Card Counters’ Basic Strategy: Is It For You?

by Hal Marcus
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XXIII, #4, Winter 2003/04
© 2003 Blackjack Forum

[Note from Arnold Snyder: The purpose of this article is to help players who are already counting cards to decide if they should use a fixed, altered version of blackjack basic strategy for their playing decisions, rather than varying their playing strategy by the count.]

Card Counting Basic Strategy, Introduction

One day in 1999 I started thinking about the different ways a player can gain an advantage over the casino through card counting:

1. Count cards and use the count to change your bet while using Basic Strategy;
2. Count cards and use the count to deviate from Basic Strategy while flat betting;
3. Count cards and use the count to both change your bet and deviate from Basic Strategy.

Number 3 produces the greatest gain while requiring the greatest amount of effort. When using number 3, one can mitigate the effort required to a large extent by memorizing just the Top 16 indexes compared to a full table of 160+ indexes.

[Note from Arnold Snyder: The “Top 16” indexes referred to in this article are the 16 most important basic strategy deviations in a shoe game to a card counter’s win rate. They are: Insurance, 16 v. 10, 16 v. 9, 15 v. 10, 13 v. 2, 13 v. 3, 12 v. 2, 12 v. 3, 12 v. 4, 12 v. 5, 12 v. 6, 11 v. A, 10 v. 10, 10 v. A, 9 v. 2, and 9 v. 7. For the count at which you deviate from basic strategy for the playing of these hands, see your card counting system.]

Standard blackjack Basic Strategy ignores the bet spread that card counters use when the count indicates the deck has switched to a player advantage. The development of a Count Index Playing Strategy considers the count to determine when to deviate from Basic Strategy, but also ignores the bet spread. What kind of strategy could be developed if the bet spread were taken into account?

Let’s consider a six-deck game, 16 v. 10, where Surrender is not allowed. The Basic Strategy decision is hit. When using the Hi-Lo set of point count values, the index in the Count Index Playing Strategy is 0, meaning you should deviate from Basic Strategy and stand when the True Count >=0.

My thought was what is the best way to play 16 v. 10 all the time when factoring in the increase in your bet when the True Count >=0? If you are not going to deviate from Basic Strategy based on the count, does there exist a modified Basic Strategy that would improve your win rate?

Let’s call the modified Basic Strategy, to be modified to take into account a card counter’s bet-size variation, Card Counting Basic Strategy (CCBS).

In designing such a strategy, one thing I had to research was how sensitive the resulting set of modifications would be to variations in the bet spread and deck penetration? Things could get unwieldy quickly if there were substantial differences among Card Counting Basic Strategies as you used different bet spreads and factored in different levels of penetration.

For instance, if you use three different bet spreads, depending on the casinos you play, and experience four different levels of penetration at those casinos, you could be facing 12 different combinations and thus 12 possible sets of Card Counting Basic Stategies.

Developing a Card Counting Basic Strategy: Methodology

The Blackjack 6-7-8 Software, from within the program’s “Develop A Playing Strategy” module, provides for the development of a Card Counting Basic Strategy. First, let’s discuss how the program develops Basic Strategy, which is done by simulation instead of by using combinatorial analysis. The parameters to choose are:

1. number of decks
2. penetration
3. whether the dealer hits or stands on soft 17

To replicate the results from using combinatorial analysis, one would choose the penetration to be a shuffle after each round. I preferred to choose a level of penetration that represents what you will experience at thetables, such as 75% for a 6-deck game.

Then the Blackjack 6-7-8 software takes each 2-card combination (for 16, for example, the 2-card combinations are 10-6, 9-7, and 8-8) and plays blackjack against the various dealer upcards. For one cycle, the program will stand each time. On the next cycle the program will hit each time, etc. until all the decisions have been played.

The results for the different two-card combinations are then combined by weighting the outcome for each two-card combination by a factor that reflects how often the two-card combination appears (for 16, 10-6 appears more often because there are four times as many 10s in the shoe as other types of cards). Once the results are compiled for the two-card combination for each decision, the result with the largest win determines the correct playing decision.

To derive CCBS, the parameters chosen consist of the three parameters stated above for Basic Strategy plus two more:

4. Betting Strategy (table of the counts with the bet amount at each count;
5. Set of point count values

The process for developing CCBS begins with the process used for Basic Strategy, modified to use the count for each hand to determine the bet amount. The program tracks the result for each hand which reflects the bet amount. For example, consider this Betting Strategy:

Count	Bet Amount
<=1	5
2	10
3	20
4	40
5	80

(You may use a different Betting Strategy to reflect optimal values for risk of ruin, but tests have shown no difference in the CCBS playing decisions for an optimal set of bet amounts vs. the ones in the talbe above, as long as each uses the same bet range from lowest to highest bet.)

Take 9 v. 2. For six decks, Basic Strategy says hit because the expected value from hitting is greater than from doubling down. The development of Card Counting Basic Strategy considers the result based on the bet according to the count for each hand played. For example, you win more of your double downs at the higher counts, and since you bet more at the higher counts, those wins contribute more to the positive part of the result compared to the losses from doubling down at the lower counts with a smaller bet. For certain decisions, this effect results in a deviation, or modification, of Basic Strategy.

Results of Play All with Card Counting Basic Strategy

For S17, DAS and LS, there are 17 playing decision changes from Basic Strategy. For instance, with Card Counting Basic Strategy you should double 9 v. 2. For 16 v. 10, when you can’t surrender, you should stand instead of hit. All the decision differences between Basic Strategy and CCBS are depicted later in the article. The effort required to master CCBS is the same as the effort required for Basic Strategy. And you don’t have to learn and recall any indexes.

What if your bet spread is 8 to 1 instead of 16 to 1? I hope you don’t use an 8 to 1 bet spread unless you’re doing quite a bit of Wonging in/Wonging out. But let’s assume you were to use an 8 to 1 bet spread and play all. Compare using Card Counting Basic Strategy developed with a 16 to 1 bet spread vs. Card Counting Basic Strategy developed with an 8 to 1 bet spread—there is no significant difference in win rate.

There is also no significant difference in win rate when using a Card Counting Basic Strategy developed with 83% penetrations vs. a CCBS developed with 75% penetration. This is good news if you were concerned about needing a plethora of CCBS tables in your arsenal.

You might find significant differences in win rates when comparing Card Counting Basic Strategy for extreme measures, such as 50% vs. 83% penetration, or a 4 to 1 bet spread vs. a 16 to 1 bet spread. You can also use the same Card Counting Basic Strategy with a variety of sets of point count values (such as Hi-Lo, K-O, and Red 7).

Let’s consider three scenarios for 6-deck, S17, DAS, resplit all pairs up to four hands, late surrender, insurance, with a 16 to 1 bet spread: 1) Hi-Lo for betting coupled with Basic Strategy; 2) Hi-Lo for betting and CCBS for playing decisions; and 3) Hi-Lo for betting and the Top 16 indexes for playing strategy. Here are the results from running simulations of 500 million rounds for each scenario (many of you use a bet unit higher than $5—naturally you would just multiply the dollar amounts listed here by the appropriate factor for your betting):

Scenario	Win Rate	Win Amount, $100 Average Bet/Hand, 16 Hrs of Play
1-Basic	.9062%	$1,450
2-CCBS	.9599%	$1,536
3-Sweet 16	1.0561%	$1,690

Card Counting Basic Strategy (Scenario 2) produces a 6% increase in amount won compared to Scenario 1, while using the Sweet 16 indexes (Scenario 3) yields a 10% gain over using CCBS.

Why Use A Special Card Counting Basic Strategy?

Perhaps you use a Count Index Playing Strategy, such as the Top 16 indexes, and are wondering why you should consider Card Counting Basic Strategy when you can wring a higher win rate by varying your playing strategy based on the count. First, you may make enough mistakes in trying to quickly recall whether to deviate from Basic Strategy that you negate the benefit of using count indexes.

But perhaps more significantly, Card Counting Basic Strategy provides potential camouflage. As casino surveillance has advanced to the point of being able to detect when a player correctly deviates from Basic Strategy, the length of your session becomes reduced.

In theory, with Card Counting Basic Strategy, since for quite a few playing decisions (17 decisions in this article’s illustration), you can always deviate from Basic Strategy, it may take casino surveillance longer to conclude that you are a skilled player. This should reduce the chance of getting barred. In addition, your table sessions can be longer, and you may have a higher dollar expectation per casino visit compared to using a Count Index Playing Strategy.

Let’s say that you are able to get away with playing 45-minute sessions when using a Count Index Playing Strategy. Using Card Counting Basic Strategy instead of a Count Index Playing Strategy, if you were able to extend your session by just five minutes, to 50 minutes per session, due to the camouflage benefit of Card Counting Basic Strategy, your expected dollar win would be the same as using a Count Index Playing Strategy for 45 minutes.

Card Counting Basic Strategy with Wonging In

What happens when you only play if the True Count >=1? The following table provides the results of the same three scenarios as before, with a 16 to 1 bet ratio: 1) Hi-Lo for betting coupled with Basic Strategy; 2) Hi-Lo for betting and Card Counting Basic Strategy for playing decisions; and 3) Hi-Lo for betting and Top 16 indexes for playing strategy.

Scenario	Win Rate	Win Amount, $100 Average Bet/Hand, 16 Hrs of Play
1-Basic	1.7114%	$2,738
2-CCBS	1.8394%	$2,943
3-Sweet 16	1.8804%	$3,009

Using CCBS produces an expected win of $205 more than using Basic Strategy while only giving up $66 to Top 16. Therefore, when you use a Wong-in tactic, CBS gets you very close to the result of the Top 16.

And with the camouflage potential of using CCBS, you should be able to extend the length of your playing sessions. Playing for 16 hours, 22 minutes instead of 16 hours (2% longer), your expected win using CCBS would be the same as it would with Sweet 16. Let’s say you could squeeze in an extra two hours of play with CCBS compared to using Sweet 16. Then CCBS would lead to an expected win of $3,311—$302 more than Sweet 16.

When Wonging in, you may want to reduce your bet spread to increase the longevity of your playing sessions. The following table shows the results of an 8 to 1 bet ratio (bet 40 for count >=4).

Scenario	Win Rate	Win Amount, $100 Average Bet/Hand, 16 Hrs of Play
1-Basic	1.4639%	$2,342
2-CCBS	1.5504%	$2,481
3-Sweet 16	1.5810%	$2,530

Using CCBS produces an expected win of $188 more than using Basic Strategy while giving up $49 to Top 16. Here it takes 19 minutes of additional play (a total of 16 hours, 19 minutes instead of 16 hours) for CCBS to yield the same expected dollar win as Top 16. For 18 hours of CCBS play vs. 16 hours of Top 16, CCBS would generate an expected profit of $2,791 vs. $2,530 for Top 16, an increase of $261.

The Card Counting Basic Strategy Playing Strategies

This table depicts the 17 CCBS decisions that differ from the playing decisions in standard blackjack Basic Strategy:

16 v. 10	Stand
15 v. A	Surrender (1)
12 v. 3	Stand
11 v. A	Double
9 v. 2	Double
8 v. 6	Double
A8 v. 5	Double (2)
A8 v. 6	Double (2)
A7 v. 2	Double (2)
A7 v. A	Stand
A6 v. 2	Double (1)
A3 v. 4	Double (1)
99 v. 7	Split
88 v. 10	Surrender (3)
77 v. 10	Surrender (1)
77 v. A	Surrender (1)
44 v. 4	Split
If allowed, otherwise hit.If allowed, otherwise stand.If allowed, otherwise split.

Conclusion

Card Counting Basic Strategy offers a higher win rate for card counters when compared to Basic Strategy because it takes into account the effects on your win rate of using a betting spread. For players who use a Count Index Playing Strategy, such as the Top 16, consider using CCBS for greater session longevity due to the camouflage value of CCBS, and perhaps overall greater longevity in your blackjack playing career.

To do your own CCBS computations, get the Blackjack 6-7-8 Software. For example, using the software, you may wish to analyze different bet spreads and numbers of decks. In addition, you can use various betting constraints, such as never increasing the bet more than twice the prior bet, to see how the different playing strategies compare.

Among the new Blackjack 6-7-8 Strategy Cards, one of the cards represents CCBS—the one titled Blackjack Counter Basic Strategy Card, 4-8 Decks. Each card contains four tables to cover the combinations of H17 & S17, and DAS & no DAS. An item for future study would be to determine whether the playing decisions would change for a CCBS developed for a Wonging in or out scenario, and what the impact on the win rate would be. ♠

Hal Marcus’ official laminated Blackjack Counter Basic Strategy Card, 4-8 Decks are now available for convenient reference during your playing trips.

Although Hal Marcus no longer sells his Blackjack 6-7-8 Software, you can run all the strategy simulations you can think of with Norm Wattenberger’s Casino Verite Blackjack Software.

The “Up and Down” Betting System For Card Counting Camouflage

by Arnold Snyder
© 1995 Arnold Snyder
[From Card Player, February 1995]

Question from a Reader:  What do you think of a betting strategy for card counting where you always come off the top of the shoe with a midsize bet, say $25, then cut back to smaller bets, say $20, then $10 and even $5 as the count goes down, but raise up to $50 and then $100 as the count goes positive? I call this my “Up & Down” card counting betting system.

All the books I’ve read — and I think I’ve read them all — say that you should always come off the top of the shoe with your low bet. I find I can get away with a much bigger spread with card counting if I come off the top with a midsize bet, then spread up or down with the count. I have been winning more since I started playing this way, but a card counter friend tells me I have just been lucky, and that this “Up & Down” betting strategy is unwise.

Answer:  In order to do a really thorough analysis of your strategy, I’d need a few more facts — the number of decks in play, the shuffle point, the rules, the card counting system you’re using, and the exact count parameters you use to alter your bet size. With all the facts, this would be pretty easy to set up for a computer simulation.

I can give you some general guidelines, however. The books all tell you to come off the top with your minimum bet, because right off the top of the shoe the house has the advantage. Any time the house has the advantage, you’d prefer to bet nothing. This is why many card counters who play against shoes table hop. They literally bet nothing when the count is negative.

Sometimes, conditions are not favorable for table-hopping, and some players — due to factors like poor eyesight or less physical stamina — find that table-hopping is simply not a practical approach to beating the game. In this case, you do need a more substantial betting spread to beat a shoe game than you would need to beat a single or double-decker.

But, let’s say you’re playing in a very paranoid casino, where all you can get away with is a 1-to-4 spread, say $25 to $100. You know if you try to spread from $5 to $100, you’ll set off warning bells in the pit, and the heat will come down.

However, you discover that if you come off the top of the shoe with $25, you set off no warning bells if you later spread down to $5, even if you sometimes later spread up to $100. Is this a preferable betting strategy to the $25-$100 strategy?

Absolutely. In fact, a $25-$100 betting strategy would barely break even in many shoe games. The $5-$100 strategy — even if you come off the top with $25 — is a substantially more profitable method of attack for any card counter in a blackjack game.

Your “Up & Down” method of spreading from $5 to $100 is substantially less profitable than an ideal $5-$100 betting strategy, in which you would come off the top with $5, and only bet more when the advantage goes positive. So, although your up & down betting gets you a 1-to-20 spread, it’s not as powerful as a 1-to-20 spread should or could be, if applied the way the books tell you to bet.

This is the real world, however, and all card counters have to do what they can to camouflage their play. Your “up & down” betting strategy is an excellent form of camouflage, since coming off the top of a shoe with anything other than a low bet is rarely done by card counters. Hey, they’ve all read the same books! As a form of camouflage, up & down betting is not an unintelligent method of getting a profitable spread in an otherwise tough game.

One thing you could do to increase your advantage would be to come off the top with $25, but quickly spread down to $5 or $10, unless the advantage goes to your favor. I.e., don’t just bet $25 any time the count is 0, spreading down only on negatives, as you seem to indicate is your style. After coming off the top with your $25, be aware that unless the count goes up considerably, you have too much money on the table.

Incidentally, you are not the first card counter to use this type of up & down betting strategy. I’ve known many counters over the years who have used variations on this. The late Paul Keen, writing under his pen name, Suzanne Le Counte, described his variation on this style of camouflage betting in Blackjack Forum a few years ago.

Paul primarily played single-deck games in Las Vegas. He would always come off the top with a quarter, then would spread down to two nickels, or up to two quarters, according to the count. Paul played this $10-$50 spread in Las Vegas one-deckers for many years, with very little heat, while players spreading $5-$25 were getting barred all around him.

More than any other factor, card counters are given away by their betting strategies. Any betting camouflage you can pull off successfully will add longevity to your career. The problem with most betting camouflage for card counting is that it is very costly, and you will often risk completely eliminating your advantage over the house if you don’t know what you’re doing.

A less intelligent variation on “up & down” betting is simply “down” betting according to the count. I.e., you always come off the top with your high bet, and spread down if the count goes down, but leave your bet the same if the count goes up. This type of betting strategy would probably buy you untold hours of play in most any casino, but unfortunately, you’re unlikely to be able to beat most shoe games with such an approach.

Up & down betting is a more sensible and powerful method of attack. And, if you think about it, you can improve it even further.♠

Weekend at Camp Hellmuth

by Happy Camper
(From Blackjack Forum , Fall 2006)
© Blackjack Forum 2006

Arrive at Camp Hellmuth—Friday, August 11, 2006

I arrived in Las Vegas at approximately 5:00 p.m. After checking in at Caesar’s Palace, I prepared to meet Phil Hellmuth and the other camp pros. At 7:30 p.m., I attended the welcome reception at the hotel’s Pure Nightclub.

The place was packed and over the next half hour the pros started to arrive: Phil Hellmuth, Antonio Esfandiari, Evelyn Ng (all six feet of her), Scott Fishman, Mark Seif (actually he showed up on Sunday), Michael Mizrachi (ranked #1 in the world this year), Shawn Rice, Mark Kroon (Poker Ho from Ultimate Bet), Gary Debernardi (Ultimate Bet), and Alex O. (Ultimate Bet – he kept hand statistics for the World Poker Tour for 3 years).

Introduced by Phil Hellmuth, everyone took their turn on stage. It didn’t take long to figure out that Phil would be doing most of the talking this weekend; he enjoys the spotlight. Drinks were on the house and it was a first rate affair. Being that I was one of the senior members of the camp, I went to bed early and prepared for the morning.

Day 2—Poker Tournament School Session #1: Joe Navarro

After juice and coffee, the first seminar class started at 9:00 a.m. The presenter was Joe Navarro, M.A. Although he is not a poker player, his session turned out to be the most compelling. Mr. Navarro worked 25 years as an FBI agent and supervisor in the areas of counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism. He now teaches behavioral analysis and nonverbal communications at various universities. He is also a consultant for the State Department and Department of Defense. So what was he doing here? He can spot quirks in your behavior from across the room.

Mr. Navarro talked about the Limbic System, which is a portion of the brain that causes us to exhibit real behavior that we cannot hide. All players have “tells” that are automatic. They may last only a split second, but they can’t stop them. Our job as players is to spot these, and it can be done with practice.

There are 3 survival reactions that are necessary to play poker — the three F’s:

1. Freeze – over control – a threat, probably a strong hand
2. Flight – leaning away from the table after a bad flop
3. Fight – aggressive play, watch carefully

Interestingly, Mr. Navarro said that the most reliable body tells come from the feet, legs and torso. If you guessed the face, wrong, as it is the least reliable body part when it comes to tells. Signs of strength at the table include torso leaning forward, more of arm on table, hands in ready position, and flaring of the nostril wings (yes, the old nose tell). High confidence is shown by fingers laced behind the head, steepling of the fingers, thumb displays, and nose held high. Unless you have a strong hand, fold at these indicators.

Pacifying behaviors include touching the hand to any part of the body, forehead rubbing, neck touching, arm stroking, and hand wringing. Other pacifying behaviors are foot jiggling, lip licking, whistling, exhaling with puffed cheeks and playing with hair (usually women). These are signs of distress and you can raise, raise, raise. If you play with a smoker, look to see if he/she is blowing smoke up (strong hand), or down (weak hand).

Other significant tells include false smiles, half smiles, friendliness, and suppression of normal breathing. These are bluffing behaviors. Showboating by splaying out chips in an unusual manner, intimidating with the eyes, and overemphasis on a bet are also signs of bluffing.

Strong cards are equated with shaking of the hands when betting, nose flair, and gazing from cards to chips. Amateurs may prematurely reach for chips when strong (I saw this on a number of occasions in the Caesar’s card room). Other signs of strength are betting quickly after looking at cards, nonchalance, and trying to strongly convince you of something (rather than trying to inconspicuously convey).

Joe’s final advice at the table is to:

1. Collect intelligence on each player;
2. Note behaviors;
3. Note each person’s arm placement;
4. Note how quickly they reach for chips; and
5. Concentrate on your own behaviors

On both days 1 and 2, afternoon tournaments were held for campers. Joe was amazingly accurate at reading people as he ambled around the poker room. A final note of interest: Joe called Phil about 2 years ago after observing him on TV. He proceeded to tell him that every time Phil was bluffing, he hugged himself tightly. Even the best have tells.

This was a top rate presentation and a great way to kick off the camp. Also, look for a new book, co-authored by Phil and Joe. The title is, “Read ‘Em and Reap”.

Camp Hellmuth Session #2: Antonio “The Magician” Esfandiari

This presentation was interesting only because of my fascination with seeing and talking to professionals. The actual material is available in several poker books. Antonio talked about being the “Wolf”, not the “Sheep”. He implored us to be aggressive, aggressive, and aggressive. This type of play has helped him be successful in tournaments.

He talked about early, middle and late play in tournaments, but again nothing new. He briefly talked about position, but gave nothing substantive with regard to betting strategy. It was interesting how he talked about spreading misinformation about how you play in the early stages of a tournament (lull your opponents into thinking you are a donkey).

His most interesting story was about Gus Hansen. It seems Gus is one of the few people that puts Antonio on the defensive. He said Gus is annoying to play against because he is always betting and there is no way to tell what he has. Antonio also said Gus is a “freak”. He locks himself in a room when learning a new game, and emerges six months later as one of the best players in the world.

Antonio was laid back, but didn’t seem very interested in his presentation. All in all, it was fun to see and hear him, but I didn’t learn anything new.

Camp Hellmuth Session #3: Scott Fishman

I found Scott to be engaging; he conveyed his love and excitement for the game. His presentation was “How to Win Online Sit’N’Go’s”.

Scott has made a living playing 6-7 online sit’n’go’s at a time. He has a defined strategy. He calls these tournaments a great training tool: they provide instant access, they are fast, fit every price tag, require you to learn to change gears, and they afford great experience for final table play (although here, everyone starts with the same amount of chips). It is relatively easy money, as I have found out.

He speaks of the 3 stages at sit’n’go’s:

1. Beginning Stage – You have plenty of chips to play any kind of poker you please. He advised tight play, as blinds are small and pots are small. Don’t lose the tournament here. Look for spots to safely double up (AA, KK or the nuts). Play only premium hands and open with 5 times the big blind so some oaf doesn’t call you and hit a miracle draw. Many players will call for 3x big blind, but usually not for 5x.
2. Middle Stage – This is when a few players have been eliminated and others are down to 8x the big blind. Now lower your opening raise to 2.5x the big blind. This reduces the hit to your stack if you don’t like what you see. Look for spots to raise all-in pre-flop, and steal blinds. Open raise in late position against medium size stacks. If you have 8x big blind, you still have “fold equity”. At 4x big blind you are in “all-in” mode.
3. Late Stage – Endgame starts on the bubble. Super aggressive/reckless play. Every decision, all-in or fold. Still factor in position and stack size. Once the bubble breaks, you can slow down a little bit. Better to push than call.

In conclusion, this strategy will result in a lot of 1sts and 4ths. Opponents will figure it out eventually, but a great way to build bankrolls. This is the best way to build confidence and experience for larger tournaments and final tables.

Camp Hellmuth Poker Tournament #1

After the 3rd session, we were given $40 lunch cards, good anywhere inside Caesar’s Palace (a nice touch). The afternoon session was a tournament from 2:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. All campers participated in a no-limit hold’em tournament with a first prize of $8,000. A portion of your camp entry fee paid for entry into this tournament.

It was great fun playing with all the pros. I sat next to Scott Fishman, Evelyn Ng and Shawn Rice. Unfortunately, I only lasted through the first two and one-half hours of the tournament. However, it was an experience I will always remember and cherish. The pros discussed how they played hands (after completion) and discussed their thought process about each play.

The tournament was played down to 9 players, including pros, and the final table was played at the Sunday evening, farewell banquet. Two of the final table participants were Phil Hellmuth and Michael Mizrachi (they were not eligible for prize money). This ended day 2.

Day 3 Poker Tournament School Session #1: Mark “The Shark” Seif

The first session of the day was presented by Mark Seif. Mark is a successful tournament player with 2 WSOP bracelets. He worked as a prosecutor for the DA’s office in Los Angeles. Mark is articulate and a joy to listen to. His presentation “Winning No Limit Hold’em Tournaments,”had, by far, the most substantive information,

Mark started his presentation with the basics: pay attention; play one table at a time:; change gears as necessary; have patience; play to win the tournament. Just as Arnold Snyder wrote in, “The Poker Tournament Formula,” Mark stressed position, position, position. In early rounds, keep the pots small and have a purpose for every bet. Force your opponents to make the tough decisions.

The discussion about sizing bets was succinct; opening bets (3-4x blinds), probe bets, continuation bets, preventative bets, and controlling pot odds. Nothing startlingly new, but explained concisely and clearly.

The next issue was identifying opponent’s style of play. First was a discussion about identifying “Calling Stations”. Interesting to me, Mark mentioned that Greg Raymer is a “Calling Station”. I didn’t know that. He talked about trapping all-in players and being wary of players who limp under the gun. A key issue that I have not exploited in my play is identifying players’ pressure points. When playing small ball (and wanting your opponent to fold), it is key to find the threshold of bet that your opponent will call, and then bet slightly more than that. This is an element that can be critical to survival in a tournament when your cards hit a dry spell.

Many questions were asked during this presentation and time quickly ran short. In the short time remaining, he reviewed how to exploit a player on tilt. Your play depends upon the player’s behavior while on tilt; whether overly passive, overly tight, or overly aggressive. He briefly discussed being in the “The Zone” and to beware of player’s playing at that level.

His final thoughts were:

1. Assess your opponent’s skill level and experience;
2. Pick the players you can outplay;
3. Watch your opponents look at their cards;
4. Watch how they bet;
5. Watch how they react to you; and
6. Identify betting patterns

This was a solid presentation and will definitely help me to reach the final table and win tournaments. Mark is bright, articulate and friendly. A wonderful experience enjoyed by all in the room.

Camp Hellmuth Session #2: Michael “The Grinder” Mizrachi

Michael Mizrachi was the Poker Pages Player of the Year in 2005, and he leads the WSOP in points for player of the year in 2006. “The Grinder” exhibits a great presence, and I was impressed with his maturity and poise.

His presentation was similar to Mark Seifs’, with a few different twists ands stories. For the sake of some brevity, I shall not go into detail. More was to be heard from Michael in the day #2 tournament.

Camp Hellmuth Session #3: The Whole Crew

The afternoon session was an interactive lesson taught while playing a simulated tournament. Each pro sat in on the tables and discussed every hand that was played. Cards were not mucked, but placed on the rail.

At the completion of each hand, 4 or 5 player’s showed how they played the hand (whether playing or folding). The pros would then dissect what occurred and gave recommendations when mistakes were made. During this session, I sat with Gary DeBernardi, Shawn Rice, Krazy Kanuck, and Scott Fishman. It was very helpful to hear how each pro analyzed each hand. Their actions are dictated by all the table factors; player style, stack size, blind/ante size, and position. This was the most valuable session for me as I literally got in the head of these successful professionals.

Camp Hellmuth Poker Tournament #2

This tournament was a freeze out. There were 18 tables and the final 2 standing at each table would then participate in a 2 ½ hour final. At the conclusion of the final session, the player with the most chips would be declared the winner. The first prize was a $12,000 package to Aruba (including 8 nights stay in a hotel and entry into the $5,000 Aruba Tournament). Needless to say, everyone was trying to play their “A” game and win the trip. Places 2-10 were rewarded with various prizes.

The interesting twist to this tournament was each player had a chip that could be used to summon a pro of his choice, to help with a decision on a particular hand. This chip could only be used once. As the tournament wore on, “The Grinder” became the pro of choice to help with difficult decisions.

In his first twelve recommendations, all of them were the right decision (hands were turned over and cards dealt out to conclusion). He also showed a remarkable ability to accurately name the cards the opponents were holding. It was a most impressive display of card reading, and remember, he was not sitting at most of the tables in which he was called upon to help.

Interestingly enough, his first miss came in hand 13. With 3 players left at my table, he told a player to lay down his hand when I made a bluff on the turn. I had nothing and my opponent had a pair of 10’s. That hand propelled me to finish in the top 2 at my table, and go on to the finals. At the conclusion of this round, I took a break in the hallway and I saw my opponent in that hand muttering angrily to himself (something about trusting his own instincts).

In the finals, I felt pressure to get a good start and build the biggest stack. I did not play well and was knocked out early in the proceedings. It was the most enjoyable experience of my life as a poker player, great fun. The winner, a young man in his late twenties was starry eyed as he accepted to winner’s gift during the evening banquet.

Camp Hellmuth Poker Tournament School Final Banquet

The awards ceremony and final table from the day #1 tournament were the culminating events of the weekend. The food was buffet style, and quite good. Unlimited drinks and a variety of desserts capped off a wonderful time. Truth be told, I did not stay for the conclusion of the final table as I wanted to enter the late evening tournament at Caesar’s. I did not fare well in the tournament, but nearly half of the final table was campers.

In all, this was a first rate affair. Two young gentlemen from Canada orchestrated the entire weekend and I spotted no major glitches. I found the pros to be gracious and accessible. It definitely was worth the $2,000 tuition.

P.S. Phil Hellmuth really likes to talk—a lot.  ♠

Calculating the House Edge for Any Number of Decks and Rules

by Arnold Snyder

(From Blackbelt in Blackjack, 3rd Edition, Cardoza Publishing 2005)
© 2005 Arnold Snyder

Card Counting is Not Enough

Many card counters believe that as long as a game is called “blackjack,” and is being offered by a legitimate casino, they can win by applying their counting systems. But the fact is that while some games can be beaten by card counting strategies many can’t, and table conditions make the difference.

This article will give you simple guidelines you can follow that will help to keep you from throwing your money away in unbeatable games.

First, let’s define table conditions. There are four distinct conditions of any blackjack game that directly affect the profit potential for card counters:

1. The number of decks in play. In U.S. casinos, this may currently range from one to eight.

2. Rules. There are about two dozen common rule variations, and dozens more uncommon variations, in U.S. casinos.

3. Crowd conditions. You may be the only player at the table, or one of as many as seven. Crowded tables mean fewer hands per hour and lower earnings for card counters.

4. Depth of deal, or deck penetration, between shuffles. Anywhere from 2% to 90% of the cards may be dealt out.

The House Edge and Depth of the Deal (Penetration)

Of all of these table conditions, penetration is by far the most important. When I published my first book, The Blackjack Formula, in 1980, many players were skeptical of the weight I gave to the effect of deck penetration. No other authors had mentioned penetration as an important factor up to that time, and I received numerous letters from players who simply could not believe that there was any great difference in profitability between a single-deck Reno game with 55% penetration and one with 65% penetration.

“10% is only five cards!” one player wrote to me. “Yet your formula shows the advantage almost doubling with the same 1 to 4 spread. That’s impossible!” Other card counters, who were playing 4-deck downtown Vegas games with 70% penetration and 1 to 4 spreads, were incredulous of my claim that such a small spread, with such poor penetration, left them with barely a tenth of a percent advantage over the house.

These days, any decent book on card counting will tell you that penetration is the name of the game, but before my book in 1980 no one knew! None of the books on card counting had ever mentioned the importance of deck penetration before.

The general rule is this: The shallower the penetration, the larger the betting spread you must use to beat the game. With a bad set of rules and poor penetration, you may not be able to beat the game with any spread.

In most single deck games, you can’t win big unless more than 50% of the cards are dealt out between shuffles—with Reno rules (double 10/11 only and dealer hits soft 17), make that more than 60%. There are two main reasons for this: One, most single-deck games have poor rule sets; two, you generally can’t get away with a very big spread in single-deck games.

With 2-deck games, you’ll want at least 65% dealt out. (But don’t even bother with a 2-decker when playing Reno rules.) With 4 or more decks, a bare minimum of 70% of the cards should be dealt out. Regardless of the number of decks in play, a 10% difference in penetration will make a huge difference in your profit potential: A 6-deck game with 85% penetration (about 5 decks dealt) is vastly superior to a 6-deck game with only 75% (about 4 ½ decks dealt).

For more information on penetration, and a formula for quickly and easily calculating the profitability of any blackjack game, see the Snyder Profit Index in Chapter 11 of Blackbelt in Blackjack.

This rest of this article will deal with the number of decks in play and the effects of rules on the profitability of blackjack games. Before you can profit from any card counting system, you must overcome the house edge—that is, the cost in percent of playing the game. Below you will find all the information you need to quickly calculate the basic strategy house edge for any number of decks and any set of blackjack rules.

How the House Edge is Affected by the Number of Decks in Play

Now let’s consider the effect of the number of decks shuffled together. All other conditions being equal, single-deck games would be the most profitable for card counters. The more decks being used, the less profitable the game becomes, not only for card counters, but for basic strategy players as well. A single-deck Vegas Strip game (blackjack pays 3:2, double down on any two cards, and dealer stands on soft 17), is pretty close to being a break even proposition for a basic strategy player. With four or more decks in play, and the same set of rules, the house has about a ½ percent edge. Use this chart to estimate your basic strategy (dis)advantage due to the number of decks in play:

# Decks	Advantage
1	+0.02%
2	-0.31%
3	-0.43%
4	-0.48%
5	-0.52%
6	-0.54%
7	-0.55%
8	-0.57%

How the Blackjack Rules Affect the House Edge

The second condition you must consider is the set of rules used on the game. Some rules, notably those that offer the player more options, are favorable to the player, assuming the player applies the correct strategy. Such rules would be surrender, doubling after splitting allowed, resplitting aces allowed, etc. Those rules that limit the player’s options, such as doubling down on 10-11 only, or no resplits, are disadvantageous to the player.

Some rules neither limit nor offer options to the player, but alter the dealer’s procedure. An example of one such rule would be “dealer hits soft seventeen.” This is disadvantageous to the player. An advantageous dealer rule, used occasionally in short-term special promotions, would be “blackjack pays 2-to-1.”

A different type of advantageous rules for the player are the “bonus” rules, such as “dealer pays $XXX bonus to player hand of 6, 7, 8 same suit.” Most bonuses, due to the rarity of the bonus hand(s) occurring, have very small $ value to the player.

Now let’s look at the approximate effect of each rule on your basic strategy expectation. By adding the effect of the number of decks in play to the effects of the rule variations, you will know the house advantage against basic strategy players. Card counters call this the starting advantage, or the advantage off the top.

Most rules, to be sure, affect card counters differently than they affect basic strategy players. The house edge off the top, however, is always an important consideration, as this is what your skillful play must overcome.

For instance, insurance has no value to a basic strategy player, since correct basic strategy is to never take insurance. If a casino disallows insurance, however, this hurts card counters, since counters profit from their selective insurance bets. Likewise, the surrender option has little value to basic strategy players–less than one-tenth of 1 percent increase in expectation. For a card counter, however, surrender is, like insurance, very valuable.

In order to figure out our starting advantage, we need to begin by defining a benchmark game, i.e., a set of standard rules to which we can add or subtract the effects of the rule variations. Most authors define this benchmark game as Vegas Strip rules:

1. Dealer stands on soft 17.
2. You may double down on any 2 original cards.
3. You may not double down after splitting a pair.
4. You may split any pair.
5. You may resplit any pair except aces.
6. Split aces receive only one card each.
7. No surrender.
8. Dealer either receives a hole card, or the player’s original bet only is lost if the player doubles down or splits a pair and the dealer gets a blackjack.
9. Insurance is allowed up to one-half the player’s bet, and pays 2 to 1.
10. Player blackjack is paid 3 to 2.

Now the effect of any other rules must be accounted for in determining your starting advantage. These are the rule effects:

Effects in Percent
Common Rules	1-Deck	2-Deck	Multi-Deck
Double on 10-11 only:	-0.26	-0.21	-0.18
Double on 9-10-11 only:	-0.13	-0.11	-0.09
Hits Soft 17:	-0.19	-0.20	-0.21
No Resplits:	-0.02	-0.03	-0.04
Double After Splits:	+0.14	+0.14	+0.14
Resplit Aces:	+0.03	+0.05	+0.07
Draw to Split Aces:	+0.14	+0.14	+0.14
Late Surrender:	+0.02	+0.05	+0.08
Late Surrender (H soft17):	+0.03	+0.06	+0.09

Less Common Rules
Double on 8-9-10-11 only:	-0.13	-0.11	-0.09
Double on 11 only:	-0.78	-0.69	-0.64
Double 3 or More Cards:	+0.24	+0.24	+0.24
Double after Ace splits:	+0.10	+0.10	+0.10
Double on 3+ cards:	+0.24	+0.23	+0.23
No Ace Splits:	-0.16	-0.17	-0.18
Early Surrender:	+0.62	+0.62	+0.63
Early Surrender (H soft17):	+0.70	+0.71	+0.72
Early Surrender v. 10 only:	+0.19	+0.21	+0.24
BJ Pays 6-to-5:	-1.74	-1.71	-1.71
BJ Pays 1-to-1:	-2.32	-2.28	-2.26
BJ Pays 2-to-1:	+2.32	+2.28	+2.26
Suited BJ Pays 2-to-1:	+0.58	+0.57	+0.56
21 Pushes Dlr. 10-up BJ:	+0.20	+0.20	+0.20
No Hole Card (European):	-0.10	-0.11	-0.11
5-card 21 Pays 2-to-1:	+0.20	+0.20	+0.20
6-card 21 Pays 2-to-1:	+0.10	+0.10	+0.10
Suited 678 Pays 2-to-1:	+0.01	+0.01	+0.01
7-7-7 Pays 3-to-2:	+0.01	+0.01	+0.01
6 Cards Unbusted Wins:	+0.10	+0.10	+0.10
No Insurance:	00.00	00.00	00.00
Multi-Action:	00.00	00.00	00.00
Over/Under:	00.00	00.00	00.00
Royal Match	00.00	00.00	00.00
Super 7s:	00.00	00.00	00.00

Most of these rule effects have been calculated by using data from Peter Griffin’s Theory of Blackjack. Note that the last five rules show effects of 00.00 percent for basic strategy players. When it comes to the “bonus” rules, such as 6,7,8 suited or 7,7,7 pays 2:1, the general rule is to never change your basic strategy to attempt to get a bonus payout.

In some cases, where a specific dollar amount is awarded for the bonus hand, the value in percent is dependent on the player’s bet size. For instance, if 6,7,8 suited pays a $100 bonus, then the value in percent will be quite different for a player who has a $2 bet and a player who has a $200 bet.

The first player would receive a 50:1 payout on his hand, while the second player would receive only an extra half-bet. The $2 bettor would likely be correct in hitting his hand against any dealer upcard, if his hand contained two of the needed suited cards. The $200 bettor would usually be making an error if he hit this hand in violation of his basic/count strategy.

Also, take note of the huge negative effect of “BJ Pays 6-to-5,” a rule now common in many Las Vegas single-deck games. This rule is a killer. And note how much worse yet it is if BJ Pays 1-to-1 (even money), as is standard in all “Super Fun 21” games. All those other “good” rules that the “Super Fun” game allows do not make up for this huge negative. Serious card counters should stick with the traditional “BJ Pays 3:2” games.

Let’s walk through an estimation of our “off the top” expectation in a more typical blackjack game. Consider a standard Atlantic City 8-deck game, which allows double after splits, but no resplits. Our basic strategy expectation is derived by adding together the effects of the number of decks in play, and the rule effects (from the multi-deck column). We get:

8 Decks:	-0.57
Double After Splits:	+0.14
No Resplits:	-0.04
House Advantage:	-0.47%

Blackjack may be just a card game, but you’d better take it as seriously as the casinos do if you expect to beat them. That means paying attention to the house edge from the number of decks and blackjack rules, crowd conditions, and, above all, penetration. Believe me, the casinos are dead serious about beating you. ♠

How to Calculate Poker Tournament Win Rate

by Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum Online)
© Blackjack Forum Online 2007

Is Your Tournament Strategy a Winner?

One of the biggest problems new poker tournament players face is figuring out whether or not they are playing a winning game. And one of the biggest problems they face in evaluating the strategy advice they receive is figuring out whether or not the person who is giving the advice is a winning player who knows what he’s talking about.

The poker world is unique within the professional gambling world in the carelessness with which players’ records and skill are evaluated. The “Player of the Year” ratings at Card Player, for example, are useless in evaluating a players’ skill or the merit of his strategy because the ratings express the players’ records as total win rather than win rate. Total win is a meaningless number. You can have $1 million in earnings over the past three years, with appearances at the final tables of high-profile televised events, and be a losing player, or you can have $1 million in wins over three years, be virtually unknown, and be the best tournament player out there, earning at a phenomenal rate.

Win rate, not wins, is what tells you whether you’re playing a winning game or not, and it has to be a win rate sustained over a statistically significant number of tournaments. Anybody can luck into a big payout in a single event, but it doesn’t mean he’s a winning player. It’s only if a player can sustain a win rate over many tournaments that he can know that he is playing a winning game.

Win rate is simply your total profits divided by your total buy-in costs, multiplied by 100 to express your win rate as a percentage. For example, if you’ve bought into 100 tournaments for $110 each, your total buy-in costs for those tournaments are $11,000. If your total payouts for those tournaments were $34,000, your profits from the tournaments were $34,000 (total payouts) – $11,000 (total
buy-ins) = $23,000. To calculate your win rate, you divide $23,000 (total profits) by $11,000 (total buy-ins), and get 2.09. Multiply 2.09 by 100, and you get a win rate of 209%.

And what if you paid a total of $11,000 to enter 100 tournaments, but your total payouts were only $8000? I’m afraid that puts you into the situation of having to calculate your loss rate. In this case, your loss over the 100 tournaments is $11,000 (total buy-ins) – $8000 (total payouts) = $3000. To calculate your loss rate, you divide $3000 (total losses) by $11,000 (total buy-ins), and get 0.27. Multiply 0.27 by 100 to express the figure as a percentage, and you get a loss rate of 27%.

The Easy Way to Track Your Poker Tournament Win Rate

If you can use a spreadsheet program, like Excel, use it. But if not, you can easily track your win rate with just a pad of paper and a pocket calculator.

In one column, list the tournament cost, including the buy-in, entry fee, rebuys, etc. In another column beside it, list the return in dollars. For example, if you paid $100 + $30 + $50 for one rebuy, the tournament cost was $180. You busted out halfway through, so the return was $0. Example 2: You paid $200 total combined buy-in/entry with no rebuys, so the tournament cost was $200. You placed sixth, which paid $545. The return is $545. Example 3: You paid $75 +$5, so the cost was $80. You busted out Chris Moneymaker and collected a $25 bounty—but then you busted out before you made it into the money. The return was $25.

What is your win rate for this series of three tournaments?

Step #1: Put the numbers into columns and add them up:

Cost       Return
$180        $0
$200        $545
$80          $25
$460        $570

Step #2: Subtract the total cost from the total return to get your dollar profit:

$570 – $460 = $110 profit

Step #3:  Divide the profit by the total cost:

$110 / $460 = 0.24

Step 4: Convert this decimal to a percentage by multiplying by 100:  0.24 x 100 = 24%.

If you’re not used to converting decimals to percentages, it’s simple. Just move the decimal place two spaces to the right, then add a percent sign (%). Some examples:

0.24 = 24%
0.04 = 4%
1.24 = 124%

Note that in Step #2, if your cost is greater than your return, then when you subtract the cost from the return, you will get a negative number. For example, if my total cost was $460, but my total return was only $310, then subtracting $460 from $310, I would get -$150, and this would represent my loss (a negative profit). Following Steps #3 and #4, I would find that I had a loss rate of 33%, which is the same as a win rate of -33%.

So long as you keep a record of all costs and returns, you can quickly figure out your win rate or loss rate after you add up the columns, using the method above. Using a spreadsheet to keep your records makes it very easy, because each time you add the cost and return of each tournament you play, it will automatically total the columns and figure your dollar profit and percentage win rate.

Any serious tournament player should be keeping track of his win rate this way. It’s also a good idea to keep separate data for different types of tournaments. For example, it would be smart to keep separate data for online versus live tournaments. You might also keep separate data for multi-table tournaments versus single-table tournaments. Or high buy-in events versus low buy-in events. Or fast tourneys versus slow tourneys. Or no-limit events versus limit events. This type of data lets you know where you’re making your money, and where you’re struggling.

Poker Tournament Win Rate and Variance

It’s important to realize that luck does play a role in tournament results, and the fewer the tournaments you’ve entered, the more of a role luck will have played in your win rate.

If you have played just a few tournaments, and you’ve gotten lucky, you can appear to have a high win rate just because the big payout from your good luck is being divided by so few buy-ins. Before you can start talking meaningfully about your win rate in tournaments, you have to have played a lot of tournaments.

Basically, the bigger your win rate, the fewer the number of tournaments needed to have a statistically significant win rate. The smaller your win rate, the larger the number of tournaments needed to have a statistically significant win rate. “Statistically significant” means that you’re mathematically beyond the results you can reasonably expect to get from luck.

Again, when a player or an “expert” tells you how good he is, don’t ask how much he’s won. Ask about his win rate.

Radar on Win Rate

In a field of 125 players, all other factors being equal, you should probably be in the money roughly one out of every five tournaments.
.
When field size goes up, variance goes up, but your edge and win rate should go up as well, so that takes care of some of the extra variance. For example, if field size doubles, your draw-downs won’t be twice as bad, and you won’t finish out of the money twice as often. The flux may get something like 25% worse. For example, in tournaments with a field of 250, you should probably in the money something like once out of every 6-7 times. And so on. This assumes a strategy where your priority is building your bankroll rather than maximizing first place finishes, even though top payouts are crucial to your win rate. In other words, I’m not basing this on a max flux strategy. And this is an estimate based on feel and experience, rather than on any particular calculations.
.
If you’re going through terrible long stretches where you never get in the money in 20 or 30 tournaments (assuming you’re not playing in the WSOP main event, against 6000 other players), you’re probably safe in assuming you’re doing something wrong. You may still be playing with an edge, but it is probably too low of an edge.
.
To figure out what you’re doing wrong, always keep track of the hands you go out on or lose large amounts of chips on. (You may actually go out on an all-in with a 10-8o because you’re desperate, but that’s not what you’re interested in. You’re interested in the losses that got you to the point of desperation.)
.
You will see patterns. For example, you will see that you are frequently losing large numbers of chips with AK or big pairs. (Guilty. Sentence served.) Or you will see that you go out calling all-ins when you know you have the best hand, and they suck out. Or whatever. Once you spot a pattern, think about how you might play that situation differently. Try to think completely outside the box. Forget everything you ever learned about how to play poker, because much of it is wrong for tournaments. 
.
Maybe there isn’t a pattern with particular types of hands–maybe you’re just getting short too often. That’s a bad pattern too. Why aren’t you making more chips?
. 
Also, take note of when you are going out of tournaments. If you’re always going out of a particular tournament between the 7th and 9th blind level, you’re doing something wrong. Or if you’re always going out in the first two hours, you’re doing something wrong.
.
If you’re moving up in Skill Level, you’re most likely to be making mistakes in how you handle a big stack, not a small stack. Small stack basic strategy is pretty simple. Big stack strategy is where all the money is and where all the mistakes are too.

A win rate of 204% means that, if you paid $100 total in buy-ins, you cashed out $304 total in payouts, for a total profit of $204 and a win rate of 204%. (204 / 100 = 2.04, or 204%).

So, if you played 240 fast tournaments at an average buy-in of $200, to get a 204% win rate you’d have to have earned $97,920 in profits on your $48,000 in buy-ins, which means you received $145,920 in payouts in those 240 fast tournaments.

To get the brother-in-law’s win rate of 100%, you’d have to have earned $48,000 in profits on those $48,000 in buy-ins, which means he would have had to receive $96,000 in payouts. ♠