Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 57

Thread: MJ: Multiple Hands in Negative Counts: Question for Norm

  1. #27
    anon (DD')
    Guest

    anon (DD'): It isn't simple

    > 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.

  2. #28
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: What Uston meant

    Ustons remarks on card eating applied to situations with a lot of heat and he used it primarily to camouflage his spread which is anyway very limited in pitch games.He never claimed that you win more money when you bet minimum on three spots rather than on one.
    In the absence of heat you should always stick to one spot with minimum at negative counts because this simply gives you a better spread.

    Francis Salmon

  3. #29
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: The only benefit I see

    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.

  4. #30
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: I'd add two words to your post

    "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 overly simplistic simulations."

  5. #31
    anon (DD')
    Guest

    anon (DD'): neutral counts are negative counts

    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.

  6. #32
    anon (DD')
    Guest

    anon (DD'): that's incorrect. He clearly used it as a tool to quickly eat neg counts *NM*


  7. #33
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: For a given spread yes

    It was never said that we were talking about a fixed spread.
    May be that's the problem with the sim results which compare results for a given spread.
    The problem with playing multiple hands is precisely that it reduces the spread volontarily and this must have a negative effect on the overall result.
    I still believe in common sense.It can be safely applied to any aspect of life even for blackjack.It makes it impossible for me to follow your argument that having fewer but more costly and more time consuming negative rounds will result in getting more positive rounds.You might change the ratio between positive and negative rounds but what counts is only the absolute number of positive rounds and this remains the same or is even slightly reduced for a reason that I explained at an other occasion (count swinging forth and back).
    By the way, not every long established theory is necessarily true.

    Francis Salmon


  8. #34
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Quote from Uston

    In MDBJ,page 153 he says: "Assume you're betting $25 to $300 or the true-in-green.Let's say the deck is positive; you bet $125 and win the hand.The deck now has gone negative; yet you have $250 out there and feel sheepish(justifiably) about cutting back to a $25 or $50 bet. A good technique now is to bet two or three hands of $25 each."
    The way he puts it makes it quite clear he would have preferred to bet only one hand of $25 if it wasn't for cover reasons.

    Francis Salmon

  9. #35
    anon (DD')
    Guest

    anon (DD'): still wrong

    It was never said that we were talking about a fixed spread.
    May be that's the problem with the sim results which compare results for a given spread.
    The problem with playing multiple hands is precisely that it reduces the spread volontarily and this must have a negative effect on the overall result.


    Sorry, Francis, this is still incorrect. You can have a better win rate with a smaller spread. It is a simple fact. Just take the example I gave before. Put 1000 units in action on one spot for all positive ev counts. Put one unit on one spot for negative ev counts. Record the win rate and SCORE. Now, let's reduce this spread by half: we will keep the 1000 units in action on one spot for all positive ev counts and put a unit on each of two spots during negative ev counts. The second scenario, which is a 500:1 spread compared the 1000:1 spread in the first case, wins more and has a better SCORE. You're a smart guy and it puzzles me that you can't see this.

    Use an excel sheet. First take one column and record the ev for each true count from <=-3 up to >=+6. In the next column, col B, record the total action that you will bet at that count. In the third columm, col C, record the frequency of each corresponding TC. Col D will be A*B*C, and will show the expected win for that TC. Sum down to the bottom.

    Now, next to that we will look at a comparison. The frequencies above we will say were taken while playing one hand at each negagtive ev count. You will now replace the frequencies in col C with new frequencies you get by doing a sim where two hands are played in all negative ev counts. Column A, the ev, should be the same for both models. Now play with the bets. Your eyes will be opened and you'll wonder why you didn't see this all along.

  10. #36
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Where's the mystery?

    Look, suppose the dealer deals 480 hands per hour -- including her own hand. Let's say 120 of them will be in positive EV counts and 360 in negative or neutral EV counts. Put two other players at the table. If you play one hand, then there are 4 hands per round. Play two hands makes 5 hands per round. Then:
    a) If you play 1 hand in +EV counts, you get 30 +EV rounds per hour.
    b) Play 2 hands in +EV counts, you get 24 +EV rounds per hour.
    c) Play 1 hand in -EV counts, you get 90 -EV rounds per hour.
    d) Play 2 hands in -EV counts, you get 72 -EV rounds per hour.

    Now, in every case, playing 2 hands in -EV territory increases the frequency of +EV rounds, just as you said.

    For 1 hand in +EV counts, we have a)/[a)+c)] = 5/20, versus a)/[a)+d)] = 5/17. For 2 hands in +EV counts we have b)/[b)+c)] = 4/19, versus b)/[b)+d)] = 4/16.

    My question is, so what? Everyone can see that. You seem stuck like a broken record on comparing rounds instead of hands or time. Two hands in negative EV territory still means more action per hour when odds are against you. 2 x 72 &gt 1 x 90. A better SCORE from playing two hands in -EV territory can only come from 1) different bets (but why bet more than the minimum in negs? or why change your ramp in +EV counts?) or 2) playing much faster on the second hand (but you never mention that).

    What am I missing?

    ETF

    > You can have a
    > better win rate with a smaller spread. It is a simple
    > fact. Just take the example I gave before. Put 1000
    > units in action on one spot for all positive ev
    > counts. Put one unit on one spot for negative ev
    > counts. Record the win rate and SCORE. Now, let's
    > reduce this spread by half: we will keep the 1000
    > units in action on one spot for all positive ev counts
    > and put a unit on each of two spots during negative ev
    > counts. The second scenario, which is a 500:1 spread
    > compared the 1000:1 spread in the first case, wins
    > more and has a better SCORE. You're a smart guy and it
    > puzzles me that you can't see this.

    > Use an excel sheet. First take one column and record
    > the ev for each true count from =+6. In the next
    > column, col B, record the total action that you will
    > bet at that count. In the third columm, col C, record
    > the frequency of each corresponding TC. Col D will be
    > A*B*C, and will show the expected win for that TC. Sum
    > down to the bottom.

    > Now, next to that we will look at a comparison. The
    > frequencies above we will say were taken while playing
    > one hand at each negagtive ev count. You will now
    > replace the frequencies in col C with new frequencies
    > you get by doing a sim where two hands are played in
    > all negative ev counts. Column A, the ev, should be
    > the same for both models. Now play with the bets. Your
    > eyes will be opened and you'll wonder why you didn't
    > see this all along.

  11. #37
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: neutral counts are negative expectation.

    Sorry, I thought this thread was about negative "counts",not negative expectation. I assume you also use your card eating strategy in plus counts where there is no positive expectation. Do you also card eat off the top?

    I still hold to my thought of your strategy being mainly beneficial if you're able to get to the shuffle card quicker. You're telling me that this does not matter due to more rounds being played in a positive expection. This is true,however if we look at the total aspect of these conditions,it may be wise to consider the total number of "hands" played with a negative expectation,not rounds, which will far out number the positive ones. I understand a big bet spread is needed to gain back the neg. bets,however, you said the the speed of the game does not matter in order to gain much more ev due to card eating. I dont see where it's collectively at unless I simply raise my max bets.

    Sorry for my ignorance,but Francis is not the only one who does not understand.

    thanks for your opinion,
    Brick

  12. #38
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: An awful lot of verbiage

    Guys, this is not rocket science. So much verbiage for a simple concept.

    Suppose 10 cards remain in a shoe, and the count is very negative. You're playing alone. Do you bet one hand of $30 or three hands of $10? What could be simpler? In the first instance, you'll play two rounds and bet $60, all in negative counts. In the second instance, you'll bet $30 and eat up all the remaining cards. This is a non-issue.

    But, as has been stated above, your low bet is now $10 instead of $30, and your spread has been changed. Changing your spread either by betting less in negative counts or more in positive coutns will always increase your SCORE. That is a no-brainer.

    The problem with these discussions is that people always speak in generalities, without mentioning a) the number of players at the table, and b) the amounts to be bet on the single hand and the multiple hands. Without those precisions, the discussions are meaningless.

    Similarly, spreading to two hands in positive situations IS better than playing one hand, provided that a) you're not alone at the table, and b) you bet the two hands optimally vis-a-vis the one-hand optimal bet (see BJA3, pp. 24-26, somewhat old-hat by now).

    Don

  13. #39
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: An awful lot of verbiage

    > Guys, this is not rocket science. So much verbiage for
    > a simple concept.

    > Suppose 10 cards remain in a shoe, and the count is
    > very negative. You're playing alone. Do you bet one
    > hand of $30 or three hands of $10? What could be
    > simpler? In the first instance, you'll play two rounds
    > and bet $60, all in negative counts. In the second
    > instance, you'll bet $30 and eat up all the remaining
    > cards. This is a non-issue.

    > But, as has been stated above, your low bet is now $10
    > instead of $30, and your spread has been changed.
    > Changing your spread either by betting less in
    > negative counts or more in positive coutns will always
    > increase your SCORE. That is a no-brainer.

    Welcome back Don. Hope you enjoyed your trip. Thanks for posting on this topic. How can you say the player is betting less in negative counts? In the above paragraph, the $bet/hand has been reduced in negative counts, but the total action for the round is still $30. Is this really betting less when compared with betting one hand of $30? Isn't the betting spread in either case 1-12 units($30-$360)?

    Judging by what you stated, am I correct in concluding that the player should spread to multiple hands(each hand player bets a fraction of one unit) in negative counts to beat shoe games?

    -MJ


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.