Back counting at any point in shoe?

I've seen some posts on other forums about this. The consensus seems to be that you can still wong without starting off the top of the shoe. This can make back counting/wonging less obvious to the pit and lets you keep on chugging even if there are no new shuffles nearby. Lets say I am playing 6 deck shoes and I'm hopping around back counting. Wouldn't I have an advantage if I wonged in at a running count of +12 or more (TC+2 for 6 deck) starting from ANY point in the shoe? The cards dealt already are just assumed to be still in the shoe. You're still playing in at least a TC +2 continuously, regardless of what's been dealt. I'm strictly talking about having an edge, not winnings/hr, etc. Is this correct?

Quote: camz1969

... Lets say I am playing 6 deck shoes and I'm hopping around back counting. Wouldn't I have an advantage if I wonged in at a running count of +12 or more (TC+2 for 6 deck) starting from ANY point in the shoe? The cards dealt already are just assumed to be still in the shoe. You're still playing in at least a TC +2 continuously, regardless of what's been dealt...Is this correct?

Yes.

Quote: camz1969

I've seen some posts on other forums about this. The consensus seems to be that you can still wong without starting off the top of the shoe. This can make back counting/wonging less obvious to the pit and lets you keep on chugging even if there are no new shuffles nearby. Lets say I am playing 6 deck shoes and I'm hopping around back counting. Wouldn't I have an advantage if I wonged in at a running count of +12 or more (TC+2 for 6 deck) starting from ANY point in the shoe? The cards dealt already are just assumed to be still in the shoe. You're still playing in at least a TC +2 continuously, regardless of what's been dealt. I'm strictly talking about having an edge, not winnings/hr, etc. Is this correct?

Yes, the way I think about it is it's exactly the same as playing a new shoe with a penetration that is lower by the number of cards you missed.

Generally you are correct. The problem is that you won't create as many advantage plays because your TCs will always be low due to lack of knowledge on the cards. And the cards already dealt mean that the count is wrong.

So, for example, let's say you come in and observe hands 3-4 in a shoe and miss the fact that the first two hands by 5 players consisted of 9 two card 20s, a blackjack and a couple of 18s. The RC would be -12 at this point. You come along and wong in after the next two hands are +12. The cards remaining are not evenly distributed reflecting that count.

Quote: tyler498

Yes, the way I think about it is it's exactly the same as playing a new shoe with a penetration that is lower by the number of cards you missed.

Kind of... Basically you imagine all of the discards in the discard tray are all behind the cut card. So you must keep them in mind when figuring out your TC, but yep, you can still back count and wong in/out.

Quote: boymimbo

Generally you are correct. The problem is that you won't create as many advantage plays because your TCs will always be low due to lack of knowledge on the cards.

You're right that you won't have as many advantageous situations, but more to emphasize the point that you're basically playing a poorer penetrations game. If you come to back count a 6 deck game and there are 2 decks in the discard, the then in the next 1 deck you hit a running +10... that is the same as 1 deck out of 6 decks being dealt. Thus there are 5 remaining and the TC is +2.

Quote: boymimbo

...And the cards already dealt mean that the count is wrong.

Incorrect. This is the same as having poor penetration. You simply don't see the cards, but that's the same as starting a shoe fresh. Doesn't matter if they're in the discard tray or in the shoe... and unseen card is an unseen card. The only difference it DOES make is to the Penetration for the frequency of counts... not whether a count is accurate or not.

Quote: boymimbo

So, for example, let's say you come in and observe hands 3-4 in a shoe and miss the fact that the first two hands by 5 players consisted of 9 two card 20s, a blackjack and a couple of 18s. The RC would be -12 at this point. You come along and wong in after the next two hands are +12. The cards remaining are not evenly distributed reflecting that count.

What about when you observe 3-4 hands and miss the fact the first two hands by 5 players consisted of a RC of +12 with all small cards? Then you came along and wong in after the enxt 2 hands are +12.... The RC is actually +24.

The count is just as likely to go up as it is to go down with Hi/Low. Thus every specific negative scenario you can think of a counter positive scenario could be made. Thus by AVERAGE it is no different than starting a fresh shoe with poorer penetration.

Quote: Romes

What about when you observe 3-4 hands and miss the fact the first two hands by 5 players consisted of a RC of +12 with all small cards? Then you came along and wong in after the enxt 2 hands are +12.... The RC is actually +24.

The count is just as likely to go up as it is to go down with Hi/Low. Thus every specific negative scenario you can think of a counter positive scenario could be made. Thus by AVERAGE it is no different than starting a fresh shoe with poorer penetration.

Actually no, the likelihood is that the TC will approach 0 as you get to the end of the shoe. In face, with 10 cards left the count can only be between +10 and -10. That's why you count, no?

The likelihood of the count being -24 after 24 cards (-12 and -12) is far less than the likelihood of the count being 0 after 24 count (+12 and -12). About 3.89 times less likely actually.

If you are averaging, wouldn't your TC be RC/decks left in the shoe rather than RC/decks you've seen been dealt.

So, if you come in mid shoe and you see an RC of 12 and 3 decks left, would your RC be 4 or would it be 2.16 (5 1/2 decks)?

The TC will approach 0, but you don't know from which side. It's just as likely to approach 0 from being negative as it is to approach 0 from being positive.

Also, the unseen cards are just as likely to be negative as they are positive. Attempting to assign value to them based off what you have seen is a HUGE mistake that will lead a counter down very, very wrong paths. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, just that I hope no one takes that context out of our conversation.

In your example, if you came in mid shoe and saw a RC of +12, over the course of 1 deck, then that's 1 deck you HAVE seen and 5 you have not seen. RC = 12/5 = TC +2.5. You must take the entire solution in to account. There is literally no difference (other than where they are on the table) between the unseen cards in the discard tray and the unseen cards behind the cut card. AKA it's like playing a game with poorer penetration.

The RC approaches zero. On average, the TC tends to stay the same. It is a myth that it approaches zero, as explained by the True Count Theorem.

Quote: QFIT

The RC approaches zero. On average, the TC tends to stay the same. It is a myth that it approaches zero, as explained by the True Count Theorem.

Eh, the TC moves the same, it's just relative. For larger amounts of decks remaining for example RC moves +10, say 5 decks left, TC only moves +2. Thus when you get to the more finite numbers of RC movement, the TC movement is even less, appearing almost stagnant but it is in fact still relative and since the RC moves towards 0...

Quote: Romes

Eh, the TC moves the same, it's just relative. For larger amounts of decks remaining for example RC moves +10, say 5 decks left, TC only moves +2. Thus when you get to the more finite numbers of RC movement, the TC movement is even less, appearing almost stagnant but it is in fact still relative and since the RC moves towards 0...

The TC tends to stay the same because as cards are removed from the shoe, so does the denominator in the TC conversion (RC to TC).

RS is quite correct. TC is (in simple counting systems) RC/(decks left). As you progress through the shoe; the numerator gravitates toward zero and the denominator decreases at an equivalent rate. The end result is that at any round, the count is more likely to be essentially the same at the end of the round as it was at the start of the round (on weighted average, not on quantities).

Now, you might note that I have included some provisos. If you want to get into detail, the end of a round is more likely to be negative than positive. The pos and neg TC counts are not symmetrical. This is because more rounds end with a high card than a low card. But, it all works out in the end.

No need to wait for TC +2, often you will have a modest advantage at TC+1 depending on the rules.

Quote: BlackjackGuy123

No need to wait for TC +2, often you will have a modest advantage at TC+1 depending on the rules.

At most "typical" rules that most "typical" members here on the forums play, they will not have a modest advantage at all at TC +1.

Even a rule set as unfavourable as 6decks, H17, DAS, DA2, Peek, no surrender will show a modest advantage at TC +1; in my experience most casinos offer at least this or better, unless you are living in Western Europe. But certainly the exact rules and precise starting house edge does come into play here; the higher the initial house edge the less your chance of finding an advantage at TC +1.

Unfortunately true in LV as 94% of Nevada games are H17, 3/4 of 6 deck games. Now, in Penn. or Conn., you have enough of an advantage at +1.

Quote: Romes

At most "typical" rules that most "typical" members here on the forums play, they will not have a modest advantage at all at TC +1.

Define 'modest'.

Even with the worst rule set such as H17 DAS no resplit aces and no surrender, as long as its a 3/2 game, you will still have around a .20% advantage give or take a .01 or .02% difference depending on which count used as well as how many indices you use.

I guess youre right, thats not really 'modest', but definitely playable. For me i have around a .35% edge at +1

.20% advantage is tiny compared to other advantages.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

.20% advantage is tiny compared to other advantages.

That was for +1 only and for worst rule scenario

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

.20% advantage is tiny compared to other advantages.

I'd normally be on your side, I like your posting... but this is a blackjack thread. So no need to come poop on the parade of blackjack players. Either they don't know about bigger edges (good for anyone who does - such as yourself) or they don't care and want to play blackjack (all the same your comment is moot), so there's really no win from it =/.

Quote: Romes

I'd normally be on your side, I like your posting... but this is a blackjack thread. So no need to come poop on the parade of blackjack players. Either they don't know about bigger edges (good for anyone who does - such as yourself) or they don't care and want to play blackjack (all the same your comment is moot), so there's really no win from it =/.

I reiterate, .20% is tiny, ANYWHERE.