Can you get a positive True Count when there is a negative Running Count?

I use a Hi/Lo system to track the running count and then divide the remaining decks to get the true count. I was playing at a casino and I think I was playing with another counter, but I wasn't 100% sure. If he was, he was using a really low bet spread on the positive shoes.

One shoe came that was horribly negative. Game was a 6D shoe, h17, surrender, double after split, split 4 times (including aces, but only 1 card for the ace).

The running count was the following on a 9 spot table which was full: 0, -7, -18, -17, -21, -14, -3, -2, -6, -9. When the shoe jumped 11 points in the positive direction (-14 to -3) the other player increased his wager x10 units. I had all but given up on the shoe at that point. Even though the shoe was still negative on the running count, is it possible the True Count was positive? I have read other discussions where someone was corrected in thinking that a negative running count did not necessarily mean a negative true count. Any input?

brianparkes

Well, true count is running count divided by the number of decks ... So, if there remains a negative number of decks, then yeah, true count can be positive while running count is negative. Other possibilities are:
- you made a mistake in keeping count
- he made a mistake in keeping count
- he was using a different system for counting
- he was not counting at all, and just increased his bet because he felt like it
- he was not counting, but noticed lots of small cards going out, and decided it was a good time for a large bet.

Is it just me ? I have seen 5. 6. and 7 spot tables. Never a 9 spot. Just asking.

I just seem to remember a thread at one point where a guy said the same thing and got a response where the other guy said he was wrong. I didn't write down his math explaining it and can't find it anymore. He might have been using a different system or was reacting to the 11 point swing even though the running count was still negative. Thanks for the response.

Yeah. In WA state at the card rooms (not the tribal casinos). Since they are only allowed to offer 15 tables total per property and no slots/craps/roulette they do this to try and squeeze more players in. Sucks, but it is easier to blend in since they seem to think we only prefer to play heads up with the dealer and ignore the full 9 spot tables.

deleted

Got to agreee, a negative running count (resulting in a negative true count) is a negative count regardless of how many small cards were distributed the prior hand. My guess (based on how high he bumped his next bet) is that he understands the concept that a bigger proportion of high cards makes for a better player deck, and was reacting to all the small cards he just observed.

He could have been shuffle tracking. Maybe he was betting into a clump of aces.

Is it possible he was counting with Ace-Five, or Knock Out?

Different counting systems have marginally different betting correlations, but there is no system that will have a player firing into a negative count. Unless you're a full-time player, it's unlikely that you'll ever have a card counter at your table. Card counters often suspect other players at the table of counting, but 99%+ of the time it's just a gambler playing on intuition.

Quote: LonesomeGambler

Different counting systems have marginally different betting correlations, but there is no system that will have a player firing into a negative count.

No, but it might yield a positive count in a situation where another system's count would be negative.
Suppose, three fives are out and no aces, making ace-five count plus three. Suppose, six tens are also out, making the HiLo running count minus three.

Quote: weaselman

No, but it might yield a positive count in a situation where another system's count would be negative.
Suppose, three fives are out and no aces, making ace-five count plus three. Suppose, six tens are also out, making the HiLo running count minus three.

Unbalanced counts will sometimes disagree with balanced counts right around the pivot (which is usually near a true count of 0), depending on which specific small cards have come out. E.g. using the Red Seven count, if for some reason the front half of a shoe was heavy in red sevens, you might have a count that indicates a slight advantage while someone using Hi-Lo and deck estimation will have true count indicating a slight disadvantage since they're not counting sevens at all.

The differences are slight though, nothing that would cause a 10x bet jump. I'm guessing he's either just a gambler or he was shuffle tracking/ace sequencing. Or one of you really screwed up :).

Quote: LonesomeGambler

Different counting systems have marginally different betting correlations, but there is no system that will have a player firing into a negative count. Unless you're a full-time player, it's unlikely that you'll ever have a card counter at your table. Card counters often suspect other players at the table of counting, but 99%+ of the time it's just a gambler playing on intuition.

AMEN

Quote: AcesAndEights

Unbalanced counts will sometimes disagree with balanced counts right around the pivot (which is usually near a true count of 0),

The examples I mentioned are both balanced.

Quote: weaselman

The examples I mentioned are both balanced.

Well, the Wizard's Ace-Five is technically balanced, in that a full deck count-down equals 0. But it also doesn't require doing a true-count conversion, at least via the method documented here.

I don't really consider the ace-five a real counting system that a pro or even moderately serious amateur would use...more of a way for tourists to break even or milk comps. Besides, no one using the ace-five would suddenly increase their bet 10x as described by the OP, as it only calls for parlays.

Not trying to criticize you weasel, your example was quite apt for an example of a situation where one count would be positive and one negative. It's just nomenclature.

Good to get all the info. I was wondering if he was using a different system, but I always thought that even though other systems can get you a little more specific information, they were still pretty much the same as Hi/Low (at least in reference to a running negative count). His intuition paid off pretty well, so that was why I was wondering. Back to the grind :)