See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 40

Thread: Prob with indices

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Bodarc, If you are looking to find which indices are better it is much easier to skip most of that chapter. If you want to quantify the actual gain from each then go ahead and do the full thing. For the easy method of identifying if an index is "good", calculate the CC for your system and compare it to the SS of the play. Then run an index gen, eliminate plays with extraordinarily high or low TC's. If you want to then further reduce the index pool look at average wager and probability of occurrence.
    Regarding average wager, you do not need the Nevada Blackjack reference (for hi-lo only anyways). CVCX works just fine. Average Bet.JPG

    To Don,

    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    You may not agree, but it really doesn't matter. Compared to a computer simulation, all the aspects you discuss, and one's entire lifetime of play, is nothing more than a blip on the computer screen. One or two standard deviations of the "superior" manner of playing, compared to the more "simplistic" manner, in all likelihood, wipes out the entire difference. In more brief terms, better lucky than good.

    I have absolutely nothing against people who keep 42 side counts in their head, with a level-62 count (:-)); rather, my objection comes when those people continually explain to us how much more money they're winning over their lifetimes from all this extra effort. It makes most others who read think that the endeavor is worth the trouble, and I don't believe that this is the case. Hence, the Illustrious 18, Norm's REKO, and other attempts to permit counters to play their system perfectly accurately and with ease. And, finally, hence the utter bullshit that was James Grosjean's consummate nonsense in his Exhibit CAA, in regard to the above.

    Don
    In BJA3 you said that a player using a higher level system should be paid accordingly in a team setting (assuming all other factors are equal). Did you change your mind?
    Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know.

  2. #15
    Senior Member Bodarc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    136 miles North of West
    Posts
    1,949


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Tthree

    You must run the sims using Ill 18 and Fab 4 and then run them again using full indices so you can get the difference. Just running sims using full indices shows nothing. When you do this, I'll bet you come close to Don's calculations.

    I did not mean for this thread to get out of hand.
    Play within your bankroll, pick your games with care and learn everything you can about the game. The winning will come. It has to. It's in the cards. -- Bryce Carlson

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I don't understand what you tried to show, as it seems to verify exactly what I claimed. You haven't compared the e.v. from your style of play to the e.v. of a simpler style; rather, you've just shown the e.v.s and s.d.s for the Hi-Lo game you described at the start. All you are displaying is that if you play nearly two million hands, one single s.d. is still 10% of your total e.v.

    So, I repeat: If you play a system with which you claim to win 10% more than simple Hi-Lo (you have never stated what you think your advanced system is worth in improvement), and you get unlucky and lose one s.d., you won't win any more than the Hi-Lo guy with average luck, and you'll win LESS than the Hi-Lo guy with good luck.

    Were you trying to prove this (my) point, or something else?

    Don

  4. #17
    Senior Member Bodarc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    136 miles North of West
    Posts
    1,949


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Hey muckz

    I was just joking with Don about the Nevada BJ reference (because he has every piece of paper that was ever printed re BJ).

    Thanks for the info my friend!
    Play within your bankroll, pick your games with care and learn everything you can about the game. The winning will come. It has to. It's in the cards. -- Bryce Carlson

  5. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    [quote=DSchles;140850
    I don't understand what you tried to show, as it seems to verify exactly what I claimed. You haven't compared the e.v. from your style of play to the e.v. of a simpler style; rather, you've just shown the e.v.s and s.d.s for the Hi-Lo game you described at the start. All you are displaying is that if you play nearly two million hands, one single s.d. is still 10% of your total e.v.

    So, I repeat: If you play a system with which you claim to win 10% more than simple Hi-Lo (you have never stated what you think your advanced system is worth in improvement), and you get unlucky and lose one s.d., you won't win any more than the Hi-Lo guy with average luck, and you'll win LESS than the Hi-Lo guy with good luck.

    Were you trying to prove this (my) point, or something else?

    Don[/quote]

    I messed the entire thing up anyway. It was easier to delete than fix. I was going to quantify the amount Don specified, 1 or 2 SD's in a lifetime of play. Ignore the entire thing.

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "I was just joking with Don about the Nevada BJ reference (because he has every piece of paper that was ever printed re BJ)."

    Well, maybe not, but I do have that one!

    Don

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    You may not agree, but it really doesn't matter. Compared to a computer simulation, all the aspects you discuss, and one's entire lifetime of play, is nothing more than a blip on the computer screen. One or two standard deviations of the "superior" manner of playing, compared to the more "simplistic" manner, in all likelihood, wipes out the entire difference. In more brief terms, better lucky than good.

    I have absolutely nothing against people who keep 42 side counts in their head, with a level-62 count (:-)); rather, my objection comes when those people continually explain to us how much more money they're winning over their lifetimes from all this extra effort. It makes most others who read think that the endeavor is worth the trouble, and I don't believe that this is the case. Hence, the Illustrious 18, Norm's REKO, and other attempts to permit counters to play their system perfectly accurately and with ease. And, finally, hence the utter bullshit that was James Grosjean's consummate nonsense in his Exhibit CAA, in regard to the above.

    Don
    Wait, what's your issue with "The Book"?
    The Cash Cow.

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    Wait, what's your issue with "The Book"?
    Have you not read the end of the Mississippi stud chapter? JG goes on quite a rant about Dons work.

  9. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierce View Post
    Have you not read the end of the Mississippi stud chapter? JG goes on quite a rant about Dons work.
    Yeah but Don is a stickler for grammar. "The above" clearly is a clear reference to using complex counting approaches in BJ.
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    And, finally, hence the utter bullshit that was James Grosjean's consummate nonsense in his Exhibit CAA, in regard to the above.
    Last edited by Three; 09-09-2014 at 02:02 PM.

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Tthree, you misquoted Don as me.
    The Cash Cow.

  11. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    Tthree, you misquoted Don as me.
    Sorry about that. I quoted your quote of what Don said. I guess that is what happens when you do that. I fixed it.

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Don. Along this similar line of thought, is Wong Halves (Ill 18) vs Hi Lo (full Index) worth the extra effort?.
    No. I doubt that there's any improvement in e.v. at all. The gain from level 3 would be entirely offset by using all the Hi-Lo indices, compared to using just I18 and Fab 4 with Halves.

    Don

  13. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Don. Along this similar line of thought, is Wong Halves (Ill 18) vs Hi Lo (full Index) worth the extra effort?.
    I know SD is your game. Is that what you want an answer for?
    HILO full is better than halves I18&fab 4 for SD, H17 and with H17, DAS and with H17, DAS, LS. Those extra indices make all the the difference.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-07-2003, 02:32 PM
  2. DanM: Don's Domain access prob.
    By DanM in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-25-2002, 09:01 AM

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.