Radar: Floating Advantage

[Radar]

I was enthralled in this chapter of BJA2 and assume tht BJA3 will not change the findings, but I do have a question.

It appears that even though there IS a "floating advantage", it is so slight to not make it a worthwhile attack; however, if the "floating advantage" is there, no matter how slight in a DD game, would it be worthwhile if you are getting good penetration and the shuffle point approaching fast to maybe increase the wager a SINGLE unit on that last hand?

Since there is an advantage, wouldn't it behove the player to take advantage of it somehow? I wouldn't LOSE $ in the long run would I?

Any help from Don, or anyone else would be appreciated.

[Don Schlesinger]

> would it be worthwhile
> if you are getting good penetration and the
> shuffle point approaching fast to maybe
> increase the wager a SINGLE unit on that
> last hand?
Tables 6.8A and 6.9A, on p. 86, are actually telling you to do just that, no? Ofc ourse, the true count has to be +1 or higher.

> Since there is an advantage, wouldn't it
> behoove the player to take advantage of it
> somehow? I wouldn't LOSE $ in the long run
> would I?

You would gain what the charts tell you. It's very slight, but, no, it can't hurt.

Don

[Radar]

> Tables 6.8A and 6.9A, on p. 86, are actually
> telling you to do just that, no? Ofc ourse,
> the true count has to be +1 or higher.

Thanks, but since I don't convert to a "True", would that matter? (Maybe I should look at the charts again?)

[Don Schlesinger]

> Thanks, but since I don't convert to a
> "True", would that matter? (Maybe
> I should look at the charts again?)

Yes it would matter. Unbalanced counts have little accuracy in estimating exact advantage, except at the pivot point. So, you'd need to make different assumptions as to what running count actually conferred extra edge at different penetration levels.

Unfortunately, this needs to be done by simulation, customizing the values for each count system.

Don

[Radar]

[Don Schlesinger]

Maybe. But, as you know, the moral of the FA chapter was that it was pretty much "much ado about nothing." I enjoy doing BJ research, but I like the results to have practical applications, and I'm not sure there is much demand or usefulness for something like this.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

The link below is a chart of floating advantage using KO with six decks. The chart indicates that high running counts early in the shoe aren't nearly as good as high running counts at deep penetration.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Let me try the link again.

> The link below is a chart of floating
> advantage using KO with six decks. The chart
> indicates that high running counts early in
> the shoe aren't nearly as good as high
> running counts at deep penetration.

http://www.qfit.com/chart88.JPG

[Radar]

[Radar]

Hard to read, but I'll take your word for it.

Thanks, again.

Radar

[Dog Hand]

Norm,

Thanks for the illuminating chart.

My question is this: what's with the strange kink at +14?

For example, at +12 the advantage increases monotonically with increasing depth. The same seems to be true at all counts except +14. So, what's up at +14? Could this be due to your simulation not having enough hands at +14 after only 1 deck to obtain a truly representative advantage? After all, with an IRC of -20 for 6 decks, getting to +14 after 1 deck would require seeing 34 more small cards than large cards out of the first 52. I imagine that would be rather rare.

Dog Hand

P.S. What software did you use to generate this chart? (Insert shameless self-aggrandizing plug here) ;-)

[Don Schlesinger]

> Norm,

> Thanks for the illuminating chart.
> My question is this: what's with the strange
> kink at +14?

> For example, at +12 the advantage increases
> monotonically with increasing depth. The
> same seems to be true at all counts except
> +14. So, what's up at +14? Could this be due
> to your simulation not having enough hands
> at +14 after only 1 deck to obtain a truly
> representative advantage?

Yes, surely that's the reason. Also, as you well know, Norm used CV to generate the chart.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Norm,

> Thanks for the illuminating chart.

> My question is this: what's with the strange
> kink at +14?

> For example, at +12 the advantage increases
> monotonically with increasing depth. The
> same seems to be true at all counts except
> +14. So, what's up at +14? Could this be due
> to your simulation not having enough hands
> at +14 after only 1 deck to obtain a truly
> representative advantage? After all, with an
> IRC of -20 for 6 decks, getting to +14 after
> 1 deck would require seeing 34 more small
> cards than large cards out of the first 52.
> I imagine that would be rather rare.

Yes, and in unusual situations like this you run into some strange card subsets where anything can happen.

> P.S. What software did you use to generate
> this chart? (Insert shameless
> self-aggrandizing plug here) ;-)

CVData he said shamelessly.

Serious Blackjack Software