First Base Best Clarification?

Despite the fact that everyone has told me that I'm wrong I would take the first card out. If for example the true count was +4 in a DD game when I take that card I knew what the true count was immediately before I took it. If I took the 6th card I believe it wouldn't reflect the true count because there are 5 other cards that came out before it that I didn't know. For 7 years in the 90s when I was playing I looked to take only first base. Also on 1st base when a well endowed waitress brought me my drink (orange juice on ice) I could often cop a feel of big boobs on my right arm which is my more sensitive arm. On 3rd base it could only be my left arm - not as good - and in the middle could only be on the back - not as good. Even though my top bet was only $60 it made me too sometimes feel like a Big Player.

"Despite the fact that everyone has told me that I'm wrong I would take the first card out."

So, your problem is that, despite the fact that you couldn't possibly be more wrong, you really didn't want the correct answer all along; you just wanted to tell us what you believe, and you aren't going to change your mind, right? So, what are you trying to do now ... get US to change OUR minds, our just convince us that you really don't want to try to understand this?

"If for example the true count was +4 in a DD game when I take that card I knew what the true count was immediately before I took it. If I took the 6th card I believe it wouldn't reflect the true count because there are 5 other cards that came out before it that I didn't know."

Utter nonsense. You already told us what you believe, and a half dozen people told you you were wrong. Why don't you take some time to try to wrap your head around this, instead of telling us what you still believe?

Don

Take the remaining deck and wash the cards so that you have no idea which card was originally first, then use a dice to decide the order of the spots to which cards are picked by the players for their hands. Knowing the count of the washed cards is +4, do you think it matters which player gets to go first in terms of the probability of the cards that they will receive?

Note: one DIE; two dice! :-)

Don

The true count is +4. There are 1.2 decks left to be played. But this time imagine that the blackjack table instead of having just 7 spots has 25 spots. (The dealer will bring in new decks to complete the round of play when all the cards are played out.) The player in the 25th spot is on 3rd base and gets the 25th card out. Would you still say that the 25th spot on 3rd base is in as good as the position at first base? I think I'm probably wrong. A lot of very intelligent people have told me that I'm wrong. I just don't understand why I'm wrong. I need to be like that Beatles song that goes "Let it Be." It's not fun not understanding but hey, I don't know what caused the big bang either.

Just go back to your boob mooching and you be fine.

You lack understanding of basic probability theory.

If you put 10 numbers in a hat, and you are attempting to draw number 10, do you feel that if nine people go ahead of you, your chances are worse than if you drew first?

Can you not understand that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever when you pick? Your chances will always be one out of ten.

Don

Thanks. I reread the chapter carefully and understand the results.

Has anyone hypothesized why this phenomenon exists? My prob/stat is 50 years old and I've forgotten a lot, but it seems strange that table 6.2 (first quarter of a single deck) has a lower EV than table 6.8 (fifth quarter of a double deck). Could it be that the strategy correlates better to a non-uniform set of 52 cards than a complete single deck?

"Has anyone hypothesized why this phenomenon exists?"

Rather thoroughly discussed in the remarks that precede the charts.

"My prob/stat is 50 years old"

Mine, too! :-)

"and I've forgotten a lot, but it seems strange that table 6.2 (first quarter of a single deck) has a lower EV than table 6.8 (fifth quarter of a double deck)."

That's a very interesting observation -- one that has never been made since this material was printed. Frankly, I'm surprised by it, and don't see a ready explanation.

"Could it be that the strategy correlates better to a non-uniform set of 52 cards than a complete single deck?"

No, don't think so. It's curious to see the <-1 edge better for single-deck, along with the +1, +2, +3, and +4 lines, while the 0 TC and, especially, the >+5, are better for double-deck. I haven't multiplied out, to make sure the bottom lines are correct, but I assume that John Gwynn didn't make any mistakes. After all, it's just the computer program spitting out the products, quotients, etc.

We don't get a lot of thought-provoking questions on this, and I'm fascinated by your observation. I will try to give it more thought. Off the top of my head, it seems counter-intuitive to me.

Don

Norm and I just looked into this a little more closely. Here are own joint findings:

The FA was really designed to demonstrate that, in a SAME pack, any true count is worth more the deeper you go. This is clearly demonstrated throughout my/Gwynn's study.

No claim was ever really made for the kind of comparison you're asking about now. For example, while it appears to be true that 1.00 to 1.25 of 2 is worth more than 0.0 to 0.25 of 1, it is NOT true that 4.00 to 4.25 of 6 (or even 4.25 to 4.50 of 6) is worth more than 0.0 to 0.25 of 1. (We wouldn't expect it to be.) On the other hand, 5.25 to 5.50 of 6 is worth much more than all of them! The direct comparison would be how 5.00 to 5.25 fares with respect to 1.00 to 1.25 of 2, and the answer is: slightly better.

So, in this case, it turns out that the first quarter of the second deck of two is worth slightly more than the first quarter of single deck, and the first quarter of the fifth deck of six is worth more than either one. Wong's conclusion, 30 years ago, in his February 1984 Newsletter, and that I quote in BJA3 (that, at the n-1st level of n decks, the edge is about the same as off the top of single deck; see p. 71) is not quite correct. With ever-increasing numbers of decks, the edge at n-1 of n is ever-increasingly greater, it would appear.

Interesting question. We don't get many like this! Thanks.

Don

Earl,
Understand that when the TC is +4, it merely means that the remaining cards, IN THEIR ENTIRETY contain 42% Ace/10's instead of the normal 38% (Hi/Lo Count). There is no preponderance for these Ace/10's to be stacked next up in the deck. But rather, EACH AND EVERY NEXT CARD HAS A 42% CHANCE TO BE AN ACE/10, and a 58% chance to be something else. If the dealer flipped that 1.2 decks upside down, you'd still have the same thing.

The point is, when you have a TC of +4 and decide to double down with 10 against an Ace, you don't care if you receive the next card in the deck -- or the last (all tracking or sequencing aside).

Thanks so much for following up.

What still piques my curiosity is why Wong's assertion, that the (n-1)th deck has the same edge as a single deck, is countermanded by the simulation results.

I will study the data some more, and if I have anything to add to the discussion I will repost on the theory page.

The results are not surprising if you consider penetration expressed in percent. In double deck you have for the investigated zone a penetration of over 60%, whereas the corresponding zone in single deck reflects a penetration of only 25%.
It's easily understandable that with better penetration you get more juicy counts and therefore a better expectation.

Francis Salmon

Wong meant that with a given number of remaining cards and a given count the advantage situation would be the same regardless of how many decks have been dealt before.
He didn't say that the COUNT DISTRIBUTION would be the same for various number of decks and this makes all the difference.

Francis Salmon

I have the newsletter in which the study appeared. And, I quoted the pertinent paragraph in BJA3.

Wong did claim that the advantage for any particular true count, such as zero, was about the same, once you reached the n-1st deck out of n, as the edge at that TC off the top of a freshly shuffled pack.

Of course, this is a bit silly, because, other than a RC of exactly zero, what other TC could you possibly have at the very top of a single deck?

So, what I just looked at was the first quarter deck of each situation, comparing, for example, global advantage of the segment 0.0 to 0.25 of 1, 1.0 to 1.25 of 2, or 5.0 to 5.25 of 6. And, what I found was, the more decks shuffled, the greater the advantage in those three situations.

So, I think it's fair to conclude, with a great amount of confidence, that if n decks are shuffled, and you have counted down to the beginning of the last full deck of those n, for any given true count, such as zero, your edge over the next quarter-deck segment is slightly greater, the greater the number of decks you originally shuffled.

Clear?

Don

But, you need to understand that these studies were originally done over 30 years ago, and what seems "obvious" to you today was somewhat less so for us "pioneers." :-)

Don

Your status as a pioneer is generally recognized including by me, at least as a later pioneer.But one of the prime pioneers was...The Salmon:-)

Francis Salmon

In my view, Wongs findings are far more general then you seem to recognize since they are not limited to the 1-deck-level nor to the 0-count.With your own study you didn't prove him wrong, you just proved that the situations stemming from multiple decks yielded more due to the higher frequency of advantage situations as I pointed out below.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue this interesting discussion as I'm just leaving for a trip without internet access.

Francis Salmon