I keep asking this same question on many forums and I still cannot find anyone who can convince me that they know what they are talking about......

It is the question of WHY should a deeper penetration on a shoe be such a big advantage to a card counter......?

The usual answers are that if the penetration is high then this increases the chances of a big positive count occuring and that when it does occur that there will be longer time to take advantage of it.

Also that the more cards that a counter sees, then the more accurate the count.

The first reason does not seem very mathematical to me and as for the second, why would a count be more accurate?

I have recently recorded 10,000 hands from an online live dealer game and the results are amazing!

When I compare like for like e.g. Say if I was to analyse all the hands where my advantage was between 0.1% and 0.5% then my P/L is consistently higher when the hand occurs >45% into the shoe compared to the hands <45% into the shoe.

It does not matter what angle I come from, the later hands always score better than the earlier hands. (Comparing like for like, even when I look at say all the hands where I am <-1% etc).

Surely a 1% advantage is a 1% advantage....Surely it does not matter whether there are 52 cards left in the shoe or 1,000 cards left in the shoe......?

I like to think that I understand the concept that we have a bigger advantage playing with a lesser number of decks because of the fact that when we are dealt an Ace, then that has a bigger effect for a small original shoe size than a large original shoe size, but I cannot see that the concept applies here.

Since I am playing live dealer online, my PC is able to count every card and therefore my playing strategy is absolute optimum in that my PC does not use any EOR estimation calculations but it works out the best play by analysing all the permutations of all the possible continuations.

Is it conceivable that the PC's ability to play the hand better in the latter part of the shoe a factor....?

I know you are probably going to say that a sample of 10,000 hands is much too small to jump to any conclusions, but if you saw how clear cut my results were, I just cannot see how it could just be a coincidence.

So my ultimate question is....

Should I expect better results with a 1% advantage after 60% of a shoe compared to a 1% advantage after 20% of a shoe....?

Thank You.