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.

[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

[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.

[Saboteur]

[anon]

Spreading your action over as many hands as possible in negative counts will greatly enhance your SCORE over a player putting the total action on one spot in shoe games. If you have a big spread and play the table minimum for a min bet you will likely still have a higher SCORE when playing multiple hands in negative counts even though you increase the total action on negative ev rounds. Just run some comparitive sims and look at the figures. Compare the true count frequencies between the two models and you'll see what is going on. You are increasing the TC frequency of the favorable counts where you will have more money in action. You are increasing this frequency in terms of per hour, per shoe, per hundred rounds dealt, etc. For example, if you use more cards per round when the count is -2 then you will have a greater frequency of all true counts other than -2 since you have decreased its frequency. The sum of all frequencies must equal 100%.

DD'

[Sun Runner]

Spreading your action over as many hands as possible in negative counts will greatly enhance your SCORE over a player putting the total action on one spot in shoe games. If you have a big spread and play the table minimum for a min bet you will likely still have a higher SCORE when playing multiple hands in negative counts even though you increase the total action on negative ev rounds. Just run some comparitive sims and look at the figures. Compare the true count frequencies between the two models and you'll see what is going on. You are increasing the TC frequency of the favorable counts where you will have more money in action. You are increasing this frequency in terms of per hour, per shoe, per hundred rounds dealt, etc. For example, if you use more cards per round when the count is -2 then you will have a greater frequency of all true counts other than -2 since you have decreased its frequency. The sum of all frequencies must equal 100%.

.. for clearning my misconception.

[Bettie]

and have him re-set your free pages password. The "anon" handle belongs to a long-time community member, though he obviously hasn't set up his handle on the free pages. Just trying to avoid confusion.

Thanks,
Bettie

[MJ]

[ET Fan]

If playing two hands is always, unambiguously the right thing to do, why isn't it consistently, unambiguously recommended in BJA3? It can't just be an oversight! In fact, on pg. 287 it says "When I am `attacking the shoe,' my philosophy and approach are documented, in great detail, in the `Team Handbook' contained in the chapter." And in the Team Hanbook, pg. 293, we find "4. Betting levels are as follows (for our initial play): Below +1, do not play; +1 to +2, 1 unit; +2 to +3, 4 units; +4 to +5, 6 units; +5 and above, two hands of 6 units each." And on pg. 294, to make it crystal clear, he advises only asking your neighbor to move when "it is time to bet two hands, not before. You don't want to be pushy, and you may never get to the two hands, anyway."

So it appears this is another area of disagreement between you and Don, along with your feelings about dividing team earnings. Recent comments from Arnold Snyder lead me to believe he would side with Don on this issue.

Also, when we discussed this on Wong's board, I thought you agreed extra earnings from two hands at negative counts were contingent on playing the second hand much faster than the average table speed. You need to mention that fact every time you recommend this approach. Also, I suspect well over 50% of the readers of the free boards would be better advised to simply bet the minimum in all negative counts -- if they play through negs at all. You need a huge spread for the tiny increase in positive rounds per hour to make up for the EV you lose on those neg EV rounds. And cover bets aren't normally appropriate for red chippers.

"The sum of all frequencies must equal 100%."

Yes, but the number of positive hands per shoe is constant, except for a very minor effect on the cut card, from the extra negative hand.

ETF

[anon (DD')]

> If playing two hands is always, unambiguously the
> right thing to do, why isn't it consistently,
> unambiguously recommended in BJA3?

It isn't always the best thing to do. Also, different considerations are taken into account for positive and negative counts. In favorable decks multiple hands increases the action we are allowed within the same risk of ruin, but it has a negative card eating effect. It is generally the best thing to do in positive counts and the case for it becomes stronger as we add more players to the table. For negative decks it is the opposite. It has a positive card eating effect but becomes diluted, and less effective, as we add additional players to the table.

We will look at just the case of multiple hands in negative counts here since that is the matter under discussion. I believe in most heads up cases or where there is perhaps one other player hand at the table that multiple hands in negative counts will usually enhance win rate and SCORE. There are two ways we can measure these things, gain per round dealt or gain per hour (time unit). Using either of these measures, multiple hands in negative usually comes out on top. Those that have argued the other side, and you are not the only one, have often introduced a different method of quoting win rate, win per hand dealt, rather than per round. Using that method the multiple hand in negative count model does not finish on top. Those of that school of thought reject the idea that there is time savings in playing multiple hands in negative counts.

While I am of the group that playing multiple hands in negative counts helps considerably, I do not think the gain is nearly as large as it appears in simulations. Sims generally quote in terms of per round dealt without regard to time usage. This method will, of course, give a much bigger edge to the model which uses up more negative cards per round and thus greatly inhances the frequency of positive rounds dealt.

[Brick]

using your strategy, is it provokes getting to the shuffle quicker during a miserable shoe. Hopes of a neg 3 tc bouncing back to a pos 3 tc are very dim while card eating.

Why not simply play more spots off the top or during neutral counts? It's basicly the same strategy except you'll get to the juice quicker. If the count starts getting terrible after that I would not waste my time card eating and simply move to a fresh shoe. Personlly, I beleive what looks good on paper or sims may not be the pracical solution in a real casino.

[anon (DD')]

I'm talking about negative ev counts, not counts with a negative number in front. In fact, the greatest gain for multiple hands comes at the TC of zero. This is because it occurs most frequently and has the least negative ev assoctiated with it. If you do more complex research, instead of making the mistake of trying to apply common sense to a math problem, you'll find that for a given spread there is an exact point where multiple hands in negative ev situations is best. You may find at the given game that with a 1:20 spread you should play multiples down to -2 tc. You may find that with a 1:24 spread you profit from doing this down to -3. You may find that with a 1:24 spread that extra hands in negatives is only a good idea down to -1 with one additional player at the table, and only good at TC of zero with two additional players, or perhaps the third player makes it not worth it at all with the current spread. It is a balancing act. But with healthy spreads and heads up situations it is better to play multple hands in negative ev counts as a rule, not as an exception to the general rule.

As I said to someone else, "this shoe" means nothing. It doesn't matter whether you are quickly depleating the current negative shoe in order to get to the next potentially profitable shoe or whether you are quickly going through a big negative slug to get to a rich portion at the end of this shoe. Rounds dealt are rounds dealt and it doesn't matter whether they come in this shoe or future shoes. When you depleat the poor counts in fewer rounds then more of the rounds dealt per hundred will be positive ev than otherwise.

I'll cease trying to explain because this is well established theory and anyone can easily prove it to themselves.