Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Myooligan: What am I missing?

  1. #1
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: What am I missing?

    So, like so many rookies before me, I've been putting in a lot of hard time on Richard Reid's BC/PE/IC analyzer in search of a better mousetrap. Specifically, I've been hell bent on finding a level one system that gets close to Hi-Opt II. I imagine that thought alone bores the hell out of most people on this site, but for anyone who cares:

    Here are the results of sims on an unbalanced level one (true) count that appears to come close to Hi-Opt II. I am making that statement crudely, based on 1) How it measures up in terms of PE and BC, and 2)How it performs compared to HiLo. First, the tags:

    2-7 = +1
    T = -1
    Side count the aces

    Next, the predictions:
    BC: .98 PE: .65 IC: .92
    As a reference, Hi-Opt II:
    BC: .98 PE: .67 IC: .92
    and good old HiLo:
    BC: .97 PE: .51 IC: .76

    The sims bring back the kind of SCORES one would expect:
                                 
    STYLE OF PLAY PEN HiLo Precarious Gain
    Wong in @ +1 5/6D $74.55 $90.78 22%
    Wong in @ +1 4.5/6D $47.35 $56.85 20%
    Wong in @ +1 4/6D $30.89 $34.94 13%
    WhiteBunny 5/6D $35.29 $46.11 31%
    WhiteBunny 4.5/6D $19.41 $23.23 20%
    WhiteBunny 4/6D $8.35 $11.23 34%
    WiWo 5/6D $107.51 $121.00 13%
    WiWo 4.5/6D $64.76 $72.97 13%
    WiWo 4/6D $38.59 $44.14 14%
    (technical specs at the bottom of the post)

    The Bottom Line
    Compared to Hi-Opt II, this system gives up the convenience of 0 as the IRC in exchange for the luxury of a level-one count, while achieving comparable SCORES. I have little real-life experience counting, so my question is, isn't that a very good trade off?

    Technical Info
    Sims were done on SBA 5.51, and optimized for a 1-10 spread using SBACALC.
    All games were H17, NDAS, NS, FU
    Both HiLo and Precarious sims were run using full indexes.
    Wong In @ +1 speaks for itself (no wonging out)
    WhiteBunny is a variant of Schlesinger's WhiteRabbit, wonging out at -2 for first 1/3 of the shoe, -1.5 until 3/4 shoe is dealt, then 0.
    WiWo does both.

    -Myoo

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: What am I missing?

    > First, the tags:
    > 2-7 = +1
    > T = -1
    > Side count the aces

    The imbalance is two, per deck, rather than one?

    > Next, the predictions:
    > BC: .98 PE: .65 IC: .92
    > As a reference, Hi-Opt II:
    > BC: .98 PE: .67 IC: .92

    Never in a million years.

    > The sims bring back the kind of SCORES one
    > would expect:
    > STYLE OF PLAY PEN HiLo
    > Precarious Gain
    > Wong in @ +1 5/6D $74.55 $90.78 22%
    > Wong in @ +1 4.5/6D $47.35 $56.85 20%
    > Wong in @ +1 4/6D $30.89 $34.94 13%
    > WhiteBunny 5/6D $35.29 $46.11 31%
    > WhiteBunny 4.5/6D $19.41 $23.23 20%
    > WhiteBunny 4/6D $8.35 $11.23 34%
    > WiWo 5/6D $107.51 $121.00 13%
    > WiWo 4.5/6D $64.76 $72.97 13%
    > WiWo 4/6D $38.59 $44.14 14%

    I'm skeptical

    > Technical Info
    > Sims were done on SBA 5.51, and optimized
    > for a 1-10 spread using SBACALC.

    When you say "optimized," do you mean identical bankrolls, with different unit sizes for the two systems?

    I could be wrong, but I think something isn't right with what you've done.

    Don

  3. #3
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: Re: What am I missing?

    > The imbalance is two, per deck, rather than
    > one?

    Right.

    > When you say "optimized," do you
    > mean identical bankrolls, with different
    > unit sizes for the two systems?

    Yes

    > I could be wrong, but I think something
    > isn't right with what you've done.

    That was my thought too, but. . . What? I believe I've included every single specification.

  4. #4
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: More results, more questions

    I ran more sims, same specs except play-all throughout, and this time I included the real Hi-Opt II:

    pen      HiLo    Precarious  Hi-Opt II 
    5/6D $13.66 $21.10 $22.64
    4.5/6D $5.87 $9.59 $9.92
    4/6D $1.85 $3.43 $3.86


    Also, I'm not sure how meaningful the comparisons that use some sort of wonging are. Especially for different level counts, one has to determine comparable entry/exit points for each count, right? For instance, by wonging in at the first count with a positive expectation, Hi-Opt II appears to outperform HiLo by 58%. But for HiLo that count is +1, while for Hi-Opt II it would be +2.

    The SBA stats indicate that a HiLo TC of +1 occurs on 11.1% of hands played, whereas a Hi-Opt II TC of +2 only comes up 6.6% of the time (based on play-all sims). Does this mean the Hi-Opt II player spends 11.1/6.6 = 70% more time backcounting? If so, how would one come up with a factor to multiply the Hi-Opt II SCORE by to account for this?

    Thanks
    -Myoo

  5. #5
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: More results, more questions

    Here's the problem: I know you are well intentioned and are trying your best to do the sims accurately, but if you look at the SCORE comparisons on p. 172 of BJA3, you'll see that, in general, Hi-Opt II outperforms Hi-Lo by about 15-20%. So, the comparisons that you offer seem to bear little resemblance to those findings.

    Until someone else, like Norm or John, both of whom have vast experience in doing apples-to-apples, side-by-side comparisons, reproduces your work, I have to continue to believe that something is not correct.

    Don

  6. #6
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: Norm or John

    Norm or John, any chance of that happening?

    I suspect a large part of the incongruence can be attributed to the use of full indices in my sims. If I limit it to the I18, I only get 26% better. This is closer to the 18% gain shown in BJA for 5/6 S17 DAS LS play all, the most relevant comparison I could find. And I believe I read that the more conservative rules I was simming under (H17, NDAS, NS) slightly favor advanced counting systems. The other source of error I can think of is I'm using SBA's standard 100 mil. rounds, whereas strictly accurate results require I think 2 billion?

    Still, based on the PE/BC/IC predictions, I doubt my results are totally haywire. Don, what I don't understand is. . . I know the efficiencies don't correlate 1 to 1 with SCORES, but when two systems have very comparable PEs and BCs (ie, the system I'm suggesting and Hi-Opt II), shouldn't we generally expect SCORES in the same league?

    -Myoo

    > Here's the problem: I know you are well
    > intentioned and are trying your best to do
    > the sims accurately, but if you look at the
    > SCORE comparisons on p. 172 of BJA3, you'll
    > see that, in general, Hi-Opt II outperforms
    > Hi-Lo by about 15-20%. So, the comparisons
    > that you offer seem to bear little
    > resemblance to those findings.

    > Until someone else, like Norm or John, both
    > of whom have vast experience in doing
    > apples-to-apples, side-by-side comparisons,
    > reproduces your work, I have to continue to
    > believe that something is not correct.

    > Don

  7. #7
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: Norm or John

    > Norm or John, any chance of that happening?

    > I suspect a large part of the incongruence
    > can be attributed to the use of full indices
    > in my sims. If I limit it to the I18, I only
    > get 26% better. This is closer to the 18%
    > gain shown in BJA for 5/6 S17 DAS LS play
    > all, the most relevant comparison I could
    > find. And I believe I read that the more
    > conservative rules I was simming under (H17,
    > NDAS, NS) slightly favor advanced counting
    > systems. The other source of error I can
    > think of is I'm using SBA's standard 100
    > mil. rounds, whereas strictly accurate
    > results require I think 2 billion?

    > Still, based on the PE/BC/IC predictions, I
    > doubt my results are totally haywire. Don,
    > what I don't understand is. . . I know the
    > efficiencies don't correlate 1 to 1 with
    > SCORES, but when two systems have very
    > comparable PEs and BCs (ie, the system I'm
    > suggesting and Hi-Opt II), shouldn't we
    > generally expect SCORES in the same
    > league?

    > -Myoo

    I can't speak for Don, but I suspect the number that caught his eye was your projected PE, which is as high as any 2-3 level count I know of, and _way_ above any one-level count I know of. 1-level counts always have good BC, and so-so (.8 or so) IC, but the PE is always much lower than what you quoted...

  8. #8
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: projected PE

    Ok, but the PE is the most clearly accurate number I've quoted, IMHO. Consider question 4.18 from the faq on this very site! It doesn't compute the numbers for an ace-neutral KO (which would exactly match mine) but comes very close in giving an Ace-Neutral version of Red-7s a PE of .64.

    I can't speak with any authority when it comes to SCORE comparisons, but you gotta believe me when I tell you those are the numbers that come out when you punch in the system I've described into Richard Reid's PEBCIC analyzer. Or see for yourself! The reason no other level one count comes close is because all of them have an unbalance of +1, or 0, (or .5 for Red 7's) while this one adds up to +2.

    Please take a second look, y'all!

    -Myoo

    > I can't speak for Don, but I suspect the
    > number that caught his eye was your
    > projected PE, which is as high as any 2-3
    > level count I know of, and _way_ above any
    > one-level count I know of. 1-level counts
    > always have good BC, and so-so (.8 or so)
    > IC, but the PE is always much lower than
    > what you quoted...

  9. #9
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: projected PE

    > Ok, but the PE is the most clearly accurate
    > number I've quoted, IMHO. Consider question
    > 4.18 from the faq on this very site! It
    > doesn't compute the numbers for an
    > ace-neutral KO (which would exactly match
    > mine) but comes very close in giving an
    > Ace-Neutral version of Red-7s a PE of .64.

    OK. Somehow we are not talking apples-to-apples. If you go to www.qfit.com, click on "blackjack card counting strategies" you get a table that compares most of the used strategies. For red-7, it gives a PE of .54. That's not an "ace-neutral" modification, however... The revere ace-neutral count is .59.

    I've never studied/used anything but hi-lo, so I don't know which of the ace-neutral counts require ace side-counts (more difficult) to keep the BC up...

    > I can't speak with any authority when it
    > comes to SCORE comparisons, but you gotta
    > believe me when I tell you those are the
    > numbers that come out when you punch in the
    > system I've described into Richard Reid's
    > PEBCIC analyzer. Or see for yourself! The
    > reason no other level one count comes close
    > is because all of them have an unbalance of
    > +1, or 0, (or .5 for Red 7's) while this one
    > adds up to +2.

    > Please take a second look, y'all!

    > -Myoo

  10. #10
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: ace-neutral

    > If you go to www.qfit.com,
    > click on "blackjack card counting
    > strategies" you get a table that
    > compares most of the used strategies.

    Those tables don't consider the betting gain that comes from the ace side count. So, for an apples to apples comparison, go to www.bjmath.com > TOC > Counting Strategies > Card Counting Systems > System Tag Values and Ratings. Or, a shorter version can be found at FAQ 4.18 on this site(the one I mentioned earlier).

    > I've never studied/used anything but hi-lo,
    > so I don't know which of the ace-neutral
    > counts require ace side-counts (more
    > difficult) to keep the BC up...

    All of them do. The loss of BC from totally ignoring the ace outweighs the value of any gain in PE.

    The point of all this is, to do substantially better than Hi-Lo, and by that I mean consistently SCOREing more than 5-8% better, you have had (until now to take on a level 2+ count and an ace side count. Examine the SCORE comparisons across various games in BJA chapter 11 and I think you'll agree. For me, a multi-level count and a side count are just too much to handle. But I think I could handle a level one count with an ace side count, if the gain was signficant enough. And I'm confident it is. . . the SCORES fall just short of Hi-Opt II, but it's "one level" easier to use.

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.