Greetings fellow players,
I have been using a unique method to get a shuffle. On single deck, with one to two players, when the count is positive I bet 'one hand only'. When the count goes negative or when the dealer shuffles I go and split my bet and play usauly two; occasionally three.
Have any of you used a simular method and what is the perecentage or odds of such an action?
If I understand it correctly, you would play multiple hands when TC is negative, hoping to eat away bad cards. But the truth is that after each round of play the true count has as much a chance of getting to a higher TC as the chance of getting to a lower TC. By playing more hands in a negative TC you are guaranteed to lose more. But the subsequent plays don't guarantee you an improved condition (higher TC). So you would be better off playing one hand with 1 unit wager than player two hands with 1 unit each. By playing two hands, you'll play more hands till shuffle and lose more. It is likely the TC count will remain negative before shuffle. For example, if the TC count is -3 to start with, TC would be more likely to remain at -3 than go up to +3 for the rest of the plays before shuffle. So the chance of having a good TC later to recoup your loss is not that much. It is a bad strategy. The best strategy is to leave the table.
While you are away for a few days, I do have some more thoughts about this topic. According to The True Count Theorem by ABdul Jalib at www.bjmath.com it states:
Theorem: the expected value of the true count after a card is revealed and removed from any deck composition is exactly the same as before the card was removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards.
That means random cards removed from the remaining deck will not affect the true count. Of course, the true count can go up. But it can also go down. So the net effect in average is no change in true count. The so-called "Card Eating Effect" is a misnomer, no matter what situation it is. If the true count is positive, it will most likely remain positive. Card eating will not affect it. If the true count is negative, it will most likely remain negative before the shuffle. The good betting strategy is to bet more on positive TC and/or play more hands on positive TC; bet less on negative TC and do not play multiple hands on negative TC. Basically you take advantage of a positive TC whenever possible. But you cannot card-eat the good cards or the bad cards. You do have the ability to change how many hands you can play before the shuffle, especially playing last round before shuffle with multiple hands in positive TC.
Suppose the count is negative, you are playing alone, your min bet is usually, say, $10 (total action), and the dealer is willing to deal two more rounds to you alone (uses about 10.8 cards). Alternatively, were you to play, say, two or three hands of $5 each, he would shuffle after just that one round.
Do you see that "eating the cards," in this negative-count situation, has you spending $10 or $15, in a negative situation, rather than $20?
Don
In a negative TC your min bet should be the table's min. If we assume the min bet is $10 for the table, you wil not be able to play two or three hands of $5 each. In some casinos the min bet for playing multiple hands is twice the table min; that's $20 each hand. So in above situations there is no advantage of playing multiple hands at all. The example you gave is mathematically correct but seems not realistic in today's casinos.
"In a negative TC your min bet should be the table's min."
In a negative TC, you shouldn't be playing! However, the above surely isn't always true. You may be spreading 1-12 in green, for example, and playing at a $5 or $10 table. You may be spreading 1-16 in black, but playing at a $25 table. Happens all the time. You certainly do NOT always bet the table min in a negative count. It isn't always practical and certainly isn't right, for the sake of cover.
"If we assume the min bet is $10 for the table, you wil not be able to play two or three hands of $5 each. In some casinos the min bet for playing multiple hands is twice the table min; that's $20 each hand. So in above situations there is no advantage of playing multiple hands at all."
Surely, you realize that I understand all that. I was simply pointing out the mathematics of card eating. I'm aware of all the practical ramifications.
"The example you gave is mathematically correct but seems not realistic in today's casinos."
Much more realistic than you might imagine. See above.
Don
Thank you, Don, for explaining it in detail. Certainly I was not thinking about the cover play. Betting the table min may draw more attention and may not be smart at all. Now I see in the negative TC situation, the playing choices to limit the loss are as follows: (in the order of priority)
1. Do not play. 2. Play one hand betting table min. 3. Play multiple hands betting table min or close to the min. 4. Play one hand betting your normal one unit if your one unit is (two times?)more than the table min. By comparing choices of 3 and 4, you can see the card eating effect of choice 3. The choices of 1 and 2 are theoretically good but have some undesirable side effects to be considered.
I draw the conclusion in a rush. Do I still miss something?
