Fundamentals of gameplay - Cost of Mid shoe entry cover

[Midnight]

The TC Therorem tells us that the true count will be on average zero and this is validated by simulations from what I've seen. If so, what would be the cost of a counter entering at exactly midshoe on a six deck game with 5/6 pen (without back counting) and playing to the end of the shoe on a table with at most one additional player. If over the long run, he will enter most times at zero and then for the remaining percentage of hands in slightly positive counts due to Floating advantage with depth (hypothetically), I am thinking that the penalty (again over the long run) should not be to costly and he gains additional cover by looking more like a ploppy, who, as we know all to well, will just waddle up to any table and sit at anytime and begin playing. I've been privately debating this with another AP who's position is that entering at a negative count is much more likely than entering at zero with such a strategy. Has anyone ever studied this or are there any opinions here. Would love to here them.

[DSchles]

You have some misunderstanding here. First, if you enter a 5/6 game at the three-deck level, without having back-counted, then you are playing a 2/6 game off the top--a completely useless way to play.

Second, there is no floating advantage if you aren't counting. So, because three decks (which you haven't counted!) have been dealt, that doesn't mean that the count is now "slightly positive" (or, more accurately, that a zero count has a slightly positive edge); it isn't. It is, on average, zero. And, over the next two decks, the floating advantage isn't going to play any role whatsoever, because you aren't nearly deep enough in the shoe for it to manifest itself. Again, you personally are never going to reach 5/6; you're going to reach 3/6. Do you understand?

Finally, your friend is just as wrong. Why would you be more likely to enter at a negative count, rather than at a count of zero? What's the reasoning?

Don

[Freightman]

Further to Don (Schlesinger) Corleone’s comment, another dangerous way of looking at it is starting at RC of zero when you walk in at 3/6 (with 1 deck cut let’s say) and count from there. You don’t have a clue as to what’s really going on.

With thanks to Frankie (Pentangeli) and his avatar for the creation of the Corleone reference referring of course to Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone in the original Godfather movie, circa 1972 - a true classic in every sense of the word.

[Midnight]

You have some misunderstanding here. First, if you enter a 5/6 game at the three-deck level, without having back-counted, then you are playing a 2/6 game off the top--a completely useless way to play.

Second, there is no floating advantage if you aren't counting. So, because three decks (which you haven't counted!) have been dealt, that doesn't mean that the count is now "slightly positive" (or, more accurately, that a zero count has a slightly positive edge); it isn't. It is, on average, zero. And, over the next two decks, the floating advantage isn't going to play any role whatsoever, because you aren't nearly deep enough in the shoe for it to manifest itself. Again, you personally are never going to reach 5/6; you're going to reach 3/6. Do you understand?

Finally, your friend is just as wrong. Why would you be more likely to enter at a negative count, rather than at a count of zero? What's the reasoning?

Don

Thanks, Don — appreciate your taking the time to clarify. I agree with most of what you said, especially regarding the misunderstanding around floating advantage and the importance of not assuming a positive count simply because we’re deeper in the shoe. Now that you've cleared that up, I'm now feeling that my friend's position may not be entirely invalid.

I’ve also been thinking carefully about your point that entering at the 3-deck point in a 6-deck game is essentially the same as playing a 2/6 game off the top. While I understand that analogy in terms of the number of decks left to play, I’m wondering if that fully captures what’s actually happening in the shoe from a practical standpoint.


Here’s what I’m wrestling with:
1. Wouldn’t the three decks already dealt introduce some count drift—even if the expected true count is zero—such that mid-shoe entries might be more likely to occur at negative counts than positive ones (now that you've confirmed there is no floating advantage to create a positive skew)? Not saying the mean isn’t zero, but from a probability distribution perspective, is the count at mid-shoe really symmetric around zero?


2. If that’s the case, wouldn’t a basic strategy player (or a flat bettor) who blindly enters mid-shoe be slightly more likely to walk into a disadvantage than they would in a fresh 2/6 game from the top?


3.If an AP is counting from that point on, isn’t it possible that the volatility in the remaining two decks actually creates more betting opportunities than the same number of hands played from the top? I’ve noticed that late-shoe volatility seems to swing the count more rapidly, which might allow an AP to ramp more effectively, even with fewer rounds.

So my real question is: even if we concede that a blind entry at 3/6 is a slightly suboptimal way to start, does the immediate application of counting and bet spread neutralize (or even outweigh) that small initial disadvantage. This is purely a thought experiment, in no way I am suggesting that anyone should play in this manner. I really value your thoughts on this, and I’m trying to reconcile what I expect intuitively with what the math tells us. Always appreciate your insight.

[Midnight]

Further to Don (Schlesinger) Corleone’s comment, another dangerous way of looking at it is starting at RC of zero when you walk in at 3/6 (with 1 deck cut let’s say) and count from there. You don’t have a clue as to what’s really going on.

With thanks to Frankie (Pentangeli) and his avatar for the creation of the Corleone reference referring of course to Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone in the original Godfather movie, circa 1972 - a true classic in every sense of the word.

Thanks for your response Freightman. Yes, no one would ever do this in practice with their hard earned money. This is purely a theoretical "What if" type inquiry.

[Gronbog]

The answer to all of your questions above stem from this simple fact: Entering a shoe blindly at 3 decks dealt out of 6 is physically and mathematically equivalent to simply taking the cards from the first 3 decks out of the shoe immediately after shuffling and placing them behind the cut card. So, to then answer your questions:

I’ve also been thinking carefully about your point that entering at the 3-deck point in a 6-deck game is essentially the same as playing a 2/6 game off the top. While I understand that analogy in terms of the number of decks left to play, I’m wondering if that fully captures what’s actually happening in the shoe from a practical standpoint.

Yes. Assuming the original penetration is 5/6.

Wouldn’t the three decks already dealt introduce some count drift—even if the expected true count is zero—such that mid-shoe entries might be more likely to occur at negative counts than positive ones

No. Not if the count is balanced.

Not saying the mean isn’t zero, but from a probability distribution perspective, is the count at mid-shoe really symmetric around zero

.
Yes again, if the count is balanced. Why would you think that more high cards are likely to have been dealt if the count is balanced?

If that’s the case, wouldn’t a basic strategy player (or a flat bettor) who blindly enters mid-shoe be slightly more likely to walk into a disadvantage than they would in a fresh 2/6 game from the top?

It's not the case.

If an AP is counting from that point on, isn’t it possible that the volatility in the remaining two decks actually creates more betting opportunities than the same number of hands played from the top? I’ve noticed that late-shoe volatility seems to swing the count more rapidly, which might allow an AP to ramp more effectively, even with fewer rounds.

There is no increased volatility. We've established that you're mathematically playing a 2/6 game. Your true count divisor will never be less than 4.

[DSchles]

I’ve also been thinking carefully about your point that entering at the 3-deck point in a 6-deck game is essentially the same as playing a 2/6 game off the top. While I understand that analogy in terms of the number of decks left to play, I’m wondering if that fully captures what’s actually happening in the shoe from a practical standpoint.

It captures all that YOU can hope to know about it, as you walk in.

Here’s what I’m wrestling with:
1. Wouldn’t the three decks already dealt introduce some count drift—even if the expected true count is zero—such that mid-shoe entries might be more likely to occur at negative counts than positive ones (now that you've confirmed there is no floating advantage to create a positive skew)? Not saying the mean isn’t zero, but from a probability distribution perspective, is the count at mid-shoe really symmetric around zero?

We have to distinguish between TC and RC. If someone reckons the TC by flooring, then, by definition, there is no symmetry around TC = 0; i.e., there are more negative TCs, because we force everything to the left. But, if you're asking if, by some device, the RC ought to be negative at the three-deck mark, simply because we've played three decks, the answer is surely no. Experiment: shuffle the six decks. Start dealing off the top. RC = 0, right? Now, shuffle again, but just before you're about to start playing off the top, cut the pack in half and start dealing from the three-deck mark. Is the count suddenly something other than zero?

Of course, I understand the difference, if hands have actually been dealt. Off the top, you're certain the RC is zero; after playing three decks, the RC could be anything. But, there's no reason to expect the bias you're suggesting. And, regardless, you aren't aware of what the count is. The back-counter possesses knowledge that you don't have

2. If that’s the case, wouldn’t a basic strategy player (or a flat bettor) who blindly enters mid-shoe be slightly more likely to walk into a disadvantage than they would in a fresh 2/6 game from the top?

Actually, not only no, but LESS likely! Off the top, you have a 100% certain disadvantage. After three decks have been dealt, you most assuredly have SOME probability of an advantage, but you won't know it. So, you have to distinguish between what the actual shoe composition is at that moment, and what YOU know it to be (which is, zero!)

3.If an AP is counting from that point on, isn’t it possible that the volatility in the remaining two decks actually creates more betting opportunities than the same number of hands played from the top? I’ve noticed that late-shoe volatility seems to swing the count more rapidly, which might allow an AP to ramp more effectively, even with fewer rounds.

See above. The opportunities aren't there if you haven't counted to know about them. You have to understand this.

So my real question is: even if we concede that a blind entry at 3/6 is a slightly suboptimal way to start, does the immediate application of counting and bet spread neutralize (or even outweigh) that small initial disadvantage.

Absolutely not. There's no free lunch.

Don

[Midnight]

Hi Don and Gronbog. Thanks for your responses. I think i'm clear now on this matter after your explanations. Have a great day gentlemen.

[Freightman]

Yes, no one would ever do this in practice with their hard earned money.

Why not? Granted, I prefer not to. There’s more than 1 way to skin a cat - I’m told they’re 37.

[peterlee]

Midnight,

If you prefer to make a mid-shoe entry, walk around the tables and choose one with a favorable count. This count should be sufficient to provide a positive Expected Value (+EV), comparable to starting a fresh six-deck shoe. Then, sit down, begin playing, and start counting, incorporating the cards you observed on the table.

Make sure that no other CC is at the table betting the minimum on the next round.
You can do this like a back counting for the first round, then play until big cards come out.

You can also do this: count table #3, RC+2, go to another table, 5 minutes later, table #3 is still runing the same shoe, RC+4 on the table, no blackjack took the winning first, then you can play this shoe with RC+6 with 2 round seen.

I actually did this for years.

A downside is that you might meet a cut card effect very early.

[peterlee]

A real example: I went to the restaurant, had to pass the gaming area. I chose to go through the blackjack area, quickly counting some tables as I walked by. One was RC+8! I gripped the chips in my pocket, a hit and run.