stainless steel rat: Hi-Lo vs Zen

[bfbagain]

So although I didn't state specifically that the Beau had LS on the 6D only, I was prepared for you to comment on that.

Look, I'm really not trying to bust your balls, but if you're going to relate stories, events, casino conditions, etc., and you want to be taken seriously (otherwise why post?), then don't you think a little accuracy is important?

If the Caesars game took place in the "Palace Court", i.e., the HL salon at Caesars, and you "stated" that, there wouldn't have been another post by me. I already said that I was going to leave the MGM Grand DD issue alone. Anyone who has played at the MGM, knows that there is no DD game there. Period! That said, every casino surrounding the Grand does, in fact, have one. Could you be mistaken? Of course. Is it a big deal? No. But it is just as easy to say that your memory was a little fuzzy, that it could have just as easily been the NYNY, or San Remo, or the Trop... But no, you were specifically relating an event associated with DD and surrender. A reasonable person would (could?) easily expect you to remember that piece of information, as it is not common at Las Vegas DD games. It is a rare rule, and it seemed to figure prominently in your story, thus it is reasonable to expect someone to get that right!

Again, this is the "beginners" page, and many people may come away thinking that the MGM might offer a DD game with surrender. They do not. On both counts.

What's wrong with just saying, "ok, I made a mistake", and letting it go. Really. People make mistakes. I make mistakes. It's an imperfect world.

When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong, and get on with it. It's an amazing strength. More people ought to try it.

"To err is human."

My lectures for the day are complete.

Have a good day Professor.

cheers
bfb

[stainless steel rat]

> So although I didn't state specifically that
> the Beau had LS on the 6D only , I was
> prepared for you to comment on that.

> Look, I'm really not trying to bust your
> balls, but if you're going to relate
> stories, events, casino conditions, etc.,
> and you want to be taken seriously
> (otherwise why post?), then don't you think
> a little accuracy is important?

Actually I do. And as a general rule, if I report on a specific game, which I have done in the past, I do my best to get things right, perhaps fudging on the date or whatever if discretion seems in order.

Let me recap. This started out as a question about zen vs hi-lo. I made a _very_ simple comment that the extra effort of Zen offers a modest improvement in PE. Someone jumped on that saying "PE" is not a good comparison. Even though many BJ sites list all the counting strategies and blatantly post BC, PE and IC numbers for comparison. OK, so I took a game I play frequently, which just happened to be DD (not always LS but the very last DD game I played was LS) and entered those rules into CVCX and posted the SCORE and win rate per hour. That leads to a lot of "you are wrong, you are doing something wrong, etc." In reality I wasn't. It just so happens that the CVCX Zen count tables don't have surrender indices, apparently because they were not done for the original Zen count. OK. Parker figured that out. Now we diverged a bit and I don't recall my exact quote but it had something to do with DD/LS on the coast and in vegas. parker asked "where in vegas did you see this?" and I responded. To the best of my recollection. Someone (maybe you, I am not sure) asked again, and this time I asked my brother who was there with me. He said "I think so, I remember the game, I want to say it was at the Grand." So that was it. I just offered a "best recollection." I didn't attach any significance to it at all. I asked about games before and have been given advice by good players, only to go there and be told "we've discontinued that game here" or "we no longer offer resplitting aces" or whatever. And I hardly assume they are telling me things to get me to go out of my way to a game I would not normally want to play.

If the "standard" here is that everything be perfect, that's fine. But I would assume that is _not_ the standard based on observation. For example, Don said he ran the same sim as I did on BJRM and got better values for Zen. Did he omit the LS that had been repeatedly mentioned or did he have a Zen system with non-standard surrender indices? Didn't really matter to me, as we ultimately found the reason thanks to Parker.

I'm afraid that if the standard we have to use here is "No game can be mentioned unless it is absolutely for certain that the game is available on the day the post is written, with exactly the same condistions as written." I don't even believe "TrackJack" meets that standard. If the standard is "you are not allowed to visit a big city, wander through dozens of casinos, and make a mistake on what game you saw where once in a while." then that _also_ will leave me out. I've developed a pretty good memory for those things that I consider important and worth remembering. At my age, everything else goes to hell in a handbasket, pretty quickly. Unfortunately. So I answered to the best of my memory. If it didn't meet the standard you'd like to see, then I apologize for violating that standard.

I would hardly even bring up most of the things I have done to pro AP players. Hence my visiting the "beginner's page"...

> If the Caesars game took place in the
> "Palace Court", i.e., the HL salon
> at Caesars, and you "stated" that,
> there wouldn't have been another post by me.

You will have to pardon my ignorance of Caesars. I was in there for about 3 hours. We ate at the Palms (I believe that is what it is called, downstairs before you go up into the casino/theatre areas). We walked upstairs and found where the show was going to be. We went. After the show there were so many people we left.

That was my second visit. The first was a day or so before where we walked in, the two wives started playing slots, I walked around the place looking, and then as we were walking through here and there she said "look there..." and away the $100 (very short) adventure started. I'm not even sure I could describe where it was, as that was my one and only very short playing session there. I did most of my playing closer to the Grand or else when we drove down to see that incredible light gadget downtown and went into some of the old standby places just to see them and play a bit.

> I already said that I was going to leave the
> MGM Grand DD issue alone. Anyone who has
> played at the MGM, knows that there is no DD
> game there. Period! That said, every casino
> surrounding the Grand does, in fact, have
> one. Could you be mistaken? Of course. Is it
> a big deal? No. But it is just as easy to
> say that your memory was a little fuzzy,
> that it could have just as easily been the
> NYNY, or San Remo, or the Trop... But no,
> you were specifically relating an event
> associated with DD and surrender. A
> reasonable person would (could?) easily
> expect you to remember that piece of
> information, as it is not common at Las
> Vegas DD games. It is a rare rule, and it
> seemed to figure prominently in your story,
> thus it is reasonable to expect someone to
> get that right!

Fine by me. I believe I did say that it was more than possible that I mixed up the location of the DD, since I didn't play long, and my log entry is pretty unspecific "Played DD here, 6d there, 6d here, DD there, SD for five rounds until got a 6:5 ripoff and left, ... and ended up $-140 for the long walk."

That's not exact, but you get the idea. If you walk from the MGM over to the trop, to Luxor/Mandalay (went to Luxor to get Blue-Man tickets and play a little also) to NYNY all the way down to Caesars, and back on the other side (including a side trip thru the M&M candy store for wife) all in late june, temp well over 100F, eyes burning from dryness, the "session report" I wrote was necessarily less than accurate. I was really only trying to keep up with win/lose as it was interesting to carefully track this accurately over the past 5 years or so now to see how I'm doing.

So yes, I could be mistaken. The only problem is that I can not say for certain that I am, because it sure seems like it was the Grand. If you say it is impossible, that's fine. I once went through Graceland in Memphis. I would have sworn it was with my wife. But in talking about a trip up there with my brother and his wife a few months back, she was certain she had never been. I am certain I have been. Go figure. Did I go before we got married? That goes back to 1968 so I don't think so. But somebody is wrong. It really doesn't matter who, in the great scheme of life. We'll just go again and that solves the debate.

> Again, this is the "beginners"
> page, and many people may come away thinking
> that the MGM might offer a DD game with
> surrender. They do not. On both counts.

> What's wrong with just saying, "ok, I
> made a mistake", and letting it go.
> Really. People make mistakes. I make
> mistakes. It's an imperfect world.

If you say they have never offered this game, obviously I made a mistake. For the life of me, I still recall that game as being at the Grand. But, in vegas, things get to look alike. So if you want me to say "I know I was wrong" that isn't going to happen. Any more than I can say "I know I am right". Had too many of those discussions with my wife, and I probably bat about .500...

> When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong, and get
> on with it. It's an amazing strength. More
> people ought to try it.

> "To err is human."

> My lectures for the day are complete.

> Have a good day Professor.

> cheers
> bfb

Ditto...

[Don Schlesinger]

> Someone jumped
> on that saying "PE" is not a good
> comparison.

It isn't.

> Even though many BJ sites list
> all the counting strategies and blatantly
> post BC, PE and IC numbers for comparison.

It's the old-fashioned way. We've moved on. SCORE is better.

> OK, so I took a game I play frequently,
> which just happened to be DD (not always LS
> but the very last DD game I played was LS)
> and entered those rules into CVCX and posted
> the SCORE and win rate per hour. That leads
> to a lot of "you are wrong, you are
> doing something wrong, etc."

A subtle point here. It's possible I may have once written "you are wrong," but I more often wrote, because it is my style, "something is wrong here," which, clearly is not the same thing. And, immodestly, I have to point out to you that, if I write "something is wrong," 99% of the time, something is wrong. And, it was here.

> For example, Don said
> he ran the same sim as I did on BJRM and got
> better values for Zen.

Almost. BJRM is for the I18 and Fab 4. You used CVCX's "complete indices," only, unfortunately, the comparison was apples to oranges, because there were no Zen surrender indices -- a slight drawback! :-)

> Did he omit the LS
> that had been repeatedly mentioned

No. I read very carefully.

> or did he
> have a Zen system with non-standard
> surrender indices?

Neither. I had a Zen system with indices furnished by John Auston, as part of "Systems 101."

Here's the simple conclusion: You come here for occasional guidance and advice. But, you don't always take the advice that you are given, which is fine, I suppose. Only, when you are told that something is wrong, it would be a good idea to accept that it is, rather than to surmise that you have found a remarkable situation, where, for just the game you're playing, Hi-Lo mysteriously outperforms Zen.

My intuition told me that this didn't make any sense. And, if there's one thing that I NEVER argue with, it's my intuition! :-)

Don

[stainless steel rat]

> It isn't.

> It's the old-fashioned way. We've moved on.
> SCORE is better.

> A subtle point here. It's possible I may
> have once written "you are wrong,"
> but I more often wrote, because it is my
> style, " something is wrong
> here," which, clearly is not the same
> thing. And, immodestly, I have to point out
> to you that, if I write "something is
> wrong," 99% of the time, something is
> wrong. And, it was here.

Actually nothing was wrong here. Hilo did do better because Zen has no LS indices. I don't consider that "wrong" in any shape, form or fashion. It was more a characteristic of the game I happened to have chosen for comparison than anything I (or anyone else) did that was technically "wrong".

IMHO of course, as if you assume that "this count is better, but it has no surrender indices, so for a surrender game it isn't reasonable to compare it to HiLo" where I would respond "but if I play this game a lot, then it is a perfectly valid way to compare since I was always very clear as to the specific rules for the game I was using." I have a hard time counting any of the above as "something is wrong". Perhaps "something is producing unexpected results..."

> Almost. BJRM is for the I18 and Fab 4. You
> used CVCX's "complete indices,"
> only, unfortunately, the comparison was
> apples to oranges, because there were no Zen
> surrender indices -- a slight drawback! :-)

Yes, but I used Zen will _all_ of "zen's indices" vs HiLo with all the hilo indices. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to handicap hi-lo just because zen doesn't address surrender indices. Now if someone had noticed this and said "OK, test with either no LS, or test with these extra surrender indices for zen" I would have been happy to do so, the results would have been different, and it wouldn't have bothered me one iota...

> No. I read very carefully.

> Neither. I had a Zen system with indices
> furnished by John Auston, as part of
> "Systems 101."

> Here's the simple conclusion: You come here
> for occasional guidance and advice. But, you
> don't always take the advice that you are
> given, which is fine, I suppose. Only, when
> you are told that something is wrong, it
> would be a good idea to accept that it is,
> rather than to surmise that you have found a
> remarkable situation, where, for just the
> game you're playing, Hi-Lo mysteriously
> outperforms Zen.

Did I not find exactly that? Or do we have to use some definition of "zen" other than that which is generally accepted (I suppose the CVCX indices Norm uses come directly from the book/system?)

I was never arguing that HiLo was better. Never said nor (I hope) implied that. I said "OK, here is a game I see locally, when I run sims hilo does better. Here are the settings I used. Identical for both counting systems. Does anybody see anything wrong?" And as others tried, they got similar results. Fortunately Parker picked up on the LS issue that no one had mentioned in several dozen posts.

> My intuition told me that this didn't make
> any sense. And, if there's one thing that I
> NEVER argue with, it's my intuition! :-)

> Don

Three women sitting on a bench. First woman says "my instinct says it's gonna rain." Second woman says "my instinct says it is just going to be a cloudy day." Third woman says "my instincts too, but it don't give out weather forecasts..."



As far as intuition goes, I'm in a different field. Intuition is often wrong. Computer science is full of "anomalies". Belady's Anomaly is a classic in demand paging discussions. Intuitively more memory results in lower paging rates. But not _always_. This was one of those cases with Hi-Lo and it didn't seem unexpected. I was always taught any sentence with "always" in it is always false. Always had trouble as the sentence is a self-contradiction, but the point is pretty clear. I'd expect Zen to out-perform Hi-Lo _most_ of the time. But logic says there must be exceptions. Such as LS proved...

[Norm Wattenberger]

I hate it when I disagree with Don 'cause it means I'm wrong. But, I insist on using indexes from the books when comparing systems in CVCX with the included tables. You see I am not comparing merely the tag values. I am comparing the full systems, including compromises, selective use of risk aversion, etc, as stated in the respective books. The comparison of tag values exists in BJA. But, I want to compare HiLo in ProBJ with HiLo Lite in BiB. Same tag values - different systems. So, to me apples and oranges means something different. The SpeedCount ad includes a comparison of SpeedCount with HiLo. But, they have NO indexes in their HiLo sims. They say they do this to make it a fair comparison. It isn't a fair comparison 'cause no one uses HiLo that way. (I was mightily tempted to add SpeedCount to my scams page.)

Blackjack Scams

[Don Schlesinger]

I have no problem with what you've explained above, but then I think it very important for users of CVCX -- or any product -- to understand exactly what they are using and what results they are producing.

Software such as yours now provides us with the ability to generate index numbers of our own -- something that was lacking in the earlier days, when buyers relied on the system sellers to provide not only the tag values, but the indices, as well.

Frankly, were I to want to use any count system whatsoever, starting out today, I wouldn't trust the accuracy of any of the published indices in any of the books; I'd generate my own custom set with the more modern tools now available.

So, while it may be of historical interest to see how Hi-Opt I or II performs with indices supplied -- or not supplied -- by Humble, say, 25 years ago, those aren't the values I want to be using when I play the game today, or when I compare how his systems perform compared to, say, AOII or Halves, or whatever.

We are playing in 2005. We should be using 2005 technology and data to play the game as well as we can. It makes little sense to me to ponder over the deficiencies of Zen to handle surrender, simply because the original furnisher of the indices failed to include surrender.

Don

[stainless steel rat]

> I have no problem with what you've explained
> above, but then I think it very important
> for users of CVCX -- or any product -- to
> understand exactly what they are using and
> what results they are producing.

> Software such as yours now provides us with
> the ability to generate index numbers of our
> own -- something that was lacking in the
> earlier days, when buyers relied on the
> system sellers to provide not only the tag
> values, but the indices, as well.

> Frankly, were I to want to use any count
> system whatsoever, starting out today, I
> wouldn't trust the accuracy of any of the
> published indices in any of the books; I'd
> generate my own custom set with the more
> modern tools now available.

> So, while it may be of historical interest
> to see how Hi-Opt I or II performs with
> indices supplied -- or not supplied -- by
> Humble, say, 25 years ago, those aren't the
> values I want to be using when I play the
> game today, or when I compare how his
> systems perform compared to, say, AOII or
> Halves, or whatever.

> We are playing in 2005. We should be using
> 2005 technology and data to play the game as
> well as we can. It makes little sense to me
> to ponder over the deficiencies of Zen to
> handle surrender, simply because the
> original furnisher of the indices failed to
> include surrender.

> Don

Don, you make a good point. But there is an equally valid counter-point. What do you answer when someone _really_ asks "should I use HiLo or Zen for a DD, S17, DAS, LS game at my local casino?" The problem is that if you say Zen, and he uses the published system he will apparently get a worse result with more effort. And chances are he is going to use the Zen count as published.

Another issue is "rolling your own." Here is where I am an expert, and this topic revolves around "pseudo-random number generators and monte-carlo type simulations." When we talk about "N0" time in BJ, most of us know what we are talking about "effective long-term." In simulations, N0 is meaningless to determine how many sim rounds to run, because the properties of the random number generator have a lot to do with this. So does someone run 1B rounds or 100M rounds? And in many cases the indices will change depending on the answer. The $ per hour will change (and hopefully get more accurate but not always depending on how the math is done, for example you can run too many rounds trying to get the result to stabilize and run afoul of IEEE floating point rounding/truncation errors and actually start to get less accurate answers.

I think all of that simply means that there are two valid ways to compare a system, either using the published indices/plays, or "rolling your on in a sim of enough rounds to produce acceptable accuracy." This last step is perhaps beyond a beginning player's ability to understand, particularly if he/she is not a computer person.

I would personally assume that a question asked on the "beginner page" is asked by a "beginner" which means he/she is likely going to choose between two available systems as defined in two books he/she has access to or is fixing to order... If I were going to produce indices, to be used by a pro, I'd probably crank up a cray and run a trillion rounds or more, or at least enough that the results stabilize to 6 decimal digits or better. For a beginner, what has been published should be good enough, or if it isn't, the system should be re-published with better starting indices.

Just my $.02 as clearly you and I can't compare things if I use published indices and you use more accurate versions you produced via a sim...

[pm]

I'm saying this with no bad blood whatsoever (I wasn't even a part of this discussion, so what do I care?). I feel that my mentality is somewhat similar to yours, so I feel obligated to comment. Basically, I think that people like us need to learn how to re-examine our own conclusions before we decide to challenge an expert.

First, you said to me that you consider yourself a beginner. I also consider myself a beginner. As beginners, when we take it upon ourselves to try and answer somebody's question, we can't be certain that what we're saying is correct. That's okay, because even if we're wrong, one of the experts (i.e. Don, Parker, Norm, cac etc.) is there to catch any mistakes. So when Don points out that there's probably something wrong with our answer, then as beginners, our first reaction should probably not be to instantly defend ourselves, but to really slow down and look at what he's saying and hold OUR own posts as suspect. Now it turned out that with those Zen vs. Hi-Lo results that you posted, there were all kinds of things going on: at first you didn't have Zen simulated with an optimal spread, then you pointed out reality vs. theory, then it turned out that Zen didn't have the LS indices anyway, then there was a discussion of whether or not they should be used (we have the technology vs. what's published) etc., etc. But when you heard that first "No, makes no sense" from Don, it probably would have been best to realize that that was likely true, and that you may have overlooked something. Certainly, that's where the probability lies. However, you forged on with an initial "That's how I play," followed by "These sim results show optimal Hi-Lo outperforming optimal Zen." It turned out in the first case that you didn't have an optimal spread or any LS indices for Zen, and in the second case, you still didn't have any LS indices for Zen. So you were, at the least, missing some important information, and you probably should have looked into that before challenging Don the expert.

I'm guilty of not following this advice at all. I feel like I'm like you in that when I make a point, I feel bitter about hearing "No, you're wrong" as an answer; I either want the person to a) ACCEPT that my point is correct or b) explain EXACTLY what is wrong with my point. For example, when I was trying to say, a little while ago, that not downsizing is more profitable than always resizing, and Don said "No, that's not true," my initial reaction was "What?! How the hell can that be?" (again, sorry about that Don; I'm just always skeptical about everything). And what did I really expect Don to say? What, is Don supposed to give me a crash course in stochastic calculus so that I can fully understand kelly betting so that I can fully understand that the math behind what he's saying is correct? I'd love that because I'm a perfectionist, but that's not going to happen. But if you've read BJA, you know that Don's also a perfectionist, an EXTREMELY educated perfectionist, who is probably the the greatest overall blackjack expert EVER. If we can't take Don at his word, then who can we possibly trust? And we will have to trust someone, because you know we're going to make a lot of points, and you know that there's going to be something wrong with a lot of those points, and you know we're going to want an in-depth explanation of WHY we're wrong, and it's simply not always going to be possible to get that explanation because it may be too lengthy & complex and it would benefit nobody but us. When the f--- did it become the responsibility of the experts to have to break down every crackpot theory of every beginner anyway, simply because the beginner is saying "Look! Look at my crackpot theory, I bet you can't prove me wrong!!"?

So what I'm saying is that whether or not we like it, we have to cut back on our aggressiveness and trust the experts; there's no other way. Even if we adamantly believe that we're correct in our point, when Don says that we're wrong, we unfortunately have to take that at face-value simply because more often than not, he won't be able to explain why without a lengthy discussion (and despite the fact that you've been a computing professional for decades, I'd have to assume that some of the math would be over your head as well). When it's a case of Don telling a beginner that they're wrong and the beginner disagreeing, it makes no sense for Don to have to double-check himself; the beginner is the one who (relatively) lacks knowledge, experience, and credibility, so it is (unfortuantely) on the beginner to re-examine their own conclusions and possibly even do a little extended research before asking Don further questions.

[Don Schlesinger]

You went to great lengths to state many things that, if said by me, might have gotten me accused of arrogance, or worse. But, in essence, what you have written is really true.

It isn't simply that I'm the expert and someone else is just a beginner; that's just fine, because we were all beginners once, and this site loves all players of all levels. It's just that, after 43 years of blackjack research, there is literally not a whole lot new under the sun. Original questions and/or discoveries do not grow on trees, and new, cutting-edge research isn't so easy to come by. Still, we try.

After being at this for 30 years, most stuff that is new or perplexing to beginners is stuff that I've seen and discussed a thousand times; so, I have a little leg up on most of you. If I say something is wrong, it's just that I've already been down that road, researched the problem, and, more likely than not, know what the right answer is. Beginners can either trust that experience and body of knowledge or they can't. I have no control over that.

Nor is anyone infallible or does anyone know it all. I enjoy learning from others and try to keep current and abreast of modern theory and developments. It's not all that uncommon for me to write, "I learned something."

This simply wasn't one of those times! :-)

Don

[Random Poster]

By the way, the new BB in BJ has surrender indices.

> Where do you find Double Deck games with
> surrender in Las Vegas?

[Parker]

> By the way, the new BB in BJ has surrender
> indices.

I would certainly hope so!

[stainless steel rat]

> I'm saying this with no bad blood whatsoever
> (I wasn't even a part of this discussion, so
> what do I care?). I feel that my mentality
> is somewhat similar to yours, so I feel
> obligated to comment. Basically, I think
> that people like us need to learn how to
> re-examine our own conclusions before we
> decide to challenge an expert.

> First, you said to me that you consider
> yourself a beginner. I also consider myself
> a beginner. As beginners, when we take it
> upon ourselves to try and answer somebody's
> question, we can't be certain that what
> we're saying is correct. That's okay,
> because even if we're wrong, one of the
> experts (i.e. Don, Parker, Norm, cac etc.)
> is there to catch any mistakes. So when Don
> points out that there's probably something
> wrong with our answer, then as beginners,
> our first reaction should probably not be to
> instantly defend ourselves, but to really
> slow down and look at what he's saying and
> hold OUR own posts as suspect. Now it turned
> out that with those Zen vs. Hi-Lo results
> that you posted, there were all kinds of
> things going on: at first you didn't have
> Zen simulated with an optimal spread

To make this correct, I _did_ have the right spread. I simply forced the same minimum bet, which is how I would suspect most beginners would compare systems. IE which is better, $18 per hour at $5, or $21 per hour at $6? Hard to say, and the typical beginner would probably want to say "all things being equal, which system is better?" A perfectly reasonable question, and the question I answered IMHO.

But then I _did_ go back and use "optimal bets" for both systems, and _nothing_ changed, if you recall. HiLo still produced a better result. Then we had the surrender discussion, and someone _else_ ran a sim that _still_ has HiLo producing a better result with no LS in the game... I believe this was based on zen 98 rather than zen 80 however...

>, then
> you pointed out reality vs. theory, then it
> turned out that Zen didn't have the LS
> indices anyway, then there was a discussion
> of whether or not they should be used (we
> have the technology vs. what's published)
> etc., etc. But when you heard that first
> "No, makes no sense" from Don, it
> probably would have been best to realize
> that that was likely true, and that you may
> have overlooked something.

We need context here. Here is a bit. I'm not a hayseed that just fell off a turnip truck. I've been a computer science professor for 35 years now. That to say that I have done my share of research, I have done my share of scientific experiments, I have done my share of writing reports on those results, and so forth.

There is no doubt that if a question was purely about BJ, I'd take Don't comments over mine every time. But _this_ time it wasn't purely about BJ. It was about whether a sim was run properly or not. And for _that_ case, I won't take _anybody's_ opinion over mine without some supporting evidence other than a simple "you are doing something wrong." I've been around the park too many times to be dismissed that easily, and in the area of computing and simulation, I'd be just as likely to trust my conclusions and tests as anyone else here. Again, not specifically BJ of course. But a "you did something wrong" or "something is wrong" is a very casual dismissal of an idea proposed by someone that is not an idiot by any measure you care to measure...

> Certainly, that's
> where the probability lies. However, you
> forged on with an initial "That's how I
> play," followed by "These sim
> results show optimal Hi-Lo outperforming
> optimal Zen." It turned out in the
> first case that you didn't have an optimal
> spread or any LS indices for Zen,

Again that is wrong. The _first_ time I used the correct spread of 1-8, as the spread is not a "correct" thing, it is what you choose to play with, the bigger the better unless you can't get away with it. There are _no_ LS indices for Zen. I simply used the Zen tables exactly as they are distributed in CVCX. I believe they are the right way to compare things. Norm said the same thing. I pointed out to Don that using some sort of non-published or non-standard "optimal indices" that were not part of the official Zen system leads to at _least_ as much confusion as comparing the systems right out of the box. And again, for a _beginner_ that is asking a question, "out of the box" makes much more sense since a beginner is not going to know how to compute optimal indices anyway...

> and in the
> second case, you still didn't have any LS
> indices for Zen. So you were, at the least,
> missing some important information, and you
> probably should have looked into that before
> challenging Don the expert.

What was I "missing"? The precise Snyder definition of Zen? I believe, according to Norm, that is _exactly_ what CVCX has included. Was I missing some unknown improvements? Possibly. Is that important to a simple question about "which should I learn?" Hardly since how could a beginner learn those indices that have not been published as part of the system? I fail to see where I left out _anything_ here...

> I'm guilty of not following this advice at
> all. I feel like I'm like you in that when I
> make a point, I feel bitter about hearing
> "No, you're wrong" as an answer; I
> either want the person to a) ACCEPT that my
> point is correct or b) explain EXACTLY what
> is wrong with my point. For example, when I
> was trying to say, a little while ago, that
> not downsizing is more profitable than
> always resizing, and Don said "No,
> that's not true," my initial reaction
> was "What?! How the hell can that
> be?" (again, sorry about that Don; I'm
> just always skeptical about everything). And
> what did I really expect Don to say? What,
> is Don supposed to give me a crash course in
> stochastic calculus so that I can fully
> understand kelly betting so that I can fully
> understand that the math behind what he's
> saying is correct? I'd love that because I'm
> a perfectionist, but that's not going to
> happen. But if you've read BJA, you know
> that Don's also a perfectionist, an
> EXTREMELY educated perfectionist, who is
> probably the the greatest overall blackjack
> expert EVER. If we can't take Don at his
> word, then who can we possibly trust? And we
> will have to trust someone, because you know
> we're going to make a lot of points, and you
> know that there's going to be something
> wrong with a lot of those points, and you
> know we're going to want an in-depth
> explanation of WHY we're wrong, and it's
> simply not always going to be possible to
> get that explanation because it may be too
> lengthy & complex and it would benefit
> nobody but us. When the f--- did it become
> the responsibility of the experts to have to
> break down every crackpot theory of every
> beginner anyway, simply because the beginner
> is saying "Look! Look at my crackpot
> theory, I bet you can't prove me
> wrong!!"?

You are totally missing the point. If you want to post "SSR, you are wrong, here is why." the go for it. I listen to that kind of stuff all the time as I write/publish papers. I do _not_ pay much attention to "this is wrong" with no explanation, as that argument is not convincing. And in my circles, not particularly professional either. I have no doubt Don has forgotten more about BJ and playing than I know. Fine. But, again, I'm not exactly a "joe sh** the rag salesman" person that knows nothing about computing and simulation... So this has to be a two-way street, where we both use the same standard or it just won't work. IMHO.

> So what I'm saying is that whether or not we
> like it, we have to cut back on our
> aggressiveness and trust the experts;
> there's no other way.

"this way there be dragons" as 15th century shipping maps used to say. I encourage students in my classes to challenge me if they think I am wrong. I do, on occasion, start at some point and make a statement that is completely wrong, and leave it laying there until someone says "Dr. X, I don't understand how that can be right." I don't teach my students to be mindless rats, nor do I aspire to that either. If someone writes something that seems really off-base, and I have some supporting evidence to suggest it is wrong, I'll generally offer that, whether it be reviewing a paper, posting on one of several different message boards (BJ and non-BJ topics as well) or in private email queries that I get daily. If you take data without verifying it, caveat emptor...

> Even if we adamantly
> believe that we're correct in our point,
> when Don says that we're wrong, we
> unfortunately have to take that at
> face-value simply because more often than
> not, he won't be able to explain why without
> a lengthy discussion (and despite the fact
> that you've been a computing professional
> for decades, I'd have to assume that some of
> the math would be over your head as well).

That is doubtful, but irrelevant. I've taught calculus and probability theory and numerical analysis in the past, so math doesn't scare me off at all. There are probably plenty of strange probability issues that catch my eye and I ask here (hi counts seem to produce fewer winning hands than medium-high counts, a high count with less than one deck remaining can look funny, etc.)

But this wasn't about math. It was about taking two _existing_ sims, already run and distributed by norm, and comparing the numbers. If you look at the thread, I don't see a single thing that turned out to be wrong in my statements or conclusion about _that_ _specific_ DD game. I think you should logically compare two systems, by comparing the two systems as they are generally known to the BJ playing public. Otherwise it would be impossible to compare anything if everyone uses different indices, selects different sets of indices to include/exclude, etc. Good empirical science says "change one thing at a time, and only one thing, so that any changes in the result can only be attributed to that one change. If you change two or more things, it becomes orders of magnitude harder to figure out which change was good and which was bad."

I live and test by that standard. To do otherwise is to produce data that is confusing at best and misleading at worst.

> When it's a case of Don telling a beginner
> that they're wrong and the beginner
> disagreeing, it makes no sense for Don to
> have to double-check himself; the beginner
> is the one who (relatively) lacks knowledge,
> experience, and credibility, so it is
> (unfortuantely) on the beginner to
> re-examine their own conclusions and
> possibly even do a little extended research
> before asking Don further questions.

If I like "credibility" so be it. A few here and there know who I am. I can tell you that in the field of "computing" I don't lack any, and one thing I do as a professional is that I _never_ assume someone I am communicating with is an inept hack that should be casually dismissed outright. I might conclude that after a good bit of discussion, but I always afford people that email me professional courtesy. I probably answer 50 email questions about computer related topics every day. email. Another 10-20 per day on message boards. And after 30 years of "internet usage" (I had an arpanet account to work with Lawrence Livermore Lab even before "al gore" invented the internet) I _still_ maintain that level of professionalism such that if I am going to tell someone they made a mistake, I am going to show them exactly _where_. That's what an expert in a field _ought_ to do, would you not agree???

On the internet, you can be talking to a 16 year old bright kid, a 25 year old moron, or a nobel prize winner. Without knowing which, professional courtesy causes me to assume the best, until that is proven wrong.

That is my take. Based on a life of academia, paper review, peer review for tenure, peer review for NSF funding, heck I think I go through peer review when I visit the men's room. But it is always in the form of "you are wrong and here is where" rather than "this is wrong."

That's enough of the soap box. Hopefully you understand my perspective in this. I play BJ for fun. I have taught people to count. I've taught 'em to have fun. I'm beginning to realize that it is more fun to hold discussions in the traditional computing venues where common courtesy abounds in general. A little too much acrimony here, is the sense I am getting. Unfortunately. I had thought that discussing BJ with others would be a lot of fun after sort of "living alone in the casino" for 4 years. I'm beginning to believe that a "that is wrong" would definitely be appropriate here. I can figure out why.

[Don Schlesinger]

I just did a quick tally of the "Top 25" posters and the number of their posts to this entire site. I don't know how far back it goes, but my totals are 3,272!!

So, when you write that you are frustrated to receive a "this is wrong" from me, without a detailed, lengthy explanation as to why, my answer to you is that, occasionally, I don't have the time, in my 3,272 posts, to write as much as the questioner would like me to.

Often, I write things like, "See BJA3, p. xxx." This may frustrate some people who don't have the book. My response is: "I've written it up at length once -- and rather painstakingly, at that -- I'm not required to write it ad infinitum and ad nauseam, because the same question has been asked for the tenth time.

You could have taken the "something is wrong" as a challenge -- to find the error yourself. Parker did. Instead, you decided, as above, yet again, to take the long-winded, defensive route. Everyone here is telling you how counter-productive that is, but you refuse to listen.

Viktor and Parker have actually asked me to post less frequently here. They think I am TOO generous with my time on the Free pages, and they think that I should spend the large percentage of my time on Don's Domain only. I have resisted that over the years, but, truth be told, discussions like these, and your attitude, in particular, are beginning to make me see their point of view! :-)

You very badly need to lighten up.

Don