Poll
No votes (0%) | |||
1 vote (7.14%) | |||
7 votes (50%) | |||
3 votes (21.42%) | |||
2 votes (14.28%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
1 vote (7.14%) |
14 members have voted
All told, I'm probably just short of 100,000..
This also holds true for people who back count and wong in. If they back count an entirely negative shoe, they still saw the X hands from that shoe, just with a 0 bet so it didn't cost them money. Back counting (just like sitting out and still counting) is more hands seen/accounted for.
Quote: Romesbill, if you sit out negative counts but you're still counting those count as hands per hour... You ARE playing at TC -5, just with a 0 bet. All of the hands you actually see/count go towards your total hand count.
This also holds true for people who back count and wong in. If they back count an entirely negative shoe, they still saw the X hands from that shoe, just with a 0 bet so it didn't cost them money. Back counting (just like sitting out and still counting) is more hands seen/accounted for.
You may count hands that haven't been dealt to you, nor that you risked money on, as having 'played' them. I would not. If the question was how many hands have you played, and also add how many hands were you at a table and not played, then your answer would be correct. By the way, since I assume you many times play more than one hand at a time, when you are not actually playing how do you decide if you should count that as one or two or three hands you have played?
Quote: Romesbill, if you sit out negative counts but you're still counting those count as hands per hour... You ARE playing at TC -5, just with a 0 bet. All of the hands you actually see/count go towards your total hand count.
This also holds true for people who back count and wong in. If they back count an entirely negative shoe, they still saw the X hands from that shoe, just with a 0 bet so it didn't cost them money. Back counting (just like sitting out and still counting) is more hands seen/accounted for.
You are not the first person to tell me that. I am not sure what difference it makes. They felt It did make one.
Perhaps you can explain it better than he did.
How many hands would you be playing in a TC -2, TC -3, TC -4? Certainly never more than one =).Quote: SOOPOOYou may count hands that haven't been dealt to you, nor that you risked money on, as having 'played' them. I would not. If the question was how many hands have you played, and also add how many hands were you at a table and not played, then your answer would be correct. By the way, since I assume you many times play more than one hand at a time, when you are not actually playing how do you decide if you should count that as one or two or three hands you have played?
I've put about $2,500,000 across the blackjack tables.
Quote: RomesHow many hands would you be playing in a TC -2, TC -3, TC -4? Certainly never more than one =).
Touche!! I think you were looking at the OP question from an "AP" viewpoint... I think it was meant more as a simple question as to just get a flavor from the forum.
Quote: billryanYou are not the first person to tell me that. I am not sure what difference it makes. They felt It did make one.
Perhaps you can explain it better than he did.
Okay, I understand what you are saying. I play mostly double deck so when I get up to smoke, I always sit out the rest of the shoe.
Were I to keep counting and return in the same shoe, it would matter.
GAME Rounds Avg Bet Action
DD 55,000 92 5,060,000
BP 6,500 477 3,100,500
TOTAL 61,500 8,160,500
There is an additional large number of rounds prior to becoming an AP that would move this total to over 100K.