Blackjack Card Counting of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Ever wonder why Thorpe came up with an A,5 count. It's funny, all these shoe Hi-Loer's preach the gospel of EoR. Developed by Griffin. However, his study was based on a single deck of cards.
So I have to ask myself WTF was he looking at?

We know 12-16 are our least profitable hands. a/k/a "o fucksville" usa. If the dealer is going make/break it will come on 12-16. When they make the hand? It's "well shitsville" usa. Of course, our goal is to stay out of those two cities. Especially, with a large bet on the table.

So on 12-16. The dealer or player gets a 5 which will take them to 17,18,19,20,21. With an 8, the dealer/player will get to 20,21 or break on 14,15,16. Thus the 8 is rendered irrelevant. The 2 will only get the player/dealer to 17,18. Or 14,15,16 which is irrelevant.

Sooo. The more 5s gone, the less times the dealer makes a hand that stops the game.

 

All that Griffin's EoR did was sell a shitload of books and therories now rendered useless.

Even though Don S doesnt, I still maintain his work with SCORE is that of a genius.

Griffin said in his book, "Good engineers understand complex equations. Great engineers know how to make them simple again." My in depth study indicates Don S has done just that.

 

Right on! Power to AceMT -- Ace, Monkey and Ten.

 

Best of luck to you AMT in your play and on your book.

 

THANK YOU! Hope you also try out AceMT one day when you move on to shoe games.

 

Lol. There a better chance of me getting married again the playing a shoe. THAT AINT happening. If you've ever in Reno look me up.

 

Moraine cannot speak for Thorp or Griffin, nor can Moraine speak for Hi-Loer's (Moraine was a Hi-Lo drop-out.) But see if the following makes sense.

Effect of Removal (EoR) and Playing Efficiency (PE) are separate and distinct. EoR has more meaning in determining the Expected Value (EV) of the remaining cards in the deck/shoe, thus the size of a card counter's bet (according to the counter's own bet-spread or Kelly Criterion). Strictly speaking, a counter needs not even deviate from basic strategy to take advantage of the positive EV. If such is the case, no need to consider a card counting system's PE at all.

2, as you said can only get the player/dealer's stiff hands to 17 or 18, which is inconsequential if the hand to beat is 19 or above. But now you are talking about playing your hand after you had already placed your bet. On this point I can add that Ace can only get player's stiff hands to 17, which is even worse than what 2 can do. In fact, some card counting systems, such as Hi-Opt I, ignores both Ace and 2. By so doing Hi-Opt I achieves a higher PE than Hi-Lo.

Your column count, I think, most likely has higher PE than that of Hi-Opt I. If you are playing single-deck blackjack with good rules (3-to-2 blackjack, S17, etc.), I think you can beat the dealer with flat-bet alone. Talks of EoR, therefore, becomes unimportant or even silly.

 

I cannot find the formula that Griffin used to develop EoR. Thus have no idea what he was thinking. SCORE is a better barometer by far. PE around 550 is good enough. Here is why.

As you said, column count is a way to play tit for tat with the dealer and not get hurt. The problem is the longer you play, the more unusual moves you make, and thus expose yourself. This also puts the dealer in a difficult situation. Many have elephant memory and start shuffling up early.

THORPE was able to get away with a 10,A count because the pen was deep up to 100%. But with only 6 or 7 rounds the large bet opportunities become less and risk is more. My experience in this range is an RC 12 (10,A vs other cards) isn't a great play. Even though it's 50%, the "other" cards are still plentiful enough to provide a hand of crap.

So a balance in columns is far better. But you only get 2% high quality large bets opportunities. Now we are back to exposing ourselves. The key is finding a count that offers a quality deck composition around 6.5% large bets opportunities.

But I'm speaking to 1 and 2 decks. Maybe shoes are different. Just not worth my quarter.

Casinos should put the Hilo count on a tote board behind a shoe table and solve their theories and concerns. AND will increase profits because greed kills and most players are not money managers.

 

Also, the talk of the old days. Did the 2 really help them? Maybe they would have made even more with A,10 count. ULtra simple count VS Wrong/weak count.

 

Moses, I hope you don't mind that I relocated this post to the blackjack thread. I think there can be some useful discussion, but it really has nothing to do with the WoV thread that you posted it in.

So your friend spreading $25-$1600 in RENO, playing a pure martingale. What happens when he loses his $1600 bet, putting him down $3175? How does he get that money back? Of course this is the problem with any "marty" system.

However a card counter looking to disguise his spread can incorporate some martingale principals into their spread, which can buy some valuable cover allowing them to spread greater than they otherwise could. I have been doing some of this all summer on the strip, getting to Max Bets larger than my normal. You probably read about my first experience doing so over at BJinfo months ago. That was kind of extreme, even though it worked out. I have toned it down a bit, but incorporating what looks like a "marty" does work....some.

There are a couple draw backs though.

1.) is the problem any card counter has which occurs at the shuffle. Regardless of where you are in spread disguised as a marty, at the shuffle a card counter wants to return to minimum wager. A 'marty' player is going to continue his marty progression where ever it is in the progression. The regular card counter solution of exiting at this point....the shuffle after showing larger wagers solves this too.

2.) So problem #2. Let's say I am wanting to spread from $50 to $1600 disguising spread as a Marty. So I start doubling my loses. Lose 5 in a row and presto, I am at $1600 during a high count. Perfect! Now suppose I win that $1600 bet? A pure martingale player would return to $50. With a strong positive count the last thing I want to do is drop back to minimum wager. I want to keep betting big. You can throw out the $1600 wager again, mumbling something about "needing" to win 2 or 3 in a row, but really that has blown your cover provided by the marty. Exit at the shuffle and you can probably get away with it for at least a while. I don't know about over and over.

3.), suppose pit is watching me and I lose a couple bets, I have bumped from $50 to $100 to $200. I point out to the pit guy watching that I know these martingales don't work but am going to keep doubling my loses. So what happens when I win my $400? Any hope I had of martingaling up to $1600 max bet is out the window. A real marty player would return to $50. Maybe I can get away with repeating the $400 wager (as mentioned above), but to continue to double, after a win after announcing you would double until you won severely blow this as cover. You are probably stuck at the lower than you wanted max bet of $400.

And I am not sure more than a few cycles anyway. And the last problem is that if you tell the pit guy standing right there that you are playing a Marty, he might buy it....at least for a bit. But we have no idea if the EITS above who can't hear what you are saying is buying anything. He just sees the player increasing bet with the count. So martingale wagering can be used as cover, but it is not fool proof or perfect.

 

It seems to me the consistency would come from when to leave. YES, he leaves after a $1600 lost hand or $3000. There is still some revenue unless he loses his first 7 hands played. But wouldn't there be an upside exit point as well? HE might quit up $1000 or $750 or $500. So I ask him and he says "when I feel like it." THAT IS WHEN I stopped listening.

HE IS not being watch at all by the pit. I'D SAY HIS SESSIONS are 30 to 45 minutes. Unless he looses 7 straight.

 

There isn't an upside. It is a Martingale. It is a losing betting system, proved so hundreds of years ago.

Good that you stopped listening. But then why are you posting about it?

But anyway I do think it can be useful incorporating some of the Marty stuff into the bet spread, if you can do it right. At least for a little while.

 

Because he his kicking my and their ass. AND not even getting a look. HE LOOKS LIKE a damn professor at the table and I know he can't count.

If I go1 to 8 phones go off. DEALER gets a sour puss look.

He does play single deck. So even straight up he'd most likely get two shuffles before losing 7 straight hands.

ID LIKE TO HEAR Mdawgs exit point IF he never loses 7 in a row.

 

BASICALLY, it's a bet between how many hands you win before you lose 7 in a row. THE PROFIT is always the amount of the first bet unless you double down or split.
MY FRIEND doesn't Double or split at $1600. Sometimes at $800. SOMETIMES NOT.

I have many reasons for exiting, DOUBLING, or splitting. Or NOT. NONE of which are because I feel like it. I know if I had had $1600 bet out and didn't know the count? THAT is sacrilegious to me.

SO I wish Mdawg and my friend the best. Unless there is something I'm missing.

 

If you can still find single deck blackjack with good rules (3-to-2 blackjack, S17, Double down on any 2 cards and after splits, etc.), you can actually beat the dealer with compositional basic strategy alone -- any advantage from card counting is extra. Even if the casino waters down the "good rules" somewhat, a counting system with good Playing Efficiency (such as Thorp's Ten Count, Wong's Halves, Hi-Opt 1 or Column Count which Tater favored) can still "Beat the Dealer" in single deck blackjack with flat bet alone. So no need to vary the bets. Card counting is a low-risk exercise.

When casinos increase the deck number from 1 to 2 decks, and also switch from S17 to H17, the dynamics change drastically. The house starts out with an edge of 0.46%. In order to overcome the built-in advantage in favor of the house, card counters must ramp up their bets at high counts. Although some may hold different views, a 1-to-4 to 1-to-8 bet spread is normally suggested. When casinos begin to use 6 or 8-deck shoes, even a 1-to-8 bet spread is inadequate. A 1-to-12, 1-to-18 spreads or even higher is desirable.

But high bet spread means high risks as well, not just for the risk of losing your entire bankroll in a few hands, but also for the risk of exposing yourself as a card counter. Question: How to minimize the suspicion of card counting when you change from betting $25 to $500 per hand at high count?

Answer: Camouflage, Camouflage, and Camouflage. Mimicking Martingale, as KewlJ said, is one method for cover/camouflage. Any other thoughts?

 

MORAINE writes: But high bet spread means high risks as well, not just for the risk of losing your entire bankroll in a few hands, but also for the risk of exposing yourself as a card counter. Question: How to minimize the suspicion of card counting when you change from betting $25 to $500 per hand at high count?

TATER SAYS: I'm from the school WTPT. Win today. Play tomorrow. At 67% high cards remaining to 33% low I will bet two hands at 4x min each. IT usually comes towards the end of the deck. Had a rare 4-16 today. I HAD bJ and 19 but dealer had bj in the hole. I was coming back with another max bet at 10-16 but dealer shuffled as new player sat down.

 

Yes, I have some thoughts. And again we are talking about the shoe games here, lets say 6 deck just as an example. So for a 6 deck game generally a card counter needs a bet spread of 1-10, 1-12 or so. Maybe a little less if the player is exiting aggressively and escaping at least some of the really negative counts. So let's use your numbers, $25-$500 spread. That is a pretty healthy spread. Should be fairly easy for pit to recognize.

So there is a misconception out there that the card counter is exposed when he raises his bets. That really is not true. Many different kinds of players raise their bets. Players playing any kind of progression, players chasing losses, player parlaying wins, or betting more after winning some, even hunch players. A lot of Asian players are hunch players and you will see them bet $50, $50, $50 for a number of hands and then boom $500 with no correlation to count or whether they have been winning or losing.

So a player that was betting $25 or $50 at one part of the shoe and is betting $300, $400, even $500 later in the shoe could be any number of types of players. It is seriously difficult for pit/surveillance to tell just from raising the bets without an extensive evaluation. So the more a card counter can make his varying wagers look like any of these other things the better. That is what I have been doing some, trying to mimic a martingale, even to the point of talking about martingale as I am raising. Casinos love martingale players!

So the real problem for a card counter and difference in these other betting patterns occurs at the shuffle point. A card counter wants and needs to revert back to that small wager at the start of a new shoe or shuffle, as he no longer has the advantage. But for these other players, whatever cycle they are on that is dictating their wagers has not ended at the shuffle. Take a player martingaling, if he lost his last hand at $200, his cycle calls for his next bet to be $400. New shoe or shuffle makes no difference. If he reverts back to $25 instead, he has screwed up the martingale (for what that is worth).

Take the player chasing losses. Unless he has won back those losses, he is still chasing losses. That means he should still be betting bigger trying to win back those losses. You don't win back major losses by betting the table minimum. The player parlaying up because he has been winning, well he may go back go back to a smaller wager with the mentality of "seeing how this new shoe goes" or he may continue betting bigger, "playing with house money". But the card counter HAS to revert back to that small or minimum wager at the shuffle and THAT is the big tell of a card counter, not the raising but the retreating back at a new shuffle.

So anything and everything a card counter can do, including verbally to make raising his wagers look more like these other types of players helps, but the big tell remains, what happens at the shuffle. And by the way a player reverting from a large wager back to small wager at the shuffle is when most evaluations are ordered and begin, not when he is raising.

So I honestly haven't figured out how to avoid that biggest of "tells" other than to make that an exit trigger, which is how I play. I exit at the shuffle after showing my bigger wagers (rather than retreat back to smaller wagers). A player with many games in close proximity as I have, can play this way. It is a little harder (but not impossible) for a player that has one casino or drives an hour or 90 minutes to the nearest casinos.

If I absolutely find myself in a position where I can't (or don't want to) exit after showing my large wager, I recommend not retreating all the way back to smallest wager in one swoop. What I like to do is pull my chips back while the dealer (or machine) is shuffling under the pretense of counting my chips, and then put out a smaller, but not minimum wager. So if I was betting $500 max bet and the shuffle came up, I might pull back my chips and then throw out $100 or $125 for the new wager. And then the next round win or lose, I might bet $75 and then down to whatever the count calls for. These kind of things help some.

 

And by the way, while I have never played single deck, I do play double deck and playing double deck (and single deck) a player can afford to do a lot more of this intermediate wager type betting, rather than retreat back to minimum wager. This allows for spreading both ways which is pretty strong betting camouflage....at least for a while.

 

DON S writes:
See BJA3, pp. 171-172. Your personal results are utterly meaningless.

Don

Tater says. Interesting

 

Aceside writes: I myself would not upgrade but I have been using a modified HiLo. I count a 2 as 0.5 and a 5 as 1.5. Everything else are kept the same.

Tater says: Interesting. Essentially, drop the 7 and 9 from Wong Halves.