Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 59

Thread: Sonny: Calculating TC to decimal points

  1. #1
    Sonny
    Guest

    Sonny: Calculating TC to decimal points

    I?m so intrigued by this concept that I wanted to start a new thread about it.

    > An extra 0.6 means an extra advantage of 0.3%.

    Sounds good. Recognizing a greater advantage means that I can push out a bit more money and get more action per hour. Have you been able to simulate using this method? I would be interested to hear how much this method can add to a player?s win rate. Wouldn?t it be similar to just adjusting your TC by half-decks (or, in this case, tenths of a deck) instead of full decks? You would just double all of your indices instead of adding decimal places.

    > In other words,I don't correlate my bets
    > strictly with TC, I correlate them with the
    > actual advantage.

    That?s an interesting concept. So you have memorized the fact that a 2% edge occurs at, say, 3.3 and calculated your bet spread that way?

    > My CA-program was designed with the infinite
    > deck approach.They work extremely well with
    > multiple decks but their might be some slight
    > distortions for DD because of the increased
    > influence of the initial hand.

    What about the argument that, because of rounding and whatnot, indices are not terribly accurate in the first place? If the numbers are not completely accurate at the whole number value, why bother with the fractional part?

    -Sonny-

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Calculating TC to decimal points

    There's virtually no advantage at all to calculating TCs to a decimal point. You can't claculate the edge of a TC a tenth at a time.

    When we say that your edge at TC = 3 is, say, 1.0% or 1.5%, that value is an average edge over the entire interval. It isn't the edge at exactly 3. Therefore, it isn't true that, at 3.6, you have six-tenths more edge than a person would think, using just whole numbers, because the edge that he tells himself that he has at +3 is really the precise edge of about 3.4 or so (the edge isn't leinear, because the frequency of the TC decreases as one goes from left to right within the interval.

    You need to trust me on this: What you or Francis would be trying to accomplish is a monumental waste of time.

    Don

  3. #3
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Re: Calculating TC to decimal points

    > Sounds good. Recognizing a greater advantage
    > means that I can push out a bit more money
    > and get more action per hour. Have you been
    > able to simulate using this method? I would
    > be interested to hear how much this method
    > can add to a player?s win rate.

    Sure I have simulated my system and the results were very encouraging and that's why I'm using it professionally now.As to the gain in win rate, I have no means of comparison but you can easily get an idea: If you can put out $100 more because of the additional 0.3%, this single situation added exactly 30 cts to your win rate. Assuming we get about 20 such situations an hour,your hourly win rate has risen by $6.

    Wouldn?t it
    > be similar to just adjusting your TC by
    > half-decks (or, in this case, tenths of a
    > deck) instead of full decks? You would just
    > double all of your indices instead of adding
    > decimal places.

    I don't quite see your point here but let me say that I don't see decimals as a nuisance. May be the indexes are a bit more difficult to memorize but once you use them regularly you won't forget them again.

    > That?s an interesting concept. So you have
    > memorized the fact that a 2% edge occurs at,
    > say, 3.3 and calculated your bet spread that
    > way?

    TC+3.3 is certainly less than 2% edge but you got the idea.
    Actually I have bet schemes ready for various rule sets and during play I don't even have to bother about TC. I know the bet size depending on the RC and the level of penetration.TC is just for index plays.

    > What about the argument that, because of
    > rounding and whatnot, indices are not
    > terribly accurate in the first place? If the
    > numbers are not completely accurate at the
    > whole number value, why bother with the
    > fractional part?

    I don't understand. The fact that indices are not accurate enough as whole numbers is the reason why we want fractions.

    Francis Salmon

  4. #4
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Re: Calculating TC to decimal points

    > You need to trust me on this: What you or
    > Francis would be trying to accomplish is a
    > monumental waste of time.

    Trying to accomplish? I have put this into practice several years ago and it was anything else than a waste of time.
    My concept is different from yours. For me an index (or a TC) is a fixed value, in other words a point on the number scale and as we have learnt from the old Greeks, a point has no dimension.
    This point reflects a certain card distribution which in turn determines the advantage and the playing strategy in a given situation. Common sense says:The more precisely we calculate the point, the more accurately we can deal with the situation.

    Francis Salmon


  5. #5
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: It doesn't work that way


    > An extra 0.6 means an extra advantage of 0.3%

    At a lower frequency. When you take all counts together against their frequencies, there is minimal difference between TC integers and tenths assuming you are dividing by full decks in the first place.



  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Calculating TC to decimal points

    > Trying to accomplish? I have put this into
    > practice several years ago and it was
    > anything else than a waste of time.

    Francis, you know better than to think that you can quote personal results to support a mathematical concept. Read Norm below. I'm not going to debate this with you, and you are entitled to your opinion. This doesn't work the way you think it does, and the extra edge that you are quoting is surely nonexistent.

    Don

  7. #7
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Re: It doesn't work that way

    > At a lower frequency. When you take all
    > counts together against their frequencies,
    > there is minimal difference between TC
    > integers and tenths assuming you are
    > dividing by full decks in the first place.

    I don't understand this at all. In a specific situation you have a specific count reflecting a specific advantage situation.Why bother about other counts? There isn't a nomansland between integers with advantage leaping from whole number to whole number just to please us. Advantage is increasing gradually with the count, whether we like it or not.
    I see that in your function as chief simulator, you have to conceive TC as a zone or a bucket in spite of its having the nature of a point. In French we call this "d?formation professionnelle".

    Francis Salmon

  8. #8
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Re: Calculating TC to decimal points

    I didn't except you to debate. I'm used to your backing out as soon as it gets tricky.
    Anyway,you have a wedding speech to prepare:-).
    So, have a nice day!

    Francis Salmon

  9. #9
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: No, this is not an occupational disease

    > I see that in your function as chief
    > simulator, you have to conceive TC as a zone
    > or a bucket in spite of its having the
    > nature of a point. In French we call this
    > "d?formation professionnelle".

    I don't "have to" do this. I do it because it is the only way. And that is true whether you use integers or tenths. The usage of tenths no more gives you "points" than do integers. And it does not lead to the errors you suggest when you state "It can lead to errors of up to 0.9 index points." The index is not determined at the point at the bottom of the range.

    But to the original post. Sonny posted "An extra 0.6 means an extra advantage of 0.3%" I am just trying to make sure that readers understand that the overall gain is not slightly close to 0.3%. The gain experienced by a more accurate index is not even 0.3% for that one case. The .3% gain (assuming it were accurate) would exist with or without tenths. The fact that you have identified it matters little. Even assuming you can calculate the TC perfectly to tenths 100% of the time, the overall gain is minimal.

  10. #10
    Flyboy
    Guest

    Flyboy: Learn a Level 2 Count

    To answer in the spirit you asked, rather than try to deal in fractions or decimals, learn a level 2 count. As Don says, TC does not reflect a precise, fixed advantage percentage, but an interval. The intervals for TC values in Level 2 (and higher) counts are smaller, thus reflect more of the precision you are looking for. It should be noted that the added precision pays off more in playing efficiency than betting correlation.

    > I?m so intrigued by this concept that I
    > wanted to start a new thread about it.

    > Sounds good. Recognizing a greater advantage
    > means that I can push out a bit more money
    > and get more action per hour. Have you been
    > able to simulate using this method? I would
    > be interested to hear how much this method
    > can add to a player?s win rate. Wouldn?t it
    > be similar to just adjusting your TC by
    > half-decks (or, in this case, tenths of a
    > deck) instead of full decks? You would just
    > double all of your indices instead of adding
    > decimal places.

    > That?s an interesting concept. So you have
    > memorized the fact that a 2% edge occurs at,
    > say, 3.3 and calculated your bet spread that
    > way?

    > What about the argument that, because of
    > rounding and whatnot, indices are not
    > terribly accurate in the first place? If the
    > numbers are not completely accurate at the
    > whole number value, why bother with the
    > fractional part?

    > -Sonny-


  11. #11
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Re: No, this is not an occupational disease

    > The gain
    > experienced by a more accurate index is not
    > even 0.3% for that one case. The .3% gain
    > (assuming it were accurate) would exist with
    > or without tenths.

    I never claimed that an advantage didn't exist if you didn't identify it.If you had read my answer to Sonny's post carefully you would have realized that the gain stems exclusively from the higher bet as a result of the identification.
    Anyway, my main argument for using decimals is the more accurate use of strategy variations and I haven't heard a word from you about this.

    Francis Salmon


  12. #12
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Matter of definition

    A TC is only an interval if you define it as such.
    But every interval has a mean and this is again a point.An index by its nature must be a point, because it marks the separation between two different strategies.
    Ever since Dr. E. Thorp, TC has been defined by RC divided by remaining decks and the result of this division is a point reflecting the prevailing card distribution. Creating TC-zones is just an invention of the simulation freaks.

    Francis Salmon

  13. #13
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Flyboy answered this

    > Anyway, my main argument for using decimals
    > is the more accurate use of strategy
    > variations and I haven't heard a word from
    > you about this.

    It is important to understand that counting is compromise on top of compromise on top of compromise. The tag values are a compromise. The estimation of penetration is a compromise. The accuracy of TC calculation at any penetration is a compromise. The amalgamation of all penetrations into one index is a compromise. The exact "point" you talk about does not exist in a counting system. Dramatically increasing the accuracy of one of these compromises alone doesn't necessarily affect the overall result in a significant manner. It's like plugging $100,000 speakers into a cheap amplifier.

    The use of decimals is an attempt to gain more fidelity to tag values that are inaccurate Upgrading to a higher level count will not only gain more precision than using tenths and a lower level count, but it's easier.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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.