I was watching a table from the beginning of the shoe until about mid-shoe. At about the mid-shoe mark the count was +8, so I jumped in. I won my first two hands but then the count went negative, and stayed negative or 0 for the rest of the shoe. I decided to play out the shoe. Should I have gotten out of there? Do positive counts only last for a few hands per shoe? If so, one must play many shoes to reap the rewards of counting.
> I was watching a table from the beginning of
> the shoe until about mid-shoe. At about the
> mid-shoe mark the count was +8, so I jumped
> in. I won my first two hands but then the
> count went negative, and stayed negative or
> 0 for the rest of the shoe. I decided to
> play out the shoe. Should I have gotten out
> of there? Do positive counts only last for a
> few hands per shoe? If so, one must play
> many shoes to reap the rewards of counting.
What counting system are you using? It would be highly unusual for a six deck shoe to have a Hi-lo true count of +8 and then drop to a true count of 0 or less in a couple of rounds. Usually, once the count goes strongly positive, it tends to remain so for the duration of the shoe. Sadly, the same is true when the count goes strongly negative.
However, even in a strongly positive shoe the advantage is small and variance is high, so it indeed is necessary to "play many shoes to reap the rewards of counting."
> What counting system are you using?
The Hi-lo system. It was an eight deck game and the running count was +8 at about mid-shoe, so about 4 decks remaining, therefore a true count of +2.
> I was watching a table from the beginning of
> the shoe until about mid-shoe. At about the
> mid-shoe mark the count was +8 ...
running count I assume
> ... so I jumped in.
> I won my first two hands but then the
> count went negative ...
that's when you make the money, as the count starts falling. If the count stays high, then the big cards aren't coming out fast enough.
> and stayed negative or
> 0 for the rest of the shoe. I decided to
> play out the shoe. Should I have gotten out
> of there?
I would think so. Half the shoe plus two more rounds are gone and the count is negative or zero. If there were four other players and you, less than 2.5 decks now remain in the shoe.
Seems to me at that point you are now playing a DD game with pen less than 50%.
> If so, one must play
> many shoes to reap the rewards of counting.
No kidding.
SR
> The Hi-lo system. It was an eight deck game
> and the running count was +8 at about
> mid-shoe, so about 4 decks remaining,
> therefore a true count of +2.
Obviously, a running count of +8 halfway through an 8 deck shoe is a different situation than a true count of +8. I like Sun Runner's answer.
> The Hi-lo system. It was an eight deck game
> and the running count was +8 at about
> mid-shoe, so about 4 decks remaining,
> therefore a true count of +2.
Below, I assumed you were playing 6D.
In the example, playing 8D is even worse. At mid shoe, less two more rounds to five players, you now have a running count of -0- with appx 3.5 decks remaining in the shoe; most likely 2 of them are behind the cut card.
All other variables being equal, I would leave.
SR
I now see my mistake was basing my strategy on the running count. I forgot to do the true count conversion, and basing my strategy on it. So a true count of +2 mid-shoe of an 8D game is not an extraordinarily powerful situation. That round goes to the casinos. I thought I had them. How high should the true count be before entering the game?
> So a true count of +2
> mid-shoe of an 8D game is not an
> extraordinarily powerful situation.
No, but maybe worth betting into -slowly. Your original post said you did bet into it and won the next two hands -right? Nothing wrong with that.
> How high should the true count be
> before entering the game?
+1/+2 .. for me depends on how many other players are at the table. If it is full, I need a higher true count to get involved. If it is one other guy, then me, I'm in right away.
Your original consternation seemed to be about what to do after those last two hands were dealt post mid-shoe when the count was flat.
Blackjack Attack has a great chapter on Wonging in. That chapter alone probably worth the $20 bucks. Wong, the original back-counter (I guess) has a good book on back-counting.
BTW -and not directed toward you at all -I am always amazed how some posters seem to want to play a good game of BJ and will shy away from spending $20 to get there. I'm not a shill for these guys, but $20 will get 3 or 6 months (?) on Don's Domain. The last "chat" with Lance Humble was worth every penny of that.
Sorry -I digress.
SR
> that's when you make the money, as the count
> starts falling. If the count stays high,
> then the big cards aren't coming out fast
> enough.
I had realised that concept on my own, but nicely worded, thx :-)
So, a counter should look for moments when a big potential energy (mass of accumulated Ts in the shoe) unleashes and converts into kinetic.
A not released potential only means that the energy is cut off at the end and fizzles (secretly shunted in a back-circuit...)
I figure a surfer waiting for the wave and riding it!)
> Blackjack Attack has a great chapter on
> Wonging in. That chapter alone probably
> worth the $20 bucks. Wong, the original
> back-counter (I guess) has a good book on
> back-counting.
I take move from your comment, but I had this in mind for a while.
This site name's itself is AP, and a player has the advantage only above some given Count for the game and system he chose.
From what I got, as a shoe starts out neutral and with big shoes it takes some time before even good events build up to a significant advantage, more often that not you will NOT find yourself in an advantageous situation.
This is why a minimum spread is required, 1-5 or more (again depending on the games and systems), to allow the expected wins to outbalance the more frequent expected losses (even with BS & neutral shoe), netting an overall positive EV game.
Now, why would a TRUE AP play also the hands when according to the count his EV (before dealing the hand) is not positive?
Shouldn't the true AP only bet at all when the count prompts it?
If your minimum bet is null, then the "spread" poses no problem for even a low-bankrolled player.
He could just bet the table minumum when advantageous and abstain when not.
Shouldn't that yield the maximum overall expectation, over any imaginable play-all spread???
Is the famous 2% calculated for that situation?
So, what should oppose back-counting?
Do those who opt to play-all instead do it only becaus of "logistic" cosiderations?
Like for instance:
- being afraid to fail to timely place their bets in crowded situations, because physically obstructed
- the same, because all the betting boxes are full allready
- being afraid that, not commanding the play on the box you bet upon, the sit player strays from BS and lowers the theoretical EV below zero
- the same, not being able to apply a strategy play (i.e. different from BS) dictated by some counting index
- because when occupying a seat and only playing, say, 3 hands out of 10 would be frowned upon and you'd be invited to leave the seat anyway to someone playing all hands?
Thanks in advance
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks