Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 98%: Error Rate

  1. #1
    98%
    Guest

    98%: Error Rate

    I have yet to meet the counter who can play thousands and thousands of hands without any errors. The errors of which I am speaking are strictly playing errors too, not errors in keeping the count (though count-keeping errors would be interesting sim material too). It can be easy to misplay a hand which has a deviation at a large +/- count or to forget to surrender or even to miscalculate the total in your hand and fail to hit or stand accordingly. Or sometimes you just space out right there at the table. I can remember one instance where I zoned out and failed to hit my soft 16 against a T up. And I'm sure I have made errors which I never realized were errors or quickly forgot about. Has anyone attempted to simulate a realistic expectation for someone who makes occasional errors? Perhaps it could be done for one error in every 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000 or even 100,000 hands (the upper and lower values being there strictly for theoretical interest, I'd imagine). Of course, obvious errors like hitting a hard 18, 19 or 20 or standing on totals of 11 or lower or doubling small totals into big cards, failing to split As or 8s, etc. can be eliminated as errors which a skilled player would never make and which would probably make a dealer pause and ask 'Are you sure?'.

    It would be interesting to see what kind of effect errors would have on someone's hourly EV and what kind of spread increase would be necessary to overcome the loss associated with various error-rates. If a player can estimate his error-rate, he could probably make use of this type of information.

    Also, you hear/read a lot about error-rate being a major factor in the complexity/simplicity debate with regards to how many indices you use or what level of a count you use, but has anyone simulated numbers for these scenarios? For example, comparing the I18 vs. the entire set of indices for a typical count like hi-lo but assuming the player playing all indices has double the error rate?

    Anyhow, I'm just curious if any work in this area has been done and what the results look like. Thanks.

  2. #2
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Cost of errors

    Simulation of playing and betting errors are standard features of CVData. See Cost of Errors Study for a study I did years back.

    regards,
    norm

  3. #3
    John Auston
    Guest

    John Auston: Re: Error Rate

    You can't beat Norm's charts, but one can also reason out some of this stuff. Not quantitatively,
    but relatively.

    > It can be easy to misplay a hand which
    > has a deviation at a large +/- count or to
    > forget to surrender or even to miscalculate
    > the total in your hand and fail to hit or
    > stand accordingly.

    While the amount of bet you have out certainly affects your cost, so does the delta between the ev for the two plays you could have made.

    If you make an error on a departure that should have begun at +7, say, and the count is just +7 or +8, the "cost" could still be minimal, despite max bet, depending on how small or large the delta was at that point.

    I think Ken Fuchs once did a study ( or maybe it was me, I can't recall) that showed that even if you ALWAYS made departures "off by 1", it made almost no difference. That?s the delta effect.

    > If a player can
    > estimate his error-rate, he could probably
    > make use of this type of information.

    > Also, you hear/read a lot about error-rate
    > being a major factor in the
    > complexity/simplicity debate with regards to
    > how many indices you use or what level of a
    > count you use, but has anyone simulated
    > numbers for these scenarios? For example,
    > comparing the I18 vs. the entire set of
    > indices for a typical count like hi-lo but
    > assuming the player playing all indices has
    > double the error rate?

    One way to look at this would be that the danger with playing a lot of indices might be in the confusion the obscure ones could cause that would make you misplay those that are more valuable, more common (e.g. the I18).

    Although it would be comic/tragic to know an obscure index, have it finally come up after
    years of play, and then "goof" it. ;-)

    Regards,
    John Auston


  4. #4
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Error Rate

    You've gotten two great answers, below, so there's little I can add except to point out that on pp. 127 and 128 of BJA, you have charts that catalog the costs of making the next-best play (instead of the correct one) for a flat-betting basic strategist.

    In the text preceding the charts, I discuss how you might make just one error, but how it could be extremely costly, or how you could make a whole bushel of errors, with the cumulative cost being entirely inconsequential, as John has pointed out.

    It's very difficult to quantify what you've asked, because spread is vital, and the nature of the error(s) you make is even more important.

    Don

  5. #5
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: On that note (a bit of rambling)

    or how you could make a whole bushel of errors, with the cumulative cost being entirely inconsequential, as John has pointed out.

    I find that I'm far more likely to make an error playing an Internet casino, even though there is no pressure. (I could literally run a sim between cards and no one would notice.) The reason for the errors is the extreme speed you can hit (500 hands/hour is possible) and the fact that it is easier to hit the wrong button than make the wrong hand movement in a casino. Plus, a human dealer will probably not let you make a really stupid error. I made two errors in the last week. In one case, I had eights against a ten and hit the Double button instead of the Split button. I got an Ace and the dealer busted. So I doubled a hard-18 against a ten and won. In the other, I had hard 17 against a ten and hit drawing a three and the dealer had 18. These are two amazingly bad plays. And yet I won them both. So, although errors will certainly hurt you in the long run, the cumulative effect may not be as bad as one thinks.

    Funny thing is that I was somewhat annoyed at winning these badly played hands. I've always thought that one of the biggest tells that a player is a counter is that counters can get quite upset when losing. Yes gamblers in general don't like to lose. But, a counter (particularly a new counter) gets more upset because he knows when the deck is good, did everything correctly and still lost. You really like to think that you will get what you deserve.

  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: On that note (a bit of rambling)

    > So I doubled a
    > hard-18 against a ten and won.

    Hard 16.

    > Funny thing is that I was somewhat annoyed
    > at winning these badly played hands. I've
    > always thought that one of the biggest tells
    > that a player is a counter is that counters
    > can get quite upset when losing. Yes
    > gamblers in general don't like to lose. But,
    > a counter (particularly a new counter) gets
    > more upset because he knows when the deck is
    > good, did everything correctly and still
    > lost. You really like to think that you will
    > get what you deserve.

    You're absolutely right. That's a shrewd observation. You need to guard against acting as if you KNEW you were supposed to win and didn't.

    Don

  7. #7
    George C.
    Guest

    George C.: Somewhat off topic

    In the early days, I used good old fashioned math along with Excel to assist in player error calculations. It wasn?t that long ago when I constructed various models using Karel?s SBA 5.05. Norm?s CVData makes this task child?s play. With CVData, you can adjust for playing, betting and insurance errors.

    Back to SBA 5.05:

    I constructed many models saving them with various tracking numbers logging the numbers with descriptions into a spreadsheet. For me it was a trial and error process which in essence was investigating various super cover plays along with betting that would completely bamboozle the pit. When I found something of interest, I would combine it with something else and eventually I came up with a master strategy. It?s amazing what you can come up with that looks really stupid, yet costs little.

    George

  8. #8
    The Machine
    Guest

    The Machine: Re: On that note (a bit of rambling)

    > Funny thing is that I was somewhat annoyed
    > at winning these badly played hands. I've
    > always thought that one of the biggest tells
    > that a player is a counter is that counters
    > can get quite upset when losing. Yes
    > gamblers in general don't like to lose. But,
    > a counter (particularly a new counter) gets
    > more upset because he knows when the deck is
    > good, did everything correctly and still
    > lost. You really like to think that you will
    > get what you deserve.

    I disagree with that. I think that on average, gamblers are MORE likely to get emotional (including cursing, cursing at the dealer, tossing cards in a handheld, etc.) than counters. If I see a guy who plays like machine, doing nothing but shoving more money out when he loses a hand, I'm suspicious. Gamblers whine way more than counters. Also: gamblers may get demanding on comps after they've lost.

    You're right that counters expect to win, but gamblers expect to win even more so! Gamblers expect to win every time. Counters understand that there's variance. A counter brings $10K in his pocket, knowing that he could dump $2K in the first hour. Gamblers show up with a thousand or two and think they'll walk with $20K. Gamblers all think they're smart. They all think they have an edge.

  9. #9
    M.
    Guest

    M.: Re: On that note (a bit of rambling)

    Damn straight! The Machine: you got it right on the money.

    Cheers, man.
    M.

  10. #10
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: On that note (a bit of rambling)

    It's one thing to understand variance. It's another to experience itJ

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.