July 18th, 2017 at 9:57:49 PM
permalink

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?

July 18th, 2017 at 10:03:19 PM
permalink

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.

July 18th, 2017 at 11:36:30 PM
permalink

Quote:camz1969I'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.

July 19th, 2017 at 8:32:15 AM
permalink

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.

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.

-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

July 19th, 2017 at 11:12:06 AM
permalink

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:tyler498Yes, 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.

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:boymimboGenerally 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.

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

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.Quote:boymimboSo, 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.

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.

Playing it correctly means you've already won.

July 19th, 2017 at 12:21:27 PM
permalink

Quote:RomesWhat 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)?

-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

July 19th, 2017 at 12:28:23 PM
permalink

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.

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.

Last edited by: Romes on Jul 19, 2017

Playing it correctly means you've already won.

July 19th, 2017 at 1:39:44 PM
permalink

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.

"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus

July 19th, 2017 at 1:54:04 PM
permalink

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:QFITThe 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.

Playing it correctly means you've already won.

July 19th, 2017 at 2:09:52 PM
permalink

Quote:RomesEh, 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).

00111100101100001011011100110101101100101011001010010000001101111011100110110001101100001011100100010000001101100011010010110110101100001001000000110111101110011011000110110000101110010