> There is little to gain. A sim would
> probably show mere pennies on the dollar.
> Don,
> I suspect you meant to say "pennies per
> hour", since "pennies on the
> dollar" is more than the 1-2% we get by
> counting.
Right ... sort of. What I meant to say was that the SCORE would change by mere pennies, which is, essentially, what you're saying. Thanks.
Don
> 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...
> Now I am confused. I use RPC count(level 2),
> are you saying my indexes are doubled. Ex. 8
> vs dealer 6 index says 6/ been using this
> index for years, are you saying it should be
> 3(please say NOT)...
I don't have a working knowledge of RPC, Don certainly does, but I'll guess that waiting to double 8v6 @ TC of 6 seems high to me -unless you are TC'ing in whole decks (divisor equals 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, etc). The Hilo index for 8v6 is 2.
If RPC should be TC'ed in half decks (and I'm thinking it does), the same divisor above s/b 3,4, or 5.
Question .. to arrive at your TC, if 3 decks are left unseen, what have you been using as your divisor? Also, where did you get your indices?
Hopefully someone more learned than I will pitch in for you.
> Now I am confused. I use RPC count(level 2),
> are you saying my indexes are doubled.
Your indexes are what they are. where did you get them from?
> Ex. 8
> vs dealer 6 index says 6/ been using this
> index for years, are you saying it should be
> 3(please say NOT)...
If you are dividing by whole decks to get TC, which isn't the way the RPC is designed to be used, you may have 6, although 4 or 5 would make more sense. You didn't specify how many decks were being shuffled.
For TC by half decks, I use +2.
Don
> Your indexes are what they are. where did
> you get them from?
> If you are dividing by whole decks to get
> TC, which isn't the way the RPC is designed
> to be used, you may have 6, although 4 or 5
> would make more sense. You didn't specify
> how many decks were being shuffled.
My apology, I was mistakinly using my HiOpt index # in my RPC example. RPC index shows 3 with mult decks
> Don
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Your indexes are what they are. where did
> you get them from?
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...
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks