Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Norm Wattenberger: Effect of Color Dependent Tag Values

  1. #11
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Moreover

    >
    > K-O and even Hi-Lo are better than Red Seven!
    > Conditions:
    > 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,heads-up,5000 million
    > rounds

    5/6 is pretty good pen. The "conventional wisdom" (whatever that means) says that, while KO may be better in deeply penetrated games, Red 7, with its lower pivot point, should do better in the games with mediocre or worse pen that are so common today.

    Care to run some sims to confirm/refute this?

    I know you've got nothing better to do. :-)

  2. #12
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Moreover

    > 5/6 is pretty good pen. The "conventional
    > wisdom" (whatever that means) says that, while KO
    > may be better in deeply penetrated games, Red 7, with
    > its lower pivot point, should do better in the games
    > with mediocre or worse pen that are so common today.

    Yes, that's what I heard too but we should agree that the "conventional wisdom" is based on a false premise (R7 = DR7).

    > Care to run some sims to confirm/refute this?

    Please, specify "Mediocre" or "Worse" penetration that you consider to be common today. 3.5/6? 4/6? The problem is that in order to be precise I need to calculate indices for an specific pen.

    > I know you've got nothing better to do. :-)

    No problem, I'll try to do it at 3:00 AM during my usual insomnia :-)

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  3. #13
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: conventional wisdom

    > Yes, that's what I heard too but we should agree that
    > the "conventional wisdom" is based on a
    > false premise (R7 = DR7).

    John Kenneth Galbraith had much to say about conventional wisdom and the problems caused by such.

  4. #14
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Pen

    > Please, specify "Mediocre" or
    > "Worse" penetration that you consider to be
    > common today. 3.5/6? 4/6? The problem is that in order
    > to be precise I need to calculate indices for an
    > specific pen.

    In a lot of places, 4.5/6 is about As Good As It Gets, with 4/6 to about 4.2/6 being depressingly common.

    > No problem, I'll try to do it at 3:00 AM during my
    > usual insomnia :-)

    Works for me - thanks!

  5. #15
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Done! *NM*


  6. #16
    Hunch Back of Black Jack
    Guest

    Hunch Back of Black Jack: Running halves player, any thoughts?

    I am an experienced player and I find that I am more of a running count player then a TC player.

    I use wong halves with the .5 integers and divde by deck. Does that date me

    Based on BJA 3 and if I did the math correctly I know what the minimum running count I would need from the first hand in order to have an advantage for the various multiple deck games I play and the various rules.

    So as an example if I know that the minimum running count of 7 gives me an advantage from the first hand. Then any time in the shoe if I have a running 7 or higher I know I have an advantage.

    I do not enter a shoe on tiny advantages, but if in a shoe as long as I have an advantage I will play on and sometimes for reasons leave out larger bets in marginal situations.

    The only times I do a TC conversion are:

    1) Insurance decision - Often not even close and does not require a TC conversion.

    2) Stragety departure - If I am holding a hand that may require a strategy departure. Often this decion is not even close and does not requre a TC conversion.

    3) Deep in the shoe - If deeper in the shoe and my RC is below 7. An example, if I have a RC of 5 but 2 decks remain I perform a TC conversion to know I have an advantage.

    4) For betting - My TC decision is mostly yes or no, am I over my running count pivot? If just a little over I am conservative. If it is way over and deep in the shoe I mostly think about how can I get money on the table and I do not worry about placing the exact bet regarding true 4 or 5 etc.

    I know that not being precise affects variance. I basically full kelly bet session by session which lasts a few hours to a full day and change my bets as my bankroll fluctuates.

    Any thoughts or comments?

    Are we all more running count players then true count?

    If any interest I am curious about a running Halves player.

    Thanks for any comments

  7. #17
    Hunch Back of Black Jack
    Guest

    Hunch Back of Black Jack: Re: Done!

    See if anyone is curious?

    unbalanced vs balanced counts

    I believe of issue in the debate is that someone cannot accurately estimate TC?

    OK
    How about a very strong unbalanced count and/or the most popular
    VS
    Halves with an inaccurate TC estimate, not sure what would be approprieate say half deck off?

    Any thoughts ?

  8. #18
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Done!

    > See if anyone is curious?

    > unbalanced vs balanced counts

    > I believe of issue in the debate is that someone
    > cannot accurately estimate TC?

    > OK
    > How about a very strong unbalanced count and/or the
    > most popular

    That would be K-O.

    > VS
    > Halves with an inaccurate TC estimate, not sure what
    > would be appropriate say half deck off?

    > Any thoughts?

    Kind of a trick question, because we don't do many sims purposely trying to be "off" with our estimates. But, I'd say the results would be rather close. K-O and Hi-Lo perform very similarly. As you can see from BJA3, in the SCORE section, Halves outperforms Hi-Lo and K-O by anywhere from 3 to 20 percent, depending on the decks, rules, spreads, etc. (see pp. 171-172). Play Halves incorrectly, and the lower end of this outperformance may disappear. But I doubt that the upper end would.

    Don

  9. #19
    The Jack of Black Jack
    Guest

    The Jack of Black Jack: Re: Done!

    > That would be K-O.

    > Kind of a trick question, because we don't do many
    > sims purposely trying to be "off" with our
    > estimates. But, I'd say the results would be rather
    > close. K-O and Hi-Lo perform very similarly. As you
    > can see from BJA3, in the SCORE section, Halves
    > outperforms Hi-Lo and K-O by anywhere from 3 to 20
    > percent, depending on the decks, rules, spreads, etc.
    > (see pp. 171-172). Play Halves incorrectly, and the
    > lower end of this outperformance may disappear. But I
    > doubt that the upper end would.

    > Don

    It would appear there may be a learning opportunity here.

    A study could be done comparing an unbalanced count with a balanced count with certain amounts of built in TC error.

    Example:

    Compare KO

    to

    Hi Low (I would prefer halves ) with certain levels of TC error- 1 deck, half, quarter, maybe down to 5 cards. Then you can teach a conclusion that if you are going to employ a balanced count you had better be accurate in your TC conversions to within blank deck level.

    A follow up point - If for betting you underestimate your advantage causing you to underbet you lower your ror and lower your hourly wage. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

    If for betting you overestitmate your advantage you increase your hourly wage but raise your ror, maybe to an unacceptable level. This could of course be disasterous.

    Not that you dont know these things

  10. #20
    Lin X
    Guest

    Lin X: This Level 1 count does beat the Halves

    > How about a very strong unbalanced count and/or the
    > most popular
    > VS
    > Halves with an inaccurate TC estimate, not sure what
    > would be approprieate say half deck off?

    If you count 2-7 as +1 and Tens as -1 with ace being side counted for betting purposes; that count in RC mode will rival the Halves in the 1D game. If you look at the stats of this count, BC is 0.974 (note this count defaults to KO's BC), PE of 0.625 and IC of 0.891. In 1D, play variation is just important as bet variation. Also, the greater your non-flat bet, the more valuable the insurance bet.

    In TC mode for betting and playing, this Level 1 count will beat the Halves in 1D and 2D, even though the halves is a level 3 count. Per Brett Harris Unbalance TC theorem, the IRC is -8 per deck is you want to use TC mode.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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.