Garry Baldy: How to teach an idiot? (Sim question)

[Garry Baldy]

Hi.

I just want to share some news about the books. While ones are writing BJ classics (still waiting for my copy of BJA3!), others are writing pure garbage.

Here, in Russia, one guy self-published a book about BJ which is called ?Blackjack As A Business?. Strangely but this is not bootleg translation of the Revere?s book. This book (that guy?s, not Revere?s!) is filled with errors, misjudgments and false statements.

Starting from the wrong Basic Strategy, author gives HiLo Count with wrong indices. One of the best sentences looks like ?deeper penetration requires BIGGER spread to achieve the same EV?.

I started some discussion with this guy at Russian BJ board some time ago. I wanted to show to the public that such writers are simply dangerous. But I want to ask your advice about another point in his book which is complete b.s. I wanted to prove him and the others that this advice is especially dangerous to follow. But I found that this proof requires some sort of simulation which I?m unable to do at the existing software. Maybe anyone here could help me.

So here is the advice from this piece of s?

?One should convert running count to the true count to make proper bets and plays. To do this conversion you should divide running count on the amount of the deck remaining into play?.

Then author explains this conversion more thoroughly. Say you have 6 decks game with the 4/6 penetration. Say you have RC=+6 after 1 deck. So, the author concludes, the true count will be equal to +6/3 = +2 (!!!). He calculated this by dividing RC on the number 3 which is number 4 (amount of decks cut into play!) minus 1 (played deck).

So he divides RC not on 5 but on 3. Sure its incorrect conversion. But during our discussion he insisted that his method will work anyway. He stated that it?s just new invention which will work to the player?s advantage.

As far as I see the main problem is in bets calibrating. Because using his method you?ll always get wrong TC number which always will be greater than ?true? true count by modulus. Personally I think that the danger from his method of conversion lies in overbetting. Even maybe betting greater than 2 Kelly.

What do you think about it? Is it possible to run some sim assuming his ?innovation?? Will he get any advantage at all or not? How can it be calculated?

Thanks in advance.

Luck.

Garry Baldy.

P.S. Very pity that the new players should deal with such a bunch of literature where one makes a choice about this or that book based solely on hunches. Thank you Don for being a right choice.

[Don Schlesinger]

> P.S. Very pity that the new players should
> deal with such a bunch of literature where
> one makes a choice about this or that book
> based solely on hunches. Thank you Don for
> being a right choice.

Interesting question. I agree completely with your analysis. Note that, the deeper you deal, the more serious the error becomes. With one card left before the cut card appears, he would have you divide by 1/52, which means to multiply the RC by 52, to obtain the TC!!!!

You will be seriously overbetting throughout the entire shoe, with the biggest disasters saved for the very time that you should be enjoying your biggest advantage.

Don

[AdvantageRay]

..you never try to teach an idiot. Once you can confirm that that person is beyond help, you just sit back and laugh. There is quite a bit of entertainment value in somebody that stupid..