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

Thread: Sonny: Calculating TC to decimal points

  1. #27
    Phinitum
    Guest

    Phinitum: Re: Nonlinear Advantage - some numbers

    Good first choice, I believe that in choosing the insurance decision you gave the 'more precision' supporters the best case they can have. It is linear being based on just the probability of one card being a specific rank.

    > Below are the exact values for insurance
    > expectations for 2D based on the exact Hi-Lo
    > TC's.

  2. #28
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: It has been done

    There is nothing new or revolutionary here. Cacarulo reminded me in an e-mail that he had simmed this several years ago. Anyone with a BJ21 Green Chip membership might want to take a look at the Post of the Month for April 2001.

    Not surprisingly (to me, at least) his sims prove beyond any doubt that this degree of precision is, in his words, " not worth the time and effort."

  3. #29
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Index determination via simulation

    I don't think that there is a perfect method of creating indexes in a reasonable period of time. There are many methods. Normal simulation where you just play the game normally and record results as the game is played does not provide accurate indexes and is particularly bad at Splits. This is what index generators do in cheap software. I've tried several methods over the years and settled on a simulation method that includes some elements of combinatorial analysis. But it isn't perfect. If I had to guess, I would say Cacarulo knows more about index generation than anyone else at this point in time.

  4. #30
    MGP
    Guest

    MGP: Re: Nonlinear Advantage - some numbers

    > Good first choice, I believe that in
    > choosing the insurance decision you gave the
    > 'more precision' supporters the best case
    > they can have. It is linear being based on
    > just the probability of one card being a
    > specific rank.

    Thanks, but I guess you missed my point. While it is probably the most linear play - it is still NOT linear. The two other advantages of this play are the high return (2:1) and the simplicity of the analysis.

  5. #31
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Good example *NM*


  6. #32
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Re: You are stuck in old thinking.

    > You
    > go through all this extra work for extra
    > 'precision' and then throw it all away with
    > a statement that 1 TC is worth .5%.
    > Nonsense. Advantage kicks in as indexes kick
    > in. For example, there will always be a
    > large jump when Insurance kicks in. And
    > advantage for defensive plays meanders all
    > over the TC curve. Forget you ever heard
    > that and you will be much better off.

    1 TC = 0.5 is for me just a rule of thumb but it's still good enough for determining bet size. I'm perfectliy aware that there are differences according to rules and ranges and penetration (see my answer to your post on the main page).
    Here I was simply responding to your somewhat exaggerated statement that there is no linearity at all. Your "discoveries" haven't put the rule of thumb out of effect and people can still safely use it for bet sizing.Always making optimal bets is anyway impossible in real life situations.

    Francis Salmon

  7. #33
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: About EXACT Indices


    > 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

    > 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.

    > 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.

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

    Francis,

    Maybe you should read my post (April 2001's POM) about the use of exact indices. I agree that there is a tiny gain but for me it's not worth the time and effort. If instead you used RA-indices your SCORE would be higher than the one obtained by the use of "exact" indices.
    Besides, with your methodology (representative pack) you can't obtain RA-indices.

    As Parker have said, you'll need GC membership. You'll understand that I can't re-post it here.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo



  8. #34
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Thank you

    I'm sure your post would be worth reading but I prefer to remain the voice from outside.
    I believe that not being member of a club makes it easier to speak up freely.

    Francis Salmon

  9. #35
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: My one post on the topic

    > Saying and repeating "You're
    > wrong" and "You don't
    > understand" is not an argument but it
    > seems to be the only one you have.

    It's the only one I need, and the only one I have time for. Here's what I always find interesting about people who advance specious arguments. They think that the people who tell them that they're wrong have some sort of obligation to do their work for them and to point out their mistakes. They never feel that the burden might be upon them to demonstrate why we should believe them. Just read any of John Patrick's works to see how this thought process operates.

    Let me give you a little background, Francis. I've known about Hi-Lo indices to one decimal place since probably before you ever picked up a card -- 1980 to be exact. Joel Friedman's risk-averse paper had all the relevant indices for Hi-Lo calculated to one decimal, but no one except a few of us had his paper or knew of his work.

    When Wong came out with his first version of Blackjack Analyzer, he and I used the 10x methodology to generate an entire set of indices (I did it for the RPC) to one decimal place, just for curiosity. I have the printout in my files, where it has gathered dust for years, because it it virtually worthless.

    We ran the sims, and the differences didn't amount to a hill of beans, which is also what Cacarulo demonstrated, in 2001. What's more, it was clear to me, from the outset, that such an approach was a waste of time and effort.

    Now, here's another thing that I love about self-righteous people: They think that because they've been doing something that they believe in all their lives and that they're convinced that it's right, that it must be so. Just because you're passionate about this subject doesn't make you right; it just makes you passionate! And, my responsibility on this site goes far beyond pleasing you personally. My responsibility is to the ensemble of readers who trust this site to get reliable information. So, that's whom I'm speaking to now, and if you care to listen fine; if not, I'm not going to worry about it.

    Calculating and/or using indices to one decimal point is a monumental waste of time and effort, which won't add enough to your bottom line to buy a couple of hot dogs annually on the A.C. boardwalk!

    Finally, as to the discussion of linearity, on the other page, I invite you and everyone else to open Chapter 10 of BJA3 to any chart and to calculate the increase in edge, as we move from TC to TC (we are, of course, using indices). If you find the increasing (or decreasing) edges to be linear, write back and cite some examples (also see John Gwynn's work in the FA chapter). If not, don't bother; I'll understand and expect your silence.

    I'm done here. It's been a long and wonderful weekend for me. Go right ahead and use your decimal indices. The good news for you is that it can't do any harm. The bad news -- which is the good news for everyone else -- is that it's totally unnecessary, because it won't do any good, either. :-)

    Don

  10. #36
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Re: Nonlinear Advantage - some numbers

    Sorry I had overlooked your post,otherwise I would have answered earlier.
    At least you admit, as opposed to Norm, that there is a gain for using decimals and you also admit that there is an approximate linearity.
    Your argumentation wants to show that the gain is too little to be worth the effort but I don't ses where the additional effort lies.On the contrary, this saved me a lot of time because I didn't have to do your extensive simulations and at the table I don't even have to floor or to truncate( I never know which is the one you recommand).
    So these little gains are absolutely for free!

    Francis Salmon

  11. #37
    pm
    Guest

    pm: Francis, random question..

    Don mentioned early on that he, Norm, Cacarulo, and Karel Janacek were all in agreement that flooring is the best method to use, and that using decimal places doesn't result in a significant gain in ev.

    Obviously you're a proponent of doing your own research and thinking outside of the box and whatnot in order to come up with the best possible solution to a problem. But these four gentlemen are researchers as well; surely you can't believe that all of them missed a concept that is very obvious to you. I mean, look at Karel Janacek alone. The man's got a diploma in math and probability theory, an MBA in finance, and an MSc. and Ph.D. in Mathematical Finance from Carnegie Mellon. You can't seriously believe that a man that's that educated and intelligent, and who has done so much research in the field of blackjack, is dense and unable to understand that decimal points are better than flooring. If this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, then who in the world would? And what about Cac? Don said he probably knows more about index generation than anybody anywhere. Surely you couldn't believe that Cacarulo is actually not very bright and is missing concepts that are obvious to you. And Norm? I may not know much, but I know enough to be able to see that Norm is extremely intelligent; he is always on point for very complicated topics, and like Sonny said, he always comes packing evidence. It couldn't be easy to dismiss what he's saying. Don't you think the case is that these four researchers have a full understanding of your argument and why it is flawed, and that you're not understanding what they're trying to say? Or do you think that they're not understanding what you're trying to say, and if they were able to, they would finally see that their work on this subject was erroneous?

  12. #38
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Thank you

    > I'm sure your post would be worth reading
    > but I prefer to remain the voice from
    > outside.
    > I believe that not being member of a club
    > makes it easier to speak up freely.

    Ok, let's do something a little more scientific. If you don't mind please post your decimal indices for the following game and plays: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6 pen

    The plays are:

    1) 15vT=?
    2) 16v9=?
    3) 10vT=?
    4) 10vA=?

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  13. #39
    superdupont
    Guest

    superdupont: I agree with Francis

    How something mathemathicaly exact, could not be more precise than simulation?

    Index for 16 vs 10 is zero, but all serious player follow BS(except for "camouflage"), BS is the best way to play when RC is zero!

    IT RC is+1 we all stay because of the decimals...
    And we know that those decimals are money!

    But I am not an expert and I shall work on both views because it is very interresting to see intelligent people to not reach agreement on this kind of questions.

    FS is not only one of the best european player, but he is also a famous chessmaster, may be because he has a special way of thinking, that I(we) don't have(unfortunetely!).

    Anyway, I am waiting for arguments.

    Thanks to all contributors and please continue the ddiscussion as you are able to do as gentelmann..........

    Superdupont

    "Salmon" a fish swimming against the riverstream to reach his goal. On his own way, he can observe most of the other fishes swimming in the other direction.....

    It is true?

    Soory for my very imperfect english language.

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.