• I'm going to play a couple of blackjack session tomorrow and I
    am going to try a new technique that I discussed under the post;
    TOOLS. I notice that there have been zero responses to this post
    and wonder if people simply are so nice that they don't want to
    tell me that I'm just plain crazy. One thing most of us non-conforming,
    convoluted personalities have in common is a thick skin and zero fear
    of failure. It's my intent to try to keep records of the results for each
    table in terms of win/loss and the extent of progress in the bet spead;
    how far up did I go,etc. Table hopping may have a new meaning if
    this approach has any promise and I plan to give it a fair shake, say
    at least 5 tables initially. All comments are welcome..............
  • good luck.... i will be looking for your results.
  • ray, your thoughts about waiting a few decks into a shoe have merit. I recently studied a 6 deck dealer stands soft 17 game with a 50% penetration. When using the A5 method, I could only break-even at best. All the action occurs in the last 1.5 active decks of play. The trouble is that you MUST know who has the advantage when you jump in or all gains are lost, and most of your bankroll is lost.

    I think Fred has a 2 deck count 10's method in which a certain number of 10's seen after 2 decks determines wether or not you play. It certainly fits the bill of knowing who has the advantage when its time to decide.

    Good cards

  • N&B, Normally I will use backcounting or counting from the get go.
    However, its like you say, most of the action is at the end of the shoe
    and your faced with the underdog roll most of the time. I want to find
    out if there is some practical way to shorten the game without too much
    risk. I have reservations about this approach, to be sure, and may find
    the results less than desireable.........

    Some places/tables you just can't backcount and there is the growing
    problem of heat.

  • is there any merit to this?

    i heard some guy say this once. so take that for whats it worth.

    the house wins 97% of the time on the first 3 hands of a new 6 deck shoe.

    my first thought was......... wow! i have 3% advantage.

    but the guy that said it was saying it like it was a bad thing.
  • N & B or fred:

    can you explain the 2deck count tens method you mentioned?

    i'm pretty sure that's crap.
  • N & B or fred:

    can you explain the 2deck count tens method you mentioned?

    i'm pretty sure that's crap.
  • i learned a long time ago, that most people sitting at a bj table are the most dangerous people in the world...... which is, someone who thinks they know but they really dont know sh!t.

    they are much worse than someone who does not know, but at least will admit it.

    i am always fascinated at the number of different types of people at the tables. especially the ones that think they are experts, but they just can't get ever get ahead of the house.
  • yes, its quite amazing...
    i freely admit i know very little. but it kills me when some yutz down 500 bucks is pissing and moaning about me taking teh dealers bust card... makes me want to reach across the table and choke him. i always just say: there are plenty of table where i am not playing. i once tried to explain through the socratic method why a guy at the table that "taking the dealers bust card" was a load of crap, and was in fact, an idiotic statement. the dealer, also a freakin idiot, did not agree with me.... and so i was left holding my proverbial dick in my hand. of course the dealer would know the truth.... so i have decided to just play along with it... and say yes, im screwing the game up for everyone but me, and please go to another table if you dont like it.

    so goes the way of blackjack myths, flow of the cards, third base, taking dealers cards, not taking them, losing the first hand out of the shoe, duece as dealers ace, jumping in and out screws everything up. all crap, all will be held dearly by stupid players until they die... broke.
  • Ray, if your TOOLS method means waiting until 2 decks are dealt before you start counting, it is a bad method. You are cutting two decks off of your pentration - if the cut card is at 1.5 decks, consider it moved up to 3.5 decks. But you are correct when you assume the count with 2 (uncounted) decks gone can be considered zero.

    There is truth to the thought that most of the action is at the end of the shoe - this is true, simply because a +6 running count with 1.5 decks left is a true count of +4, but only a true count of +1 with 6 decks left. With your TOOLS method consider 3.5 decks remaining and your TC is only about +2.

    The only way to get to the action at the end of the shoe is to count until the end of the shoe. I don't know how I missed your post the first time around, but I would have responded the same.
  • Mr. Ed, Understand, but I have to tell you that the actual situation
    is not as you have described. I'm still trying to figure out just what
    the situation is and will consider your thoughts in the process. The
    test that I described and implemented does not completely convince
    me of anything based on the limited trial. How much can we know
    and by what method is in question. Also, there is the absolute
    fact that some shoes will be positive and favor the simple BS player
    without him knowing the reason. In the case of the BS player he will
    have a greater potential to win based on this fact alone. The same
    may also be true for progression players. Both players have reduced
    the period of disadvantage time by two decks. Over a long playing
    session the reduced risk coupled with arriving at favorable conditions
    sooner must have some small positive effect..........

  • How is the "actual situation" different from what I describe? What are you talking about?

    I still don't get your method - Here's what I think you are saying:

    The first couple decks of a shoe are close to neutral or favor the house a little. So your method is to avoid this waiting period by only playing where two decks have already been dealt. Is this true? Is this your method?

    The problem with your method, is that after two decks, the shoe may still be neutral, it might be favorable or it might be unfavorable. You just don't know. The only way you know is if you were (back)counting those cards.

    So you sit down after two decks are already gone and you start playing. Now, do you start counting? Or do you bet independent of the count (e.g. flat betting, using a progression, playing on "hunches")? Or do you think, "Gee, I won that last hand, so the shoe must be favorable now"?

    You are right that your test run doesn't prove much. I've lost a lot of money with a TC of +5, I've also won a lot when the count was -1. But at least I knew if the deck was "favorable" or "unfavorable" at the time. Sometimes I lose my shirt, while the guy next to me wins like crazy, sometimes vice versa. How much you win or lose at a single shoe often has little to do with how "favorable" the shoe is - it's just not a good measure.

    Maybe your method works. That's great! I just don't understand why it would work, and I'd like you to help me understand.

    I'm also a little sad, because I see that you are sharp enough to know how to count, and it looks to me like you are throwing it all away because of some misunderstanding about when and why a shoe is "favorable".
  • Mr Ed, I'm not an advocate of anything up to this point nor am I
    suggesting that all possiblities for an original thought have been
    exausted. Where would the world be if we operated with such a narrow
    perspective or sense of adventure. It's within my natural personality
    traits to approach any problem and/or situation with a fresh and open
    mind to any range of possibilities. So, don't go off half cocked and
    be critical to an approach that is most certainly foreign to your
    natural instincts. An experiment is just that and nothing else and should
    not be viewed otherwise......

    At table #3 I made a $100-150 mistake, but I had the information to
    avoid that mistake and did not understand until I sat down to make
    my notes. Two people quit the game and it was me and the dealer.
    At the time they quit, the cards indicated neutral and I should have quit two, three hands afterwords. I had the knowledge and failed to use it.
    It's unclear to me at this point, if enough is known to justify a more
    extensive repeat of the experiment. The question is how much can
    a limited number of hands reveal about the past and the future.......

  • Mr Ed......Good to see that some logic and intelligence finally got injected into this thread.......You are 100% correct..........

    There is no way one can completely ignore the 1st 2 decks of a shoe, sit down and start keeping count, and then think He has any idea of the composition of the remaining shoe. The theory doesn't "Hold Water" and quite simply, does not make any sense.
  • Wildbill, Thanks for your frank and honest views. I want disagree because
    the information obtained did not provide any insights as to the positive
    or negative nature of the remaining cards. It appears that the neutral
    status can be estimated, but you need to play heads-up or close to it
    in order to get enought rounds to make this judgement. I don't think
    that this could be compared to a poll, where a small sample is able to
    forcast the view of millions and that was more or less my original thinking.
    Looks like the shoe games win again............end of experiment.......


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!