at what rc/tc do you leave the table?

[SplitFaceDisaster]

I’ll have to look for that. From an intuitive perspective, I dont know why that would be case. Taking heat out of the equation, there is simply too much potential for a max bet.

This intrigued me too, so I just scanned through that chapter again. It`s complicated, but the brief explanation is that it has to do with the potential of finding a better shoe with higher count possibilities. The longer the lag, or time it takes you to start find and start playing (or back-counting depending on your approach) another shoe, the more patient you can afford to be late in the shoe when you have a small advantage. Even when there is a 3 minute lag in starting another shoe though, you still leave a slightly advantageous count late in the current shoe at the exit points in the charts starting on page 360 (third edition). He explains the part I just talked about on the bottom of page 357. As I said though, it`s really complicated, so only reading the whole chapter will give anyone a full understanding of what`s going on. Hopefully Don doesn`t think this is too gross of an oversimplification, but it should answer your question for the most part.

[Freightman]

This intrigued me too, so I just scanned through that chapter again. It`s complicated, but the brief explanation is that it has to do with the potential of finding a better shoe with higher count possibilities. The longer the lag, or time it takes you to start find and start playing (or back-counting depending on your approach) another shoe, the more patient you can afford to be late in the shoe when you have a small advantage. Even when there is a 3 minute lag in starting another shoe though, you still leave a slightly advantageous count late in the current shoe at the exit points in the charts starting on page 360 (third edition). He explains the part I just talked about on the bottom of page 357. As I said though, it`s really complicated, so only reading the whole chapter will give anyone a full understanding of what`s going on. Hopefully Don doesn`t think this is too gross of an oversimplification, but it should answer your question for the most part.

Kinda sorta sounds like similar principles of spreading to 2 in negative counts. I’ll retook at that, but most of my oKay is heads up anyways, so the factor you’ve listed will not apply.

Speaking of which, I’m reminded of my red chip days playing a full table. At mid shoe or so, a minor counter took a whiz break for the usual AP reasons. When he returned, he saw my last 3 or 4 bets were max.

[DSchles]

This intrigued me too, so I just scanned through that chapter again. It`s complicated, but the brief explanation is that it has to do with the potential of finding a better shoe with higher count possibilities. The longer the lag, or time it takes you to start find and start playing (or back-counting depending on your approach) another shoe, the more patient you can afford to be late in the shoe when you have a small advantage. Even when there is a 3 minute lag in starting another shoe though, you still leave a slightly advantageous count late in the current shoe at the exit points in the charts starting on page 360 (third edition). He explains the part I just talked about on the bottom of page 357. As I said though, it`s really complicated, so only reading the whole chapter will give anyone a full understanding of what`s going on. Hopefully Don doesn`t think this is too gross of an oversimplification, but it should answer your question for the most part.

Very nicely done! Readers should understand that, in 40 years of doing blackjack research, this was the most challenging, complicated project I have ever been involved in -- as documented and described in the chapter.

Don

[SplitFaceDisaster]

Very nicely done! Readers should understand that, in 40 years of doing blackjack research, this was the most challenging, complicated project I have ever been involved in -- as documented and described in the chapter.

Don

Thanks Don, glad I got it right. It`s hard to sum up something like briefly. Yes, I remember reading that part of how challenging it was. I can`t even begin to imagine all the different parameters involved in simulating something so complicated!

[SplitFaceDisaster]

Kinda sorta sounds like similar principles of spreading to 2 in negative counts. I’ll retook at that, but most of my oKay is heads up anyways, so the factor you’ve listed will not apply.

Speaking of which, I’m reminded of my red chip days playing a full table. At mid shoe or so, a minor counter took a whiz break for the usual AP reasons. When he returned, he saw my last 3 or 4 bets were max.

The look on his face must have been priceless! This makes me think of how badly I hate playing at full tables or even with more than two people. For many reasons, but mainly because of something similar to what you described. Specifically how the count can go up soooo quickly just in one round. When this happens it`s impossible to bet exactly to the count without making an absolutely huge bet jump.

[Freightman]

Very nicely done! Readers should understand that, in 40 years of doing blackjack research, this was the most challenging, complicated project I have ever been involved in -- as documented and described in the chapter.

Don

Don, it’s Saturday night - I’m watching TV and reading the appropriate chapter. Not withstanding some really interesting commentary on page 349, paragraph 3, and of course the more than interesting verbiage, it is clear that one of your protagonists, Mr. Perfect, was recruited to join your blackjack ménage a trois.

Accordingly, Mr. Perfect, is now exposed.

https://youtu.be/_ixzEcIY8SI

I will comment further after studying the graphs.