If you find a 6D empty table in a very busy casino, would you assume there is a greater chance that the count on that partially delt shoe is more positive than neg?
Before I would "assume", I would presume that the empty table already has part of the shoe played out. Then with the assumption of this presumption, then there are several possibilities, such as:
(1) The table is empty because the Dealer has just had 3-4 BJ's in a row, beating several players with Pat Hands, so the count would be more likely to be Neg.
(2) The shoe was/is Neg., and the Dealer has just wiped out a bunch of players with 3-4 Stiff's that drew-out into 21's, so the Ct. would tend to lean Pos. now.
(3) The shoe was/is Pos., the Players won a bunch, and went to the Cashier's Cage, but now the Ct. would be more likely to be Neg.
(4) The Table was full of Ploppies, who all rushed to the Roulette table when they saw a big crowd and heard lots of screaming and hollering. In this case, the Ct. was N/A before the table emptied, and N/A after.
(5) The Table had been full of CC'ers, who dashed when the Ct. tanked.
(6) The Table had been full of CC'ers, who are now in the Security Office. Ct. likely Pos.
So, my scientific analysis concludes that "ZERO" is the best assumption that one can presume. Since, as you know, a good CC'er would not enter such a game (unless back-ct.'ing), could be a good cover upon entry to a store.
Also, I commonly use the Zero assumption when I return from a bathroom break, when mid-shoe/-deck entry is allowed. Of course, for "small" bets, since one does not know what has been played.
ph007.
I brought this up because of what I see as a common denominator. I back-count a lot of 6D. I notice the tables being cleared of the ploppies most from the dealer not breaking. I notice also that the count is above zero more often than not when players leave the table.
In your post above, I feel that scenarios 1 and 2 make up for most of the reason people leave the table. I'm thinking probably about 80%. I still think though on average, people leave more often when a more than average amount of small cards has just benefited the house. It stands to reason, small cards favor the house, big cards favor the player. I almost never see players leave when they are winning. They tend to win more when big cards come out. When was the last time you saw a player (other than me), leave the table after receiving a BJ? It just doesn't happen.
Stealth Bomber,
I�m sure this was just an observation which you don�t let influence you play. I don�t think you would actually use this information, as it is just your observation. I�m responding to your post, not critiquing you. (My disclaimer ;-)
Now, on to the post:
Those of us who are not new should know, a �purebred advantage player� would require proof. A quarter billion hands is just barely enough for an accurate conclusion. Personally, I�m not happy with less than 400M. I have run 2 billion hand sims many time, just to be as accurate as I wanted at that time. So you see, no one human can observe enough hands in his/her life to make an accurate decision about betting. This is one simplified reason we use simulators.
All sorts of crazy patterns occur throughout the variances of BJ. You simply cannot predict them. The past does not equal the future.
I just wanted to clarify that this observation should not considered evidence until simulations verify it. This is for others who may not know statistic well enough to grasp how large of a sample is required to make a sound mathematical conclusion.
-Wylie
There will never be a way to sim this situation. However, if we all are cognizant that my theory could be more than just theory, maybe someday we can cumulatively reach a consensus.
Ask yourselves the following questions:
1 Are players more inclined to leave a table when they are winning or losing?
2 Do players win more $ with big cards or little cards?
3 What type of card flow results in more player loses; big cards or little cards?
4 How often do you see players leave the table after receiving a two card 20 or BJ?
I didn't even read all of your above posts but it seems you think the count on a shoe partially played and then abandoned may be biased tword a positive count. Phantom says zero which seems correct however if there are counters in the building it is highly likely those shoes are negative. It can be very frustrating sometimes playing in a casino with more then one counter. I will leave it up to you to figure out why.
Even with a few counters out there, the ploppies out-number the counters about 99 to 1.
it only takes one or two counters to leave a casino full of negative shoes. It can be really frustrating at times.
It seems that small betting counters would be good for a casino since they go around leaving half-dealt negative shoes which are resumed by big betting ploppies or even basic strategy players. Even if the small betting counter makes theoretical EV, the casino probably more than makes up for it in -EV from the ploppies.
I have always believed the same. They eat up big cards with small bets in the begining of a shoe, leave the table and the ploppies keep betting large on the rest of the cards that are greatly in favor of the casino. In fact, I once received an "86ing" letter. In that letter it actually stated that I was "stacking the deck in favor of the casino with my style of play".
> (counters) eat up big cards with small bets in the begining of a
> shoe, leave the table and the ploppies keep betting large on the
> rest of the cards that are greatly in favor of the casino.
There are a million scenarios that could be run but no doubt a handfull of back-counters running around the casino basically watering down the high card inventory must have a negative EV on the ploppy/civilain pool.
I don't know about the ploppies 'betting large' on the rest of the shoe after we leave; no doubt they will continue to bet whatever system they brought with them that day until the money runs out or the entertainment is over.
We each have a place in the system. Their place is to lose money, and either directly or indirectly, we help them do it faster. The casino's place is to take their money and help them enjoy the experience. Our place is to take it from the casino when we can.
Truth be told, both groups oughta hate our existence.
I agree that we are not good for the ploppies because we play mostly with and eat big cards. Nearly 50% of the shoes we play are somewhat front loaded, thus causing us to bet min until we wong out or just bet small and suffer it to the end. If we wong out, we have left a slug of junk for the ploppies to continue betting as they bet. Generally and on average those people continue to bet an amount that is more than table minimum. In fact, most ploppies bet larger after their winning hands. There is a better chance that they have just won while the big cards went through. This is a significant benefit to the casino. So, when this scenario occurs, the casino benefits from us "stacking the deck" in favor of the casino.
Also, the mere fact that there are people in this world that can consistently beat the game, leaves a certain degree of hope and motivation for multitudes of ploppies to become "wannabies BJ pros". This is also good for the casinos. BJ is played more than any other card game, in part because we the AP's of the world, can beat it with skill. Even if for some players we cause mystery knowing that the game is vulnerable to skilled players, results in a portion of their decission and desire to play the game. In summary, we cause good propaganda for the game.
.. we are in concert with the casino, helping them fleece the ignorant?
:)
Casino mgnmt should think long-term and protect us and cut back on the brutalization. The problem is that they cannot see the big picture and think long term. The individuals in the pit and in surveillance have a certain degree of envy of our skill and enjoy squashing us.
What would happen if headlines went out in all major news papers that BJ is a game that is no longer beatable by any form of professional player? ...... It would hurt the industry.
They have no one to blame but themselves.
David Sklansky took a lot of heat a few years ago for referring to the poker hoi polloi as lucky morons. His critics seem never to have played for their living, otherwise they'd have shared the sentiment.
"If you find a 6D empty table in a very busy casino, would you assume there is a greater chance that the count on that partially delt shoe is more positive than neg?"
I would have to say what you're trying to correlate is negligible and you�re just witnessing the effect of a higher table minimum or just dumb luck of nobody sitting down at the moment.
Unfortunately, the casinos policy of banning counters is a rational one. If a casino deals to a table that has a backcounter as opposed to one the backcounter doesn't join, it will deal more rounds and those extra cards will mainly be high value cards. The counter puts more money on those high value cards which costs the casino EV. There is no doubt that a wonger will take a disproportionate share of high value cards but this will hurt only the other players at his table. I doubt the minor effects you mention would come anywhere close to making up for the lost EV of allowing counters to play and spread freely.
Several factors will lessen the effect of counters on other players and the benefits you see going to the casino:
In my experience most counters don't wong. Many even will not wong out. Play all will have much less effect on basic strategy players at the table.
Experienced players will only play with one or two other players and preferably heads up. Strict wongers, of course, won't play heads up but players with a wong out strategy will seek out games with no other players. Negative shoes abandoned by a lone counter will generally be shuffled away depending on the house rules.
Negative counts don't always lead to ploppies increasing their bets or even sticking around at a table. All ploppies play a little differently. In my experience, nothing drives suspicious players from the table like consecutive dealer blackjacks. This is more likely to occur in a high count than a low count. It is hard to predict the actions of players who do not play rationally.
Furthermore, if an accessible casino were to develop a reputation as counter friendly it would be inundated with counters. It would only take a few counters who were allowed to operate freely to put a dent in the store's bottom line.
I don't see casinos advertising that blackjack is beatable but no doubt they benefit from the idea being out there. Average players play blackjack, not because they believe it is beatable, but because they know the house edge is less than other games. Many believe that luck combined with money management will help lock in wins against games with a house edge. Casinos are happy to encourage the idea that blackjack is beatable but without the actual players that can beat the game.
I would have to say what you're trying to correlate is negligible and you�re just witnessing the effect of a higher table minimum or just dumb luck of nobody sitting down at the moment.
Maybe, maybe not. I just think what I think I have noticed, may be something significant to consider. Keep an open mind on my theory.
Negative counts don't always lead to ploppies increasing their bets or even sticking around at a table.
I didn't say "always". I said "on average", which I believe means more the 50% of the time when they just happen to get up and leave.
...lost EV of allowing counters to play and spread freely
I believe only the best in the business could put a dent in a casino's bottom line. However, I believe they need not be so concerned and aggressive in their actions against counters in general.
...nothing drives suspicious players from the table like consecutive dealer blackjacks.
I personally believe you most likely remember this very well because when it happened, you had a large bet on the felt. Could this be your selective memory kicking in, much the same as the way ploppies have been skewed in their beliefs that a bad player at the table negatively affects the outcome? Or much the way they feel that a third base player somehow always takes the bust card if he/she does anything out of the norm. It is my belief that consecutive moments such as the dealer catching a 5 on stiff 16's has the same effect on the mind of a ploppy.
Not necessarily am I or you right on the issues I have raised. Maybe we are both partially right in certain areas of our assumptions. I have merely brought these theories, observations and issues to the forefront for us all to ponder.
