Backounting question for a beginner

[Stealth]

I don't doubt you know the math Stealth. I actually know a bit more about you than you're aware, but that's neither here nor there. None of my posts had any design that assumed you didn't know exactly what you were talking about. I was simply stating my opinion and reasons/facts/logic as to how I arrived at it. Not sure why I can PM/be PM'd, but oh well.

On the issue of N0 coming faster I ran your examples and a sim of all play:

Romes.JPG

Each were run as an independent sim:

Note: N0 does not improve exponentially, in fact it becomes worse when compared to Wonging in at TC+2. It is not my intention to discredit your post but it is my intention to get the correct data out there for the OP to evaluate while contemplating on how to play.

I agree with your concept but would point out that the ability to do either is a casino condition. Structuring your betting to fit the your bank and your ability to play is a must and does not always yield the same results.

Many stores do not allow mid shoe entry so, back counting is not an option and a concept like you described is very useful.

As for knowing more about me that I am aware, I am not sure what that means but if you have a question you can PM me and I will be glad to answer.

Happy Variance!

[Three]

Great post Stealth. I had to reread Romes' post to give it proper context.

One question about your post:
Usually people count rounds observed in the n0 when back counting. Does the 23,172 rounds to hit EV = 2 SD's for back include hands observed?

I would like to comment for those learning the stats that if you are concerned with swings n0 is very important to minimize. SCORE has an inverse relationship to n0 so maximizing SCORE is the same thing. n0 just uses a much larger scale so differences are easier to see and it quantifies just how many rounds to reach 1 SD in EV. This makes the time to the long run much more relatable than SCORE for me anyway. The quicker you reach n0 the quicker swings will be recovered from and often the shorter the duration swings tend to be and they occur with less frequency. Understanding this concept can turn simple systems into much more palatable results for those that are affected by swings either due to a lack of the stomach for them or a BR that is insufficient to withstand them. This is what many are talking about when they say your count is a low priority as to what you should be considering when making a plan of attack. There are many other things besides n0/SCORE as well. Beginners need to learn the nuts and bolts of the game as a top priority. This is one demonstration in how knowing them helps to increase your chances of success greatly with whatever count you may have chosen to use.

[BJGenius007]

On the issue of N0 coming faster I ran your examples and a sim of all play:

Romes.JPG

Each were run as an independent sim:

Note: N0 does not improve exponentially, in fact it becomes worse when compared to Wonging in at TC+2. It is not my intention to discredit your post but it is my intention to get the correct data out there for the OP to evaluate while contemplating on how to play.

I agree with your concept but would point out that the ability to do either is a casino condition. Structuring your betting to fit the your bank and your ability to play is a must and does not always yield the same results.

Many stores do not allow mid shoe entry so, back counting is not an option and a concept like you described is very useful.

As for knowing more about me that I am aware, I am not sure what that means but if you have a question you can PM me and I will be glad to answer.

Happy Variance!

The best post in recent months. Unlike all other cry babies' posts.

[Romes]

Agreed good post Stealth; I enjoyed seeing those numbers. This is one of those paper vs life situations, at least a little bit, to me. While you can hit your N0 in 1/10 the time purely back counting, you're also playing 10x the hands (or more) when using a play all approach. Thus, the time to actually hit your N0 can be quite miss leading with your post as it doesn't also run the sim and count the number of hands per hour the player is actually playing. There should be another column for hands played over the course of how ever many shoes your sim ran... I'd be willing to wager the "play through" hands played is 10x or more than the back counting, which would bring the time frame very similar, if not quicker with a play all. Yes, the change in variance/etc/etc, but any semi-pro or pro should have an appropriate bankroll that can stand the change from the discussed back counting to play all technique.

Back counting is a very tedious slow process and as mentioned prior if you don't have a lot of places to play, I personally don't believe you'll be able to do it for very long (be a pure back count player). The real world application of pure back counting to me is not applicable/probable. I'll leave room for correction, as I may be wrong because I don't back count other than just to jump on my first table or if I'm in a situation watching a friend play/etc, but there was a time I started with back counting and I found out quickly that it was just to obvious, brought too much heat, was too much tedious grinding and standing for hours on end... So when I found I could get the same results with a play through with a minimal shift in variance, much less heat, up my hourly EV, etc, etc, for my situation and to me it was obvious to use a play through approach.

[Three]

Thus, the time to actually hit your N0 can be quite miss leading with your post as it doesn't also run the sim and count the number of hands per hour the player is actually playing.

N0 usually counts hands observed not just hands played. I asked Stealth to say whether or not he followed this normal convention. Waiting for the reply.

[Stealth]

One question about your post:
Usually people count rounds observed in the n0 when back counting. Does the 23,172 rounds to hit EV = 2 SD's for back include hands observed?

The short answer is no. Certainly, have no issue showing both as players need to understand both to make good decisions.

Like many things, it depends. Taking any of the metrics alone can produce a dangerous half truth. It is their context that makes them of value.

While I am very aware of the back counter "playing all the hands at $0 bets", it becomes more confusing when you have 4 back counters and 2 BP's and the back counters can count two tables at once. What real value is it to know that you did not play the hands while back counting. If I am counting two tables, do I include both sets of numbers?

I believe N0 is intended to show me how many rounds needed to overcome SD, not time. Do not like mixing apples and oranges. I choose to use the absolute concept of rounds played. If you ask me how long "in time" to get there, then I do another calculation using concepts similar to those shown in BJA3 Chapter 1 regarding BC/spotters. A player entering at TC+2 and playing until the end of shoe or a TC-1 of less, will play an average of 16 rounds (my experience at 2 spots) in 6 deck games and little more in 8 deck. So, you can reverse the N0 into time by dividing by either of these and get the number of "call ins" or shoes played. How many callings can I get per hour? It then becomes a probability problem related to back counting and how many shoes goes positive early enough to warrant entering the game.

I find the "pivot" point of a card counter becoming an AP to be when they master the understanding of all parts of the game. It is with this knowledge that the AP can begin to meld with the "art" of playing and become, not just an AP, but an effective AP.

[Three]

A player entering at TC+2 and playing until the end of shoe or a TC-1 of less, will play an average of 16 rounds (my experience at 2 spots) in 6 deck games and little more in 8 deck.

As a solo player I never think about what I am about to ask but since backcounting is better suited to a call in situation this comment sparks a question. Does the added time for each spotter to get to a call in on average for a 8 deck shoe versus a 6 deck shoe ever become offset by the added rounds played at each 8 deck shoe call-in (Obviously talking about averages here)? Or is the difference so trivial as to be a non-issue?

[Stealth]

Does the added time for each spotter to get to a call in on average for a 8 deck shoe versus a 6 deck shoe ever become offset by the added rounds played at each 8 deck shoe call-in (Obviously talking about averages here)? Or is the difference so trivial as to be a non-issue?

Assuming I understand your question correctly, the number of rounds played for 6d callin was 16 and 18 for 8d. I do not think I have enough data from my experience to answer but my intuition says the difference is trivial. You can add value with a designed protocol that lets the BP remain after the shoe ends and play off the top in the new shoe. The protocol was intended to illustrate we were playing off the top for the EITS and to take advantage of possible positive variance with low risk and the potential that this shoe might go positive quickly. It will often enough to make this worthwhile.

If back counting, abandon any 6d shoe that is -6 RC or three decks in. If 8d abandon at -8 and four decks in. Spotters, obviously were playing through the shoe, but were not to call in BP past the three or four deck in limits. You objective is to get seated at a positive count.

I am aware of one player that back counted himself into 18 shoes in one day. I am also aware of multiple back counters spending 2 hours and not having any shoe go positive.

Planning for such a play, at this point, becomes complex and casino dependent.

If you are a lone wolf, then do not abandon the concept of back counting, just add it to your arsenal and use it when possible. Adding a few "BP" sessions is very accretive to your success. If nothing else, use it to enter a table that you are going to then convert to ALL Play wong out. Doing one and then playing will not add heat (assuming you play does not add heat).

[Stealth]

I'd be willing to wager the "play through" hands played is 10x or more than the back counting, which would bring the time frame very similar, if not quicker with a play all.

Ok, let's remember, I don't back count them all! I skipped most of them. Only enough to get a call in TC. It is a imaginary set of rounds. That is one of the situations why I said I do not like apples compared to oranges!

So, I am back counting two tables simultaneously and both go positive and I call in two BPs'. How do I count that? It's meaningless. What is important is how many counts per hour I can get in.

In an imaginary world where I could back count all I wanted and you could play all you wanted, and given the same bets at counts, I will overwhelm you in EV. Remember, I only play positive counts. So from a time perspective, I am either looking for positive counts (and abandoning shoes that do not go positive early) at a fresh opportunity or I am playing positive counts. I am not wasting time playing, or wonged out and waiting, negative counts.

All in all, this can become a very complex problem to dissect and plan. If you are a lone wolf it is a tool not to be ignored but to be used appropriately.

Again, I am not really interested in how many rounds I avoided. I don't make in money counting avoided rounds. I am interested in how many rounds I need to get to my goal and how much time it will take. I am further interested in how to reduce these absolutes by applying more labor.

So enough on back counting. Thanks for all the input and I hope this helps the original poster!

[Romes]

I couldn't agree more that when you down to some of those finite situations it gets hard as how to quantify them. I'm pretty much done with the back counting as I think anyone that reads this thread should have a pretty good understanding no matter what =).

One thing my OCD won't let me not comment on is (especially for anyone newer reading the thread)... The 1-10 spread is super weak on 6D (should be 1-15 at least), as well as upping the bet for the first time at TC +3. It should be upped at TC +2, and the greatest spike in one's spread should be AT TC +3 because of it's frequency (this is the most valuable TC to the player). Lastly, I'm not sure what "Wong out 50%" means. If you Wong out at anything less than TC -1 then I'd think technically you're wonging out of well over 50% of the negatives (at least according to my frequency charts).

[Stealth]

Lastly, I'm not sure what "Wong out 50%" means. If you Wong out at anything less than TC -1 then I'd think technically you're wonging out of well over 50% of the negatives (at least according to my frequency charts).

I agree with your comments. Tailoring your bet ramps at the true count level is very important. With a large enough bank, top limits for bet ramps were controlled by what we thought we could get away with. In fact, flat betting in a BP play reduces the playing heat but you need to watch the team play aspects. They do not like team players.

My models will let me adjust the frequencies as needed. I set the example at 50%. I ran another one at 80%, certainly helps but didn't really effect the conversation.

Enjoyed the discourse.

[cjjellie]

Hey everyone, thank you for a great thread. I'm one of the newbies who don't often post, but I read almost everything and have learned a lot. This entire thread was incredibly informative.