Ace five and golden 21

Dear Wizard,

Can the edge in an ace five count be increased by wonging out at -3 and spreading to three hands at positive counts (in addition to an increase in wager)?

Can the ace five count be doubly used or converted to track the side bet in golden 21 simultaneously (say start side betting at plus 4)?

Hi Pelicanbrief, and welcome to the forums.

The small advantage obtained by the Ace-5 count can't be changed, but you can change your expected value (EV) return... Let's break it down...

The reason you have an advantage is you're tracking certain key cards and because of the effect of card removal and the rules of the game and simulations that have run hundreds of millions of hands, we know you have X% advantage when so many of these certain cards are removed. So let's say when all the 5's are gone you have a 2% advantage. How would placing another bet make this go up, considering you need to remove more 5's to make the % go up? It won't. So while the advantage is swinging back and forth pending the cards removed, your advantage at any one point in time will NOT be affected by you sitting out or placing more bets.

HOWEVER, you most certainly can effect your return (EV) by doing these things. When you have a 1% advantage and place a $100 wager, you can expect (in the long run) to make $1 net profit every time this situation occurs. If you were to place 2 wagers $100 every single time you have a 1% advantage, then you would expect to get more net profit back. Be careful though... because of CoVariance your wagers aren't exactly one for one. Two wagers of $100 is the same as one wager of $150. So you're expectation of 2 hands of $100 (in the long run) would be $1.50 net profit per round. So yes, you just increased your expectation for that situation by 50%, but again no you did not change the house edge... You just took "more" advantage of it by betting more. Similarly when the count is negative, you're at a bigger disadvantage and you'd expect to lose $X per hand you play at -3... So by NOT playing at -3 you're "saving" that money and thus you would see more in your overall return (EV).

***NOTE: If you are willing to put some effort in to counting, you REALLY should just learn Hi/Low. The edge you get from A-5 is MINIMAL and to boot you STILL must understand concepts such as Bankroll Management, variance/co-variance, and Risk of Ruin (RoR) in order to have a winning game. You're not going to be able to "cut corners" and use this "simpler" count to make money in blackjack. It's just another counting system... in which you must still understand all of the other concepts. So simply by learning Hi/Low (another VERY EASY count) you'll be able to gain SO MUCH MORE of an accurate advantage and actual advantage (you can then use the I18 to properly take insurance, etc, etc). I definitely recommend you learn Hi/Low. It will take the same amount of time to master as the Ace-5 count but you will see MULTIPLES more profit in the long run.

If you're interested, I wrote 3 articles that are available on this site... Read and reread them, and I assure you with some practice you will have a winning game!

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/A-to-Z-Counting-Cards-in-Blackjack/
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/A-to-Z-Counting-Cards-In-Blackjack-2/
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/A-to-Z-Counting-Cards-in-Blackjack-3/

Romes,

Thank you so much for the detailed answer to my question. I will definitely read your articles when I get a chance. I am new to counting but not new to winning in card games. I played Magic the gathering, poker and blackjack growing up. My intention was less about cutting corners than it was about explaining the apparent success, of this weaker count, in my experience (above and beyond what was expected). The wizard (in the ace five article) has the 'player advantage' going up as one increases the spread monetarily. What does this refer to? Is a bigger spread adding e.v.? Is there any value in corralling the aces by spreading to three hands (besides the 50% increase in expectation from spreading in general)?

Very much appreciated, the math involved is beyond me.

Also, I will definitely keep practicing hi lo until I am proficient.

Pelicanbrief,

Glad you found the info useful. While I didn't jump over to the Ace-5 article I have read it before and if my memory serves me correct then yes, you can add EV/return to your game by upping your spread (you can do that with any counting system that provides you with a player edge at some point). Spreading to a 3rd hand is the same as upping your spread... "essentially." It's a good way to also take advantage of an ace heavy deck as the more hands you play (when there's a ton of aces left) the more opportunities you have to get aces on those hands.

I too played magic the gathering, pokemon (trading card game), as well as every card game out there, including blackjack (my mom taught my brothers and I at a very young age). Don't worry, I played tons of sports too =P. I personally feel this is a good base point for the mentality that goes along with AP'ing. In those games you're constantly looking to do what everyone else in the game is not in an attempt to find a better play / an edge. It takes the same kind of mentality to be a successful counter/AP!

Quote: Romes

When you have a 1% advantage and place a $100 wager, you can expect (in the long run) to make $1 net profit every time this situation occurs.
If you were to place 2 wagers $100 every single time you have a 1% advantage, then you would expect to get more net profit back. Be careful though... because of CoVariance your wagers aren't exactly one for one. Two wagers of $100 is the same as one wager of $150. So you're expectation of 2 hands of $100 (in the long run) would be $1.50 net profit per round.

I don't agree.

Quote: PhilippeB

I don't agree.

Feel free to show your work (math) and quote your sources. Mine comes straight from Wong's Professional Blackjack...

The point of going to two hands is to be able to bet more money with the same amount of risk than you could by playing one hand. It seems the way that Romes said it,it implies that at 2x100 you will only make the same as betting 1x150.
Did I misunderstand what you said Romes?

Quote: Hunterhill

...It seems the way that Romes said it,it implies that at 2x100 you will only make the same as betting 1x150.
Did I misunderstand what you said Romes?

That's correct.

There is still plenty of merit to spreading to multiple hands... In an ace heavy deck it does give you another chance to catch an ace for a blackjack. Also, this is a great way to avoid betting thresholds most places have on "checks play." If they call it at $100, most places WON'T call it at 2x$90. Lastly, you're still adding value by adding the 2nd hand in general.

There seems to be some kind of synergy in the strategy I have been using (spreading to three hands when aces appear and the dealer doesn't have the 5 to bail him out). I have been using a modified ace 5 count. I've even pulled off 1-120 unit bet spreads like this and have clearly been beating the game. How is this quantifiable? What's my e.v.?

Quote: Romes

Feel free to show your work (math) and quote your sources. Mine comes straight from Wong's Professional Blackjack...

Mine too.

Quote: PhilippeB

Mine too.

I think I read what you did PhillippeB,The way I understand Wong's and others work is that playing 2x100 you will make more than 1x150.
All my books are packed away so I can't look right now.

Quote: Pelicanbrief

There seems to be some kind of synergy in the strategy I have been using (spreading to three hands when aces appear and the dealer doesn't have the 5 to bail him out). I have been using a modified ace 5 count. I've even pulled off 1-120 unit bet spreads like this and have clearly been beating the game. How is this quantifiable? What's my e.v.?

Well, not to burst your bubble but I can tell you if you're spreading that hard then you're just more/less getting lucky... Even IF you're playing with an edge. There's this thing called variance... Where even if you have an edge, there's still a +/- number of confidence that goes along with your EV. If you're spreading that hard, your standard deviations (those confidence intervals) would be massive. So for example your EV might be like $100 for the night, but your SD's would be like plus or minus $10k... So the fact that you end up on the positive side is relatively lucky.

In blackjack you will have good runs and bad runs. During the good runs you'll feel like a genius who's figure out a special sauce no one else has... Then when you go through the bad streaks you'll feel like the kings fool who diluted himself in to thinking card counting worked at all. While being a very winning player at blackjack, I've had MONTHS where I've gone losing nearly every single trip... While doing everything perfectly and playing with a much more powerful count (Hi/Low) than the A-5 count.

You need to understand a lot more about the game, that much is obvious. You WILL NOT win every night even if you had perfect card counting and great situations all night. You, on average, will come out with a 1%-2% advantage over the house in the long run. In the short run from night to night literally anything could happen. Think about it... How can people who don't count and don't play basic strategy win? Because of variance... However over a large enough sampling size (everyone playing 24 hours per day 7 days per week hand after hand) the house wins because they get to the long run and realize their advantage. It's the law of large numbers. What we're doing by counting cards is flipping that back on the house. So yes, the house even at a 'slight' disadvantage could still beat us on any given night. It's only when we get to the long run and have a large enough sampling size (~75k hands) that we should realize our advantage.

Pelican, I'm glad for your short term successes, but just from reading what you've posted so far you have a LOT to learn about the game. Even if you want to keep using your sauce of A-5 count or whatever, you really need to understand the finer points of the game such as RoR. Then you'd realize what you said about your 1-120 unit spread makes it clear you don't understand it, rather than it probably being a brag you thought it was when you posted it. It's foolish and mathematically CERTAIN that you will BUST if you spread 1-120 without the proper bankroll (which no way you have with a spread that high).

*Anything over 2x Kelly betting on a bankroll will mathematically bust just due to the natural swings in variance of the game. You probably don't know what Kelly Criterion is, but it's discussed in my articles.

To run a simple 5-100 (1-20) spread on a FIVE DOLLAR table you need a $20k bankroll to withstand up to 3SD (99% confidence)!

Avg Advantage: 1%
Avg Bet: $20
OriginalSD = 1.1*AvgBet = 1.1*20 = 22

EV(75k hands) = TotalWagered*Edge = (NumHands*AvgBet)*Edge = (75,000*20)*(.01) = 15,000
Standard Deviation (SD) = Sqrt(NumHands)*OriginalSD = Sqrt(75,000) * 22 = $6,025... 3SD = $18,075

So you see... even after 75,000 hands... your EV is $15,000 PLUS OR MINUS $18,075... This means (though very unlikely) that you could be a LOSING PLAYER after 75,000 hands WHILE PLAYING WITH AN ADVANTAGE.

Literally ALL of this is in the 3 articles I linked you to earlier. Seriously, please give them a read and a reread so you understand the fundamentals that go along with the game. Otherwise, you're just gambling.

I hope you don't think I'm being rude or harsh... You're traveling a very dangerous path right now... The path where you're getting lucky and you think you've got card counting down. That's the path where you're NOT really playing with an advantage and in the end the house will clean you out like everyone else. The only thing worse than playing at a disadvantage is thinking you're playing with an advantage when you're not. It's very dangerous to do and I implore you to read more information about the other aspects of the game.

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/A-to-Z-Counting-Cards-in-Blackjack/
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/A-to-Z-Counting-Cards-In-Blackjack-2/
https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/A-to-Z-Counting-Cards-in-Blackjack-3/

Romes,

Thank you, this is all very helpful and I will definitely finish reading your articles (they are helping a lot). I will continue to study and practice. I am playing with a replenishable bankroll and can afford to overbet. I know kelly, or half kelly, would mean I would be at almost no risk of ruin. But this is not my intention. For now I was settling with this type of "gambling with an edge" and not a 99% sure winning formula. You're not being harsh at all. Really appreciate the feedback. I just know that the information out there downplays the effectiveness of what I have been doing (obviously not including my enormous risk of ruin which is clearly there!).

Thank you again!

Glad you are looking in to the information and do know a bit more than previously thought. I've seen all too many glossy eyed "counters" learn +1 and -1 and then never learn RoR, spread, wonging, etc, etc, etc, and claim they have a winning game. It worries me =P.

Romes,

Just rereading everything. I wasn't bragging about that spread I was just pointing out that I can't find the way to calculate: 1-120 spread (max 40 units per hand per swing) when I wong out at -3 and spread from one to two hands at plus two and to three at plus three and double as specified in the ace-five article (penetration is deep at least 75% maybe closer to 80%). I know I have a 54% betting correlation (griffin p.45). Now the issue is, I know 1)wonging out helps my win rate and 2)playing three hands changes the variance and it 3)increases the chances I will get aces (Idk if that is already in the math?). 4)I am also spreading beyond the 32x the ace article specifies. The formulas I find (in the usual suspects of books and sites) aren't taking these four things into account. That was what I was getting at. I finished your articles and learned a lot. I will reread everything and see if I can find my answer, you may have already told me without me realizing.

Thanks again

Quote: Romes

Be careful though... because of CoVariance your wagers aren't exactly one for one. Two wagers of $100 is the same as one wager of $150. So you're expectation of 2 hands of $100 (in the long run) would be $1.50 net profit per round. So yes, you just increased your expectation for that situation by 50%, but again no you did not change the house edge... You just took "more" advantage of it by betting more. Similarly when the count is negative, you're at a bigger disadvantage and you'd expect to lose $X per hand you play at -3... So by NOT playing at -3 you're "saving" that money and thus you would see more in your overall return (EV).

Good post but I'm not sure I agree here. Can you elaborate on what you're trying to say? I have a feeling I disagree with you but I want to make sure I understand your point before I respond further.

I'm very interested to see the clarification here. Also, How much (a number) better is it to spread to three hands when playing ace five at plus three or higher counts?

Quote: Wizard

Good post but I'm not sure I agree here. Can you elaborate on what you're trying to say? I have a feeling I disagree with you but I want to make sure I understand your point before I respond further.

I had to grab my book, and since I just moved in to a new house you made me unpack my books =P. So thanks, I think.

Anyways, in his book Wong discusses the optimal number of hands and the reasons when playing multiple hands your bets don't simple "sum up." Mainly covariance and optimal bet sizing with bankroll considerations.

Page 203

Quote: Standford Wong

If you play more than one hand at the same time, your optimal bet size changes because 2 hands at the same table are not independent.

Quote: Standford Wong

For example, with $10,000 in your total stake, benchmark rules, and a 1% advantage, your optimal bet size is $78 on one hand, or $57 each on two hands, or $45 each on 3 hands.

57+57 = 114, which is almost 150% of the original wager. It changes slightly with your advantage. He goes on to say at a 2% advantage one hand would be $156, and two hands would be $114... again about 150%.

Basically, start on page 203 and read the next few pages. He even gives the formula used to derive the numbers, which since it's in his book I don't want to quote the formula here. It comes out to be about 146% but 150% is the rounded easier to remember number =).

I'm not sure if the Wizard is talking about the same thing that I am,but I still have to disagree that you will make the same money playing 1x150 as you would playing 2x100.

If you're thinking pure EV that's the point Wong is making....

The Gain Per Hand on a bet with a 1% advantage (TC +3 on standard .5% game) with default 75% PEN for 1 hand of $150 is $5.94.

The Gain Per Hand on a bet wit ha 1% advantage (TC +3 on standard .5% game) with default 75% PEN for 1 hand of $100 is $3.96.

When you spread to two hands of $100, your EV is not 3.96 + 3.96, because the two hands are not independent.

Duplicate

No,I realize that but won't the 2x 100 win more than $5.94,yet with the same amount of risk? I mean otherwise if that wasn't the case why wouldn't you just bet2x75 and reduce variance ?

Suppose you have a 1.5% advantage on a particular hand of blackjack, and suppose you are betting $50; your expected win on that bet is seventy-five cents. If you play two hands, in total they are worth a dollar and a half. Your bankroll will go up and down in increments of $50 and $100; but, over the long haul, your average win will be about 75 cents per $50 hand in that situation.

Do you not agree ?

I'm really curious about the difference in spreading to three hands (getting 75% of the cards) while using ace five to spreading when using the hi lo as the ace is worth so much more to the player than it is to the dealer, while the tens are worth more to the player than the dealer the difference isn't as much. My understanding is that when using a count like hi lo it is not advisable to spread beyond two hands while I don't believe this to be the case with the ace five.

The ace five is a very weak count,if you're serious about counting you really should learn hi low or another
Count.

Does anyone else see the problem that when I ask A everyone goes this is B, B is better. I get that but obviously no one gets what I'm asking or knows the answer. I'm looking for the answer to a legitimate theoretical question, please save the advice...I get it.

I think, Romes has already answered in his second post.

I think so too but was wondering if getting a higher percentage of the ace slugs was included in the math or a 'bonus' not calculated. Because I'm not sure what it's saying and it appears to not make that distinction/inclusion in the math.

I think that in all cases it is better to bet the same amount of money in 2 or 3 hands.
You reduce the variance and thus the risk without changing the EV.

Warning, this is different from the recommendations of Wong which talks about increasing the bets by hand and thus increase the EV without increasing the risk.
Here, with a somwhat weaker count that HiLo, reducing risk is vital.

Quote: Wizard

Good post but I'm not sure I agree here. Can you elaborate on what you're trying to say? I have a feeling I disagree with you but I want to make sure I understand your point before I respond further.

And now ?