6D Fluctuation Question

I asked this question in a post on Midwest a while back, never really got an answer.

If you're sitting at a 6D game, and for two hours (or longer), counts never get high enough to let you do much more than double your bet, does it make any sense to leave for another table? Because what's happened, seems to me, is that the cards have become evenly distributed, and the shuffling (machine or hand) isn't doing anything to change that.

We've all sat at a 6D table where the counts are all over the place. Big swings, a lot of volatility, the cards are all whacked out, and that's to our advantage.

I was at a table where the count stayed right around neutral shoe after shoe after shoe. Two hours at least. Didn't leave because the other tables were more crowded, but there were seats. Lost a small amount per hour. Should I have switched tables?

SJ

why anyone betting below black plays shoes is beyond me.i counted 4 6 deck shoes a couple weeks ago at the rio bj tournament.2 shoes with one deck cut never went positive!!the other 2 shoes had maybe a total of 10-15 positive hands.i was mentally exhausted after counting the shoes.i rather work at burger king and eat free fries then play shoes for a side income-and for all you 8 deck AC players-your in my prayers:)

"why anyone betting below black plays shoes is beyond me."

It's because 6D shoes can have as good and very often better desirability index than pitch games when properly played (see BJA). Sometimes pitch games are not available and the player is not able to travel at that time, thus having no choice. You shouldn't condemn a game just because you don't understand different approaches to the game or it's not to your personal liking. If you limit yourself to only pitch games, you will often being playing a marginal EV game when a high EV shoe game could be found a table or two away. And some people find wonging shoes to be easier than play-all pitch. To each his own, but it's best to be versatile and learn to compare all games.

One must wong a 6D shoe to get a high DI game however, and it appears the original poster was using a play-all approach. Even if you are not able or willing to back count and wong in, just wonging out on the negative counts helps substantially.

It also appears that perhaps the poster was playing in too crowded conditions, a factor that kills hourly EV and increases variance on any game, pitch or shoe. Try playing at uncrowded times (like grave), playing elsewhere if possible, or otherwise just play minimal stakes if you simply want to play the game anyway for entertainment or good comp value. Personally, I only play good games or I don't play at all. I've walked in and out of casinos w/o playing a hand many times due to poor conditions.

Shoes also offer many more options to attacking the game. Team w/ a buddy and signal each other discreetly to a hot shoe. Shuffle tracking is another, but an advanced, technique as another example.

I realized now that I failed to answer your original question in my above post.

"Because what's happened, seems to me, is that the cards have become evenly distributed, and the shuffling (machine or hand) isn't doing anything to change that. Should I have switched tables?"

No, you shouldn't have changed tables for that reasoning. There is no reason to expect shuffling to not change the distribution of the cards. Think about it... you are arguing that you know the distribution of the cards (they are evenly distributed) after a shuffle. If this is the case, then they weren't randomly shuffled regardless of the distribution of the cards going into the shuffle. By definition, a random shuffling of the cards gives us random distribution of those cards, which means they are not always evenly distributed.

Of course it is possible for small clumps of highly positive (or negative) cards to be tracked through a weak shuffle with minimal dilution, but you are suggesting the distribution of the whole shoe shuffle after shuffle is not changing. If you found a game that the shuffle doesn't change the distribution of the cards any more than that, shuffle trackers would quickly burn the game out.

sounds like normal 6 deck play to me. If you changed tables you probably would have found a shoe that quickly went negative and stayed there, shoe after shoe. ;>)

That is why, when you finally get a good positive count, you have to spread more in shoes to make any money.

to the theory that the 6d was going to stay about the same....that is it will stay neutral and I think that your suspicion that you should have left is a good one.

If you're also counting the Aces and you find that they are also evenly distributed then maybe the table is not worth staying at.

As a general principle...you probably don't want to stay at the same table for too long unless the count is awesome and/or you are raking in the chips. Otherwise, take a break,shop around, whatever. It may be worthwhile to set a limit of 5-10 shoes at a table. If you don't get any kind of an advantage after 5-10 shoes then take off. or in the very least, take a rest-room break to collect your thoughts.

You have to decide how much you want to play. If you're just interested in killing some time for a couple of hours and you don't feel like table-shopping then that is your choice...but if you truly came to be the best advantage player possible than you would probably be better off with at least a little bit of wonging.

The point that it may be more worthwhile not playing at all if the conditions warrant is a valid one...however, it's also not very fun to go to a casino and than stand there and not play.

When I hit the shoes, I typically wong-in and out to various tables. Perhaps I'll play 8 tables in a 2-hour session.

Even if the other tables are too crowded to play...you may still be able to get in on a decent table (with an okay count) if you can wong-in at the right time. Point is, when you leave a table that doesn't mean you have to hop on to another right away. I wouldn't be too intimidated by the fact that the tables around you are too crowded. If that's the case and you are not able to play anymore then so be it. Don't look for those kind of excuses to stay at a mediocre to poor game.
If you ARE going to stay just to play then be aware that you are sacrificing some of your advantage and you are doing it more for entertainment then for money-making.
Even if there are no tables available you can kill a little time watching Craps (I'll never understand the rules of that game), roulette, Car. Stud or whatever. Maybe the other tables will be better in a few mins. Or maybe you can check out your old table...and if it is still uncrowded perhaps hop back in if the count suddenly starts to fluctuate.

if you're getting a TC of 0 at the 1d, 2d, 3d and 4d points of the game and you are counting exactly 4 A's for every deck played then after awhile I would recommend you just leave...regardless of whether another table is waiting for you or not.

I've taken 10-20 minutes or longer just waiting for a decent opportunity (I'm not talking about a phenomenal opp...just a situation where the TC is close to +0.5 to +1 with minimal Aces seen). This takes patience. I just consider it a situation where I am actually playing at this table but with a 0 unit bet (in one technical way I guess this gives me a spread of 0 to infinity. Funny though, I don't seem to be winning an infinite amount of cash.)

Even if you don't want to be much of a wonger and you want to stay at the same table..you can still do yourself a decent favor by shopping for 10 mins or so and finding a shoe with a decent count. this step alone is better than just sitting down to a fresh shoe (unless you're getting head to head while all other tables are packed).

I'll leave once the TC gets to -1 or -2. I'll leave when I am able to determine that the best cards of the shoe were cut to the back (happens sometimes after a great shoe where all the 10's and A's are clumped, otherwise I am not much of a shuffle-tracker). Sometimes I'll leave if I see 3 A's come out at the very beginning or if I see a RC of -6 or -8 on the table at the same time (even in the TC is only -0.5).

Staying and playing can be fun as opposed to the wonging which can be a real pain in the behind...but I actually have more fun stepping up to a new table and getting a BJ on my first hand played because I wonged in at the right time.

Most counters disregard aggressive wonging like this because they would rather just sit and play. I argue that wonging can be good exercise (all the walking around) and good for the wallet.

i imagine the heat would be a whole lot greater at 1-2d games. it would make the 6d game superior for those who back count and wong out, making the much-hated barrings less likely.

Pat, pal, two things:

1) When someone asks a question on this board, answer it if you have some helpful input, and be quiet if you only want to use the question to show off how much more you know than the poster.

2) If you go ahead and answer just to show off how much more you know, don't make a complete fool of yourself by saying something completely erroneous, such as "6Ds suck!" All that does is tell those of us who have been around the site for a while that you know little about blackjack. I could tell you where there are some 6D games with rules and penetration that would make 90% of the DD you play look like Pai Gow friggin' Poker.

And by the way, even after Pat's initial derailment, I think I found the answer I am going to go by, in there somewhere. Thanks to all.

SJ

im just giving you my opinion of what i think about the shoes.you said the count was evenly dist.and i agree.i use to back count DD and found it to be a waste of time because i spent more time walking then playing hands.i cant imagine backcounting shoes.my count starts off at -24 on the shoes.i have to wait forever for it to reac 0-+9 to get any money out.i still think shoes suck!!

on bjrm with a 20,000 bank.20 to 1 spread on 6 decks h17 das. wong in at .17% player edge and came up with a di of 6.01.that would put my mak bet at 600.00!!thats not what i call a great game.i am avoiding alll negative counts and still have a crappy di like that.to get a game like that i would have to back count until exhaustion.i will stick to the dd and sd.

"I think there's some validity to the theory that the 6d was going to stay about the same....that is it will stay neutral."

You're saying that a shuffle won't change the distribution of the cards. That is, if they are evenly distributed going into the shuffle, they have to be evenly distributed after the shuffle, and this is nonsense. They might be evenly distributed, but they don't have to be, and we have no way of predicting the distribution in advance (other than by tracking through a weak shuffle, which is not in the spirit of the thread). There has been work to support this (see PB by Wong).

Perhaps you have data you would care to share on which you are basing your thinking? My guess is you are basing it on your past experiences. Can you tell us exactly how many evenly distributed shoes you have seen shuffled and the outcomes of the following shoes? Sims on plays are usually run with millions of hands to have acceptable statistical reliability. I suspect your experiences are not a large enough number of trials to be statistically significant. And probably your thinking is more of a matter of human nature, much like people being more likely to remember the bad ploppy play that killed them than the one that saved them, and thus falsely believing that bad play by one hurts others.

This thinking that cold tables will stay cold through shuffles is the basis of TARGET (see glossary in left frame) and has been generally accepted as totally false.

"I'll leave once the TC gets to -1 or -2. I'll leave when I am able to determine that the best cards of the shoe were cut to the back (happens sometimes after a great shoe where all the 10's and A's are clumped, otherwise I am not much of a shuffle-tracker)."

I agree one should leave on the negative TC, but care to share how you know part way through a shoe that all the 10's and A's are clumped behind the shuffle card? How do you know they aren't clumped just in front of the sc or evenly distributed on both sides of the sc? If you knew before the cut where they were, why didn't you ask for the cut card and cut them to the front? If you couldn't get the cut card, why did you start the shoe at all knowing the good cards were out of play? And if you could track the favorable clump "after a great shoe" and knew they were behind the sc out of play, why didn't you simply wait until the next shuffle and track them into play the next shoe (especially since the card distributions don't change after a shuffle)? Sorry, but your comments simply are flawed any way you slice it.

First of all, you are apparently using KO, which is not the best count for shoes. There are some adjustments to KO you could learn for shoes or you could learn a different count. That does not mean shoes are bad games, only that you are not as well equipped to play them as efficiently as others may be.

As for your sim, you didn't give complete info on the variables that you used, and you didn't include the numbers for the DD game you are comparing the shoe to. You can easily make either game look good or bad by selecting varying pen, rules, spreads, count systems, etc. I just ran a couple of common games for my area on bjrm2000 and the 6D had a slightly better DI than the DD, but very close. Generally the shoes have a little better rules and are much faster dealt w/ generally less table crowding, giving the player more hands/hr. Also, there is usually less heat on shoes, meaning less given up in cover. Your sim probably didn't factor these into play. See BJA for much more detail.

the win rate was about 75 an hour with a 600.00 max bet.i didnt sim s17 because you cant find alot of them anymore.if i bet 600 max in dd i could buy the mirage with my per 100 win rate.

On page 188 of Schlesinger's BJA (Second Edition) he says that "the player's edge, as a function of the number of players at the table, is virtually invariant, for the shoe game". I thought this was an interesting oberservation. He didn't say (and I wondered) if SD and ROR were also invariant. What do you think?

First - I don't blame you for arguing that I'm playing closer to voo-doo BJ then anything else. However, I do believe I misrepresented myself on a couple of points...and I believe you misinterpreted another.

I think that if you have any suspicions that you are not at an advantage, then you should leave.
I also think that you shouldn't spend too much time at a given table even if the crowd conditions elsewhere in the casino are poor.
I think it is okay to bail if you have a bad feeling about a given situation. However, I do not think it is wise to stay just due to a good feeling (without the count or conditions to justify it).

Basically, your reasons for staying should always be concrete.
Your reasons for leaving do not have to be as concrete.

If your instincts tell you to go (based on solid or faulty logic) then you should go because even if the conditions are solid, your bad feeling can serve as a distraction.

Regarding the shuffle tracking:
I've had shoes where time after time I could tell the low cards were cut to the back. Sometimes it is beyond coincidence if you end at an RC of +20 to +25 shoe after shoe and if you see the same grouping of 4 red A's over and over.

It is my belief that If you see 16 A's over a 2.5 deck stretch then you are more likely to get a good clumping of A's in the following shoe (and you can at least try to track the highest concentration of them) then at some new, unseen, freshly shuffled shoe at a different table. Obviously, the 16 A's will spread out some around the shoe and are not terribly likely to stay that concentrated, but I believe one can successfully determine the part of the shoe where 6-8 of them are likely to still be clumped together.
If this is true (not sure whether you would agree with this or not) then it is possible that the opposite would hold true also....if you don't see any clumping of A's and T's then it is not likely to happen on the very next shuffle.

Please note that I am arguing this theory based on NO clumping at all. This would require a TC of 0 with 4 A's seen after every deck played (no volatility). These TC 0 decks and even A's are more likely to be shuffled together to form more 0's and more even Ace distribution. It is not as likely that the shuffle will somehow lump a whole bunch of the A's together...although it is not entirely impossible.

However, this does not hold true if you are just basing this on the ending TC of 0. If there is any fluctuation on your way to the cut card (few Aces early...lots of Aces late, or go from TC +3 to TC 0) then you are more likely to get the favorable count volatility one needs to be a successful advantage player. Just hope that the big cards that dropped the count from +3 to 0 somehow end up in the right place. It's helpful if you have some approximation of there they might go if there is a weak shuffle.

No, I don't have the statistical data to back it up...
Yes, perhaps there is something of a self-fulfilled prophecy that goes along with these kinds of observations...
No, I do not base my entire BJ play on my very casual shuffle-tracking abilities (or lack thereof)...
but Yes, I think one should use powers of observation when possible.

for me, these opportunities where I think I know where the A's might be don't come up very often.

Also - to address another point,
If and when I have the rare occassion to determine that all the A's and T's I saw on one shoe were cut to the back, then I leave, but sometimes not right away.
When I say "when I determine that the best cards were cut to the back" The determination comes when I see the cut, not in the course of playing the shoe itself. Obviously you don't come to those miraculous conclusions mid-shoe.
Regardless, Sorry for the confusion there. I didn't not mean to imply that I make these bold assumptions mid-shoe.
Although hypothetically, I guess it would be possible to have some uncertainty about a given cut and consequently not know if the best cards are at the very front OR the very back...in this situation I suppose it is possible to need a couple of hands into the shoe to make the determination. But that's a situation I don't think I have really encountered.

If the pit is watching and I feel awkward about leaving right after seeing the cut or the pen then I WILL stay until my 1st loss or perhaps back to back losses of the shoe. If during my stay it turns out that my read of the shuffle was not accurate (can happen) then I'm willing to stay if warranted.

Also, Sometimes it is impractical to stand at the table and clump-watch for the next shoe...but I have done this on occassion.

Again, I really don't shuffle-track that much...but if I see a really juicy clump I will try my best to follow it and then see if I was right.
if I feel a little more confident, perhaps I will bet a bit higher but this happens for me pretty infrequently.

The only time I will bet high off the top is when I feel reasonably certain I cut the A's and T's to the front. One time we had a bunch of A's on the first couple of hands. Strategy as follows:
1. rest-room break
2. get back in time to grab the cut-card (I don't normally get too insistent but I was sure to grab it this time).
I was able to easily follow where the Aces were in her shuffle and I gave my best effort to cut them to the front. I laid out a few units more than normal...and BINGO, 4 A's were on the table between me, 3 other players and the dealer. Sadly, only the dealer had BJ.
I had calculated that there were still some A's remaining and I kept the same high bet...got split A's but couldn't paint either and lost both when the dealer made her hand. I bet minimum for the rest of the shoe (couldn't justify another RR break) but couldn't get the cut card again without looking weird. I hoped for the best but when I saw the A's were cut to the back I quickly found an opportunity to bail.
On this occassion, I was the bug.

Another time, I had noticed about a dozen 7's and 8's staying together. Mind you, I wasn't trying to track 7's and 8's...but it's worth being observant beyond mere counting so I try to side-count anything I can find based on early shoe trends. If I see five 8's early, I'll kind of keep track of them and if they remain in depletion I can factor them in on appropriate decisions (can be slightly more aggressive on 16 v. T but slightly more conservative on 13 v. 2). Once the 8's are evened out again then I'll usually just forget about them and look for something else (Gee...haven't seen a 5 the past few hands).
Back to those 7's and 8's that were clumped Sometimes it was 11 of them, sometimes it was 14 (somehow they added to the family)...but they were pretty tightly grouped and had stayed that way for 2 or 3 shoes. Again, one must be careful to avoid self-fullfilled prophecy in situations such as these. But I was pretty certain I wasn't imagining the 7's and 8's. if you see 12 of them in a 25-35 card stretch over and over you can believe it's real.
So, when I got a S13 against a 3 at the beginning of one of these 7-8 stretches I decided to double even though the count didn't justify it and BULLSEYE, got the 8 (dealer had a 7 in the hole and pulled an 8 for 18).
On this occassion, I was the windshield.

BTW - my extra side-counting is all the more reason why I need to take more frequent breaks. I feel like John Nash All those numbers. They hurt my head!"

I haven't studied your numbers, but I can tell you one thing: if you're looking at 67% or worse penetration on the 6d games (and there are plenty of those around), then you're right. Those games are poor compared to almost any pitch game. Generally, casinos know they can give 5/6 and worry about it less than 1.3/2. There are 5/6 games out there, and it's also more common to find late surrender in a shoe game. The devil is in the details ...

ETF

If you find a shoe that "quickly goes negative and stays there, shoe after shoe" the high cards must be coming out right after the shuffle. All one needs to do is bet big on the first hand after the shuffle, keep the count, then wong out until the next suffle....shoe after shoe after....

An aggressive person might note that if the count goes more and more negative as you go thru the shoe (shoe after shoe after ....) then high cards are still coming out and there is no reason to leave.

scruft

if you play in an area that only offers 6D you are forced to incorporate counter-measures, :) , that will promote a more positive EV. the betting ramp starts at 0 units and I suggest you mumble something about the coffee running right through you as you aggessively wong out during negative counts.

Look for those unusual games with good penetration and always step back during the negative third of a 6d game. It has been good cover for me to talk about how I "just can't seem to get a streak of good cards going".... or "that's my loss limit in one shoe" when the inevitable long lasting negative count appears.

It is never redundant to say that 'Penetration is everything.'
It is never redundant to say that 'Penetration is everything.'

can you go to the vegas bj thread and check out my question about a bjrm sim.