Confessions of a Gambler that Counts

For a variety of reasons, I had about 30 minutes to kill in a casino with single deck paying 6:5. Now we know we wouldn't ever play this game but being the gambler that I am and a $5 table and only one other player, let's kill that time. Sure enough, count is good and a $20 blackjack costs me the $6 difference. So after another 2 BJ's, this game really does suck. But then comes the play I never make at a SD or DD 3:2 game for obvious longetivy reasons, the chance to split those tens at the appropriate count. And sure enough, my two 20's were winners that paid $40. So how much does that make up for the 6:5 blackjacks? In this particular case, the extra play paid for the lack of payouts but it would be nice to know the % of disadvantage even with the extra splits. I know I'm a horrible example and deserve to get slapped upside the head for patronizing the game, and I am guilty as charged. The game starts with 1.57 house edge. So does that mean I need a +3 to be at an even game or is it a lot more than that?

If you couldn't help yourself but to sit down at such a game "to kill time", perhaps you shouldn't be in a casino at all. It isn't for everyone. This is not meant as an attack, but as a sincere suggestion that you look inward.

You don't have any discipline plus you try to rationalize your irrational behaviour. Maybe take up martial arts; it does wonders for your confidence and self-esteem.

"I know I'm a horrible example and deserve to get slapped upside the head for patronizing the game, and I am guilty as charged. The game starts with 1.57 house edge. So does that mean I need a +3 to be at an even game or is it a lot more than that?"

You need to limit your play to games with a much smaller off the top disadvantage. How do you do that is up to you.

For a variety of reasons, I had about 30 minutes to kill in a casino with single deck paying 6:5. Now we know we wouldn't ever play this game but being the gambler that I am and a $5 table and only one other player, let's kill that time. Sure enough, count is good and a $20 blackjack costs me the $6 difference. So after another 2 BJ's, this game really does suck.

Let's see...you say you are a gambler and knowingly sit down at a game with horrible odds...then you have the GALL to say the game sux?

But then comes the play I never make at a SD or DD 3:2 game for obvious longetivy reasons, the chance to split those tens at the appropriate count. And sure enough, my two 20's were winners that paid $40. So how much does that make up for the 6:5 blackjacks?

First question...WHY wouldn't you split tens in a 3:2 game? I do it all the time. Perhaps you are paranoid to the point of believing you can't do it and keep playing?

As for making up for the blackjacks...not worthy of a discussion since you're playing 6:5.

In this particular case, the extra play paid for the lack of payouts but it would be nice to know the % of disadvantage even with the extra splits. I know I'm a horrible example and deserve to get slapped upside the head for patronizing the game, and I am guilty as charged. The game starts with 1.57 house edge. So does that mean I need a +3 to be at an even game or is it a lot more than that?

No, you NEED your head examined!

Regards,
PM

What you want answered requires a tailored computer program of academic interest.

shyboy,

I ran two simulations to answer your query: in one, the player forgoes X-X splits; in the other, he splits as appropriate against 5's and 6's.

Your post was missing several key factors, so I guessed the following. You're using what Norm in CVData calls "Basic High-Low". The game is SD, H17, DA2, No DAS, No RSA, with a penetration of rule of 6 and one other player. In calculating the True Count, you estimate the remaining cards to the nearest quarter-deck, and you bet $5*TC for positive TC's up to a maximum of $20, and $5 for all neutral and negative TC's. Note, as Don Schlesinger indicates in BJA3, that for HiLo with quarter-deck resolution you will never see TC's of exactly +3, +7, +11, ...; nor of -7, -11, -15, ... Therefore, you will never bet $15 under this scheme.

Now for the results!

With no X-X splits, your IBA is -0.692% and your TBA is -0.624%, so with a total action of $869.28/hr, your win rate is -$5.42/hr.

If you include X-X splits against 5's and 6's (both at +5), then your IBA is -0.631% and your TBA is -0.567%, so with a total action of $873.33/hr, your win rate is -$4.95/hr.

Thus, you can clearly see that including X-X splits in no way compensates for the short-pay of the crapjack game.

By the way, these spreads are not nearly optimal. In either case you first see an advantage at +4. Your edge first exceeds +2% at a TC of +9 (without X-X splits) and at a TC of +8 (with X-X splits).

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

P.S. I will admit to having intentionally played crapjack myself. Many years ago, the old Treasure Bay in Biloxi used to deal a 6:5 SD game but with several compensating factors: it was S17, DA2, DAS, and was dealt to the last card. The dealer would shuffle and, after the cut, burn one card. He would continue dealing until he reached the 52nd card, which he would also not deal. If he ran out in the middle of a round, he would simply burn the last card, shuffle the discards, and after the cut burn one card and continue the round. Between the possibility of "end play" and my 1:15 spread, I had no trouble beating this game.

I figured I wasn't the only AP that has dabbled and found out that the only good news is that you probably won't get the tap on the shoulder. Maybe if we all play the $5 table and wait till +4 and then spreading to our hearts content, and beating them at their own crapjack game...I'd take my chances on several $100's at +5. I guess it's just a fantasy that could never happen...Thanks again for taking the time to run the #'s. I do appreciate it!

Dog Hand, you gave sim results for Hi-Lo. I'm wondering how a more powerful count like Advanced Omega 2 with the FULL INDICES would perform on 6:5. Any idea?

Games that were previously thought by AP's to be unbeatable like Spanish 21 are now proven to be beatable with the right skills. Before, anyone caught playing it would be poo pooed by AP's. Now, not anymore. Could AO2 with the full indices work on 6:5?

It's been awhile since I ran a set of sims on 6:5 blackjack, and I don't have immediate access to them since they are in another computer, but the problem with 6:5 is that it takes a very high count to have an appreciable advantage. I can't recall the exact numbers, but while you may be near the break-even point at +3, you are not at the point where you would want to risk more money on that bet. You have to get to +5 or better to find a bettable advantage and it is important to note that the old rule of thumb about a 1 point increase in the count being worth roughly a half a percentage point in advantage is not true with 6:5 blackjack. The ratio of counts with no advantage to counts with an advantage is much higher than it is in regular blackjack. You're not going to see that advantage very often, and when you do, your spread is going to have to be huge. Huge enough to catch the attention of even the dullest pit boss. Your variance is going to be out of sight, and you'd need a very large bankroll to make a very small profit.

Can you hole card or sequence aces or use some other advanced form of AP that isn't counting based? Then you might make some money from 6:5 blackjack, but you aren't going to do it with counting and a lot of index numbers, at least in any practical sense.

I've done some stuff on 6:5, determining the card values, etc. There are some slight differences from 3:2, but nothing too major.

In short, it does not appear ANY counting system is or can be strong enough to overcome the ~1.5% house edge off the top. The only hope of beating this POS is wonging in at VERY high counts.

Nat,

Using AOII with the Ace sidecount and the same 1:4 spread, you'll still have a negative EV of -0.466%.

To gain an edge, you have to spread at least 1:7. From CXCV, betting $5 for TC<+6 and $35 for TC>=+6 will give you an EV of 0.088%, but you'll need a bankroll of more than $30K to keep your RoR below 13.5%.

As you and Shyboy can see, this is a truly crappy game, hence the sobriquet "crapjack" (we had a naming contest a few years back!). As Bootlegger correctly stated, you need some other edge to make this game playable: either much better rules & pen with a wilder spread (like I had), or some non-counting skill (ace sequencing, shuffle tracking, etc.).

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

you need at least 7 rounds heads up and a spread like you're playing 8 deck shoes (12-1 at least). Problem is that most casinos sweat their 6/5 games as though they are traditional single deck games and you'll be subject to rampant preferential shuffling and/or reductions in penetration as soon as you make a few big bet jumps.

You'd be better off just finding one of the many local casinos double deck games and playing those.

I just visited a place with a quality DD game with some serious pen, and their SD 6:5 is 3 rounds heads up. It's just more evidence that they're clueless.
Just watched that part of Rain Man again where Tom Cruise used the word cheating re: card counting. Hopefully, this new movie should educate the masses. Maybe there's a line about crapjack!