New deck at cut

[Archvaldor]

In theory, back-counting 10 tables would basically give you 1000 hands an hour. So a SCORE of $5 could end up being a winrate of $50. But I don't think anyone can accurately count down 10 games at once.

Really not sure why people think this is hard. Have you actually tried it? You know people 20-table at online poker? That's a lot harder.

Even without automation you could still record the count manually with notepad or something if you have real trouble keeping track.

[moo321]

Really not sure why people think this is hard.

Because we know how hard it is to count one table.

[Archvaldor]

Because we know how hard it is to count one table.

As I just explained very clearly it is nothing like trying to count in a physical casino location. To reiterate:

1. It is 2x5 times slower per table.
2. No distractuons
3. No heat.
4. Vastly fewer complex decisions.
5. Counting aids can be used.
6. Simplified chip inventory management.
7 Playing departures are not required.
9.Skipping hands is much more practical.

Not sure why this is so difficult for b&m counters to understand. Spend an hour doing it then it becomes very obvious how much simpler it is than counting in rl.

[moo321]

As I just explained very clearly it is nothing like trying to count in a physical casino location. To reiterate:

1. It is 2x5 times slower per table.
2. No distractuons
3. No heat.
4. Vastly fewer complex decisions.
5. Counting aids can be used.
6. Simplified chip inventory management.
7 Playing departures are not required.
9.Skipping hands is much more practical.

Not sure why this is so difficult for b&m counters to understand. Spend an hour doing it then it becomes very obvious how much simpler it is than counting in rl.

If it's way slower than regular games, then it's not a good game. Your whole premise was that you were getting lots of hands an hour, so a single digit SCORE could still be viable. If you're only getting 200 hands an hour (10 games at 20 hands an hour), the winrate probably isn't minimum wage. The SCORE on those kinds of games is seriously awful.

[Archvaldor]

If it's way slower than regular games, then it's not a good game. Your whole premise was that you were getting lots of hands an hour

No that was not the whole premise. In fact it was not a premise at all. I never said any such thing.

If you're only getting 200 hands an hour (10 games at 20 hands an hour), the winrate probably isn't minimum wage.

Your simulation indicated a play-all approach. There's no reason not to skip hands outside of being timed out. That's a major advantage of online play. So your numbers are way off.

Game speed: I said that online games are 2 to 5x slower. That is true of online blackjack generally.

Now there are games which equal or exceed 50 hands per hour and obviously all things being equal a counter seeks those out. As you do with speed, better penetration and rule sets in real casinos.

You don't seem to know that many online games deal a single hand to all players which is generally a much faster game. But still very easy to count comparative to real world games. Obviously that is a type of online blackjack a counter would focus on.

The SCORE on those kinds of games is seriously awful.

Generally speaking counting online is more profitable than in the real world. Especially when you factor in the horrendous cost of downtime travelling to casino locations and the cost of expenses.

I won't even get into the physical risks involved with offline play such as having your money stolen by policemen, being thrown out of your hotel at 3 am, back-roomed, or even physically assaulted / wrongly arrested. That stuff is very expensive and time-consuming to deal with.

[toolyp]

Are you talking US-based online casinos? I've definitely seen cheating with foreign casinos. Several times. Lost 20 hands in a row at one casino.


Plus payout problems, which is the more common form of cheating.

Losing 20 hands in row online appears to be more common than admitted. But no winning 20 hands in row has been honestly reported. Talking here about playing with real money. Playing for fun is a totally different game. You get plenty of 10+ winning streaks. Plus lots of money you cant cash out because it’s not real. Say nothing of real money.

“payout problems”? No, they are nightmares! The best expectation – you threaten with public exposure.; they close your account and refund your deposit. No win, no loss.

This might as well be advertising in disguise for online casinos. No offence, just my honest exposure.

[moo321]

No that was not the whole premise. In fact it was not a premise at all. I never said any such thing.



Your simulation indicated a play-all approach. There's no reason not to skip hands outside of being timed out. That's a major advantage of online play. So your numbers are way off.

Game speed: I said that online games are 2 to 5x slower. That is true of online blackjack generally.

Now there are games which equal or exceed 50 hands per hour and obviously all things being equal a counter seeks those out. As you do with speed, better penetration and rule sets in real casinos.

You don't seem to know that many online games deal a single hand to all players which is generally a much faster game. But still very easy to count comparative to real world games. Obviously that is a type of online blackjack a counter would focus on.



Generally speaking counting online is more profitable than in the real world. Especially when you factor in the horrendous cost of downtime travelling to casino locations and the cost of expenses.

I won't even get into the physical risks involved with offline play such as having your money stolen by policemen, being thrown out of your hotel at 3 am, back-roomed, or even physically assaulted / wrongly arrested. That stuff is very expensive and time-consuming to deal with.

I assumed you were back-counting it. Play all, you can't even get an edge on a 8d H17 game with 50% pen with a 1-20 spread. Even with back-counting, the SCORE is abysmal. I'm getting $2.76.

Sim.jpg

[Gronbog]

Losing 20 hands in row online appears to be more common than admitted. But no winning 20 hands in row has been honestly reported

I have experienced both not only online but in brick and mortar casinos as well.

One thing about perception and online play is that, while the frequency of rare events remains the same, it feels like these things happen more often online because, in terms of elapsed time, they do. On some online (but not live) blackjack apps, I can play between 600 and 700 rounds per hour. It's like experiencing an hour of fast real-life play every 10 minutes or an hour of slow play every 6 minutes. You will see a lot of "rare" stuff happening during a 2 or 3 hour online session. If you play online regularly you'll see a decade's worth of "rare" occurrences every year.

[toolyp]

I have experienced both not only online but in brick and mortar casinos as well.

One thing about perception and online play is that, while the frequency of rare events remains the same, it feels like these things happen more often online because, in terms of elapsed time, they do. On some online (but not live) blackjack apps, I can play between 600 and 700 rounds per hour. It's like experiencing an hour of fast real-life play every 10 minutes or an hour of slow play every 6 minutes. You will see a lot of "rare" stuff happening during a 2 or 3 hour online session. If you play online regularly you'll see a decade's worth of "rare" occurrences every year.

The probability for a 20-streak in 700 rounds is extremely low. Even in 7000 hands (10 hours). Worse, only the negative streak hits the player. How many 20-hands win streaks did you have in any, say 7000 rounds? Zero, reality or perception. The long streaks are lobsided in favor of the house. It is not “the memory is selective” as casinos explain. No offence, just my honest exposure.

[DSchles]

Partial explanation: You lose more hands than you win. Win 43%, lose 48%, tie 9%. When doing the streak calculations, the 5% difference between win and lose is significant.

Don

[Archvaldor]

I assumed you were back-counting it. Play all, you can't even get an edge on a 8d H17 game with 50% pen with a 1-20 spread. Even with back-counting, the SCORE is abysmal. I'm getting $2.76.

Sim.jpg

That's not how you back-count an online game.You aren't just watching the game, you close down any negative count and open another game. It is as if you are getting the dealer to shuffle away negative or neutral counts.

Saying "you can't even get an edge" makes no sense. You get an edge in any game where a positive expectation occurs by playing only when the positive expectation occurs.

Id add that no one should do this on a 10k fixed bankroll. A major advantage of online play is that dynamic resizing can be done much more quickly which translates into faster bankroll growth than a flat win rate implies.

[Archvaldor]

The probability for a 20-streak in 700 rounds is extremely low.

It is. However the problem is that you aren't measuring the probability of a losing streak you are measuring the probability of a losing streak in a dishonest game.

Even with quite a lot of cheating the probability of experiencing such a streak is quite low.

It really is better to focus on a large sample size rather than something weird which happened within it.

This might as well be advertising in disguise for online casinos

To make this clear: I fucking hate the gambling industry. Online is every bit as bad as offline.

That said I made a ton of money online, mainly from bonuses. Cheating is no worse than offline: I have a huge sample of play to justify that.

Card counting offline and online is a very weak form of advantage play with extreme fluctuations. Most people who try it will give up. I don't recommend it to anybody.

[Gronbog]

The probability for a 20-streak in 700 rounds is extremely low. Even in 7000 hands (10 hours).

I agree. I didn't say I was seeing this kind of streak once every 700 or 7000 rounds. I said that I have seen them during my career, both online and in real casinos. These are once in a lifetime events in a real casino but possibly several times in a lifetime playing fast online apps.

Worse, only the negative streak hits the player.

Not in my experience. I have seen them both ways.

How many 20-hands win streaks did you have in any, say 7000 rounds? Zero, reality or perception

This question has no meaning. I have seen such a streak, meaning it is not impossible. During which particular 7000 rounds it happened is irrelevant.