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?

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)

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.

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

: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.

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.

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 said:

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.

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?

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: 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.

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".

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.

Ted said:

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.

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.

Grifter said:

... 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.

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" , 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'

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

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.

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

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.

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 said:

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?

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 - 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."

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.