# Thread: NCounter: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

1. ## NCounter: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

My friend claimed betting at the same TC when 2D left versus 4D left at 6d shoe should be different. Was he correct? For example, if I bet \$500 at TC 4, should I bet less if running count 16 with 4D left than when running count is 8 with 2D left?

2. ## G Man: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> My friend claimed betting at the same TC when 2D left
> versus 4D left at 6d shoe should be different. Was he
> correct? For example, if I bet \$500 at TC 4, should I
> bet less if running count 16 with 4D left than when
> running count is 8 with 2D left?

No, the difference could and would be noticed at deeper penetration levels but not with two or four decks left. This is called "floating advantage" and Don covered all of it in his remarquable "Blackjack Attack 3". You friend would be correct if you could play at penetration levels over 5/6.

3. ## NCounter: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

In fact, some dealers give good penetration like 5/6 and the casino tolerates high spread since limit is low. Does "Floating Advanateg" implies I can bet TC 4 as if TC 5 on last hand at close to 5D? What about Adjustment indexes? Any adjustments?

4. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> In fact, some dealers give good penetration like 5/6
> and the casino tolerates high spread since limit is
> low. Does "Floating Advantage" implies I can
> bet TC 4 as if TC 5 on last hand at close to 5D? What
> about Adjustment indexes? Any adjustments?

Short answer: no.

See BJA3 for all the values. FA doesn't really kick in until beyond 5 decks.

Don

5. ## A-Reader: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> Short answer: no.

> See BJA3 for all the values. FA doesn't really kick in
> until beyond 5 decks.

> Don
Were I wrong that there were some value 4.5 to 5D already??? Table 6.18A EV was 3.83 when TC >= 5, better than .00 D to 4.5D's 3.02???

6. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> Were I wrong that there were some value 4.5 to 5D
> already??? Table 6.18A EV was 3.83 when TC >= 5,
> better than .00 D to 4.5D's 3.02???

See p. 79, "Summary of findings." It would be a good idea to read the entire text, without looking at just the charts. All the answers are there, but you mustn't look for shortcuts.

Don

7. ## brownian bridge: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> See p. 79, "Summary of findings." It would
> be a good idea to read the entire text, without
> looking at just the charts. All the answers are there,
> but you mustn't look for shortcuts.

> Don

What is the causality of floating advantage?
You are the EXPERT of FA, aren't you?

8. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> What is the causality of floating advantage?
> You are the EXPERT of FA, aren't you?

I'm trying to lead you there, but you seem reticent to go:

BJA3: Pp. 68-71. Do you not have the book? It's four pages of text, so not so easy to simply summarize here.

Don

9. ## brownian bridge: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> BJA3: Pp. 68-71. Do you not have the book? It's four
> pages of text, so not so easy to simply summarize
> here.

> Don

Thanks for your reply.

on page 70, paragraph "Eureka!....."

Is that your EXPLANATION?

10. ## brownian bridge: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> I'm trying to lead you there, but you seem reticent to
> go:

> BJA3: Pp. 68-71. Do you not have the book? It's four
> pages of text, so not so easy to simply summarize
> here.

> Don

on page 70, paragraph "Eureka!...."
You claim, at one-deck level, something unexpected will happen.
But, maybe, that assumption is contradictory to the concept of Shannon's entropy?

11. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> on page 70, paragraph "Eureka!...."
> You claim, at one-deck level, something unexpected
> will happen.
> But, maybe, that assumption is contradictory to the
> concept of Shannon's entropy?

I wish I knew where you were trying to go with all of this. I don't understand your comments. I've pointed you to Griffin's findings, my findings, John Gwynn's findings, and Wong's findings, all of which say the same thing.

What is your problem?

Don

12. ## Don Schlesinger: Maybe this will help

blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects2.htm

Maybe it won't!

Don

13. ## brownian bridge: Re: Betting when 4D let vs 2D left at 6D shoe

> I wish I knew where you were trying to go with all of
> this. I don't understand your comments. I've pointed
> you to Griffin's findings, my findings, John Gwynn's
> findings, and Wong's findings, all of which say the
> same thing.

> What is your problem?

> Don

OK.
your theory will survive forever, because it lacks falsifiability.
I was expecting clear explanation of what is cause, what is effect.

I don't know very much about Shannon, because I'm not a Bell lab man.
Bell lab's Werthamar would give more meaningful comment, or
Shannon's friend Ed Thorp would.
But in my very poor understanding, as penetration goes very deep,
uncertainty level will be reduced.

Maybe, your word "findings" is confusing data and theory.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

#### About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.