Is this possible?

[DickFer]

Is it possible to be +EV in a negative count if you are using the right strategy? (using index plays or whatever other strategies there are). Or is it 100% not possible to be +EV in a negative count?

[DickFer]

Can the game be beaten(+EV) even if the remaining deck is rich with low cards? Is there a strategy for this? I know its easy to say the player has advantage when deck is + but to me that seems too simple of a statement. Is it possible to come up with a system to be +EV no matter where the deck is + or -. Possible, impossible, been tried before? If such a system existed it would make it way easier on the player because they could play 100% of hands, never have to sit out, never have to backcount, you could sit down and play through every shoe and be +EV no matter where the deck is + or -. Someone help me out here!

[biggg]

Index plays make very little difference unless you are playing hand held games with great pen (good luck finding these lol). The situations just don't come up that often and with a couple exceptions the gain in EV is low, so you will always be a loser in negative counts. The best thing to do is find ways to not play in negative counts and get down bigger bets in the good counts.

[DickFer]

Index plays make very little difference unless you are playing hand held games with great pen (good luck finding these lol). The situations just don't come up that often and with a couple exceptions the gain in EV is low, so you will always be a loser in negative counts. The best thing to do is find ways to not play in negative counts and get down bigger bets in the good counts.

That's pretty much the answer I expected and pretty much what I believe to be true as well. I'm just dreaming right now hoping there is a way to be +EV no matter where the deck is + or -. I mean is it possible to come up with some insanely brilliant strategy in low counts that some how you could be +EV? My guess is everyone is going to say no, and I assume the answer is no as well, I'm sure someone can show this is 100% impossible?

I just want that Tthree guy to tell me its not possible and i'll be on my way

[Jabberwocky]

That's pretty much the answer I expected and pretty much what I believe to be true as well. I'm just dreaming right now hoping there is a way to be +EV no matter where the deck is + or -. I mean is it possible to come up with some insanely brilliant strategy in low counts that some how you could be +EV? My guess is everyone is going to say no, and I assume the answer is no as well, I'm sure someone can show this is 100% impossible?

I just want that Tthree guy to tell me its not possible and i'll be on my way

He won't tell you. You'll have to dream it.

[DickFer]

I'm going to take some magic mushrooms and go talk to the medicine man!

[Three]

Is it possible to be +EV in a negative count if you are using the right strategy? (using index plays or whatever other strategies there are). Or is it 100% not possible to be +EV in a negative count?

Definitely but you need a different approach to flag the opportunity.

[Sharky]

just counting, NO!

[Gronbog]

Just traditional counting, NO.
Multiple parameter counting (not multi-level counting), sometimes.
See tthree's post #8

[stopgambling]

Counting in short impossible. Beyond counting ,very possible !But not every hand though.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Tthree's post is, naturally, a good one, but I am rather certain that it is "over the heads" of most readers.

Here is another way to express what he had to say, without referencing the Mega-Powerful "Tarzan Count."

Let it suffice to say that if you use a genuinely strong (linear) count e.g. the Gordon Count or Hi-Opt I with all Side Counts

you may soon realize that every so-called True Count ~or ~ "Count per Deck" does encompass a range of expectations !

In ordinary Card Counting, the indices that we use are based on AVERAGED true counts that are simply modeled

on deck/shoe compositions that involve normal distribution of all UNCOUNTED cards that that count employs.

If you just think about that for awhile, you will realize that it is possible to model any given True Count in quite a few ways!

Each of these ways has a different Betting Expectation. They are NOT the same. Lets take a quick look at a T. C. of ZERO.

An equal number of Face Cards and Baby Cards have been dealt. Your e.v. is whatever the House Advantage times -1.

Now let us "Extrapolate to the Logical Extremes" [in the method of the Hegelian Dialectic].

To synthesize (the truth) we look at the thesis and the antithesis.

We look at SHOE A and SHOE B.

In both shoes the FACES and BABIES are equal. In SHOE A there are many surplus ACES and many surplus MIDDLE cards.

In SHOE B there are many deficit ACES and many deficit Middle cards. I assure you that SHOE A will provide a nice e.v.

while sitting at SHOE B -- I'd suddenly remember a cell phone call that I forgot about.

Of course there are other models with and without Aces. With and without certain Middle Cards.

If you are playing a 6/5 game [with an aggressive spread] the Aces have a reduced value, while 9's are enhanced.

[KJ]

Tthree's post is, naturally, a good one, but I am rather certain that it is "over the heads" of most readers.

Here is another way to express what he had to say, without referencing the Mega-Powerful "Tarzan Count."

Let it suffice to say that if you use a genuinely strong (linear) count e.g. the Gordon Count or Hi-Opt I with all Side Counts

you may soon realize that every so-called True Count ~or ~ "Count per Deck" does encompass a range of expectations !

In ordinary Card Counting, the indices that we use are based on AVERAGED true counts that are simply modeled

on deck/shoe compositions that involve normal distribution of all UNCOUNTED cards that that count employs.

If you just think about that for awhile, you will realize that it is possible to model any given True Count in quite a few ways!

Each of these ways has a different Betting Expectation. They are NOT the same. Lets take a quick look at a T. C. of ZERO.

An equal number of Face Cards and Baby Cards have been dealt. Your e.v. is whatever the House Advantage times -1.

Now let us "Extrapolate to the Logical Extremes" [in the method of the Hegelian Dialectic].

To synthesize (the truth) we look at the thesis and the antithesis.

We look at SHOE A and SHOE B.

In both shoes the FACES and BABIES are equal. In SHOE A there are many surplus ACES and many surplus MIDDLE cards.

In SHOE B there are many deficit ACES and many deficit Middle cards. I assure you that SHOE A will provide a nice e.v.

while sitting at SHOE B -- I'd suddenly remember a cell phone call that I forgot about.

Of course there are other models with and without Aces. With and without certain Middle Cards.

If you are playing a 6/5 game [with an aggressive spread] the Aces have a reduced value, while 9's are enhanced.

Is this really necessary?

Flash, apparently, you have come back from hiatus, just to join T3, in hijacking and steering every thread and every question, towards discussion of the Tarzan count.

I like Tarzan. I appreciate his unique abilities. If you guys want to follow in his footsteps that's fine as well. But discussion of the Tarzan count should be limited the advanced strategies section where it belongs. Hey you guys yourselves have likened it to the PHD of card counting. Does such discussion belong in the 'general' section, where many of the members posting are newer players asking questions about the basics of card counting? You guys are doing Norm and these members a disservice with this continuing agenda.

Now, it's true, if discussion of the Tarzan count were limited to the advanced strategies section, where it belongs, there would be little discussion as many of the members aren't paid subscribers. And that right there should tell you something.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

KJ asks: "Is this really necessary?"

"… if discussion of the Tarzan count were limited to the advanced strategies section, where it belongs, there would be little discussion as many of the members aren't paid subscribers. And that right there should tell you something. "

Nobody wants to post where things do not get wide readership.
Where it belongs is where it will be widely read and readily discussed.
What you are suggesting is virtual censorship.