Hi Lo when the count is negitive

I play 6 decks tournaments and have seen this a couple of times where the count goes to negative 20 and most of the players fall off but one seems to pull so far ahead that when the count goes positive I can't caught him. Any help? thank you

 

thanks

Last time after the count when positive I thought I had to get 2 of the last 3 hands to caught him and I only caught 1. I do notice when the count is negative it kills a lot of the players. Should I keep betting my minimum when the count is negative?

 

Ken, Monkey

I respectfully must disagree. The benefit of AP play is dependent on the way you play the game, strategy and tactics. There are ways to approach the game that are not written about in books. There are ways that are not generally known or understood.

Also I disagree about AP play in tourneys, it can for sure help and is not a distraction for a seasoned player. You should be able to do it all with no problem. In my game I actually place a positive value on negative situations, although I much prefer positive situations, but my tactics have not been dictated by the likes of Wong, etc.

CP

 

Exception

A big exception re the value of counting in tournaments, for accumulation format tournaments. You absolutely want to count in accumulation rounds, so as to pick your spots for making your bets. Won't assure success, but will give you a couple percent better odds in your favor.

 

Exception?

Can you mathamatically back up your statement counting cards provides a couple % advantage in accumulation tournaments? Your theory disputes published and common strategy theory for accumulation BJ tournaments. Respected and published theoists of accumulation tournament BJ have never advocated card counting as an advantage or suggestive play.

I suggest you review posted recommendations of accumulation tournament BJ strategy by others that may have more experience than you.

 

counting and accumulation

What I had in mind was a situation where you have set a target and can reach that target with a small number of large bets. The one accumulation round I have played, I needed one all-in bet and one two-step progression to reach my target. With a count, you can time your moves so you have the advantage of a positive count when you push in your money, or, at worst, avoid doing so with a badly negative count. You might also adjust your play based on the count. When I made my large bets I had a true count of +7 for the all-in bet, and true counts of +4 and +5 for the two-step progression (lost the first bet, won the second). I figure that is worth a couple of percent over random pushes. If it is not, why would you ever count in regular bj? if it doesn't give you an advantage?

If you have to push a large number of bets, then you probably can't wait for a very favorable count, but still might be able to avoid betting into very negative ones, or adjust your play of the hand.

It is not simply a matter of the likelihood of winning a bet, but, also the increased probability of a blackjack, which may reduce the number of bets you need to make, or, let you use a two-step progression in your betting sequence, rather than an all-in bet, or, give you an extra cushion in case you set your target too low.

 

Regular BJ and Tournament BJ are 2 different animals as are elimination and accumulation BJ tournament formats. Counting cards will not result in a 2% player advantage in a 20 to 30 hand tournament round, your question "Why would you ever count in regular BJ" can best be answered in regular BJ you are not limited to 20 - 30 hands as in most tournaments. Your experience of having a true count of +7, +5 and +4 in a single round of tournament BJ is unusual and should not be viewed as normal expectation to advise others.

Although I've played more than 1 accumulation tournament as you have, my thoughts and tournament results are based on published and private accumulation tournament strategy provided by Sanford Wong, Ken Smith, S. Yama, Joe Pane, Walt, Chips McCoy and Toolman1, none of which have advocated to my knowledge counting cards in an accumulation tournament is a beneficial strategy.

 

Rookie

one counts cards to identify when favorable situations occur, where a player has an edge; also identifies unfavorable situations, that's why it works in regular bj, because you can increase your bet in favorable situations. and bet minimum in unfavorable. Works that way in accumulation rounds as well. Doesn't matter how many hands you are playing, in accumulation, it is likely that you are shoving your money out on as few bets as possible to hit your target with the least risk. being able to identify if the next hand is going to be favorable to the players, unfavorable, or neutral, can guide you as to when to shove out your chips. may not apply to every possible accumlation format, depends on max bet, starting bankroll, the target, how many bets you need to make, etc. - to determine the value of counting, but I think it is obvious that if you can get your chips out on a favorable count, and avoid shoving out chips on very unfavorable counts, you increase your odds of winning and hitting your target.

I was lucky to get some very favorable counts, but only put more than a minimum bet out on three hands. So was able to pass on unfavorable or neutral counts.

If you count, you get a choice, put chips out when the count is favorable or at least neutral, or, choose a random hand - which would you want to do? every little edge you can get helps.

 

I would think it matters a great deal.

The fewer hands, the less chance there is of seeing a significantly elevated count before the end. In your style of play, I would think you should constantly be comparing the number of hands remaining to the number of big bets which you need to win, in order to decide whether to continue playing a waiting game, or to make your move while you still have the chance.

If the total number of hands to be played is small, then any benefit from counting will be minimal.

Moreover, if the number of hands remaining (or in total) is so small that there will not be a shuffle before the end, then counting is of no benefit at all (other than for strategy variations). If the count goes negative there is no guarantee it will ever recover. If it does not, then you will eventually be obliged to start making your big bets at a greater disadvantage than you began with.

A further, practical consideration would be the possibility that you might get information during play that causes you to increase your target. (E.g., if you can see that a large number of people are beating that score at your table or nearby tables.) The earlier you start attacking your initial target, the more opportunities you will have to go for your new, revised target.

 

number of hands matter?

I was posting in the sense of the number of starting hands. Obviously if you only have two or three hands left - then if you need to go for it, you do. Also would depend on number of decks dealt from, frequency of shuffle, etc. There are always variables to take into acount, of course.

Just because there are some situations in the play where counting would be a minimal advantage, doesn't mean you shouldn't count and use that information. Under the right situation, it can be a significant advantage, and if you apply the info wisely, then you will never be disadvantaged by doing so.

You can't know if it won't help, until you are into the play - so why throw it away in advance. Counting isn't that hard, and in accumulation, you can focus on the count and playing each hand - as you are playing for a target. And if you do need to change the target, counting can still benefit you.

Counting should be one tool you use, like setting a target is a tool, and playing correct strategy is a tool. Keep a count, and use it when it is helpful to you. In many situations, you'll want to make a few big bets, as few as possible, as large as possible. Counting can guide your timing. And that is definitely worth a few percent on the odds.

 

So was I. But it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to see that the question "what do I do with n hands to go?" applies to the first hand as much as it does to any other. And hence "what do I do in a tournament which consists of n hands?" is exactly the same question.

Without going too deeply into the debate over how much counting might be worth, the main thrust of my post was to refute your specific statement that the number of hands does not matter. It clearly does matter.

And, as I said, if the total number of hands is so small that there will be no shuffle, then counting is definitely pointless, as it is just as likely to hurt you as help you.

 

accumulation

Ken's statement was in regards to a table elimination tournament.
The number of hands is also important because statistically, as I've learned from Ken Smith's book, you may run out of chances to reach the needed target to advance. Going big on the first hand seems to be the statistically correct play and also you're garanteed a neutral deck. Even better if BJ pays 2 to 1.

Mathamatically, I have to agree with, rookie, monkey and colin.

But after all that I still have looked at a few hands hoping for a better than neutral deck before making my first max bet. I was chip leader after the first round doing this at an event, but also failed to advance at other times. My worst loss was listening to other's
target predictions.

Good discussion guys.
tgun

 

Agree-----BUT

I totally agree with those that say counting in tournaments has very minimal value but if you're a habitual counter, it's only natural to do it and why not pick up the admittedly small advantage gained by it.
When it's that habitual, it isn't a distraction.
The "counting advantage" is usually higher in tournaments than it is in open play because of the non negotiable chips being used (much higher penetration). The house couldn't care less how many they hand out!

Billy C

 

Billy

In order to become very skilled at AP counting etc. it is something you must do very often, and if you are just doing a tourney now and then you will never achieve proficiency in the art of it. That being the case one will never understand the potential power of it. So I would think you hit it right on the head, if you are already skilled in it, do it, if not...a tourney is a poor place to start.

CP

 

it's in the details

Wow!!
Everybody on this thread expressed correct viewpoints and yet there is still feeling of a disagreement.
This, in my opinion, is caused because it is only natural to have conversation when opposing “intersections” of viewpoints are expressed.
As usual, the devil is in the details.

We may talk about “ultimate” mathematically better plays, practical aspects, personal, and rules and other specific details- effecting and influencing our answers and preferences.

Counting cards provides Information that can be used and can be very beneficial, from some perspective, to one who possesses it. Value of it is quite another matter, as well as the answer to the question whether benefits it provides outweighs cost of obtaining it.

The shorter number of rounds-hands (paying attention to number of shuffles remaining) the less value counting provides.
The higher final score we need bring our bankroll to - the more likely it is that betting max from the beginning of the round (session) is a better option.

Details:

When we need to win exactly one max bet, equal to our starting bankroll, we’re dealing with another form of risk/reward problem. On one hand, when we play negative expectation game (basically all regular rules casino offered games) we would prefer to get it in minimum plays/action – all-in, one bet. On the other hand, if our chances of winning double down for some hands are the same as just hitting, or if getting blackjack exceeds our goal score– we took unnecessary risk. This also includes defensive splits that could preserve part or all of our bankroll if we bet no more that half of our bankroll.
So, based on rules and goals betting a fraction of our bankroll or betting maximum could be an optimal play.

Let’s assume that we need to win a fraction of, or just one, max bet (and at this time we will disregard if winning half of the goal is a preferred play), and we can count cards without losing concentration and any brain power energy needed for anything else.
We need to look for chance of beneficial counts to occur for the specific rules of the tournament. About 20% of all hands, truncated (which disregards following digits, it is higher for rounding) for double decks, and 10% for six decks will have counts of plus 2 or higher.
Simplifying, if we get to play 25 hands double-decker with shuffle after every four hands, we can expect one or more rounds with count of plus two. However, if after playing eight tournament rounds (hands) with no counts at +2 we have to settle for firing our bet at counts of +1, until we probably make this bet right after the last shuffle if positive counts never materialized.

If winning one (two) bets is our objective it will be interesting to know that total value at positive counts increases by about 0.66% per count starting from zero (actually, the difference between zero and one is, higher than most, at 0,79%). So, if someone is lucky to make bet at count of plus 3, her/his ev raises by about 2% compared to a random bet right after shuffle.
But also, knowing the count helps to some degree (whatever it is) to make departure from basic strategy, even if the count is negative.

S. Yama

 

Final Comment

You made a good point London, you are correct, but, I think it is unlikely that when you are starting at hand one, you will have so few hands to go that you can disregard the avantage of counting. Also - with a full table, and even if they are dealing from a shoe, you will still get one shuffle, unless it is an unusually short number of hands.

A point I don't think I mentioned, was that the round I played, we were sure of getting 4 shuffles, so had four resets. Maybe it was that unusual a situation, but, given that we were going to get at least four shuffles, given that I had set a reasonable target (point here, I was in flight two, and got to see what the flight one totals were, also knew what totals got people to final table in a couple of earlier tournaments; also got to see penetration, so could see how many shuffles would occur with some confidence), having seen how people in the tourney were betting, and being able to hit my target needing only one all-in win and one two-step progression (no max bet): I think I would have had to have been crazy not to use a count. It definitely gave me an advantage over players not counting.

That being the case, why take an attitude that 'counting never benefits you', when obviously it can do so. You do need to exercise judgement, and not wait endlessly for a great count, I was lucky to get good counts to bet on, but was also willing to give myself a chance to get the good opportunities.

I think every one posted valid points and cautions, but I strongly disagree with the attitude that 'since sometimes counting may not be very beneficial, then you should never bother with it', that seems to be so prevalent. In a table elimination format I don't count, as I think other elements are more important, and I don't want to distract myself from them; but, in an accumulation round, with a set target, that reasoning doesn't apply. Keeping a count is simple, particularly when you have fairly frequent shuffles, and can easily estimate the proportion of the deck left, and you really don't have much else to do.

I think my experience was a tournament round that was unusually well set up for counting to be an advantage, and I took that advantage. In other circumstances, I might well have gunned from hand number one, being happy to know I was starting out with a neutral deck. But I would still want to keep a count, and would take that into consideration as I could.

We post final hand examples and problems where we strive to find the solution that gives us that 0.5% extra edge, but are willing to pass up a stronger edge, because 'sometimes it won't help'? The whole essence of tournament play is getting an edge and applying it repeatedly over many tournaments, so that in the long term, one accumulates more cashes, and counting in accumulation rounds can do this for you. To me it seems that simple.