Double Black Penetration

Double Black Penetration
If playback doesn't begin shortly, try restarting your device.
An error occurred while retrieving sharing information. Please try again later.
0:00 / 15:22 • Watch full video Live

BlackjackClassroom > Blog > Good Blackjack Rules or Penetration?

Copyright © 2017 Blackjack Classroom. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions.
There are many conditions in blackjack that make a game more or less profitable for card counting. Two of the most important conditions are the blackjack rules of the table and what is referred to by card counters as the dealer penetration. When counting cards in blackjack you’re looking for the best combination of the two in order to maximize the expected value of your play.
Let’s start by defining what we mean when we talk about “good blackjack rules” and “good dealer penetration”. I will then go through a quick analysis of which condition is more important in maximizing your profit potential. As always, my main focus in blackjack is increasing profits.
H17 or S17 – This refers to the dealer hitting or standing on Soft 17. We prefer the dealer to stand.
DAS – This refers to a player’s ability to double after splitting. If you split your 8’s and get a 3 to make 11, you want to be able to double down on the 11.
RSA – This refers to the player’s ability to resplit aces after an initial splitting of aces. If you split a pair of aces and get a third ace, you want to be able to split that into a third hand.
LS – This refers to a player’s ability to surrender. Surrendering allows you to forfeit your hand and get half of your bet back without playing out the hand. This is commonly used when on a player’s 16 versus a dealer showing a 10.
These are the main blackjack rule variations you will encounter, but it’s certainly not all of them. We’re going to assume you’re getting the full 3:2 payment on blackjack and you can double any two initial cards dealt.
Preferred Rules: To get the best of these rules, you want the dealer standing on Soft 17 and you want to have the DAS, RSA and LS options available to you.
“ Dealer penetration ” is blackjack terminology used for describing how deep a dealer will deal into a deck (or multiple decks) before reshuffling. This is a critical concept in card counting. Penetration is determined by where the dealer places the cut card and it varies from casino to casino. A deeply placed cut card will show you a higher percentage of the cards in a shoe, therefore giving you more information to work with when tracking the count. It also causes high counts to occur more frequently and last longer. For basic strategy players, penetration really doesn’t matter. For card counters, the deeper the penetration, the more profitable the game will be.
Preferred Penetration: Typically a 6-deck game that deals 4 out of 6 decks is considered to have “poor penetration”. Dealing 4.5 decks out of 6 before shuffling would be “average penetration”. A casino that shows 5 full decks out of 6 before hitting the shuffle card has “good penetration”.
Therefore if Casino A is dealing 4 out of 6 decks before shuffling and Casino B is dealing 5 out of 6 decks before shuffling, Casino B is going to be a much more profitable game for card counting assuming the rules of the tables are similar.
Often the choice comes down to this… Do you go play at a casino that has all the best rules but poor penetration, or do you go for unfavorable rules with good penetration? Although you want the best of both, what if you have to decide between the two? Let’s take a closer look at the relative performance under different rules and penetration levels.
Here we see the relative profitability of three different sets of rules at four different depths of penetration. For this example I’ve kept the parameters simple and consistent. I’m using a 6-deck game with a Hi-Lo card counting system, 70 hands played per hour, 4 players at the table and an optimal betting ramp from 1-10 units with no back counting or backing out of negative counts. Manipulating any of these parameters will obviously change the chart somewhat. This chart would also look different if we analyzed a single deck, double deck or 8-deck game instead of this 6-deck game.
Conclusion: You can see that if you have terrible rules on a game, you better have good dealer penetration if you want to make money. If you have great rules you can be a little more forgiving when it comes to the shuffle point. Then there’s the middle ground of semi-decent rules and average penetration. The lesson to be learned here is that to be a successful card counter you really need to know how to analyze the quality of a game. There are also many other blackjack conditions to consider such as the level of casino heat you will get at different betting levels with different betting ramps. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to cover some of these other issues in a future post. For now I hope this helps to clarify the decision between good rules and good penetration. Now go hit the tables and make some money!
Hi my name is Nick, welcome to my site... I’ve been a Professional Blackjack Player for over 13 years now. I live in Southern California, but travel all over the US playing blackjack as a business. When it comes to blackjack, casinos and card counting (which I can train you to do), I’ve seen it all and done it all. Stay tuned to my site for all the latest going ons and updates from the blackjack world

Get NYFF60 pre-sale access! Reserve your Pass by Sunday >>

60th New York Film Festival

Film Comment

Media Center

Announcements
Film at Lincoln Center Podcast
YouTube
Photo Galleries

Now Playing

The Cathedral
Funny Pages
Three Colors: Red
Safety & Health Policies

Coming Soon

Hold Me Tight (Sneak Preview on Thursday!)
Film Comment Live: Mathieu Amalric & Vicky Krieps on Hold Me Tight (Friday)
Infernal Affairs Trilogy (Opens Sept. 16)
Medea (Sept. 20)
God's Creatures (Sept. 21)
NYFF60 (Sept. 30-Oct. 16)
The Met: Live in HD 2022 through 2023

Calendar

Membership

Member Levels & Benefits
New Wave Levels & Benefits
Patron Levels & Benefits
Ambassador Patron Levels & Benefits
Member Corner

Support

Donate
Gift Certificates
Corporate Partnership

About

Visit
Safety & Health Policies
Careers

By
Brian Brooks
on April 7, 2014
in

Film Society ,

Interviews

Now Playing
Films & Series
Schedule
Membership

Support Us
About Us
Visit Us

Film at Lincoln Center Daily
Film Comment
Shop

Charlotte Gainsbourg as Joe in Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac
For a project that initially began as a joke—or so thought Charlotte Gainsbourg—Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac Volume I and Volume II easily became some of the most anticipated foreign films of the year. Von Trier first hinted at Nymphomaniac at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival during a hair-raising press conference for his previous film, Melancholia , saying, “We had fun doing this film, but I would like to talk about my next film which is—as Kirsten insisted—is going to be a porn film. Kirsten and Charlotte want a really hardcore film, and I'm going to do my best.” Kirsten Dunst, who starred alongside Gainsbourg in Melancholia , doesn't appear in Nymphomaniac , but Gainsbourg does, making the two-part feature the third von Trier project of her career.
Gainsbourg and co-star Stacy Martin take turns at playing the older and younger Joe, a self-described nymphomaniac (she doesn't go for the more P.C. “sex addict” label). In the first installment, Joe (Gainsbourg) is helped by a kindly man, Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård), after he finds her injured on a dark street. At his home, Joe relates her travails as a sexualized youngster, an adolescent, and eventually a young adult. Volume I is dominated by Stacy Martin as Joe, with only occasional glimpses of Gainsbourg speaking with Seligman. Volume II is where Gainsbourg comes into the role of Joe in full throttle. Where Volume I is peppered in fairly equal measure with dark humor and just plain darkness, Volume II veers more decidedly on the macabre. Joe's sexual addiction wreaks havoc on her marriage and her relationship with her young son. Joe must find sexual satisfaction away from her husband (Shia LaBeouf), finding her in the company of a host of men, including a sadist, played unnervingly (and somewhat humorously) by Jamie Bell.
Gainsbourg sat down with a small group of journalists, including FilmLinc Daily, ahead of the rollout of Volume I last month. The Anglo-French actress spoke of her character's struggle, both internal as well as external, including the hypocritical way society treats sex addiction when it comes to men vs. women. And of course, Lars von Trier was a major topic. Gainsbourg explained how she believes he knows her well, though she questions how well she understands the controversial Danish director even as she's become a frequent presence of his films. In Nymphomaniac: Volume I and Volume II , she knows she's playing him—or at least an aspect of him.
Joe (Gainsbourg) speaking with Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) in Nymphomaniac
What do you think your character believes about her addiction? Some think it's a disease and others think it's an excuse for bad behavior.
I think she wants to take the blame. Throughout the film she's trying to expose her bad behavior and to convince Seligman that she's an offense and responsible for all the suffering she's going through. But at the same time, during the chapter where she goes through the addiction therapy, she comes out of it saying how proud she is of being a sex addict and making fun of all the group therapy that she's been forced into. I think she's a very proud and stubborn woman, but at the same time I don't have much to say about her sex addiction. Of course she's going through all the frustration and appetite she's experiencing because she's not able to have enough sex.
The film for me is about a woman and the voyage she's making to know about herself and what she's saying about society and not being able to live in this society and wanting to take the blame—but there's love and a lot of subjects there too that are not directly related to the nymphomania.
What did you think about the character the first time you read it and how did you work with Lars to become Joe?
It started with a joke in Cannes with him saying, “My next film is going to be a porn film.” At that moment, I didn't know what to think of it. But then afterward he sent me a synopsis that was very close to what has now become the film. It was divided into chapters and already there's this conversation going throughout with Seligman and having two very opposite characters. So I knew the subject of the film. Lars sent me this huge script and I was very attracted to it. I didn't know all the digressions Seligman was going on about or all the other parts. I was very attracted to the character even though she's very far from me. She's very negative about society. I don't feel close to what she says but at the same time I feel a lot of empathy for her. She touches me. And at the end she has made a voyage and copes with herself and there's a real understanding of who she is by the end of the film. But yeah, she touches me a lot.
Would it be fair to say you've become von Trier's muse?
I'd love to be a muse for him. I know he puts himself into all the characters I've played, though in Melancholia I think he was putting himself much more into Kirsten's character. But in Antichrist and in this one, I definitely think I was playing him. Seligman too is a different aspect of him, which make the conversations so rich having two opposite minds together. But I don't know why me in particular. I don't know if he knows anything about my background. For Antichrist , he picked me because another actress had dropped out and I thought it was a great chance. The character was called “She,” so it was very anonymous. Of course I've gotten to know him, but he's still very mysterious today. I think he knows everything about me, but I don't know much about him. He touches me a lot. There's a lovely friendship that's happened now of course. I can't explain what he knows of me though and why he chose me.
These three characters you've played for him, what sets them apart for you creatively?
The characters go so far into suffering and depression. I know people think Antichrist , Melancholia , and Nymphomaniac are a trilogy, but I don't see that. Depression was important in the first two films, but I don't see that in this one. I can see that he reveals much of himself and he's very honest in revealing that in his work. For Antichrist I hadn't gone through any anxiety attacks, but by just being there, he showed me that anxiety. It was me mimicking him. It's imitation. So in that sense I could see I was portraying him. In Melancholia , it was Kirsten's part to play the depression. In this film, it was very easy to see that every subject he was setting up had two characters in opposition, but were both him at the same time.
Why do you think he's choosing to portray himself as women?
That I don't know. Maybe he finds it more interesting. People say he's misogynistic. I don't see how it's possible because of my belief he's portraying himself. But I don't know why he puts women out there more than men. But I find this story more interesting because it's a woman. Like what she says at the end of the film, “If the attitude of the nymphomaniac was a man, it would be much more acceptable.” I think it's much more interesting to have a woman play that sexual appetite than a man. We've seen that all the time.
There could be different interpretations of what Joe does on a moral level. Do you think Joe loves herself?
No, I think there's a lot of self-loathing, and I think she puts herself into a state of suffering, but she wants to take the blame and feel responsible and persuade Seligman that she's used men as tools. She has a lot of weaknesses and that's what I find touching. She has this shield that she hates love as much as she says she does. You can feel she has this very stubborn streak and is very reactionary. By the end of the film I believe she accepts herself and has made a journey into accepting her weaknesses.
I like the fact that you don't know if she's telling the truth or not or just making a joke of some of the situations. She's telling her story, which is very much against [Seligman's] belief system. It was interesting to play those scenes with Seligman and be completely different, especially in Volume II . The acting was so very different from the storytelling. It was interesting to explore both experiences in such different ways. A lot of it was a complete surprise when I saw the film because a lot of what Lars von Trier does, I don't have much idea about.
[ Nymphomaniac: Volume I and Nymphomaniac: Volume II are playing at the Film Society of Lincoln Center through Thursday. ]
For over 50 years, Film at Lincoln Center has been dedicated to supporting the art and elevating the craft of cinema and enriching film culture.

Posted on January 29, 2016
- By
Meg Butler

Comment Disclaimer: Comments that contain profane or derogatory language, video links or exceed 200 words will require approval by a moderator before appearing in the comment section. XOXO-MN

You may have thought you knew all of the star-studded TMI, but these celebrities
Mature Home
Outdoor Sex Compilation
Usa Nudist

Double Black Penetration

Report Page