>>22315449
>>22315554
>Your answer is great
No, his answer was complete nonsense. You don't count individual cards, you keep a running balance of the remaining concentration of 10s and As. More decks just makes the likelihood of that concentration going over the breakeven point (at which point you would raise your bet) less likely. There's no "omg 8 decks how can I possibly keep track?!?!"
Besides which, he retardedly thinks that casinos don't display the number of decks in play at any given table, as if you have to guesstimate.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention shuffle machines and infinite-shuffle machines. These let the casinos shuffle frequently, for example after dealing just halfway into an 8-deck shoe, which makes the game impossible to beat; or effectively to shuffle again after every hand, meaning you play against a 0.5% disadvantage on every hand, again making it impossible to beat.
The enormous profits were happening in the 1950s and 1960s when Thorpe first figured it all out, where the game was single deck dealt to the bottom, and you could bet any ratio you wanted (even sitting out hands when the count was negative) without the casinos having a clue.