In shoe games, backcounting to eliminate part of unfavorable play is
standard procedure. Also, leaving a table when the shoe turns negative
is another and not playing at any table (start of shoe) without an
advantage is still another, Several months back, when I first read Renzey's
book, I used it as a guide and adopted all of the above and have used
these methods for sometime now(about 3-4 months). In an effort to
further extend and/or understand other possibilities along these lines, I
devised, what some would judge as an ill advised experiment, and from
a logical point of view, at least at first glance, they were correct and I
went into the effort with the very same reservations. Like any other
discovery process, things are never completely as expected and in many
cases what is learned ,if anything, may not be related to the original
objective. For Example: If you have backcounted a shoe, entered the
game with an advantage after one deck, and now your playing into the
the second deck. What do you do if the deck turns neutral? Like most
payers I will reduce to one unit and continue to play. But, how long I
will play this neutral shoe has changed in the last two weeks. After
three decks, if the shoes is still neutral or negative, I'll walk... I want
sit there and play thru the remaining 1-1/4 decks that in the great majorty
of cases will remain unfavorable. Observations in the experiment and
only realized several days later pointed me in this direction.

In summary, I've added a fourth element to my playing style and I
believe the effect of all four have a long term positive impact on win/loss
expectations. The overall effect is to maximize the time that you have an advantage by minimizing unfavorable times at the front and back of the
shoe.

P.S. In the experiment, I won some money because I played good basic
strategy and had some luck as well. As for counting...too,too much
uncertainty...

Ray