Neither hypotheses is correct. Angle Shooters post 11 nicely states that opportunity is magnified when the sum total of choices is restricted.Originally Posted by SiMi
Ever notice that the strike point for various indices is different for the same play, depending on the number of decks in play. Case in point - insurance - most well known Of the indices, which has a higher strike point with greater number of decks in play. Tantamount to the same principle.
Hi, FM
Thanks!
If I follow, you're saying that the denominator is smaller with fewer cards remaining so the edge (calculated from the probabilities based on the composition of the shoe) is magnified in all respects, right? If so (and that is starting to make sense to me) it seems odd that BJ Gods such as Peter Griffin, et al, had any trouble believing in FA, as seems to be revealed on p. 70 of BJA.
BTW, this is not just an academic exercise to me because I enjoy playing where this effect becomes very noticeable due to amazing penetration and this phenomenon has become quite obvious to me over the last year or so. As a result, I went back and re-read BJA and found ch. 6 again. I realized that this was what I was seeing and so I've been trying to sort out exactly what is going on in case I can utilize it fully.
Thanks again,
SiMi
Seems to me that it's not that a particular TC is *worth* more with fewer cards left, but the low number of remaining cards is *itself* advantageous. The TC is *worth* whatever advantage change it normally is, you're just adding/subtracting to a different base advantage depending on the position in the shoe.
So determining your total advantage, you take into account all the normal variables (rules, count, etc.) and then you additionally account for the advantage of having fewer cards remaining, the mechanics of which were described by angle_sh00ter.
Don, you know I love your book but after reading that chapter multiple times, I had the same questions as OP. A (re)explanation of the "why" behind the FA, or at least confirmation if anyone has nailed it or is wildly off course, would be much appreciated.
Read, page 70, towards the bottom, starting with the paragraph that begins with Eureka! Read through to the first five lines of page 71. There isn't much more I can add. The explanation is staring you in the face.
Too many theories here are wrong. Everyone has an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's correct. The answer isn't obvious.
Don
The other day i was walking through a busy casino downtown and i saw a 6 deck shoe table that was completely empty but it still had around 4.5 decks left in the discard tray. It was the only empty table in the casino so i sat down figuring it might be a good opportunity to look like a ploppy and keep me in their good graces a while longer.
I felt like gambling so plopped down 3 max bets and played about 4 rounds before the next shuffle. In that time i got several 20s and BJs and made a very nice profit. Id like to think that its because the TC was sky high and that is the reason the table had been empty. More often than not when the count is climbing higher and higher it means the table is getting creamed.
But i think it illustrates the point of floating advantage at least to my mind. The possible advantage (if the composition is favourable) to the player is heightened to a degree that more than offsets the possible disadvantage if the count in unfavourable.
Now i could be totally wrong about thos but to me that means that sitting down and playing the end of that shoe is better than playing at the start of the shoe (assuming no counting). The floating advantage exists regardless of whether you know the TC or not. It just means that the potential up side is amplified.
The mechanics involved which are responsible for the phenomen seem to be what is of interest here. I think it has to be something intrinsic to the game itself which has nothing to do with counting. Thats why i speculated that the increased frequency of blackjacks could be at least partly underpinning it.
FA does NOT apply to a BS player!! It has no effect whatsoever on a BS player. Fewer decks in play, after starting with a greater number, does NOT help a BS player! You have to know the count in order for FA to make sense.
If you shuffle six decks and play BS off the top, do you think your edge instantly becomes greater if you throw five decks on the floor and play BS with the one deck that remains??!!
Don
"Now I could be totally wrong about this"
You are totally wrong about this!
"but to me that means that sitting down and playing the end of that shoe is better than playing at the start of the shoe (assuming no counting)."
Absolutely, positively false!
"The floating advantage exists regardless of whether you know the TC or not."
Sheer heresy. Yet again, consider the following. Shuffle six decks. Play basic strategy off the top, for the first of the six decks. Now, throw away the next four decks, leaving only one deck in your hand -- the bottom, or last deck of the six. Has your BS edge somehow magically just increased, compared to off the top??? Is there something magical about that final deck? If you answered yes, then consider another scenario: shuffle the six decks and, just as you are about to play BS off the top deck one, turn the entire pack upside down, and play BS from the last deck instead! Did your edge just increase??!!
Or do you think there's some sort of difference between actually PLAYING five decks and then using BS on the last deck, as opposed to throwing the five decks away, or turning the six-deck pack upside down?
Do you understand how silly the thought process you're espousing is?
Don
Hmm i may have poorly expressed my thoughts.
Off course your edge doesnt change just by flipping the cards upside down. You are still playing from 6 standard decks. Your edge will be exactly what the house edge is for a 6 deck game with whatever the rules are.
But are you saying that if you randomly shuffle the 6 decks and then randomly take 52 cards and then play a hand from just those 52 cards that your edge will be the same as it would be playing a hand dealt from the entire 6 deck shoe?
Im saying it would not and i gave my reasons for why i think that.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks