Blackjack betting system as proxy for card-counting

[SheetWise]

I agree with Wongboy --

Very few people who think they play well actually do. I'm sure you could learn to fly a 747 in 2 hours, and I'm sure you could have a 95% confidence in yourself -- assuming all things went right -- to take off and land.

In blackjack you don't have those wide margins to work with. We're only concerned with how you handle extreme situations -- on both ends. And then there's the maintenance of the game in the middle.

You don't learn that in two hours.

[BSQJamie]

Most casinos tend to let you use some kind of "cheat sheet" anyway so if you are unsure of how to play properly you may as well take advantage of that at least.

[rocksolid104]

I believe it's called a Martindale system & also believe it has been the downfall of many a player. If you are going to combine the principles of card-counting a very simplied high low track with a side count of aces & fives could be mastered in about 30 minutes & perhaps a version of the regression bet could be implemented that only requires you to win the same # of hand's as the house & still show a profit.Varying your bet's after a win & loss is one of the main way's to overcome the house edge;along with proper strategy for doubling & splitting.

[CORed]

As I recall, there were some simulations done on this. The conclusion was that, in a single deck game with deep penetration and good rules, a negative (increase after a loss) progression could give you a slight edge. Unfortunately, you're about as likely to find a single deck game with good penetration and rules these days as you are to find a T. rex wandering around in the woods.

The trouble is that the correlation between the result of your last hand and the count is too week for betting system based solely on prior results to help you much. In a multi-deck game, it's not nearly enough to overcome the house edge.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to combine the principles of card-counting a very simplied high low track with a side count of aces & fives could be mastered in about 30 minutes & perhaps a version of the regression bet could be implemented that only requires you to win the same # of hand's as the house & still show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will never win the same number of hands as the house -- and for any strategy that assumed an equal number of wins, blackjack would be be the worst game to play.

[ QUOTE ]
Varying your bet's after a win & loss is one of the main way's to overcome the house edge;along with proper strategy for doubling & splitting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Along with rubbing a rabbits foot.

[pofigistka]

Is it still possible to cardcount/ achieve any edge when casinos employ automatic shuffling machines?

[bpb]

ASM = auto shuffling machine. This just replaces the dealer hand shuffle. Cards are dealt from a shoe and discards are accumulated in a discard tray. Everything occurs as in a dealer shuffled game. This prevents shuffle tracking and card sequencing, but has no negative impact on straight card counting. In fact, you'll see more hands per hour since less time is spent in the transition from shoe to shoe.

CSM = continuous shuffling machine. After each round, the cards are fed back into the machine. This prevents counting.

Fortunately, CSMs have for the most part only invaded low stakes tables and/or casinos with no competition. Your average gambler distrusts and hates these machines.

[Spanga7]

There is zero merit to the bet varying strategy proposed at the beginning of this post.

The IDEA is sound and makes perfect sense, but ideas like this are the reason casinos don't worry about card counting in general. If I think I see a bunch of low cards on one hand, I raise my bet the next hand, right?

Card counting WELL, and betting accordingly, offers a very slight long-term edge. ACCURACY is the key. Changing your bet based on whether or not you won/lost the prior hand will be so wildly inaccurate that while it might offer a tiny advantage in today's 6-deck games (I have no idea of the exact amount, less than .1%), the advantage will still be with the casino and the player will lose.

Half-hearted card counting that is "kind of" accurate, or "I think I just saw a lot of tens" doesn't get the player anywhere.

[otter]

no