(Close Window)
Topic: Card counting...
Message: Posted by: Craig Krisulevicz (Apr 19, 2006 09:38PM)
So here is the description to this forum:

"History, theory and ideas surrounding the mysterious world of the unscrupulous gambler. Topics may include card cheating, card counters, advantage players, etc. Strategies, theories and schemes for winning at Poker, BlackJack, Slots, Roulette, Craps and other casino games."

Even though advantage playing and card counting are not unscrupulous, as well as a vast amount of strategies and theories for winning Poker, BlackJack, etc, etc they remain in the breadth of topics for this forum. And yet, no one ever discusses them? hmm.....

So, what do you guys think of Red Seven?

and by the way, how many of you are old enough to actually play in a casino?
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Apr 19, 2006 11:40PM)
Red Seven is a good count, but I prefer some of the more recent unbalanced counts.

Incidentally, the Advanced Omega 2 (Bryce Carlson's count) is a monster for single deck.

Jason
Message: Posted by: card cheat (Apr 19, 2006 11:56PM)
[quote]
On 2006-04-20 00:40, JasonEngland wrote:
Incidentally, the Advanced Omega 2 (Bryce Carlson's count) is a monster for single deck.[/quote]

This two-level count was originally known as the "Canfield Master Count," and was developed by Canfield in 1967. Almost 40 years later, it is still considered by many the very best count for single, and double, deck games today.

CC
Message: Posted by: ASW (Apr 20, 2006 04:11AM)
Wasn't Red Seven the sidekick for the Green Hornet?
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Apr 20, 2006 08:28AM)
Mmmmm...I have not read about unbalenced counts....

I have been using a multilevel count (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3) for about 25 years.

Just so you know, the casinos started using more advanced shuffling techniques and Shuffling machines to make card counting and shuffle tracking much less effective than what they were.

Unfortunately, by doing this, they also worstened the odds for the normal player as well.

On the other hand, I guess the casinos like the idea of winning more against normal players and making the life of card counters harder at the same time.

That is why I boycott any tables with shuffle machines.
Message: Posted by: Craig Krisulevicz (Apr 20, 2006 09:12AM)
[quote]
On 2006-04-20 09:28, Expertmagician wrote:

Just so you know, the casinos started using more advanced shuffling techniques and Shuffling machines to make card counting and shuffle tracking much less effective than what they were.

Unfortunately, by doing this, they also worstened the odds for the normal player as well.

[/quote]

I understand how more advanced shuffling makes tracking less effective; but counting? You're not hinting towards shuffle ups and deck penetration, so what do you mean? Can you elaborate on the math?



[quote]
On 2006-04-20 05:11, Andrew Wimhurst wrote:
Wasn't Red Seven the sidekick for the Green Hornet?
[/quote]

No, that was Richard Kaufman.
Message: Posted by: Silly Walter the Polar Bear (Apr 20, 2006 05:26PM)
[quote]
On 2006-04-20 09:28, Expertmagician wrote:
Unfortunately, by doing this, they also worstened the odds for the normal player as well.

[/quote]

How is it worse now? If the normal person (I belive you mean a person that doesn't count cards) plays based on the cards he is holding as well as the dealers visible card and no cards are being added to or removed from the deck, how do the odds change for the normal person?
Message: Posted by: sodman12 (Apr 20, 2006 09:56PM)
They do remove cards from the deck. I know of some casinos the place a a card in half of the shoe and they only play up untill that point.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Apr 20, 2006 10:53PM)
Do they still stick a cut card in if they're using a ShuffleMaster?
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Apr 20, 2006 11:26PM)
Let me try to explain....

Mathmatically, they should not call the game Blackjack...they should call it "Let the dealer bust".

If the house can figure out a way for them to deal more "bust" hands (12-16), then their odds go up.

Therefore, they discovered that since mst people play blackjack the same way, that the cards will tend to segragate over time leaving clumps of highs and lows. This clumping can be detected using card counting, so you get an edge.

If they mix the cards very well (ie. using a shuffling machine) they accomplish 2 things:

1) They break up clumps of highs and lows which would have normally occured in the "old days".

2) They mix more high and low cards more frequently which result in more bust hands for the players (12-16). So all players whether they count or not will bust more frequently. and...if you do count cards you will find fewer positive situations to bet on because the highs and the lows are too well mixed.

I hope this makes sense.
Message: Posted by: sodman12 (Apr 21, 2006 12:58AM)
Exellent!
very well explained
Message: Posted by: Craig Krisulevicz (Apr 21, 2006 09:23PM)
Expertmagician,

Devil's Advocate time.

Assume that the player is not shuffle tracking. He's just a card counter.

He knows that table "A" is using a dealer that shuffles retaining clumps of highs and lows. The cards are nicely shuffled, but there are the occasional clumps. Even if he is not tracking them, he knows they are there.

He knows that table "B" uses the most sophisticated randomizing shuffle machine there is. So the cards should have a more "shuffled" distribution.

The games are both 8 deck shoes and he is using hi-lo.

Pretend he could play at both tables simultaneously: After the first round of full table he is at a count of +2 on each table. Why should he change his strategy based on the count due to the shuffling procedures? The count is the memory of the game. We know what is left to come, but we don't know the order of what is left to come. Yet, we still play based on the strategy of the count and the other important conditions. Right?
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Apr 21, 2006 11:23PM)
In my humble opinion....you are correct if you have a "true count of +2" then you will have an advantage because you know that there are more high cards (using my system).

Reality is that you will be better off if the cards happen to be clustered with groups of highs and lows (ie. if they were clustered, then your count of +2 is likely to get higher and be even more favorable after the next hand.

If the cards were well distributed, then that +2 count is likely to go back to zero quickly or negative.

Clusters of high and low cards have wider swings +10 or -10 vs. staying around zero (+2 or -2). I prefer wide swings so I can take advantage of those opportunities.

Unfortunatly, the casinos now know this which is why they try to break up patterns which form over time.

Boy, I missed the good old days when I was a counter in the 1980s and early 1990s :)

Now, it does not matter as much because the casinos got too smart.
Message: Posted by: Alewishus (Apr 22, 2006 12:36AM)
Hmmmm....

I see what you're saying.

It's like, does anyone ever really contact McDonalds for nutritional information about their Quarter Pounder with cheese?

People who care about nutrition don't try to get it from clowns?

Is that about it?

A.
Message: Posted by: The Dowser (Apr 24, 2006 05:29AM)
[quote]
On 2006-04-20 09:28, Expertmagician wrote:


Just so you know, the casinos started using more advanced shuffling techniques and Shuffling machines to make card counting and shuffle tracking much less effective than what they were.

Unfortunately, by doing this, they also worstened the odds for the normal player as well.


That is why I boycott any tables with shuffle machines.
[/quote]
Refer to page 224 of Steve Forte's CASINO GAME PROTECTION where a response from Shuffle Master to their clients regarding a perceived drop in hold percentages in casinos using their machines is explained by saying that the basic strategy player will do better against the continuous shuffler which is always neutral ...(basic strategy being based on a shoe from which no cards have been removed) . This opens the possibility that these machines have "removed the oppurtunity for the public to play as poor as they usually do..." .
As far as the casino's having advanced their shuffle procedures to break up "clumps" and mix the High and Low cards more effectively : Any attempt at such a level of control over what is supposed to, at least , mimick a random process is potentially exploitable.
When it comes to shuffle procedures,it seems to me that there are 3 or 4 main practical concerns for the casino :
a) sequence breaking
b) dilution / dispersion ... such as you mentioned
c) speed / time efficiency
(not listed in any order of importance)
If any one of these considerations is over addressed , I suspect it leaves one or both of the other considerations vulnerable to advantage play or the casino will lose potential gains to time consuming "heavy procedures" . Therefore a balancing act ensues based on the management philosophy of the casino exec's . Based on these "assumptions" (and I call them that , as I am certainly not an expert ,or even very educated in this area) ...I would say that the cat and mouse game of advantage play is alive and well today just as it was in the "80's and 90's" .
Of course theory is no substitute for experience so I could be wrong.
Dowser
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Apr 24, 2006 08:24AM)
I was a computer science major in college and spent my last 2 years developing, what people call today, a multi-count system. I got the idea of a multi-level count after I read Ed Thorps single level count system.

I even developed a card counting computer which I built using Radio Shack parts. (Radio Shack used to sell computer logic chips years ago, "flip flops, and, and or gates, etc.)

That was about the time when Vegas passed a law that using electronic deviced to play blackjack was illegal. As it turns out, it did not matter since I learned the system in my head.

I personally got annoyed when people started publsihing multi-level count systems since I was playing them before then and I was not happy about the publicity.

I still have some of my old computer runs in the attic from 30 years ago to prove that my research was original :)

Through my mid 20s and early thirties I kept on programming minor changes into the computer as the casinos changed their rules and defensive mechanisms against card counters.

While it's great that I have a real full time job...I don't have the time to research and develop new systems to get an edge on casino games.....Maybe when I retire....it will give me something to do when I get older to keep my brain activity going :)

And beside, who would suspect an old man :)