Negative count - split bets!

Situation: You are a double deck or single deck game and the count goes negative.

Hypothesis: If I play two or three places and bet the two or three spots the dealer will have to shuffle earlier.

Hopeful Response: The other players will put their brains in gear and also play more spots to create an early shuffle. And the dealer will shuffle the deck and at least give an near even chance on the re-shuffle to the players.

Question: How good of a tactic is this and why?

Comments: Hopefully most of the genetic brain dead from the progression page will leave this alone. I am not talking about counters here, NO SIR!

It violates Abdul Jalib's True Count Theorim. His title is missleading in that it is not a Theorim in the strict sense, but it proves that the average expectation within the remainder of a pack of partially dealt cards is the same as that predicted by the true count just before that remainder is dealt. The expectation of the remainder is not changed overall.

The hedging effects of playing more than one hand do not change the expectation, it merely lowers the variance of your results. A minus deck is still a minus deck. Trimming the variance in a plus deck is the same as raising the advantage generally, but the same is not true for a minus deck. A player in a minus situation wants variance actually. That player wants to get lucky and get. In a plus deck cutting the variance has the same effect on your bankroll as more edge. In a minus deck cutting the variance is the same effect as raising the minus edge.

What you give-up in card eating is the ability to detect when the cards in that remainder might be ordered such that the cards removed now swing the edge in your favor. You get the same cards coming to you, with less rounds and less opportunity to change your bets.

Simulations of card eating did not properly weigh the amount bet per round, and the amount bet per spot. That was the case until the massive work done in BJA II on the optimal departure point. Then the same math that says you might want to jump out of a slight advantage to find a new shoe, clearly also shows that consuming cards in a minus shoe to get a new shoe is not a good as leaving to find a new shoe.

There is still potential in pitch games to force early shuffles where some variation in the rule of 6 applies. But that is different than playing multiple hands in that the multiple hands force the shuffle and are not actually played. In pitch games the extra hands are actually a bluff. Such a bluff is not the same as actually playing through numbers of hands and cards and should not be thought of as the same idea.

I hope this helps!

C'mon Clarke, this isn't nuclear theorum class. I understand you are trying to give usefull info., but sometimes you are a little too in-depth to comprehend, at least for me, that is.

How about something like; Yes, you can force a shuffle in 1-2 deck games by going to multiple hands if you time it right. The risk is,mistiming your play and having more money out if the dealer doesn't shuffle.

Sorry about the slam Clarke; Frenchman

Great info Clark CANT, yet I was specificly asking about 1-2 decks. Of course, I gather it doesn't matter as much in shoe games as you generally have 4-8 decks.

CLARK CANT said-

"There is still potential in pitch games to force early shuffles where some variation in the rule of 6 applies. But that is different than playing multiple hands in that the multiple hands force the shuffle and are not actually played. In pitch games the extra hands are actually a bluff. Such a bluff is not the same as actually playing through numbers of hands and cards and should not be thought of as the same idea."

Do you have any type of stats for 1 or two decks using this principle?

any archived sets of sims that show the effects of preferential shuffling. All the old saws about, "punishing fakes," raising your bet to force a shuffle, more properly apply to spreading to multiple hands to force a shuffle, without much of the same heat. And if they call your bluff you have the edge of the playing gains from the last hand you play in that round, and maybe some endplay and steering to forces a shuffle to complete a round. If that happens just remember that your count of unseen cards reverses for completing play. The cards that are unseen, but on the table, come to zero (unless Dustin D. Marks has been playing your table :-) making the count for your playing decisions, with the new shuffle, those cards removed from the shuffle. QED the reverse of the count for the unseen cards.

I hope this helps!

You get some very strong playing advantages on the last hand, and if the hand requires re-shuffling to complete be sure to adjust your count. See my other post and remind me not to answer this Ba Ba Blooey troll!

is to bet half as much when you go to two hands in this situation, to eat cards up. If my min bet is $50, you would move to two hands but bet only $25 each. Of course you should always play at a table where the minimum bet is half your usual minumum bet for this (and similar strategies) to work.