pm: Backcounting question..

[pm]

I feel stupid asking this...Don, you were saying a while ago that BJRM replicates the original BJA backcounting style, and that "If you back-count according to BJRM or CV, it means that you are, in essence, staying at the same table and not playing when the count is disadvantageous."

I'm assuming you didn't literally mean that you stay at one table and never bet negative counts (since that doesn't seem practical). So how exactly does the BJRM/original BJA backcounting style work, and how is it different from the WiWo style? I've read chapter 1 several times, but I'm still not clear..

[Don Schlesinger]

> I feel stupid asking this...Don, you were
> saying a while ago that BJRM replicates the
> original BJA backcounting style, and that
> "If you back-count according to BJRM or
> CV, it means that you are, in essence,
> staying at the same table and not playing
> when the count is disadvantageous."

Right.

> I'm assuming you didn't literally mean that
> you stay at one table and never bet negative
> counts (since that doesn't seem practical).

That's what the software does.

> So how exactly does the BJRM/original BJA
> backcounting style work, and how is it
> different from the WiWo style?

Just reread Part I of Chapter 13 of BJA3, for a thorough explanation of the methodology used by WiWo, the White Rabbit, and Mr. Perfect. It's all summarized in the table on p. 348.

As for BJRM, it replicates the original premise of staying at a table, playing the good counts and not playing the bad ones.

> I've read
> chapter 1 several times, but I'm still not
> clear..

That's because the description is in Chapter 2! :-) (See p. 351 for the quote from that chapter.)

Don

[Brick]

If you're using BJRM and somewhat of the same strategy I use,which is I wong "out" and move on when the tc reaches -3. BJRM actually has wong "in" values,so if you set the wong out point at any negative count you're actually wonging back in the game as soon as the tc swings back to less than -3. This is usually not the practical way we play blackjack. You may want to read my previous post of BJ theory on simulators(main page). I also asked a question that's probably too difficult to answer.

[pm]

Ah, I see (I have to read something about ten times before it sinks in, sorry).

I'm still confused though; you said that the your original backcounter model stays at one table, betting at TCs of (say) +1 or higher and effectively betting zero for all others. How do you put that into practice in real life, since you can't keep jumping in and out of the shoe?

[pm]

Actaully, it was after reading your post that I realized that I was still confused about the original backcounter (i.e. BJRM) model.

[Don Schlesinger]

> I'm still confused though; you said that the
> your original backcounter model stays at one
> table, betting at TCs of (say) +1 or higher
> and effectively betting zero for all others.

Correct.

> How do you put that into practice in real
> life, since you can't keep jumping in and
> out of the shoe?

You don't. But, in the old days, before the Optimal Departure Study of Chapter 13, there was simply no other way to model the problem or figure it out. Now, we have Chapter 13. But, the point was that, after the assumptions made, we came really very close, in our findings, to replicating the original win rates from doing it the Chapter 2 way.

Don

[pm]