seaturkey: Why bother with precision?

[seaturkey]

Why do so many counters seem obsessed with absolute precision about indexes and microscopic advantages when they also use camoflage tactics like high initial bets or always take even money or keep their spread "safe"? Don't the effects camoflage tactics FAR outweigh all the hairsplitting details of exact mathematical play?

[Don Schlesinger]

> Why do so many counters seem obsessed with
> absolute precision about indexes and
> microscopic advantages when they also use
> camoflage tactics like high initial bets or
> always take even money or keep their spread
> "safe"? Don't the effects
> camoflage tactics FAR outweigh all the
> hairsplitting details of exact mathematical
> play?

Look at it this way: If you're going to give up a certain portion of your EV because of camouflage, wouldn't you want the rest of your efforts to be as profitable as you can make them?

Don

[seaturkey]

> Look at it this way: If you're going to give
> up a certain portion of your EV because of
> camouflage, wouldn't you want the rest of
> your efforts to be as profitable as you can
> make them?

> Don

Since the percentage difference in EV between a simple HiLo counting system (and using about 50 indexes) and the complex, difficult- to-master hybrid systems (using about 200 indexes?) is so tiny anyway, whenever you make a camouflage play you have wiped out the advantage of using the hybrid system. The outcome will depend FAR more on whether your camouflage plays happen to be in your favor or not, even if you played everything else absolutely perfectly. Do you know of any tests that have been done where camouflage plays are factored into the counting system results? I would guess that if camouflaging is factored into the tests, the differences between the best counting system and the simplest would be minute. Plus, a simpler system is less fatigueing and less prone to mistakes, so you can play longer, which is to your advantage.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Do you
> know of any tests that have been done where
> camouflage plays are factored into the
> counting system results? I would guess that
> if camouflaging is factored into the tests,
> the differences between the best counting
> system and the simplest would be minute.

Yes I have run many hundreds of such tests. CVData supports highly complex camouflage. Obviously cover betting exacts a toll. However, a superior system is still superior and substantially superior in many circumstances.

[Don Schlesinger]

With all due respect, I don't understand your logic. You make it sound as if cover plays exact a toll on the higher-level systems while the lower-level ones somehow escape the penalties of the camouflage plays. That doesn't make much sense, does it?

You comparison is apples-to-oranges. You want to start with the superior systems, penalize them for camo, and then compare those results to the lower-level systems, which, miraculously, somehow don't need camouflage also.

In short, better is better. It's as simple as that. You play a better system, you win more money -- sometimes as much as 10-12% more than the level-one systems. The camouflage penalties -- studied in chapter 8 of BJA -- apply to ALL systems, of course.

Finally, I have never gone along with the concept of not bothering to learn a higher-level system because mistakes are going to wipe out your extra edge. Do it right! Don't make mistakes! You want to make money at this game? Put in some time, work, and energy and play as well as you can play. You don't get rewarded for sloppiness.

To me, it's foolish to say, "this count is better than that one, but you won't be able to play the better count correctly, so why bother." Play whatever count you're capable of playing, and then play it perfectly. If that happens to be a level-two or level-three count, you'll make more money than if you used a level-one count.

I don't know how else to express the idea.

Don

[seaturkey]

> With all due respect, I don't understand
> your logic. You make it sound as if cover
> plays exact a toll on the higher-level
> systems while the lower-level ones somehow
> escape the penalties of the camouflage
> plays. That doesn't make much sense, does
> it?

> You comparison is apples-to-oranges. You
> want to start with the superior systems,
> penalize them for camo, and then compare
> those results to the lower-level systems,
> which, miraculously, somehow don't need
> camouflage also.

> In short, better is better. It's as simple
> as that. You play a better system, you win
> more money -- sometimes as much as 10-12%
> more than the level-one systems. The
> camouflage penalties -- studied in chapter 8
> of BJA -- apply to ALL systems, of course.

> Finally, I have never gone along with the
> concept of not bothering to learn a
> higher-level system because mistakes are
> going to wipe out your extra edge. Do it
> right! Don't make mistakes! You want to make
> money at this game? Put in some time, work,
> and energy and play as well as you can play.
> You don't get rewarded for sloppiness.

> To me, it's foolish to say, "this count
> is better than that one, but you won't be
> able to play the better count correctly, so
> why bother." Play whatever count you're
> capable of playing, and then play it
> perfectly. If that happens to be a level-two
> or level-three count, you'll make more money
> than if you used a level-one count.

> I don't know how else to express the idea.

> Don
No respect is due to me, I am a total beginner, thanks anyway :.) I understand it now. I did not know that tests are run that include "cover" or camo plays. I stand totally corrected. Thank you.

[Don Schlesinger]

> No respect is due to me, I am a total
> beginner, thanks anyway :.)

You'll find that, on these pages, we treat everyone with respect, especially beginners!

> I understand it
> now. I did not know that tests are run that
> include "cover" or camo plays. I
> stand totally corrected. Thank you.

Thank you for participating. Hope we'll see more of you in the weeks ahead.

Don

[PaddyBoy]

If the Baldwin group and Thorp didnt bother with precision then counters probably wouldnt exist.
Anyway doesnt it make sense to play as well as possible?

[Freddie]

To me, the number one reason for learning all the itsy-bitsy indices is not to
make a few more bucks - or even a LOT MORE bucks.

It's to reduce the likelihood
of a horrendously long losing streak.

The chances of hideous, slow-roasting at
the stake of a losing streak lasting hundreds or thousands of hours is not talked
about enough, IMHO.

Arnold Snyder had a great article on this subject quite a while
back that brought home this point better than any I've read. Alas, I don't have
it with me, and I don't have a link to it on the internet. Hopefully, someone
can quote a few passages from it - it's scary.

The gist of the article was that an utterly
bone-crushing losing streak can realistically happen to YOU.

What's really a mind-blower is that no matter how long and how well you train yourself, you may never even
get off the ground. You might be one of those few who are "born under a bad sign";
you might start your career with a losing streak lasting a couple of thousand
hours or more (if you keep playing that long!).

Talk about getting "Pearl Harbored"!
(i.e., never getting off the ground)!

The best defense against these streaks is to increase your edge over the house.

One of my favorite ways to ward off a prolonged
losing streak has been to walk out of negative decks pretty frequently. That does
some serious damage to the probability monster who would love to swallow you.
And, it can neutralize a goodly number of the "sins" of camouflage, errors, and
tipping.

Of course, this tactic carries with it the risk of drawing attention
to oneself as a counter. But when you consider the alternative of a losing streak
lasting a thousand hours or more, it starts to look a lot more warm and fuzzy.

Another great thread on this subject I read once in a different BJ forum was entitled
something along the lines of "The Mother of All Losing Streaks." A full-time player
of many years' standing finally had his dark night of the blackjack soul in the
form of a streak that lasting something like 12 or 15 months. (Can't recall exactly
- don't have the post.) His bankroll became so emaciated that he had to finally
fatten up financially by playing long hours day in and day out on a boring slot
machine with a small statistical edge. Finally, he dug out.

Good for the character,
one would hope. (I think I'd rather not find out! :0)

So, anyway, that's my number
one argument for gaining every statistical edge you can grab. You don't want to
to endure a long losing streak.

(BTW, getting comps is another grand way to put
the serious hurt to the probability boogie man, but only if you are getting comped for
things you were going to buy anyway.)

One final comment about learning the arcane indices. If you play long enough with a limited set of indices, they are likely to become so familiar to you that, out of simple curiosity or boredom, you may well WANT to learn the other indices.

Freddie