Double Deck ace rich/poor and betting.

[ZeeBabar]

I play DD, $25 min. Game, double 9-11 only, 75% penn. I play HiLo, I-18 only. The question is, does your bet vary based upon whether the deck is Ace rich or Ace poor?

For example, my betting calls for $100 at TC+2. Should the bet be the same if after a deck has been played, the TC is Plus2 but 6 Aces have been played or no Aces have been played? I wonder if the bet should be smaller if 6 Aces have been played and there is less chance of a BJ?

I am still far from being an AP, just a counter still learning.

[Meistro123]

I play DD, $25 min. Game, double 9-11 only, 75% penn. I play HiLo, I-18 only. The question is, does your bet vary based upon whether the deck is Ace rich or Ace poor?

I think what you want, ceteris parabis, is for the deck to be ace neutral, since this will give you the best chances of a blackjack. Of course the "shoe" being out of aces is a serious problem and one which should restrict you to table minimum.


I also found it helpful to keep my side count of aces as 'a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h' instead of 1-8. Less chance of confusing main count with side count that way.


How have you been using your ace side count for playing decisions? For insurance I add +2 or -2 for each extra ace. Presumably for a close 11 double the number of aces could be important info.

[Meistro123]

I guess the best thing to do would be to simulate it.

[RCJH]

Zee, you just pointed out the big flaw of HiLo. You could reach TC+2 with every single ace gone, and you have zero chance of getting a natural. Zero. Zip. Zilch. You can get a good hand, but no BJ.

I personally bet more in an ace rich deck, but my count doesn't place the aces in the same bucket as tens.

I'll let the math whizzes take it from there...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ZenMaster_Flash]

KUDOS to RCJH ...

Not side-counting Aces is a flaw of most Level One counts alright;
while the other major flaw revolves around all of the low ranks being
tagged the same -- as if a 2 or a 7 have the same E.O.R. as a 4 or a 5.
That leads to Counts that are falsely high OR falsely low much of the time.

[Frank Galvin]

I think what you want, ceteris parabis, is for the deck to be ace neutral, since this will give you the best chances of a blackjack. Of course the "shoe" being out of aces is a serious problem and one which should restrict you to table minimum.

Really? That's what you want to be paid to teach?

Insert huge level of SARCASM here:

I wonder if Tarzan, ZMF, or others who side count Aces pray that their decks/shoes are not Ace rich, but rather, prefer to play in an Ace neutral situation?

[GeorgeJung]

For insurance I add +2 or -2 for each extra ace.

And why would a side count of aces change your insurance desicion? lol.

[Meistro123]

Because the ace is not a ten.

[Meistro123]

Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

Zee, you just pointed out the big flaw of HiLo. You could reach TC+2 with every single ace gone, and you have zero chance of getting a natural.

Are you saying this cannot happen with other systems?

[Frank Galvin]

Not if your main, linear count does not assign a tag value to Aces, and you just side count them, such as either Hi-Opt system, Omega II, Uston APC, and others.

Or if you deploy a nontraditional counting system with a betting adjusted side count ("BASC" - hey Tthree, you around), balancing Aces against another rank.

[Meistro123]

It's kind of a moot point anyway since if you keep a side count, as you should for pitch, there is no danger of this happening with Hi-Lo.

[GeorgeJung]

Because the ace is not a ten.

Then why add +2 or -2 if you use hi-lo - a lvl1 countsystem?

And why add it when hi-lo is ace-reckoned?

[Meistro123]

after giving a little more thought to OP's question it is very clear that having extra aces is always a good thing, because the ratio of tens to aces is already 4:1 so having a surplus of aces is only going to increase your chances of getting a blackjack.