MJ: High Running Counts- Does player win more often?

[MJ]

I understand that the higher the running count the greater a players EXPECTANCY. However, does a high count mean the player will win the majority of hands played or merely he will earn more? Thanks.

-MJ

[Ouchez]

> I understand that the higher the running
> count the greater a players EXPECTANCY.
> However, does a high count mean the player
> will win the majority of hands played or
> merely he will earn more? Thanks.

> -MJ

I think the outcome depends on the number of players and the type of game. I think you mean true count. But under good conditions you should earn more with greater potential for B-Jacks. I specialize in DD games and I have different approaches I use than if I were at a shoe game. But always higher TC's are better for the player. (As long as the dealer is not always flipping Bj's and 20's).

Regards,
Ouchez.

[MrPill]

> I understand that the higher the running
> count the greater a players EXPECTANCY.
> However, does a high count mean the player
> will win the majority of hands played or
> merely he will earn more? Thanks.

MJ

The player will win more hands than he/she looses while at that count and if proper bet sizing is used, he/she will win more $$ than they will loose.

And hopefully this will also be more than they loose during the small bets made while at a negative count.

At least that is how it is suppose to work in the "long run".

Pill

[Saboteur]

I seem to remember Don S posting that you actually win slightly fewer hands at higher counts, because you bust more often on those hands which BS says you MUST hit. Your EV still increases, though, because your double-downs and splits are more successful. You also receive more blackjacks. Although the dealer receives more blackjacks too, you're getting the 3:2 payoff while the house does not.

When Don returns from holiday, I'm sure he'll set us all straight.

[Hit the Road Jack]

> I think the outcome depends on the number of
> players and the type of game. I specialize in DD games and I have different approaches I use than if I were at a shoe game.

Given your area of specialization and playing approach, I wonder if you can tell me if the DD game is similar to the SD game or more like other multiple deck (shoe) games. I mean is DD closer to SD or multiple deck, and why would you say this?

[Random Poster]

You won't win the majority of the hands you play... I'll direct you to p. 11 of Las Vegas BJ Diary by Stuart Perry for the detailed explanation, but the short of it is, you still have a win expectancy of 47-48% BEFORE THE CARDS ARE DEALT. The key is in the plays you can make: getting a BJ, splitting, doubling down, even hitting and standing. Those are the factors that manufacture your profits.

--RP

> I understand that the higher the running
> count the greater a players EXPECTANCY.
> However, does a high count mean the player
> will win the majority of hands played or
> merely he will earn more? Thanks.

> -MJ

[MJ]

RP,

Thanks for the response. Yes, I read that book too and believe it or not that is what initiated this question. If my memory serves me correctly I believe Perry contradicts some well known blackjack expert like Peter Griffin and says you will still lose the majority of hands even in high counts.

Let us just say I wonged my way into a 10000 hands with a high running count. I make use of index plays to guide my playing strategy. Are you saying I will lose the majority of these hands played in a high running count?

> You won't win the majority of the hands you
> play... I'll direct you to p. 11 of Las
> Vegas BJ Diary by Stuart Perry for the
> detailed explanation, but the short of it
> is, you still have a win expectancy of
> 47-48% BEFORE THE CARDS ARE DEALT. The key
> is in the plays you can make: getting a BJ,
> splitting, doubling down, even hitting and
> standing. Those are the factors that
> manufacture your profits.

> --RP

[Don Schlesinger]

> You won't win the majority of the hands you
> play.

Yes, in fact, there comes a true count, both in SD or multi-deck, when you will win more hands than you lose. This will never be the case if surrender is permitted, but in non-surrender games, I think the TC needs to be in the +5 to +7 range for you to win more hands than you lose.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

For all practical purposes, the answer is no. But, at absurdly high counts that you will never see it can happen. Below are two charts. They both contain percentage of Wins, Losses and Ties. You can ignore the extremely high and low counts as these only exist in certain odd situations. Counts are HiLo TCs.

Unstacked chart
Stacked chart

[Ouchez]

> Given your area of specialization and
> playing approach, I wonder if you can tell
> me if the DD game is similar to the SD game
> or more like other multiple deck (shoe)
> games. I mean is DD closer to SD or multiple
> deck, and why would you say this?

Jack,

Thanks for the post.

I believe DD is closer to the SD than a 6D shoe game. However there is nothing that is really similar to a SD game. Some BJ authors lump DD strategy in with shoe games of 6 or fewer decks. In order to find the finer points of strategy relating to the DD game it has taken me alot of digging to do so and... some time.

Of course the spreads needed are different as well as insurance plays and the 1 and 2 D can make great swings in TC in a very, very short time. Side counts are much easier to make. Of course with the face down it also means a greater challenge to the tracking and with too many at the table, borderline indice plays can be a tough decision. I think the number of players at a sd and dd table is most critical. In the end they are all a very exciting competition, where you really are putting you're money where you're mouth is. What a RUSH!!

Good Cards,
Ouchez.

[Random Poster]

After reading Don's post and looking at Norm's charts, it would seem that Stuart was wrong. It would be nice to see him and the masters post a debate on this subject. *hint hint* :-)

> RP,

> Thanks for the response. Yes, I read that
> book too and believe it or not that is what
> initiated this question. If my memory serves
> me correctly I believe Perry contradicts
> some well known blackjack expert like Peter
> Griffin and says you will still lose the
> majority of hands even in high counts.

> Let us just say I wonged my way into a 10000
> hands with a high running count. I make use
> of index plays to guide my playing strategy.
> Are you saying I will lose the majority of
> these hands played in a high running count?

[PunkEye]

"Don't play any game where the cards are dealt face-down." -Richard Parsons

[Norm Wattenberger]

Can't find Stuart's explanation. But I have an early manuscript and the page numbers may be different. Depends on whether he said win over 50% of hands or win more than lose. Note also that there is a difference in number of decks and penetration.

> After reading Don's post and looking at
> Norm's charts, it would seem that Stuart was
> wrong. It would be nice to see him and the
> masters post a debate on this subject. *hint
> hint* :-)

Serious Blackjack Software