MJ: Multiple Hands in Negative Counts: Question for Norm

[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.

[Don Schlesinger]

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

[MJ]

> 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

[Sun Runner]

> 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.

Come on .. even I get this!

Yea, $30 was bet that round, agreed. But in the 3 X $10 scenario, you bought yourself a new deal. In the 1 X $30 scenario, you only bought yourself another round of negative action.

Common sense is all I have to go on, but common sense tells me that 3 X $10 is way better than 1 X $30 in negative counts, if you can pull it off.

My personal question earlier was what does a player do who's betting unit IS ALREADY the table minimum. DD' seems to believe spreading hands to run the clock is still the best play. Generally, I can't see why it would not be.