rookie card counter question
But once about 15 years ago when they had single-deck at the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas I walked up to the table and saw a bunch of small cards on the first round all sitting on the table face up. I bought in for $300, but the dealer and pit didn't know that when I put $100 out there on the next round that it was my high bet (I would have spread $25 to $100). I won the hand. I probably had about a 4% advantage and could easily of lost the hand, but because it all happened like it did it's one of those things you just remember. I was just about breaking even for the trip up until that point so that hundred dollars really helped. I don't think I stayed more than a hand or two.
Quote: dutchmanSo let's say you come into a Blackjack game and haven't been checking it out beforehand: What do you start the count at? I'm new to all this so I'm not sure how I'd get anything close to an accurate count if I wasn't backcounting beforehand.
This is a strange question.
This is correct. So if there's 2 decks in the discard tray, and 1 deck behind the cut card... in a 6D game you're essentially playing that shoe with 50% penetration (because you'll never see 3 of the decks).Quote: billryanTreat any cards you haven't seen as if they are yet to be played.
They're just as likely to be low as high cards, so any unseen card is treated as just that, an unseen card.
That is a strange answer, but in a response to strange question, might be more than adequate.Quote: RomesThis is correct. So if there's 2 decks in the discard tray, and 1 deck behind the cut card... in a 6D game you're essentially playing that shoe with 50% penetration (because you'll never see 3 of the decks).
They're just as likely to be low as high cards, so any unseen card is treated as just that, an unseen card.
'People are strange, when you're a stranger, faces look ugly, when you're alone', or sumptin like that ;-)
If you're referring to vegas I'm pretty sure I know where this is =)... $3 min bets, right?Quote: billryanMy favorite place to play low roller BJ does this weird thing where after a shuffle, they turn over a card. Whatever card it is, they then burn that many cards. If its a picture card, they burn ten plus the original burn. If its an Ace, they burn one plus the original card. They offer Lucky ladies as a side bet, and think burning the cards prevents people from tracking tens.
You'd be surprised how common this question actually is. Every new counter knows "start with a fresh deal and a 0 count..." but what happens when you hop on a table in the middle of a shoe? That throws all new counters for a loop. Sometimes they'll INCORRECTLY take the discards in to account... So if they get a RC of +3 and there's 3 decks THEY DIDN'T SEE in the discard, they'll treat that as a TC +1, when it should be a TC +.5 because the 3 additional decks are the same as being behind the cut card.Quote: TwoFeathersATLThat is a strange answer, but in a response to strange question, might be more than adequate.
'People are strange, when you're a stranger, faces look ugly, when you're alone', or sumptin like that ;-)
2F I thought your first remarks to me would be something funky about the GWAE radio show =).
Quote: RomesSo if they get a RC of +3 and there's 3 decks THEY DIDN'T SEE in the discard, they'll treat that as a TC +1, when it should be a TC +.5 because the 3 additional decks are the same as being behind the cut card.
Why is that? It's not intuitive to me.
I would think it's not really the same as being behind the cut card, because the smaller the remaining shoe, the greater the impact of each change in the TC, and that is true regardless of whether you saw the first part of the shoe.
However, it also doesn't seem like it should be +1, because if you see a bunch of small cards, it is more likely that you didn't see a negative part of the shoe. So I think +1 would be overly optimistic given that you see small cards more often when the count is negative.
In other words, both ways seem wrong to me. :-/
It can be a bit confusing. I think I can explain though... So you sit at a 6 deck table and about 4 decks is already in the discard tray, meaning 2 decks remain. Those 2 decks are the same as the first 2 decks of the 6 deck shoe. To you, what would be the difference if they took the discard decks and literally put them behind the cut card? Absolutely no different because you didn't see them and thus can't account for them... and you're not going to get to play them.Quote: MrGoldenSunWhy is that? It's not intuitive to me.
I would think it's not really the same as being behind the cut card, because the smaller the remaining shoe, the greater the impact of each change in the TC, and that is true regardless of whether you saw the first part of the shoe.
So whenever you see decks in the discard, in your mind place them behind the cut card as cards that will not be played in this shoe (because to you, they won't be).
This type of speculation is intriguing, but ultimately erroneous. If you see a run of small cards now, that could mean both ways... The first part was big cards and it's leveling out, OR, the first part was little cards and this is a monster shoe. The reason it's completely erroneous is because you'll never know. You have no way of obtaining the knowledge of the discarded cards, much like you'll not know what's behind the cut card.Quote: MrGoldenSunHowever, it also doesn't seem like it should be +1, because if you see a bunch of small cards, it is more likely that you didn't see a negative part of the shoe. So I think +1 would be overly optimistic given that you see small cards more often when the count is negative.
In other words, both ways seem wrong to me. :-/
As a shoe progresses you have a better idea of what's behind the cut card, but similarly as you play the rest of the shoe out you'll have a better idea of what's in the discard tray. Ultimately though, you can't ever determine what's in the discard... So it should just be taken for what it is... unknown information.
Quote: RomesIt can be a bit confusing. I think I can explain though... So you sit at a 6 deck table and about 4 decks is already in the discard tray, meaning 2 decks remain. Those 2 decks are the same as the first 2 decks of the 6 deck shoe. To you, what would be the difference if they took the discard decks and literally put them behind the cut card? Absolutely no different because you didn't see them and thus can't account for them... and you're not going to get to play them.
I understand this logic for something like why a poker misdeal with cards dealt out of order doesn't actually impact anything. But here, that is not the case, because the number of cards remaining impacts the relationship between RC and TC. So if I think the most accurate estimate of the RC is +3, then why don't I care how many decks are remaining?
The information is partially unknown, but that doesn't totally convince me that I should ignore it.
Quote:If you see a run of small cards now, that could mean both ways... The first part was big cards and it's leveling out, OR, the first part was little cards and this is a monster shoe. The reason it's completely erroneous is because you'll never know. You have no way of obtaining the knowledge of the discarded cards, much like you'll not know what's behind the cut card.
I don't think I totally agree with this. Because you DO have some knowledge of the discards in a Bayesian sense. It could be anything, but it's more likely to have been negative.
Let's say I'm playing a 6 deck shoe. After 1 deck has been played, my RC is +5. Now the dealer just moves three decks into the discard tray for the heck of it. There are two decks left in the shoe. What should my TC be?
Maybe I should assume the count is "equally distributed" among all decks. So let's say I have RC of +3. If I had seen everything and there were two decks left, I'd have a TC of +1.5. But let's say I missed the first three decks. Then some of the "value" of that RC will be wrapped up in the decks I missed. So maybe I should treat each of the five decks as "worth" TC +0.6 and then with two left in the shoe, play it as TC +1.2? My logic might be off but I feel like there's a kernel of truth here.
Quote: IbeatyouracesUnseen cards (in the discard tray, behind the cut card, in other players hands((hand held game)), etc.), are just that. Unseen cards. You cannot count unseen cards.
Quote: MrGoldenSunLet's say I'm playing a 6 deck shoe. After 1 deck has been played, my RC is +5. Now the dealer just moves three decks into the discard tray for the heck of it. There are two decks left in the shoe. What should my TC be?
And, of course, for the purpose of converting rolling count to true count, we need to only count the seen cards in the discard tray as 'cards played'. We don't look at the height of the whole discard tray to estimate cards played: We look at the growth in height of the discard tray since we started watching the cards going into it.
Naturally enough, if after doing all that, the true count is well positive, we will only enjoy that situation for a shorter while until we reach the cut card.
Because the more the decks the less ideal the solution is, thus why the true count was invented. In a single deck game when you have a RC +4, there's 4 extra 10's in just the remaining let's say 30 cards. In an 8D game, when you have a +8, if there's 8 decks left that's only a TC +1, meaning 1 extra big card per deck... So while you're RC is vastly different, the single deck is a much more concentrated solution. The more number of decks the more diluted the count, which is why we run a "true count." Simply ignoring the discards is a big mistake because high or low they came from a diluted solution with many more decks.Quote: MrGoldenSunI understand this logic for something like why a poker misdeal with cards dealt out of order doesn't actually impact anything. But here, that is not the case, because the number of cards remaining impacts the relationship between RC and TC. So if I think the most accurate estimate of the RC is +3, then why don't I care how many decks are remaining?
But you can never know for certain... And to always assume this would be incorrect because what about the counts that just keep rising? We've all seen monster counts where the RC just kept going up, even as players got 20's and blackjacks enough small cards per round would offset. This would be horrifically wrong for cases such as these, which are very important shoes to counters.Quote: MrGoldenSunI don't think I totally agree with this. Because you DO have some knowledge of the discards in a Bayesian sense. It could be anything, but it's more likely to have been negative.
The solution of the remaining 5 decks has 1 extra "big card" per deck. So the true count should be +1... which if you follow the theory holds. If the dealer just blindly put 2 decks in to the discard tray, and you have no knowledge of them, then it's the same as being behind the cut card. Your true count does NOT increase because more cards are in the discard tray... because they are not known information (were not played).Quote: MrGoldenSunLet's say I'm playing a 6 deck shoe. After 1 deck has been played, my RC is +5. Now the dealer just moves three decks into the discard tray for the heck of it. There are two decks left in the shoe. What should my TC be?
If you have a RC +3, in a 6 count deck, with 2 decks left, that would normally be +1.5... If you missed the first 3 decks, that's the same as having those 3 decks behind the cut card, meaning 4.5 decks remain. So your TC is actually +3/4.5 = .6667. You're correct some of the value is considered in the decks missed, which is why the TC is diluted from 1.5 to .6667 to compensate for the assumption.Quote: MrGoldenSunMaybe I should assume the count is "equally distributed" among all decks. So let's say I have RC of +3. If I had seen everything and there were two decks left, I'd have a TC of +1.5. But let's say I missed the first three decks. Then some of the "value" of that RC will be wrapped up in the decks I missed. So maybe I should treat each of the five decks as "worth" TC +0.6 and then with two left in the shoe, play it as TC +1.2? My logic might be off but I feel like there's a kernel of truth here.
