Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 23

Thread: Alexost: Ace adjustment question.

  1. #1
    Alexost
    Guest

    Alexost: Ace adjustment question.

    In PBJAAB Revere gives very general direction as to how to play hands differently when aces are not evenly distributed. "If there is a shortage or surplus of aces you will hit less or more" (respectively). From other readings I gather I would just subtract the ace rich or poor multiple with a tag value of -2 from the RC before adjusting to TC for strategy departure purposes, but would like expert opinion on this.

    Does anyone have a more definitive approach to adjusting the true count for PE purposes when using the RPC? And if so I would also like to know what the new PE is if I employ the ace adjustment strategy!

    I have already spent around $250.00 in books and software, (which do not answer this particular question) I would rather not buy more software at this time.

    Thanks to all!

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Ace adjustment question.

    > In PBJAAB Revere gives very general
    > direction as to how to play hands
    > differently when aces are not evenly
    > distributed. "If there is a shortage or
    > surplus of aces you will hit less or
    > more" (respectively). From other
    > readings I gather I would just subtract the
    > ace rich or poor multiple with a tag value
    > of -2 from the RC before adjusting to TC for
    > strategy departure purposes, but would like
    > expert opinion on this.

    > Does anyone have a more definitive approach
    > to adjusting the true count for PE purposes
    > when using the RPC? And if so I would also
    > like to know what the new PE is if I employ
    > the ace adjustment strategy!

    If you're not playing SD, ace adjustment for playing departures will not be worth the effort for the RPC. It's hardly worth it for insurance purposes, unless playing SD or DD.

    After you make the adjustment, the indices that you use actually change, as well, so you would have to generate them, using some software, such a CV or SBA. My advice: fuhgeddaboudit!

    Don

  3. #3
    Alexost
    Guest

    Alexost: Re: Ace adjustment question.

    I actually do plan on playing mostly SD and DD, however, as I suspected, I need more software to do this! Ugh. I wish I would have gotten SBA instead of PBA! I think I will take your advice and not worry about it.... Thanks for your time!


  4. #4
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Ace adjustment question.

    Multiple decks are practically immune to side count treatment, for betting and /or playing purposes, no matter which, don?t expect an increase in your win rate greater than 0.05% against 6 decks. For handheld games and single deck specially, as Don suggested, maybe it isn?t a bad idea at all. Expect the following:
     
    BC = .9837199
    PE = .5544692
    IC = .7798635

    With the ace adjustment

    PE = .6566257
    IC = .8919278


    On the other hand, I?m sure Norm/Cac or others here, can help you with the proper
    indexes, if you still insist in using them for handheld games.

    All the best

    Sincerely
    Z

  5. #5
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Ace adjustment question.

    According to my calculations a side count of aces is worth 6.58% in a 6D game.

                   1-4     1-8     1-12    1-16    1-20 
    RPC/A 12.33 30.55 40.35 46.37 50.44
    RPC 10.90 28.27 37.86 43.78 47.80


    Take for example a 1-12 spread:

    $40.35 is 6.58% more than $37.86. The game analyzed is 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,Catch-22.
    Note that for 1-4 the percentage is even bigger (13.11%).

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  6. #6
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Ace adjustment question.

    > Multiple decks are practically immune to
    > side count treatment, for betting and /or
    > playing purposes, no matter which, don?t
    > expect an increase in your win rate greater
    > than 0.05% against 6 decks.

    This is not so. See my answer to Alexhost.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  7. #7
    Alexost
    Guest

    Alexost: Re: Ace adjustment question.

    I try and play SD or DD, but will sometimes play 4 or 6 deck games. Do you have the Catch-22 indices (adjusted from published) for sidecounting the ace available? How do you side count the ace? Subtract or add to the excess/lack of aces (-2 tag) from the RC before converting to the TC for PE purposes?

    Thanks for your time.

  8. #8
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Modern methodology

    > I try and play SD or DD, but will sometimes
    > play 4 or 6 deck games. Do you have the
    > Catch-22 indices (adjusted from published)
    > for sidecounting the ace available? How do
    > you side count the ace? Subtract or add to
    > the excess/lack of aces (-2 tag) from the RC
    > before converting to the TC for PE purposes?

    I can't post ALL the indices since it won't be fair for software developers. However, I can disagree with them if I happen to find any discrepancies

    Now, forget about the traditional method of side-counting aces. The modern way is a little more accurate.

    The modern way

    1) Keep a primary count (PC) (RPC-A) = 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 starting at IRC = -48 (for 6D) or -32 (for 4D).

    2) Keep a secondary count (SC) for aces = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Every time you see an Ace count it as +1.

    Whenever you have to place a bet calculate your count as follows: (PC + 2*SC) / full_decks_remaining

    Whenever you have to make a playing decision only use your primary count as PC / full_decks_remaining.

    There are many variations to the above.

    The indices are calculated based on the PC. For getting this you can substract 8 (full-deck indices) from each of the published indices and you'll be fine.
    If the published are for half-deck then substract 4.

    Of course, it's better to generate them with an index generator.

    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  9. #9
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Apples an oranges

    Depending of the bankroll, but as a rule of thumb, an increase of a 5% in EV is correlated
    aprox. with an increase in SCORE of about 10%.
    What your data is telling me, is that I'm somehow an inveterated optimistic with my figure
    of 0.05% increase of the WR,due to the gain in playing efficiency of the RPC against multiple
    deckers. Guessing out of the Score gain I think that 0.03% is more appropiately! :-)

    Appreciate your post below.

    Sincerely
    Z

  10. #10
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Apples an oranges

    > Depending of the bankroll, but as a rule of
    > thumb, an increase of a 5% in EV is
    > correlated
    > aprox. with an increase in SCORE of about
    > 10%.
    > What your data is telling me, is that I'm
    > somehow an inveterated optimistic with my
    > figure
    > of 0.05% increase of the WR,due to the gain
    > in playing efficiency of the RPC against
    > multiple
    > deckers. Guessing out of the Score gain I
    > think that 0.03% is more appropiately! :-)

    Sorry, but I don't understand your post. You talked about an increase of 0.05% in WR and I replied that the increase in WR (or SCORE) is about 6.58%.
    If we talk about EV per 100 rounds then for a 1-12 spread we have:

    RPC = $2.838
    RPC/A = $2.946

    This is an increase of 3.8%. So 0.03% is not correct either.

    > Appreciate your post below.

    You are welcome.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  11. #11
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: I forgot an IRC

    > The modern way 1) Keep a primary count
    > (PC) (RPC-A) = 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 starting
    > at IRC = -48 (for 6D) or -32 (for 4D).

    > 2) Keep a secondary count (SC) for aces = 1
    > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Here, you should start at an IRC of 24 (for 6D) and 16 (for 4D). Every time you see an ace you "substract" one from this IRC.
    The rest is correct. Sorry for the mistake.

    > Whenever you have to place a bet calculate
    > your count as follows: (PC + 2*SC) /
    > full_decks_remaining

    > Whenever you have to make a playing decision
    > only use your primary count as PC /
    > full_decks_remaining.

    > There are many variations to the above.

    > The indices are calculated based on the PC.
    > For getting this you can substract 8
    > (full-deck indices) from each of the
    > published indices and you'll be fine.
    > If the published are for half-deck then
    > substract 4.

    > Of course, it's better to generate them with
    > an index generator.

    > Hope this helps.

    > Sincerely,
    > Cacarulo

  12. #12
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Demonstration by example

    SCORE gain as a function of increasingly win rates. A 4.5/6 multideck?s example.
     

    Win rate (%) Increase SCORE Gain (%)

    .88 $22.56
    .91 .03 $24.11 6.43
    .93 .05 $25.20 10.48
    .97 .09 $27.98 19.37
    1.02 .14 $30.91 27.01
    1.06 .18 $33.99 33.63
    1.11 .23 $37.32 39.55
    1.15 .27 $40.70 44.57
    1.20 .32 $44.36 49.14
    1.25 .37 $48.16 53.16
    1.29 .41 $52.13 56.72
    1.34 .46 $56.25 59.89




    Assuming a $10000 bankroll, betting optimal with a 1-12 spread the gain in SCORE
    approaches close to Cac?s simulated gain, given an increase of 0.03 in the WR.

    Proportional gain in SCORE numbers don?t tend to increase linearly as a function of
    increasingly WR digits, as you can see from the table.

    Btw, the correlation coefficient between WR and SCORE is outstanding, with the
    above small sampling I?ve got c = .998323.

    Hopefully I make myself more clear now.

    Best summer wishes for all.

    Sincerely
    Z

  13. #13
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Demonstration by example

    Sometimes we just talk at cross-purposes, with one person not grasping what the other is saying. I understand both of you (!), so maybe I can help here.

    In the Chapter 10 charts, there is both "%W/L," which is your average percentage advantage, operating on every dollar wagered, and "W/100," which is the number of units (or dollars) won, per 100 hands played or observed.

    Now, SCORE is the square of DI, and DI is the Sharpe ratio, or the W/100 divided by the standard deviation. If we keep SD fixed, but vary the W/100 OR the %W/L, the SCORE will change exponentially, becauseof the squaring factor.

    So, if the %W/L is, say, 0.88, and we raise it by 0.03% to 0.91, the SCORE increases by (.91/.88)^2 -1 = 6.93%.

    Clear to everyone???

    Don

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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.