I will say more - all professional trekkers I know have used this strategy, agreeing with Snyder's findings. I'm not talking about keys and sequences, I'm talking about tracking slugs and segments.Originally Posted by G Man
Playing a slug with an excess of aces and a deficit of tens can be losing your ass, which is what happened to most Ace hunters who don't understand the math of Blackjack.
Last edited by Gramazeka; 03-06-2021 at 03:16 PM.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
Just took a quick look at it and from what I can tell from those pages Snyder is advising against all other spots at max bets, which would definitely be a mistake.
I think it was very wise of him to include that heads up since playing only one hand in that situation might feel counter-intuitive to a person not familiar with the math of it.
One of the problems with ace tracking is it is difficult to generalize the process. With straight card counting, you just follow the rules. With tracking, the particular situation may require quick improvisation.
But, that isn't how this conversation started. There is a difference between how to play dependent upon overall ace v ten richness (side counting) and slug tracking.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
True, but for that particular section I believe he was analyzing the cost of steering in sequencing strategies.
I find it very strange that in that same section he didnt cover the possibility of doing it with minimum bets to cover or steer for the max bet.
Maybe he didnt do it on purpose.
If I remember correctly he starts the book warning readers that some information is purposely not covered.
Yes, he would.
The section of the book where he writes about that is specific about sequencing under the title "The cost of steering".
These are specific quotes:
"This might seem to imply that it might be always optimal to play multiple hands (and perhaps as many as possible!) in order to catch a sequenced ace. But this is not necessarily so. We must also consider the cost of the hands that dont catch an ace." P.75
"I am of the opinion that players who sequence aces would often find it more profitable in the long run to play a single hand when the key card/s predict an ace is coming." P.75
"Your chance of getting that ace may be greater than the dealer's chance if you play multiple hands, but the cost to you is so much higher when you miss." P.75
I understand perfectly well what you are talking about in regards to A/T density. Maybe you are refering to a different section of the Cookbook from the one I was refered to.
How to capture Ace with the first card? Here I disagree with him. Transfer the meaning of everything Snyder said from sequencing to slug tracking and everything will be right.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
Indeed.
What Im guessing is he was trying to advice against playing multiple hands at max bets following the intuitive logic that more hands = more chances of getting the ace.
I do find it very surprising that he didn't write anything about the possibility of doing that with minimum bets for steering purposes or to cover for the max bet.
Since this is the strategy used by almost all sequencing teams (at least the ones I know) maybe he didn't write about it on purpose.
Hope you are doing well my friend.
What Snyder meant was: When tracking a specific Ace, using key cards for location and alone with the dealer. If you're not 100% (and you rarely are) sure of the position the Ace will land, keep it simple and play only one hand. By doing this, you will "split the Aces" with the dealer, giving you an overall edge of approximately 9% on each of these trials.
52% when you get it.
-34% when the dealer gets it.
This gives 18% on two trials for a net of 9% per trial.
G Man
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks