Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Hunch Back of Black Jack: Comparing counts

  1. #1
    Hunch Back of Black Jack
    Guest

    Hunch Back of Black Jack: Comparing counts

    If one player uses halves and the other uses hi low. What is the correlation between the 2 counts?

    If you have a hi low table watcher and they tell u running 10, what does that mean to the halves player?

    Should an adjustment be made? If so, any ideas?

    What I have done in the past is with similar counts I just take their RC and start emplying mine and playing accordingly.

    I would imagine the big considerations would be. Ace reckoning and balanced or unbalanced.

    I would imagine this becomes more of a problem for an unbalanced player and balanced player?

    I use halves and I am going to be training someone to watch tables for me and then to play on their own though still with me. I have another post under "theory and math" or "software and simultaion" where I talk about being a halves running player. I understand that there are unbalanced counts that outperform hi low? I am not experienced in unbalanced counts. I have thoughts of training the new person with an unbalanced count but I think that it would be better to start them on running hi low just so we can work togethter and improve their play - ODP,TC, indices over time. Any thoughts?

    thanks for your time.


  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Comparing counts

    > If one player uses halves and the other uses hi low.
    > What is the correlation between the 2 counts?

    > If you have a hi low table watcher and they tell u
    > running 10, what does that mean to the halves player?

    It's impossible to answer a question like that, since Halves counts the 7 and the 9 and Hi-Lo doesn't. Halves also counts the 5 more than the 3, 4, and 6, where Hi-Lo counts them all the same, so a direct correlation just isn't possible, since you might at any time have an excess or deficit of the key ranks in question.

    > Should an adjustment be made? If so, any ideas?

    All the baove said, the two counts are very highly correlated, for betting purposes.

    > I use halves and I am going to be training someone to
    > watch tables for me and then to play on their own
    > though still with me. I have another post under
    > "theory and math" or "software and
    > simultaion" where I talk about being a halves
    > running player. I understand that there are unbalanced
    > counts that outperform hi low? I am not experienced in
    > unbalanced counts. I have thoughts of training the new
    > person with an unbalanced count but I think that it
    > would be better to start them on running hi low just
    > so we can work togethter and improve their play -
    > ODP,TC, indices over time. Any thoughts?

    > thanks for your time.

    It makes zero sense to use Halves and then running count only. Halves is one of the more powerful level-2 systems around and the very best for betting correlation. It's pointless to say that you "use" Halves and then to emasculate it to the extent that you do no true-counting, have no betting accuracy, and make virtually no departures. Under those circumstances, it doesn't even make sense to say that you use Halves. You use about half of Halves!!

    Either use Halves the way it was intended to be used, or use K-O, an unbalanced count, in RC mode. The latter will vastly outperform what you're doing now, which is really rather a waste of time.

    Don

  3. #3
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Comparing counts

    > If one player uses halves and the other uses hi low.
    > What is the correlation between the 2 counts?

    > If you have a hi low table watcher and they tell u
    > running 10, what does that mean to the halves player?

    > Should an adjustment be made? If so, any ideas?

    One thing you can do is to compare a Hi-Lo' sim against a Halves' sim by their EVs per TC. Suppose you have the following tables:

    Hi-Lo 
    -----
    TC EV
    ---------
    +4 a4
    +3 a3
    +2 a2
    +1 a1
    0 a0
    -1 b1
    -2 b2
    -3 b3
    -4 b4


    Halves 
    ------
    TC EV
    ---------
    +4 c4
    +3 c3
    +2 c2
    +1 c1
    0 c0
    -1 d1
    -2 d2
    -3 d3
    -4 d4


    Say for example that in Hi-Lo the EV at TC=+2 is "more or less" the same as the EV at TC=+4 in Halves.
    If the Hi-Lo watcher tells you the RC is +10 and there are five decks remaining you know that the Hi-Lo TC is +2. But we know that a TC=+2 is equivalent to a TC=+4 in Halves so we can say that the equivalent RC in Halves is +20 since +20/5=+4.

    Is this what you're looking for?

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  4. #4
    hunch back of black jack
    Guest

    hunch back of black jack: Re: Comparing counts

    >
    > One thing you can do is to compare a Hi-Lo' sim
    > against a Halves' sim by their EVs per TC. Suppose you
    > have the following tables:
    > Hi-Lo
    > -----
    > TC EV
    > ---------
    > +4 a4
    > +3 a3
    > +2 a2
    > +1 a1
    > 0 a0
    > -1 b1
    > -2 b2
    > -3 b3
    > -4 b4
    > Halves
    > ------
    > TC EV
    > ---------
    > +4 c4
    > +3 c3
    > +2 c2
    > +1 c1
    > 0 c0
    > -1 d1
    > -2 d2
    > -3 d3
    > -4 d4
    > Say for example that in Hi-Lo the EV at TC=+2 is
    > "more or less" the same as the EV at TC=+4
    > in Halves.
    > If the Hi-Lo watcher tells you the RC is +10 and there
    > are five decks remaining you know that the Hi-Lo TC is
    > +2. But we know that a TC=+2 is equivalent to a TC=+4
    > in Halves so we can say that the equivalent RC in
    > Halves is +20 since +20/5=+4.
    > Is this what you're looking for?
    > Sincerely,
    > Cac

    I do realize I am sitting at the big table in this section

    Would this work?

    If there are 22 plus and minus points in the halves and 20 plus and minus points in the hi low then could I just add 10% to any running count that a hi low player would pass to me and then just do my TC conversion as needed?

    An average running count that a hi low player would call a 10 I would call an 11.

    Is this issue proving to be a small thing because:

    1. The counts are highly correlated anyway.

    2. I am not interested in being signaled for small advantages, so the averages of both counts are probably more correlated then when perhaps considering just a few cards.

    3. If I am correct and the difference is accounted for by just adding 10% then that does not seem to be a big difference. Especially when considering real world play.

    I also have 2 posts under "software and simulation". I would be very curious and appreciative of your thoughts.

    thank you very much for your time


  5. #5
    hunch back of black jack
    Guest

    hunch back of black jack: Re: Comparing counts

    > It's impossible to answer a question like that, since
    > Halves counts the 7 and the 9 and Hi-Lo doesn't.
    > Halves also counts the 5 more than the 3, 4, and 6,
    > where Hi-Lo counts them all the same, so a direct
    > correlation just isn't possible, since you might at
    > any time have an excess or deficit of the key ranks in
    > question.

    > All the baove said, the two counts are very highly
    > correlated, for betting purposes.

    > It makes zero sense to use Halves and then running
    > count only. Halves is one of the more powerful level-2
    > systems around and the very best for betting
    > correlation. It's pointless to say that you
    > "use" Halves and then to emasculate it to
    > the extent that you do no true-counting, have no
    > betting accuracy, and make virtually no departures.
    > Under those circumstances, it doesn't even make sense
    > to say that you use Halves. You use about half of
    > Halves!!

    > Either use Halves the way it was intended to be used,
    > or use K-O, an unbalanced count, in RC mode. The
    > latter will vastly outperform what you're doing now,
    > which is really rather a waste of time.

    > Don

    I think the teacher just smacked my hand with a ruler! LOL I think a couple of times.

    Don, please read my post "running halves player" under "software and theory" and it might better explain my thoughts and my way of play.

    However, to directly answer your thoughts here:

    I use a few more indices then the "catch 22 and fab 4"
    I do calculate true count conversions.

    On betting - I do a conversion but I mostly think in terms of small, med, big and huge advantage which is just a semantic point comapared to betting from 1 to 4 units as an example.

    The point I am trying to make in my "running halves player" post is even when we do all needed true count conversions (which I believe I do) then in reality we perhaps are more like RC players. Also, the argument that calculating a true count is difficult may not be that strong because a close call conversion is not that often.

    or you could say we do a TC conversion all the time but most of the time it is not needed or so far over that it takes very little effort.


  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Comparing counts

    > I think the teacher just smacked my hand with a ruler!
    > LOL I think a couple of times.

    > Don, please read my post "running halves
    > player" under "software and theory" and
    > it might better explain my thoughts and my way of
    > play.

    I read it and, politely, refrained from answering it at the time! :-) But, you forced my hand (!), so I answered it the second time.

    > However, to directly answer your thoughts here:

    > I use a few more indices then the "catch 22 and
    > fab 4"
    > I do calculate true count conversions.

    Well, that didn't come across in your first post.

    > On betting - I do a conversion but I mostly think in
    > terms of small, med, big and huge advantage which is
    > just a semantic point comapared to betting from 1 to 4
    > units as an example.

    Yes, I suppose. You can call them any name you like, as long as you make the correct bets. But 1-4 in a shoe game makes no sense. You need to spread MUCH more than that, unless it's all back-counting, which is another story.

    > The point I am trying to make in my "running
    > halves player" post is even when we do all needed
    > true count conversions (which I believe I do) then in
    > reality we perhaps are more like RC players.

    Don't follow.

    > Also, the
    > argument that calculating a true count is difficult
    > may not be that strong because a close call conversion
    > is not that often.

    Calculating TC isn't difficult for anyone who can do simple arithmetic and who practices eye-balling stack heights.

    > or you could say we do a TC conversion all the time
    > but most of the time it is not needed or so far over
    > that it takes very little effort.

    You need to do accurate TC conversions for accurate betting. And, in shoes, with large spreads, accurate betting is what gets most of the money. Also, some people use many more indices than just the I18 (I use well over 100). So, if you're going to pretend that these indices are worth something, then you had better be using them with an accurate TC, or you're utterly wasting your time and effort.

    Don

  7. #7
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Comparing counts

    > I do realize I am sitting at the big table in this
    > section

    LOL!

    > Would this work?

    Yes and no.

    > If there are 22 plus and minus points in the halves
    > and 20 plus and minus points in the hi low then could
    > I just add 10% to any running count that a hi low
    > player would pass to me and then just do my TC
    > conversion as needed?

    Again, you're not counting the same ranks, so what you're proposing isn't ever going to be "perfect." In any event, the right way to make such a comparison isn't linear, as you suggest, but rather using root-mean-square, which gives a somewhat different result from the one you suggest.

    You just add the squares of the values of the card ranks for each count. The total of the squared values for Halves is 11 and for Hi-Lo it's 10. Next, you form the ratio of the summed squares: 11/10 = 1.1. Then you take the square root of 1.1, which is 1.049.

    So, to "pass" the Hi-Lo count to the Halves player, you'd multiple the Hi-Lo count by 1.049, or, roughly, add 5%, not the 10% you suggest.

    > An average running count that a hi low player would
    > call a 10 I would call an 11.

    See above. You'd call it 10.5. You'd call 20, 21. Bottom line: There is almost no difference at all to worry about! :-) Again the warning: This is only a rough approximation, because Halves is counting the 7, the 9, and extra for the 5.

    > Is this issue proving to be a small thing because:

    > 1. The counts are highly correlated anyway.

    Absolutely.

    > 2. I am not interested in being signaled for small
    > advantages, so the averages of both counts are
    > probably more correlated then when perhaps considering
    > just a few cards.

    Right again.

    > 3. If I am correct and the difference is accounted for
    > by just adding 10% then that does not seem to be a big
    > difference. Especially when considering real world
    > play.

    And now you know it's only 5%! :-)

    > I also have 2 posts under "software and
    > simulation". I would be very curious and
    > appreciative of your thoughts.

    I'll look.

    > thank you very much for your time

    You're welcome.

    Don

  8. #8
    The Jack of Black Jack
    Guest

    The Jack of Black Jack: Thnx, understand conclusion, not the math to reach it, not unusual LOL *NM*


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.