Back to playing conditions........rules. Just what do YOU consider a playable game?

[MJGolf]

Over time, I have noticed a lot of posts on "this game is playable" "this game is sheeeeet". "These are good rules", etc. And of course, there is no agreement and it seems to change over time. In my personal experience, playing conditions have WORSENED over time as to the "rules". H17 more than S17. No RSA except for a very, very few. No DAS on any pitch games, etc. But there are still some places that have better rules. Just trying to get a feel from this board as to the games around the country without looking at CBJN because I want YOUR opinion.

This was posted on one thread:

BJ pays 3-2
All 6D shoe dealt games
Double on any two cards and double after split
Split up to 4 hands
Split aces once - one card dealt
Dealer hits on soft 17
No surrender
+3 side bet available
Dealer cuts off approx. 1.5 decks in shoe - will vary by dealer from 1-2 decks so penetration can vary from 83%-66%

This seems to be pretty standard shoe rules at most places I play or am able to play when traveling. Here, the rules are a bit better. Still S17. Some houses still offer surrender. Not many. So I think my shoe game is more playable.

But I saw two opinions on the above conditions. One calling them crap. One saying it was playable. I'm sure penetration is a factor.

Query: Just WHAT do you consider a minimum playable shoe game? What rules? Seems that it depends upon what part of country you are in, I guess. But to call these bad rules............when they appear pretty standard to me makes me think a little.

I'm purposely just trying to get a feel from the board WHAT games you will actually play.

[Romes]

Honestly, it really depends. There is no cut off point of "playable" and "not." Penetration is the most important factor in a blackjack game. The game could have crappy rules (8D H17 - .66% HE) but if it's dealt 90% penetration, then it becomes a playable game. On the flip side you could have good rules (6D S17 LS - .36% HE) and they could cut 3 decks off and make this absolutely NOT playable... To go to the extreme you could have El Cortez's 1D game (.18% HE) but if they only ever dealt 1 hand and then shuffled, again, it's not playable.

Overall, at least for me, "in general" I consider playable games to be anything less than .5% (with 'average' 75% PEN), so that I can up my bet at TC +1. Every game is its own unique snow flake though, and must be evaluated individually =P.

*The game you provided above has a house edge of .64%. When you're getting the 1D cut off (83% PEN) this game becomes playable. When you're getting the 2D cut off (66% PEN) this game is not playable. When it's "average" at about 1.5 decks (75% PEN) then it's really a player opinion. Some pro's only play better games and wouldn't touch that. However, if you're part time and that's 20 minutes from your house, well then it might be better to play it and you can log a lot more hands/hours because it's close to home. PEN truly is king though. The reason being when you have shitty PEN your frequencies will be much worse. This means you'll see good counts less often and when you do, you'll need to bet more (aka a bigger spread) to capitalize on the good situations. This will shoot your variance and Standard Deviations way up because it's going to jack up your average bet. What makes it unplayable is with such a high spread you often need huge bankrolls that most people just don't have, and thus they'll bust out. So in essence, the low penetration games are not playable, regardless of the rules.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

For me to play a H17 game I want LS (and preferably RSA) ~or~

it must have DEEP penetration and a reasonably tolerable level of heat.

Do not be an amateur whoo plays whatever local game is available !

[Three]

Generally a playable game has a SCORE of at least 50 which means a n0 of 20K or less. That is the traditional definition of SCORE where everything is held constant at the standards and only the optimal bets change as you bet the optimal standard spread for the conditions. That said if you are well BR'ed you can use c-SCORE instead of SCORE. That means you can spread as much as you can get away with and bet optimally for that spread. You can also play to whatever RoR you want, basically all the standards no longer apply. You still want a low n0 but if you have a large enough BR you are willing to accept watching huge amounts move into the dealer's chip tray to get big action in with little to no heat. The slash and burn casino players love a tolerant joint with a not so good game. They can get a lot more play in before they get their walking papers. So basically what is playable depends on your BR, style of play and risk tolerance. It is a personal decision that should be made with a well informed idea of what to expect when you play various conditions. The standard is a SCORE of 50. When you start talking c-SCORE at tolerant casinos the picture of what is playable changes dramatically. A longevity player probably uses a really strong count and a spread that would not work well with a simpler system while attacking better games. A simple count player needs to spread more and is easier to detect so they tend not to last long at good games. Their way fits the slash and burn style better and that requires a huge BR by comparison.

So your BR, risk tolerance, your system, the casino's spread and top bet tolerance and your style of attack (longevity vs slash and burn) determines what is playable for you. You may have noticed the big playing pros asked questions about table limits that indicated spread tolerance or max spread possible was what they were asking about and also max bet limits indicating that they were interested in how well they handle big action. No doubt they have huge BR's and would define a playable game quite differently than someone with a small BR. To a small BR player a top concern may be the min bet because that will define how big they can spread. Other issues are table crowding and NMSE for reasons of wonging in or keeping a great count from being diluted as people jump in mid-shoe. Believe it or not NMSE can be a great rule. It keeps others from wonging in or otherwise joining mid-shoe in a great count and means they must shuffle if you leave a heads up game. Either that or hope you will come back and continue playing the shoe you left. Your view on NMSE depends on your style of play. So what makes a game playable varies from player to player.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Generally a playable game has a SCORE of 50 ..."

It must be noted that a SCORE of 50 is NOT a mathematically determined metric.

It means a Hi-Lo player betting optimally, and with a $10,000 bankroll would profit.
by $50 an hour on average; so that by playing (accurately) 20 hrs. a week would
(theoretically) "earn" $50,000 / annum.

That is viewed as a reasonable goal to live as a lower middle class single person.

My point is that a SCORE of 35 or 40 or 45 may be fine for you. Y M M V

[Three]

My point is that a SCORE of 35 or 40 or 45 may be fine for you or I. Y M M V

SCORE of 35 and you are getting close to a n0 of 30K. I may be fine with a n0 like that but I sure want a n0 of 20K or less. A low n0 is what makes it easier to come out ahead on any given trip. Or over shorter periods of time. That is more my concern than the hourly.

n0 = 1,000,000/SCORE

So when you decide you are fine with a lower SCORE you are saying you are comfortable with longer, deeper and more frequent downswings. Nothing wrong with that with the BR and constitution to outlast the swings. If you are trying to make a living off the game minimizing n0 is certainly a concern if you have a need to continually draw from your BR.

[BoSox]

So basically what is playable depends on your BR, style of play and risk tolerance. It is a personal decision that should be made with a well informed idea of what to expect when you play various conditions. The standard is a SCORE of 50. When you start talking c-SCORE at tolerant casinos the picture of what is playable changes dramatically. A longevity player probably uses a really strong count and a spread that would not work well with a simpler system while attacking better games. A simple count player needs to spread more and is easier to detect so they tend not to last long at good games. Their way fits the slash and burn style better and that requires a huge BR by comparison.

Tthree, In your above example you refer to tolerant casinos and attacking better games, and continue with A simple count player needs to spread more and is easier to detect so they tend not to last long at good games. Their way fits the slash and burn style better and that requires a huge BR by comparison. Staying with your example, I interpret the term tolerant casinos as accepting a certain level of play, as in red chip play or maybe even green chip action pending on the casinos tolerance. Of course spreads play a factor, but since your example is also based on good games why does anyone need an outrageous spread? Maybe in this situation you should also spread up a few more units, if the casino is tolerant.

To a small BR player a top concern may be the min bet because that will define how big they can spread. Other issues are table crowding and NMSE for reasons of wonging in or keeping a great count from being diluted as people jump in mid-shoe.

I agree 100% with the first sentence. As far as table crowding, of which I consider extremely important, I will break it down a little further. I believe there are two parts to the term.

#1 New players are thinking the obvious how many people are playing at the table. Hands per hour yes extremely important.I consider number #2 even more important.

#2 How does the casino play the crowd? I'll define this as what does the casinos do in slow off hours times? Will the casino still open most tables because dealers are on a regular schedule? If you can find this situation this is a great time to play.

[Three]

Tthree, In your above example you refer to tolerant casinos and attacking better games

It is a list of various different things not one thing. Everything in your post that follows assumes it is all related which it is not. Generally the better games are less tolerant of spreading and the crappier games don't care. In case you didn't know SCORE uses standards set by DonS for the comparison and c-SCORE uses anything you want. You can't change a games SCORE by spreading more but you do change what a games c-SCORE is. Anyway the point you seem to be missing is a great game will quite often 86 you if you spread much. That is why they can offer a great game. If you want to play there without being 86'ed it really helps to play a system that can beat them with a spread that they are comfortable with.

Of course spreads play a factor, but since your example is also based on good games why does anyone need an outrageous spread?

What you call my example was a laundry list of different things that can make a game playable. It was not one example but a long list of different things that are important to people with different approaches to the game, different BR's and comfort levels, and different systems. This thread is about what is playable. You have such a complex about simpler counts you can't see that there was no criticism of any approach just different approaches look for different things when they call something playable. I tried to answer his question about what is playable with the most thorough answer I could. Perhaps I was too brief. You can't win. You go into detail to make sure people understand and you are called too wordy. You keep it brief and people quick to jump to conclusions miss the point and get confused about your meaning.

[BoSox]

Originally Posted by BoSox
Tthree, In your above example you refer to tolerant casinos and attacking better games

Anyway the point you seem to be missing is a great game will quite often 86 you if you spread much. That is why they can offer a great game. If you want to play there without being 86'ed it really helps to play a system that can beat them with a spread that they are comfortable with.

Tthree, you are the one who referenced tolerant casinos into your first post, now it is gone. First lets clear up something, were you referring to single, and double deck games in the example? I am talking strictly shoe games as it has been years since I have played the other choices, although double deck would still apply. A great game to you might not be considered a great game to me. First I love tolerant casinos that accept the action, I accept and play by their tolerances NOT what I would think I can get away with by testing them further than I already have. I want to go back, just as long as the game is worthwhile to me. My game is based on blending in, at whatever level pits I am currently playing. If I was thrown out I consider it just part of the game. House rules, are also important to me.

[Three]

Tthree, you are the one who referenced tolerant casinos into your first post, now it is gone.

I didn't delete any posts or content. After I posted this I figured out you were talking about the immediately previous post and not the one you quoted which the "above" comment lead me to believe. I think you are blending my post with post #2 by Romes. My posts were all on topic for the OP on what makes a game playable. I never made any SD or DD references.

First I love tolerant casinos that accept the action, I accept and play by their tolerances NOT what I would think I can get away with by testing them further than I already have. I want to go back, just as long as the game is worthwhile to me. My game is based on blending in, at whatever level pits I am currently playing. If I was thrown out I consider it just part of the game. House rules, are also important to me.

And that was the point of my posts. What makes games playable differs from one person to the next. I like to keep my overall n0 down so I try to play the same at all the casinos in my rotation (having different max bets for different casinos plays havoc with n0). If a place is not tolerant I simply leave or take a break after my first max bet opportunity has the player advantage end. My BR is quite large but I still want a more predictable short run.

[BoSox]

Originally Posted by BoSox
Tthree, you are the one who referenced tolerant casinos into your first post, now it is gone.

I didn't delete any posts or content. After I posted this I figured out you were talking about the immediately previous post and not the one you quoted which the "above" comment lead me to believe. I think you are blending my post with post #2 by Romes. My posts were all on topic for the OP on what makes a game playable. I never made any SD or DD references.

Excuse me, just to clear it up, what is gone is not post #4 that I was talking about but the references you made in that post regarding good games, and tolerant casinos that have suddenly disappeared from your side of the debate.

[Three]

Excuse me, just to clear it up, what is gone is not post #4 that I was talking about but the references you made in that post regarding good games, and tolerant casinos that have suddenly disappeared from your side of the debate.

IF it is gone, I didn't do it. Personally I think you got who posted what confused.

PS: Notice none of my posts prior to your post was edited.

[seriousplayer]

Generally a playable game has a SCORE of at least 50 which means a n0 of 20K or less. That is the traditional definition of SCORE where everything is held constant at the standards and only the optimal bets change as you bet the optimal standard spread for the conditions. That said if you are well BR'ed you can use c-SCORE instead of SCORE. That means you can spread as much as you can get away with and bet optimally for that spread. You can also play to whatever RoR you want, basically all the standards no longer apply. You still want a low n0 but if you have a large enough BR you are willing to accept watching huge amounts move into the dealer's chip tray to get big action in with little to no heat. The slash and burn casino players love a tolerant joint with a not so good game. They can get a lot more play in before they get their walking papers. So basically what is playable depends on your BR, style of play and risk tolerance. It is a personal decision that should be made with a well informed idea of what to expect when you play various conditions. The standard is a SCORE of 50. When you start talking c-SCORE at tolerant casinos the picture of what is playable changes dramatically. A longevity player probably uses a really strong count and a spread that would not work well with a simpler system while attacking better games. A simple count player needs to spread more and is easier to detect so they tend not to last long at good games. Their way fits the slash and burn style better and that requires a huge BR by comparison.

So your BR, risk tolerance, your system, the casino's spread and top bet tolerance and your style of attack (longevity vs slash and burn) determines what is playable for you. You may have noticed the big playing pros asked questions about table limits that indicated spread tolerance or max spread possible was what they were asking about and also max bet limits indicating that they were interested in how well they handle big action. No doubt they have huge BR's and would define a playable game quite differently than someone with a small BR. To a small BR player a top concern may be the min bet because that will define how big they can spread. Other issues are table crowding and NMSE for reasons of wonging in or keeping a great count from being diluted as people jump in mid-shoe. Believe it or not NMSE can be a great rule. It keeps others from wonging in or otherwise joining mid-shoe in a great count and means they must shuffle if you leave a heads up game. Either that or hope you will come back and continue playing the shoe you left. Your view on NMSE depends on your style of play. So what makes a game playable varies from player to player.

If a playable game is SCORE of 50 then you can turn almost any game into playable game by using Wonging/Wongout.