thall: index #'s

[Sun Runner]

> IE 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...

In defense of Canfield, the only knock on his book, now, is it has become dated.

I happen to love that book.

At the time, I would say the 'Expert' system described in the book was good as any other level one count and the one he sold in the back of the book was probably as good as it got.

The 'Expert' was designed primarily to use against SD and DD and would, by the way, probably beat yours and my HiLo count all to hell in these games. The PE far surpasses HiLo's.

I have not read his book in some time, but I don't recall him speaking much (if any) about 6D shoes or that a narrow bet spread would beat them. Again, his 'Expert' count was built for SD and DD games. I recall him speaking some about 4D -but not giving 6D much notice.

[Gorilla Player]

> In defense of Canfield, the only knock on
> his book, now, is it has become dated.

> I happen to love that book.

> At the time, I would say the 'Expert' system
> described in the book was good as any other
> level one count and the one he sold in the
> back of the book was probably as good as it
> got.

I wouldn't doubt that his expert count was as good as other level 1 counting systems. however, after 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???

My favorite was probably Thorp's book, as the stories about his testing the system were a lot of fun, and make me wish time-travel was possible. I'd love to get in my DeLorean, go back to the 50's, and play a SD game dealt all the way to the bottom.

> The 'Expert' was designed primarily to use
> against SD and DD and would, by the way,
> probably beat yours and my HiLo count all to
> hell in these games. The PE far surpasses
> HiLo's.

> I have not read his book in some time, but I
> don't recall him speaking much (if any)
> about 6D shoes or that a narrow bet spread
> would beat them. Again, his 'Expert' count
> was built for SD and DD games. I recall him
> speaking some about 4D -but not giving 6D
> much notice.

I'll look at the book when I get home tonight and try to find where he mentioned that. It is always possible that he said "shoe" and for me, shoe == 6d, I've not seen (personally) a 4d shoe anywhere although many have mentioned them in the past tense...

[Parker]

> I'll look at the book when I get home
> tonight and try to find where he mentioned
> that. It is always possible that he said
> "shoe" and for me, shoe == 6d,
> I've not seen (personally) a 4d shoe
> anywhere although many have mentioned them
> in the past tense...

At the time Canfield's book was written, 4D shoes were indeed the norm. I haven't simmed it, but a 4D shoe with good rules dealt down to the last half deck or so may well be playable with a 1-4 spread.

[gorilla player]

> At the time Canfield's book was written, 4D
> shoes were indeed the norm. I haven't simmed
> it, but a 4D shoe with good rules dealt down
> to the last half deck or so may well be
> playable with a 1-4 spread.

That's what I thought, and you (and I) were generally correct, 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. Which sounds a bit tough. Of course "beat" is a relative word, and 1-4 might win at a _really_ slow rate...

[Sun Runner]

> That's what I thought, and you (and I) were
> generally correct ...

At the risk of perpetuating my reputation as a hard ass, I'll say this ...

No, Parker is 100% correct in his description of date and game conditions relating to Canfield, and you are generally incorrect when you penned the following:

> IE 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...

You might have tired of being told his count was so much better than the others at the time; but Canfield had a right to say so; if not the best certainly one of the best.

Further, the one insignifigant citation you find where you infer Canfield said a 1:4 spread could beat a 6D shoe is simply inaccurate and to attribute that idea to him does not do him justice.

You could have also gone on to say that the BS tables he cites in the book suck; but they didn't when his book was written

I don't advise anyone to walk into their favorite casino and use Canfield's 'Expert' count against todays 6D shoes. Picking up any old BJ book and trying to apply it's content to 2004 is dangerous to your BR.

But I do wish I would have had my eyes open in 1975, had read Canfields book, and been working the casinos back then. His book would have served me well.

[Gorilla Player]

> At the risk of perpetuating my reputation as
> a hard ass, I'll say this ...

> No, Parker is 100% correct in his
> description of date and game conditions
> relating to Canfield, and you are generally
> incorrect when you penned the following:

> You might have tired of being told his count
> was so much better than the others at the
> time; but Canfield had a right to say so; if
> not the best certainly one of the best.

Didn't discount that. Just discounted his "my counting system requires a smaller spread than any other counting system around to beat a particular game" sort of claim...

> Further, the one insignifigant citation you
> find where you infer Canfield said a 1:4
> spread could beat a 6D shoe is simply
> inaccurate and to attribute that idea to him
> does not do him justice.

Don't follow there. I didn't "attribute it to him". It came right out of his book...

> You could have also gone on to say that the
> BS tables he cites in the book suck; but
> they didn't when his book was written

> I don't advise anyone to walk into their
> favorite casino and use Canfield's 'Expert'
> count against todays 6D shoes. Picking up
> any old BJ book and trying to apply it's
> content to 2004 is dangerous to your BR.

> But I do wish I would have had my eyes open
> in 1975, had read Canfields book, and been
> working the casinos back then. His book
> would have served me well.

[Sun Runner]

> Didn't discount that. Just discounted his
> "my counting system requires a smaller
> spread than any other counting system around
> to beat a particular game" sort of
> claim...

Why? It's true. And it wasn't a 'sort of' claim, it was a no-kidding claim. In SD, DD, maybe 4D, his Expert system would most likely require a smaller spread than Hilo to beat the game; as would Hilo require a smaller spread to beat an old Ten-Count system.

> Don't follow there. I didn't "attribute
> it to him". It came right out of his
> book...

I think you did. A careful reading of the book, when it was published, would not have left anyone to believe he thought that a 1:4 spread would beat a 6D game. Were 6D games even being made available then? If so, on a very limited scale I imagine. And even if so, based on your posts, he only made that vague reference once; certainly nothing to get tired of hearing or worth panning the whole text over.

Look, I'm not related to Canfield, nor care about his legacy. I just think the book was (is) a good one, that the counting system described therein was solid, that the claims made there in were valid, and that anyone reading it today should recognize it's present day short comings.

You seem to find fault with the book through out.
I just think you're wrong.

Everybody has an opinion, and we are entitled to each of our's.

Good luck.

[gorilla player]

> Why? It's true. And it wasn't a 'sort of'
> claim, it was a no-kidding claim. In SD, DD,
> maybe 4D, his Expert system would most
> likely require a smaller spread than Hilo to
> beat the game; as would Hilo require a
> smaller spread to beat an old Ten-Count
> system.

That may well be true since his is ace-neutral which bumps up PE. But, HiLo was not the _only_ counting system available at the time. The copy I have is the 1979 edition. My only complaint was that Thorp, as an example, didn't keep up a steady flow of "this is the best there is, except for the master system which is even better, ..." In the Canfield book "Blackjack your way to riches" he goes a bit too far in that direction. Yes, his counting system might be very good (I have not tried it, and in light of that won't make any comments about it good or bad, since it is impossible to decide whether all the anecdotal info in the book is accurate or hyperbole) but one might conclude it was the only system around, yet it wasn't. IE Uston was in his heyday, and his counting system was certainly better than the 1-level expert system by a big margin when considering PE.

> I think you did. A careful reading of the
> book, when it was published, would not have
> left anyone to believe he thought that a 1:4
> spread would beat a 6D game. Were 6D games
> even being made available then? If so, on a
> very limited scale I imagine. And even if
> so, based on your posts, he only made that
> vague reference once; certainly nothing to
> get tired of hearing or worth panning the
> whole text over.

I hope I didn't "pan the entire text". Wasn't my intention to do so. I just panned a bit of the "hyperbole". When someone tells me (a) his system is the best there is except for (b) another system he sells for even more money and (c) that this even better system might or might not be available based on the people that developed it, it comes off sounding pretty cheesey, if you know what I mean. If something sounds too good to be true, if often is. If the person that is doing the selling is the one claiming how good it is, it leaves more doubt...

> Look, I'm not related to Canfield, nor care
> about his legacy. I just think the book was
> (is) a good one, that the counting system
> described therein was solid, that the claims
> made there in were valid, and that anyone
> reading it today should recognize it's
> present day short comings.

Perhaps that is my mistake, in that I did read it in "today's time frame" (actually a couple of years ago to be more precise). The system may well be pretty good. But the constant claims and stuff sound cheesy... That was my only point. I write quite a bit myself, and I _never_ make those kinds of claims and statements. I provide data, and explanations, and let the readers decide whether it is better or worse than what someone else has developed...

> You seem to find fault with the book through
> out.
> I just think you're wrong.

Oops. Where did I "find fault with the book throughout"? 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.. Of course, I could easily be wrong...

> Everybody has an opinion, and we are
> entitled to each of our's.

> Good luck.

Ditto.

[Sun Runner]

> That may well be true since his is
> ace-neutral which bumps up PE.

Not maybe; it is true. As I said, his Expert count described in the book dwarfs Hilo in PE.

> My only complaint was that Thorp,
> as an example, didn't keep up a steady flow
> of "this is the best there is, except
> for the master system which is even better,

You mean 1964 Thorp? He didn't have to. That book was so revolutionary it sold itself and at the time was one of a kind.

> ..." In the Canfield book
> "Blackjack your way to riches" he
> goes a bit too far in that direction.

I never said it wasn't a bit cheesy. The fact is he was right and he knew it. Selling something you believe in is not a bad thing.

> Uston was in his heyday, and
> his counting system was certainly better
> than the 1-level expert system by a big
> margin when considering PE.

Really? Which one? Uston's Advance Plus Minus wasn't; neither was Uston's SS. His 'APC' count did have a monster PE -but who can play it? Not even the MIT kids; not even Uston himself. Uston could play -no doubt he was a hell of a player. But a systems designer? I'm thinking no.

> The system may well be pretty good.
> But the constant claims and stuff
> sound cheesy... That was my only point.

Well, no, actually not your original point, but we'll move on ..

Regarding the Master System sold in the back of the book .. the only current day credibility it really needs is it is the same system Bryce Carlson re-packaged as his AOII count in Blackjack for Blood. I'd say Carlson appropriated it verbatim from Canfield but I have never seen the Canfield indices for his system.

As they say on Fox .. you may have the last word.

[gorilla player]

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... )

[Parker]

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.

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).

It was a different world back then.

[gorilla player]

> 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.

[WallStRunoff]

> That's what I thought, and you (and I) were
> generally correct, 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. Which
> sounds a bit tough. Of course
> "beat" is a relative word, and 1-4
> might win at a _really_ slow rate...

I think "could" is the operative word there. It COULD with a million dollar bankroll and a $1 unit bet.