# Thread: Norm Wattenberger: Effect of Color Dependent Tag Values

1. ## Parker: Re: Pen

> "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!

3. ## 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.

Are we all more running count players then true count?

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

4. ## 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 ?

5. ## 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

6. ## 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.

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

7. ## 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 First 12

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•