T3’s multydecks and Mose’s SD

[Freightman]

A lot of what I do I consider proprietary and plan never to discuss it. But I would like to encourage alternative thinking. So, I'm going to sound a lot like T3 in posts, hints but no hard statements.

Here's one example I think people could benefit from pondering.
You sit down at a fresh 6 deck shoe, playing heads up. If the cutoff is one deck there are going to be roughly 50 hands to play. The way I look at EV is simply to apply my advantage to the number of hands using the base bet. I raise much more selectively than T.O. (Thorp Orthodoxy) players, so I don't try and add in every dollar. KISS principle.
So if you are looking for a 1% advantage over the house, I would consider that 1% on every hand played, win lose or draw. That means $5 on that 50 hands using $10 as base bet(1% of $500). (10's are just easier)

So, what is the minimum that you have to do? You play the first hand and win. You have made $10 against that shoe, 2%, twice the EV for the entire shoe. Do you get up? You play the first hand and win a double, 4%, 4 times EV of the entire shoe, and you haven't had to make a raise, do you get up? What is the optimum win? What decides if you stay or get up? What if in the first hand the main count is now -4?

So there's a hint, I'm very much a minimalist. And a microcosm guy instead of macrocosm. Let's say I'm up $100 in the first 15 hands and the main count is -12 and three of the other numbers I count agree with getting out, do I care about the rule of big numbers or that I'm barely into the shoe? Not a whit, I'm getting up with 20% profit on the whole shoe even though I only played 15 hands(figure out that adv. on hands actually played). And if 4 of my numbers said that even though the count was +12 I'd still get up.
Here's a hard statement: I never raise based on main count plus ace count alone and those are the only 2 numbers of 6 that I will define. I could have a true count of +6 and that doesn't necessarily mean I'll raise. I'll be looking hard for corroboration though. It's wonderful built in cover too.

Finally my problem with the bet ramp idea. You ramp your bet because the money advantage shifts slightly to you, not the odds on you winning a hand, so the risk is ramped right up with the bet.
I won't do that. And one of my very first design rules was that any system that lead to a series of large bets is a no go, too much risk. Of course, that is the whole goal of TO play, and the root of all the variance talk. So right from the start I was veering far away from TO. It actually took me quite a while to include a, more or less, hi/lo type of count, I'm very interested in predictability, not slight odds changes.

So, what do you do when your down $100 after the first 15 hands?

[fjrider]

A simple request after two years of posts. If you wish to discuss something different, start a different thread. Clear as a crystal bell.

Incidentally, I've read Whipping Star (precedent to The Dosadi Experiment) three times and was thinking about it a few hours ago on a completely different subject.

Except it wasn't so simple as you disingenuously state. It was insulting, and accused disadvantage forum immediately . With apparently little or no interest in actually thinking about what I said.
You may have done me a favor, no real reason to spread alternate ideas, but there are a couple-three people on here that obviously are capable of thinking beyond conventional wisdom, and I actually really enjoy their posts.
Anyway, I've said it on here before, the "We do it this way because we've always done it this way, everything else had been tried and we know we are doing it the best way it can be done" attitude is quite simply, always wrong.

And I'll answer the question posed, but have no interest in a new thread or continuing this one.

[fjrider]

So, what do you do when your down $100 after the first 15 hands?

I see what my 6 numbers tell me to do.(and actually I'd be checking that a bit before down $100 on a $10 table. T3 has mentioned multiple times losing 24 hands in a row. Which certainly can happen, but not as often as losing 24 hands in one shoe. Why get to 24 in a row?

[Norm]

Except it wasn't so simple as you disingenuously state. It was insulting, and accused disadvantage forum immediately . With apparently little or no interest in actually thinking about what I said.
You may have done me a favor, no real reason to spread alternate ideas, but there are a couple-three people on here that obviously are capable of thinking beyond conventional wisdom, and I actually really enjoy their posts.
Anyway, I've said it on here before, the "We do it this way because we've always done it this way, everything else had been tried and we know we are doing it the best way it can be done" attitude is quite simply, always wrong.

I have been accused hundreds of times for allowing too many T3 posts and other posts providing alternative ideas and not supporting the exact attitude that you are saying is wrong. Now, you are accusing me of the exact opposite.

Just another day in forum-land.

[bjarg]

Anyway, I've said it on here before, the "We do it this way because we've always done it this way, everything else had been tried and we know we are doing it the best way it can be done" attitude is quite simply, always wrong.

If you want to reinvent the wheel and be seen as some sort of innovative genius at least try not to replace it with a square design.

[Freightman]

Just another day in forum-land.

Welcome to Rockyland
https://youtu.be/hA46JMIpzxY

Oops, I meant Normyland

[Freightman]

Freighter. Norm mentioned in his book that deep pen is better in pitch games for Wong Halves. I'm wondering if 6 rounds straight up and two hands on last round is enough.

Deep pen in any game is greater. As far your single deck description - yup, that super qualifies.

[Freightman]

Okay. 2 more questions. How about if a dealer only goes 1 hand on the 6th round but will go 2 on the 5th straight up?

What drew you to Wong Halves?

Notwithstanding heat, what governs everything?
I was playing a decent rule, good, at least for that venue, 55% dd game, $25 min, max $1000, with 2 rounds left and a monstrous TC 12. I wanted to pop out 2x1000, but thought that might be viewed as to big a spread. I restrained myself with 2x500 fir 2 rounds, getting 2 snappers, 1 win, 1 tie.

One if the advantages of ADD, is not being confined to mundane things, like robotic formulas. I do "weibatt" in other words - whatever is best at the time. If I were you (having truly a limited knowledge of what you do) I would conserve that 6 round 2 hand scenario for the truly juicy situations. In the end, pertaining to your market, whatever keeps you safe with the most amount of money on the table.

As for switching to halves - after my dad lost his sight and could no longer drive, I statprted to take him to casinos, and in he scheme if things, discovered and taught myself hi lo. One day, Dad was playing craps, and this fellow was also playing. There was just something about the guy. He then went to p,at blackjack, sat down and I sat down with him. It was before the days before I truly discovered ap protocol. I struck up an obscure conversation with this fellow )0(from out of town) long story short, this guy convinced me to try halves, taught me the rudiments of EV, shuffle tracking, etc.

You've reminded me to call him. I haven't talked to him in a couple if years.

[Freightman]

Regarding weibatt from post above, I've also p,syed dd games with big time scrutiny, quality games, limiting myself to 1-4 and 5. The shit I pulled in the post above would have had me bounced in a microsecond.

What really sucks is high heat on a shitty game.

[Freightman]

I see what my 6 numbers tell me to do.(and actually I'd be checking that a bit before down $100 on a $10 table. T3 has mentioned multiple times losing 24 hands in a row. Which certainly can happen, but not as often as losing 24 hands in one shoe. Why get to 24 in a row?

I was playing a secret honey hole, very recently, with a game that has to be requested. During my 3.5 hours of play, with initial $500 buy in, I went up $1000 reasonably quickly, lost that going in for $1500 total, coming back with 3.66k (3660) win.

Between the 2 extremes, I had a flat betting shoe betting min of $25, losing 400 on the shoe. Would you have left this great quality game, being 1k up, 1.5k down, during the shit shoe just described, or waited till the end.

Oh, forgot - had dinner paid fir as well

[Freightman]

I've been criticized for my so called poor typing skills, and the word "fir" as opposed to fir, oops, for.

Fir is grammatically proper as may be evidenced by the link below.

https://youtu.be/kPgPrtOxvK4

[Freightman]

T3/Freighter. Suppose you could maintain two counts. One count is 661 PE. The other is 996 BC. Would you do it? Could you do it?

Would one take priority over another for raising a bet? Would they both have to be the same?

Before I say - what game are you playing, I would say - interesting. Hopefully, my thoughts will create some discussion.
I have a sense of intermediates during the shoe. I have an exact feel for high cards vs. Low cards.

One of the reasons we get killed in high counts is, for example, a proportion of intermediates equal or close to high cards. One if the reasons we make lots of money in high counts is that there is a close or equal proportion of intermediates to low cards. This kind of discussion feeds nicely into a pet theory of mine, that I call the "waiting big bet"

So, a person with the ability to keep perfect count on all 13 denominations actions in a 6 deck shoe game essentially gets to write his own ticket. Assuming heat is not an issue, my first instinct would be use BC as the guide to where my bet should be. I would then adjust, or temper that bet up or down by what the PE situation is.

Without getting into a lot of detail now, I'll throw out some controversial thoughts. I kinda sorta do that now, without having that exact PE info. It fits nicely into a 2 tiered ramping system that I use that allows me to go up and down with my bets, depending on wins or losses, looking like a ploppy in the process. When I have that sense that things are not right, I stay in the lower ramp. When I have that sense that things are really right, I'm in the higher ramp. When things are average, so to speak, I'm switching between ramps, sometimes increasing my bets with a decreasing count or vice versa. An evaluation of my play would show multi unit bets with higher counts, but it would show inconsistency fir units to actual true count. Interesting shit actually.

There's more, but that should suffice for now.

[Freightman]

In which case, why not keep the tag values where they are and tweak with a side count