Counting vs Progressions

[midnite]

Counting is pretty much the same every time. Wait for a plus count and increase your bet, as you now have a slight mathematical edge. While some counters may use some form of a progression, as cover, they dislike progressions in general.

Progressions come in quite a variety. Postive : increase bet on a win. Negative : increase bet on a lose. (Some even try both, at the same time.) How you go about raising the bet, can be quite simple or very complex.
Progressions are "all" lumped together. Some are better than others. Two players with a $300 bankroll, for example. One is using a Martingale and one is using Walter's method. The player using the Martingale is the odds on favorite....to go busted first.
Both can win and both can lose. What is right for you, only you can decide.

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

Okay... were you wondering about something, Midnite? Or was it solely to inform us of the differences between the 2? Cuz your post seemed to be informal ONLY...

Staying on this subject, though, why is it that hardcore COUNTERS are the only ones who HAVE THE UPPERHAND and are the ones who indeed have the edge at BJ, as opposed to Progressions?

And, using the Ace-Five count in a 6-deck shoe game, how high would the count have to be for me to have some sort of "edge" and thus increase my bet x units?

[Desert Dog]

Bug -- Counters have the upper hand because they know when to increase or decrease their bets because they know something about the remaining cards in the shoe because they have been counting. A disproportionately high number of remaining 10s and Aces favor the player and a disproportionately high number of 2-6's favor the dealer. If the dealer has 12 through 16 s/he has to hit while player wouldn't if dealer upcard is 2 or 3 through 6. If the odds of getting a ten have increased due to the remaining shoe having more than 31% of its remaining cards tens then dealer is more likely to bust. This is why counters have the upper hand. (Elsewhere under another topic I said I was going to leave it to Fred to explain this but since you asked, Bug, here's an answer.)

There are no guarantees with counting. It still can go into a negative fluctuation where dealer wins, such as on a mainly high deal eg dealer 10-10, player one 10-8, player two 10-7 and player three Ace-8, where five of eight cards played were high but dealer wins. To add insult to injury the running count has just been reduced by five. Which really bites. And can make a guy think progressions are the way to go for a whole lot less headache.

Simple logic says that a shoe rich in Ace-10's is going to help the player more often. There is NO logic to expecting that just because you won a hand, you're more likely to win the next. But there's also the fact that of the 102 shoes played in Walter Thomason's test, only 15 didn't have streaks of four or more and to anyone who has played this game, this comes as no surprise. Meaning: sure you may not know what the next hand is going to be, but streaks happen, period. So maybe that means use them by increasing your bet after the win that could be the first of a streak, and dropping back as soon as the winning streak ends. (Not getting into discussion of negative progressions here.)

The ultimate question in this debate boils down to this: unless a player skilled at counting is adequately bankrolled, is the slim advantage counting offers sufficient? Or should a player without a deep bankroll expect, for the monetary league he is in, that streaks, which undeniably seem to happen a lot, will happen enough to create more dollars won than lost on the long term expectation of 43% wins, 48% losses, and 9% pushes.

(Can't answer your question about Ace-5.)

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

Nicely explained, DD, but I knew half that stuff you told me about the high count etc. :)

I was just wondering how 2 BJ authors had varying opinions on this... seems that one should be better than another!! PERIOD!! I'd love to hear Walter's explanation of his Progressions.

But than, if card counting isn't 100% concrete then how are there BLACKJACK EXPERTS WHO WIN A HUGEASS AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THE CASINO'S EVERYTIME THEY GO THERE?! What are they doing that's evidently much better than just simply counting/progressive play besides the fact that they're already playing FLAWLESS BS?! Are they SUPER card-counters?! What's up... how are they able to basically totally destroy casino's in this game?

(I'm talking about HARDCORE PROFESSIONAL BJ players)

[Renzey]

There positively are no Super Card Counters who win big dough every time they play. It is utterly impossible to play a gambling game and take the gamble out of it. That's why card counters need deep pockets. They have a small edge for sure, but winning is merely probable. The longer they enforce that small edge though, the more probable a bottom line net profit becomes. Beating blackjack for a card counter is a "grinding out" process, much the same as the house will eventually grind out a perfect basic strategy player. It's the same for poker experts. They grind out there edge over the other players in the long run. Professional gamblers take some horrible beatings at their livelihood. I estimate that about one blackjack player in 500 is a card counter.
As for progression players? There are zillions of them, yet the house still earns a satisfactory net profit at blackjack. Let me ask this question about streaks. After you've won four in a row, what's your chance of winning the fifth? It's 43% -- the same as before your first win. So which hand would you have been better to bet more money on -- the first or the fifth?

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

No wait... I thought after winning more hands in a row (or losing), your chances of continuing that streak get LESSER and LESSER... you know, Bernulli's Formula, which indicates your odds of winning or losing x times in a row. Losing 3 in a row is 12.5%, so winning 3 in a row is also 1:8 so winning 4 or losing 4 in a row would be less than that. Renzey, in your example, you asked what's the probability of winning that 5th one. Well, according to Bernulli's Formula, it would be about 1:38, which is obviously much less than 43%, since the longer a streak you have, the lesser the chance that is going to increase.

[Buffarino]

Bug, your odds of winning or losing the next hand are independent of what has happened in the past. Same goes for roulette. Black can come up 20 times in a row and your odds of a black on the next spin are the same as in the first spin - slightly less than 50% (due to 0 and/or 00). Same goes for flipping a coin, etc.

The odds of a streak happening are what you say, but that has nothing to do with the odds on the next hand. Let's look at the coin toss for an easy example:

The odds of heads is 50%, or 1 in 2. The odds of 2 heads in a row is .50x.50, or 25% (1 in 4). The odds of 3 in a row are .50x.50x.50, or 12.5% (1 in 8 ). But the odds of heads coming up the next flip are still 50%. Even if you've gone 20 flips concecutively of heads, the odds on the next flip are still 50% (the odds of getting 20 heads in a row are .0001%, however). Does that make sense?

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

Okay, then would you mind explaining Bernulli's Formula to me, which states everything COMPLETELY contradictory to you and Renzey as I last posted?

[Buffarino]

Okay, then would you mind explaining Bernulli's Formula to me, which states everything COMPLETELY contradictory to you and Renzey as I last posted?

I edited my previous post. Please read it again and it may shed some light on this for you.

[Ted]

:idea: Man, I am way out of my league in this discussion, but I think I understand the disagreement. The odds on any streak, winning or losing, diminish as the the streak continues. But, in a given hand, you have a 43% chance of winning that hand regardless of whether you are in the midst of a streak or not. The streak % is not related to the odds of a given hand.

[Buffarino]

:idea: Man, I am way out of my league in this discussion, but I think I understand the disagreement. The odds on any streak, winning or losing, diminish as the the streak continues. But, in a given hand, you have a 43% chance of winning that hand regardless of whether you are in the midst of a streak or not. The streak % is not related to the odds of a given hand.

Correct. Doesn't sound like you're out of your league at all, Ted. :wink:

[Renzey]

Bernoulli's theorem is misinterpreted by most gamblers. Let me shed some light on this "streak" thing and try to show how it all ties in with a couple of logical examples. Buffarino is quite correct, and here's why. Example #1: It's a fact that in poker, your odds of being dealt a flush on the first five cards are 505-to-1 against. But suppose that after looking at your first four cards, they're all spades. What are your odds of being dealt a flush now? They're only 4.2-to-1 against! The odds were 505-to-1 at the start, but at this point, the "flush" question is is simply, "What are my chances of being dealt a flush on my first five cards when I already have the first four?" Now, let's go to the "streak" question in blackjack. Your'e just sitting down to play and you know that your chance of winning that first hand is 43%. So your chance of winning your first five hands are 43% x 43% x 43% x 43% x 43%, or 67-to-1 against. But suppose that after your first four hands, you've won them all. What are your chances of completing a five hand streak now? They're 43%, or just 1.3-to-1 against! In both cases, prolonged statistical record keeping has shown this to be true. When you flip a coin and get a streak of four heads in a row, half of those "four" streaks become a streak of five, and the other half break off right there. Of those that do progress to five, half progress further to six, and the other half break off, etc, etc. Since your chance of winning the next blackjack hand is always the same as at any other time (unless you know something about the remaining cards, which do influence those chances), there is no advantageous time to bet more. Don't be mislead by the fact that you'll sometimes bet a streak and show an impressive gain. That was a matter of blind chance. The real question is, how much do I win during all my winning streaks vs. how much do I lose during my losing streaks combined with those small losses I incur during the "chops". Thorough mathematical analysis shows that if the chance of a "W" and and "L" were both 50%, the whole progression (no matter what type) cancels itself out. When an "L" is more likely than a "W", the progressionist must lose an amount that is exactly equal to his disadvantage in the game. The only thing that can change this is if the streaks somehow appear more often than they're supposed to. I examined an admittedly limited sample size of 10,000 hands, and found the streaks to occur as often as mathematical probability predicted.

[BJ_Fan]

Fred - It seems to me that although the chance of losing the next hand is 48% and the chance of winning is only 43%, the increase in bet on a positive progression (ie. 50% increase in bet size) would make up for the 5% excess of chance of losing in the long run? Does this make sense? Where am I going wrong?

Walter - Is this why you believe your 2,3,4,5 system works? Because of the value added by the increase in bet size over the increase in likelihood of a losing hand?

P.S. I've used a Dahl progression in the past with a fair amount of success and I agree with Bug...it is more fun than flat betting :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Renzey]

To BJ Fan: How can that make up for anything? If you increase your bet from $20 to $30 on a certain step of the progression and win that $30 bet 43% of the time (losing 48% and pushing 9%), then you'll positively be behind on all your $30 bets. Now let's put all those $30 bets aside for a moment. There will also be a bunch of times you'll bet $20 on another prescribed step of your progression. If you win 43% of all those, you'll be down on all your $20 bets combined. And then there are all those times you'll bet just $10, perhaps at the start of your progression. If you win 43% of all those, you'll be down on all your $10 bets combined. With those results, where is your combined net profit supposed to come from? Admittedly, there will be those times when you win your $10 bet, your $20 bet, your $30 bet and maybe even a slew of your max. bets during one particular progression. That will look and feel mighty good when it happens and will be a lot of fun too. Realize though, that they were just a cluster of 43% shots squeezed back to back, and part of the ever-oscillating big picture. But if at the end of your blackjack life, if all you've done is win 43% of each specific sized bet, there's nowhere for you to be but behind!

[Ted]

I never saw a "counter" play. I understand the concept though. But, I need to get a "sense" of exactly what a counter does, How he thinks etc.
Someone answer this for me without getting too involved. A counter sits down in Atlantic City in an 8 deck game. It's a $25 table. The dealer cuts the deck and leaves about 6 decks to play with. I think they call that penetration. Jesus, somebody could have come up with a better word. There are 7 players, and the counter sits at 3rd base. At this point the shoe has 96 10's. Forget the lowbies for the moment. There are 312 cards to be dealt. I guess there would be about 25-26 cards dealt in the average hand with 7 players and the dealer. I figure there would be between 12 to 15 hands dealt in that shoe. The counter's first bet is $25. He bets the minimum because he is waiting to pick his spot. OK? When exactly is his spot. How many hands would have to be played before a counter feels the deck is rich in 10's. How many 10's would have to left so that a counter would consider the shoe "rich" in 10's? How many times in a given shoe would a counter make his big move?

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

When exactly is his spot. How many hands would have to be played before a counter feels the deck is rich in 10's. How many 10's would have to left so that a counter would consider the shoe "rich" in 10's? How many times in a given shoe would a counter make his big move?

Alright, I am not a hardcore counter myself (not YET, at least) but I occasionally use the Ace-Five count (a very simple count, maybe THE simplest) while playing. Basically, if the counter is using the popular count (+1 for every 2-6 appearing, -1 for every 10-A, 7-8-9 are 0) which I forgot the name of right now, he waits til the count to be ~2 or 3 before he starts raising his bets because that would be enough to merit an edge on his part. The higher the count gets, the more advantage the counter has because that would mean that the deck is more richer in 10-Aces than LOWBIES. If howeve the count is negative, it's against the player, and if the count gets too negative (i.e. -6 or beyond) counters usually a) DONT play or b) Wait til the count gets back up than "Wongs" back in the game, which means jumps in while a series is already in session.

As far as how many times he'd make a big bet, it all depends on the count. If it's ~+10 or so, the counter would most likely bet several units his minimum because at that kind of count it's very much in his favor.

I hope this info helps you, and others that are more familiar with counting would be able to assist you as well.

[Ted]

Thanks Bug, but you lost me. Let me try the question again. I am looking for one word answers to each question. I understand it's an oversimplification, but this is what will help me most for the time being.

Eight decks, Atlantic City, 7 players. Figuring that there ar no more than 15 hands to each shoe after penetration.

Question 1. How many times during a given shoe will a counter make his "move"?

Question 2. How many 10's must a shoe hold for it to be considered "rich" in 10's?

Question 3. If a counter is at a $25 minimum table, what kind of a bet would the average counter make when he feels the shoe is rich in 10's?

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

Okay. What lost you? I tried to make it sound understandable.

Question 1: Again, this depends totally on how often the count is in his favor. No one knows ahead of time the distribution of high and low cards.

Question 2: The count must be +2 or more for it to be somewhat of an advantage, 10/Aces will be more abundant and thus the counter would have the advantage. Of course, the higher the count, the MORE the advantage he has.

Question 3: This again depends on HOW RICH the shoe is of 10-Aces. If the count it +1 or +2 (meaning that there are MORE high cards in the deck, but not a significant amount to give you a favorable advantage), than the counter would only raise his bet by 1 unit, or even leave it at the table minimum. Conversely, if the count reaches at least +3 or more, this is when he would raise it more, about 2 or 3 units. Only if the count is VERY POSITIVE would the counter want to significantly raise his bets, and also, remember: Just because the count is very positive does not mean you will automatically win. It just gives you a much BETTER chance at winning because unless you're playing heads up (1-1 against dealer), there are more players at a table and therefore the players have the odds of getting the high cards remaining to make very good hands.

All cool?

[Renzey]

Ted; I can't think of any one word answers to your three questions, but I'll keep them as short as possible. Answer #1) Only 30% of the shoes ever develop a player edge, and they retain that edge for about 70% of their hands. Thus, the player has an edge about 20% of the time overall -- even if he's not a counter and doesn't realize an edge has developed. Answer #2) First, I need to straighten something out. With an eight deck shoe, even though they cut off two decks, the shoe still contains 128 Tens, since they all could come out. The same is true with those 128 Babies (2's thru 5's). Placing a cut card somewhere in the shoe doesn't reduce the number of cards you have to consider as available. The only ones you can "eliminate" from contention are those you have seen. Okay, let's move forward. The shoe is rich enough in high cards to eliminate the house edge and supplant it with a workable player edge when there is at least 1 surplus high card (10's and Aces) for every deck that is left at that moment. Here's an example: When you get two decks into that eight deck shoe, if you had seen 40 Tens and Aces (combined) that would be perfectly normal, since each complete deck contains 20 of them. That would leave 120 Ace/10's still in the shoe -- a perfectly normal allotment for that many cards. But if those remaining six decks contained 126 Ace/10's, the player would now have a bettable edge. This event you could be aware of by simply tallying up all the Ace/10's that come out in the first two dealt decks. If 34 or fewer popped out, you'd know you're there. Later on, when there are only say, three decks left, the player needs just a three card surplus, or 63 remaining Ace/10's to have the same edge. Answer #3) A minimum edge is worth a 2 to 3 unit wager. A big edge, such as with 3 extra Ace/10's per remaining deck is worth a 12 unit bet in an eight deck game.

[Ted]

Bug, I really appreciate your helping me with this problem. I am a complete novice to the idea of counting. What I do understand is that there are many, many variables to my 3 questions. I already understand that. Let me repeat that. I already understand that everything depends on everything else. But, the variables are for another time. First, for me, I need to get an answer to my 3 questions. Just my first question for now. Would a counter be most likely to make his move 8 times during a shoe or 2 times? Would it be unusual for a counter not to make any moves at all during a shoe because the shoe was never rich in 10's?

If I sat next to Renzey in a game how many times during a given shoe would I expect him to make a move. For the time being I have no interest in his reasons.

[Ted]

Fred, OK, if a player had an edge 20% of the time overall wouldnt that mean if a shoe held on average 15 "hands" that a counter would make his move 3 times. on average during a given shoe? Better yet, how many times might you expect to make a 12 unit bet during the course of a shoe?

[Renzey]

Ted: as an averaged cross-section that's true. But he'll make his move in clusters, staying at his minimum bet for a few shoes running, then pumping it up for most of an entire positive shoe.

[Ted]

Fred, I absolutely guarantee you that there are one word answers to all 3 of my questions. Without any shadow of any doubt there are one word answers. This is what I need to know. I don't need to know about "clusters" and "pumping it up". These words mean nothing to me right now. They are for another time. I am going to assume that when you make your move, you bet 12 units. Even if you don't, for the time being assume that you do. You then proceed to play 100 shoes of 8 decks. The 100 shoes turn out to be what you expected. Some good shoes some bad. Now, my question is, during the course of those 100 shoes how many times might you expect to make a 12 unit bet?

[Ted]

There is a site on the internet called "The Gamemaster". On this site is a Blackjack School. 16 Lessons. The instructor says you must learn to count cards. Otherwise, you can't win. He proceeds to describe the "Hi-Lo" system which I will call HL from hereon out. He says it is a "very simple system". He uses 3 different numbers. The first number he uses is a "zero" or "0". Then he uses what he calls "-1". Lastly he uses a "+1".

Now he tells you how to apply these numbers. He says, "assign the value of +1 to the following cards. Deuces, treys, fours, fives and sixes.

Now he says assign the value of "0" to sevens, eights and nines.

Lastly he says for each 10, jack, queen, king and ace assign the number
-1.

He then proceeds to deal out a hand. 7 players plus the dealer.
He deals a 7, 2, 10, 5, 9, 10, 3 to the players. The dealers card is down.
He then proceeds to describe the "running count". So he says, 0, +1, -1, +1, 0, -1, +1. Now he tells you that the count at this point is +1. What he did was to add up all those plusses and minuses and zeroes to come up with that total of +1.

Now, my first observation is, what kind of a mind do you have to have to be able to do that kind of computing so quickly. The dealer hasn't even dealt the second card to the players and my head is swimming trying to add up the first set of cards. My IQ is about 115. I was never any good in math and I don't know if it was because I simply didn't have the ability or just didn't want to put the effort in to learning.

I am beginning to believe that counting may very well give a player an advantage over the house, but the counter himself must have an extraordinary mind. You gotta be a "Rainman" type guy. I hate to admit it but I am more of "Drizzleman".

[Grifter]

Ted - It does not take an 'extraordinary mind' to count. What it does take is practice, practice, practice.

And it is not as difficult as it appears, especially the 'running count' portion. You use a cancellation method to make it simpler (i.e. look at two cards at a time, say each player's up cards. Let's say player 1 has a K and a 3....they cancel. One quick look and go to the next player. Say he has a Q and 4...they cancel. Your own hand has a 6 and a 5....+2, etc., etc.)

Try it yourself with a single deck. Turn the cards over two at a time and add/subtract them in groups of two.

You asked for brevity in an earlier post.....That's about as brief as I can make it.

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

Ted,

We're trying to answer your questions as best as we can... sure there are 1-word answers, but they wont be very accurate as it would always depend on HOW MANY of your favorable cards come out. With no one knowing this, we can only give you approximations.

What's the site to that GameMaster that teaches you to count cards?

Yeah, Grifter's right, just keep practicing practicing practicing and you'll eventually get it.

Just my first question for now. Would a counter be most likely to make his move 8 times during a shoe or 2 times? Would it be unusual for a counter not to make any moves at all during a shoe because the shoe was never rich in 10's?

1st question: He'd be more likely to make his move 8 times IF AND ONLY IF the count skyrocketed and stayed at a nice count (+5 and >)therefore giving him the advantage throughout the entire shoe. If the count only hovered at +2 or +3 and after went negative than he would only do it about 2 times.

2nd question: No, not at all. [endshortanswer] If the count doesn't call for raising his bet at all, or if it swings wild in the negative direction, he would never up his bet.

[Renzey]

Ted: You will end up making a 12 unit bet on 4% to 5% of all your hands. If you're just starting out, there are many simpler counting systems than the "Hi/Lo" you mentioned if that seems too daunting. There are also simpler ways to apply or keep track of your count. Using these newer, more streamlined methods, I can tell you that there are people who couldn't cut the mustard with the traditional Hi/Lo that are now winners at the game.

[Grifter]

Ted - Renzey is correct.....There are simpler counting methods than Hi-Lo. In fact, he has two or three in his latest book. However, these simpler methods will not be quite as efficient as Hi-Lo. Renzey has good tables in his book that show this. So it is a matter of 'give and take', and what you are comfortable with.

Secondly, and I imagine Renzey is going to disagree with me. If you are only going to be playing eight deck, I personally would NOT bother to learn to count......."Pain" vs "Gain" simply isn't worth it in my opinion. I have never played a hand of eight deck blackjack in my life, and probably never will.

[Ted]

Fred Renzey has said that I will wind up making a 12 unit bet on from 4 to 5% of my hands. This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. If I play 100 hands, maybe 6 or 7 shoes in an 8 deck game, I will only "send it in" somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 times. I didn't mean to wear you guys out with this. I was under the impression that a counter who bet $25 a hand waiting for his spot would send in a 10 to 12x bet when the time was right.

[Desert Dog]

... And it is not as difficult as it appears, especially the 'running count' portion. You use a cancellation method to make it simpler (i.e. look at two cards at a time, say each player's up cards. Let's say player 1 has a K and a 3....they cancel. One quick look and go to the next player. Say he has a Q and 4...they cancel. Your own hand has a 6 and a 5....+2, etc., etc.)

Try it yourself with a single deck. Turn the cards over two at a time and add/subtract them in groups of two.

Easy enough when you're dealing from a deck by yourself. In the casino I always stumble on what "two card sets" to look at, and there ain't no time for dithering. Grifter, when everyone gets their first two cards, do you do an interim count then with the two card "sets" that you look at being the two cards in front of each player? And then when the hit round begins, say everyone takes one card and doesn't bust, do you group the hit cards of player A and B, then player C and D? If someone takes two hits, I guess it's those two you focus on together. Also you better look fast at the players who bust, because their cards are gone in an instant. What I'm saying is you need a fixed pattern of when and how you group the cards into twos, because you don't have time to change your mind back and forth on that in the heat of battle.

[Desert Dog]

I am beginning to believe that counting may very well give a player an advantage over the house, but the counter himself must have an extraordinary mind....

... or a mind not too cluttered with the cares and concerns of everyday life. Picture this. A friend planning a trip to Vegas asks me if I'll teach her basic strategy. So she, and my wife, and my oldest and youngest sons, sit around the dining room table and I play the role of dealer. (A heartwarming family scene, just like the Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving painting.) Two decks. We've been playing about 5-10 minutes and the players are getting clobbered. Then my youngest son, age 12, says "Dad, the count is now up to plus 10." And sure enough the tide turned and the players started winning. Makes a father proud.

[Grifter]

That is the way I count 6D on the rare occasions that I do it (my game has always been 1D or 2D). Count the up cards as you say for an "interim count" and then add/subtract the others as they fall. This also lets you make a "table read" and determine if you want to adjust BS on your hand.

There are two or three ways to do it, but this works best for me. Renzey posted this morning there are "simpler ways to keep the count" <sic>, but I don't have a clue what he meant.

Obviously in a pitch game, you reverse the process, and then, Dawg, is when you have to be really quick.

Grif'

[Desert Dog]

Thanks, Grif! Another question just popped into my mind: when counting cards, what is the burn card assumed to be? And I can't recall, is there a burn card in 1D and 2D?

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

You can find out yourself what that burn card is by asking the dealer.

[midnite]

Desert dog- the burn card is just like the cards behind the cut card. It is of unknowen value. While some places may show it if you ask, most will not. I hardly ever, even hear anyone ask to see it. (a counter won't ask to see it) A few places even use a Baccarat burn.

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

Huh? Cards behind the cut card? Or the first card in the deck that they "burn"?? The latter is what I thought the burn card was all along.

[sld007]

This new system is WAY too complicated for me. But, in the interest of the game I give this reply. Blackjack is the one game where the outcome of one hand DOES change the outcome of the next hand. It is not independent, as most games of chance (e.g. craps, roulette), but rather dependent, so what happens on one hand will affect the outcome of the next hand. I am a progressive bettor and have a 63% success rate using a modified Dahl progression I call the 007 progression (x,x,2x,2x,3x,3x,4x,4x, and back to x). I tried counting but (a) it gave me a headache, (b) with a six deck shoe and moderate penetration it made little difference and (c) I won more with the progression! I listen to Walter Thomason as well as he is the one prominent author who is not afraid to advocate progressive betting vs. counting. Most others are labled as pariahs--too bad. Using this dependent analysis, a good counter, with a one deck or two deck shoe with 75% or better penetration might make a difference, the problem is that even with a deck rich in tens and aces there is no guarantee that you are going to get them! Better to play a safe guerilla like game with a 1 to 4 spread so you don't get hammered. Anyway, I'm taking the limo down from Dallas to the Horseshoe tomorrow, so I'll let you guys know if I'm full of it or not!

[Michigan Dave]

SLD 007- Glad to see you made to the new forum. Could you please explain how a hand is dependant on the previous hand?

[Renzey]

Eight deck blackjack is an inferior game if you just want to sit down and "play". But if it's "the only game in town", counting is still very worthwhile if you come into a shoe only after you've "back counted" and found a favorable count. Once these eight deck shoes go "positive", they last a long while compared to fewer decks. At the end of the shoe, it's okay to stay for the next one, but on any shoe where the count goes negative, you need to leave since those too, last quite a while. That's the time to go find another positive count. And Ted, although you will bet 12 units only 4 or 5% of the time, you will bet between 3 and 10 units another 15% of the time, or so.

[Renzey]

SLD007 commented that your chance to win the next hand is dependent upon what happened the last hand. This is true! Now read this next line very carefully. Those chances vary, NOT according to whether you won or lost that last hand (which is virtually incidental), but according to THE CARDS THAT WERE USED UP IN THE PROCESS! That's the whole reason why blackjack is a beatable game.

[Doc]

SLD, good to see you here, complicated or not. The new board is a little over whelming but I think it will settle into a more consistant pattern.

[Desert Dog]

On counting: I've done a simulation on Palm Pilot, two decks, heads up play, where I am counting using hi-low, base bet $10, increasing to $20 when count is +2, to $30 when it is +3, to $80 when it is +8, etc., and not quitting even if it gets way down to numbers like -10. After 344 hands, winning 144 (41%), losing 159 (46%), the rest being pushes, I am up $212 on an original buy in of $500, ie I now have $712. And this is losing fifteen more hands than I won! What's great is the feeling that when that count is high, seeing two tens or an ace-10 dealt to you comes as no surprise, or if you lose a hand at a high count, if the count still stays high, the hand after is an even more likely winner. Too bad the speed at which I am counting wouldn't cut it in real life.

[Renzey]

While practicing, you need to be able to count down a full single deck in 30 seconds to be quick enough for live action. If the full Hi/Lo Count is stopping you from achieving this, then lop off some cards for now. Just go with the 4's, 5's and 6's against the Jacks, Queens and Kings. It's not as strong, but will still yield you a net edge. Later, if you get real comfortable with that you can then add the 3 and the 10-spot to your count structure. For some further simplifications presented in clear detail, see "the KISS Count" chapters in B/J Bluebook II. KISS stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

[Desert Dog]

While practicing, you need to be able to count down a full single deck in 30 seconds to be quick enough for live action. If the full Hi/Lo Count is stopping you from achieving this, then lop off some cards for now. Just go with the 4's, 5's and 6's against the Jacks, Queens and Kings. It's not as strong, but will still yield you a net edge. Later, if you get real comfortable with that you can then add the 3 and the 10-spot to your count structure. For some further simplifications presented in clear detail, see "the KISS Count" chapters in B/J Bluebook II. KISS stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

Fred -- Would I lose much accuracy if I ignore the black deuces (p.140-143)? Not having to think about them makes this much easier. Also, what pattern do you recommend for grouping two at a time to count faster?

[Desert Dog]

I just tried that counting website BJ Fan referred us to.

http://www.robtougher.com/servlet/web.games.blackjack.counting.index

It gives you five panels of 10 cards to count and then tells you what the count was and how long it took you. My best time was 44 seconds, using Hi-Lo. Fred says gotta do it in under 30. I'll get there. It doesn't offer any of Fred's abbreviated count systems, but I think the webmaster will put them in if asked.

[Renzey]

DOG; You won't lose much at all in the way of potency by dropping out the black deuces, but that will create a lot more work for you -- namely, the need to convert your running count to the true count. Unbalancing your count with those black deuces forces the running count to perform a built in calculation that causes the running count to run close to the true count at all deck depths.
So, starting out at "10" then (to eliminate the occurance of negative running counts), a running count of "22" will always be "+2 true" no matter where in the six deck shoe you are. "19" will fall pretty close to "+1 true" at all depths. "25" will always be pretty close to "+3 true" etc. Thus, you do everything by the running count with no need for any converting -- or even having to pay attention to how deep into the shoe you are. It makes true blue card counting about as streamlined as it can get. Begin with an abbreviated count (like the Stage I KISS) first, then add more cards if and when you're ready.

[Ted]

Dawg, you ask if you could "ignore the black deuces". To someone like me who has no clue about counting, and I assume you are talking about counting, that you are asking Fred if it would be OK to ignore the black deuces. So, in my blissful ignorance I say to myself that Dawg doesn't want to include the black deuces while he is counting for whatever reasons. So I ask myself what difference it could possibly make if he didn't count the "red deuces" instead. As usual I probably have this whole thing screwed up.

[Grifter]

Ted - I'll let Dog or Fred give you a full explanation, but a quick answer is "no, it would make no difference is you counted red deuces instead of black."

[Desert Dog]

Dawg, you ask if you could "ignore the black deuces". To someone like me who has no clue about counting, and I assume you are talking about counting, that you are asking Fred if it would be OK to ignore the black deuces. So, in my blissful ignorance I say to myself that Dawg doesn't want to include the black deuces while he is counting for whatever reasons. So I ask myself what difference it could possibly make if he didn't count the "red deuces" instead. As usual I probably have this whole thing screwed up.

Fred recommends some simpler counting methods for beginners. Stage I is count only 4,5 and 6 and black deuces as +1, and J, Q, K as -1, (Ie more cards you can ignore) and start the count at the number 10. For reasons that I still have to absorb, somehow counting only half of the deuces helps offset two things: Not counting the 3's, the red 2's, or the 10's and Aces, and not doing a calculation to convert running count to true count.

[Ted]

Gotcha Dawg. It's that simple? To each his own but, the last thing that would occur to me is to eliminate the suit of a card. I would rather eliminate the whole card altogether until I made progress in learning.
Just a rookie's observation.

[Renzey]

DOG: Blending an extra half rank of low cards into your count does only one HUGE thing. It eliminates the necessity to convert your running count to a true count, or "count per deck" before sizing your bets or playing your hand. This "converting" is the one confusing obstacle that usually knocks most would-be card counters out of the box.
With a "balanced" count like the Hi/Lo, a running count of +10 would equal a true count of +2 if there were still five decks left in the shoe -- but it would equal a +5 true count if only two decks were left.
Now with the unbalanced KISS count, a running count of "22" is always +2 true no matter how far into the shoe you are. Here's why.
You start out at "10" and because you're counting those two extra deuces in each deck, your count will normally rise by two points with each deck that goes by. So after the first deck has come out of the shoe, the count would still be "even" if you were at "12". But if it's at "22", the count is really "+10" divided by five remaining decks -- or "+2 true".
After three decks have come out you would normally be at "16". But if you're at "22", the shoe is actually "+6" divided by three remaining decks -- or "+2 true".
After 4.5 decks have come out you would normally be at "19". But if it's "22", the shoe is actually "+3" with 1.5 decks left -- or "+2" true".
Hope that sheds the light on it.

[Doc]

Ted, the suit doesn't matter, you could just as well count all the reds, or just the clubs and diamonds. Iguess black twos were just convienient. Its as Fred says above, throwing in an extra half rank of low cards. I don't have the mathematical mind to know why this'unbalancer' lets you not have to worry about converting to a true count based on the number of decks still to be played, I do know that its a whole lot easier to count if you don't have to do that calculation in your head. You should get a deck of cards and keep them in your pocket, start running the KISS count on them, after awhile it becomes second nature which cards are in the count and which are neutral, then stand behind a table at the casino and count down a couple of shoes, it gets easier, but only with lots of practice.

[Desert Dog]

Thanks, Fred. I'll look at this more closely later. Quick observation -- maybe I'm wrong but it looks as though by starting at ten, having 3.5 "plus" cards vs 3 "minus" cards, and the "increase your bet" point somewhere around 19 or 20 or so, you avoid having to do mental arithmetic that jumps you back and forth from negative to positive numbers, which happens a lot in hi-lo and is one of my weak points. (That "D" in high school math.) Am I right?

[Renzey]

DOG: That's right. So the KISS Count family does three things that no other count does all three of to make it more user friendly.
1) You virtually avoid encountering "minus" running counts.
2) No "count per deck" converting is needed.
3) It has a complete table of "running count" index numbers for when to play 20 key hands contrary to basic strategy. For examples; you double with 8 against a 6 at "21" or higher; You double with A/8 against a 4 at "25" or higher, etc.

[Desert Dog]

Used KISS II at casino last night. It's easier to backcount and then jump in when the count is good, rather than trying to keep count while playing. It's interesting to see how the players mostly get clobbered when it's low and mostly do all right when it's high.

One guy who has this attitude of knowing what he's doing (his basic strategy is fine) was increasing his bets and playing two hands at exactly the times he shouldn't have, so he wasn't such a pro after all. He left the table to find the ATM at exactly the point when the count suddenly jumped high. I took his spot, won two hands near the end of a shoe, and left. :D

[Renzey]

Ironically, the typical player often does raise his bet at exactly the wrong time and leave the table when he should stay and bet more. This is because a string of 19's, 20's and 21's by the players tends to instill confidence in them at a time when their chances are actually growing worse.
By the same token, a rash of "low only" cards in one round often "kills" the players -- such as when they have say, 6/5; another has 7/3 etc; they both catch small cards on their doubles, then the dealer rips off a five card 20 or 21. This usually causes them to retreat into their shells, or get up and leave.
Both reactions are perfectly counterproductive.

[Ray]

We have a five step progression and lets think about the third bet.
It does not matter that the third bet is surrounded by many 1,2 or 4,5
bets. The same laws of probability apply to this bet as if it were a
single flat bet from now until eternity(.05 disadvantage, win 43%).
The same rule applies to all other bets regardless of there position
in the sequence. The situation is the same as five different payers,
making five different bets at five different tables provided they each
make the same number of bets as their position in the progression made
in the first case. Both bottom lines will be the same with a slight SD.
This simple logic will apply to any progression, be it positive,negative,
sideways or somewhere in -between.
One can see from this simple example that progressions are nothing
more than pseudo-science. They appeal to our inherent insecurity;
they give us reason to believe; ill advised as that reason may be.
They also sell books and other such come-ons.

Blackjack is about "probabilities,statistics,and queueing theory".
Something like this: probabilities proven by a mountain of statistics
and altered only by a knowledge of the queue.................

[Doc]

Desert Dog, interesting story. Ray, I understand and accept what you are saying about progressions in relation to folks looking for a magic system, or appealing to insecurity etc. With that out of the way, lets take another example: Everyday Joe likes to hit the casinos occasionally and blackjack is one of his favorite games, he understands that the casinos maintain an edge that is constant and all pervading (except for good card counters), he knows basic strategy but doesn't have time to learn to count. He is playing for fun, comps and the occasional nice tag. You can't tell me that this kind of player shouldn't play a progression. He will never get the opportunity for a nice payday at flat betting. With all the math, science and analysis out there everyone seems to forget about luck in blackjack, and how it feels to have that lucky day. Another way to look at it is if my two hobbies were fishing and blackjack I would rather be lucky at blackjack and skillful at fishing, because no matter how skillful you are at gambling its always going to be gambling. Being able to play the game well is fun for me, thats why I'm going to keep trying to get better, but to those players who are not going to take the step to counting but want to play strong, its my opinion that a well thought out progression played with discipline is an inherent part of that strength.

[Ray]

Doc, I will agree that people should play the game and have fun doing
it. I hope I did not give the impression that they should do otherwise.
I know from experience that most people can learn and appreciate the
game at a much deeper level and gain an additional level of skill and
personal satisfaction.

Sometime around 1980 I attended a High tech product show in LV and
got my feet wet for the first time in blackjack. Right off I found out that
I was completely game stupid. The books I read were all simple enough
until one reaches the card counting chapters. All the existing systems
were so counter intuitive and overly complicated that I decided to
invent my own, with my methods, using my science. I knew if I took
that approach that I would remember it all and it would/could be very user
friendly. If you like, I can jot the thing down sometime(the basics) and
e-mail same. Once again, hope I didn,t offend with my attack on progessions. Ray

[Doc]

Not at all Ray, I've found your comments to be very interesting, and your style enjoyable, just the kind of people we like to here from on this site. The people I have learned from most on this board are like you, huge amounts of experiance and nice enough to share. I'm sure everyone here is interested in your particular style of play, I'll PM you my email as I am open to any perspective, but you can also post it as a new topic. Let the 'old school' guys here crunch it out, which they will do, and give an honest critque. Cheers.

[Desert Dog]

Ray and Doc -- such civility! In the "old days" of this board, you would have accused eachother and one another's ancestors of all types of degeneracy, and several others would have gotten in to the act. Must be the two new sheriffs we have in town.

[Doc]

I'm almost nostalgic for a good ol brawl Desert Dog but I think we'll learn more about this darned game this way. One thing I've run into with the limited times I've used the count and my drills on Casino Verite is, with the progression I've been using and my strict win/loss limits that I use, I have a real sense of control, but when counting even when I know I have an advantage, when you have to bump that bet up I feel really vulnerable to having a very bad day, after all the advantage you have is very slim and you aren't out there 24/7 with it like the casinos. This is an unexpected hurdle I'm going to really have to think about. Parentheticaly with your kid in Tucson, I happen to be the older brother of one of the best surgeons in town so let me know if you ever have any problems in that vein (or artery).

[sld007]

Doc - Your post "...Everyday Joe likes to hit the casinos occasionally and blackjack is one of his favorite games...." EXCELLENT. Let me also add that the proof is truly in the pudding and if I can win 67% of the time with my 007 progression versus the mind numbing boredom of counting (while only adding a very small edge)---I'll take a good ole progression any time!

[Ted]

Someday, when my days are over I will go to the big casino in the sky. I have promised myself to get an answer to this counting/progressive debate. I will ask St. Peter for a private audience with the man himself.
My question will be, "sir, I have heard of many blackjack systems, counting methods subdivided by slight differences depending on who figured out that counting sytem in the first place. There are also progressive systems subdivided by who designed the betting formulas. Which one is best? Please tell me. Is one method better than the others"?

I am certain that he will say to me: "My boy, I have put upon this Earth all manner of people. Black, white, red, brown and yellow. Maybe a few assorted colors. But, in the final analysis I have found that each group of people is as good or as bad as another. The same is true of blackjack. Bet progressively if you like, or count if you like. In the end you'll all get hammered".

[Renzey]

Ted and SLD007: Please understand that I am not trying to meddle -- only inform, and acquire information that I might not already have.
Although I cannot personally testify as to the end result of betting progressions, it's critical to understand that accomplishing a high session win rate percentage is no big trick. 80% is even possible with the briefest and most direct money management methods -- but -- these methods still lose money at the bottom line. So I again ask whether this 67% win rate for the progression you speak of has garnered a "net gain" over the course of at least 500 hours. I keep driving this question home because under mathematical analysis, all betting progressions cancel themselves out in the end.
Next, card counters who implement their systems capably, as a whole do not get hammered in the long run, but actually do grind out a long term profit.

[Desert Dog]

The MIT gang didn't make several million dollars on progressions. They counted cards. That's a book that the studios will never allow to be made into a movie.

[Desert Dog]

Someday, when my days are over I will go to the big casino in the sky. I have promised myself to get an answer to this counting/progressive debate. I will ask St. Peter for a private audience with the man himself.
My question will be, "sir, I have heard of many blackjack systems, counting methods subdivided by slight differences depending on who figured out that counting sytem in the first place. There are also progressive systems subdivided by who designed the betting formulas. Which one is best? Please tell me. Is one method better than the others"?

I am certain that he will say to me: "My boy, I have put upon this Earth all manner of people. Black, white, red, brown and yellow. Maybe a few assorted colors. But, in the final analysis I have found that each group of people is as good or as bad as another. The same is true of blackjack. Bet progressively if you like, or count if you like. In the end you'll all get hammered".

Actually, what He'll say to you is more like this: "What, you're a gambler??! Hold on a second... [picks up phone] Hey Satan, I think one of yours got sent here by mistake. I'm sending him down to you." :wink:

[Doc]

Fred, again wise advice. But I'll ask for a little consolation, the standard deviation of counting is scary, it entails a strong commitmant to a significant amount of money. For the short term recreational player you have given us, in your book, a very strong way to play before counting, do you reccomend that these players play those techniques with a progression betting style or not, to get the most bang for the buck. Reading your poker book now, and hope to get your autograph on both in Tunica in the fall.

[Renzey]

DOC: If you're speaking of the "Mag 7" and "Hand Interaction", it should make no difference whether you flat bet or use some form of progression. If you're speaking of reacting to "High card / Low card Layouts", a betting progression will often run contradictory to these, since High card / Low card layouts are merely a brief "freeze-frame" snipet of card counting.

[D]

Desert Dog...I was going to make the same response to Ted. You beat me to it. Ha! Renzy, just got your book in the mail. Wish me luck. I haven't had the attention span for other methods, I'll have to try it here in Detroit a few times before my Vegas trip in October.

[Desert Dog]

OK gang. Has anybody tried counting down a 52 card deck and done it successfully (meaning ending at a correct number) in 30 seconds or less? My best time yet is 30.47 seconds. (I'm doing the KISS II count, and yes I use a stopwatch that shows hundredths of a second.) When I first started trying I was up around 45 seconds, then got stuck in the 37 - 38 range for a while, and now I'm regularly hitting 32 or 33. But that 30 second mark is a tough barrier. I've tried flipping two cards at a time out of my hands WITHOUT counting them as they fell and that still took 20 seconds!

In real life, you can't ask a dealer to go slower, can you? :)

[Renzey]

DOG; If you did 45 seconds right out of the box, you'll have no trouble eventually getting down under 25 seconds -- no sweat. It's just going to take more drills. Most folks are well over a minute their first few times.

[Desert Dog]

Here's an excellent way to combine physical and mental exercise: When doing weight training, you have to take a 60-second break between sets. So after a set of bicep curls or bench presses or whatever, that 60 seconds in between has always been a tedious bore. But now I make good use of that time. I move over to a table, start the stopwatch, and deal down a deck of cards in a card-counting exercise. That takes somewhere between 31 and 35 seconds, and then I gather them up and shuffle them ready for the next time. That usually takes another 25 seconds, and then back on the weight machine for the next set.

NOTE: Do not try this at your local gym. This is best done using home weight equipment.

[Grifter]

Dawg - I use a very similar routine, and I also take a 60 second break between sets......Something like this:
1. Do one 10 lb. curl with right arm......now rest for 60 seconds.
2. Take a couples slugs of Budweiser = 10 seconds.
3. Count down a deck of cards - 20-25 seconds.
4. Take a couple slugs of Budweiser = 10 seconds.
5. Reshuffle cards = 20 seconds
6. Do one 10 lb. curl with left arm.....now rest fo 60 seconds
Repeat steps 1 - 5 above.

Grif'

[Desert Dog]

Grifter -- and when the beer can is empty, this being the 25 year anniversary of Animal House, the proper end of this exercise routine is to crush it against your forehead, right? :wink: Just kidding, Grif.

One of the articles on Snyder's site suggests that counters walk around with a tall glass of O'Doul's to make it look like they're drinking, order a real beer from the waitress just before it's time to move to another table, empty the real beer somewhere out of sight of the eyes in the sky, get another glass of O'Doul's, and then sit down at another table. Make sure that the bar that pours you the O'Doul's is not too close to the casino floor or under the cameras.

[Walter Thomason]

Grif: A couple modifications to your system -- I substitute Coors Lite for Bud, and add four more slugs by eliminating that silly card-counting exercise. :wink:

[Desert Dog]

Fred, in your book you say that for a six deck shoe, at one and a half decks in if the KISS count is 4 or lower, walk away. Are there other numbers you suggest for later in the shoe? I've had some with okay numbers at the 1.5 point but later say halfway or beyond, they're hovering around 8-10 and I wonder if that's a time to walk too.

One of the funny things about counting is you can win on a bunch of good cards coming out, and instead of being happy about winning your bet, you think "Darn, the count just went way down!" And vice versa, losing on a whole slew of bad cards has me thinking "Hey great, the count just jumped high!"

[Desert Dog]

Another question, Fred: When counting cards at a table with several other players, wouldn't you want to be at first base? Here's why I ask. Say the count is 23, meaning bet highest. If you're at third, by the time the dealer gets to you, a few high cards to the other players could bring it down to 19 or less. Meaning you've got a high bet out on a count that has just gone south.

[midnite]

Desert Dog- As you must place your bet before any cards are dealt, it should not matter. If the count changes for third base, as more cards come out of the shoe, it also will change for the player at first base, unless I missed something.

[Desert Dog]

Desert Dog- As you must place your bet before any cards are dealt, it should not matter. If the count changes for third base, as more cards come out of the shoe, it also will change for the player at first base, unless I missed something.

Makes sense. Just wouldn't feel like kicking myself if the count changed after I had gotten my first card rather than before.

[Renzey]

DOG: It would also be appropriate to walk with 2 decks in the discard tray at "5" or lower - and with 2.5 decks at "6" or lower. Once 3 decks are in the tray, you've usually endured around 70% of the shoe, so you might as well finish it - unless you can "conveniently" answer a cell phone call, turn around and blow your nose, etc.
Lots of beginning counters have asked your 1st base/3rd base question. Answer that for yourself by considering this scenario. You're about to enter a table that you've been watching from the get-go. The count has shot up to "25". Both 1st base and 3rd base are open. So you jump in at first base where you're sure to get your first card from a "25" count. But just before the dealer starts to deal, she pulls the next 22 cards out of the shoe (the average number for a 7 player round), reverses their order and puts them back in the shoe. Where do you want to sit now - at 1st or 3rd? Which order of the cards has more big ones near the front?
Here's all you know. When the count is "25", the shoe IN ITS ENTIRETY contains 34% tens. They might all be behind the cut card, right up at the front of the shoe, or strewn throughout. You really don't know where they are. Every remaining card has a 34% chance to be a ten! It's exactly the same as if the dealer put in a fresh shoe plus all those extra tens, shuffled thoroughly and got ready to deal. The fact is, you'd be just as happy to be dealt two cards from the back as from the front. All you should be thinking is; "Gimme two cards!"

[tuffy88]

First post. Read about site in Fred's collum in Herald. Have bought all editions of Blackjack Bluebook. Have enjoyed reading them.

My question is this: I am retired and not comfortable with the standard diviation of counting. Even Fred's Ace-ten front count takes a pretty big bankroll if the spread is 1-6 or so. I have been using the Ace-Ten front count in Chicago area casino's at the $10 tables. When the first two decks have delt 36 or fewer Ace-Tens my next bet is $20 , not $40 or $50. The bet after that I go to $30 and stay there for the rest of the shoe. That method of betting is not enough to make me a winner, but over a years time it is pretty close. Last year for example down just under $1000. About 160 to 180 hours a year

gambling. Cash back and free meals reduce that loss further, but not to being profitable. This year so far is running about the same. All in all it makes playing blackjack a not too expensive hobby.

If Fred sees this I would appreciate what he thinks of my method and how he thinks it could be improved without raising the standard diviation a lot. I am really pretty risk-averse. Also would like to hear the ideas of anyone else who reads this. All ideas appreciated.

Charles

[Renzey]

TUFFY: I remember your letters and Tipsheet subscription. Well, without getting more money in the betting circle when you have the advanatage than when you don't, you can't cross over the magic threshhold from underdog to favorite. Here are a few adjustments that can help that without raising your standard deviation (volatility).
1) First, are you religiously walking away from any front count of "42" or higher? Bouncing up and down from table to table becomes somewhat of a drag doing this, but it does keep you away from all that gradual percentage drainage.
2) Are you making all the recommended basic strategy adjustments at front counts of "36", "35 and below"?
3) You can keep tallying the Ace/10's beyond the first two decks and take "hi/lo" inventory at two other checkpoints - the 3 deck mark and the 4 deck mark. With 3 decks in the discard tray, keep betting multiple units only if your tally is "56" or lower - otherwise retreat to 1 unit. At the 4 deck discard tray mark, bet multiple units only at "77" or less.
4) Now that you'll be lowering some bets on good 2 deck front counts that have gone bad, you can increase some others beyond 3 units on those that remain strong and experience no more overall volatility. So at the 3 deck mark when the tally is in fact "56" or less go to 4 units. At the 4 deck mark when it is "77" or less, bite the bullet and bet 5 units - you may get in only one or two more rounds before the shuffle here, but it's an important juncture in the shoe.

[tuffy88]

Fred;

Thanks for your prompt reply. I had not considered continuing the Ace-Ten front count beyond two decks. Will try it when I go to Victoria Casino tomorrow or Wednesday. I don't want to make it too hard. Mainly just a recreasional player. Still would like to cut the house edge. I know that Victoria's 0.63% house edge is a little high but they do penitrate 5 decks most of the time, and it is far closer to where I live than the casino's in Joliet. Again thanks for the prompt reply.

Charles

[jedi]

2) Are you making all the recommended basic strategy adjustments at front counts of "36", "35 and below"?
.

are these easy to explain or could I find this in your book Renzey?

[midnite]

jedi- Lots of good info in Renezy's book. Suggest you buy it, if you don't have it. That of course is up to you, just a suggestion.

[tuffy88]

Jedi, I'm not Renzy, but the changes in BS are in his latest edition of "Blackjack Bluebook". It is a very good blackjack book, even if you are not a card counter.

Charles

[tuffy88]

Ment adjustments in BS, not changes. BS still correct play in almost all cases.

Charles

[Mr. Ed]

Ted, you've posted this before, but I didn't get a chance to be the first to answer, so I'll do it here:

Here's your quote "...The counter's first bet is $25. He bets the minimum because he is waiting to pick his spot. OK? When exactly is his spot. How many hands would have to be played before a counter feels the deck is rich in 10's. How many 10's would have to left so that a counter would consider the shoe "rich" in 10's? How many times in a given shoe would a counter make his big move?"

First of all, I've never heard the phrase "pick his spot" so you'll have to educate ME - can't help you here.

Second, the counter doesn't "feel" like the deck is "rich" in 10's, he "knows" the deck is "rich" in 10's.

here's an example.....

If one hand is played, and eight more low cards come out that big cards, the running count will be +8. There are about 8 unplayed decks, so the TRUE count is about +1. (There are different systems, so I'll make one up here for Norm, a counter) Norm bets one unit at <+1, and bets 2 units at +1. So he increases his bet to 2 units.

In the next round, 8 low cards come out and zero high cards come out. Now the running count is +16 and the TRUE count is +16/8 =+2. Norm bets 4 units. Next, 5 low card come out and zero high cards come out. The Running count is +21, but now only 7 decks remain, so the TRUE count is +21/7=+3. Now Norm bets 6 units. Now, a phenominal 14 low cards come out and still no high cards. The true count is +35/7=+5. Norm makes his max bet: 10 units. Finally 5 high cards come out reducing the running count to 30. Norm gets BJ (hooray!!). But there are now 6 decks left. The TRUE count is 30/6=+5. Norm bets 10 units again. 10 high cards and 4 low cards come out. Norm gets 20 vs dealer bust! (Hooray) The running count is 24, the true count is +4. Norm bets 8 units.

The above is a counters dream. You'll see a shoe like that maybe once in 20 hours (or more!) of play.

- A "rich" shoe is a subjective phrase. (if you won $100 are you "rich", what about $100,000. My 5 year-old would be rich with $100, Bill Gates wouldn't notice $100,000)

- What is a counter's "big move"? A counter bets his max when the count calls for it. Counts of +3 or more are rare (maybe every 3 shoes or so) a count of +5 is even more rare (maybe every 10 shoes?) I'm making these numbers up - I could be off.

- About 1/3 of the time, the count gets so low, Norm won't even play the whole shoe. Another third of the time, Norm plays his minimum bet, waiting for a good count. The other third of the time, he'll increase his bet, but he progresses through +1, +2, sometimes even +3 or +4...once in a while the shoe will get all the way to +5!

I hope this helps!

[jedi]

no problem, thanks fellas, I have a big vegas trip coming up- I'll pick up the book.

Interesting post Mr. Ed

[Desert Dog]

Just thought I'd brag about counting down a 52 card deck today in 27.4 seconds. :D The Griffin Book can use this emoticon as my portrait.

[JohnD]

When they say you have to be able to count down a deck in under 30 seconds, is that by turning one card over at a time or 2+ cards at a time?

[Renzey]

The benchmark is to remove one blind card from the deck, then count down the remaining 51 - one card at a time in 30 seconds or less and name the category of the unseen card. Most people can do it somewhat quicker if allowed to turn over a couple of cards at a time.

[Desert Dog]

The benchmark is to remove one blind card from the deck, then count down the remaining 51 - one card at a time in 30 seconds or less and name the category of the unseen card. Most people can do it somewhat quicker if allowed to turn over a couple of cards at a time.

I was doing it two at at time because that's how I'd do it in a casino.

[BuGhOu§eMASTER]

Then you shouldn't be bragging in the first place since you're not even doing it PROPERLY and thus are CHEATING. :evil: :x :shock: :twisted: Double the time since you doubled the cards and that's entirely TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO long, almost a MINUTE!!!!!!!!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: .. I could be rolling Bughouse opps in that time!! Personally I do it routinely in about 13 secs. Can anyone top that?

YOU FAIL!!!!!

[McFlaherty]

Well sinced you asked..... 9.485 seconds is my personal best. I average around 11 seconds per deck.

[midnite]

I'm putting on my high top boots. The dukee is getting deep....

[Doc]

I find one card at a time easier than two at a time because with two you are evaluating both of the card's relationships as well as the total count, one card at a time you just have to gauge the count, so its not cheating turning two, but getting to a more realistic level of counting. In fact as you get better you should throw mixed sets of 3, 4 and 5 cards off the deck because that is what you see in the casino. I have got my deck drill speeds down to about what I think is a maxium, that is I don't think my brain is going to improve much more, just as I think my hitorstand speed game numbers are at a maxium, about 20, I dont think I'll ever get much better than that.

This brings up a new point, I need help with 'patterns' of counting that people find easier to use in actual casino play, this is my main problem now and the major reason I lose count during the game. What I have been doing is counting the small cards out of the deck as they are dealt, except for the dealer cards, when the dealer is through with the players I scan for the big cards subtract them and then add or subtract the dealer totals as she finishes off her hand. This doesn't seem to be working to well, I get the ol 'mind mush' a lot of the times. Anybody have any suggestions as to a smoother way?

[Desert Dog]

Doc, I usually count all the initially dealt cards, two at a time (as they appear in front of each player), plus the dealer's one card up. To avoid confusing myself I look away from the table as the first cards are being dealt and wait until the second cards get dealt. I hold this number in my head as the "interim count". Then I watch each additional card that's dealt on the "hit" round, then the dealer's. That's the "final count" for the hand. Best seat so I'm not looking left and right is to be either at first or third base.

And Bug: Let us know how you're doing counting using ANY method.

[Desert Dog]

Bug: don't reply, I've just re-read your post and see you said 13 seconds. I'm glad they allowed you to have a deck of cards wherever you were during that stretch that we didn't hear from you.

[Buffarino]

Bug: don't reply, I've just re-read your post and see you said 13 seconds. I'm glad they allowed you to have a deck of cards wherever you were during that stretch that we didn't hear from you.

We know it wasn't AC or Tunica as he wouldn't know where to find them...

[Mr. Ed]

Doc, I use Desert Dog's method.

I strongly urge you to count two or more at a time - you'll get to the point where you ignore zero combinations like 10-2, or A-4. This saves a huge amount of time and makes your life much easier.

Try holding on to the count between rounds by using your fingers (under the table, of course!). Your thumb is worth 5; left hand for negative counts, right hand for positive counts.

I found the hardest part is counting and adding. I decided it was better to look stupid and hold on to the count, than to add quickly and loose it. Sometimes I'll just say, "how much is that?"

There's been a lot of talk about counting down a deck quickly. If you can do it in 30 seconds or less, it's more important to practice WITH DISTRACTIONS than to improve that time.

As for "cheating" when counting down a deck - who cares? Here's my test: remove one card from a deck. When I say "go" look at the cards any way you want. Say "stop" as soon as you're ready to tell me what the removed card is (i.e. big, small or neutral). One at a time, two as a time, all at once, I don't care. Anyway, it really doesn't matter becasue the real test is can you do it in a casino?!

[Desert Dog]

To follow on to what Mr. Ed posted, that's why I always prefer dealers who tell you what your hand adds up to. It's easy to get confused between a running count somewhere in the teens and a hand value somewhere in the teens. (Running counts in the high twenties :D are no problem.) I've also tried keeping count on the fingers of one hand below the edge of the table. Thumb touching a different phalanx of each finger stands for a different number. Doc can explain what a phalanx is.

[Doc]

Its what Bug is giving Buffarino :wink:
Thanks for the help DD and Mr Ed

[Mr. Ed]

Desert Dog, how many phalluses do you have?!? :wink:

[midnite]

Doc- First, cool new word you coined "Renezyian". I get the count the same way Desert Dog does, But you can also only count each players cards in turn. We will say you are at third base, with three other players. The only cards you look at are the TWO that first base has. If he is pat or stands, add that to the count (if needed) and now you look at the next players TWO card. If he has to hit, you just stay with him and add or subtract, ONE at a time, as needed. This way the most you will be going up or down, with your count, is TWO at a time. If player one has two small cards and takes three hits, you are still only counting his First Two cards and then One card-One card and One card. You may find this easier, or you may not. I told this to a friend that had trouble keeping the count and he said it helped him. In the heat of battle, when he tried to count the whole table, he kept counting the same cards, a second time as the hands were played.

[Desert Dog]

Desert Dog, how many phalluses do you have?!? :wink:

More than 51% of the world's population, but the same number as most of the rest. And of course the requisite cojones to play this game. (Remember that discussion, Doc?)

I guess I should have just said "knuckles", but have I tried keeping my thumb pressed against the inside of a knuckle and found it was easier to use the space between the knuckles, which is a phaLANX, instead.

If I'm backcounting it's easy enough to keep the running count in my head, but in actual play, this is helpful. Full details in my soon-to-be published book, "Giving Vegas the Finger."

[drew]

i was just thinking about this while reading your posts. wouldn't a negative progression actually be more likely to win in the long run than a positive one?
theory: the more hands you lose, the higher likelyhood that more small cards came out (causing you to lose 6 consecutive). it seems that a negative progression would have a built in counting strategy... bet more after losing because teh count is going up, you are losing because small cards have come.... and so big ones are left in.. bet up.

just a theory, i dont mess with those negative progressions.

[WILDBILL729]

i was just thinking about this while reading your posts. wouldn't a negative progression actually be more likely to win in the long run than a positive one?
theory: the more hands you lose, the higher likelyhood that more small cards came out (causing you to lose 6 consecutive). it seems that a negative progression would have a built in counting strategy... bet more after losing because teh count is going up, you are losing because small cards have come.... and so big ones are left in.. bet up.

just a theory, i dont mess with those negative progressions.

I would not advise playing with that theory........"bet more after losing because teh count is going up, you are losing because small cards have come.... and so big ones are left in.. bet up.".......Doesn't work that way. The fact that you lose 6 consecutive hands does not mean that the shoe is now positive and to your advantage by any means.......

Bill

[Renzey]

Negative Progressions: Lots of work has been done with this concept in decades gone by. It turns out that there is indeed a slight correlation between losing a hand and small cards getting used up in the process - but only a relatively insignificant correlation at that. Most of that work was done on single deck in an effort to devise a winning betting strategy based purely on sizing your next bet according to the last result - or last few results.
If my memory serves me correctly it was found that after each loss in single deck play, your chance on average, improves by about 0.07% on the next hand. (with a six deck shoe, the effect would be only 1/6th as much).
Anyway, Leon Dubey put out a book in the early '80's called, "Win Without Counting". He touted about a 0.30% net advantage using about a 1-to-4 spread as a negative progression in a single deck game that is no longer available (S17, DOA for a 0.00% basic strategy house edge).
Some of these facts may be just a little off but as a practical matter, the concept is not viable in today's blackjack -- and never was really anything special.

[drew]

interesting. thanks for the reply. so, if i hear you correctly, if i was playing a game where i was at a .04% disadvantage, after 6 losses i should be at an .02% advantage to win the next hand? after 7 losses alomst a ful one percent advantage... almost seems worth it. Unfortunately eight hands could only be played out in a single deck consistently if you were heads up, otherwise the shuffle is coming.
it seems like after multiple losses that the % increase should mulitply upwards, instead of staying at a flat .07 for every loss.
anyway, thanks for the reply.

[D]

I just re-read this whole thread because I am now MUCH more interested in its content (I've moved up to practicing the KISS III system). I have a few new questions. I was not very successful with KISS I because my local casinos use 8 decks, will I have better luck with the KISS III? Also, has anyone ever tried switching to a progression when they have LOST the count (any beginner will know what I mean)?