MJ: Multiple Hands in Negative Counts: Question for Norm

[MJ]

[Norm Wattenberger]

In Uston's case I think he was really talking about cover with a possible advantage of one fewer poor round. I don't think this applies to shoes.

[MJ]

> In Uston's case I think he was really talking about
> cover with a possible advantage of one fewer poor
> round. I don't think this applies to shoes.

Thanks for the response Norm. Your answer does seem somewhat vague however. Did you ever run a simulation comparing the card eating counter and the traditional counter for SHOE game?

Why can't this approach be applied to shoes as I suggest above in the thread? It seems quite logical as you burn through the negative counts faster leaving you with more rounds to play per hour in positive counts.

Why is it that when the count becomes highly positive(in a heads up game) we only place one bet and not multiple bets? The reason is that we will get LESS rounds in these high count situations. The same reasoning applies to playing multiple hands in negative counts only that this time it works in our favor!!!

Why would you want to play through a negative/neutral count one hand at a time? Divide that minimum bet by 3 and spread to 3 spots!! Once the count goes positive then you place one bet at the appropriate amount depending how high the count is. What we are doing is artificially skewing the TC frequency in our favor(I think).

-MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

My sims on card-eating have all been in pitch games and most involved a partner. I can't remember running a shoe game involving card-eating. The only applicability I see to shoe games is if you are stuck at a table and must play through every shoe. And cover must still be a consideration.

[MJ]

> My sims on card-eating have all been in pitch games
> and most involved a partner. I can't remember running
> a shoe game involving card-eating. The only
> applicability I see to shoe games is if you are stuck
> at a table and must play through every shoe. And cover
> must still be a consideration.

If you had to make an educated guess, which counter in the above scenerio do you think would have the higher SCORE?

I think play all is fairly common in shoe games...as most of us do not play on teams and sometimes midshoe entry is not permitted. Spreading to 3 hands in poor counts is plenty cover!!

If it turns out the card eating counter has a higher SCORE, you may want to set up CVCX to display betting schedules for multiple hands in negative counts!!! Perhaps you could set up a SIM to test the theory.

[Shark]

MJ,I am with you. there is no doubt in my mind that the card eater counter would SCORE better then his counterpart.

Play all is a viable strategy for shoes when you can play head on.

I would argue that even a card eater who spread 7*1 unit-1*40units would make more $ per hour then a counter who spreads 1*1unit-1*40 units. This has to do more with how many shoes you go through in an hour. Shark

> If you had to make an educated guess, which counter in
> the above scenerio do you think would have the higher
> SCORE?

> I think play all is fairly common in shoe games...as
> most of us do not play on teams and sometimes midshoe
> entry is not permitted. Spreading to 3 hands in poor
> counts is plenty cover!!

> If it turns out the card eating counter has a higher
> SCORE, you may want to set up CVCX to display betting
> schedules for multiple hands in negative counts!!!
> Perhaps you could set up a SIM to test the theory.

[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

[Wolverine]

something that hasn't been pointed out is that in a casino environment, you typically have to play 2x or 3x the table minimum in order to spread to 2 or 3 hands respectively. Splitting that $30 unit into 3 x $10 probably won't fly at a $5 minimum table with a prick for a floor supervisor and/or dealer. If your base betting unit is big enough however, you most certainly could split up the unit into 2 or 3 hands, but why play at a $5 minimum table when you should probably be at a $15 or $25 minimum table? Just food for thought.

[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