Card Eating

I was reading in John May's "Get the Edge at Blackjack" about 'card eating'. This is where when the count is negative to bet minimum but multiple hands to 'eat' up the small cards. His example, was a high rolling flat bettor teamed with a low bettor. When the count went negative, the high roller would play the same flat bet and the low bettor would play multiple hands. It seems to provide good cover, but does it works?

He also wrote that when the count is high and the player converts to playing multiple hands that this dilutes some of the player's advantage. The reason is now the player is running thru the high cards. But doesn't playing multiple hands, which are favorable to the player, against the dealer one hand, which is unfavorable to the house, have a better advantage?

So, it made me think on this strategy. I betting 10 units on 1 hand after the shuffle. The count goes negative(I know the answer is 'Leave the Table!'), I drop to 2 hands of 2 units(4 units total). It stay negative, I put out a 1 unit bet on a third hand(5 units total). Now it goes positive because I have 'ate' the small cards, so I pull down my extra hands and up my single hand to 10+ units(base on count). Does this play have any merit? Would the house detect this similiarly reverse play?

A rule of thumb is, if you can't find an author's book in bj21's online catalog. Avoid them like the plague. John May, John Patrick, Jerry Patterson, etc. It wouldn't be a bad idea to just throw that book out. I'm sure he has several good ideas in his book, but for everyone one good idea there are probably a dozen horrible ones that will cost you in the long run.

What was wrong with his book it was simple and to the point, I liked it.

I've just tossed my copies of "Beat The Dealer" and "Beyond Counting" into the fireplace. Keep up the good work, Adolph!

I don't need to throw the book, because I read this at my local bookstore and returned it to the bookshelf.

I disagree with Apricot. There are a number of widely respected BJ authors that are not published by Pi Yee Press.

Regarding John May specifically, I know that he sometimes posts on this board and that there is some polarity to the viewpoints regarding him. I recently posted on BJ Math and inadvertently opened up some hard feelings between John and Don Schlesinger.

Personally, I found John's book to be rather informative although most of the card counting information was pulled from other sources and his ideas on sequencing, etc do not do me much good since the local casino's I play at use automatic shuffle machines.

So, it made me think on this strategy. I betting 10 units on 1 hand after the shuffle. The count goes negative(I know the answer is 'Leave the Table!'), I drop to 2 hands of 2 units(4 units total). It stay negative, I put out a 1 unit bet on a third hand(5 units total). Now it goes positive because I have 'ate' the small cards, so I pull down my extra hands and up my single hand to 10+ units(base on count). Does this play have any merit? Would the house detect this similiarly reverse play?

This is traditionally what is meant by card-eating, pioneered originally by Ken Uston. You can read more about it in his Million Dollar Blackjack. It is an effective strategy in pitch games, though of limited value in multiple decks.

I think everyone would agree that the bj21 catalogue contains some excellent books, however, it is not intended to cover everything that an advantage player would conceivably find of use or interest.

I have well over five hundred books on gambling in my library - some are fascinating, some are dreadful, but all contain at least the germ of a useful idea.

As John May affirmed your example of card eating is a good one; you seem to understand the concept correctly.
When you ask about multiple hands on positive count, with respect to card eating it is better to have one hand of 10 then two hands of 5. Your confusion (i think) arises because two hands of 10 are of course better (in a positive count) but that is an issue of getting the money out in a positive count.

Listing John May along side people like Patrick and Patterson is simply absurd. Whether they like him or not, I don't think anyone else, including Schlesinger and Grosjean, would even dream of grouping GBV with those clowns.

A rule of thumb is, if you can't find an author's book in bj21's online catalog. Avoid them like the plague.

All of the books carried by Pi Yee Press are indeed exceellent. However, Pi Yee Press takes justifiable pride in the fact that they stock everything in their catalog, and nearly always ship the next business day.

In order to do that they must limit their inventory. While one cannot go wrong with a book from Pi Yee Press, there are lots of other good blackjack books out there.

While May's book is not in the same league as Griffin's Theory of Blackjack, it certainly does not deserve to be lumped together with the drivel produced by Patrick, Patterson, etc.

For an in-depth review of Get the Edge at Blackjack, click on the link below.

I stumbled accross John May's book on amazon.com and in my mind it was immediately grouped with ploppy voodoo books because of a few a reasons. That intro from Scoblete, a controversial author himself, states "Author John May has taken actual blackjack advantage play in the casinos -- as opposed to mere theorizing in books and papers -- to new levels of sophistication, daring and power, and he is going to share his thoughts, strategies and secrets with you in this volume." Whenever I hear "as opposed to mere theorizing in books and papers" I think of Frank Stanton and his ilk. Also, from the preview it looks as if 90% of his book regards play that is no longer practical (sequencing is getting eliminated by random-ejection shufflers, glim play can be illegal depending on the device if I'm not mistaken, shadow play, etc), not to mention the inclusion of a progessive system, well, I may have jumped to conclusions and I apologize.

I don't understand the logic of card eating by spreading to two small hands. If it is a negative count and you're playing one hand heads up with a dealer, I would guestimate that about 6 cards a hand are being eaten, 3 from you and 3 from the dealer. If it were -4 and you were at a -2.5% disadvantage your win rate on $100 unit bet is a $2.50 loss every hand. If the deck was to be neutral again in, lets say, 36 cards, you would have to play about 6 hands to reach that. Costing you $15.00 in EV. If you spread to two hands at $100 you would eat 9 cards a hand (give or take) at a cost of $5 a hand. The four hands it would take to reach the arbitrary 36 cards to neutralville would cost you $20. Does that make sense? Am I missing something (I'm guessing I am)?

The guiding principle of winning Blackjack is to bet as little as possible when the house has the edge and to bet as much as reasonnable when the advantage is on the side of the player.
Betting 10 units from the top when the house has the edge is a blatant violation of this principle and must lead to disaster.
The table minimum is generally stated as a minimum per spot and not per person. So playing two or more spots in negative situation means that you actually increase the cost per card used which is the exact opposite of what card-eating wants to achieve.
The whole concept of card eating only makes sense, if a fixed spread is imposed on you or close scrutiny by the pit forces you to reduce your spread voluntarily and that's precisely what Ken Uston was referring to in "Million Dollar Blackjack".

Francis Salmon

Whenever I hear "as opposed to mere theorizing in books and papers" I think of Frank Stanton and his ilk.

I know what you mean. I think what Frank was getting at was that external techniques-steering, shadow play and location for example, all require some experience at the tables. One can be an unsuccessful or (semi-)retired counter and still do a lot of useful research of interest to the card counting community. You can't really do the same thing with external techniques, because of the physical element.

You may have thought Scoblete was having a go at the card counting establishment, he wasn't. He has a lot of respect for Wong, Schlesinger, Snyder et al and in any case is almost completely without malice as an individual, even though you or I may have some misgivings about his craps ideas.

Also, from the preview it looks as if 90% of his book regards play that is no longer practical (sequencing is getting eliminated by random-ejection shufflers

You may be wrong about that. I have heard several individuals, including Snyder, suggest that the riffling on some of these devices can be so perfect it is completely deterministic. In which case sequencing would be much more powerful than against a human shuffle.

, glim play can be illegal depending on the device if I'm not mistaken, shadow play, etc),

The point of the glim play section was to show that a method associated with cheating could be legal under some circumstances. If the casino provides the device, for example a stack of shiny dilver dollars, it is perfectly legitimate for a player to use any information he may be given by the device.

not to mention the inclusion of a progessive system, well, I may have jumped to conclusions and I apologize.

I think you may need to read between the lines on that one.

All of the books carried by Pi Yee Press are indeed exceellent.

The software is very good also. One of those pieces of software is Casino Verite by Norm Wattenberger, who kindly did the figures for the card eating section in Get The Edge the GongShow was referring to.

I saw a shufflemaster riffling machine once and you're right, the riffle is almost 100% perfect, probably depending on the cards used. However what I'm talking about is a shuffler where the deck is loaded in and cards are arbitrarily shot out the middle into a stack. While it's deterministic, like any computer controlled device, it rules out sequencing.

the catalogue doesn't have CV. But, it is excellent software nonetheless.

Regards,
MF

Wasn't it sold here for a while? I seem to remember downloading the practice version. Didn't believe you till I checked the catalogue.

This would tend to prove my point about the catalogue not being completely comprehensive though. Casino Verite is without comparison as a blackjack practice tool, an essential purchase for every recreational or serious counter.

I saw a shufflemaster riffling machine once and you're right, the riffle is almost 100% perfect, probably depending on the cards used.

Do you really mean that the riffle is almost 100% perfect, that is, if you memorized the card order and fed it through one of these devices, the outcome would almost be entirely predictable, since initially adjacent cards would each have a single interlacing for each riffle?
If this is correct, then you are sitting on a goldmine.