Yes, he would.
The section of the book where he writes about that is specific about sequencing under the title "The cost of steering".
These are specific quotes:
"This might seem to imply that it might be always optimal to play multiple hands (and perhaps as many as possible!) in order to catch a sequenced ace. But this is not necessarily so. We must also consider the cost of the hands that dont catch an ace." P.75
"I am of the opinion that players who sequence aces would often find it more profitable in the long run to play a single hand when the key card/s predict an ace is coming." P.75
"Your chance of getting that ace may be greater than the dealer's chance if you play multiple hands, but the cost to you is so much higher when you miss." P.75
I understand perfectly well what you are talking about in regards to A/T density. Maybe you are refering to a different section of the Cookbook from the one I was refered to.
How to capture Ace with the first card? Here I disagree with him. Transfer the meaning of everything Snyder said from sequencing to slug tracking and everything will be right.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
Indeed.
What Im guessing is he was trying to advice against playing multiple hands at max bets following the intuitive logic that more hands = more chances of getting the ace.
I do find it very surprising that he didn't write anything about the possibility of doing that with minimum bets for steering purposes or to cover for the max bet.
Since this is the strategy used by almost all sequencing teams (at least the ones I know) maybe he didn't write about it on purpose.
Hope you are doing well my friend.
Directing an Ace with the first card into a particular hand gives a huge advantage. This is much more difficult to do with only one hand. What if two Aces go in a row with one card spaced between them? Play one hand? These are my arguments. Although it all depends on the shuffle. Now let the one who gave me a minus give his arguments ...
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
I played as BP for one of the world's best sequencers a number of years ago. I always spread to 3 hands of max bets when the ace was coming. With a 6 or 8 deck hand shuffle, the shuffle is just too imprecise to know EXACTLY when the ace will come. Occasionally, I was instructed to bet small on the first or third hand, if he was pretty sure where it would land.
I wrote to Snyder sms, maybe he will comment personally, I will share with you. Although I'm sure he meant specific conditions, where specifically you can't channel an ace into a specific hand. Better to split it with the dealer 50/50 and not necessarily as the first card. But that doesn't hold up for sequencing as a universal advice about playing with only one hand. But it is completely mathematically suitable for slug tracking.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
I have been thinking about the calculation of the covariance analytically. Actually we can include all these factors you mentioned, all by changing the card composition of the original deck. For example, we use a man made shoe with extra ten valued cards to do the same calculation of covariance.
I agree that variance increases a lot with multiple simultaneous bets, but disagree that the ev does so. That is faulted math. The only situation for playing three or more multiple hands is when the cut card is about to come out but the count is still skyrocket high, but this means the player has been losing.
Last edited by aceside; 03-07-2021 at 09:09 AM.
One of these days, you will read BJA3, especially, in this case, pages 24-26, and then I won't have to read, for probably the first time in the past 30 years, about my "faulted math."
I will say that, for someone who posts something incorrect in virtually every thread that you participate in, you aren't shy. But, that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Don
Bookmarks