Clumping

[StevenBlack]

Hello all,

I just just joined this forum. I think it's great; I've been on 3 other blackjack forums but when it comes to the issue of clumping, I was starting to sense that they either didn't understand clumping or weren't open to it.

I have several point:

Interestingly, I still seem to notice a 14-16% advantage (that I think is due to clumping) even when using Basic Strategy. This is good for me because it seems to take some of the guess work, the grey area, the "art" rather than the "science," of the decision making away. Anyway:

1) I was under the impression that clumping favored the player, not the house, at least when it comes to the clumping of high cards, not low cards. Isn't this correct, at least with the use of basic strategy?

2) I read an article that I think was based off of Boris's writing indicating that clumping works best with 2-4 players (including me). Do you all agree with this? In contrast, when it comes to clumping, what is wrong (in other words, why doesn't clumping work) with playing head-to-head against the dealer (i.e., 1 total player) or playing with, say, 4 other players at a table for a total of 5 players including me? I can see that perhaps with 5 players, the clump get interrupted. Correct?

3) It seems my player advantage went way down when trying to use my clumping strategy against a no hole card dealer at Celtic casino online blackjack. Do you all think that the absence of a dealer whole card somehow negatively impacts the player advantage when it comes to clumping? (For instance, perhaps the delay in the dealer getting her second hand represents a break in the clump?)?

4) How do you all deal with "rent bets," or bets that are necessary to make to stay seated at the table but don't necessarily hold any player advantage? By phone, I found a table at the Palace Casino in Mississippi that is a $3 minimum table. Or, I guess one can still sit at a table and not bet, say, on a large part of the shoe as long as the casino isn't especially busy. Any other ideas?

[Guest]

Hello all,

I just just joined this forum. I think it's great; I've been on 3 other blackjack forums but when it comes to the issue of clumping, I was starting to sense that they either didn't understand clumping or weren't open to it.

They aren't open to it. All other BJ forums are traditional card counting forums. Card counting teachers CAN'T admit to clumping because clumping destroys Basic Strategy, their backbone. It is silly to deny clumping. Think about it! What exactly are they counting? Ha, they are counting CLUMPING pure and simple. Their highest counts occur at the tables that are CLUMPED the most. They THINK these are the best tables to play. In fact, they are the WORST tables to play because they are the tables where Basic Strategy has the LOWEST hit rate. You are far better off to play the LOWEST count tables. Here the cards are closest to random and here is where Basic Strategy has the HIGHEST hit rate. This is all explained in our manual, Zero Proximity Counting. Remember, Basic Strategy was designed assuming RANDOM cards. THAT is where it works the best.

I have several point:

Interestingly, I still seem to notice a 14-16% advantage (that I think is due to clumping) even when using Basic Strategy. This is good for me because it seems to take some of the guess work, the grey area, the "art" rather than the "science," of the decision making away. Anyway:

Right, I doubt you were playing PURE Basic Strategy because there is no grey area in pure basic strategy. I suspect you were basing on B.S., but then using clumping to inform some of your decisions.

For instance: Basic Strategy says double an 11 vs. a ten. But what if when it's your turn pure lows are running. You are going to think twice about that double aren't you - and rightfully so.

Perfect Basic Strategy players lose perfectly.

You are seeing an advantage because you are taking advantage of clumping rather than blindly playing pure basic strategy no matter what.

1) I was under the impression that clumping favored the player, not the house, at least when it comes to the clumping of high cards, not low cards. Isn't this correct, at least with the use of basic strategy?

Clumping decidedly favors the House. That is WHY we have clumping. But I can see where YOU might

think its an advantage because YOU are taking advantage of it. Also, if the high cards are clumped, the low cards are equally clumped. Think about it. They have to be, don't they.

2) I read an article that I think was based off of Boris's writing indicating that clumping works best with 2-4 players (including me). Do you all agree with this? In contrast, when it comes to clumping, what is wrong (in other words, why doesn't clumping work) with playing head-to-head against the dealer (i.e., 1 total player) or playing with, say, 4 other players at a table for a total of 5 players including me? I can see that perhaps with 5 players, the clump get interrupted. Correct?

Well, Ron Fitch (Boris) was a student of mine and I taught him how to play BJ. He is a very successful player. He tends to like "Precision BJ" an offshoot of NBJ written by Ron DiBennedetto, also a student of mine. In fact I'll be playing with Ron in A.C. in a couple weeks.

Boris is correct about the number of players with clumped cards as far as he goes. But recognize that you will do relatively well head to head in clumped cards even though you will push a lot of 20's. The advantage is that head to head randomizes the cards, prepping them for head to head NBJ 3rd base random card play. This is the very best opportunity in the casino esp. with a 146 prog.

I strongly suspect that was what Don Johnson was essentially doing when he won his 15 million in 6 months. Recognize that when you request a higher stakes table before hand you are going to be playing head to head, aren't you.

3) It seems my player advantage went way down when trying to use my clumping strategy against a no hole card dealer at Celtic casino online blackjack. Do you all think that the absence of a dealer whole card somehow negatively impacts the player advantage when it comes to clumping? (For instance, perhaps the delay in the dealer getting her second hand represents a break in the clump?)?

Correct, you can't read the hole card until its too late but it works to your advantage in NBJ First Base play because you always know the last card dealt in the prior round.

4) How do you all deal with "rent bets," or bets that are necessary to make to stay seated at the table but don't necessarily hold any player advantage? By phone, I found a table at the Palace Casino in Mississippi that is a $3 minimum table. Or, I guess one can still sit at a table and not bet, say, on a large part of the shoe as long as the casino isn't especially busy. Any other ideas?

Bet the table min on "rent" bets if you have to. But we will also teach you how to play NBJ First Base NO Rent BJ which is the BEST and most successful way to play clumped cards. Also very close to can't lose. Stick around, you are a sharp player. I suggest you start with the NBJ manual or the 0 Prox manual or see if Keith will give you a deal on both. He's easy.

[Bull21]

Boris is correct about the number of players with clumped cards as far as he goes. But recognize that you will do relatively well head to head in clumped cards even though you will push a lot of 20's. The advantage is that head to head randomizes the cards, prepping them for head to head NBJ 3rd base random card play. This is the very best opportunity in the casino esp. with a 146 prog.

third base? Is that the last seat at the table? Could someone explain this text a bit for me here? thanks