Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Zenfighter: A few insights for the Hi-Lo player

  1. #1
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: A few insights for the Hi-Lo player

    For years, researchers and card counters alike, have used Griffin?s EoR?s
    (SD Vegas Strip rules with NDAS), to estimate the betting correlations of
    the different point count systems, available on the market. Even today,
    if you ask the typical Hi-Lo player what his/her BC is, no doubts the answer is an invariable 0.97. The fact that almost all of them play exclusively the shoe-games won?t change a dime their appreciation of the Hi-Lo, as a ?simple and powerful count.? The KISS principle is in vogue, so, it?s hard to swim crosscurrent, admittedly.

    Hi-Lo correlation and betting efficiencies.

    Using TOB, page 44, EoR?s we get:

    cc = .9682, thus rounding
    cc = .97

    If we want to know what our bc for multiple-deck play is, first at all, we?ll
    need revamped eor?s for 6dks.

    Base rules: 6dks, s17, das, spl3 and spa1 bse = -0.4041


     
    2 0.3896
    3 0.4471
    4 0.6038
    5 0.7665
    6 0.4192
    7 0.2699
    8 -0.0392
    9 -0.2151
    T -0.5169
    J -0.5169
    Q -0.5169
    K -0.5169
    A -0.5741

    ss 2.9985
    cks 0.0000




    The table above is normalized and presented as one-deck values, for easiness
    of comparison, obviously. If you want to know how its look in a six-deck
    format, divide each entry by 311/51 and voil?.

    E.g. the five would be =.7665/ (311/51) = 0.1257

    Comparing this table with the one on page 44 (TOB), we note an increased volatily
    (no surprise at all, with das in effect) as well as noticeable differences with the fives
    and aces, among other minor ones. What?s important for us is to determine
    the betting correlation of our point count. And so we get:

    cc = .9620, thus rounding

    cc = .96

    Not a big deal the penalty for multi-deck, right? Maybe not, maybe yes.

    It is my educated guess, that most of the players do have difficulties evaluating the betting efficiencies of their particular count systems. To swap terms like correlation coefficient and betting efficiency looks a common practice, among novices and week-end warriors.

    The ?problem? with multi-deck (is there anything else, handy?) is not only that the strategic
    gain diminishes compared with the hand-held variety, also the betting gain goes South. Level-one betting systems and mainly during the first decks of the deal, do suffer these effects in a more noticeable manner. Good news is that the efficiency pop-up, while our shoe is being depleted, and yes, as a limit it approaches the counting correlation. Evaluate yourselves.


    Hi-Lo betting efficiencies for different penetrations.


     
    Dks Cards Efficiency
    seen left

    0.5 286 0.8951
    1.0 260 0.9217
    1.5 234 0.9325
    2.0 208 0.9387
    2.5 182 0.9431
    3.0 156 0.9464
    3.5 130 0.9490
    4.0 104 0.9513
    4.5 78 0.9534
    5.0 52 0.9555




    On average with the Hi-Lo point count you can count with a 0.52%
    advantage for each positive true-count gained through counting. The main problem
    you face as a user is the standard deviation. An average of 0.22% is
    a good estimate. So when you have, let?s say TC = 2 exactly, actually you have:

    ((0.52 * 2) ? HA) +/- 0.22

    For the above given set of rules, solving yields:

    Something between 0.42% and 0.86% advantage over the house.

    As you can see, it pays to be cautious with your bets. This is especially true during
    the first two decks, where the Hi-Lo is more exposed. Betting the farm here doesn?t look a good idea, feel obliged to add. When in doubt, try to err on the conservative side.

    A proven fact is that the vast majority of BJ players, pros included use the Hi-Lo point count. So, what? Nothing, the shoe can be beaten with its aid. No breaking-news at all!

    Just don?t get crazy driven your ?Volkswagen?, pretending you?re inside a ?Mercedes-Benz.?

    Until next,

    Sincerely,

    Zf

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Lovely post

    As always, thank you for your keen and refreshing insights.

    Don

  3. #3
    ricky ricardo
    Guest

    ricky ricardo: Excellent analysis

    > For years, researchers and card counters alike, have
    > used Griffin?s EoR?s
    > (SD Vegas Strip rules with NDAS), to estimate the
    > betting correlations of
    > the different point count systems, available on the
    > market. Even today,
    >
    > if you ask the typical Hi-Lo player what his/her BC
    > is, no doubts the answer is an invariable 0.97. The
    > fact that almost all of them play exclusively the
    > shoe-games won?t change a dime their appreciation of
    > the Hi-Lo, as a ?simple and powerful count.? The KISS
    > principle is in vogue , so, it?s hard to swim
    > crosscurrent, admittedly.
    > Hi-Lo correlation and betting efficiencies.
    > Using TOB, page 44, EoR?s we get:
    > cc = .9682, thus rounding
    > cc = .97
    > If we want to know what our bc for multiple-deck play
    > is, first at all, we?ll
    > need revamped eor?s for 6dks.
    > Base rules: 6dks, s17, das, spl3 and spa1 bse =
    > -0.4041
    > 2 0.3896
    > 3 0.4471
    > 4 0.6038
    > 5 0.7665
    > 6 0.4192
    > 7 0.2699
    > 8 -0.0392
    > 9 -0.2151
    > T -0.5169
    > J -0.5169
    > Q -0.5169
    > K -0.5169
    > A -0.5741
    > ss 2.9985
    > cks 0.0000
    >
    > The table above is normalized and presented as
    > one-deck values, for easiness
    > of comparison, obviously. If you want to know how its
    > look in a six-deck
    > format, divide each entry by 311/51 and voil?.
    > E.g. the five would be =.7665/ (311/51) = 0.1257
    > Comparing this table with the one on page 44 (TOB), we
    > note an increased volatily
    > (no surprise at all, with das in effect) as well as
    > noticeable differences with the fives
    > and aces, among other minor ones. What?s important for
    > us is to determine
    > the betting correlation of our point count. And so we
    > get:
    > cc = .9620, thus rounding
    > cc = .96
    > Not a big deal the penalty for multi-deck, right?
    > Maybe not, maybe yes.
    > It is my educated guess, that most of the players do
    > have difficulties evaluating the betting efficiencies
    > of their particular count systems. To swap terms like
    > correlation coefficient and betting efficiency looks a
    > common practice, among novices and week-end warriors.
    > The ?problem? with multi-deck (is there anything else,
    > handy?) is not only that the strategic
    >
    > gain diminishes compared with the hand-held variety,
    > also the betting gain goes South. Level-one betting
    > systems and mainly during the first decks of the deal,
    > do suffer these effects in a more noticeable manner.
    > Good news is that the efficiency pop-up, while our
    > shoe is being depleted, and yes, as a limit it
    > approaches the counting correlation. Evaluate
    > yourselves.
    >
    > Hi-Lo betting efficiencies for different
    > penetrations.
    > Dks Cards Efficiency
    > seen left
    > 0.5 286 0.8951
    > 1.0 260 0.9217
    > 1.5 234 0.9325
    > 2.0 208 0.9387
    > 2.5 182 0.9431
    > 3.0 156 0.9464
    > 3.5 130 0.9490
    > 4.0 104 0.9513
    > 4.5 78 0.9534
    > 5.0 52 0.9555
    >
    > On average with the Hi-Lo point count you can count
    > with a 0.52%
    > advantage for each positive true-count gained through
    > counting. The main problem
    > you face as a user is the standard deviation. An
    > average of 0.22% is
    > a good estimate. So when you have, let?s say TC = 2
    > exactly, actually you have:
    > ((0.52 * 2) ? HA) +/- 0.22
    > For the above given set of rules, solving yields:
    > Something between 0.42% and 0.86% advantage over the
    > house.
    > As you can see, it pays to be cautious with your bets.
    > This is especially true during
    >
    > the first two decks, where the Hi-Lo is more exposed.
    > Betting the farm here doesn?t look a good idea, feel
    > obliged to add. When in doubt, try to err on the
    > conservative side.
    > A proven fact is that the vast majority of BJ players,
    > pros included use the Hi-Lo point count. So, what?
    > Nothing, the shoe can be beaten with its aid. No
    > breaking-news at all!
    > Just don?t get crazy driven your ?Volkswagen?,
    > pretending you?re inside a ?Mercedes-Benz.?
    > Until next,
    > Sincerely,
    > Zf
    > Does your analysis suggest that a "floating advantage" does indeed exist and if so maybe Don can comment on how this jives with his discussion of the floating advantage as presented in BJA3.
    >
    >
    >
    >

  4. #4
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Thanks

    What you see in the main table is basically a spread out betting efficiency as a function
    of the depth, in agreement with Thorp and Walden?s Fundamental Theorem of Card Counting.
    In plain English: For a fixed strategy, variations in player expectation tend to increase, as the deck (and/or the shoe) is depleted.

    The FA issue is a beaten horse, already. I can?t but recommend you to read it again, if you still have any doubts. Btw, my guess is that Don has no plans to improve Chapter 6, for a future BJA4 edition! :-)

    What?s important and much more practical (realistic, too) is to understand your point-count more in depth.

    Questions like why correspondingly expected values (for high positive true counts and symmetrical negative ones) do not match (in absolute values), will give you valuable insights regarding these questions.

    Glad to hear you enjoyed the article.

    Sincerely,

    Zf


  5. #5
    Count Backula
    Guest

    Count Backula: Re: Lovely post

    I fully agree. I appreciate comments like these, revealing the not-so-cut-and-dried intricacies of the non-linear system of card counting at blackjack.

    Thanks again.

  6. #6
    Count Backula
    Guest

    Count Backula: Re: Excellent analysis

    This is probably just a specific effect of the floating advantage, the "shallow pen" end of things.

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.