Not sure if this is what you’re asking, but, the system I try to use is:
Every card dealt is assigned a value per above, and a running total is kept. This is the Running Count. To get the True Count, you divide the Running Count by the number of decks remaining in the shoe. One then adjusts the amount of one’s bets depending on the value of the True Count.
I’m sure he knows the strategy. What he’s saying is that if the more decks that are used the less advantage a counter has, no matter the strategy. At one deck you might expect a profit of X% per hand. At 6 decks you can expect a profit of Y% per hand where Y<X. He was asking what Y is.
And with 6 decks, and a 50% reshuffle point, the count is…meaningless over any decent amount of time. Counting only “works” if there are few decks and deep penetration into same. Even with counting, all you are doing is slightly tweaking your expected return over a long period of time. Unless you are playing blackjack for a living, counting cards is a waste of effort. You have neither the bankroll or the time to make it work.
Thanks for the explanation. I completely missed his point.
In Tunica, I think most places use 6 deck shoes, and the reshuffle point is maybe 2/3 of the way through.
From what I understand, the real money is made in teams. Card counting is one of those things where the situation is very rarely in the player’s advantage, but when it is, it’s enough in the player’s advantage to make up for it. Perfect play would be to bet low when the count favors the house (which is almost always), but then to bet high on the rare occasion when it favors the player. But a single player all of a sudden jumping from $1 bets to $50 bets (or whatever the minimum and maximum are at the table) would be extremely fishy, so what you do is you have one player who sits at the table all day quietly making minimum bets, and then when the count gets good, he surreptitiously signals a partner who comes down to the table right then and starts playing big money.
Even at that, though, it takes a very large bankroll and a lot of tedious counting to even make minimum wage this way. When you take counting seriously, it becomes a lot more like work than play.
Right.
This is what Ben Mezrich describes in his book, Bringing Down the House, about the MIT blackjack team.
It’s only really “fishy” if you accept the view that casino games must, by definition, always be stacked in the casino’s favor. As a matter of general principle, betting less when the odds aren’t in your favor, and betting more when the odds are in your favor, is not fishy at all; it’s perfectly rational and good strategy.
Maybe we should start telling Texas Hold-Em poker players that they must bet the same when holding 2-7 offsuit as they do when holding AA.
I mean, it’s fishy from the casino’s point of view. Even if it’s perfectly legal to count, you probably don’t want to make it too obvious to the casino that that’s what you’re doing.
I’m glad I’m not the only one…
I misread all three things that could be misread in the title (the third being “elect” instead of “eject.”) I’m delirious with the flu ATM.
Has anyone done studies on whether imperfect card counting skews things even more in favor of the house? If it gives the house better expectation values, they may want to welcome card counters & wanna-bes with open arms.
Ditto.
I don’t think it would change the expectation (unless you screw it up in a particularly clever way), but it would keep the money moving, which is always something the casino wants. Someone who thinks they have a system will gamble a lot more than someone who knows they don’t.
Yup. Indiana Jones and the New Jersey Blow Job.
Two tickets please.
There was a case in Windsor ,Canada a few years ago. The judge found out that counters could lose too. He threw the case out, but casinos reserve the right to refuse service to any body they choose. So they can get around it.
Well, hope the Hoosiers enjoyed their good BJ while it lasted. Probably Continuous Shuffler Machines and 6-8 deck shoes with 50% penetration from here on out.
Except those that THINK they can count cards but fail would probably be the kind of people to invent some other magical way they think they can beat the house. I see the Martingale system EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Your other issue with allowing card counters is newbies would likely lose a small amount, maybe a $100-$500, then decide “F-this” and quit. Good counters and teams can hit you for tens of thousands and will KEEP DOING SO until you deal with it.
I wonder if this law would also prevent management from requiring players to flat-bet. That’s another way management could cool someone down without ejecting them.
There are systems which do not involve counting that have changing the bet amount as part of the strategy. It would be unfair to penalize them because of counting which is a tough strategy to implement.
Not sure i understand. Surely changing the bet amount needs to rely on some sort of expectation about your chances of winning the hand. I mean, you can’t just change the bet amount randomly and hope to win. How do these systems you describe work if not through some evaluation of the number of high and low cards likely to be in the deck?
He didn’t say they were successful systems.
People buy insurance and split depending on what cards they have and what the dealer’s showing. Those are rational, but don’t tip the odds in the better’s favor.
That may not be what gonzomax meant by changing bets, though.
I wonder if the law makes any distinction between this practice and a single player counting and making his own bets.
Seems to me the partner system does indeed border on dishonesty and cheating, whereas the lone counter adjusting his bets is simply a skilled player.
Another case of a stupid card counter screwing things up for the rest of them.
The casino is not in business to lose money. If they can’t legally keep the counters out, then you should have every expectation that the casino will change the rules of the game to make card counting unprofitable or at least low enough in profit to keep the teams and big bankroll pros away.
A system in which there is tension between counters and the casino, with no laws being broken, is best for all parties. The casinos prefer it, because it allows them to offer games that are more enticing to the public. The good counters like it, because they’ve learned to camouflage their play and income is still largely based on skill. The casinos tolerate it because the number of counters who can bet large enough to hurt the casino without tipping the casino off that they are card counters is vanishingly small.
But now a law has been passed, and the games will be forced to change. The average player will either have to sit through more shuffles or a continuous shuffle machine. The house’s profit will go down. The counters won’t be kicked out, but the games won’t be worth counting. Bah.
Agreed. Especially the “etc.” part.