319 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
319 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
Article 199 of alt.gambling:
|
|
Path: polyslo!usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!hellgate.utah.edu!wasatch!jacobs
|
|
>From: jacobs%cs.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Steven R. Jacobs)
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.gambling
|
|
Subject: Blackjack: Card Counting for the Complete Klutz
|
|
Date: 12 Sep 89 15:51:46 GMT
|
|
Distribution: alt
|
|
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
|
|
Lines: 160
|
|
|
|
Things have gotten too quiet here, so I guess I will post my card
|
|
counting strategy. This is a simplified method, it uses only the
|
|
basic strategy. It is very important that you fully understand
|
|
the basic strategy before you try counting cards. Counting is
|
|
fairly easy in your home, but it is easy to get distracted in
|
|
a noisy casino.
|
|
|
|
This method works best at a table that offers insurance.
|
|
Simulations show that this method gives about a 1% edge
|
|
over the house, when using a 5:1 bet spread (bet 5 units
|
|
when the deck is favorable, 1 unit when the deck is
|
|
unfavorable). This high of a bet spread is not always
|
|
practical.
|
|
|
|
The strategy table listed below is a revised version of
|
|
the basic strategy table that I posted previously. It
|
|
is optimal for most single-deck games.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
For SINGLE DECK games:
|
|
|
|
1) Start the count at -4 when the deck is shuffled.
|
|
|
|
2) Count -2 for 10, J, Q, K
|
|
|
|
3) Count +1 for everything else (including aces)
|
|
|
|
4) Bet low when the count is negative, high when the count is
|
|
positive (actually, simulations show that you can bet high
|
|
for a count of -2 or above).
|
|
|
|
5) Take insurance when the count is positive.
|
|
|
|
6) Play basic strategy at all times (table shown below)
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
For N deck games:
|
|
|
|
1) Start the count at (-4 * N).
|
|
|
|
2) all other rules are the same.
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
NOTES:
|
|
|
|
The unique feature of this counting method is that it is
|
|
perfectly accurate for dealing with insurance. When the
|
|
count is positive, the player has the advantage when
|
|
taking the insurance bet. When the count is negative,
|
|
the house has the advantage, so insurance should not be
|
|
taken.
|
|
|
|
Counting is best done by counting several cards at once.
|
|
It is easy to practice this counting method in the following
|
|
way:
|
|
|
|
1) Count through a deck of cards, counting one card
|
|
at a time. Start at -4, and count through the entire
|
|
deck. After all of the cards have been seen, the
|
|
count should be ZERO. If it is not zero, a mistake
|
|
has been made somewhere. Repeat counting through
|
|
the deck one card at a time, until you can do it
|
|
quickly without making mistakes.
|
|
|
|
2) Count through the deck, counting two cards at a
|
|
time. Look for the following patterns, adding
|
|
the correct amount for each pattern
|
|
|
|
(X = 10, N = non-ten)
|
|
|
|
NN +2
|
|
XN -1
|
|
XX -4
|
|
|
|
Again, the count should be zero after all cards have
|
|
been seen. Repeat until you can do it efficiently.
|
|
|
|
3) Count through the deck, counting three cards at a time.
|
|
Look for the following patterns, adding the correct
|
|
amount for each pattern.
|
|
|
|
(X = 10, N = non-ten)
|
|
|
|
NNN +3
|
|
XNN 0 (this pattern is common)
|
|
XXN -3
|
|
|
|
4) Practice against a computer blackjack game. When I
|
|
play, I usually count the cards by counting an entire
|
|
hand (player's or dealers) at once. If there are more
|
|
than three cards in the hand, I mentally break it up
|
|
into groups of 1, 2, or 3 cards (I usually look for
|
|
"XNN" patterns and ignore those cards, since they
|
|
add up to zero). I usually count the cards just
|
|
before the dealer picks up the hand (exception: for
|
|
insurance, you should count your cards and the dealer's
|
|
up card immediately).
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Strategy Table
|
|
|
|
S=stand H=hit D=double P=pair(split)
|
|
<uppercase> = "strong" hand, favorable to player
|
|
<lowercase> = "weak" hand, favorable to house
|
|
|
|
<---might bust---> <---might stand---> <---- dealer possibility
|
|
---+----------------------------------------
|
|
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X A <---- dealer's up card
|
|
---+---------------------------------------- Pairs
|
|
XX | S S S S S S S S S S
|
|
99 | PS PS PS PS PS S PS ps s s
|
|
88 | Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ph ph ph ph ph
|
|
77 | ps ps Ps Ps Ps ph h h s h
|
|
66 | ph ps ps Ps Ps h h h h h
|
|
55 | DH DH DH DH DH DH DH DH H H
|
|
44 | h H H DH DH H h h h h
|
|
33 | h h Ph PH PH ph h h h h
|
|
22 | h ph Ph PH PH ph h h h h
|
|
AA | PH PH PH PDH PDH PH PH Ph Ph Ph
|
|
---+---------------------------------------- Soft Hands
|
|
AX | S S S S S S S S S S
|
|
A9 | S S S S S S S S S S
|
|
A8 | S S S S DS S S S S S
|
|
A7 | S DS DS DS DS S S h h h
|
|
A6 | DH DH DH DH DH H h h h h
|
|
A5 | h h DH DH DH h h h h h
|
|
A4 | h H DH DH DH H h h h h
|
|
A3 | H H DH DH DH H H h h h
|
|
A2 | H H DH DH DH H H h h h
|
|
AA | H H H DH DH H H h h h
|
|
---+---------------------------------------- Hard Hands
|
|
21 | S S S S S S S S S S
|
|
20 | S S S S S S S S S S
|
|
19 | S S S S S S S S S S
|
|
18 | S S S S S S S s s s
|
|
17 | s s s s s s s s s s
|
|
16 | s s s s s h h h h h
|
|
15 | s s s s s h h h h h
|
|
14 | s s s s s h h h h h
|
|
13 | s s s s s h h h h h
|
|
12 | h h s s s h h h h h
|
|
11 | DH DH DH DH DH DH DH DH DH DH
|
|
10 | DH DH DH DH DH DH DH DH H H
|
|
9 | DH DH DH DH DH H H h h h
|
|
8 | h H H DH DH H h h h h
|
|
7 | h h h H H h h h h h
|
|
6 | h h h H H h h h h h
|
|
5 | h h h H H h h h h h
|
|
4 | h h h H H h h h h h
|
|
---+----------------------------------------
|
|
NOTES: 1) Use the "Hard Hands" table only
|
|
when the other tables do not apply.
|
|
|
|
2) If splitting Aces is not allowed,
|
|
use the "Soft Hands" table.
|
|
---+----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Steve Jacobs ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
From usc!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!zardoz!tgate!ka3ovk!teemc!mibte!gamma!towernet!pyuxp!nvuxj!nvuxh!hall Wed Sep 13 12:35:26 PDT 1989
|
|
|
|
In article <17109@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu> RLM@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu (Robert Mutel) writes:
|
|
>Could someone give a succinct summary of the situation regarding
|
|
>`favorable' and `unfavorable' shuffles in multi-deck blackjack? What
|
|
>should a player look out for? Will unfavorable shuffles affect basic
|
|
>players as well as counters?
|
|
|
|
First, consider the totally random shuffle. This is what all card
|
|
counters' strategies are based on (because the mathematics are
|
|
already combinatorially explosive without having to worry about
|
|
non-random orderings.) It is also what the "basic strategy" of
|
|
non-counters is based on. The totally random shuffle doesn't exist,
|
|
but it can be approached to a greater or lessor extent.
|
|
|
|
Nonrandom shuffles can contradict the assumptions that went into
|
|
building the strategies, and hence the counting and non-counting
|
|
strategies can be sub-optimal in practice. Also, nonrandom shuffles
|
|
can result in "like-card" clumping. Have you ever seen everyone
|
|
including the dealer get two 10-valued cards? Pretty annoying.
|
|
Like-card clumping is devastating to the players.
|
|
|
|
Like-card clumping can be a natural or manufactured phenomenon. It
|
|
happens naturally, because if you have low cards, you tend to take a
|
|
hit, and if the next card is low again, you may take another hit.
|
|
This clump of low cards is preserved when it is picked up. A poor
|
|
shuffle will only slightly reduce the amount of clumping.
|
|
|
|
Card counters, however, can put non-random shuffles to their
|
|
advantage. This involves remembering (or recording with chips) the
|
|
"richness" of different segments of the deck as it is played.
|
|
"Shuffle-tracking" is then employed to estimate the richness of
|
|
different segments of the shuffled deck. One can then use the
|
|
cut-card to "remove" unfavorable portions of the deck (i.e. get rid
|
|
of low cards.) See "Break the Dealer" for more information. (By the
|
|
way, I don't have enough money to even think of trying this myself.)
|
|
|
|
Okay, now you know what favorable and unfavorable shuffles do to
|
|
you, so how do you recognize them?
|
|
|
|
First, be on the look-out for "poor washing." If a casino does not
|
|
mix up new decks well, avoid it. Furthermore, avoid playing at a
|
|
table that started with new cards within the last few *hours*.
|
|
|
|
Next, watch out for the "high-low" pickup, where the dealer picks up
|
|
the cards in a high to low order. I'm sure there must be variations
|
|
on this theme.
|
|
|
|
Also, watch out for the "strip" shuffle. This is typically done by
|
|
"pinching" the top few cards and the bottom few cards off the
|
|
portion of the deck being shuffled. I don't know why this shuffle
|
|
is non-random when combined with other shuffles, but the casinos
|
|
have researched this, and know that it hurts the players, and so
|
|
they do it. Note that "unfair" shuffles are illegal in Atlantic
|
|
City. I have seen strip shuffles there.
|
|
|
|
Last, be aware that inexperienced dealers, while they deal nice and
|
|
slow also shuffle poorly. Inexperienced dealers can let a clump of
|
|
4 cards slip by without getting shuffled.
|
|
|
|
In sum, totally random shuffles are nice but do not exist, and
|
|
non-random shuffles usually hurt, but can help, especially if you
|
|
are shuffle tracking. The casinos know all this and attempt to use
|
|
it to their advantage (they're greedy, remember?)
|
|
--
|
|
Michael R. Hall | BAN |"I live in a country that I hate. I live
|
|
hall@nvuxh.cc.bellcore.COM | STRIP | in a country where I want to shoot the
|
|
bellcore!nvuxh!hall |SHUFFLES| politicians." - Peter Buck of R.E.M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
From sdsu!usc!apple!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jr+ Wed Sep 13 12:37:33 PDT 1989
|
|
|
|
>From: garym@crash.cts.com (Gary Morris)
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.gambling
|
|
Subject: Re: Blackjack: Card Counting for the Complete Klutz
|
|
Date: 13 Sep 89 01:48:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
>>Simulations show that this method gives about a 1% edge
|
|
>>over the house, when using a 5:1 bet spread (bet 5 units
|
|
>>when the deck is favorable, 1 unit when the deck is
|
|
>>unfavorable). This high of a bet spread is not always
|
|
>>practical.
|
|
> Is using this high a bet spread practical in Las Vegas casinos? Don't
|
|
the
|
|
> dealers watch for this people changing their bets like this or is it
|
|
only
|
|
> Pit Bosses you have to watch out for? Maybe a good size tip to the
|
|
dealer
|
|
> would help? (he might not notice the bet changes then :-)
|
|
|
|
My recent experience says that you will not get away with this very
|
|
often in LV, at least not playing with favorable rules. The last time I
|
|
was there (3 months ago) doubling your previous bet was safe, but
|
|
tripling it brought immediate reshuffles in single-deck games (at least,
|
|
at the Frontier, Circus Circus & the Fremont).
|
|
|
|
I haven't been to Las Vegas for a while, but last month in Laughlin
|
|
> I found that only the 4 or 6 deck games were dealt face up, the one
|
|
deck
|
|
> games were dealt face down. How can you count if the cards are dealt
|
|
> face down?
|
|
|
|
First fo all, you really shouldn't be playing with other people at the
|
|
table. It greatly reduces your number of hands/hour & thus, the
|
|
likelihood of ending up ahead. In addition, when other people are at
|
|
the table, it dilutes your chances of obtaining the cards you want when
|
|
the count is high.
|
|
|
|
But, if you have to play with other people around, you should just play
|
|
at face-up games or count the cards when the dealer collects them.
|
|
|
|
> Shouldn't count strategies be designed for 4 or 6 deck odds?
|
|
|
|
Not if you want to win. My simulations show that the disadvantage
|
|
introduced by 6 decks is tremendous (I haven't experimented with 4
|
|
decks, yet). In particular, my version of Hi-Opt I yields a 1.2%
|
|
advantage against favorable 1-deck rules, but a -0.3% disadvatnage
|
|
against equally favorable 6 decks. Without some special help (like
|
|
early surrender) I think it's very difficult to beat a 6-deck game. I
|
|
avoid them like disco music.
|
|
|
|
JR
|
|
|
|
|
|
From usc!ginosko!uunet!amdahl!eli Thu Sep 14 13:21:04 PDT 1989
|
|
|
|
This is obviously late, but I didn't see mention of it here, so:
|
|
|
|
The Silver City Casino on the Las Vegas Strip is offering EARLY SURRENDER
|
|
at certain SELECT tables, but ONLY until September 30, 1989! (Early surrender
|
|
is when the player is allowed to surrender hands before the dealer checks his
|
|
hole card for potential blackjack)
|
|
|
|
So anyone with a little vacation time should try to make it out to Vegas
|
|
in September and go get some of the free cash, esp. if you are a card counter.
|
|
|
|
Blackjack is becoming such a difficult game to make any substantial money at
|
|
that its always nice when a casino gives you a break...
|
|
|
|
p.s. (early surrender gives the player a 0.62% higher expectation than if
|
|
it were not offered. "basic" early surrender stategy is to surrender
|
|
hard 16, but not 8-8 against a dealer's 9 up, surrender
|
|
hard 14, 15, and 16 against a dealer's 10 up, and to surrender
|
|
hard 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 against a dealer's Ace up.)
|
|
|
|
|