# 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

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

> 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

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

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.

Don

12. ## 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
> you to Griffin's findings, my findings, John Gwynn's
> findings, and Wong's findings, all of which say the
> same thing.

> 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.

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

> But in my very poor understanding, as penetration goes
> very deep,
> uncertainty level will be reduced.

Who said the contrary? This is probably the basics of the floating advantage.

You have a nice handle, you brought Shannon's therory in the discussion but you don't even know what it means...

What's the point you're trying to make?

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
•