Blackjack - Counting Cards

There is a trade off with card counting strategies between power and ease of use. I personally recommend the high-low count. There are more complicated strategies out there, that are marginally more powerful, but much more difficult to use. Personally, I rarely count cards any longer. Six deck games are indeed worth counting if the rules are favorable and at least 75% or so of the cards are dealt. In Las Vegas Blackjack Diary by Stuart Perry, the author spent most of his time playing 2 and 6 decks games, as opposed to single deck.

I had a look at the web site and also found what little he says about the theory behind his system makes it sound like card counting. However I'm deeply skeptical of anything that claims to "blow old fashioned card counting away." I think we can file this under "If it sounds too good to be true is probably is."

Update: The web site in question vanished sometime after the publication of this question.

First, let me say that I'm not an expert on poker. It is no big secret that Texas Hold 'Em is the most popular form. In this game there are five community cards and only two down cards per player so a person good at calculating probabilities has more to go on. However, even the best math genius may make a bad poker player if he can't read the other players or the other players can easily read him (both of which I think are true in my case).

You have a legitimate point. At the time you wrote this I indicated the house edge according to a fixed set of rules that varied only by the number of decks. However, in real life, when single deck is offered the other rules invariably become more stingy. I have already enhanced the house edge table in the blackjack section to include a wider variation in rules. The typical Las Vegas single-deck game does not allow doubling after a split and the dealer hits a soft 17. With these rules, the house edge is 0.18%. The best single-deck game is at the Slots-a-Fun (next to Circus Circus) where the dealer stands on soft 17 for a player edge of 0.01%. Next door, at the Westward Ho, double after a split is allowed but the dealer hits a soft 17 for a house edge of 0.04%. About card counting, absolutely not, even the best of card counters will lose often. An entire month can be at a loss. Only over the very long haul does a net profit become likely.

Update: Since this writing the Westward Ho was torn down and the Slots-a-Fun has slots only.

Good question. Yes, this house edge is definitely low enough to consider card counting. Since most card counters don’t even consider Spanish 21 I think the field is ripe to exploit the game and to do so with a great deal of impunity. However counting may not be as effective in Spanish 21 as regular blackjack. A small card rich deck will benefit the player in more multiple card 21’s. To the best of my knowledge nobody has developed index numbers for Spanish 21 but somebody should. Maybe I will.

A book could be written in response to this question. Please excuse me for only scraping the surface. On page 107 of Uston’s ’Million Dollar Blackjack’ he indicates that following card values for the Uston Advanced Point Count:

It is very true that this is a more powerful system then {-1,0,+1} systems like the Hi Opt I. There are different ways to measure the strength of any given system. My opinion is that the serious player should use the most powerful system that they are comfortable with. It is better to play a level 1 system (like the Hi Opt I) well than to play a level 2 system badly (like the Hi Opt II).

Dealing to the bottom of the deck would not help the basic strategy player but greatly benefits the counter. There would be no changes to the basic strategy. However, this game may be of interest to card counters. Vegas World (now the Stratosphere) in Las Vegas used to have such a game but I don't think card counters ever took it seriously because of other adverse rules like a blackjack only paying even money.

Yes, you can easily count cards when playing blackjack online. However, most casinos shuffle after every hand. For those that don't, software exists to tell you the exact correct play given any deck composition. However, such places generally have strict rules against card counters.

As long as you aren't playing at a multi-player table or live dealer, there is no time limit to play a hand.

Yes.

Unless you are a card counter, how other players play should not affect what you do. Basic strategy players should stick to the basic strategy no matter how badly the other players play. Other players are just as likely to help you as hurt you. In the end, it makes no difference how they play.

I haven't done any simulations, but my educated option is a definite yes, this game can be beaten. The strategy to use in this game would be to bet the minimum when the odds are against you and the maximum when they are in your favor. Normally a sudden 50 times increase in bet size would set off a huge red flag but it seems the counter could do this with impunity in your game. When Atlantic City first opened the casinos could not ask card counters to leave and entire tables were filled with people jumping suddenly from a $5 bet to $300, or whatever the minimums and maximums were. After taking a huge beating, the Atlantic City casinos begged the gaming authorities for a change in the rules, which they got. Not only could this be beaten, but I think it would be a card counters dream.

There is no best card counting system. Personally I like balanced systems but don't know enough about the KO system to comment. My opinion is that you should only consider systems you are comfortable using and among them weight both the power of the system and how comfortable you are with it.

You might try asking this at www.bj21.com.

Most online casinos shuffle after every hand. However, the six-deck game at Unified Gaming casinos shuffles at a random point in the deck. I have heard of other casinos that also penetrate more than one hand into a shoe, but I don't recall which ones. If the cards are shuffled after every hand there is no use in card counting, other than applying my composition dependent basic strategy exceptions.

You obviously understand that a deck rich in high cards favors the player and a deck rich in low cards favors the dealer. Although your method is the crudest form of card counting it is still card counting. Nevada casinos have the legal right to do what they did.

In the future, I would recommend being more discrete. Never more than double your bet, preferably only after winning. If you feel you're being watched, then get up and leave before they do it for you. Don't play too long in any one place. Ian Anderson's "Turning the Tables in Las Vegas" gives lots of tips about looking like an ordinary player while card counting.

First, it takes a lot of time to learn the theory and strategy of card counting and get your counting speed up to casino play. You will also need a large bankroll of at least $50,000, but preferably $100,000. To make a decent living you have to be comfortable with a bet spread of at least $25-$300 and it takes a large bankroll to sustain the ups and downs. For most people, I think it is better to play part time.

Card counting is still alive and well. It is just as easy to count one deck as it is to count eight. Many card counters prefer the multi-deck games. There is lots that can be done to avoid being asked to leave, like short playing sessions and acting like a typical bad player. I try to explain why card counting works in my card counting page.

You should follow my multiple-deck strategy but surrender against aces in the same hands as the single-deck strategy. I haven't studied if counting this game is more profitable than the single-deck game, but I would be interested to hear from anyone who is doing as you suggest.

Yes, I've seen that bet in Tunica. I address it in my blackjack appendix 8. I agree that side bet would seem very countable.

You're welcome! Casinos generally try to keep the maximum bet about 200 to 500 times the minimum bet. Why? If a casino is comfortable with a $10,000 bet on a $100 table, why not take it on a $5 table? The answer seems to be that casinos like to corral their big bettors into certain areas. Such high-limit areas tend to have the best staff and surveillance. Limiting the ratio of maximum to minimum bet is also a defense against cheating and advantage play.

The advantage of card counting depends on how good and aggressive the card counter is. Other than my introduction to card counting, I leave that topic to other gambling writers.

You’re right, the discards are not mixed among all the cards but can not be placed close to the top of the shoe. I don’t know the exact size of this buffer but it is about 10-20 cards I think. As a card counter it would probably be safe to use a true count from just the last hand played and off the top of a shoe. When converting to the true count you will rarely get anything far from +/-1. If you’re any kind of counter at all I would forget about playing against a CSM, it isn’t worth the bother.

To be honest with you I forget the running count myself sometimes. Sometimes if I see an impending distraction I’ll use my fingers to remember the count. Other than that all I can suggest is play more. The more you play the easier it should become.

Thanks for the compliments. Most online casinos shuffle the cards after every hand. At single deck casinos (Boss Media version 1, Microgaming, Unified Gaming) you can use the cards already on the table to alter your play sometimes. See my blackjack appendix3A for all the details. There are some casinos that play into a shoe a little way but not far, and have restrictive betting limits. I have yet to be convinced of any worthwhile opportunity on the Internet to count cards.

Yes. If you can count down one deck you can count down six. It is just a matter of counting longer between shuffles.

Unfortunately I can’t elaborate much. Sports betting is not my strong point, although I plan to learn more about it when I have the time. I will say it is hard to compare the profitability of sports betting to card counting. Card counting is very technical and by the book. Making money sports betting requires more judgement and is more subject to opinion. There are various strategies one can employ to make money sports betting, for example looking to arbitrage games by taking both sides at different casinos under different point spreads, looking to exploit unusual proposition bets, or going after correlated parlays. I would recommend ’Sharp Sports Betting’ by Stanford Wong for more information on winning at sports betting.

This is an oversimplified method of counting cards. Better yet survey all the cards on the table. If you see a lot of small cards, especially fives and sixes, and few large cards, especially aces, then raise your bet. If you see the opposite then lower your bet. The fewer the decks the better this will work. Better yet use an actual count system like the ace/five.

Mathematically speaking this is the same as playing from an eight deck game. Players have been known to be fooled, incorrectly thinking these are double deck games. For card counting purposes the penetration is 50 out of 416, or 12.02%.

This would be a good time to either bet small, go to the bathroom, or just leave, depending on your style of play. Personally I hate bouncing up and down and would just bet small. There are lots of books that explain specifically how to count cards. However for the amateur if you see a disproportionate number of tens and aces leave the deck bet less. Likewise bet more if lots of small cards leave the deck, especially fives and sixes. Thanks for your kind words about my site.

Good question. My educated guess is that if the index numbers were not rounded then it would be greater than 0 but less than one half. So it is getting rounded down to zero. Making the index number 1 would result in more of a rounded error, causing players in slightly positive decks to hit when they should stand.

Every legitimate blackjack expert agrees the house edge decreases as the number of decks goes down, all other rules being equal. However it is hard to explain why. First, it is true that you are more likely to get one small card and one big card in single-deck than multiple-deck. For example if we define a small card as 2 through 6, and a large card as any 10-point card or ace then the probability of getting one of each in single deck is 2*(20/52)*(20/51) = 30.17%. The probability in 8-decks is 2*(160/416)*(160/415) = 29.66%. Although stiffs can cut both ways the player has the free will to stand, the dealer must always hit them.

Yes. Have a look at Beejack. Most, but not all, casinos shuffle after every hand. I don't know if it practical to actually use this product. If you try it please let me know how you do, I might like to try it myself.

Note: The link to Beejack was removed in 2014, due to a potential virus with that site. Proceed there with caution.

Without knowing anything else, if you lost the last hand in blackjack then it is slightly more likely that more small cards than large just left the deck. This would make the remaining deck more large card rich and thus lower the house edge. However I speculate this is an extremely small effect. Yet it does go to show that if you must use a betting system one that increases the bet after a loss is better than one that increases after a win. I hesitate to put this in writing at all because again the effect is probably very small and I fear system sellers will misquote me and imply I endorse any system, which I DO NOT.

No, it would be both harder and less powerful to only count the large cards. You may misunderstand how the plus/minus counts work. The high cards count as -1 and the low cards as +1 and you keep a running total as you play. So most cards offset each other and the running count tends to stay close to zero. So you are only keeping track of one number. If you only tracked high cards the total would run high and then you would have to carefully divide it by the number of remaining cards. Even assuming you were good at estimating the number of remaining cards the division would be difficult to do well.

Thanks for the kind words. To answer question one, baccarat is not countable for all practical purposes. I have wondered about your second question myself. I used to use Uston’s Plus/Minus but switched to Wong’s Hi/Low. Looking back I don’t think Wong’s hi/low is much more powerful, but there is much more information about it. My blackjack appendix 7 shows that removing a 2 from each deck adds 0.39% to the player’s return and removing a 7 only adds 0.29%. So if you must track only one the 2 is better. The Knockout Count tracks both the 2 and 7. My opinion is if you haven’t taken up counting yet then the 2-6 Hi/Low is the marginally better way to go, however if you already use something else you should probably stick with that.

I can’t speak for Canada very well but backrooming a card counter would be illegal in the United States. That tactic is only allowed in cases of cheating. However it still has been known to happen. Fortunately in such cases where the counter sued the case the counter won. If I may say I think Canada is more mellow and non-confrontational than the U.S. so I would guess the probability of getting backroomed is even lower there. Although you didn’t ask about it, jumping by a factor of 20 sets off a huge red flag. Most counters who don’t want to attract attention don’t increase their bet by more than a factor of 2 at one time. This is also my policy, unless I feel there is no heat at all.

There was discussion about this at www.bj21.com under the Green Chip section about a couple years ago. As I recall the consensus was that counting was not as advantageous as in blackjack but you could get away with a lot more. I know of no published material on this.

There is a lot written about card counting simply because the books sell. I suspect many people watch a movie like Rain Man and get interested in card counting. Then they buy a book and realize it is too hard or give it a try and get discouraged because they lose. Only the most patient, devoted, and well financed players stick with it.

You could test for how often the same card appears in two consecutive hands. Considering only the four initial cards dealt and assuming all four are different the expected number of those cards seen in the next hand is 16/52 = 0.307692, assuming the cards are shuffled after every hand. If you see fewer repeats than would argue that the cards are not shuffled after every hand. If the cards are not shuffled between hands the expected number of repeats seen would be 4*(4d-1)/(52d-4), where d is the number of decks. It is easier, but less reliable, to just ask customer support.

It is my policy not to count in Las Vegas. Since I live here I don’t want to make any enemies out of prospective clients. So I am allowed to play blackjack at all but two casinos locally. However last January I went to Reno and Lake Tahoe for a few days and was told not to play blackjack at four different casinos.

In would say in a large Strip type casino the number of counters who know what they are doing on a given night is in my best guess one half of a single person (or two casinos would have one person). The reason I think it is this low is in my many hundreds of hours at the blackjack tables I only spotted other counters twice.

What I meant was half of one person, or one person for every two casinos. However you were not the only person I confused so I reworded my original answer to say half on one person, not half of everyone playing.

Unless you are counting cards it doesn’t make any difference. If you are counting cards then it is like decreasing the penetration by one card.

The only time I might play for fun is if I am entertaining somebody visiting Vegas and am just out gambling with them. Otherwise I always look for an edge. I also play new games sometimes just to ensure that I understand the rules correctly. I don’t want to give away all my secrets but card counting and positive expectation video poker are definitely two games in my bag of tricks.

The easiest counting method is what I call the "eyeball" method, in which if you see lots of small cards come out then increase your bet, and vise versa. However this is better suited to one and two deck games. For 6 or 8 deck games I would recommend the ace/five count. This requires only counting aces and fives. According to Ken Uston in Million Dollar Blackjack this give the player an additional 0.5% with just a 1 to 3 unit bet range. That is enough to overcome the house edge in most games.

Face down. Not being allowed to see other player cards until the end of the hand gives the player less information, which works against card counters.

Interesting. Basically this looks like a two-way clicker to help the player keep track of the running count in blackjack. From what I read there is no true count conversion or index number help. Still knowing the running count and betting accordingly is much better than not counting at all. It is also a clever disguise. However be aware that using any device to help calculate the probabilities on any game in a Nevada casinos is a felony and carries a punishment comparable to bank robbery.

Good question. If the counter were tipping then the dealer has the choice of not telling and getting more tips or tattling to get on the good side of casino management. I think it in large part comes down to the attitude of the dealer, whether he is rooting for the player or the casino. Dealers who are loyal to their employer first will probably tell, and tipping may not help. Dealers share tips so the dealer you give your tip to may only get 1% of it. Tipping cynical dealers who resent tip sharing won’t buy you much cover. In my opinion dealers loyal to the casino are more likely to be women than men and Asians over any other race. One of my blackjack books goes into this in more detail but I can’t remember which one. The decision to tip is hotly debated in the counting community and many counters follow the Stanford Wong philosophy of only tipping if the cover it buys you is more than in value than the tip itself. This may explain the joke that the difference between a counter and a canoe is that a canoe sometimes tips. Other counters tip anyway whether they think it buys them cover or not because they believe in tipping.

You’re welcome, thanks for the compliment. There is still some point, especially with a full table. However under typical single deck rules (dealer hits soft 17, no double after split) I don’t think it is enough to overcome the 0.19% house edge.

Yes! If you count sevens as -12 and all other cards as +1 then the odds on the side bet swing to the player’s advantage with a true count (running count divided by remaining decks) of 5 or greater. According to my simulations in six-deck game with no three-card guarantee and 75% penetration the true count is 5 or greater 23.2% of the time and the player advantage at these times averages 27.3%. In the game with a three-card guarantee the average advantage goes up to 29.1%.

Flat betting and only five spots, I think not. However if you bet seven spots and progressively more on each spot to be played then yes. This is called depth charging and is treated lightly in the book Burning the Tables in Las Vegas by Ian Andersen.

In all honesty this is an old question but I got a better answer from Chris F.. He correctly says the reason is that when the basic strategy charts are created they assume the player’s first two cards and the dealer’s up card have already been removed from the deck. A good example of this is that in single deck the correct play is to stand on 7,7 against a 10, because half of the sevens in the deck are already gone, and that is what you need to beat a dealer 20 with 3 cards.

In the case of 16 against a 10 the player’s hand is either composed of a 10 and 6 or a 9 and 7. Either way two cards that would bust the player by hitting have been removed. So the deck is slightly rich in small cards that will not bust the player, giving the player an incentive to hit. While this is true I was skeptical because in an infinite deck game the odds still favor hitting. However except in a few Internet casinos an infinite deck is just an abstraction. I was curious what would be the best play in an 8-deck game if the dealer just said without dealing a single card "You have a 16 and I have a 10, but don’t have a blackjack." Using the blackjack analyzer at gamblingtools.net (site no longer exists), I entered eight decks and then carefully depleted the deck of 1 of every card, except only no sixes, and 2 tens. Then I gave the dealer a 10 and myself a 10 and 6. So the player was playing this hand against a neutral deck with 31 of each card A-9 and 124 tens. Here is the expected values:

Although the expected value numbers are the same the applet highlights standing as the better play, presumably because it is higher beyond four decimal places. It is the same if I remove the following: A,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,10,10 to simulate 9,7 vs 10, because the player is going against the exact same neutral shoe.

It just goes to show how powerful the effect of removal is, even when just three cards in an eight-deck game. Getting back the original question, a zero count reflects a totally neutral deck after the player’s two cards and dealer’s up card have been accounted for. So as I just showed going into a neutral deck the odds favor standing. The reason hitting is correct in an infinite deck is because there is no effect of removal. If you accidentally hit a 16 vs 10 in a neutral shoe, and got a low card, then the dealer would have a better chance of getting a 10 in the hole. This fact is reflected in the higher expected value for standing in an 8-deck game, but would not matter in an infinite deck. For the record, here are the expected values in an infinite deck game:

The Barbary Coast is notorious for having a low tolerance for counters. I wouldn't worry about the incident going past the memory of that pit boss. What happened to you is known as a "back off", which is nothing more than a warning. To get in the Griffin Book of undesirable players you need to be a much more serious threat. I don't know Griffin's secrets but in my estimation you need to be a black chip counter and have been backed off or read the trespass act several times before you make it in the book for the reason of card counting.

Even 6 to 5 blackjack can be beaten if the penetration is close to 100% and a huge bet spread is used. Sometimes counters will play such games because they can get away with much more. The decision must be made on a case by case basis.

I was recognized in Reno when counting once, although it may have been by dealer who knew me personally and tattled. It is a long and bizarre story. Aside from that I don’t play often, nor for high stakes, so the threat I pose is fairly small and not worth the fuss of memorizing another face.

Thanks for the kind words. If I’m playing basic strategy (as opposed to counting) I tend to stand if there is already a four or five in my hand. If it is a face-up game, with other players, I scan the table and just use my best judgment.

Mathematically speaking, third base is best because you have seen more cards by the time it is your turn, and thus have more information. However, given six positions at the table, I personally prefer the fourth position because I have a better view of the entire table.

I hope you’re happy, I spent a week on this, off and on. Using the hi-low strategy you’ll need to spread to 4 or 5 units in a six-deck game. However, I devised a much simpler adaptation of the ace/five count. You can read all about it in my section on the Wizard Ace/Five Count.

Measured in terms of the house edge, the number of other players doesn’t matter. Yes, they will eat up cards when the count is good, but they will also do so when the count is bad. In the long run it doesn’t matter. However, in terms of expected wins per hour, when you have an advantage, it helps to have fewer players, because you will play more hands in the same amount of time.

At some count you should start to accept insurance. However, the point of the ace/five is to be simple. If you’re willing to memorize index numbers you should learn a more robust count strategy, like the plus/minus.

I hope you’re happy; I spent two days running simulations to answer this one. For the benefit of others, let me briefly summarize both arguments. The Cut-Card Effect states the house edge is less in a continuously shuffled game, as opposed to a cut-card game, all other things being equal. The "Floating Advantage" concept states that for the card counter the odds get better the deeper into the deck or shoe the dealer gets. According to Stanford Wong, "...after we have counted the deck down to where n decks are left, the edge with a count of zero is about the same as if we had started with n decks." - Blackjack Attack, third edition, page 71. So, for example, the house edge in a six-deck with one deck left, at a count of zero, has about the same house edge as a single-deck game with the same rules.

Unfortunately the Floating Advantage does not benefit non-counters. While they will benefit, unknowingly, at close to neutral true counts, they will do worse at extremely high and low counts. According to Schlesinger, "Seems that, at the one-deck level, extremely high counts produce less edge than expected for the basic strategist (many pushes) and the extreme negative counts were found to be even more unfavorable than previously thought (doubles, splits, and stands tend to be disastrous)." - Blackjack Attack, third edition, page 70.

As I understand it, the reason the counter benefits from the Floating Advantage, even if he may not know about it, is that he bets more when the Floating Advantage works to his advantage, and less when it doesn’t. For the non-counter, who doesn’t know when the Floating Advantage is strongest, the pros and cons exactly cancel each other out.

In conclusion, both the Cut-Card Effect and Floating Advantage are distinct topics and do not contradict each other. To compare them is to compare apples and oranges. For more information please read chapter 6 in Blackjack Attack by Don Schlesinger.

You didn’t tell me the number of decks, but assuming six the house edge is 5.66%. Here is the return table.

Just eyeballing it, I would say aces would be the best card to track, betting into an ace-rich deck. My advice would be to count aces as −12 and all other cards as +1.

I wanted to keep the ace-five count as simple as possible, so I didn’t want to mention a true-count conversion. However, you may make one yourself if you wish. Just divide the running count by the number of decks remaining. You don’t need to be perfect in either the deck estimation or the math; a rough guess will be fine. The greater the true count, the more you should bet.

If different counters were using different count strategies at the same table the bet amounts would be highly correlated. Most of the time they would all bet big or all bet small. The close to neutral counts may see some diversity. When the bet sizes are different, the counters with the more difficult, and thus more efficient, strategies are probably right. There is a good table at Casino Verite on the index numbers and efficiency of various popular card counting strategies.

According to the famed “Illustrious 18” table in Don Schlesinger’s “Blackjack Attack” insurance is the single most valuable hand to the counter, in terms of value gained by making count dependent strategy changes. The value of taking insurance, when the true count is +3 or more, adds 0.117% to the player’s overall advantage, based on the hi-low count, spreading 1 to 8. However this does not come close to half the total advantage from strategy changes. Looking only at the top 18 count dependent plays (the Illustrious 18), plus the top 4 count dependent surrenders (the Fab Four) the total value to the counter is 0.469%. So correct insurance accounts for only 25% of the value of strategy changes. A good counter will gain about another 1% by betting more in good counts. So taking away the insurance option reduces the total value of counting by only about 8%. In the UK it would be slightly less because you can still insure with a blackjack. The advantage figures are rough and depend on lots of things. The value of all surrender deviations is about the same of insurance deviations.

More than doubling your bet at once sets off a red flag that you’re counting. That would increase your advantage, but at the risk of being backed off from the table. My advice is to not do it. Leaving the shoe in a low count is a well-known trick. That is a great time to hit the bathroom or pretend your cell phone is vibrating. It is up to you at what point to do this. There is a tradeoff between suffering a shoe with a negative EV and looking like a counter jumping in and out all the time.

You’re welcome. Card counters usually prefer to play by themselves, all other things being equal. This is for various reasons, including more hands per hour, fewer distractions, and nobody to shorten their life expectancy via his/her second-hand smoke. Once when I was caught counting on a cruise ship, the casino manager was kind enough to list all the red flags I raised, and it was an embarrassingly long list. One was playing at 3 A.M., when the casino was almost empty, and another was playing alone. So, this casino manager at least felt counters were more of a risk late at night. Given that experience, I think blending in at busy times outweighs the better conditions at slow times.

About losing the count, I recommend getting a deck of cards and flipping them over two at a time, keeping the count as you go. Try to get through the deck, with an accurate count, within 25 seconds.

Thank you for the compliment. The Sienna is a classy casino, my favorite in Reno. They are also one of the few places with a liberal single-deck game in Reno, in which you may double on any first two cards. You should not ask permission to play, because they would be unlikely to reverse themselves. Your odds are much better waiting before coming back. Four months is pushing it on the delay, I would skip them a trip, and wait eight months.

Yes! That side bet is extremely vulnerable to card counters. As long as the minimum is not too low, you should be using another strategy to exploit it, one that treats aces as a low card. Arnold Synder presents such a strategy in The Big Book of Blackjack. Otherwise, if you are using a standard hi-lo count, Synder says to only make the Over bet in very high counts.

That has actually happened to me. If you were backed off, then you just can’t play in the casino any longer. If you were barred, you can’t even enter. I suppose if you did not comply, and were caught, they might make you get off at the next port, and not let you get back on. Signage on my last cruise indicated they will do that if they catch you with illegal drugs.

A burned card is just like any unseen card left in the shoe. You don’t have to assume it is anything. In the Knock-Out count you can completely ignore it, because there is no true count conversion. In the Hi-Lo, or any count with a true count conversion, a perfectionist would add the number of burn cards to the number of cards remaining in the deck. However, since there is usually just one burn card, it can be safely ignored under any card counting strategy.

A minor reason is to foil card counters. However, instead of burning x cards, the dealer could move the cut card x cards forward, and achieve the same purpose. The major reason is game protection. For one, the player might catch a glimpse of the top card, and alter his bet and strategy, based on this information. Such a tactic would not be cheating, I might add. The top card is also vulnerable to lots of cheating schemes. It could be marked, the dealer could peek at it, or force a desired card to the top. If for any reason the dealer knew what the top card was, he could signal that information to a confederate player, giving him a huge advantage.

Lest any experts in blackjack history correct me, Lawrence Revere has a chapter on the Revere Ten Count Strategy in his classic work Playing Blackjack as a Business. This strategy requires keeping two counts, one of tens, and one of everything else. Play and bet amount is then dictated by the ratio of these two counts. In my opinion, this strategy is too difficult to use. I have yet to meet anybody who actually practices this count.

The Speed Count requires only counting low cards, offset by adjustments in the number of hands played. There are no adjustments for the number of decks left, known as a "true count conversion." If you really hate negative numbers, you will probably never see one with the Speed Count, although one subtraction per round is required. The effectiveness and ease of use are a topic of hot debate in the blackjack community. For more information, please read my review .

If negative numbers are the only issue, my webmaster Bluejay notes that you could adjust any counting system that does not involve a true count conversion, like the Knock Out, by starting at a higher number. Of course, you should adjust all the index numbers by the same amount.

I have not studied the effect of card counting of that bet for myself. However, Arnold Snyder has, and his results can be found in his Big Book of Blackjack. There he says you should make the bet in a six-deck game if it is the last two decks, and the count is +10 or greater, using the Red Sevens count. In a double-deck game he says to bet in the last deck, and a count of +6 or greater.

I don’t blame you for wanting to avoid other players. They slow down the game, and if they smoke, they pose a health hazard. However, it shouldn’t matter whether they are good or bad. Just about all Vegas casinos have some mixture of continuous shufflers, automatic shufflers, and hand-shuffled games. For details on blackjack rules, including type of shuffle and penetration, there is no substitute for the Current Blackjack News, for which a paid membership is required.

They make you walk the plank.

Just kidding. Speaking only for the Norwegian Star, they politely inform you that blackjack is off limits, but you’re still welcome to play any other game. The same way they usually do in land-based casinos. Other cruise ships probably do the same thing.

Let's ignore the house edge for the sake of simplicity. If the player’s two stopping markers are a win of $5,000 or a loss of $35,000, then the probability of reaching the winning marker is 7/8. The probability of doing that during 30 consecutive trips is (7/8)³⁰ = 1.82%. So, this could easily be just good luck. I’d let him play until you determine why and how he is beating you.

This brings to mind a very good book I just read, Casino-ology, by Bill Zender. The main thrust of the book is that casino management is much too paranoid about advantage play. The overreaction to it is slowing down play and annoying legitimate customers, the cost of which is much more than what is saved by catching a few extra advantage players.

The game shuffles after every hand, so the count is always zero at the start of the hand. However, when there is a cut card, a negative count tends to be very slightly correlated to positive results since the start of the shoe. That is because the negative count means that more good cards than bad have already been played, which would have been good for the player.

Short answer, no.

Long answer, If the numbers of 7s, 8s, and 9s are all twice what they should be, then the player should double 12 against a 6. However, how often does that happen? Even if it did, the best of card counting strategies would not identify the situation. For confirmation, I asked Don Schlesinger, author of Blackjack Attack, who said, "We kicked that around on the sites, and, with normal count systems, the answer was never."

I agree, that does seem like a good advantage play. At the 5dimes live casino game they offer the following rules:

• 6 decks.
• One burn card at the beginning of the shoe, and one with every dealer change, which occur every 30 minutes. If the supervisor has to step in, which I’ve seen happen twice, then three cards are burned.
• Dealer stands on soft 17.
• Early surrender, except against an ace.
• Double after split allowed.
• Split to two hands only.
• No hole card, but player loses original bet only to dealer blackjack.
• Bet ranges: $5-$250, $10-$250, or $25-$500

The house edge under these rules is 0.24%.

The rules say the penetration is 75%. Twice I counted the number of cards seen per shoe, and I got 211 both times, which is 68%. Shortow, a member of my forum, placed two videos of the cut card placement on YouTube: Video 1 Video 2. It looks to me like the penetration was a little deeper in video 2. I would say it ranges from 60% to 70%, depending on the dealer.

Not only could the player easily count this game, but he could use a calculator on a separate screen to make perfect decisions. The Blackjack Real Time Analzyer is one product that does this. However, I have no idea what kind of game protection they employ. With every card scanned, it would not be difficult to determine the correlation between count and bet size and raise a red flag if the correlation was sufficiently positive.

If you give it a try, I'd be interested to know what happens.

This question was raised and discussed in the forum of my companion site Wizard of Vegas.

The following table shows the effect on the player's expected return by removing one card from a six-deck shoe, according to whether the dealer hits or stands on a soft 17. For example, if the dealer stands on soft 17, and the burn card is a five, then the house edge drops by 0.146%.

The table above assumes otherwise "liberal Strip rules," which allow double after split, late surrender, and re-splitting pairs (including aces) up to three times. The table was created using the Composition Dependent Combinatorial Analyzer at bjstrat.net.