Got no replies in 2 days on Green Chip, so let's try here...
6D shoe. In the first ~1.25 decks dealt, 9 aces came out. The TC was almost +2.
Clearly, the likelihood of a BJ is lessened, however, there are a lot more Tens left than a TC of +2 would indicate. Would you adjust your bet spread or index plays in any way in this situation?
I didn't, but I certainly tracked the Ace clump thru the next 2 shuffles!
> Got no replies in 2 days on Green Chip, so let's try
> here...
What do they know? :-) Took, what, 40 minutes here?
> 6D shoe. In the first ~1.25 decks dealt, 9 aces came
> out.
Too bad.
>The TC was almost +2.
But, clearly, not worth as much as you would like.
> Clearly, the likelihood of a BJ is lessened, however,
> there are a lot more Tens left than a TC of +2 would
> indicate.
But the tens aren't worth as much as the aces.
>Would you adjust your bet spread or index
> plays in any way in this situation?
Well, clearly, if you use an ace-reckoned count, such as Hi-Lo, you are already including the aces in your count, and, therefore, your betting. But, for playing, you can make improvements for insurance and, say, doubling 10, decisions. Do you know how to treat deficient aces for insurance, using Hi-Lo? If not, write back.
> I didn't, but I certainly tracked the Ace clump thru
> the next 2 shuffles!
Well, that might be worth the most of all!
Don
> What do they know? :-) Took, what, 40 minutes here?
Appreciate the prompt service!
> Well, clearly, if you use an ace-reckoned count, such
> as Hi-Lo, you are already including the aces in your
> count, and, therefore, your betting. But, for playing,
> you can make improvements for insurance and, say,
> doubling 10, decisions. Do you know how to treat
> deficient aces for insurance, using Hi-Lo? If not,
> write back.
Let's see if my reasoning is sound:
Since 1.25 decks were dealt, 4 excess aces came out. This is offset by 4 extra tens still in the deck to maintain neutrality. With 4.75 decks remaining, the "insurance count" would increase by TC just under +1, added to the +2 HiLo count. N'est-ce pas?
If I recall there is a 'factor', varying based on your counting system, that you multiply your running count by and if that is greater than the number of remaining aces, you take insurance.
For instance, the factor for the count I use is 0.6. So, with a running count of 10, if there are fewer than 6 aces remaining, I would insure, otherwise pass.
I believe the post with the math behind it is over at Arnold's site.
> Appreciate the prompt service!
> Let's see if my reasoning is sound:
> Since 1.25 decks were dealt, 4 excess aces came out.
> This is offset by 4 extra tens still in the deck to
> maintain neutrality. With 4.75 decks remaining, the
> "insurance count" would increase by TC just
> under +1, added to the +2 HiLo count. N'est-ce pas?
> Appreciate the prompt service!
> Let's see if my reasoning is sound:
> Since 1.25 decks were dealt, 4 excess aces came out.
> This is offset by 4 extra tens still in the deck to
> maintain neutrality.
You aren't neutral. You said the TC = +2.
> With 4.75 decks remaining, the
> "insurance count" would increase by TC just
> under +1, added to the +2 HiLo count. N'est-ce pas?
No, not the way I do it. With 4.75 decks remaining, a TC of +2 indicates a RC of +9 or +10. Let's call it 10. But, for insurance purposes, you've counted the aces the wrong way. You've counted them as -1 (high cards) instead of +1, as low cards. So, you reverse the count of those four deficient aces. As 4 x 2 = 8, you temporarily add 8 to the RC of 10, to get +18.
Now +18/4.75 = +3.8. So, instead of not insuring, because your TC of +2 is under the required +3, you now would insure, because, adjusting for aces, the TC is greater than +3.
Clear?
Don
> No, not the way I do it. With 4.75 decks remaining, a
> TC of +2 indicates a RC of +9 or +10. Let's call it
> 10. But, for insurance purposes, you've counted the
> aces the wrong way. You've counted them as -1 (high
> cards) instead of +1, as low cards. So, you reverse
> the count of those four deficient aces. As 4 x 2 = 8,
> you temporarily add 8 to the RC of 10, to get +18.
> Now +18/4.75 = +3.8. So, instead of not insuring,
> because your TC of +2 is under the required +3, you
> now would insure, because, adjusting for aces, the
> TC is greater than +3.
> Clear?
> Don
Clear. Thanks.
One more question - would the same apply to the doubling indices?
> Clear. Thanks.
> One more question - would the same apply to the
> doubling indices?
Unfortunately, it's not as easy and has to be done on a case-by-case basis. For example, when you double 10, aces are good, so a deficiency is bad. But, when you double 11, aces are bad, so a deficiency is good!
Stanford Wong has an excellent explanation of the methodology, along with the ace-adjusted indices, in his appendices C & D of the old, "bible" version of "Pro BJ." Unfortunately, if you don't already have it, it's been out of print for a long time, and he dropped the ace-count section in the newer versions.
Don
> Unfortunately, it's not as easy and has to be done on
> a case-by-case basis. For example, when you double 10,
> aces are good, so a deficiency is bad. But, when you
> double 11, aces are bad, so a deficiency is good!
> Stanford Wong has an excellent explanation of the
> methodology, along with the ace-adjusted indices, in
> his appendices C & D of the old, "bible"
> version of "Pro BJ." Unfortunately, if you
> don't already have it, it's been out of print for a
> long time, and he dropped the ace-count section in the
> newer versions.
> Don
Don
Didn`t Stanford say that there were mistakes in his ace-count section,so that`s why he dropped it?
I usually just leave the table,get a drink,bathroom break,etc. when a premature run of aces have been exposed that early in the shoe. The ace is the most valuable card to us and I cant stand it when clumps of aces have been wasted away.
The way I look at it is, even though the tc is at 2 and calls for a raise in bets, the shoe is still ace poor and your ev is now significantly less. So rather than mess with it,I prefer to find a shoe that's ace rich!)
> Don
> Didn`t Stanford say that there were mistakes in his
> ace-count section,so that`s why he dropped it?
No, he didn't drop it because of mistakes; he dropped it because he didn't think it was important enough -- and he was probably right, especially for the shoe game.
Don
If you side count aces, is there a way to determine indices in CVData? This would be multi-parameter? I wonder how much this would add to expectation...
Regarding spell check, as I type in the message body I get the red underline for anything misspelled. Still not sure what the plural of 'index' is.
> No, he didn't drop it because of mistakes; he dropped
> it because he didn't think it was important enough --
> and he was probably right, especially for the shoe
> game.
> Don
> If you side count aces, is there a way to determine
> indices in CVData? This would be multi-parameter? I
> wonder how much this would add to expectation...
Don't know. Maybe Norm will answer.
> Regarding spell check, as I type in the message body I
> get the red underline for anything misspelled.
That's the spell-check feature!
>Still not sure what the plural of 'index' is.
There are two plurals, when the word means something like a number that we memorize, or a stock index. The English version is indexes, while the Latin root is indices. Both are widely used.
When it's an index of a book, you can't use the Latin form. They are book indexes, not indices.
Note, finally, that the back-formation of the singular, from the Latin, to make indice, is, sadly, ignorant. There is no such word.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks