I'll take the over also. (nt)
x
x
Already there! :-)
New estimate: 22.
Don
I didn't look far enough below. We already surpassed 22, also.
Unreal.
Don
Picture a full B.J. table.(7players) Deal a million hands to this full table. Make a graph. If your thinking is correct, this graph would show 1st base as having the most blackjacks,and in decending order,3rd base with the least. If this was true,every old lady at 1st base would get knocked off her seat by a the smart players.
Frenchman
i believe it is one of the best forms of cover.
if you can just glance at the table and immediately know the TC for betting/playing a boss watching you may think "no way is he counting".
of course you must be faster than all the rest for this to happen. requires quick brain and good peripheral vision.
The problem is the fatigue factor, or maybe the heavy meal factor. Sometimes the brain just doesn't want to work that way, and I end up doing things very sequentially. Then I know it's time to take a break.
Brooks Robinson taught me to reach for your bottle of Evian or glass of whatever while you are counting the table. Provides an excuse for delaying the bet. Natural to take a drink while the dealer is paying everyone.
Won't work for MathProf, cause he don't drink.
regards,
adhoc
While your example is correct, I don't know if you understand the nature of his misconception. Somebody new comes up with the same idea every few months. He would probably argue that in your example the person on first would get more blackjacks when the count was high because he got the cards from the hot shoe first, while third base was likely to get more when the count was poor, since first base ate up more of the bad cards first... thus making total naturals equal for the two sides. His reasoning is incorrect, of course.
The misconception has to do with the idea that first base gets cards that are more representative of the true count prior to the round than does third base. It is a common error. A few months ago two Phds wrote a paper where they used this eroneous concept to show that the log growth of bankroll was higher on first base because of less variance in the true count. Karel Janecek had a rather lengthy exchange with them about it. I'm not certain if they ever retracted.
is the concept that we do not expect the TC to change on average as the shoe depletes, regardless of the count.
Maniac, assume for example a RC of +12 w/ 2 decks remaining, giving us a TC of +6. The next half deck is dealt, and we expect on average for 3 more high cards to come out, so now we are at a RC of +9 w/ 1.5 decks remaining, still giving us a TC of +6. Continue dealing another half deck and three more high cards than low come out on average. Now we are at a RC & TC of +6 w/ one deck remaining. The big cards are coming out as expected, but they are evenly distributed on average and therefore the TC doesn't change on average. This is what EE Counter was trying to explain.
This is a very hard concept for many to understand, and has been much discussed in the past. Many think that in a big count, the big cards will tend to come out immediately and return the count to neutral, but this is simply not the case.
Don,
O/U of only 14? No one would have predicted less than 14. Next bet is days until the question is repeated. My guess is 45 days.
Good luck at the tables.
Dr 21
I made a very bad line. The public has an insatiable appetite for voodoo and garbage.
That said, I'll take the under for your prop! :-)
Don
"My guess is 45 days."
and read through the responses already given. You will convince yourself otherwise in short order. Your current reasoning implies that composition affects sequence. It doesn't.
I'm really not trying to infuence the O/U here, but I continue to think of things that might help if someone still doesn't understand.
Imagine this: you have a high count and five players are at the table. This can be double deck, if you like, but it doesn't really matter. The dealer will not run out of cards on this round. Counters at first and third base are using the same system and both place their bets, bets of the same size.
Now the deal:
We deal the first card to first base face down. Nobody sees it. For the next three table positions we deal the cards face up, they come T,T,A. Now we deal the first card to third base face down.
Now, we can see that the true count has dropped from the time we dealt to first base to the time we dealt to third base. But does it make any difference? No. Does the face down card at first base have a higher probability of being high than the one at third, by virtue of coming out of the shoe first? No.
If you were an outsider who now had the opportunity to bet on either hand, let's say the dealer has a six up, which hand would you prefer to bet on. Would you put your money on first base because he got that unseen card before third base?
Now: imagine that third base had not yet made a bet when these cards were dealt. He would now have more information and would bet smaller than first base had bet. He has better betting information and would have an advantage over first base. But, had first base known in advance that the three cards to follow his would all be tens or aces, he also would have bet smaller. But neither knew. Because they placed bets while having the same information available to them, the additional information makes no difference in edge.
One related example that I used the last time this came up. We have two sports bettors with equal handicapping ability and equal skill at betting. Both are going to place a bet on a game. Bettor #1 makes his bet first. After bettor #1 makes his bet a new list of injuries comes out. (this is analogous to the cards being dealt to the players between first and third) This would change the edge if it was available before he placed his wager. Now it is bettor #2's turn. If bettor #2 does not have any knowledge that a new injury list just came out, and he makes his bet based only on the same information that was available to bettor #1, then his edge is identicle. BUT, if he is able to look at the injury list before he bets then he has an edge by virtue of having better information. Bettor #1 may also have bet differently had he known this information in advance (as first base may have bet differently if he knew what cards were to follow his in advance).
While new information can change our edge in retrospect, it cannot change the edge we had a the time we placed our bet.
so you can spill your drink into the f!@#!@# machine.
