New shoe count

When sitting down and starting a new shoe, the dealer burns the first card. Is it the correct strategy to begin the count at -1 since you don’t know what the burn card is?

Also, what would be considered an optimal count in a DD game? Is it better to play more hands with a high count to take advantage of the high cards left?

"When sitting down and starting a new shoe, the dealer burns the first card. Is it the correct strategy to begin the count at -1 since you don’t know what the burn card is?"

No.  Do you do that for all the cards behind the cut card too?  If not, what's the difference between the two?  Short answer:  ignore the card for the count.

Don

There is no optimal count. Each count comes with its own (dis)advantage and variance.

For your second question, if you're asking about playing more than one spot at high counts, then I'll answer for Don, who has heard this question too many times . The answer is to play one spot all the time if playing alone at the table and to play 2 spots at advantage counts if there are other players. When playing 2 spots, each bet should be approximately 75% of your single-spot bet. The research on this and much more can be found in Don's book Blackjack Attack 3rd Edition.

Does spreading to two hands at moderate or high counts attract heat?

Several times it has alerted me to other counters at the table.

Recently, I've seen counters spreading to two hands on high counts, with relatively large bets on each, get escorted to the cage, and I assume, invited to leave and not return.

I did notice a counter spreading to two hands at moderate plus counts without problems. I don't know if they got the tap eventually.

At those events, I  received no heat and continued playing for a few hands and left or changed tables.

I've also seen ploppies spreading with no rhyme or reason without heat.

I have been very reluctant to spread for this reason.

By not spreading am I leaving EV on the table?

 

Spreading to two hands with the count can be a red flag. Every casino has different tolerances and, I would go as far to say that every casino employee who could be the one to raise that flag has their own tolerance. Part of the game is to figure out who you're dealing with and what you can get away with. It is clear that at the place where you've seen counters identified for spreading with the count, you need to tread lightly.

Spreading to multiple spots allows you to generate more EV without increasing risk, if you're betting optimally or close to it.

In general, the casinos know that counters need to bet in correlation with their advantage and that some spread to multiple spots for the same reason. You want to try to blend in with those ploppies who "seem" to be doing these things randomly.

@_Bradley_T
If you read gambling forums and real-play in casinos you can get closer and closer to this rule:
 
The more you count the more you lose.
 
There are NO formulas to show a mathematical advantage to counting. It might as well be a casino stunt to attract more players giving them the illusion card counting can win big! You can see here the don and gron gurus show no formulas to back their opinions (actually they consider them rules!)
 
Furthermore, you play more hands you lose more. Formulas? Yes, of course. It’s the formula of simultaneous bust. The player plays first and if he busts first he loses immediately. The dealer might bust as well in the same round but he plays last. If he busts in the same round, too bad for you cos you already lost your hand and they don’t give you your money back.


I only found one reliable formula where counting the tens can find favorable situations to taking blackjack insurance. I replicated also a demonstration of a blackjack system based on mathematics of streaks.
 
The cord counting gurus I view them as casino agents. They never ever show a formula to back their dangerous stuff. Some of them cord counters even became casino witnesses in court cases (eg against Campione):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.gambling.blackjack/g9Iaj0I1yNI
 
Again the more you count and the more spots you play the more you lose. Them gurus here have no formula to prove otherwise.
 
 

The analysis of a complex game like blackjack cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula as is possible with simple games like coin toss, dice or roulette (well actually it can, but the formula would be hundreds of pages long).

Still, static blackjack situations, like basic strategy, can be analysed using combinatorial analysis. This can be done by hand using mathematics (and the original basic strategy calculations were done that way), but the process is tedious and error prone. It is easier to write software to do it. Public domain and private CA software exists, some with source code, so the results are easily verifiable, if you have software expertise.

More dynamic situations, like card counting strategies require the collection of data via simulation. All of the well known statistical formulas (mean, standard deviation etc.) can the be used against this data to derive the overall results of applying the system. Once again public domain simulation software exists, some with source code.

So, contrary to weezr's opinion, we do have scientific ways to derive our results and there are well-known formulas used in the process.

He does make a valid point about the insurance decision being easily and perfectly made by counting the number of tens vs non-tens remaining in the deck. He is also correct that the dealer's main advantage comes from the fact that the player loses if both the player and the dealer bust. However, the combinatorics of basic strategy does account for this.

Thanks Gronbog, your comments confirm my thinking. I will continue with one hand, especially when playing heads up. I might experiment using ploppy spreading as camouflage.

Weezer's analysis of insurance,  continuous shuffle machines and bj slots is intuitive. His math doesn't consider that bj is an example of dependent trials.  I would bet he could "prove" that a bee can't fly, that a hummingbird can't hover and that a boomerang won't come back.

For your musical enjoyment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_prtbj4MtDU

“The analysis of a complex game like blackjack cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula as is possible with simple games like coin toss, dice or roulette (well actually it can, but the formula would be hundreds of pages long).”
 
1) There ain’t formulas.
2) Oh, well, there are formulas after all — but they are pages long!
Contradiction in terms? No doubt about it!
 
Blackjack ain’t a simple game, therefore no formula exists. Yet, the flesh-and-bone of the “complex” game of blackjack is a formula. The house advantage is calculated by the simultaneous bust.
 
“I would bet he could "prove" that a bee can't fly, that a hummingbird can't hover and that a boomerang won't come back.”
 
Oh, dear! The flying, including of bees and bats, is founded on undeniable formulas. Even the flying of UFO’s (actually Coanda objects) is founded of formulae. See aerodynamics.
 
The only thing without formulas is ‘advantageous blackjack card-counting’. The only formula is that of simultaneous bust which makes the casino a winner, considering card-counting as well. And that’s the formula card-counting gurus know oh-so-well, cos they have never applied their “trade” in real-life (ie actual play in casinos). Instead, the gurus took real money from the casinos and testified against other card-counters!!! Read (if you haven’t already):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.gambling.blackjack/g9Iaj0I1yNI
 

I agree with the favorable insurance formula when counting the tens on the table. The formula is valid cos it refers to ONE card only: The dealer’s hole card. Fewer tens on the table means more tens remaining. The dealer hole comes from the remaining.
 
card-counting however relies on a multitude of cards: sequences of cards. If the count is high everybody has the same chance of a high hand, including the dealer. What ultimately determines the outcome is still the simultaneous bust, not the high/low/neutral count. The card-counting gurus always blame the variance when losing. Variance is virtually the same, counting the cards or not counting. There are non-counters who also disregard basic strategy and enjoy glorious variance! No doubt, they also experience terrible variance…
 

Speaking of new shoe
Aint the new shoe always positive? 9, 10s, A are big cards, aint they? Keep 7 & 8 neutrals and the shoe always starts TC = +4 (+3 at worst when the burnt card is 9, 10, A). Every player should bet big at the beginning of every shoe and make a fortune. It doesn’t work like that. Some players win, more players lose at the beginning of the shoe. The dealer is expected to lose more often in high counts.. but that doesn’t happen.. the dealer busts as normally at the beginning of the shoe…
 
 

There is more than one viable card counting system. Those which treat the 9 as a big card balance that by treating the 7 as a small card. There are also unbalanced systems. Each identifies the advantage at different thresholds.

weezr says card counting is a myth with no formulas or math to back it up. I and many others say otherwise. Enough has been posted here and in the public domain for intelligent readers to decide which they want to believe.

“Enough has been posted here and in the public domain for intelligent readers to decide which they want to believe.”
 
Exactly.. you feel it when the rubber hits the road.. like 6 or 8 decks and you always bet big when the count is so-called positive. You bet more and you lose more–the casinos love card counters but they say they are hostile to card counters as a form of advertising. if you look at it cool-headedly, the negative count is more favorable to the player. There is a better chance at doubledown hands.. doubling down never ends in bust.. but none knows the sequence of the cards in the deck/shoe.. the permutations amount to gigantic numbers of possibilities…
 
The problem I got with card counting is the fakt that the ‘systems” only make money for them authors and vendors.. and them authors and vendors never play for real in casinos.. never did and never will.. thats the big problem…
 
If something is real it always has a formula or two to back it up.. no formula can tell that if the count is high the dealer will bust while the “chosen” player (ie counter) will stand comfortably numb…
 
 

Over the years I won nicely as a red chip player and even nicer when I graduated to green chips.

Since I can't produce a specific formula per Weezer's allegations, does that mean I have to give it back?

I'm keeping mine. Weezr is welcome to keep his, if he has any.

We all in the dark when it comes to proving. We can never see what the others do and thusly the only proof is maths.. u got a formula or two u got good proofs.. no offence mates buyt I always disbelieve those who defy formulas.. we all know the old church ladies who always win the slots.. “what forkula fools?” they rebut u… “gods on my side!!!”
 
Maths keeps the money for me not gods or gambling gurus/agents who never ever play for real money in real casinos….
 
 

The "formulas" for software is the source code. A I said, there is public domain CA and simulation software that comes with source code. So you can see what others who are using that software are doing.

I can see alright: they cook the boox! They are selective in favor of…favorable results. They only show whats favorable to them. Compare the software “results” to real life. What you read or hear is counters complaining of losing. The guru/software ‘answer” to them: bad variance. But there aint “bad variance” in software.. now is it mate?
 
Software or not, the maths is clear: positive counts do NOT lead to automatic winning for the counter. It aint even 50-50. The house maintains the edge even in “positive” counts.. but since the counters bet bigger in positive counts they lose more money more quickly. thye “good variance” they might experience is favorable sequences outnumbering the losing sequences. doesn’t happen often and the end result is loss of money far more often than not. No wonder there R no professional blackjack players anymore.. liars still claim they pros and make a living off card counting.. and they sez “liar liar, pants on fire”…
 

You and I will have to agree to disagree. The readers can make up their own minds.

@Gronbog
“You and I will have to agree to disagree. The readers can make up their own minds.”
 
Exactly. That’s my point exactly. problem is self-proclaimed gurus dont accept the right to points such as mine. they think they established a cult two score and few years ago and nobody has the right to argue against the cult. The readers may not make up their own minds…