To the best of my knowledge, you have to subscribe to this website for pm's.
However, feel free to send me an e-mail at: [email protected].
To the best of my knowledge, you have to subscribe to this website for pm's.
However, feel free to send me an e-mail at: [email protected].
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
So, the question I pose to you.
Would you rather use an insurance 10 count for perfect insurance, and to solve the the sensitive 11v-ace issue, or fir that matter, 11 v 10 problem, or aces for 99v7 - and to round it out, 9's fir the monster 12v2 problem in monster counts also adjusting the insurance calculation for halves.
I think we are saying the same thing. Look at 16 v. 10. Using Hi/Lo, playing error rates for TC [-3,+3] which constitute 71% of all count range are as follows:
-3 32.2%
-2 40.4%
-1 49.3%
0 41.5%
1 33.2%
2 25.2%
3 18.5%
Weighted error: 35.3%
Using a sidecount of 5s, in which TC is TC + (5TC)x4, error rates for TC [-6,+6] which constitute 72% of all count range are as follows:
-6 20.1%
-5 25.3%
-4 31.4%
-3 39.0%
-2 46.0%
-1 46.7%
0 39.9%
1 32.9%
2 27.0%
3 21.0%
4 15.5%
5 11.7%
6 8.8%
Weighted error: 29.6%
So, you can get a 6% playing edge improvement in this example.
The simple message here is that playing efficiency is enhanced by side counts. So, 2 questions
1. Are improvements in PE variable by count system used - Sure.
2. What are those measured improvements by count system.
3. Assuming the ability to choose 1 sidecount only, what would you use.
Primary sidecounts for evaluation would be aces, tens, 9's, 7's, 5's.
Read the appropriate chapter in The Theory of Blackjack.
This question is answered very clearly. Aces dominate, and if only
one other rank is to be included it is the 7, which I use when I play
Double Deck BJ with Hi-Opt II.
You cannot begin to understand the game without reading the latest
edition of TWO books. The other is Don Schlesinger's (priceless)
magnum opus -- Blackjack Attack.
Sorry about the delay getting to your thread. I have been focusing on analyzing a new opportunity.
The flaw you speak of is not so much a flaw but reality. My partner and I figured out what deck compositions were at 1 deck left recently. What you fail to take into account is the frequency of each deck composition. You will have a wide range of deck compositions but some will be the most frequent and others will be quite rare. The weighted average isn't that unpredictable but in shoes you get the same whacky deck composition for a while so when you are playing a tail of the curve, low frequency, deck composition you are likely going to see a lot of rounds in a short time if the event happens early enough.
You can actually do something about this but in BJ the gains are modest. What you need to do is gather more information about the deck composition in a way that allows you to use it. But as Don points out the long term effect averages away with a much smaller gain than you might think. As long as you have the BR for the swings you needn't worry about this effect. If you do go to the extra effort, which is quite a bit of extra effort, you will find a more comfortable ride to a slightly larger long term EV. Most pros just accept the variance caused by all the inaccuracy of large bins that average a lot of unrelated deck compositions. They have a big enough BR they play to virtually a 0% RoR. To do something about it you need a way to group more similar deck compositions in the same bin. It becomes a much more complicated approach that isn't worth much in BJ but in other games it is worth a boatload. If you plan on attacking other games it is worth developing some extra skills (almost an imperative) even if they aren't worth much in BJ. I have developed a few approaches that accomplish this and there are others like Tarzan and Moses who gather and use information differently than the typical counter. The result is more accurate betting and playing and a more well behaved and certain BR growth. Your BR requirement is less. But the biggest improvement is with a lot of extra information you know when you are doing things that confuse the casino while playing optimally. You can wong to make the stupid play more frequent than typical play. The steeper growth of BR with less frequent crazy variance allows you to bet more at the same RoR. You can use a smaller spread that is easily tolerated by the casino and still make more money. While the overall sim shows modest statistical gain the stats are only half the story. The other half is getting away with turning the stats into profits in a casino.
This all depends on you plan of attack. If you are planning on quickly burning casinos the huge improvement in longevity that is possible doesn't really matter much to you. But if you are a longevity player, who values and plays to not be barred at casinos, the effort required to do something about your glitch can be worth far more than the stats show. If you can play optimally while the suits hover over your table watching every bet move and play and after hours their assessment is that you are going to be a big loser and are a very bad player, then the value of the extra effort is priceless. The smarter the crew working to catch you the dumber you look. If you have some dumb critter that backs off a ton of ploppies because they vary their bets they will cost the casino a fortune and you will get caught in the net.
You have to decide if it is worth it for your style of attack and your BR and RoR and your longevity. There are few that decide it is worth it but they generally would never go back to a simpler approach despite knowing the gains are less than 40% and likely more like 20%, at least for BJ. You start talking about other games and the gain is well worth it and almost necessary. Most that use the simple approach can't stomach the variance of almost random results with huge swings and a drift up (or down) that is difficult to be certain of from their results. That is how random the results look over time. That is not the case with quite advanced counting techniques that count for the glitch as you call it.
Last edited by Three; 02-27-2017 at 05:35 AM.
Bookmarks