Assuming you are playing a game where you get positive counts more often than normal (example: a bunch of extra high cards are added to a shoe), would it be beneficial to know other indices outside of the Catch 22?
Also, if other indices do become important in this case, are there any risk-averse indices that are important outside of the Catch 22?
Thanks,
pinky
> Assuming you are playing a game where you
> get positive counts more often than normal
> (example: a bunch of extra high cards are
> added to a shoe), would it be beneficial to
> know other indices outside of the Catch 22?
Er, excuse me, but if a bunch of extra high cards were added to a shoe, it seems to me that you'd be getting negative counts more often than normal, no? This is oneof the problems with such a scenario. To cheat you, a casino could add LOW cards to the shoe, and that would produce more frequent high counts, which would lull you into thinking you had an advantage that, in reality, you don't have.
Conversely, if extra high cards were added, you would have an extra edge, but your count would not be indicating it to you.
> Also, if other indices do become important
> in this case, are there any risk-averse
> indices that are important outside of the
> Catch 22?
The math of the whole game would have to be reformulated, as everything changes.
Don
> Er, excuse me, but if a bunch of extra high
> cards were added to a shoe, it seems to me
> that you'd be getting negative counts more
> often than normal, no?
No. When I say "high" cards that refers to tens and aces.
This is oneof the
> problems with such a scenario. To cheat you,
> a casino could add LOW cards to the shoe,
> and that would produce more frequent high
> counts, which would lull you into thinking
> you had an advantage that, in reality, you
> don't have.
> Conversely, if extra high cards were added,
> you would have an extra edge, but your
> count would not be indicating it to you.
That is not the case for this theoretical question. In this case, you actually know how many extra tens and aces there are in the shoe. Thus, you would start out with a count that is higher than 0 and have a positive edge off the top.
thanks,
pinko
> The math of the whole game would have to be
> reformulated, as everything changes.
> Don
Don said:
> Er, excuse me, but if a bunch of extra high
> cards were added to a shoe, it seems to me
> that you'd be getting negative counts more
> often than normal, no?
you said:
"No. When I say "high" cards that refers to tens and aces."
YES. When you said "high" cards you referred to tens and aces.
> This is one of the problems with such a scenario. To cheat you,
> a casino could add LOW cards to the shoe,
> and that would produce more frequent high
> counts, which would lull you into thinking
> you had an advantage that, in reality, you
> don't have.
> Conversely, if extra high cards were added,
> you would have an extra edge, but your
> count would not be indicating it to you.
"That is not the case for this theoretical question. In this case, you actually know how many extra tens and aces there are in the shoe. Thus, you would start out with a count that is higher than 0 and have a positive edge off the top."
How do you know how many extra tens are in the shoe? And if you do, it's well known how to attack, so what's the point?
ANS
> How do you know how many extra tens are in
> the shoe? And if you do, it's well known how
> to attack, so what's the point?
In this scenario, you are told at the beginning of each shoe how many extra tens and aces are in the shoe. The number can be from 6 to 36. The point of my question is this: we all know that playing a normal shoe requires knowing only the catch 22 indices as explained in Don's book. However, when the game changes in this manner, I need to know if more indices become significant. In addition, I need to know if there are any risk-averse indices that are important outside of the catch 22. For all I know, there are no risk-averse indices that lie outside of the catch 22 which differ significantly from the ev-maximizing indices.
plinko
> In this scenario, you are told at the
> beginning of each shoe how many extra tens
> and aces are in the shoe. The number can be
> from 6 to 36. The point of my question is
> this: we all know that playing a normal shoe
> requires knowing only the catch 22 indices
> as explained in Don's book. However, when
> the game changes in this manner, I need to
> know if more indices become significant. In
> addition, I need to know if there are any
> risk-averse indices that are important
> outside of the catch 22. For all I know,
> there are no risk-averse indices that lie
> outside of the catch 22 which differ
> significantly from the ev-maximizing
> indices.
> plinko
I think what Don was suggesting was that changing the deck composition changes the effects of removal which effects the efficiency of your count system. You really need to use a count system designed for your deck composition, with its own indices.
It's like trying to count Spanish 21 with Hi-lo by starting with a TC of -4. It's technically correct, but hopelessly inefficient - you'll miss too many advantage situations.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks