Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 27 to 36 of 36

Thread: thall: index #'s

  1. #27
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Much misunderstanding

    > I am looking at an older BJA of mine and see
    > Don's Illustrious 18 and Fab 4. Are these
    > index #'s based on whole or half deck? I'm
    > guesing half...

    Those are standard, typical Hi-Lo indexes, and Hi-Lo indexes are always constructed and intended to be used with whole-deck conversion of RC to TC.

    Don

  2. #28
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: Historical context

    > I think we need to look at the book in the
    > context of how it compared with other books
    > of that era. Have you ever read Playing
    > Blackjack as a Business, by Lawrence
    > Revere? Compared to Revere, Canfield was
    > downright self-effacing. Revere proudly
    > proclaimed his systems the best, and anyone
    > who disagreed was a liar, an idiot, or most
    > likely, both.

    Didn't read that, but I'll take your word. Of course, in my chosen field, we see exactly the same thing from time to time. One of my favorite CS things is Linux. And the distros get lots of hyperbole in the same way. "buy mine.." "mine has better support". Etc...

    > Then there is Lance Humble, who modestly
    > titled his own book, The World's Greatest
    > Blackjack Book. Back then there was no
    > Internet and no personal computers.
    > Simulations were done on IBM mainframes,
    > which involved renting time - a costly
    > process, and of course these behemoths had
    > only a fraction of the power of a modern PC.

    > Note that Canfield, Revere, and Humble each
    > had his own "premium" system,
    > selling for around $200 (which represented a
    > lot more money back then).

    > Someone choosing a system had little to go
    > on other than the author's claims. Sims were
    > beyond the reach of most individuals, and
    > there were no Internet message boards -
    > there was no Internet. So, the authors
    > indulged in a bit of hype.

    > Revere even devoted most of a chapter of
    > Playing Blackjack . . . to trashing
    > Humble. It seems he resented the fact that
    > Humble, a former student of his, had the
    > temerity to write his own book and develop
    > his own systems, and even claim that they
    > were superior to Revere's (they were, and
    > Revere probably knew it).

    Never seen that happen in academia. (tongue-in-cheek firmly, of course)

    > It was a different world back then.

    Yes. That I realize, particularly with penetration and the like. Wish I could go back to visit. It's fun to play SD in CV blackjack and set 100% penetration, just to see what it was like... And frustrating when comparing to today's games of course.


  3. #29
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: slight change of subject

    I think I posted this on bj21 a month or two back, but it is of interest, probably.

    When I was in junior college, I had a calc teacher that was teaching us differential (and later integral) calculas from a book. As he was reading the first part of a chapter to us in class, someone bumped me and pointed. He was sitting at the front of class "reading" the book with his eyes closed, his feet propped up on his desk. I later discovered he had one of "those" memories.

    He sort of "took" to me as math was my "chosen" subject through high school and it always came easy. One day he asked me to stop by his office, seeming to be a bit "down". When I came by later, he said "look at this" and showed me a preliminary copy of Thorp's book. This was 1966, so it might have been a second edition but I am not sure. I looked at it and said "what is this all about?" I was from a _really_ small country town and had not been to any big cities at that point, certainly not to Vegas or any such place. I'll cut to the chase here and simply say he told me he had been making a _lot_ of money playing BJ in Vegas for many years, having a relative that lived out there that he visited multiple times a year, but mainly to hit the BJ tables.

    Now back to slow-down mode. He had shown me many times that he could do amazing computation in his head. If you've dealt with integral calculus, where you first integrate, then substitute the limits and then solve for a real number, he could do the solve part faster in his head than I could using a mechanical rotary calculator he had in his class. He said that he had run lots of simulations on an IBM /360, to determine the effect of removing each different type of card from the deck, and he gave me these numbers by writing them in the back of my old calc book. They are fairly close to what we know today as the actual removal effect numbers. He rounded them to three decimal places and used those numbers for his "point values". IE he actually knew _exactly_ what his advantage was, rather than using the highly rounded numbers of 0, 1 and -1 I use in HiLo counting. I thought it impossible to count like that, but he demonstrated it several times and he could do it without any problems, as easily as I can count down a couple of decks today for training...

    I can guarantee you he could use Uston's complicated count. It was nowhere near as difficult as the .xxx decimal numbers he was actually counting. I don't know of anyone else that has demonstranted such an ability to me, but he really was good. He told me that his teaching income was "fun money" and that he made 10x more than that playing BJ. He was afraid that Thorp's book was going to kill BJ completely, but it turns out that it didn't... although it wounded it.

    He never wrote any books that I know of, the only memory of his "counting system" is the 10 "values" he wrote in the back of my book. If you want to see 'em, let me know and I will post them when I am back in my office next monday. They are pretty close to correct for removing a single card from a SD game... However, while I don't find hilo that hard to do, it took some practice to make it second-nature. Adding 3 digit fractional numbers would not become second nature to me...

    He never mentioned anything like Thorp's "end play" so no idea whether he knew about that or did anything similar. But I do remember an afternoon session with a deck of cards where he explained the idea to me, and had me deal as quickly as I could, and stop after 20-25 cards and he'd say "my advantageis 3.442 percent. Then we'd add up the cards using his numbers and he would be dead on.

    Beyond me...

    Not sure how well it worked of course, in terms of PE as opposed to BC. I suppose this could be tested in CVCX or whatever, but I don't have _any_ indices he used, and I didn't get deep enough into the game to have any idea about BS or anything back then...

    As the saying goes, I suspect that the _best_ counter is unknown to all of us...

    And that is the reason that counter is the best (and no, I am not saying this guy was the best, as he did tell someone... )

  4. #30
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Shoe sizes

    > I think "could" is the operative word there.

    There has been much posted the last day or two suggesting Canfield said or inferred a 1:4 spread coulda/woulda/shoulda beat a 4D or 6D game.

    I haven't read that book in a while, but I own it, and by golly I'll check it out this weekend!

    I don't think he ever did; we'll see.



    (Of course I'll have to wait until USC, OU, and Auburn finish up the season late Saturday night.)

  5. #31
    thall
    Guest

    thall: Re: Much misunderstanding

    > Those are standard, typical Hi-Lo indexes,
    > and Hi-Lo indexes are always constructed and
    > intended to be used with whole-deck
    > conversion of RC to TC.
    Thanks, now for a question I asked on the main page. Would Casino Verite give me the correct indices for RPC while correcting errors in BS, BS deviations, count, and bets. I'm needing some re-assurance after a long lay-off from bj. Leaving on a trip to play in about 10 days and intend to order today if it does.

  6. #32
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: Shoe sizes

    > There has been much posted the last day or
    > two suggesting Canfield said or inferred a
    > 1:4 spread coulda/woulda/shoulda beat a 4D
    > or 6D game.

    > I haven't read that book in a while, but I
    > own it, and by golly I'll check it out this
    > weekend!

    > I don't think he ever did; we'll see.

    >

    > (Of course I'll have to wait until USC, OU,
    > and Auburn finish up the season late
    > Saturday night.)

    Page 94-95 (If you'd like to play against the shoe now) clearly suggests a 1-4 betting spread against a 4d shoe... Later there is a similar comment about playing against a "4d or more" shoe with this same spread.

    My book is called "the 1979 edition" and also says "fourth printing" for reference, in case our page numbers don't match up...

    GP

  7. #33
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Canfield (Long and boring)

    > My book is called "the 1979
    > edition" and also says "fourth
    > printing" for reference, in case our
    > page numbers don't match up...

    My copy has a copyright date of 1977 but also references what appears to be a printing date of 1990.

    None the less, I doubt there was much changing of the content year to year or printing to printing; especially the dramatic changes that would have been required to get from what you 'suggest' he states and what my copy 'literally' says.

    Also, what follows is not an attempt imply that Canfield had it all together in 1977. To expect a book 25 years old to compete against the mind numbing exactness of say BJA3 is an unrealizable expectation.

    I simply want to clear the air on what you have implied, inferred, and suggested Canfield's book says and further support what I have repeatedly stated it actually does say.

    > Page 94-95 (If you'd like to play against
    > the shoe now) clearly suggests a 1-4 betting
    > spread against a 4d shoe... Later there is a
    > similar comment about playing against a
    > "4d or more" shoe with this same
    > spread.

    'Clearly suggests?' Not to me. If your copy says so, then say so. Page 94-95 in my copy most likely reads the same as yours and no where does he attribute a 1:4 spread to anything. In the 'aside' on page 94-95 you refer to, he is only giving a beginning player an initial introduction to TC'ing multiple decks, since it will be required for the multiple deck discussion that will follow later in the book. Moreover in that aside he cautions the reader to wait until they have read the following portions of the book that deal with TC'ing and bet ramp.

    ---------------

    To my point that Canfield's book was primarily a primer on SD and DD, I offer the following:

    1. First and foremost it was written in the mid-seventies.

    2. Page 32 ... Rules We Will Play By ... "You play using a single deck."

    3. Page 84 ... Until you gain experience, you are limiting your betting spread to 1:4.

    4. Page 86 ... 'keep an eye on THE DECK ..."

    5. Page 89 ... a quick point made that SD is preferable to DD.

    6. Page 97 ... "A Final Word." In the same chapter where you believe he 'clearly suggests' using a 1:4 in shoe games he finishes his discussion of the rules, of BS, of the Expert count, and of his suggested betting ramp, with the following:

    " ... you've arrived at the point where you are ready to be a consistent winner against SD games using Vegas and Reno-Tahoe rules and DD games using Vegas rules only."

    The rest of the book is dedicated to camo, rules variations, modifying BS using indices, multiple deck play, cheating, getting barred, book reviews, a short Q/A of sorts, and the sale of his Master system.

    (You also take issue with his proclamation that it was "the best" system. Well, take issue if you want, he was probably right. Ask Bryce Carlson.)

    6. Pages 105 thru 118 ... he discusses Multiple deck play. He mentions how DD is now "on the increase" in Vegas and other places where SD was predominantly the only game in town. He quickly mentions the "inherent disadvantages" in "multiple decks" and how you will "generally have to maintain a larger betting spread" (than the 1:4 he was suggesting for SD). [I doubt he even envisioned a 6D shoe when this was penned.]

    Specifically on page 118 he says ... "As a general rule, use a betting spread of 1:6 when playing against a 4D shoe. After you have gained enough experience ... and bankroll ... increase your betting spread to whatever the traffic will bear."

    On December 1, you wrote:
    > I have Canfield's book and quickly got tired of being told how it was so much
    > better than all the other counting systems, and how a narrow spread was good
    > enough to beat a 6D shoe, etc...

    Again on December 1, you wrote:
    > having re-read it within the past couple of months, he continually makes some
    > claims that I consider a bit "over the top". IE spread 1-4 and beat a 6d game?

    Again on December 1, you wrote:
    > but he did say in one place in the book that a 1-4 spread could beat a shoe with
    > 4 decks or even more

    He simply never spoke your first two quotes. If they are printed in the copy you own, then accept my apology now.

    I can understand why you might write the third; but reading the book with any desire to understand it would not bring you to that conclusion.

    On December 2, you wrote:
    > I'd be surprised if a 1-4 spread would do reasonably against a 4d shoe game,
    > as 1-4 is a tough go at 2d games. So I did have a bit of a disagreement there..

    You have a disagreement with things he never said! Based on the reading of the book, Canfield would also be surprised if 1:4 would beat 4 decks!!

    Somewhere back in time you brought up Canfield's book, then attributed things to him he never wrote, to attempt to vouch some obscure point you were trying to make about TC'ing by half decks.

    Sorry, there are some things I just don't let go of easily, and apparently improper quoting of Canfield is one of them!

    He's been jobbed enough already before you started in.




  8. #34
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: Canfield (Long and boring)

    > My copy has a copyright date of 1977 but
    > also references what appears to be a
    > printing date of 1990.

    > None the less, I doubt there was much
    > changing of the content year to year or
    > printing to printing; especially the
    > dramatic changes that would have been
    > required to get from what you 'suggest' he
    > states and what my copy 'literally' says.

    > Also, what follows is not an attempt imply
    > that Canfield had it all together in 1977.
    > To expect a book 25 years old to compete
    > against the mind numbing exactness of say
    > BJA3 is an unrealizable expectation.

    > I simply want to clear the air on what you
    > have implied, inferred, and suggested
    > Canfield's book says and further support
    > what I have repeatedly stated it actually
    > does say.

    > 'Clearly suggests?' Not to me. If your copy
    > says so, then say so. Page 94-95 in my copy
    > most likely reads the same as yours and no
    > where does he attribute a 1:4 spread to
    > anything. In the 'aside' on page 94-95 you
    > refer to, he is only giving a beginning
    > player an initial introduction to TC'ing
    > multiple decks, since it will be required
    > for the multiple deck discussion that will
    > follow later in the book. Moreover in that
    > aside he cautions the reader to wait until
    > they have read the following portions of the
    > book that deal with TC'ing and bet ramp.

    > ---------------

    I simply read the "aside" which spans most of the two pages in question. It specifically says 4d shoe in my copy, and is specifically says 1-4 spread...

    Whether I am reading more than is there, or whether he didn't write so clearly as to leave a little confusion, I'm not hyper-ventilating about the possibilities...

    > To my point that Canfield's book was
    > primarily a primer on SD and DD, I offer the
    > following:

    > 1. First and foremost it was written in the
    > mid-seventies.

    > 2. Page 32 ... Rules We Will Play By ...
    > "You play using a single deck."

    > 3. Page 84 ... Until you gain experience,
    > you are limiting your betting spread to 1:4.

    > 4. Page 86 ... 'keep an eye on THE DECK
    > ..."

    > 5. Page 89 ... a quick point made that SD is
    > preferable to DD.

    > 6. Page 97 ... "A Final Word." In
    > the same chapter where you believe he
    > 'clearly suggests' using a 1:4 in shoe games
    > he finishes his discussion of the rules, of
    > BS, of the Expert count, and of his
    > suggested betting ramp, with the following:

    > " ... you've arrived at the point where
    > you are ready to be a consistent winner
    > against SD games using Vegas and Reno-Tahoe
    > rules and DD games using Vegas rules
    > only."

    > The rest of the book is dedicated to camo,
    > rules variations, modifying BS using
    > indices, multiple deck play, cheating,
    > getting barred, book reviews, a short Q/A of
    > sorts, and the sale of his Master system.

    > (You also take issue with his proclamation
    > that it was "the best" system.
    > Well, take issue if you want, he was
    > probably right. Ask Bryce Carlson.)

    > 6. Pages 105 thru 118 ... he discusses
    > Multiple deck play. He mentions how DD is
    > now "on the increase" in Vegas and
    > other places where SD was predominantly the
    > only game in town. He quickly mentions the
    > "inherent disadvantages" in
    > "multiple decks" and how you will
    > "generally have to maintain a larger
    > betting spread" (than the 1:4 he was
    > suggesting for SD). [I doubt he even
    > envisioned a 6D shoe when this was penned.]

    > Specifically on page 118 he says ...
    > "As a general rule, use a betting
    > spread of 1:6 when playing against a 4D
    > shoe. After you have gained enough
    > experience ... and bankroll ... increase
    > your betting spread to whatever the traffic
    > will bear."

    \
    OK. But I'm not even sure that 1-6 will beat a 4d game, except "marginally"...

    But the part I specifically mentioned was certainly talking about 4d "shoe" games...

    > On December 1, you wrote:

    > Again on December 1, you wrote:

    > Again on December 1, you wrote:

    > He simply never spoke your first two quotes.
    > If they are printed in the copy you own,
    > then accept my apology now.

    > I can understand why you might write the
    > third; but reading the book with any desire
    > to understand it would not bring you to that
    > conclusion.

    > On December 2, you wrote:

    > You have a disagreement with things he never
    > said! Based on the reading of the book,
    > Canfield would also be surprised if 1:4
    > would beat 4 decks!!

    > Somewhere back in time you brought up
    > Canfield's book, then attributed things to
    > him he never wrote, to attempt to vouch some
    > obscure point you were trying to make about
    > TC'ing by half decks.

    > Sorry, there are some things I just don't
    > let go of easily, and apparently improper
    > quoting of Canfield is one of them!

    > He's been jobbed enough already before you
    > started in.

    >

    I wasn't particularly trying to "job" him myself, if I did it was untentional. I've written dozens of academic papers and a couple of book chapters myself. I'm sure the same kind of "faults" creep into what I have written as well...


  9. #35
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Canfield (Long and boring)

    > I simply read the "aside" which
    > spans most of the two pages in question. It
    > specifically says 4d shoe in my copy, and is
    > specifically says 1-4 spread ...

    My apparent fault here; I thought you had read the whole book.

    Actually, in the aside, while previewing the up-coming multi-deck discussion, he does refer to the only bet ramp exposed so far in the text, which did use a max bet of 4. In the same aside he cautions playing against multiples until you complete the text. After completing the text it would be clear 1:4 would not do, but yet you chose to take him to task on it.

    > Whether I am reading more than is there, or
    > whether he didn't write so clearly as to
    > leave a little confusion, I'm not
    > hyper-ventilating about the possibilities ...

    I'm sure it is me that is doing the hyper-ventilating.

    > OK. But I'm not even sure that 1-6 will beat
    > a 4d game, except "marginally"...

    That was never the point, was it?

    But hey, thanks for getting off the accusation Canfield said a 1:4 spread will beat a 4D game, which he didn't. We are making progress.

    > But the part I specifically mentioned was
    > certainly talking about 4d "shoe"
    > games...

    You specifically mentioned twice where he spoke of 6D shoes, no? And he did not, ever. I only see the term "6 deck" used once in the entie book and that was where he discussed ace side counts. Of course he used the term "5 deck" there also but clearly had no relevance except for extending the ace side count illustration.

    > I wasn't particularly trying to
    > "job" him myself, if I did it was
    > untentional.

    Of course you weren't. Poor choice of words on my part. His book, that apparently you may or may not have read all of (I can't tell) was just an easy target to make a point.

    > I've written dozens of academic
    > papers and a couple of book chapters myself.

    Yes, you have mentioned that before. I've written a few "letters to the editor" but I guess that comes as no surprise.

    > I'm sure the same kind of "faults"
    > creep into what I have written as well...

    ... "faults?" That assumes there are some. You may find fault with it; I found it to be accurate for the time it was written. In retrospect, a little goofy maybe, but accurate.


  10. #36
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: Canfield (Long and boring)

    > My apparent fault here; I thought you had
    > read the whole book.

    I did read the whole book. But for the 4d point, I specifically referred to the "aside".

    yes, I agree that the book was framed in the days of SD and an emerging 2D game. however, as I said, he did specifically say use this system to attack a 4d shoe with 1-4 spread...

    > Actually, in the aside, while previewing the
    > up-coming multi-deck discussion, he does
    > refer to the only bet ramp exposed so far in
    > the text, which did use a max bet of 4. In
    > the same aside he cautions playing against
    > multiples until you complete the text. After
    > completing the text it would be clear 1:4
    > would not do, but yet you chose to take him
    > to task on it.

    Again, I didn't really decide to "take him to task about anything" except for his writing style which I thought (and still think) was _very_ "cheesy". Particulary the somewhat nonsensical hard-sell on the "master system" that he repeatedly dangles in front of the reader, but then repeatedly mentions that it might not be available for long due to the people behind it..."

    > I'm sure it is me that is doing the
    > hyper-ventilating.

    > That was never the point, was it?

    > But hey, thanks for getting off the
    > accusation Canfield said a 1:4 spread will
    > beat a 4D game, which he didn't. We are
    > making progress.

    > You specifically mentioned twice where he
    > spoke of 6D shoes, no? And he did not, ever.

    I _believe_ that somewhere he used the phrase "4d and beyond". Or something to that effect. Now how you read "beyond" is certainly open for debate, but since I've never personally played or seen a 5d game, the next thing "beyond" 4d is 6d. I also believe (but haven't taken the time to research it carefully due to final exams going on here) that he claimed that for shoe games his system could get by with a far smaller spread than hilo or whatever else he referred to. He particularly gave some very optimistic risk-of-ruin numbers if I recall. Again from reading this several years ago...

    > I only see the term "6 deck" used
    > once in the entie book and that was where he
    > discussed ace side counts. Of course he used
    > the term "5 deck" there also but
    > clearly had no relevance except for
    > extending the ace side count illustration.

    > Of course you weren't. Poor choice of words
    > on my part. His book, that apparently you
    > may or may not have read all of (I can't
    > tell) was just an easy target to make a
    > point.

    > Yes, you have mentioned that before. I've
    > written a few "letters to the
    > editor" but I guess that comes as no
    > surprise.

    > ... "faults?" That assumes there
    > are some. You may find fault with it; I
    > found it to be accurate for the time it was
    > written. In retrospect, a little goofy
    > maybe, but accurate.

    I still prefer "cheesy".



    But you are correct, in that the basic "system" is workable. Of course most are except for the Patrick system and the like.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.