moses

[filthyreno]

Thanks for info. Yes. I'm counting on a ratio basis. Single deck only. On average, my system makes about $200 over 1,000 hands played at $10 table in the casinos. Playing the exact same situation on Norm's game at home usually nets $500 to $700 over 1000 hands with 67% penetration. The only difference is in the cut and penetration. Profits are substanially more on hands 5,6, and 7 and very difficult to remain even on first two hands of the deck. It seem as though 9s-10s-As come out early at the casino so I spend most of my day swimming upstream through negative decks trying to stay even. I stand on 16 on the first hand to avoid getting too negative early. Hence, i have 10,6 dealer has 10up. I hit and get a ten and dealers hole card is 10. Bam, I down 4 to 1 with 6 hands left to play. But standing gives me a 10 to start my next hand with.

I just have to ask:

"I'm counting on a ratio basis."

I'm just curious. What exactly does that mean? Explain.

[moses]

Thorpe talked about ratios in his book. For example, a deck is made up of 38.5% tens and Aces. If 12 more cards are played the A-10s - then the deck is 50% tens-Aces. One of which I always considered an extremely positive betting opportunity. I include the 9's. And rotate the 8's...another story. Anyway, a typical count of +4 is good and generally suggests a higher bet. For example, +4 doesn't mean much to me primarily because my personality is adverse to volatility. However, 13 9-As played and 17 two7's played represents at 61% ratio of 9-A remain vs. 2-7s 39%. Therefore a 22% advantage. I like those odds. In essence, it's a bottoms up approach to cards played.

[hitthat16]

Dude, drop all the voodoo about changing the way you play based on whether the hand is dealt to you off the top or deeper in the deck. Go with basic strategy, then if you are counting, change how you play based on the count and the index number only.

Drop the cut thin to win mentality as well. Just cut the deck wherever.

You seem to be open to the concepts of the mathematics of the game, but you are looking for math in all the wrong places.

[filthyreno]

Thorpe talked about ratios in his book. For example, a deck is made up of 38.5% tens and Aces. If 12 more cards are played the A-10s - then the deck is 50% tens-Aces. One of which I always considered an extremely positive betting opportunity. I include the 9's. And rotate the 8's...another story. Anyway, a typical count of +4 is good and generally suggests a higher bet. For example, +4 doesn't mean much to me primarily because my personality is adverse to volatility. However, 13 9-As played and 17 two7's played represents at 61% ratio of 9-A remain vs. 2-7s 39%. Therefore a 22% advantage. I like those odds. In essence, it's a bottoms up approach to cards played.

Hmm. If 9-A played =13 and 2-7 played = 17, then 22 cards remain; 11 of which are A-9, thus 50% would be A-9, not 61%.

Explain further.

[moses]

Thank you for the advice. I suppose it was just irony that the dealer could cut and win 8 and of 9 hands while I cut and lose 8 out of 10. I like the theory of and "let the cards fall where they may but load up when there is a bunch of little ones in the tray." Once lost 32 straight hands playing basic strategy. Hitting 16 is not important because its a minimum bet. Whether I win 43,44, or 49% on mimimum bets in inconsequential. Winning 65 to 70% on large bets is quintessential and the more times I can put myself in that position - the better. If I'm more worried about getting banned than losing I must be doing something correct. Math comes in to be on the plus 50% side to make the best possible decision. And that, unfortunately, requires far more than tracking a count. Why would you bet on an underdog at favorite price in the sportsbook? No difference. Not voodoo. Just a different playing field.

[moses]

Sorry. This assumes the 8's are silent. So a 48 card deck for this reason. I track 8s for other reasons.

[Jabberwocky]

Thorpe talked about ratios in his book. For example, a deck is made up of 38.5% tens and Aces. If 12 more cards are played the A-10s - then the deck is 50% tens-Aces. One of which I always considered an extremely positive betting opportunity. I include the 9's. And rotate the 8's...another story. Anyway, a typical count of +4 is good and generally suggests a higher bet. For example, +4 doesn't mean much to me primarily because my personality is adverse to volatility. However, 13 9-As played and 17 two7's played represents at 61% ratio of 9-A remain vs. 2-7s 39%. Therefore a 22% advantage. I like those odds. In essence, it's a bottoms up approach to cards played.

Best advice is to dump the Ten Count in favor of Hi-Opt II. Then you will need a load of cover plays to avoid barring. If you really are adverse to variance, then blackjack is not your forte because variance is the name of game.

[moses]

Seriously. I didn't mean to open up a discussion on whether or not to hit 16 against 10. Rather my point was detecting vs. suspecting cheating. I see no real logical reason why a dealer would want to cheat. However, some do spend a great deal of time and energy trying to trip up the player. But if it is going on I'd sort of like to know it. Wouldn't you like to know if a game you were betting on was fixed? It does happen. I'm just saying it makes a person wonder when you are sitting there watching extreme number happen. Like losing 32 straight hands from a machine shuffled deck. A dealer get 14 blackjacks to my 0 at 3 different table in the same casinos. A dealer get an up card of ten or Ace 38 out 41 times after a shuffle. Strange phenomenon? Perhaps. But it certainly feels like voodoo (or something else) when its happening to you.

[Three]

I stand on 16 on the first hand to avoid getting too negative early.

I would think the way to play 16vT is as the index says. Not because it is the right move but it eats cards at negative counts and preserves them at positive counts. Always standing preserves cards for counts that are negative but may get positive deep in the deck. I am not sure if you ever get another round or lose a round. That probably depends on the individual casino's SD game procedure.

[moses]

Exactly... which is why i was getting barred. My game is fine. No need to change it. But thanks. My real concern is detecting foul play.

[moses]

Good point. But I'd rather win the hand by standing than lose by taking a 6 or 7 out of the deck early.

[Three]

Moses, there are so many things wrong in your thinking that nobody is addressing it. You got one sarcastic good luck with that and it went right over your head.

[moses]

It didn't go over my head. The point was to detect cheating. Hitting a 16v10 is such a small concern. Playing against a house or dealer that cheats is like betting on fixed games. If they are - then what to do on a minimum bet with 16v10 on the first hand is mute because there is no point in playing. is there? Sort of like complaining about not get enough drink coupons when you are on the wrong side of a fixed game.