I'm studying Uston APC with an ASC and it says to bet three more betting units for each ace the shoe is rich. Even if an ace is on top of the shoe, the odds are one in six I'll see it depending on how many players are at the table -- not counting the dealer.
Does anybody factor in the number of players at the table when they adjust the TC? Or am I worrying too much about it?
trufaux
Well first off let me say the number of people at your table makes no difference, except to get you to the back of the shoe faster.
As for the aces thing...um....maybe I don't understand your question. If you bet 3 units more for EVERY ace left in the shoe then your first bet would be 72 units (24 aces times 3). I know that sounds ridiculous but explain your question better.
Let's say six players are at a table. On the first hand from the shoe, everybody, including the dealer, stands (unlikely, but we're fantasizing). So fourteen cards left the shoe, and let's say none of them was an Ace. We'd expect to see an Ace once every thirteen cards, so we know the shoe is one Ace rich. All things being equal, the shoe has one more Ace than it should have.
My understanding is I should calculate the TC to calculate my bet, then raise my bet three more betting units because advantageous hands (Blackjacks, soft hands for doubling down, splitting Aces) are more likely. But if the odds of getting that extra Ace is only one in seven, is it worth three betting units? Is it worth more if the odds were one in three?
trufaux
In the beginning of the shoe, you probably shouldn't raise too much. An ace doesn't mean blackjack you know. You should really consider the true count above all and wait until you are about 2 deck into the shoe first. Then if you are rich in aces go ahead and consider raising. I have not read the book you read so you know more about that author than me, but the first deck or two should be played conservative.
trufaux i havent read the book either but you say it says " bet three more betting units for each ace the shoe is rich" im guessing this cant be right because the amount of extra aces is only one consideration ( even if you had excess aces you would still want to be betting the minimum if the count was hugely negative) i think it is more likely it means add 3 to the runnig count for each extra ace and then you would do your divisions to arrive at the true count for betting purposes.Heres an ex, say your playing an 8 deck game and the r.c is -20 4decks have been played and only 8 aces have come out.you would add +24 to your r.c (3,the figure you gave multiplied by the 8 extra aces) so you now divide 4 by 4 to get the correct t.c for betting.like i said i havent read the book but i hope you get the jist on how to implement your ace side count.
