It is not length of life, but depth of penetration

[aceside]

At https://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration1.htm, Norm demonstrates why the depth of penetration is important in card counting of blackjack. The deeper the penetration in the shoe, the larger the range of HiLo true count.

When the penetration is one deck or 52 cards, Norm shows in a chart there that the true count range is -7~+8. This does not make sense to me. Suppose 52 ten-valued cards are dealt out from a six-deck shoe, then the true count will become -52/5=-10.4, which is out of the above range. Do I miss something here?

[bigplayer]

It's the number of cards remaining when you make your final wager that matters, not as much the percentage of cards dealt or left. 50% pen on a 2D game is 1 deck remaining. Run some simulations. When you're heads up the difference between a 6D game and a 2D game both with 1 deck cutoff is almost negligible when you use the same spread. Play the 2D game with 1 cut like it's a shoe game, either giant insulting spread or aggressively table hop and you'll crush it. Play it with a conventional 1-6 double deck spread and your N0 will massive. If the casino offers a poor game but is also aggressive with active game protection that casino is basically unplayable. Most casinos that offer poor games do it because they don't give a darn about counters and think their game is unbeatable. For players that lack balls to spread massively the casino is right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aceside]

When you're heads up the difference between a 6D game and a 2D game both with 1 deck cutoff is almost negligible when you use the same spread.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, but the floating advantage is higher in a six-deck shoe. This makes a 6-deck shoe more preferable than a 2-deck shoe for card counters. This does not make sense either. I am confused even more.

[Norm]

Suppose 52 ten-valued cards are dealt out from a six-deck shoe, then the true count will become -52/5=-10.4

That chart was a small sim at only 400 million rounds. Not likely to be dealt 52 ten value cards in that many rounds. I likely also trimmed outliers. The reason I did not include tables with the charts on that site is that the charts are meant to be illustrative only. There are so many, namy variables I didn't want anyone to think they applied numerically to their exact situation. I also applied b-spline smoothing to some of the charts to make them more clear.

You can do this in CVData charts that you generate by clicking on Options-Smoothing in the menu. Or, if you wish to just smooth one series in a chart:
-Right-click on a chart and click Chart designer
-Open the Series submenu
-Click on the desired plot
-Select the desired smoothing function

[DSchles]

It's the number of cards remaining when you make your final wager that matters, not as much the percentage of cards dealt or left. 50% pen on a 2D game is 1 deck remaining. Run some simulations. When you're heads up the difference between a 6D game and a 2D game both with 1 deck cutoff is almost negligible when you use the same spread. Play the 2D game with 1 cut like it's a shoe game, either giant insulting spread or aggressively table hop and you'll crush it. Play it with a conventional 1-6 double deck spread and your N0 will massive. If the casino offers a poor game but is also aggressive with active game protection that casino is basically unplayable. Most casinos that offer poor games do it because they don't give a darn about counters and think their game is unbeatable. For players that lack balls to spread massively the casino is right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the BJA3 summary charts for 6-deck and DD games, you will see that for 52/104 with a 1-8 spread, the SCORE is 33, while the 5/6 SCORE with the same spread, is only 25. I'm thinking that no matter what you would increase the spread to, DD will win.

Don

[Dog Hand]

<snip>When the penetration is one deck or 52 cards, Norm shows in a chart there that the true count range is -7~+8. This does not make sense to me. Suppose 52 ten-valued cards are dealt out from a six-deck shoe, then the true count will become -52/5=-10.4, which is out of the above range. Do I miss something here?

aceside,

Yes, you are missing something here.

To have a RC of -52 when exactly 52 cards have been dealt means that ALL 52 dealt cards are Bigs (Aces, Faces, or Tens). The probability of this happening from a 6D shoe (which initially has 120 Bigs and 312 total cards) is given by this equation:

prob = (120/312)*(119/311)*(118/310)*...*(71/263)*(70/262)*(69/261)

Where the ... represents 46 missing fractions. In more compact form, using factorial notation, the probability is given by this:

prob = (120!/68!)/(312!/260!)

The little tablet I am using to type this response is not capable of calculating the probability, but it is somewhere in the range of 10^(-21) to 10^(-32)... That's why it didn't occur in Norm's 400*10^6 round simulation.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

[aceside]

In more compact form, using factorial notation, the probability is given by this:

prob = (120!/68!)/(312!/260!)

The little tablet I am using to type this response is not capable of calculating the probability, but it is somewhere in the range of 10^(-21) to 10^(-32)... That's why it didn't occur in Norm's 400*10^6 round simulation.

Your formula is very concise. Thank you! I calculated this prob = (120!/68!)/(312!/260!)=4.915x10^-34. This means we might have a +TC=-10.4 partial shoe when 52 cards were dealt out in every 2x10^33 whole shoes.

One more thing. Both you and Norm used this term "400 million round simulation" a lot, but this still confuses me as to whether you mean 400 million rounds of blackjack playing or 400 million blackjack shoes for simulating.

[aceside]

That chart was a small sim at only 400 million rounds. Not likely to be dealt 52 ten value cards in that many rounds. I likely also trimmed outliers.

I brought up this topic for me to understand the concept of floating advantage. At this website Blackjack Floating Advantage (blackjackincolor.com), you state that the advantage of a true count increases as the penetration depth increases. Why?

If we break the floating advantage into two parts: one from insurance and the other from non-insurance. Does the advantage from the insurance part increases as the penetration depth increases? I recall we discussed this earlier and the conclusion was that the advantage from the insurance part does not vary with the penetration depth.

[Gronbog]

Both you and Norm used this term "400 million round simulation" a lot, but this still confuses me as to whether you mean 400 million rounds of blackjack playing or 400 million blackjack shoes for simulating.

The answer to your question is right there in the original statement.

[aceside]

The answer to your question is right there in the original statement.

After each round of simulation, do you discard that shoe and then start a new round of simulation using a newly shuffled shoe?

[21forme]

After each round of simulation, do you discard that shoe and then start a new round of simulation using a newly shuffled shoe?

Explain to us how a TC of say +3 can be reached in the first round.

Do you ever think before you post your nonsense?

[Norm]

After each round of simulation, do you discard that shoe and then start a new round of simulation using a newly shuffled shoe?

That's not how simulation is generally performed. Makes no sense.

[DSchles]

At this website Blackjack Floating Advantage (blackjackincolor.com), you state that the advantage of a true count increases as the penetration depth increases. Why?

BJA3 chapter 6. Might pay to reread it.

Don