Getting a edge over the house without Increasing bet
Anything would help!!!!
Depending on how short your BR is, you could wait for an even higher count to jump in. At +2 your edge is probably ~0.35%, so each $15 bet will net you 5 or 6 cents. If you are patient and time is not a factor, this could reduce your ROR, if that is an issue.
Good luck.
Quote: IbeatyouracesJump in at a true count of +2 or higher and leave when it is below it.
This thread implies a TC of + 2 shifts the House Edge + 0.95% in the player's favor. Is that number correct?
Does anyone know the HE shift in the players' favor at TC's + 3, + 4, + 5?
Thanks.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI just used a generic example. Depending on the game rules will dictate at which count to jump in at.
1. Cool, I hear ya, but the info I'm really looking for is how much the HE shifts in the player's favor at TC's + 1, + 2, + 3, etc.
I've done a bunch of searches here and through Google but I've mostly struck out. The only mention I've found at all is a document by something called the "Duke Counting Team" that claims each TC shifts the house edge 0.5% in the players' favor.
Well, OK, that sounds like it's in the ballpark, but it also sounds suspiciously round and generalized to me. Is it just a rule of thumb, like never wearing white after Labor Day?
2. Knowing how much the HE shifts to a players advantage at each TC strikes me as completely critical information. Without it, how do I know when a shoe's completely defeated my local casino's HE? Beyond that, how can I pick my bet sizes for TC's higher than break even if I don't know how much my "Players Edge" is at TC's + 2, + 3, + 4, etc.?
Conversely, isn't knowing how magnified the HE is at each negative TC a critical component for a player to know when balancing things like wonging out vs attracting unwanted attention?
3. If all else fails, if anyone has BJ simulation software that's programmable, I've got an idea how we can generate the data ourselves for TC + 2 and TC + 5, but it definitely needs some peer review.
With a $100 wager, on a six-deck shoe, perfect card counting yields $33.58 per 100 hands. A $15 flat wager will yield $5.03 per 100 hands.
Quote: teliotThis post gives an absolute upper bound on a possible flat bet advantage. The post also gives an absolute upper bound on card counting with a fixed maximum bet.
With a $100 wager, on a six-deck shoe, perfect card counting yields $33.58 per 100 hands. A $15 flat wager will yield $5.03 per 100 hands.
Doesn't your post address spreading from $0-$100 rather than flat-betting?
With a $100 wager, on a six-deck shoe, perfect card counting yields $33.58 per 100 hands. A $15 flat wager will yield $5.03 per 100 hands.
Doesn't your post address spreading from $0-$100 rather than flat-betting?In my post, the player plays $0 without an edge and $100 with an edge. They are doing perfect "Wonging." There is no way to make more using hi-lo, for a fixed flat wager, than that given in my post.
Quote: MathExtremistI think there's a language issue -- to me, "fixed flat wager" means not varying one's bet, not that the maximum bet is fixed while the lower bet can vary (or be zero). If you're truly flat-betting on the game, then (a) it doesn't matter what the count is or whether you even know it, and (b) you expect to lose -- in your example -- about 1/4 of a bet per shoe. There's no advantage at all.
Here is the original post, in part. I was responding to this post as my article appears to be on point. Perhaps the confusion is that the title of the post is not consistent with the question asked.
Quote: GstimI can count using hi-lo but don't have the bankroll to place $95 bets when needed. Is there a true count I can use to jump in mid shoe knowing the remainder of the shoe I have an edge and a back up bail out count when I know to quit.
With a $100 wager, on a six-deck shoe, perfect card counting yields $33.58 per 100 hands. A $15 flat wager will yield $5.03 per 100 hands.
Thanks for that post. Your article's a fascinating read.
Do you (or others) actually use the 'Lurk and Pounce' approach in casinos?
This method has been a mainstay of APs for a very long time. From the Wikipedia entry on Stanford Wong:Quote: hmmm23Do you (or others) actually use the 'Lurk and Pounce' approach in casinos?
Quote:
The term "wong" (v.) or "wonging" has come to mean a specific advantage technique in blackjack, which Wong made popular in the 1980s. It involves watching the play of cards in a game without actually wagering your own money, until the count becomes advantageous, and then stepping in and playing only while the count remains in the player's favor, and then stepping out again. "Wonging" is the reason that some casinos have signs on some blackjack tables saying, "No Mid-Shoe Entry," meaning that a new player must wait until exactly the first hand after a shuffle to begin playing.
