New deck at cut

[Archvaldor]

Are you talking about back-counting these games? I guess you could get a tiny edge, but I don't see how you're keeping the count on ten tables without a computer program. Maybe that's your move.

Playing multiple tables has multiplicative gains. A SCORE of 7 is equivalent to 70 with ten tables.

You do not need any special skills to do this. The games are very slow and you have a fraction of the cognitive distractions you would in a casino. I don't believe any one who can count a single table in a physical casino environment can't count at least 4 at a time.

If someone did find this challenging then you can just literally close any table which doesn't immediately go positive post-deal. And forget about any playing departures since it contributes almost nothing. TC conversion can be simplified greatly because the game will only be worth betting at the death of the deal. Though I think you would find avoiding being bored to death is the biggest challenge here, not the mental difficulty.

[theblackjackplayer]

Can a game with 50% pen really be beaten though?

The issue is that you need a high count to have an edge nevermind the penetration level. Usually the high count doesnt come about early. So, by the time you have a playable count they are going to re-shuffle already. You dig?

[Archvaldor]

The issue is that you need a high count to have an edge nevermind the penetration level. Usually the high count doesnt come about early. So, by the time you have a playable count they are going to re-shuffle already. You dig?

That's actually one of the reasons why this can work though.You actually need do very little most of the time. So playing 10 tables at once isn't really that mentally challenging since you are basically just scanning each table for a massive excess of low cards on a hand. Takes only a fraction of a second with practice.

[G Man]

Playing multiple tables has multiplicative gains. A SCORE of 7 is equivalent to 70 with ten tables.

LOL, since when 10 bad things makes a good thing ?
3 baseball hitters of 0.100 do not make a 0.300 hitter.

[moo321]

LOL, since when 10 bad things makes a good thing ?
3 baseball hitters of 0.100 do not make a 0.300 hitter.

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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