6:5 Blackjack Beatable?

[moo321]

Any Ace neutral system with out ASC has a crappy, crappy - did I say crappy? Betting correlation

Ace neutral systems without an ace side count aren't bad on 6:5. The ace isn't as important in 6:5.


It's still better to use Zen or use an ace side count, but they're a lot better than they are in regular blackjack.

[moo321]

One more thing.... SHOW US THE SIMS !

6d H17.jpgZen 6d.jpg

First is a 6d H17 DAS 1.5/6 with a 1-15 spread using Hi Lo. Second is 8d H17 .5/8 DAS back-counting, wong in at +7 using Zen.

[moo321]

-APs beating a game makes the casino more likely to spread that game: False

APs do not play that shit unless using advance techniques and it was not implied by the OP who talked about "counting the game". No, real APs do not count that game.

You changed the subject and you're still wrong. The problem was with your claim that APs playing a game makes the casino more likely to offer it. That still isn't true, and you still haven't admitted it's not true. It is neither unethical nor harmful to game ecology to play games that have a nominal high house advantage if you're beating them.


Now, you're claiming that "real" APs won't play a game with a SCORE of $20-30. That's definitely not true. APs will do this for a lot of reasons, including comps, low heat, rebates, or the ability to play at very high stakes.


I can think of several specific conversations I've had with successful pros (millionaires) who described situations where they spent many hours playing "bad" games because they didn't protect against counting and they had high table limits. There was one situation where a casino had 8 deckers with almost 3 decks cut off, but the casino wasn't allowed to back off counters, so a number of big teams were playing it. So, even with the shifted goalposts, this isn't true. A SCORE of $20-30 can still be an hourly rate of $200 or more if you can bet big enough.

[G Man]

You show us a game where you spread 1-100 to get a SCORE of 26 ???
Please give me a break.
Thanks for everything, you're one of the greatest!
Have enough of a troll like you.

[Freightman]

I’m curious, but I don’t feel like going into my basement office. Try this, you may have better results. ROR is too high. The gambit needs to be reworked discarding shoe string bankrolls. So - solid bankrolls with essentially 0 ROR

Min bet is $10.
Play all $25-$300 from TC -1 to max bet, dropping to $10 at TC -2 H17, DA2, DAS, LS, RSA 3-2 BJ payout. What are simmed stats. Now, if 6:5 sacrifices 20% of your BJ bonus, you have to increase 6:5 bets by 25% to maintain the same $ bonus level.

Now 3:2 rules above are give or take .5% house edge. 6:5 adds I think 1.39% or about revised 1.89% house edge. The outrageous 1.89% HE is to tough to overcome by utilizing the same ramp for both the 3:2 and 6:5 ramps, but by adding minimum 25% to your min $25 bet plus subsequent ramp levels (based in 3:2 wagers), diving to $10 for TC <-1, you should end up with a lower SCORE, higher variance, reasonable profit. Thinking out loud - I’ll let you do the work.

[Archvaldor]

You changed the subject and you're still wrong.

G Man's original comments in the thread:

"You guys do not seem to realize that playing the 6:5 shit games makes you part of the problem.
It's beatable for pennies. Get real. Who wants to play a BJ game with a HE over 2% ? Those who like to write on open boards but barely set foot in a casino."

This is essentially accurate. He is clearly saying bad 6:5 games are not worth playing and attempting to do so will encourage the casinos. That is true.

This is different from the question of whether all 6:5 games are not worth playing. If you can see the hole-card or some other very rare situation, you have a huge advantage over the casino, not a 2% disadvantage. G Man covered himself by referring to the specific game in question.

YOU (moo321) changed the subject and tried to gaslight everyone-presumably because you thought no one would check.

A player can have a technical advantage in a casino game and encourage its spread. Casinos look at participation metrics and factors other than the exact amount of money they extract from individual players, as do all businesses.

I can think of several specific conversations I've had with successful pros (millionaires) who described situations where they spent many hours playing "bad" games because they didn't protect against counting and they had high table limits. There was one situation where a casino had 8 deckers with almost 3 decks cut off

Then they are either making a poor decision, or you badly misunderstood them, or are misquoting them.You do this a lot.

There are many advantage play situations where you can get high absolute returns from a minimal advantage in games with high variance on the assumption of a large bankroll. More than $200 per hour. There is no reason to play a game that bad unless there is some other unusual element making it attractive.

[Archvaldor]

Now, if 6:5 sacrifices 20% of your BJ bonus, you have to increase 6:5 bets by 25% to maintain the same $ bonus level.

This is an element missing from the thread I feel is very important.

Card counters have beaten many forms of blackjack with a 2% house edge. However in every case the effects of removal were larger than they are in regular blackjack. Even if the game has a 5% house edge it can be easily beaten if removing a card changes that advantage by 10%.

6:5 blackjack has both a high house edge and lower effects of removal than a normal blackjack game. The latter part always gets ignored.

[eliotjacobsonismyhero]

It is the most beatable blackjack out there right now.

[iCountNTrack]

This thread is quickly degenerating. Locked