I have currently been working on an analysis of six deck games since where I come from in the midwest that's almost all they play. I have played over 20,000 hands each on my computer using hi-opt1 and the same with a straight +/- betting strategy both head to head. Although a total of 40,000 hands is a relatively small number for statistical purposes It would still take me several years to play that many hands in a casino and if I'm on a losing streak for several years I certainly should retire. So in escence the results should be acurate. Anyway some of this may seem strange but, I have found that there is no advantage to counting in a six deck game over perfect basic strategy and solid betting structure. The true count rarely went over +2 and that of course was almost always in the last few deals. The results were within only a few percent of each other in winnings with the slightly higher percentage in the non counted sessions. Speaking of winnings I have also found that not only is winning very difficult in six deck play, it's nearly impossible playing head to head. This would contradict everything I've read about the game, however none of the literature was based on six decks. In head to head play with six decks I experienced many severe losing streaks as much as 17 hands in a row, however my winning streaks at maximum were 8. When I play with a full table my losing streaks rarely exceed 7 or 8 and of course I quit immediately if they do. But interestingly enough my winning streaks with a full table remain the same at 8. Although I have been able to beat the game both ways and amazingly head to head as well, I tend to feel that you have an equal chance wether counting or not and you are better off playing with more people at the table when playing six decks. Anyone have similar results, or am I completely out of my mind? As well I am looking for literature that has statistics on six deck play.
