Card counting alone no longer is viable.

[RobinHood21]

It is true that a faster dealer can make the casino more money, but do you agree that a card counter inaccuracy rate is quite large. Also how can that "crazy game" not be play friendly. What would you consider a player friendly game?

Part 1. Yes, there are many people that think they can count and can in fact count (counting is very simple). But the accuracy in which they apply their knowledge is quite often misplaced. Along with their bets and BR's.

Part 2. The "crazy game"... Even money on BJ's gets you -2.27% off the top. SD gets you +0.48%. LS, or I'll give ES which it may well be gets you +0.39%. Still not "friendly". You need to give a full set of rules to back your claims.

Part 3. SD, 3/2, DOA, DAS, LS, H17 (Barona's old HL SD)... The House Edge is basically nothing (less than 0.1% if played perfectly), especially if you factor in the cash back or gift/gas cards they used to offer for rated play. Aria and most MGM properties high limit tables are generally "player friendly" (minus the heat). The HE is around 0.2%.

[blackjackwarrior]

Part 1. Yes, there are many people that think they can count and can in fact count (counting is very simple). But the accuracy in which they apply their knowledge is quite often misplaced. Along with their bets and BR's.

Part 2. The "crazy game"... Even money on BJ's gets you -2.27% off the top. SD gets you +0.48%. LS, or I'll give ES which it may well be gets you +0.39%. Still not "friendly". You need to give a full set of rules to back your claims.

Part 3. SD, 3/2, DOA, DAS, LS, H17 (Barona's old HL SD)... The House Edge is basically nothing (less than 0.1% if played perfectly), especially if you factor in the cash back or gift/gas cards they used to offer for rated play. Aria and most MGM properties high limit tables are generally "player friendly" (minus the heat). The HE is around 0.2%.

There is no accuracy in card counting. You can infer that there is a higher chance that a ten is going to come out next because a lot of small cards have been dealt - but it's been diluted. There is an advantage in card counting but that also cannot overcome the house edge. You simply have to rely on too many things to go right with each placement of the cards to what comes out. As for their bets and bankrolls, what do they do wrong? To say that they are losing because they are doing it wrong is invalid - there is no accuracy in card counting.

[RobinHood21]

There is no accuracy in card counting. You can infer that there is a higher chance that a ten is going to come out next because a lot of small cards have been dealt - but it's been diluted. There is an advantage in card counting but that also cannot overcome the house edge. You simply have to rely on too many things to go right with each placement of the cards to what comes out. As for their bets and bankrolls, what do they do wrong? To say that they are losing because they are doing it wrong is invalid - there is no accuracy in card counting.

I'm finished with you. Your education in card counting is diluted. You have somewhat a tunnel vision. And don't grasp the entire concept. You fall into "Part 1" of my previous post.

[KJ]

I'm finished with you. Your education in card counting is diluted. You have somewhat a tunnel vision. And don't grasp the entire concept. You fall into "Part 1" of my previous post.

I don't think that his card counting education is diluted, nor that he hasn't grasped the concept. I think he is just "yanking our chain". That was my initial feeling several hours ago, and I vowed "not to play". I then went ahead and engaged, with the slight possibility that maybe he was sincere and didn't understand. But, now I am back to my first conclusion. First intuition is usually right.

Either that or an industry insider trying to alter reality.

[blackjackwarrior]

I'm finished with you. Your education in card counting is diluted. You have somewhat a tunnel vision. And don't grasp the entire concept. You fall into "Part 1" of my previous post.

The game was beatable once. The casinos changed the rules and they haven't alter much since. Says alot doesn't it.

[UK-21]

An interesting six pages of forum discussion. Blackjackwarrior, what exactly do you define as "accuracy" in your last post? If you meant "certainty", I'd say you're correct, as the process of tracking the cards played and using this to inform playing and betting decisions is based on averages and probability. It's a volume endeavour, and over-time practitioners who engage in perfect card-counting will come out in front. That's not my opinion but what the math(s) indicate. If this was not the case, then why do casinos in the States spend so much time, effort and money each year on game protection?

With regard to your assertion that using a Martingale progression approach will provide an advantage, the math(s) show this is completely without basis. Yes, you may win some hands, and reverse out losses that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't doubled down (although this isn't an indication of an "advantage"), but again the averages will show through over time. Doubling down without knowing whether the composition of the cards still to be played are, on average, favourable (this is only the case around 20% of the time), will cause you to lose money over time, in the same way as perfect card counting will win money over time.

Play how you wish to, but arguing against the math(s) on this site, where there are so many math(s) savvy regular contributors, simply shows that you need to do some reading around the theories of probability and statistics as well as the basis of why card-counting does work. Why do you think it is that casinos don't look out for advantage players on the roulette or craps tables (being on the lookout for instances of cheating being something else entirely, although it all comes under the generic heading of "game protection")?

Best wishes from the UK.

Good cards.

[blackjackwarrior]

An interesting six pages of forum discussion. Blackjackwarrior, what exactly do you define as "accuracy" in your last post? If you meant "certainty", I'd say you're correct, as the process of tracking the cards played and using this to inform playing and betting decisions is based on averages and probability. It's a volume endeavour, and over-time practitioners who engage in perfect card-counting will come out in front. That's not my opinion but what the math(s) indicate. If this was not the case, then why do casinos in the States spend so much time, effort and money each year on game protection?

With regard to your assertion that using a Martingale progression approach will provide an advantage, the math(s) show this is completely without basis. Yes, you may win some hands, and reverse out losses that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't doubled down (although this isn't an indication of an "advantage"), but again the averages will show through over time. Doubling down without knowing whether the composition of the cards still to be played are, on average, favourable (this is only the case around 20% of the time), will cause you to lose money over time, in the same way as perfect card counting will win money over time.

Play how you wish to, but arguing against the math(s) on this site, where there are so many math(s) savvy regular contributors, simply shows that you need to do some reading around the theories of probability and statistics as well as the basis of why card-counting does work. Why do you think it is that casinos don't look out for advantage players on the roulette or craps tables (being on the lookout for instances of cheating being something else entirely, although it all comes under the generic heading of "game protection")?

Best wishes from the UK.

Good cards.

Hey thanks for the input.
Inaccuracy because everything has to align right for card counting to be effective. Your two cards must fall a certain way - and in a way it's tough to take a card. Now if you stay you have to rely on the dealers card falls a certain way. That's five cards at least. If it is a simple I stay on 12 and the dealer flips on 16 followed by an expected 10, then yes. But that is not the case. And when they cut away a portion, there is an advantage, but it's been marginalized.
But you do see that using a progressive betting progression, you may win something extra. When you account for that with the Martingale System, that is when things become unfavorable.

[UK-21]

Hey thanks for the input.
Your two cards must fall a certain way - and in a way it's tough to take a card.

I don't understand this point - one simply makes the correct play for the player hand / dealer hand / true count combination, and by doing so one maximises the chances of winning or minimises the chances of losing. Yep, on some hands all play options are -EV, but you'd make the play that has the least probability of losing, based upon the perceived composition of the cards remaining to be played at that point in time (as determined by the true count).

Penetration, the number of decks in use and rulesets are important variables in the game, and depending on what they may be may render a game impossible to obtain an advantage from. But this is not always the case, and where conditions are favourable, and combined with the simple practice of betting more during the 20%-ish of time when you have an advantage, and your minimum for the 80% of time when you don't, you'll win out over time. It's very simple and it does work, although errors in keeping the count, estimating the number of decks still in the shoe or calculating your advantage can dilute away any advantage and cost you dear.

If you're a green chip counter, and spread from $50-$800 (if you can get away with it), even with pretty modest H17 conditions your average hourly return is still probably more than the guy in surveillance who's being paid to catch you. This is why players who apply the skill of counting cards at the single deck, double deck and shoe dealt blackjack tables offered by casinos are not welcome patrons.

Chin chin. :-)

[RobinHood21]

If you're a green chip counter, and spread from $50-$800 (if you can get away with it), even with pretty modest H17 conditions your average hourly return is still probably more than the guy in surveillance who's being paid to catch you.

You can spread $5-$80 and meet the hourly wages of a Surveillance Operator.

[blackjackwarrior]

I don't understand this point - one simply makes the correct play for the player hand / dealer hand / true count combination, and by doing so one maximises the chances of winning or minimises the chances of losing. Yep, on some hands all play options are -EV, but you'd make the play that has the least probability of losing, based upon the perceived composition of the cards remaining to be played at that point in time (as determined by the true count).

Penetration, the number of decks in use and rulesets are important variables in the game, and depending on what they may be may render a game impossible to obtain an advantage from. But this is not always the case, and where conditions are favourable, and combined with the simple practice of betting more during the 20%-ish of time when you have an advantage, and your minimum for the 80% of time when you don't, you'll win out over time. It's very simple and it does work, although errors in keeping the count, estimating the number of decks still in the shoe or calculating your advantage can dilute away any advantage and cost you dear.

If you're a green chip counter, and spread from $50-$800 (if you can get away with it), even with pretty modest H17 conditions your average hourly return is still probably more than the guy in surveillance who's being paid to catch you. This is why players who apply the skill of counting cards at the single deck, double deck and shoe dealt blackjack tables offered by casinos are not welcome patrons.

Chin chin. :-)

Hey thanks for the comment; you make some good point. I concede the top. However I don't think you can assume that full %20 and bet large there as wins tend to follow the consumption of 10s and we don't know when those will come or how. Also those small cards hurts us more than the 10s ever can help. So during those %80-ish of the time our probability of losing is several % more than during the %20 of the time our probability of winning. In the long run, you probably lose more from those $50 bets than win from the $800 bets.

[UK-21]

Hey thanks for the comment; you make some good point. I concede the top. However I don't think you can assume that full %20 and bet large there as wins tend to follow the consumption of 10s and we don't know when those will come or how. Also those small cards hurts us more than the 10s ever can help. So during those %80-ish of the time our probability of losing is several % more than during the %20 of the time our probability of winning. In the long run, you probably lose more from those $50 bets than win from the $800 bets.

I think you're confusing the probability of winning/losing/pushing individual hands and the overall net "advantage" that results from (a) knowing when there's an abundance of 10s/faces/aces in the deck, (b) increasing bets according to a pre-determined "ramp" when there is and (c) applying advantageous deviations from basic strategy when there is.

Think about the 80% -EV / 20% +EV bit . . . . . . assume all -EV situations lose and +EV situations win . . . . with a 4 x $50 ($200) loss it'd be cancelled out with a 1 x $200 win. So, in theory, an average positive count bet of 4 units will achieve a breakeven? Of course there's a bit more to it than this, but it's a simple example that indicates that if you can spread bets in excess of around 1-8, in the long run (in theory, and assuming no playing errors) you'll come out in front. I calculated that a 1-8 spread on the pretty standard UK 6-deck ruleset we have here provides a longer term advantage of a little under half a per cent. The greater you can spread your bets, the greater the return can be. Again, very simple.

It's also why those who have knowledge of card-counting, and how it works, know that "bet one for bad, two for good" (care of The Rain Man movie), just doesn't cut it.

Stick your nose in some good books on the subject - the penny will eventually drop.

[Three]

Also those small cards hurts us more than the 10s ever can help. So during those %80-ish of the time our probability of losing is several % more than during the %20 of the time our probability of winning. In the long run, you probably lose more from those $50 bets than win from the $800 bets.

Just plucking numbers out of the air:
$5*.8*.02 (bet size times frequency times house 2% advantage) = .08 lost in the 80% negative advantage situations
80*.2*.02 (bet size times frequency times your 2% advantage) = .32 won in the 20% winning situations

So you win 4 times as much as you lose.

If you were to use simply 2 bet sizes, the frequency time the house edge - the frequency times the player edge in advantage bets would equal the house edge overall. Lets see how our hyotheticall stacks up:
HE of the theoretical game = .8*.02 - .2*.02 = .016 -.004 = .012.

So your playing a game that has a HE of .3-.7% most likely if you are smart enough to avoid the crap games but our theoretical is for a HE of 1.2%. So a real game the counter edge would be much higher since 1.2% is 4 times a great games HE and almost twice a crappy games HE.

You can get all the warm and fuzzy feelings you want about what you are doing but the math will not change because of it. Counting works and progressions only rearrange the losing so you are deceived into thinking you have an advantage. If you bets are not correlated to shifting advantage if you play enough hands at any bet level you will approach losing the HE times your total bet for that bet level. Martingales only make the top bat far less frequent so it takes a long time to get to the long run and approach the expectation of losing the total amount bet times the house edge. Make enough max bets in your progression and it will get there.

For the math challenged I go back to fourth grade math. One of the first theorem you learn is the commutative law of addition which states it doesn't matter in what order you add numbers the total is still the same (you may remember it as (A+B)+C=A+(B+C). You think the numbers add to an advantage because you group them in a progression. Any fifth grader could rearrange your bet results into flat bet groups instead of progression groups without changing what the sum is. Ad all bets made at your first bet to get a sum and add all bets made at the next bet t get a sum on up through al your bet sizes until you add all your bets made at your top bet to get a sum. Adding all these sums will give you your results. Since all bets were made independent of shifting advantage your results should be about the HE times the total bet for each betting level. There are differences between the different bet groups. The smaller bets are bet very frequently and the largest bet is bet infrequently. This means your small bets will approach the expected loss of HE*total bet amount well before the top bet. It probably takes tens of thousands of bets for the top bet to approach expectation.

The HE already considers you will double when called for so there is no extra benefit to doubling the bets in the largest bet group. You did it in all the other groups as well so that group has no special benefit from it. Any fifth grader can tell you that your math is wrong.

[Exoter175]

This explains my results for the year.....card counting, all of the sudden, is no longer viable.

This made me chuckle, thank you KJ lol

Best variance to ya bud!

We have no proof either or. Do you know anybody whose been barred? I use to work in a casino and card counters there were none - this is in california where cardroom games are player friendly.

If that's the case, then your casino is either completely oblivious to how counters play, or you just weren't paying attention.

This morning I was on a table with another counter, and the floor guy was talking about how you couldn't live off of playing black jack, even if you could count, because the surveillance guys would eventually catch you. We didn't say anything contrary, of course, just kind of egged him on with an "oh yeah? wow, yeah I don't think I could make a living off of this stuff".

I'm not say that the Martingale System works. I'm pointing out the advantage.

There is no advantage when there is a table maximum. Seriously. I don't care how long you play even at a 5-$10,000 table, eventually you will max out the table and be negative in the entirety of your play and not get the opportunity for an increased bet to get it back. Seriously, it will happen.

I once played a dealer at almost a constant TC+1 for an entire shoe with another guy on the table. I won a single hand that shoe. Martingale would have slaughtered me.