very discouraging results from 50 year veteran of card counting

[Ouchez]

H17 and S17 isnt that big of a difference to a counter

You are mistaken.

O

[KJ]

H17 and S17 isnt that big of a difference to a counter

Where did this idea come from ZenKinG? That extra .21% house edge off the top is very big IMO. It means the game doesn't turn to the plyers advantage until a slightly higher count, like somewhere in the TC +1.25 to +1.5 range rather than the TC +1 range. And at each additional TC going forward (positive), you will have a little less advantage. This means you are going to have to spread bigger and ramp quicker to overcome this 'extra' house advantage. Now it is true that as the count grows higher that difference becomes a little less than .21%. And with the counter having larger bets out at these times, it may reduce that .21% extra disadvantage that the basic strategy player faces to something a little less for a counter, but it is still a significant extra disadvantage to overcome.

The only thing about h17, is that occasionally, a place will offer something else, like surrender on the h17 game that they don't offer on s17. Now to the basic strategy player, this is still a bad deal as surrender only makes up less than half of the h17 extra disadvantage. But for the counter who has larger bets out during many of these surrender situations, the benefit of surrender increases. maybe even enough to offset that h17 rules, depending on spread and other game conditions.

But by itself, with everything else the same, h17 is indeed a very bad rule for counter and basic strategy player. The only other slight benefit, I can think of is that remaining s17 games, in my area are usually in the high limit room, or high limit tables that are watched more closely. That's why I don't flock to those games. I will take the extra disadvantage and less scrutiny. But I wouldn't say it is not a big difference.

[RobinHood21]

H17 and S17 isnt that big of a difference to a counter

You can play the H17 and I'll play the S17. Enjoy.

[ZenKinG]

Where did this idea come from ZenKinG? That extra .21% house edge off the top is very big IMO. It means the game doesn't turn to the plyers advantage until a slightly higher count, like somewhere in the TC +1.25 to +1.5 range rather than the TC +1 range. And at each additional TC going forward (positive), you will have a little less advantage. This means you are going to have to spread bigger and ramp quicker to overcome this 'extra' house advantage. Now it is true that as the count grows higher that difference becomes a little less than .21%. And with the counter having larger bets out at these times, it may reduce that .21% extra disadvantage that the basic strategy player faces to something a little less for a counter, but it is still a significant extra disadvantage to overcome.

The only thing about h17, is that occasionally, a place will offer something else, like surrender on the h17 game that they don't offer on s17. Now to the basic strategy player, this is still a bad deal as surrender only makes up less than half of the h17 extra disadvantage. But for the counter who has larger bets out during many of these surrender situations, the benefit of surrender increases. maybe even enough to offset that h17 rules, depending on spread and other game conditions.

But by itself, with everything else the same, h17 is indeed a very bad rule for counter and basic strategy player. The only other slight benefit, I can think of is that remaining s17 games, in my area are usually in the high limit room, or high limit tables that are watched more closely. That's why I don't flock to those games. I will take the extra disadvantage and less scrutiny. But I wouldn't say it is not a big difference.

That's exactly my point and i forgot to mention i dont play off the top. The reason I said it was exactly to the point you illustrated, at positive true counts, the difference diminishes, and I forgot where I read it, but someone once mentioned S17 and H17 at positive counts isnt a big difference for a counter. Because Im a pure wonging player im not too hung up on S17 and H17 but of course I still prefer and do play S17 over H17, I was just making a point

[ZenKinG]

You can play the H17 and I'll play the S17. Enjoy.

Ill play the S17s as well, I wasnt saying S17 isnt better, but for a pure wonging player that plays only positive counts, the difference isn't as big as you think. Maybe I shouldve said that from the start and mentioned for someone who plays off the top and the basic strategy player S17 could be a worthwhile difference but for someone who plays only positive counts, its not as big a difference as you think.

[KJ]

That's exactly my point and i forgot to mention i dont play off the top. The reason I said it was exactly to the point you illustrated, at positive true counts its not a huge difference. Because Im a pure wonging player im not too hung up on S17 and H17 but of course I still prefer and do play S17 over H17, I was just making a point

Ok. I forgot you are a heavy 'wong in' player. (I can't keep track of everyone's playing style...lol). That's a reasonable point. Wong players are only playing when they have an advantage so, they can just adjust there entrance point to accommodate an extra disadvantage off the top.

It's still going to mean, more backcounting and less playing, or more backcounting to get to a favorable entrance point, so I still wouldn't say it isn't a big difference.

[ZenKinG]

Ok. I forgot you are a heavy 'wong in' player. (I can't keep track of everyone's playing style...lol). That's a reasonable point. Wong players are only playing when they have an advantage so, they can just adjust there entrance point to accommodate an extra disadvantage off the top.

It's still going to mean, more backcounting and less playing, or more backcounting to get to a favorable entrance point, so I still wouldn't say it isn't a big difference.

Well after pllaying around with CVCX H17 does decrease the win rate / SCORE / CE quite a bit actually.

The parameter are a pure Wong-In approach coming in at +1 and out at anything less than +1 with 1-4 bet spread, +1 = 50, +2 = 100, +3 = 150, +4 and so on = 200 ad a 40k BR

Halves S17,DAS,LS,RSA 82 percent pen.. Win rate is 134.58, SCORE 89.29 AND CE OF 50.27
Halves H17,DAS,LS,RSA 82 percent pen.. Win rate is 125.04, SCORE 76.42 AND CE 39.79

Although something noticeable was that the Std Dev barely moved per round and per hour. About 1$ per round and $5 per higher with H17

I guess I stand somewhat corrected, never actually simmed it myself but relied on someone else in the past who mentioned the fact of S17 and H17 not making much of a difference at positive counts. It seemed to make sense when I thought about it because of the lack of small cards left in the shoe. Or I must have simmed it with a lower bet level 15-60 and becase of the low betting level, the win rate barely nudged. Although my point is still correct about the diminshing effect of S17 at positive counts, to me that's still a pretty significant difference at high betting levels. For smaller betting levels I believe it doesnt make much of a difference

[Three]

but relied on someone else in the past who mentioned the fact of S17 and H17 not making much of a difference at positive counts.

Try reading closer. He probably said the difference becomes less significant at higher counts. That is talking about the difference in advantage at higher counts relative to the difference in advantage at lower counts and is a 100% correct statement. It doesn't mean there is not much difference between S17 and H17 at higher counts. Just that it is less than at lower counts.

[bigplayer]

H17 and S17 isnt that big of a difference to a counter

On shoe games the difference is huge. The effect on card counters of the h17 rule doesn't start to fade away until High Low TC +5 and doesn't go away completely until somewhere around +9 or +10. Those counts are more frequent in single deck and deeply dealt double deck, but not all that frequent on shoe games and for all games probably not frequent enough to make that much of an overall difference. Meanwhile you're fading the normal extra 0.2% from +4 down to -4 and then even more as the count tanks further until by -10 or so the h17 rule is adding a whopping 0.4% to the house advantage forcing lower bottom bets, later early bets, and more table hopping. h17 isn't the end of the world but it's good not to underestimate how much it actually sucks.

[MJGolf]

And isn't S17 becoming harder........and harder........and harder to find? I just re-org'ed Shacklefords BJ Survey Playing conditions by S17/H17 and the vast majority of houses/games are H17. And S17 is at higher and higher minimum limit tables. The "suits" know what they are doing, at least to us mid-level players. If I have to play at a $100 minimum table and spread 12-1 like you guys suggest, I'm going to have to relegate a LOT more of my hard earned income from real life to increase my bankroll. I think becoming more proficient at H17 strategy and adjustment is a necessity. Bring back the good ol' days, when H17 was relegated mostly to downtown or Reno/Tahoe ONLY.........LOL Having S17 games is starting to feel like a LUXURY!

[ZenKinG]

Try reading closer. He probably said the difference becomes less significant at higher counts. That is talking about the difference in advantage at higher counts relative to the difference in advantage at lower counts and is a 100% correct statement. It doesn't mean there is not much difference between S17 and H17 at higher counts. Just that it is less than at lower counts.

I think my reasoning also came from simming low stakes games in the past such as a spread of 1-4 (15-60) the win rate barely changes from about $28 to $27. The SCORE changes a bit from 89 to 76, but nonetheless seems like a negligible difference overall and makes my point valid that for small stakes players who pure wong, S17 and H17 doesn't make a difference

What I found out though is at higher stakes it starts to make a bigger difference.

[Three]

At higher stakes practical bets and optimal bets become much closer. You see the true gain rather than the true gain plus or minus practical bet rounding errors. SCORE reflects this. Gain comes in many forms. Most only notice EV. Gains also come in reduced risk, lower N0, more certainty (lower SD and/or RoR). If you sim the same spread like 15 to 60 much of the gain is in reduced risk. The truth is if you equalize risk you are betting more and making more and your N0 goes down. That is what SCORE does. It puts all the gain into EV so the gain can be quantified in dollars only. It was a great break through by Don for comparing games or strategies. You showed a gain of 28/27 or 7.4% in EV but there was more gain hiding in reduced risk etc. When those are made equal you got a SCORE gain of 89/76 or 17.1%. That is the gain in EV for optimal 4:1 spread with the same BR and RoR. At an S17 game you can bet more using your optimal bets for a 4:1 spread with the same BR and RoR versus an H17 game. What you did showed much of the actual gain being in the form of reduced RoR.

To determine what it is worth to you depends on your situation. If you are against a heat threshold that makes raising your bets not practical the last 10% gain will be in the form of reduced RoR. If your RoR is already really small that may not be worth much to you. If you are betting small because of BR issues increasing your bets a little may not have practical bets like increasing from $5 to $6. You should probably bet the $5 rather than the rainbow stack. The last 10% will be in reduced RoR but you are probably playing to a RoR that is too high anyway so it may be more valuable than the 10% you could get from increasing your bets while keeping your RoR the same.

To see what a change is worth use SCORE (BR, RoR constant with optimal bets for your spread). To see what form that gain comes for you look at what bets are practical and look for the gain from RoR and other stats that are real gains in how your BR grows but don't show up in the form of higher EV.

[ZenKinG]

At higher stakes practical bets and optimal bets become much closer. You see the true gain rather than the true gain plus or minus practical bet rounding errors. SCORE reflects this. Gain comes in many forms. Most only notice EV. Gains also come in reduced risk, lower N0, more certainty (lower SD and/or RoR). If you sim the same spread like 15 to 60 much of the gain is in reduced risk. The truth is if you equalize risk you are betting more and making more and your N0 goes down. That is what SCORE does. It puts all the gain into EV so the gain can be quantified in dollars only. It was a great break through by Don for comparing games or strategies. You showed a gain of 28/27 or 7.4% in EV but there was more gain hiding in reduced risk etc. When those are made equal you got a SCORE gain of 89/76 or 17.1%. That is the gain in EV for optimal 4:1 spread with the same BR and RoR. At an S17 game you can bet more using your optimal bets for a 4:1 spread with the same BR and RoR versus an H17 game. What you did showed much of the actual gain being in the form of reduced RoR.

To determine what it is worth to you depends on your situation. If you are against a heat threshold that makes raising your bets not practical the last 10% gain will be in the form of reduced RoR. If your RoR is already really small that may not be worth much to you. If you are betting small because of BR issues increasing your bets a little may not have practical bets like increasing from $5 to $6. You should probably bet the $5 rather than the rainbow stack. The last 10% will be in reduced RoR but you are probably playing to a RoR that is too high anyway so it may be more valuable than the 10% you could get from increasing your bets while keeping your RoR the same.

To see what a change is worth use SCORE (BR, RoR constant with optimal bets for your spread). To see what form that gain comes for you look at what bets are practical and look for the gain from RoR and other stats that are real gains in how your BR grows but don't show up in the form of higher EV.

Ye the SCORE was the one with the biggest difference. I put too much focus on the lousy win rate difference from 27 to 28 wth the 15-60 spread, but like you said there is more to it. The SCORE going from 89 to 76 though is very significant. Guess I was wrong from the get go from whatever led me to believe that S17 and H17 didnt mean that much to a counter in 'positive counts'.