Card counting alone no longer is viable.

[UK-21]

An interesting six pages of forum discussion. Blackjackwarrior, what exactly do you define as "accuracy" in your last post? If you meant "certainty", I'd say you're correct, as the process of tracking the cards played and using this to inform playing and betting decisions is based on averages and probability. It's a volume endeavour, and over-time practitioners who engage in perfect card-counting will come out in front. That's not my opinion but what the math(s) indicate. If this was not the case, then why do casinos in the States spend so much time, effort and money each year on game protection?

With regard to your assertion that using a Martingale progression approach will provide an advantage, the math(s) show this is completely without basis. Yes, you may win some hands, and reverse out losses that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't doubled down (although this isn't an indication of an "advantage"), but again the averages will show through over time. Doubling down without knowing whether the composition of the cards still to be played are, on average, favourable (this is only the case around 20% of the time), will cause you to lose money over time, in the same way as perfect card counting will win money over time.

Play how you wish to, but arguing against the math(s) on this site, where there are so many math(s) savvy regular contributors, simply shows that you need to do some reading around the theories of probability and statistics as well as the basis of why card-counting does work. Why do you think it is that casinos don't look out for advantage players on the roulette or craps tables (being on the lookout for instances of cheating being something else entirely, although it all comes under the generic heading of "game protection")?

Best wishes from the UK.

Good cards.

[KJ]

I'm finished with you. Your education in card counting is diluted. You have somewhat a tunnel vision. And don't grasp the entire concept. You fall into "Part 1" of my previous post.

I don't think that his card counting education is diluted, nor that he hasn't grasped the concept. I think he is just "yanking our chain". That was my initial feeling several hours ago, and I vowed "not to play". I then went ahead and engaged, with the slight possibility that maybe he was sincere and didn't understand. But, now I am back to my first conclusion. First intuition is usually right.

Either that or an industry insider trying to alter reality.

[blackjackwarrior]

I'm finished with you. Your education in card counting is diluted. You have somewhat a tunnel vision. And don't grasp the entire concept. You fall into "Part 1" of my previous post.

The game was beatable once. The casinos changed the rules and they haven't alter much since. Says alot doesn't it.

[hitthat16]

Still beatable or this forum about beating blackjack wouldn't exist.

[blackjackwarrior]

An interesting six pages of forum discussion. Blackjackwarrior, what exactly do you define as "accuracy" in your last post? If you meant "certainty", I'd say you're correct, as the process of tracking the cards played and using this to inform playing and betting decisions is based on averages and probability. It's a volume endeavour, and over-time practitioners who engage in perfect card-counting will come out in front. That's not my opinion but what the math(s) indicate. If this was not the case, then why do casinos in the States spend so much time, effort and money each year on game protection?

With regard to your assertion that using a Martingale progression approach will provide an advantage, the math(s) show this is completely without basis. Yes, you may win some hands, and reverse out losses that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't doubled down (although this isn't an indication of an "advantage"), but again the averages will show through over time. Doubling down without knowing whether the composition of the cards still to be played are, on average, favourable (this is only the case around 20% of the time), will cause you to lose money over time, in the same way as perfect card counting will win money over time.

Play how you wish to, but arguing against the math(s) on this site, where there are so many math(s) savvy regular contributors, simply shows that you need to do some reading around the theories of probability and statistics as well as the basis of why card-counting does work. Why do you think it is that casinos don't look out for advantage players on the roulette or craps tables (being on the lookout for instances of cheating being something else entirely, although it all comes under the generic heading of "game protection")?

Best wishes from the UK.

Good cards.

Hey thanks for the input.
Inaccuracy because everything has to align right for card counting to be effective. Your two cards must fall a certain way - and in a way it's tough to take a card. Now if you stay you have to rely on the dealers card falls a certain way. That's five cards at least. If it is a simple I stay on 12 and the dealer flips on 16 followed by an expected 10, then yes. But that is not the case. And when they cut away a portion, there is an advantage, but it's been marginalized.
But you do see that using a progressive betting progression, you may win something extra. When you account for that with the Martingale System, that is when things become unfavorable.

[UK-21]

Hey thanks for the input.
Your two cards must fall a certain way - and in a way it's tough to take a card.

I don't understand this point - one simply makes the correct play for the player hand / dealer hand / true count combination, and by doing so one maximises the chances of winning or minimises the chances of losing. Yep, on some hands all play options are -EV, but you'd make the play that has the least probability of losing, based upon the perceived composition of the cards remaining to be played at that point in time (as determined by the true count).

Penetration, the number of decks in use and rulesets are important variables in the game, and depending on what they may be may render a game impossible to obtain an advantage from. But this is not always the case, and where conditions are favourable, and combined with the simple practice of betting more during the 20%-ish of time when you have an advantage, and your minimum for the 80% of time when you don't, you'll win out over time. It's very simple and it does work, although errors in keeping the count, estimating the number of decks still in the shoe or calculating your advantage can dilute away any advantage and cost you dear.

If you're a green chip counter, and spread from $50-$800 (if you can get away with it), even with pretty modest H17 conditions your average hourly return is still probably more than the guy in surveillance who's being paid to catch you. This is why players who apply the skill of counting cards at the single deck, double deck and shoe dealt blackjack tables offered by casinos are not welcome patrons.

Chin chin. :-)

[RobinHood21]

If you're a green chip counter, and spread from $50-$800 (if you can get away with it), even with pretty modest H17 conditions your average hourly return is still probably more than the guy in surveillance who's being paid to catch you.

You can spread $5-$80 and meet the hourly wages of a Surveillance Operator.

[blackjackwarrior]

I don't understand this point - one simply makes the correct play for the player hand / dealer hand / true count combination, and by doing so one maximises the chances of winning or minimises the chances of losing. Yep, on some hands all play options are -EV, but you'd make the play that has the least probability of losing, based upon the perceived composition of the cards remaining to be played at that point in time (as determined by the true count).

Penetration, the number of decks in use and rulesets are important variables in the game, and depending on what they may be may render a game impossible to obtain an advantage from. But this is not always the case, and where conditions are favourable, and combined with the simple practice of betting more during the 20%-ish of time when you have an advantage, and your minimum for the 80% of time when you don't, you'll win out over time. It's very simple and it does work, although errors in keeping the count, estimating the number of decks still in the shoe or calculating your advantage can dilute away any advantage and cost you dear.

If you're a green chip counter, and spread from $50-$800 (if you can get away with it), even with pretty modest H17 conditions your average hourly return is still probably more than the guy in surveillance who's being paid to catch you. This is why players who apply the skill of counting cards at the single deck, double deck and shoe dealt blackjack tables offered by casinos are not welcome patrons.

Chin chin. :-)

Hey thanks for the comment; you make some good point. I concede the top. However I don't think you can assume that full %20 and bet large there as wins tend to follow the consumption of 10s and we don't know when those will come or how. Also those small cards hurts us more than the 10s ever can help. So during those %80-ish of the time our probability of losing is several % more than during the %20 of the time our probability of winning. In the long run, you probably lose more from those $50 bets than win from the $800 bets.

[Three]

I would agrue that a progressive betting progression magnifies the double downs. The double downs allows for a re-bet in the progression. From the ethos of the Martingale, you only win a unit - the double down allows for so much more.

Double downs are already figured into the house edge for each bet. If a progression bettor refuses to double or split the HE is much much higher. Only by splitting and doubling when it is called for and using perfect BS do you play at the house edge for the game. Doubling and splitting doesn't give you a higher edge than perfect play. Sure like at any other bet you are either at an advantage or expecting to lose less money when you make the right play but that doesn't help your expectation because you are expected to make that play when the HE was calculated. Think about it. Your logic is totally flawed.

Only by correlating those progressions to the shifting advantage will you hope to gain anything on the HE. At high counts you will get more doubling and splitting opportunities and experience more favorable results. The rub for a progression bettor is the long winning and losing streaks are more likely in a negative count. That has them betting big at the worst times. Doubles will be poor in this situation and many will not be taken by a counter because they are no longer plus EV. High counts tend to be pretty choppy so far as streaks go. Remember the dealer has the same chance to get a great hand as you do. If you have a crappy hand you will bust more frequently than on a negative count but at the same time you are likely to get great hands and the dealer must hit his stiff. The progression player would hit it according to BS and the counter may not hit that stiff vs a great dealer upcard because his chances are better if he stands.

[UK-21]

Hey thanks for the comment; you make some good point. I concede the top. However I don't think you can assume that full %20 and bet large there as wins tend to follow the consumption of 10s and we don't know when those will come or how. Also those small cards hurts us more than the 10s ever can help. So during those %80-ish of the time our probability of losing is several % more than during the %20 of the time our probability of winning. In the long run, you probably lose more from those $50 bets than win from the $800 bets.

I think you're confusing the probability of winning/losing/pushing individual hands and the overall net "advantage" that results from (a) knowing when there's an abundance of 10s/faces/aces in the deck, (b) increasing bets according to a pre-determined "ramp" when there is and (c) applying advantageous deviations from basic strategy when there is.

Think about the 80% -EV / 20% +EV bit . . . . . . assume all -EV situations lose and +EV situations win . . . . with a 4 x $50 ($200) loss it'd be cancelled out with a 1 x $200 win. So, in theory, an average positive count bet of 4 units will achieve a breakeven? Of course there's a bit more to it than this, but it's a simple example that indicates that if you can spread bets in excess of around 1-8, in the long run (in theory, and assuming no playing errors) you'll come out in front. I calculated that a 1-8 spread on the pretty standard UK 6-deck ruleset we have here provides a longer term advantage of a little under half a per cent. The greater you can spread your bets, the greater the return can be. Again, very simple.

It's also why those who have knowledge of card-counting, and how it works, know that "bet one for bad, two for good" (care of The Rain Man movie), just doesn't cut it.

Stick your nose in some good books on the subject - the penny will eventually drop.

[Three]

Also those small cards hurts us more than the 10s ever can help. So during those %80-ish of the time our probability of losing is several % more than during the %20 of the time our probability of winning. In the long run, you probably lose more from those $50 bets than win from the $800 bets.

Just plucking numbers out of the air:
$5*.8*.02 (bet size times frequency times house 2% advantage) = .08 lost in the 80% negative advantage situations
80*.2*.02 (bet size times frequency times your 2% advantage) = .32 won in the 20% winning situations

So you win 4 times as much as you lose.

If you were to use simply 2 bet sizes, the frequency time the house edge - the frequency times the player edge in advantage bets would equal the house edge overall. Lets see how our hyotheticall stacks up:
HE of the theoretical game = .8*.02 - .2*.02 = .016 -.004 = .012.

So your playing a game that has a HE of .3-.7% most likely if you are smart enough to avoid the crap games but our theoretical is for a HE of 1.2%. So a real game the counter edge would be much higher since 1.2% is 4 times a great games HE and almost twice a crappy games HE.

You can get all the warm and fuzzy feelings you want about what you are doing but the math will not change because of it. Counting works and progressions only rearrange the losing so you are deceived into thinking you have an advantage. If you bets are not correlated to shifting advantage if you play enough hands at any bet level you will approach losing the HE times your total bet for that bet level. Martingales only make the top bat far less frequent so it takes a long time to get to the long run and approach the expectation of losing the total amount bet times the house edge. Make enough max bets in your progression and it will get there.

For the math challenged I go back to fourth grade math. One of the first theorem you learn is the commutative law of addition which states it doesn't matter in what order you add numbers the total is still the same (you may remember it as (A+B)+C=A+(B+C). You think the numbers add to an advantage because you group them in a progression. Any fifth grader could rearrange your bet results into flat bet groups instead of progression groups without changing what the sum is. Ad all bets made at your first bet to get a sum and add all bets made at the next bet t get a sum on up through al your bet sizes until you add all your bets made at your top bet to get a sum. Adding all these sums will give you your results. Since all bets were made independent of shifting advantage your results should be about the HE times the total bet for each betting level. There are differences between the different bet groups. The smaller bets are bet very frequently and the largest bet is bet infrequently. This means your small bets will approach the expected loss of HE*total bet amount well before the top bet. It probably takes tens of thousands of bets for the top bet to approach expectation.

The HE already considers you will double when called for so there is no extra benefit to doubling the bets in the largest bet group. You did it in all the other groups as well so that group has no special benefit from it. Any fifth grader can tell you that your math is wrong.

[Exoter175]

This explains my results for the year.....card counting, all of the sudden, is no longer viable.

This made me chuckle, thank you KJ lol

Best variance to ya bud!

We have no proof either or. Do you know anybody whose been barred? I use to work in a casino and card counters there were none - this is in california where cardroom games are player friendly.

If that's the case, then your casino is either completely oblivious to how counters play, or you just weren't paying attention.

This morning I was on a table with another counter, and the floor guy was talking about how you couldn't live off of playing black jack, even if you could count, because the surveillance guys would eventually catch you. We didn't say anything contrary, of course, just kind of egged him on with an "oh yeah? wow, yeah I don't think I could make a living off of this stuff".

I'm not say that the Martingale System works. I'm pointing out the advantage.

There is no advantage when there is a table maximum. Seriously. I don't care how long you play even at a 5-$10,000 table, eventually you will max out the table and be negative in the entirety of your play and not get the opportunity for an increased bet to get it back. Seriously, it will happen.

I once played a dealer at almost a constant TC+1 for an entire shoe with another guy on the table. I won a single hand that shoe. Martingale would have slaughtered me.

[seriousplayer]

Hey, thanks for the discussion. I'm not saying that the Martingale system is viable. Yes if you lose all those bets as you say then you're going to lose. But you can't deny that there is a possibility on that $5120 bet in blackjack, you can double down if you were to receive 6 and 4 vs a 6.

First you said the Martingale system is not able to beat blackjack right now you said the Martingale system is not viable. If a system is not viable, workable and able to beat blackjack than that system has no advantage. You might not get a chance to put out that $5120 bet because you reach the TABLE LIMIT already. Where have you played a $10 low limit table that offers over $5000 as the table max?