how beatable is it to track a clump of aces in a single pass shuffle .. on a 6d,no surrendr,nsa,d9 game .. penetration 75%..
and this is not sequencing aces.. but just trackng a bunch of aces .. on a single pass.straightforward shuffle ..
i find it hard because i would tend to get the aces together .. and i cant resplit them ..
opinions appreciated
thanks ..
> how beatable is it to track a clump of aces
> in a single pass shuffle .. on a 6d,no
> surrendr,nsa,d9 game .. penetration 75%..
> and this is not sequencing aces.. but just
> trackng a bunch of aces .. on a single
> pass.straightforward shuffle ..
> i find it hard because i would tend to get
> the aces together .. and i cant resplit them
> ..
Depends how many you can track each shoe but a single pass shuffle is highly beatable despite the poor rules.
It's just bad luck if you end up with 2 Aces together, particularly as you can't split them.
Additionally, there are ideal opportunities to 'section track' and play with favourable cards, providing you can get the cut-card enough.
Best regards
Geoff
> Depends how many you can track each shoe but
> a single pass shuffle is highly beatable
> despite the poor rules.
> It's just bad luck if you end up with 2 Aces
> together, particularly as you can't split
> them.
> Additionally, there are ideal opportunities
> to 'section track' and play with favourable
> cards, providing you can get the cut-card
> enough.
> Best regards
> Geoff
no problem .. i get a head on game all the time ..reserved table ..
would you say this is more beatable than a straight counting that is offerred in other casinos nearby ..6d,surrender,80%penetration,da2,nrsa..,das.. totally untrackable?
thanks again
> no problem .. i get a head on game all the
> time ..reserved table ..
> would you say this is more beatable than a
> straight counting that is offerred in other
> casinos nearby
> ..6d,surrender,80%penetration,da2,nrsa..,das..
> totally untrackable?
> thanks again
Although the other game seems to have nice rules, for counting purposes, the single-shuffle is a far better proposition for an astute Ace tracker.
My concern would be being able to consistently get away with big bets (with Aces following), especially in a heads-up situation. Obviously this will depend on your act as well as the competence of the management.
It's asking a lot but if you could 'section-track' as well, especially when heads-up, then this would allow you to vary your bets more often and play the part of a 'gambler'.
It's not often that you can get a 17% edge at the Blackjack table (51%/3) but if the situation allows you to get these opportunities frequently then you do not have to be too greedy when the event arises.
Best regards
Geoff
> Although the other game seems to have nice
> rules, for counting purposes, the
> single-shuffle is a far better proposition
> for an astute Ace tracker.
> My concern would be being able to
> consistently get away with big bets (with
> Aces following), especially in a heads-up
> situation. Obviously this will depend on
> your act as well as the competence of the
> management.
> It's asking a lot but if you could
> 'section-track' as well, especially when
> heads-up, then this would allow you to vary
> your bets more often and play the part of a
> 'gambler'.
> It's not often that you can get a 17% edge
> at the Blackjack table (51%/3) but if the
> situation allows you to get these
> opportunities frequently then you do not
> have to be too greedy when the event arises.
> Best regards
> Geoff
If the dealer gets the ace instead of you, then you are at a large disadvantage. I'm not sure how you got 17%, but even if either you or the dealer got an ace on every single round your edge would only be around 7%.
> Thanks .. gives me more confidence to attack the game .. no problems .. management appear to be relaxed and dumb .. no heat but i dont expect to stay long either ..
Although the other game seems to have nice
> rules, for counting purposes, the
> single-shuffle is a far better proposition
> for an astute Ace tracker.
> My concern would be being able to
> consistently get away with big bets (with
> Aces following), especially in a heads-up
> situation. Obviously this will depend on
> your act as well as the competence of the
> management.
> It's asking a lot but if you could
> 'section-track' as well, especially when
> heads-up, then this would allow you to vary
> your bets more often and play the part of a
> 'gambler'.
> It's not often that you can get a 17% edge
> at the Blackjack table (51%/3) but if the
> situation allows you to get these
> opportunities frequently then you do not
> have to be too greedy when the event arises.
> Best regards
> Geoff
> If the dealer gets the ace instead of you,
> then you are at a large disadvantage. I'm
> not sure how you got 17%, but even if either
> you or the dealer got an ace on every single
> round your edge would only be around 7%.
With a single shuffle it is highly unlikely that the dealer will get the Ace that a competent tracker has located, although the dealer could end up with one at random.
The 17% is calculated from spreading to 3 boxes, in order to catch the Ace, and therefore dividing the advantage of having an Ace dealt as first card, which is 51% (just under), by the number of hands you are playing, which is 3.
Best regards
Geoff
> With a single shuffle it is highly unlikely
> that the dealer will get the Ace that a
> competent tracker has located, although the
> dealer could end up with one at random.
> The 17% is calculated from spreading to 3
> boxes, in order to catch the Ace, and
> therefore dividing the advantage of having
> an Ace dealt as first card, which is 51%
> (just under), by the number of hands you are
> playing, which is 3.
> Best regards
> Geoff
The initial post, however, said that he is NOT sequencing aces, just tracking clumps of them. Therefore, the only information he has is which sections are ace-rich and which are poor. Exactly which hands will get them is still random.
> The initial post, however, said that he is
> NOT sequencing aces, just tracking clumps of
> them. Therefore, the only information he has
> is which sections are ace-rich and which are
> poor. Exactly which hands will get them is
> still random.
You're right, I assumed, due to the single shuffle, that it was tracking them and overlooked the 'locating in a clump' method.
For a single riffle I wouldn't consider anything else apart from exact location of the Aces with a bit of section tracking thrown in to help disguise the betting.
Best regards
Geoff
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks