Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Norm Wattenberger: True Count Compression and True Edge

  1. #1
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: True Count Compression and True Edge

    I?ve used the term True Count Compression several times over the last year and thought it deserved a chart to better describe the effect. An obvious example is the original version of Zen and the True Edge version of Zen. In the original version, true count was calculated by diving by the number of full decks remaining. In the second version, division is by quarter decks remaining. That is, the divisor is four times the size. Obviously, indexes and betting ramps are adjusted to accommodate the different divisor. But, there is a problem. When you use a larger divisor, you end up with a much smaller range of possible True Counts. The chart below illustrates this effect. The distribution of True Counts for each methodology is displayed in a 4.5/6 game.



    In this chart, you see that using True Edge Zen, nearly 60% of all rounds began with a TC of zero. The vast majority began with TCs of -1 to +1. 99.6% of TCs fell in the range -3 to+3. But in the original Zen, the TCs were distributed over a much larger range of TCs. This affects both playing and betting. For playing indexes, there is substantially less resolution in the indexes. This makes index memorization easier, but reduces accuracy. In betting there are two problems. First, it is more difficult to come up with an acceptable optimal betting ramp with such a narrow range of counts. Secondly, in a good game, you should increase your bet well before +1. Closer to a TC of +.5. But, people don?t normally deal with fractional counts.

    Now I am a fan of simplified indexes. But, the betting I saw as more of a problem. When the True Edge version came out, I quickly modified CVSim to allow collection of data by half counts and specification of a betting ramp by half counts as I felt people would have to start increasing bets at +0.5. I dropped this feature in CVData as I now simply believe it is easier to not divide by quarter decks for level II systems or half-decks for level I systems.

    At least that's my opinion

  2. Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: True Count Compression and True Edge

    What this study shows is that TC resolution should be a function of the tag values of the count being used. Level 1 counts should divide by full decks. Level 2 counts can safely divide by half decks. And, level three or level 4 counts, in particular, can divide by quarter decks, although, most of the time, that is overkill, except in SD games.

    The problem comes when someone tries to use quarter-deck resolution for a level 1 or 2 count. This should never have been the intention of the system developers; rather it is the result of users trying to get too "cute" with their systems, thinking that "more precise is better."

    Don

  3. #3
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: True Count Compression and True Edge

    > What this study shows is that TC resolution
    > should be a function of the tag values of
    > the count being used. Level 1 counts should
    > divide by full decks. Level 2 counts can
    > safely divide by half decks. And, level
    > three or level 4 counts, in particular, can
    > divide by quarter decks, although, most of
    > the time, that is overkill, except in SD
    > games.

    I think it is not tag dependent. Remember that I have shown Zen (Level 2) with full-deck resolution to be better than Zen with half-deck resolution.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  4. #4
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: True Count Compression and True Edge

    > I think it is not tag dependent. Remember
    > that I have shown Zen (Level 2) with
    > full-deck resolution to be better than Zen
    > with half-deck resolution.

    We need to figure out why that should be true. We need to find the logic behind it, from a practical, playing point of view, and not from a simulation or computer point of view.

    Don

  5. #5
    blacker
    Guest

    blacker: Re: True Count Compression and True Edge

    > We need to figure out why that should be
    > true. We need to find the logic behind it,
    > from a practical, playing point of view, and
    > not from a simulation or computer point of
    > view.

    > Don

    The "new" zen does not really require a 1/4 deck resolution. As indicated in BIB (p. 86-87), the counter need only determine the number of full decks remaining (With less than 4 decks remaining "some players may want to make a chart of denominators in half-deck increments, but I doubt that it's necessary.") This full-deck divisor is then "artificially" inflated by multiplying it by 4. The reason for this appears to be a way to convert a True Count directly into the percent Advantage (or, more accurately, change in percentage from the off-the-top disadvantage)to facilitate betting.

  6. #6
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: And therein lay the problem.

    The multiplication by four damages both playing and betting accuracy.

    > The "new" zen does not really
    > require a 1/4 deck resolution. As indicated
    > in BIB (p. 86-87), the counter need only
    > determine the number of full decks remaining
    > (With less than 4 decks remaining "some
    > players may want to make a chart of
    > denominators in half-deck increments, but I
    > doubt that it's necessary.") This
    > full-deck divisor is then
    > "artificially" inflated by
    > multiplying it by 4. The reason for this
    > appears to be a way to convert a True Count
    > directly into the percent Advantage (or,
    > more accurately, change in percentage from
    > the off-the-top disadvantage)to facilitate
    > betting.


  7. #7
    greenback
    Guest

    greenback: Not to beat a dead horse but...

    > The multiplication by four damages both playing and
    > betting accuracy.

    I've seen the posts on the various sites regarding this subject, however, it is important to me to understand this issue since I use the True Edge Zen but am considering switching to the "half-deck" or "full-deck" Zen. Your point that the TE results in less resolution in the playing indices is strong and, by itself, probably enough to switch. The betting issue,however, is less clear to me although you say it is more of a concern to you (I play 6-deck shoes so it is of concern to me as well). My thought is that a Kelly-bettor (or more precisely, a half-Kelly bettor) is best served by knowing the % advantage at any particular point. The True Count (as opposed to the True Edge) is simply a proxy for the % advantage while the True Edge is the precise % advantage (though not exactly precise since each Zen point = .29% and not .25% as implied by the "times 4" divisor to determine the TE.) Ramping my bets based on "fractional" advantage is not a problem for me (Kelly-betting should be based on advantage, fractional or not as I mentioned above), and I understand that the floating advantage (i.e. non-linearity of the advantage as the deck depletes)is not a major issue. Is this the only problem with the betting? Is there any testing ground that would be acceptable to both sides? It amazes me that guys as seemingly bright as Norm and Arnold can be so diametrically opposed on this issue. I am all for the adversarial system when it comes airing out a controversy and know little about any personal matters between the 2 camps but it is bothersome that a consensus can't be reached. I'm leaning toward the half-deck (TC = RC/half-decks remaining) determination of True Count for playing indices but don't know which way to go regarding betting, TE or optimal bets as in WGBJS. By the way, is there a way to get the complete Zen indices based on half-decks without CVVData. I have CVBJ and CVCX but would prefer not to spend the extra $ simply to generate 1 set of indices. Thanks.

  8. #8
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Not to beat a dead horse but...

    > My thought is that a Kelly-bettor (or more
    > precisely, a half-Kelly bettor) is best served by
    > knowing the % advantage at any particular point.

    Sure.

    > The True Count (as opposed to the True Edge) is simply a
    > proxy for the % advantage while the True Edge is the
    > precise % advantage (though not exactly precise since
    > each Zen point = .29% and not .25% as implied by the
    > "times 4" divisor to determine the TE.)

    You're missing the point. The TE isn't the precise advantage regardless of whether you use .29% or .25%, because the edge, especially as you use indices, isn't linear. TE is simply an approximation to edge.

    With TC, you run a sim, demand optimal wagers, and then know precisely how much to bet at each TC. You then specify "integer wagers only," or "$25 unit increments," or whatever, and somewhat violate optimality, to blend in, but your TC bets have been previously scaled to be precise.

    There is simply no debating this. Blindly using a one-edge-fits-all for TE is a simplistic, back-of-the-envelope way of doing things. TC is, obviously, more precise. How could it possibly not be??

    > Ramping my bets based on "fractional"
    > advantage is not a problem for me (Kelly-betting
    > should be based on advantage, fractional or not as I
    > mentioned above), and I understand that the floating
    > advantage (i.e. non-linearity of the advantage as the
    > deck depletes)is not a major issue.

    Only if pen is deep.

    > Is this the only
    > problem with the betting?

    See above. Makes little sense to even discuss this.
    The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. There is no issue!

    > Is there any testing ground
    > that would be acceptable to both sides? It amazes me
    > that guys as seemingly bright as Norm and Arnold can
    > be so diametrically opposed on this issue.

    Are you kidding? This has NOTHING to do with math. N-O-T-H-I-N-G! It has to do with hatred, smearing, and vengeful vendettas. Please don't be silly or naive.

    > I am all
    > for the adversarial system when it comes airing out a
    > controversy and know little about any personal matters
    > between the 2 camps but it is bothersome that a
    > consensus can't be reached.

    It shouldn't be the least bit bothersome. No one can dictate to you whom you should believe. You are free to trust and believe Arnold, or you can believe Norm and me. It's a free country. I can only tell you that we are right and that Mr. and Mrs. Snyder (and her 12 aliases!) are wrong. The rest is up to you.

    > I'm leaning toward the
    > half-deck (TC = RC/half-decks remaining) determination
    > of True Count for playing indices but don't know which
    > way to go regarding betting, TE or optimal bets as in
    > WGBJS.

    The latter, of course.

    Don

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.