Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 23 of 23

Thread: Zenfighter: Side counting Aces. Dreams of perfection.

  1. #14
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Bad example ;)

    > Say we've seen 2 1/8 decks.

    Don't know anyone who plays BJ using 1/8-deck estimation! :-)

    > In this case 8.5
    > aces should be the number. Of course, we can
    > approximate it to 9 (or to 8) but in order
    > to be exactly the same method we should use
    > 8.5.
    > See what I mean?

    I do, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it! :-)

    Don

  2. #15
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Bad example ;)

    > Don't know anyone who plays BJ using
    > 1/8-deck estimation! :-)

    That's true and you'll be fine with a quarter deck or even with a half deck estimation for that method but the original question had to do with the equivalence between both methods.
    In order to run a side-by-side sim we must use fractional number of "excess" or "deficient" aces.
    Doing it THAT way both methods will be EXACTLY identical. Since you can't be so precise in practice that leads to the conclusion that the moderm way is more accurate. Of course, the different is so tiny that if you are used to the old method then you don't need to change.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  3. #16
    John Lewis
    Guest

    John Lewis: Re: Both methods are equivalent IF

    Cac -- could you please review this to confirm to me that I have followed your entire thread correctly? I am not proposing the use of your precise ace IC value in actual play. Thanks.

    "Let's use now the traditional method:

    1) Three decks remain (of 6 decks, RC +10); they should contain 12 aces (of 6 decks, RC +10);

    2) But, they contain 14 aces, or two in excess;

    3) For insurance purposes, aces are the same as any other low card; they should have been counted as +1, but hi-lo counts them as -1, thereby producing an error of two for each excess or deficient ace"

    but your precise value is +0.769 vs 1, correct?

    "4) The error here is 2 x 2 = 4, which we subtract from the +10 running count"

    so precisely the error would be 2 x 1.769 = 3.54

    now substituting the new values in your text:

    5) The ace-adjusted running count is now +6.46 (v 6), which when divided by three decks remaining gives +2.15 (v 2);

    6) Hi-lo ace-adjusted insurance index is +3, for all decks, so we (still) don't insure.

  4. #17
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Both methods are equivalent IF

    > "Let's use now the traditional method:

    > 1) Three decks remain (of 6 decks, RC +10);
    > they should contain 12 aces (of 6 decks, RC
    > +10);

    > 2) But, they contain 14 aces, or two in
    > excess;

    > 3) For insurance purposes, aces are the same
    > as any other low card; they should have been
    > counted as +1, but hi-lo counts them as -1,
    > thereby producing an error of two for each
    > excess or deficient ace"

    > but your precise value is +0.769 vs 1,
    > correct?

    Correct. +1 is the best integer approach you'd like to deal with.

    > "4) The error here is 2 x 2 = 4, which
    > we subtract from the +10 running count"

    > so precisely the error would be 2 x 1.769 =
    > 3.54

    Yes.

    > now substituting the new values in your
    > text:

    > 5) The ace-adjusted running count is now
    > +6.46 (v 6), which when divided by three
    > decks remaining gives +2.15 (v 2);

    Right.

    > 6) Hi-lo ace-adjusted insurance index is +3,
    > for all decks, so we (still) don't insure.

    Right again. Note that striving for that accuracy (0.769) is not going to increase the IC to more than 0.8929 (v 0.8908).

    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  5. #18
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Math is wrong, I think

    > "Let's use now the traditional method:

    > 1) Three decks remain (of 6 decks, RC +10);
    > they should contain 12 aces (of 6 decks, RC
    > +10);

    > 2) But, they contain 14 aces, or two in
    > excess;

    > 3) For insurance purposes, aces are the same
    > as any other low card; they should have been
    > counted as +1, but hi-lo counts them as -1,
    > thereby producing an error of two for each
    > excess or deficient ace"

    All good so far.

    > but your precise value is +0.769 vs 1,
    > correct?

    >>Correct. +1 is the best integer approach you'd like to deal with.

    Right.

    > "4) The error here is 2 x 2 = 4, which
    > we subtract from the +10 running count"

    Right.

    > so precisely the error would be 2 x 1.769 =
    > 3.54

    >>Yes.

    Er, no! Where did 1.769 come from? The correct value of the ace is 0.769, no? You're off by two aces, so you double that value: 2 x 0.769 = 1.538. Now, you reverse that magnitude by doubling it: 2 x 1.538 = 3.076.

    It's that value you now subtract from your RC of +10, yielding 6.924.

    > now substituting the new values in your
    > text:

    > 5) The ace-adjusted running count is now
    > +6.46 (v 6), which when divided by three
    > decks remaining gives +2.15 (v 2);

    >>Right.

    In my version, it's 6.924/3 = 2.308.

    > 6) Hi-lo ace-adjusted insurance index is +3,
    > for all decks, so we (still) don't insure.

    Right answer. Wrong math! :-)

    Don

  6. #19
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Math is wrong, I think

    > Er, no! Where did 1.769 come from? The
    > correct value of the ace is 0.769, no?
    > You're off by two aces, so you double that
    > value: 2 x 0.769 = 1.538. Now, you reverse
    > that magnitude by doubling it: 2 x 1.538 =
    > 3.076.

    If you are counting the Ace as -1 but the correct value should be +1 then (-1 + error) = +1,
    thus error = 2. If instead of +1 the value is +0.769 then (-1 + error) = +0.769 leads to
    error = 1.769!

    Hope we agree here

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  7. #20
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Sorry, I misread it

    > If you are counting the Ace as -1 but the
    > correct value should be +1 then (-1 + error)
    > = +1,
    > thus error = 2. If instead of +1 the value
    > is +0.769 then (-1 + error) = +0.769 leads
    > to
    > error = 1.769!

    > Hope we agree here

    Yes, sorry, I misread the original. Quite right.

    Don


  8. #21
    John Lewis
    Guest

    John Lewis: thank you very much for the feedback *NM*


  9. #22
    John Lewis
    Guest

    John Lewis: (Message Deleted by Poster)


  10. #23
    John Lewis
    Guest

    John Lewis: hi lo ace-reckoned insurance -- full circle

    I now understand why standard (non ace-reckoned) hi lo insurance indices differ between SD (+1.4), DD (+2.4? -- forgive me if this is off, I am out of town, sans references), and multideck (+3). The SD and DD indices are influenced by composition dependant considerations.

    These CD considerations are not a factor when hi lo with an ace side count is properly employed, however. Thus the insurance index with this count is +3 uniformly, regardless of number of decks, if one uses the ace excess/deficit adjustment method.

    Also, as Cac has shown, +2 is the appropriate RC adjustment for excess aces dealt in this (hi lo with ace side) count. And, conversely, -2 is the appropriate RC adjustment for each excess ace undealt.

    Thus, on this issue, we find there is ultimately no difference between right and Wong after all.

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.