Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 59

Thread: gazman: Level 2 count

  1. #27
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: but if you look at the bottom line. . .

    > If I remember right, the Zen 98 version is
    > not an apples-to-apples comparison. You
    > should choose hi-lo lite to compare with the
    > Zen 98 or you should choose the old Zen to
    > compare with the regular hi-lo. AS rounded
    > and deleted more than enough matrices to
    > affect win rates in pitch games.

    I found a "zen '80 with full indices - heads up" (probably not a fair comparison as I'd rather play heads up myself any time). win rate is $35.20 per hour with same rules as above...

  2. #28
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: but if you look at the bottom line. . .

    > Bear with me while I try to put into English
    > what I think is going on. If I am wrong,
    > someone will correct me. First, looking at a
    > couple of the HiLo and Zen sims in CVCX, I
    > was able to get close to your win rates, but
    > not exact. Nevertheless, I was able to
    > reproduce higher win rates on the archived
    > HiLo sims than the Zen sims (using your
    > assumptions and constraints).

    OK.. at least I am reading the data right. As I said it is possible that there are some differences in the two sims that are not obvious to me, and what zen w/full indices means I have no real idea since I don't use zen, unbalanced zen, or any other zen I've seen.

    > What is important though is that the SCORE
    > for Zen were higher than the HiLo SCORE
    > numbers. If I take Don at his word (which I
    > do) without fully understanding the
    > risk/return concepts, the Zen game is
    > better. Why...? I'm guessing because the
    > standard deviations are higher on the HiLo
    > (which they were in the sims I looked at).

    Correct here as well. I simply take that as potential "variance" or "fluctuation" but so long as the ROR for the two sims are close (and they are if I recall correctly) it would seem that they are equally risky, and they both settle in on the bet schedule that is 2x my bet unit. Logically it would seem that if I double my bet, double my BR, that all would be the same. But apparently this is not the case, and I _really_ don't want to know why either. As an analogy I am perfectly happy writing computer programs without knowing how a .08 fab plant makes the latest integrated circuits.

    > To get your higher return, you took on more
    > risk (not just relative to the bankroll and
    > betting ramp but in relation to how the
    > system performs against the game). SCORE is
    > telling you that if the two games were
    > bankrolled and bet ramped for an identical
    > risk level (not with the same bank roll and
    > bet ramp), you would have a higher return
    > with Zen.

    With Hi-Lo, I set the BR to $3875 to produce a 10.0% risk of ruin... I then did the same with the zen sim and got a BR of $4075 to produce the same 10% ROR as HiLo.

    I think I _still_ don't understand what is going on.

    > Think about your investments. Sure, small
    > cap growth stocks have a higher expected
    > return than large cap value, but you are
    > taking a bigger risk to get it. Which is
    > better? Depends. Don, in his chapter on
    > SCORE mentions the Sharpe ratio for
    > investments. I can't remember if it's
    > calculated the same way, but SCORE is the BJ
    > version of measuring the trade off.

    > Look, you may feel constrained by the bank
    > roll and want to use a specific bet ramp.
    > You may then end up with a game that give
    > you a comparatively better return than the
    > SCORE comparisons would indicate. But, and
    > it doesn't matter if you like it, understand
    > it or not...you are taking on more risk.

    > That's not going to kill you if you
    > recognize what you are doing. But having
    > said that, don't agonize over it.

    > Don, or someone else, please fix my
    > characterization of SCORE if I mucked it up.

  3. #29
    Wolverine
    Guest

    Wolverine: Homework

    Thank you Don.

    As I figure your assignment, here is my work:

    the RC is -2 and the lack of two aces (1/2 deck left) makes the RC +2 (reversing the counting of aces as mentioned above). The "ace reckoned" TC is +4. Since it is above +3, Insure.

    I hope I'm understanding this right. Thanks.

  4. #30
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: A different view...

    > I understand your reasoning but as a player
    > who does an Ace side I can only say that I
    > find it highly usefull and I lose very, very
    > few sessions taking this extra info into
    > account. It is no problem to carry out the
    > side count, for me, so why not.

    > To each his own.

    I never said anywhere that an ace side count wasn't useful. I said he was using it incorrectly for betting purposes. Once you count the aces in the primary count, you use that info to make the bet. You not only don't need a side count of aces for this, but it is WRONG to alter the primary count, according to the side count, to make the bet.

    Reread what I wrote.

    Don

  5. #31
    pm
    Guest

    pm: I'm sorry...

    ...but I have to point this out.

    See, man, the initial question was, "Can anyone tell me if it is worth while using a level 2 count over a level 1?"

    Your response was, "The best Non-L1 count around has a playing efficiency of about .67, which means that of that same 20% where BS is not correct, you get 67% or for every 100 hands, you play correctly 93 times. So 3 better plays per 100 hands. You decide whether the work is worth it."

    Myooligan pointed out "..if you compare Hi-Lo SCOREs to, say, Zen (An excellent level two count that doesn't require an ace side count), you find that Zen outperforms Hi-Lo by 13% to 20%, across a variety of conditions, including multi-deck games. That's a 13% to 20% increase to your bottom line."

    Now through Myooligan's comment, it was shown that the logic in your initial response was faulty. You attempted to show, through some method of PE comparison, that a level two count is probably not worth the effort. But, as Myooligan pointed out, when you use the correct system comparison method, i.e. the SCORE methodology, the Zen count (L2) CLEARLY outperforms Hi-Lo (L1).

    Then, instead of accepting that your logic was fallacious, you went off on a tangent, quoting numbers of how Hi-Lo outperforms Zen when you employ a fixed, non-optimal bet spread.

    What? Who gives a s*** about that? That's not a response to "Can anyone tell me if it is worth while using a level 2 count over a level 1?"; that was simply a way to circumvent the fact that you were wrong.

    But let's be honest: you didn't really go off on a tangent, you were actually totally unaware that your second attempt at comparing the systems was erroneous as well. So then you tried to play it off as if "Oh, that's fine that I'm comparing systems with a fixed, non-optimal bet spread because that's how I play." But the question was never "Can somebody please tell me how SSR plays?"

    Bottom line: what you posted in response to Myooligan was completely irrelevent. You don't compare systems by that PE comparison that you used, and you don't compare systems through fixed, non-optimal bet spreads (as Don had said over and over again). So why did you bring up that second point at all? Because you thought that you might be bringing to light winrates that proved that Hi-Lo outperforms Zen, and when Don told you that you were incorrect because you weren't comparing the two correctly, you went off on your tangent of "Oh, well, that's how I play." Gazman didn't want to know how you play, buddy, he wanted to know how much better an L2 is compared to an L1.

    I look forward to your 20 paragraph response.

  6. #32
    Ouchez
    Guest

    Ouchez: Thanks, I agree. *NM*


  7. #33
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Suggestion

    > I think I _still_ don't understand what is
    > going on.

    What we don't understand is what you are doing in CVCX .. maybe a 'Norm' post on the Computing for Counters would clear that up for you.

    Continuing to post that HiLo is 'better' than Zen because you are forcing some bad bet ramp on Zen is pointless.

  8. #34
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Homework

    > Thank you Don.

    > As I figure your assignment, here is my
    > work:

    > the RC is -2 and the lack of two aces (1/2
    > deck left) makes the RC +2 (reversing the
    > counting of aces as mentioned above). The
    > "ace reckoned" TC is +4. Since it
    > is above +3, Insure.

    > I hope I'm understanding this right. Thanks.

    Perfect!! A+ for the course. :-)

    Don

    P.S. Now, how do you keep track of the aces?

  9. #35
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: I'm sorry...

    > ...but I have to point this out.

    > See, man, the initial question was,
    > "Can anyone tell me if it is worth
    > while using a level 2 count over a level
    > 1?"

    I agree...

    > Your response was, "The best Non-L1
    > count around has a playing efficiency of
    > about .67, which means that of that same 20%
    > where BS is not correct, you get 67% or for
    > every 100 hands, you play correctly 93
    > times. So 3 better plays per 100 hands. You
    > decide whether the work is worth it."

    I agree there as well...

    > Myooligan pointed out "..if you compare
    > Hi-Lo SCOREs to, say, Zen (An excellent
    > level two count that doesn't require an ace
    > side count), you find that Zen outperforms
    > Hi-Lo by 13% to 20%, across a variety of
    > conditions, including multi-deck games.
    > That's a 13% to 20% increase to your bottom
    > line."

    > Now through Myooligan's comment, it was
    > shown that the logic in your initial
    > response was faulty. You attempted to show,
    > through some method of PE comparison, that a
    > level two count is probably not worth the
    > effort. But, as Myooligan pointed out, when
    > you use the correct system comparison
    > method, i.e. the SCORE methodology, the Zen
    > count (L2) CLEARLY outperforms Hi-Lo (L1).

    > Then, instead of accepting that your logic
    > was fallacious, you went off on a tangent,
    > quoting numbers of how Hi-Lo outperforms Zen
    > when you employ a fixed, non-optimal bet
    > spread.

    I didn't really go off on a tangent. I simply used the game I always try to play, at least most of the time, when I hit the coast or Vegas. And I used my betting level. And compared the zen count to the hi-lo count within that specific context, which I believe I carefully defined to explain the circumstances. I was somewhat surprised that the hilo/zen numbers came out as they did, but not amazed.

    > What? Who gives a s*** about that? That's
    > not a response to "Can anyone tell me
    > if it is worth while using a level 2 count
    > over a level 1?"; that was simply a way
    > to circumvent the fact that you were wrong.

    I don't believe I ever got into a "I'm right" or "I'm wrong" discussion. And I obviously was not addressing a "pro player" who would probably want to use the best count available since he/she would be practicing it every day in a casino. The issue I addressed was simply "is the extra effort of learning a L2 count worth the gain?" The general consensus is "yes, but only if you play enough to keep the errors down."

    > But let's be honest: you didn't really go
    > off on a tangent, you were actually totally
    > unaware that your second attempt at
    > comparing the systems was erroneous as well.

    No, I understood the idea of different ROR levels for the different counts. But if you look back, I _clearly_ pointed out that I was using the betting level I play at most of the time. And it seemed pointless to change a parameter I would not actually change. I even found this _same_ problem last week when I asked about the CVCX data that showed a huge jump in hourly win rate for Hi-Lo at penetrations of 58% and beyond, where CVCX decided it was reasonable to suddenly double my minimum bet unit.

    I'll remind you that this page is "blackjack beginners". I still consider myself one of those, since I have not yet reached even the 5-year point in counting. And many BJ players do in fact have a fixed betting level as opposed to a fixed bankroll. I use CVCX to adjust my betting ramp for different games. I do not use it to adjust my betting level... And from the people I know that count (no full-time professional counters) most have a betting level they will play at, period. Some (myself included) might adjust this depending on the game, I have played green mins on SD/DD quite frequently, but not on 6d where the spread is much bigger.

    So I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I simply provided data that goes with my specific style of play, and I very carefully defined my style of play. If you want to say that I am playing sub-optimally, that's fine. I don't claim anything at all there, except that I am going to play 5-50 spread in a DD game whenever I have the opportunity. And that I am not going to vary my bet system depending on penetration of the game, even though I should. Nor would I change counting systems and magically double my bet size.

    > So then you tried to play it off as if
    > "Oh, that's fine that I'm comparing
    > systems with a fixed, non-optimal bet spread
    > because that's how I play." But the
    > question was never "Can somebody please
    > tell me how SSR plays?"

    No, but it is certainly reasonable to answer "this is how I play, and this is how the two systems compare there." Of course, you could have simply answered the original question yourself, and probably given him a better answer. Or maybe he actually plays like I play and had decided "I can handle 5-50 spreads and don't want to change that, would moving to a L2 count help me very much?" In which case, my answer might have been helpful.

    One thing is for sure, for recreational players, and I'd bet most reading "blackjack beginners" are recreational at best, playing "optimally" is not something they would ever consider. All one has to do is pull up a sim in CVCX and adjust the pen and watch the bet ramp and min bet jump around. I know I can't manage that degree of complexity unless I play every day. That won't happen for at least another 8 years until I retire, perhaps, and maybe not then.

    > Bottom line: what you posted in response to
    > Myooligan was completely irrelevent. You
    > don't compare systems by that PE comparison
    > that you used, and you don't compare systems
    > through fixed, non-optimal bet spreads (as
    > Don had said over and over again).

    If you read BJ literature, you will find _all_ systems are compared in tables giving BC, PE and IC. And many new players _do_ look at those numbers and make a decision on which seems better. Particularly when they see the PE column which favors the more complex counts. Most players start off at 6d where PE is moot and BC rules. I'd bet if you ask most "beginners" "what is the score for your system in that game?" they'd answer "I have been winning overall with some wild swings."

    For example, I'll bet you bought your computer based mainly on the CPU mhz rating. poor choice. A 2.0ghz AMD opteron will kick that 3.6ghz pentium 4 badly. And for a computing professional, who knows that the opteron is better, and who runs number-crunching applications, the opteron would be the right choice. For the casual user, the right choice is based on price, _not_ performance... Same thing here, was my point. Where the "price" is the effort involved to learn and use a system.

    > So why
    > did you bring up that second point at all?
    > Because you thought that you might be
    > bringing to light winrates that proved that
    > Hi-Lo outperforms Zen, and when Don told you
    > that you were incorrect because you weren't
    > comparing the two correctly, you went off on
    > your tangent of "Oh, well, that's how I
    > play." Gazman didn't want to know how
    > you play, buddy, he wanted to know how much
    > better an L2 is compared to an L1.

    Note that I _never_ said HiLo was better than Zen. That was never a point. I simply looked up some numbers that applied exactly to how I play, and posted them to show that for me, HiLo was as effective as a better count. I don't have any agenda to push. I have not developed a system, I don't sell a book pushing a system, or anything. So my only agenda was to answer the question and I believe my answer was reasonable. Hi-Lo will win money. With less effort than a L2 count, with less fatigue, and for a casual player, with fewer mistakes which might offset the L2 advantage and then some.

    If I came off as pushing hi-lo over zen, either you misinterpreted my intention or I wrote my response(s) poorly. I think the counting system you use is a personal decision. It doesn't always have to revolve around "mine is bigger than yours." I can program just as well in assembly language as I can in C++. Not everybody can. But it fits me as most of my programming deals with high-performance issues, and in assembly language I can beat any compiler known to man, although the programs take longer to write. For the less experienced programmer, assembly language might actually be _worse_ as it is not hard to write slow assembly code as well. Back to that "experience" issue.

    That was my point. And my _only_ point.

    I am not quite sure what is wrong with the BJ community, but it seems that everyone suspects everyone else of (a) ulterior motives; (b) complicity; (c) incompetence; (d) etc. I'm in this for fun, relaxation, and of course money on the side. Anyone could always say "Rat, go away, you bother us." and I'll be happy to do so. I can count without talking/writing about counting, I've done it a long time. With the different "factions" today, almost involved in a "holy war" of sorts, it is hard enough to figure out who is being what to whom, in terms of honesty, agendas, etc...

    It isn't my intent to get neck-deep in such stuff. Arnold's new page has some serious personality issues that make it risky to post anything there. Stanford's pages seem to be the "calmest". This place is sort of in the middle. If you don't think I fit in, just say so. I can't solve all the other personality issues in the BJ community, but I can solve mine...

    > I look forward to your 20 paragraph
    > response.

    you got it...

  10. #36
    KennilworthKid
    Guest

    KennilworthKid: Re: Homework

    > Perfect!! A+ for the course. :-)

    > Don

    > P.S. Now, how do you keep track of the aces?

    well, when i try it (which isn't often) i hold my feet in certain positions--an idea that I got from seeing Ken Uston on "60 Minutes". I often got confused by it, so now I really only do it in single deck games, or a slow double deck game.

    i have tried using a lettering system, for example -1A, +2C (runinng count -1, a=no aces out; running count +2 c=two aces out), but that was too cumbersome for me.

  11. #37
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: Suggestion

    > What we don't understand is what you are
    > doing in CVCX .. maybe a 'Norm' post on the
    > Computing for Counters would clear that up
    > for you.

    > Continuing to post that HiLo is 'better'
    > than Zen because you are forcing some bad
    > bet ramp on Zen is pointless.

    I hope I explained what I was doing. I tried this multiple ways.

    1. Set a specific minimum bet, nothing else, and then used the two distributed CVCX sims (one for zen, 2B rounds, one for hilo, 2B rounds) and gave the expected win rate per hour.

    2. Set a specific BR, and did the same.

    3. set the BR to a point that each count had an exact 10% ROR and gave the BR requirement for each.

    The point was _never_ that HiLo was better than Zen. Didn't expect it to be, didn't claim it was. Don't even know how or why I would want to claim that never having used or studied the Zen count.

    The point was that for the specific game I play, it appears that hilo works a little bit better, regardless of the score value that says zen is better, period. Did I claim HiLo works better for all games? Nope. For all penetrations in my game? Nope. For all bet ramps? Nope. For all bankroll sizes? Nope. For all ROR requirements? Nope.

    If you have CVCX, you should be able to produce _exactly_ what I produced without running a sim at all. Someone else here reported that they found my numbers to be accurate for the conditions I claim.

    I personally don't care about "theoretical comparisons" that say "for all games, penetrations, etc, this count is better." Because that leaves the "out" that perhaps it is better in all the games I do _not_ play, and worse or equal in the games I _do_ play. I really care about what I play, not what I _could_ play.

    If it is the "defacto standard" that we always compare two counts on a hyper-theoretical plane, that's fine. But what counts for me is what happens when I walk up and sit down to a real game, not what might happen when I walk up and set down to any possible game...

    I believe that is where this thread took a wrong turn, because I never intended to say nor imply that hilo is better. I said "it is good enough and easier, and the potential gain from a more complex and hard-to-use count doesn't appear to be that significant to me." Others pointed out that complex systems lead to more errors for casual users, making the comparison of a pure theoretical outcome even less realistic.

    I know what I ought to be able to do "in theory" for various things. And I also know what I can actually do "in practice". Only rarely do the two reach equal ground, whether it be how far you can drive a golf ball, as opposed to how far you can drive it and keep it in play, to how fast your car will to as opposed to how fast it can go without your ending up in jail or in the morgue.

    There's plenty of room for practicality, IMHO.

    Now pardon me while I go play some DD at 66% pen with hi-lo and win some money. Without getting a headache in the process.

  12. #38
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: Homework

    > well, when i try it (which isn't often) i
    > hold my feet in certain positions--an idea
    > that I got from seeing Ken Uston on "60
    > Minutes". I often got confused by it,
    > so now I really only do it in single deck
    > games, or a slow double deck game.

    > i have tried using a lettering system, for
    > example -1A, +2C (runinng count -1, a=no
    > aces out; running count +2 c=two aces out),
    > but that was too cumbersome for me.

    While it isn't the same thing, exactly, what do you do when you back-count two tables simultaneously? I just keep reciting two numbers... 7 m3 7 m3 7 m3 remembering that the first is the table on my left, the second is the table on my right...

    I find that easy to do as there is no need to do any TC conversions or make any playing decisions. Trying to keep up with two tables, and play hands on both might be a bit taxing, I've never tried that.


  13. #39
    pm
    Guest

    pm: Re: I'm sorry...

    To be honest, I didn't suspect you of anything, and I apologize for coming out of nowhere and blasting you randomly. You were saying that a lot of people in the blackjack community suspect others of duplicity; I don't know anything about that. It's really just a personal problem I have: I love dismantling non sequiturs and arguments based on specious reasoning.

    I understand now that what you were saying made perfect sense to you, but the progression of your responses wasn't making sense to me, and I'm sure it wasn't making sense to most anyone else either. Which is probably why you got blasted by Don. Let me show you how it looked from the perspective of someone who is not inside your head:

    1) gazman: "Question: is an L2 much better than an L1?"
    2) SSR: "No; you only get 3 extra correct plays per 100"
    3) Myooligan: "Don't compare that; compare SCOREs to get the real answer."
    4) SSR: "OK, I compared winrates in CVCX, and Hi-Lo eeked out a better one than Zen."

    Now, for anybody reading your responses, this is where things went awry. You posted stats that demonstrated that the L2 Zen performed poorer than the L1 Hi-Lo, so at this point, it seems like you're response to the question "is an L2 better than an L1" is that for some DD games, an L2 will underperform an L1. NOWHERE in that post did you mention that that was true only if you did the comparison with a fixed, non-optimal bet spread, and nobody even ASKED if an L1 outperforms an L2 when you do such an improper comparison.

    So it is assinine to think that anyone could magically figure out the comparison you were actually trying to make. If your response to Myooligan had been "OK, Zen SCOREs are clearly better than Hi-Lo SCOREs; BUT, SCOREs assume you are playing with an optimal bet spread, and since you generally can't do that, situations can arise in which Hi-Lo will outperform Zen," then what you were saying would have been totally clear. But instead, you cited situations in which Hi-Lo outperforms Zen with no preface at all, and you were making absolutely no sense to anyone.

    Now:

    5) Don: "No, that's incorrect; SCOREs show that Zen is superior."
    6) SSR: "When I post numbers I _always_ post numbers that reflect what I am playing."

    So now do you understand why everyone, Don included, was scratchin their head about your post? Previous to post 6), you never mentioned that you were doing an improper comparison.

    And see, man, that's how a lot of your posts tend to be. They probably make a lot of sense to you, but to most others, it's just a lot of circumlocution and subject switching. And the way that you went awry in this thread is the way that you've gone awry in many other threads as well. If you didn't continuously come so STRONG in your posts, it probably wouldn't be such an issue, but you do, so.

    Hey, maybe you don't realize that you're doing it, but that's where feedback comes in, right?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

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.