need to go private with this - you can actually use +50%/2 - or for 3hands nearly +90%/3 - but the main detirminant for #hands played should take into account the #others in play. zg

Re: two hand wonging
Posted by CanKen on 15-Dec-2002 13:12:15 (#1735)

For more on this topic see a post by MathProf, reposted on "bjmath.com", called "Scoring the Shoe Strategies (Long)."

Flawed logic?
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 15:46:14 (#1653)

What Steve said in the previous thread reminded me of something I've read earlier and I wanted to ask you all what you think. A few days ago, I was reading about a strategy Uston employed (http://www.gamblingtimes.com/school_articles/blackjack_8.html) where when the count goes negative, he would bet 2-3 hands of say $100, and when the count was significantly high, he would only bet one hand of $1000. The logic follows that if he bets more hands at the negative, then he's eating up all the negative cards and when he bets only 1 hand at the positive count, then he's saving more hands at positive. Has anybody else heard of this?

That makes sense, no? Not to me... Here's why: at the negative hands, he's playing THREE hands of negatives to ONE hand of the dealer. Instead, if he plays only 1 hand for 2 rounds, then he would have played TWO hands at negative and the dealer would have played TWO hands also, netting 1 negative hand you don't need to play.

I can't figure out why Uston would do such a thing since it goes against such a basic concept that I'm sure he knows inside and out. He's not the only one. I've seen a couple counter's "gambits" also follow this rule. Can someone tell me if I'm wrong on this?

Re: Flawed logic?
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 13-Dec-2002 16:05:31 (#1656)

You are counting the wrong thing. You are looking at number of negative hands played, instead of looking at number of negative $$$ played.

In the Uston example, he is betting $300 (3 X 100) in negative counts, and betting $1000 (1 x 1000) in positive counts. And the Pit gets thrown off, because it is not a 'spread' in the traditional counter sense. It looks like some kind of voodoo number of hands "card flow" nonsense.

Look at it this way. Say in a negative count the edge goes to -2% from it normal -1/2%. That 3 hand by $100 move costs $18.

Now if you were able to pay a dealer $18 for him to throw a bunch of little cards out of the deck and allow you to start playing for $1000 a hand against the remaining cards, would you do it?

Or would you insist on only paying him $6 to throw a smaller amount of cards away several times?

Re: Flawed logic?
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 16:48:04 (#1665)

--It would be cheaper for Uston if he bet 2x150 because for every 6 hands he plays, the dealer must play 3 (spend more cards). If he plays 3x100, then for every 6 hands Uston plays, the dealer only plays 2 hands (spends LESS cards). I don't think he needed to worry about the Pit, since all of this was staged and televised. Heck, he should have just played 1x300, because for every 6 hands he plays, the dealer would have to play 6 hands also (maximizing the number of cards used at negative counts/cost).

Re: Flawed logic?
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 16:15:28 (#1659)

SEE HERE - http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=299

Re: Flawed logic?
Posted by Cyrano on 13-Dec-2002 16:41:58 (#1664)

GZ, any reason why you start with 3h's of 1u instead of 2h's of 1 u for negative counts? I mean, at neg. count, you're playing at a disadvantage. Why would you want to throw out more money for less hands? I understand you need to try to keep SOME cover, hence 2h's instead of one. If you only play 2 h's, then the dealer will waste more of the small cards for you. Heck, assuming you're standard unit is $25, you can play 2h's of 1.25 u (1 green on top of 1 red to look like you have 2 green's--$60 total) and that would still be cheaper than 3h's of $25.

Re: Flawed logic?
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 18:25:17 (#1669)

That betting method is an esoteric tech with fundamental soundness on several levels - card-eating is time-eating in -Ev territory - in a good 1D game a spread of 3x1u to 1x5u can have a higher Ev than a traditional 1-4u (per 100 rounds) - there are a number of creative applications here, albeit with higher variance. zg

Re: Flawed logic? PS
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 18:26:20 (#1670)

PS - I do the 2x1u in -Ev variety ALSO. zg

Re: Flawed logic? PS
Posted by Cyrano on 14-Dec-2002 01:26:27 (#1678)

Perhaps you're right. Do you happen to know what offsets the higher negative EV (by playing more hands at negative counts)? Your bet spread is still the same, 1-5, but you're playing more hands at negative counts (3 hands of 1u). Intuitively, it would seem that your disadvantage has just increased substantially.

Re: Flawed logic? PS
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Dec-2002 02:09:12 (#1679)

Your bet spread is still the same, 1-5, but you're playing more hands at negative counts (3 hands of 1u). Intuitively, it would seem that your disadvantage has just increased substantially.
-----------------

You are confusing #hands with #rounds, I think.

Example - roundONE: -Ev 3x1u (3u), then roundsTWO-THREE-FOUR: +Ev 1x5u + 1x5u + 1x5u = 15u (ie 3u-15u spread). Time is money and in the instant example we accelerated our way thru the -Ev TIME (yet to the conventional counter we appear to be spreading only 3u-5u or virtually no spread ay all). Note, 'Consolidation' betting is an advanced concept that carries a higher risk/variance - not suggested for novices. zg

Thx for clarifying. :-) *NM*
Posted by Cyrano on 14-Dec-2002 02:12:08 (#1680)

My wonderful amazing inventions.
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 13-Dec-2002 15:56:08 (#1654)

My wonderful amazing inventions.

Shortly after learning HiLo, I was doing a little research on WHY the system worked. I stumbled across some of Thorp's effect of removal numbers, and started studying them. At the time, I was playing mostly shoes and didn't make any deviations from basic strategy. I was crushing the game with a no heat casino, extremely large spread, and a wonderful 85%-90% penetration. I was grinding out a profit thru betting power alone.

So anyways, there I was looking at the numbers, and doing some BE calculations with my paper and pencil. (I knew the BE of HiLo for the game I was playing was 97%, but I wanted to know WHY.) Suddenly it hit me. If I counted the 2s as 1/2 and included the 7s as 1/2, the count was still balanced, and the BE increased to 99%. There had to be some catch, I thought, or someone would have thought of this before. While thinking of a name for my new count system, I inquired of Don Schlesinger if there were any flaws in my thinking and system. Don politely informed me that there were none, in fact, a man named Revere had beat me to my invention by about 15 years with his Revere Point Count.

So happily using the Revere Point Count, I started in with the I18, and continued in my quest to improve the state of counting. Checking out the "World's Greatest Blackjack Book", I stumbled across the HI-OPT1 count, and it's approximately 20% increase in PE over HiLo. A new invention! Forget the RPC, go back to HiLo and sacrifice 2% in BE, and gain 20% in PE! Simply use HiLo, and instead of side-counting Aces, keep a separate running count -- 2s = +1/Aces = -1. Adding this running count to the normal HiLo running count gives me HI-OPT1! Bet with the BE of HiLo, play with the PE of HI-OPT1. The best of both worlds.

Now to my dismay, in a post below, I see T-Hopper is advocating an approach that is just that. I feel certain he probably beat me time-wise to this invention, and I bow to his superior knowledge and stature in the game.
Foiled again.

Now I am working on another 'invention', and wonder if any here have the resources to test my theory. Combining some knowledge from "Blackjack Attack" by Don Schlesinger (16 vs T is the #1 strat variation) and "The Theory of Blackjack" by Peter Griffin, I wonder about the following "side count". Count 6s as +1, 7s as -1. Use the +/- of this side count to determine if you should hit/stand on 16 vs T. That's it. Use whatever count you want for everything else, and use this side count just for 16 vs T and 15 vs 9 plays. Amazingly, this simple 6/7 ratio is supposed to be the most effective determination of hitting/standing on 16 vs T. And since 16 vs T is your #1 frequently encountered play variation (and most profitable), doesn't it stand to reason that a side count that allows you to take best advantage of your best play would have to be the best side count?

Anyone have any numbers or simulations of what advantage this 6/7 side count can bring? Then we can compare it to the overall PE increase of the 2/A side count, and see if my 'discovery' is worth anything, or do I once again have to return to the grindstone.

Eureka!
Posted by zengrifter on 13-Dec-2002 16:13:09 (#1658)

I beleive that you would be best served to count 7s/8s as a block, but to prove it would take TForestor, who's already ALIENATED, to crunch#s overtime - BUT suddenly it hits me!

EUREKA! Count the 7/8 block v. the Aces to both call Ace-bets-adjustments and when to deviate on 13,14,15,16 - start with an IRC side +3, count the Aces -2 8/7 +1, subtract the side count from the IRC side count, then add the sum to the primary count... then ask the dealer for his count and then estimate the average between the two, then hit it!

work with me on this AbeM, we can have our jointly published book on the stands by Easter - everyone here would buy it (except for one, perhaps). zg

Re: Eureka!
Posted by Learning to count on 13-Dec-2002 18:57:21 (#1671)

I think I will stay with the flying monkey. I can buy a music grinder and a metal cup then stand outside of Bellagio and play O Solo Mio'. Do you think the monkey will split the money that I collect in the cup:)

Re: My wonderful amazing inventions.
Posted by T-Hopper on 13-Dec-2002 22:52:24 (#1673)

> Simply use HiLo, and instead of side-counting Aces, keep a separate running
> count -- 2s = +1/Aces = -1. Adding this running count to the normal HiLo
> running count gives me HI-OPT1! Bet with the BE of HiLo, play with the PE of
> HI-OPT1. The best of both worlds.

> Now to my dismay, in a post below, I see T-Hopper is advocating an approach
> that is just that. I feel certain he probably beat me time-wise to this invention

This came straight from Snyder's article published almost 20 years ago. What is new is the idea of using this or a similar count with an unbalanced primary count, achieving a very high PE with TC conversion optional. Several people thought of this around the same time, since this article appeared at rge21.com shortly after the book "Knock-out Blackjack" was published.

Please create a profile for yourself
Posted by The Mayor on 13-Dec-2002 23:04:20 (#1675)

Please create a profile for yourself!

You will be asked to give a valid email address - and a password will be sent to that email address for your profile. This will safeguard your handle so that only you can post with it.

The email addresses are private, and will never be available to other posters or viewers here.

--Mayor

Re: Please create a profile for yourself
Posted by BradRod on 16-Dec-2002 23:12:25 (#1824)

I could not find your profile. Mayor ?

Brad

Look under "T" as in "T"he Mayor 9-D *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 16-Dec-2002 23:29:59 (#1825)

Re: Look under "T" as in "T"he Mayor 9-D
Posted by BradRod on 16-Dec-2002 23:36:48 (#1826)

I found the page for your profile but, it is empty.

b.j. conditions in seattle
Posted by stevedicey on 14-Dec-2002 05:03:41 (#1683)

anybody know b.j. conditions in seattle, was and other casinos down i-5. regards to all. stevedicey

Re: b.j. conditions in seattle
Posted by The Mayor on 14-Dec-2002 11:34:52 (#1691)

I don't live in the area, but I have heard from some friends. They told me (this was about 2 months ago) that they don't give out the information, or send it to publications like trackjack or cbjn. So, unless they are willing to part with it here, I doubt you will get specifics.

There are some great conditions and some great games in the Seattle area.

--Mayor

Re: b.j. conditions in seattle
Posted by Van Vuu on 14-Dec-2002 15:56:51 (#1698)

I live in Seattle - Most are unbeatable, 50% pen on double deck

Re: b.j. conditions in seattle
Posted by V-man on 15-Dec-2002 10:56:42 (#1731)

What about 6D? Do they have any shoes with LS?
Thks

Re: b.j. conditions in seattle
Posted by Van Vuu on 15-Dec-2002 13:43:53 (#1740)

Two casinos do - Dirft on Inn & Roman Casino

Send me an e-mail
Posted by Coug Fan on 16-Dec-2002 20:21:31 (#1809)

and I will give you some good games. Let me know where you will be staying and what style of play you prefer. Max on the playable games is $100, so play-all shoes is usually not much of an option. Generally, your best bet is back counting or SD/DD.

People here are extremely protective of the games and I will give the other poster who responded the benefit of the doubt by saying that he is being careful not to give away the details of the good games (as opposed to having a lack of knowledge).

Re: Send me an e-mail
Posted by stevedicey on 17-Dec-2002 15:44:42 (#1844)

dear coug fan- i put my e-mail into my profile. its stevethedj@hotmail.com
i dont know where ill be staying in seattle. im buying a fun pack type of offer. they will tell me where i get to stay if i supply the dates. more details later. regards stevedicey.

BJ Math Dot Com Added to the "Fab 4" BJ Boards
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Dec-2002 08:53:36 (#1684)

I hope everyone cheated there way past the boogie man yesterday. I'm sure superstition fly's as far as a lead balloon would around here with all these math wizards inda house.

After trying to hack my way around the cgi that rge began to fly, I skipped the appetizers and went for the meat by adding bjmath.com to the Fab Four Blackjack Boards.

http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/bjboards.htm

You will find that when the page loads BJ21 will ask you for a password. If you have a password just enter it. If not, press cancel and if you wish to join, click in the top right box on the line "click here to sign up free."

Without all of the math genius's that are also interested in playing we would often be left wondering how much our advantage was like I often do when betting the Leafs against NYI ;>

I also switched cardcounter.com to the first position where it belongs. Eli is running a great board and deserves the recognition for that.

"For those about to ROCK, we salute you!"

TH, Is this the board-concept you had in mind? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Dec-2002 13:53:07 (#1694)

No
Posted by T-Hopper on 15-Dec-2002 03:25:55 (#1727)

Remember, I promised a 50% faster browsing experience. There will be threads from different boards and different sites all interleaved on the same page.

Stop Gap
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 15-Dec-2002 15:51:30 (#1746)

From what I know of TH his version will smoke mine if he can get it to fly. Mine is just a stop gap measure, and the best is yet to come. Mine takes a minimum of HTML programming. Put it together in about 5 minutes.

Re: Stop Gap
Posted by T-Hopper on 15-Dec-2002 22:03:03 (#1752)

You or zg can email me to set up a time to test what I have so far. Right now I have all the sub-boards from a single site interwoven on a single web page, with more to come.

And the winner is...
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Dec-2002 14:14:48 (#1696)

posting scores
fri.13.02 (9pm pst)
----------------------------
57 CC.com
26 bj21.free
-0 CCCafe
-0 bjmath*
-0 rge21
----------------------------

My work here (at CC.com) is done. zg

*Recommendation to Rob - switch bjmath to this one - http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.gambling.blackjack

[note: edited for content]

New Blood
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Dec-2002 18:30:54 (#1703)

It's great to see a board doing as well as this one is. It is obvious that the Mayor has the nack for keeping a great board and all credit is due to him for this. I hope one day we have 17,600+ messages here like there are at the Card Counters Cafe, and 297 messages a week like they do at BJ21. My advice to that Mayor is to stay small, and stay "real." ;> I hope that by opening a window into BJMath we can get some deeper info on some of our issues thru the Fab4. I am working on the coding for a longer page so I can stack more boards in the same place, possibly full screen width to make it much easier to post, cut n past, etc.

Thanks, and...
Posted by The Mayor on 14-Dec-2002 18:41:24 (#1706)

As you know (and other here know as well), I am willing to do whatever it takes to help us maintain the ambiance. Phone calls, personal email, private message boards, meeting folks in person. I've done all these things with the posters here.

Humor and heart. Nothing is taken too seriously.

Life is too short for conflict.

--Mayor

Re: Thanks, and...
Posted by joe_r_black on 14-Dec-2002 21:18:48 (#1708)

You haven't called me or taken me to lunch. I like lobster so let me know when you are ready to treat.

Re: Thanks, and...
Posted by JR on 14-Dec-2002 23:09:53 (#1716)

I find this site to be interesting, to the point, and refresh-
ingly uncluttered. I've been learning a lot but as they say
'the more you know, the more you find you don't know'. Kind
of overwhelming at times but still a lot of fun. Really I have
no idea if I will ever be able to actually make it work.
Thanks, people!!

Favorite Einstein Quote
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 15-Dec-2002 07:21:02 (#1728)

This is so true, but at the same time we have to remember that achieving that mental status (awareness) we will see tons of advantage play opportunities. We have the principle down, and just have to apply it to dis, dat, and de udder ting. ;>

Re: Favorite Einstein Quote ACTUALLY...
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Dec-2002 10:58:57 (#1769)

... dat quote is rightly attributed to Professor Irwin Corey. zg

Re: Thanks, and...
Posted by The Mayor on 15-Dec-2002 00:11:30 (#1721)

You need to start causing problems (or be having a problem) so that we have a fence to mend 8-)

Re: Thanks, and...
Posted by joe_r_black on 15-Dec-2002 01:08:57 (#1723)

Ok, I'm flexible.

Re: BJ Math Dot Com Added to the "Fab 4" BJ Boards *NM*
Posted by JR on 16-Dec-2002 20:06:42 (#1807)

Math Guru Advice
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Dec-2002 09:28:57 (#1685)

Let me, entertain you! ;> I have a serious question for the Mayor, MathProf, T-Hop, Alienated, AdM, etc. It combines risk aversive indice theory, theoretical randomness, and the fact the with online bj we get our advantage from the bonus and playing basic strategy (and maybe a few variations like standing with 3,2,4,5 v 10 up)

RA theory basically states that the more you are betting above the optimal wager, the higher the RA indice should be. See BJAttack pages 311-319. They show you 10 v 10 and the indice is +4 where the RA indice is +7. So between these two indices +4 and +7 we stand instead of double.

The optimal wager for online bj is the smallest one because we are playing a -ev game without the bonus. The required action and time constraints have an effect on that opinion, and we could be should be making larger wagers. The game shuffles after every hand, so the cards have "no memory" in this case, which can be a good thing after you beat the dealer (or vice vee) 10,A 10,10.

I have found that by avoiding certain double ups and splits the game swing stays under control during higher bets being made and I am able to nibble way way into some rather nice wins doing so. I am a lucky someB, but I do believe there is more to it that just getting good hands from an RNG.

I do know that I am probably using a cleaver to butter my bread with here (using the wrong tools for the right job), but would like a few opinions on this matter. There has to be a rational explanation for all of this.

Thanks a Billion! ;>
Robby M

Re: Math Guru Advice (correction)
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Dec-2002 09:53:30 (#1686)

(and maybe a few variations like standing with 3,2,4,5,2 v 10 up)

I thought of this too
Posted by The Mayor on 14-Dec-2002 12:19:06 (#1692)

I called this "risk adverse basic strategy" -- the idea is that if we have a bonus and we have to play a certain amount of action, then we are willing to give up a little of our bonus in EV in order to avoid SD wiping out our bonus. I talked with Don a bit about this, and got shot down for it. Math Prof gave me a bit of positive feedback.

I then did a bit of experimentation with some sim's, for example, avoiding most close doubles and splits (where more money goes on the table for very little increase in EV). The net effect was that there was some theoretical gain in the fraction of interest:

(BONUS + EV)/SD,

but the hands that these playing deviations came on were sufficiently rare, that overall it wasn't worth the effort. I recall numbers like having a game that was -.341 becoming one that was -.347, but reducing the SD as well. Since we are playing for bonuses, it was at least worthy of note.

I spent some time with the tables of Wongs PBJ open, and I was going to write the definitive article on this, but after computing about 5 of the numbers by longhand, it dawned on me that this was a lot of work and I stopped.

I don't recall where, but I posted the few numbers I came up with. I think it was on bj21 green chip about February of this year.

Given that playing for Bonuses is not a long run phenomenon, I don't think the same sort of analysis goes into it. But, my advice, avoid close doubles (e.g. A-7 vs. 2, 11 vs. A) and close splits (22 vs. 2 or 3, etc). If it's close and you can avoid putting down more money, do so.

--Mayor

Nice post *NM*
Posted by alienated on 14-Dec-2002 17:26:00 (#1699)

Re: I thought of this too
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 14-Dec-2002 19:35:58 (#1707)

Okay. I think we are barking up the right tree, but we can't see the opossum just yet. ;> I posted it at BJMath just now to see if I can get some similar positive feedback. I often find myself ahead by a good stretch on top of the bonus and depo, and in the interest of keeping all of that extra money do not want to compromise it by doubling the risk to obtain an extra +.05 or so. This weekend I am leading my troops into battle to take on a $500 bonus for a $250 deposit. No minimum play requirements and you can play any game. The catch is the $500 can't be taken out, and if you lose into your $750 start off it is coming out of your money. Microgaming casino. It's a short term bonanza, not a long run haul, and we hope to shut this place down the same way we did the Godfather Casino. I know you don't like progressions posted so I will refrain from doing that here. Anyone with good suggestions please take a shot at this situation. Min bet is $2, max is $200.

Re: I thought of this too
Posted by The Mayor on 15-Dec-2002 00:24:38 (#1722)

As you said earlier, the betting strategy that is optimal is to play the min bet allowed. You can usually burn through the required betting in about 2 hours (or much less on MG if you turn off the sound). Avoid those plays that increase SD without increasing EV very much. I think it is pretty straightforward. Absolutely DO NOT play progressions. They can cost a bundle if "everything that can go wrong does go wrong." Those progressions that settle for a lot of small wins at the expense of an occasional large loss are the worst of all. Someone will get really hurt.

Bet small, avoid SD. Simple stuff.

--Mayor

A disclaimer
Posted by alienated on 14-Dec-2002 18:32:48 (#1704)

Rob, I'm flattered you would make the error of including me in a list of otherwise genuine math whizzes, but my mathematics knowledge is very limited. Any low level math in my posts is strictly following the generous spoon feeding offered in Peter Griffin's book, as well as small morsels contained in the posts of the true 'math gurus', some of whom you mentioned, in which the time is taken to explain things in a way that is comprehensible to an 'educated nonmathematical reader' - assuming mathematicians will allow the notion of a nonmathematician being educated. ;-)

So for the record, I am not a mathematician, let alone a math guru, and have never claimed to be so. Still, I guess there's always dreaming...

I'll second that disclaimer
Posted by The Mayor on 14-Dec-2002 18:35:57 (#1705)

Your words speak for me as well, Alienated.

MathProf Responds:
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 15-Dec-2002 00:01:00 (#1719)

Mathematics of Blackjack Discussion

Re: Internet Gambling

Posted By: Rob McGarvey <blakjack@idirect.com>
Date: Saturday, 14 December 2002, at 10:00 p.m.

In Response To: Internet Gambling (MathProf)

"I am sorry but I didn't quite understand what your question was. I am not that familiar with all the aspects of Internet Gambling, so I may not be able to answer it. Steve Jacobs knows more about it, and he frequents these pages, so maybe he can help you."

Okay, I hope he sees this message and tosses his two cents in.

"My sense is that with Internet BJ there are special bonuses and promotions that are the basis for your EV. Sometimes, the Variance within the Game can help in these situations. For example, if they have Rebate on Losses than high Variance will be better."

You are right. The EV comes from a matching bonus, some as high as 200%. Our ROI can come close to this 200% but our actual EV comes in below 20% since they can require quite a bit of action before you can pull the money out.

Thanks a Million! ;>

[edited for content ]

What's 'McGarvey's Grind'?...
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Dec-2002 00:23:37 (#1755)

...and when do you recommend its use? zg

(note to moderator - RM mentioned the 'MGrind' and if its not acceptable that we discuss a method that he initiated discussion of herein, then please BUST THE ENTIRE THREAD, otherwise I really want to know the whats and whys of his Mgrind technq. Thanx.)

I don't see where
Posted by The Mayor on 16-Dec-2002 09:56:16 (#1767)

there is mention of "MGrind" or "McGarvey's Grind" ... let me know more specifically, and I will take the appropriate action.

Again, it is board policy to not allow posts that advocate the use of progressions.

--Mayor

Re: I don't see where
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Dec-2002 10:51:37 (#1768)

You are right - here is McGarvey's original post (below) wherein he DOES seek some sort of reconciliation between the statistical science and his apparent creative use of a progression technq he calls "McGarvey's Grind" - I guess YOU edited out part of his response to MathProth. CENSORSHIP! zg
---------------------------------------
From McGarvey's original post HERE -

"... You are right. The EV comes from a matching bonus, some as high as 200%. Our ROI can come close to this 200% but our actual EV comes in below 20% since they can require quite a bit of action before you can pull the money out. I have been getting great results using a combo of progressions which I call MCGARVEY'S GRIND and I am hoping that there is some solid math that will tell me why it seems to be working. I know progressions by their lonesome are bascially worthless, but coupled with the EV and tamed by the risk aversiveness that can be applied to the larger bets I really think there is a hidden edge someplace..."

Re: I don't see where
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Dec-2002 11:51:14 (#1771)

I think the Mayor is doing a fine job and has the right to disclude any info that I may post here. We have all read about chasing bets like a typical loser does after a loss, and making parlays when winning as cover plays **within the scope of our advantage** at a table game of blackjack. It can be good cover for onLine play, but I also think that there is a possibility **within the scope of our advantage** for changes in bet size, and can include risk aversive measures since our advantage comes directly from the bonus money.

"I know progressions by their lonesome are basically worthless"

Re: I don't see where
Posted by The Mayor on 16-Dec-2002 13:41:06 (#1779)

You said:
"I know progressions by their lonesome are basically worthless"

Take away the words "by their lonesome" and "basically" and I'll agree with you.

--Mayor

Done! ;>
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 16-Dec-2002 15:07:00 (#1792)

"I know progressions are worthless"

All the way to BJMATH...
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Dec-2002 21:18:27 (#1811)

... and NOBODY there even asked what a M'Grind was! BUT the eneffable John May did post an encouraging response tip (below) BUT he doesn't elaborate, which is vintageMay.

A thought has occurred to me - in spite of the NO MYTH RULE at CC.com, PROGRESSIONS CAN BE DISCUSSED, but such discussions are context-sensitive. For example, we can talk about the CORRECT way to scientifically use negative-progression technqs to win at BJtournies - BJtournies are alot more like BJ than i-casino bonus grifting - and we can certainly discuss progression betting as effective cover play (i like -progressions in +counts and and +progressions in -counts) - and the so-called 'parlay' is a +progression that has been the basis of many scientific BJ practioners since the early 70s - so progressions in this sense are NOT off limits even at CC.com, as far as I can tell...

... So now what in the h**l is a McGarvey Grind, for Da's sake?? zg

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

Mathematics of Blackjack Discussion

Re: McGarvey's Grind

Posted By: John May
Date: Sunday, 15 December 2002, at 2:38 p.m. bjmath
RE: McGarvey's Grind (ET Fan)

Progressions can help with certain types of match-play bonus, in the same manner that progression-type strategies may help with tournaments.

Re: I don't see where
Posted by The Mayor on 16-Dec-2002 13:06:41 (#1774)

Exactly! Rob knows my policy -- I just snipped out the portion advocating a progression, and left the rest unsnipped. I am going to be very strict about the no-mythology policy, but if a post is 95% non-mythology, then I think a little gentle snipping will do the trick in those cases.

--Mayor

Re: I don't see where
Posted by zengrifter on 16-Dec-2002 13:17:42 (#1775)

The way I read the original, Rob was seeking some validation for his 'McGrind' progression method - by deleting that element the whole context shifted to something else almost entirely. zg

Re: Math Guru Advice
Posted by Learning to count on 16-Dec-2002 15:47:11 (#1793)

Good then we all agree. The only progression is the increasing amount of money we win from the good old card counting grind.

With special permission from the author
Posted by The Mayor on 14-Dec-2002 13:28:44 (#1693)

I have reposted the work of Panama Rick on the Lucky Ladies side bet. It is in the "new" area of the home page.

Enjoy!

--Mayor

Royal Match, anyone?
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Dec-2002 14:06:09 (#1695)

Does anyone have some guidelines for beating the Rmatch sidebet? zg

Re: Royal Match, anyone?
Posted by Steve on 15-Dec-2002 12:05:47 (#1733)

Zen,
There are two options for counting this game, count all the suits and keep a side count of the Q and K. Here is a simpler "rule of thumb".

Assuming that you are not "side counting" the Q and K and are going to assume that they have a 52 card distribution throughout play the following apply to the easy match:

If any one of the suits is half or more of the remaining cards and NONE of the other suits has been depleted, then you have about a 5% edge or more depending on how many total cards are left.

If any one of the suits is totally depleted then you have at least a 7% edge depending on how many total cards are left.

If any TWO of the suits is totally depleted then you have at least a 56% edge! depending on how many total cards are left.

Of course is any three of the suits is totally depleted then you bet table maximum.

I leave it to someone else to calculate the probabilities of any of the four situations above occurring.

Steve

Re: Royal Match, anyone?
Posted by T-Hopper on 15-Dec-2002 13:48:49 (#1742)

You're missing the common case where one of the suits is still intact and the other 3 have been depleted equally.

observations on panama rick's findings
Posted by Steve on 15-Dec-2002 10:32:40 (#1730)

Hello Friends,
I did some quick calculations on panama rick's findings. I was interested in what the aggregate effect of the lucky ladies side bet is on the game assuming you only make this bet when it is a positive expectation. The lucky ladies bet as a positive expectation bet occurs 1.54% of the time. Assuming that you bet the count X 1 unit on the lucky ladies bet, the overall edge of the lucky ladies bet is 7.84%.

I am trying to figure out what the net effect of this is on the blackjack hand's advantage. I think the way to calculate this is to multiply the occurrence (1.54%) X the Ev (7.84%) which results in .12%.

If I did this right, then betting the lucky ladies bet only when it is a positive expectation bet and betting the count X 1 unit results in an increase in the players edge of the blackjack game they are playing of .12%. Hardly seems worth it.

In case I miscalculated something, I will show you how I arrived at this number:

number of occurrences X count X 1 = amount bet at that count
amount bet at that count X Ev = amount won at that count
sum(amount won)-sum(amount bet)= total winnings
total winnings/sum(amount bet) = overall edge

overall edge X sum(percent of occurrences) = effect on blackjack game

Unless I am totally off somewhere here, it seems like a waste of time.

Steve

Wonging
Posted by The Mayor on 15-Dec-2002 10:58:08 (#1732)

The effect of LL when Wonging shoes during a busy time can be substantial. You are right, if you plant yourself at a table, LL is not that great. You need a lot of opportunities to play it.

you could bet more than TC X 1 unit on the LL
Posted by Steve on 15-Dec-2002 12:10:49 (#1734)

Mayor,
I used a bet size of TC X 1 U for both the blackjack bet and the LL bet based on the rule that you cannot bet more on the LL bet than on the blackjack bet, and wishing to optimize he blackjack Ev. I think, though, that you could bet more on the LL bet, but I'm not sure how to figure out what the optimal bet size would be, because when you bet more on the LL bet, then you have to be the same amount on the blackjack bet and you will be overbetting the blackjack bet. I'm not sure how to calculate the effect of betting optimal bet size on the LL bet while overbetting the blackjack bet.

Since the Ev gets very high at very high TC for the LL bet, the overall Ev for the LL bet could be increased by betting an optimal bet size for the LL bet. Then, of course you would have to deduct the negative impact of overbetting the blackjack bet.

Any ideas, anyone?

Thanks,
Steve

Rules Clarification
Posted by Coug Fan on 16-Dec-2002 19:54:22 (#1805)

I am not sure if these rules are the same everywhere, but in my area this side bet is not limited to the amount of your BJ bet. Most of the places here have $100 limits for both the BJ hand and the side bet, and it is not uncommon to see players betting table minimum of $3 or $5 on the BJ hand and place a $25 chip on the side bet. This results in some interesting scenes such as players cursing when they get a blackjack.

to Coug Fan: a few questions
Posted by Steve on 16-Dec-2002 21:21:56 (#1812)

Coug Fan,
What casino did you see that in? Was the max bet for the LL bet the same as table maximum or something lower?

This makes the LL bet a whole 'nother matter if the bj bet doesn't have to match the LL bet. (Seeing $$ in his head).

Now I just have to hope that the pit boss' eyes don't pop out of her head when I have been flat betting the bj hand for table minimum all night and then put out that table maximum LL bet!! I can hear the dealer calling it out now "$2,000 bet on Lucky Lady" (at her $5 table). LOL

Thanks,
Steve

Re: to Coug Fan: a few questions
Posted by Coug Fan on 17-Dec-2002 13:49:51 (#1841)

At the risk of irritating the Seattle, WA locals (people here are very protective).... This side bet has been around for awhile in the Seattle area (at least since I returned to the area last December). I usually only play in the mini-casinos here which all have a $100 limit on all bets. Most people do play less on the side bet than their BJ bet but it is not uncommon to see someone betting more on the side bet. Most of the mini casinos here have $2 or $3 minimum BJ tables with $100 maximums for both the BJ and the side bet (the side bet minimum is $1 everywhere).

The local Indial casinos have $250 maximums, but they also have the worst rules/pen in the state (No DAS on an 8 deck shoe, etc). The other limiting factor is that the maximum payout is $25,000. Given that the max payout is 1,000 to 1, you are giving up some EV anytime you bet more than $25. You could also exceed the max payout by getting 2 QH with $250 bet since that pays 125 to 1.

You would stand out if you did not play this bet on every hand, since most players who play it at all play it on every hand. It is similar to playing the lottery. Your numbers will hit the week that you didn't buy a ticket (ploppy Bull S---). If a player gets 2 QH and they didn't bet it that hand, they will keep talking about it the rest of the night.

Given this, the advantage play would be to either backcount shoes and wait for the 1.5% of hands that justify this bet (side counting QH is also helpful). Then jump in with an appropriate BJ bet (based on BR), and a table max side bet. Of course, you could also play SD or DD and vary your bets on the side bet. Betting $1 on the side bet will not look as obvious as skipping the side bet altogether.

Re: observations on panama rick's findings
Posted by T-Hopper on 15-Dec-2002 13:47:06 (#1741)

I simulated this last year for a DD game with 90% penetration and it was only worth about $10/hour. A side count of 10s added something like $2 if I remember right. Nothing exciting, but enough to make a marginal game very playable.

Interpretation of data
Posted by Coug Fan on 16-Dec-2002 19:55:34 (#1806)

Mayor,

What does the SD column represent? I am assuming that this is not the SD per hand since that would be more than 1.

Some Snyder ST Wisdom
Posted by alienated on 14-Dec-2002 22:07:12 (#1711)

Way down the page, Mister M asked me about the practicalities of applying the NRS formula in real-life play. I gave my two cents worth down there. In BBIBJ, Arnold Snyder provides some excellent practical advice on the matter. Snyder considers a shoe in which the first deck has an estimated running count of -7 and an expected edge of 3% (the segment comprising a big-card slug and an unknown component). Accordingly, the plan is to use a betting and playing strategy that is appropriate to the situation. Here is part of what Snyder writes:

"Note, and this is important: I will commit to playing this strategy throughout the entire one-deck segment. I will start my running count at 0, as always, but I will remember that it is always estimated at +7 higher as it goes up and down through the segment. However, if my running count goes down to -8 on the first round, I will NOT assume that my true edge of 3 percent has disappeared. It is, in fact, far more likely that the unknown segment that was married to my segment also contained excess high cards than it is that all the excess high cards in my segment clumped into the first round of play.

"As you go through the segment, you may slowly cut back on your bet if many excess high cards, over and above what your slug contained, continue to come out. And perhaps on the last round of the segment, cut back to a small bet. But the easy rule to remember is to just bet and play that sucker from the top to bottom like you've got a 3 percent edge! Believe me, you will play your slugs far more accurately, and make lots more money with this approach, than if you drop your bet as soon as your 'estimated' running count goes back down to 0." (BBIBJ, p.169)

This passage is beautiful in its apparent simplicity. In actuality, it is more sophisticated than might at first seem obvious to the uninitiated, and informed by the central implication of the NRS formula. Snyder is explicitly taking account of the fact that a dramatic drop in the running count might be due to the cards from our slug being dealt, but equally, it might be because the unknown portion is also rich in big cards. In other words, Snyder's method of approach is highly practical, yet broadly consistent with the NRS formula.

It should be stressed that this approximate method is made acceptable by the fact that Snyder recommends in an earlier passage estimating the segment count conservatively. In the above example, the segment count estimate started at -10, then got revised down to account for the portion of unknown cards, and to allow for errors due to dealer inconsistencies, player errors, etc. As Snyder puts it:

"It is more profitable, and accurate, to estimate your edge conservatively, but then to play the slug with aggression."

I think this passage from Snyder is the best practical advice I've seen on issues surrounding the NRS formula. It should go without saying that the book itself, and his three-part BJ Forum series (if it is still available), are 'must haves' for the aspiring tracker.

Frontload Observations from Barfarkel's TR
Posted by zengrifter on 14-Dec-2002 22:26:28 (#1713)

Frontload Basics from Barfarkel's TR
Excerpted from BJ Insider #26
http://www.casino.com/newsletter/blackjack/archive/
-------------------

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 211 to 240

BlackjackInfo.com

The World's Most Popular Blackjack Website

Strategy Trainer / Free Blackjack Game

Threads 211 to 240

Strategy Trainer /
Free Blackjack Game