MJ: Multiple Hands in Negative Counts: Question for Norm

[MJ]

Im Ken Uston's classic work Million Dollar Blackjack, the author proposes some revolutionary methods of getting the advantage over the house. One of these methods is playing multiple hands in negative counts(aka card eating effect).

On page 153, Uston states as follows:

"You've just bet 4 greens and 2 reds and won the hand. The count has dropped. Spread to 2 hands of 2 red each-or even 3 hands. You've cut your bet way down and your eating up cards in this negative situation. Again, the dealer is pushed more rapidly toward the shuffle and you will tend to be dealt fewer negative hands."

I can see how playing multiple hands per round will reach the shuffle card faster. What I do NOT understand is how
the player will be dealt fewer negative hands for the shoe.
In anything, wouldnt he be dealt MORE negative hands for the shoe by playing multiple spots in negative counts?

Here is my reasoning:
Suppose a counter is playing heads up in a 6D shoe game. There are 72 cards left until the shuffle card comes out. Assuming roughly 3 cards are used per hand, playing one spot would require 12 rounds to reach the shuffle card(3 cards/player + 3 cards/dealer = 6 cards/round). So, the player would be dealt 36 cards playing one spot/round or 12 hands.

Now, what if the player decided to play 3 spots in this negative count? Then it would require 6 rounds to reach the shuffle card(1 round = 3 cards/dealer + 3 cards per player hand x 3 hands = 12 cards/round). In the end, the player would be dealt 54 cards playing 3 spots/round or 18 hands.

So, how can Uston conclude playing multiple spots in a negative count will lead you to be dealt fewer negative hands? Is there really any advantage to approach? Thanks for any answers.

-MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

Well, you won't be dealt fewer negative hands. But, you are likely to have less money bet on negative hands in SD games.

The card-eating sims I've done usually involve a partner that eats the cards. But that doesn't remove the problem of making a dramatic bet decrease.

[Norm Wattenberger]

fewer negative bets counting a split to three hands as one negative situation bet.

[Sun Runner]

Also, I would think in a negative count, the average cards per hand could exceed 2.7 per hand. On my limited BR, I would rather have a single bet out collecting as many small cards each as possible.

With Uston's large BR and unit size, as well as the reported spread of 1:11 (was this SD?), unlike mine, his comcern may have been running throught the cards as quickly as possible just to get to the big bets.

[anon]

> I can see how playing multiple hands per round will
> reach the shuffle card faster. What I do NOT
> understand is how
> the player will be dealt fewer negative hands for the
> shoe.

By using more of the low cards per round you will have fewer negative count rounds per shoe. Increasing the number of hands in a given count reduces the number of rounds. This goes for positive and negative counts. If you use up the cards faster you get fewer rounds at that count per shoe, or per hundred rounds dealt. The point is getting more high count rounds per hundred dealt by reducing the frequency of poor count rounds.

DD'

posted as anon in title because I didn't remember my password

[MJ]

> Well, you won't be dealt fewer negative hands. But,
> you are likely to have less money bet on negative
> hands in SD games.

Ok I think I get it. But would the above comment also apply to shoe games? Take the following example:

Suppose you are playing in a shoe game using a spread of $30 to $360. In negative counts you spread to 3 hands of $10 instead of 1 hand of $30. Using this methodology, the counter eats up 3x as many cards/round in negative counts.

Now, is the SCORE for the counter using this card eating approach higher then the SCORE for a counter who just spreads from $30(one spot) to $360 in the conventional manner??? Im quite interested to find out the answer!

If I understand Ken Uston correctly, the bet ratio for the card eating counter is actually HIGHER then 1-12(hence his EV increases). The reason for this is that the risk(from an element of ruin standpoint) the counter undertakes in the negative counts is diminished because the chances of losing 3 hands at $10/hand is less then losing $30 on a single hand(153).

In general, can card eating for shoe games increase SCORE?

Thanks again,

-MJ

[MJ]

> fewer negative bets counting a split to three hands as
> one negative situation bet.

Thanks Norm that would make sense as there would be fewer rounds played in negative counts.

[MJ]

> Also, I would think in a negative count, the average
> cards per hand could exceed 2.7 per hand.

Correct, Uston points that out on page 153.

> On my limited BR, I would rather have a single bet out
> collecting as many small cards each as possible.

Why would you want a single bet out on the felt in a negative shoe? You would just be increasing the number of rounds played in a negative count situation. Just spread to 3 hands of 1/3 unit(if your unit size allows it) so you eat the low cards FASTER! You do not pay more money to do so, and you alter the TC frequency in your favor.

> With Uston's large BR and unit size, as well as the
> reported spread of 1:11 (was this SD?), unlike mine,
> his comcern may have been running throught the cards
> as quickly as possible just to get to the big bets.

Yes this was for single deck. But I wonder if his methodology can be applied to shoe games.

-MJ

[MJ]

> By using more of the low cards per round you will have
> fewer negative count rounds per shoe. Increasing the
> number of hands in a given count reduces the number of
> rounds. This goes for positive and negative counts. If
> you use up the cards faster you get fewer rounds at
> that count per shoe, or per hundred rounds dealt. The
> point is getting more high count rounds per hundred
> dealt by reducing the frequency of poor count rounds.

if I understand you correctly, a counter should play multiple hands in negative/neutral counts and 1 hand in positive counts. All multiple hands played will of course be a fraction of our unit. So if our unit is $30, when playing multiple hands the bet becomes $10/spot for 3 spots.

Will using this card eating strategy increase SCORE?

-MJ

[ShoelessD]

> -MJ

If your spread is $30-$360, or 1-12, and you drop to a minimum $10 bet in low counts.....then your real spread is $10-$360, or 1-36. Might be more noticeable to whoever might be watching your game, if anyone.

[Norm Wattenberger]

The problem that Uston talked of rarely occurs in shoes. The TC can take a dive in SD. That means you have to radically drop your bet, risk a large bet with negative EV, or walk away from a SD table. These are all bad options and he was looking for a manner of ameliorating the risk without bringing attention on himself.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I believe Uston was talking about a specific situation where you are playing SD, not religiously 'rule of x,' where you made a max bet, and won the hand, and the count took a drastic downward turn, and there was a possibility that spreading would reduce the number of rounds. That's six 'ifs.' So, I wouldn't look at this as a general strategy.

[MJ]

> I believe Uston was talking about a specific situation
> where you are playing SD, not religiously 'rule of x,'
> where you made a max bet, and won the hand, and the
> count took a drastic downward turn, and there was a
> possibility that spreading would reduce the number of
> rounds. That's six 'ifs.' So, I wouldn't look at this
> as a general strategy.

Uston was indeed talking about SD. However, I am wondering if this strategy can be applied to SHOE games. Granted, the count will never drop as drastically as it would in a SD game. The question is whether playing multiple hands(1/3 unit each) in negative/neutral counts will be more profitable then spreading 1-12 units only playing 1 hand at a time.

Going back to my example, if a counter spreads vertically from THREE HANDS of $10/each in negative/neutral counts to ONE HAND of $360 in highly positive counts, would he not earn more then a counter who spreads from $30 to $360 only placing one bet at a time???

If you do a SCORE comparison of the 2 players above, I bet the card eater would have the higher SCORE. The reason is that his TC frequency for negative counts is drastically reduced by playing multiple hands in neg/neutral counts. Therefore, he is left to play MORE rounds in positive count situations. Does that make sense?

Note: The card eating counter is NOT spreading 1-36 as somebody above proposed. He is however spreading greater then 1-12 due to reduction of risk on his minimum bets.