Copying Bjmath.com

[Gramazeka]

Reid's EBJ II and the "Three Teammates"

Posted By: Zenfighter
Date: Tuesday, 19 November 2002, at 7:19 a.m.

In the card counting section of Richard's new e-book, I looked at the following table:

System.....c-Score

Halves.......32.33
EBJ II.........31.39
RPC..........30.89
Highlow.....29.76

The players as stated there, are spreading their bets (1-10) vs. 6dks, USA rules, S17, DAS and LS, but using only generic BS to play their hands.

Watching EBJ II scoring higher than RPC was admitedly a little surprise to me, but after looking at their respective betting correlations,
it soon vanished. Well I thought, you've to count
four 9s more for every pack, that's a little more
effort, up to everyone, of course.

Vegas Strip rules

EBJ II.........BC = .989
RPC..........BC = .986

I wanted to check the above numbers under more
'realistic'circumstances, that's four card counters using a full IL 18 table of indexes to
vary the play of their hands and the somehow more agressive betting spread (1-16).

Here are the conditions for the sims:

1)5000 million hands for every count.
2)6dks., USA HC, S17, DAS and SP3
3)Penetration was set to 234 cards (4.5/6)
4)Total bankroll = 150 times max. bet
5)IL 18 appropriate indexes for each one.
6)Betting ramp as follows:

TC<2=0
TC-2=1
TC-1=1
TC 0=1
TC 1=4
TC 2=8
TC 3=12
TC4 or >=16

Under the above conditions I've got these:

System..Win rate..SE....Score...ROR....Uns.won/100

Halves..1.072%..0.003%..33.58..1.23%.....3.66
EBJ II....1.050%..0.003%..31.70..1.30%.....3.50
RPC.....1.057%..0.003%..31.91..1.06%.....3.37
Hilo.......1.024%..0.003%..30.15..1.31%.....3.34

I would like to hear your comments, suggestions
and opinions as well, after all, that's the main
reason we're all around here, to learn a little
more every day in this BJ "shelter" called
BJ math.

Regards
Z

[Gramazeka]

Re: Reid's EBJ II and the "Three Teammates"

Posted By: Don Schlesinger
Date: Tuesday, 19 November 2002, at 9:14 a.m.

In Response To: Reid's EBJ II and the "Three Teammates" (Zenfighter)

"I would like to hear your comments, suggestions
and opinions as well, after all, that's the main
reason we're all around here, to learn a little
more every day in this BJ "shelter" called
BJ math."

Just one comment. You don't have a SCORE, in its original, pure sense, if you haven't done optimal betting for each scenario, with a fixed-Kelly identical ROR of 13.5% for each.

So, although I know you tried very hard to make the comaprisons as "apples-to-apples" as possible, that's not really what you've reported.

Don

[Gramazeka]

Re: Reid's EBJ II and the "Three Teammates"

Posted By: Zenfighter
Date: Tuesday, 19 November 2002, at 11:08 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Reid's EBJ II and the "Three Teammates" (Don Schlesinger)

Before running the simulations, I've set the total bankroll to produce a RoR between the
range 1%-2%, because these are the ones I'm used to work with them and obviously I wanted the numbers to make sense to me first. Honesty and selfishness granted!
This risky game with a high variance of 1.313 would require, in order to play optimally at the 13.5% RoR, to have only 70-75 max. bets aprox. That will be unthinkable for me, but make sense for a lot of players, I'm aware of this.
Despite the fact of having understood the distortions of the score numbers, as you correctly pointed, I think the sims show
quite a few interesting facts, and besides
I didn't know how to compare apples to apples
better while doing it.

Thanks for your response

Regards
Z

[Gramazeka]

Re: Are these 'apples' so different?

Posted By: Zenfighter
Date: Thursday, 28 November 2002, at 6:26 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Reid's EBJ II and the "Three Teammates" (Don Schlesinger)

EVs as a function of the TCs

System....TC1....TC2....TC3....TC4....SDH....Var

Halves....0.291..0.810..1.316..1.859..1.143..1.31
EBJII......0.317..0.815..1.324..1.891..1.148..1.32
RPC.......0.354..0.867..1.434..2.071..1.146..1.31
Highlow..0.317..0.832..1.339..1.925..1.145..1.31
Std.err....0.005..0.006..0.008..0.011

Theoretical Kelly bets for a 20000$ bankroll

Halves....44.43$....123.66$....200.92$....283.82$
EBJII......48.03$....123.48$....200.61$....286.53$
RPC.......54.05$....132.37$....218.93$....316.18$
Highlow..48.40$....127.02$....204.43$....293.89$

Practical Kelly bets for our 'green' player

Halves....50$....125$....200$....300$
EBJII.......50$....125$....200$....300$
RPC.......50$....125$....225$....325$
Highlow..50$....125$....200$....300$

Frequencies of the different TCs

System--TC1----TC2----TC3-----TC4----TC5 >--Total

Halves..11.64..6.70...3.86....2.67...2.95...27.82
EBJII....11.67..6.62...3.76....2.18...2.75...26.98
RPC.....11.78..6.50...3.59....2.02...2.37...26.26
Highlow11.81..6.50...3.69....2.10...2.57...26.67

That's all folks!

Epilog: It seems to me, that for PRACTICAL purposes, what we have here are seasoned apples.

When dealing with 6dks and 'monster' 8dks, every-
body is able to dream, being myself a halves player, I also have mine. I'm dreaming to buy me a winter house in southern California, but I don't know why, I've the terrible suspicion that I'm deceiving myself.

Regards
Z

[Gramazeka]

Still not following

Posted By: Don Schlesinger
Date: Thursday, 28 November 2002, at 8:38 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Are these 'apples' so different? (Zenfighter)

I'm not getting your point. You didn't list any SCOREs above, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Don

[Gramazeka]

Re: Still not following

Posted By: Zenfighter
Date: Thursday, 28 November 2002, at 12:41 p.m.

In Response To: Still not following (Don Schlesinger)

SCOREs for Kelly bettors will perform as per Reid's list (see above). That is:
1st Halves, 2nd EBJII, 3rd RPC and 4th Highlow.

If we go back to our BJ history, maybe you'll
remember that Arnold Snyder once was amazed,
when dealing with computer simulations presented
to him by Dr. John Gwynn, which showed that simpler counts, such as Hi-Opt I (here we have
another),do put aprox. THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY
on the table in the long run, than its colleagues, the so called and highly praised advanced counts.

Ergo, what I wanted to show here, is that due to
practical betting roundings and other minor factors Dr. Gwynn was not wrong at all!

Or in plain English, the differences in $$$$$, that goes to the pocket of this four "teammates" as a function of their respectives EVs is probably
less, than the BCs and PEs of their respective
counts would dictate.

Dealing with Score's was not my intention here,
while I was working on this. Btw, I know that
this methodology for evaluating different games
is fantastic and his father is an 'optimistic'
New Yorker, who has my utmost respect.

More clear now, Don?

Regards
Z

[Three]

I wanted to check the above numbers under more
'realistic'circumstances, that's four card counters using a full IL 18 table of indexes to
vary the play of their hands and the somehow more agressive betting spread (1-16).

I would like to hear your comments, suggestions
and opinions as well, after all, that's the main
reason we're all around here, to learn a little
more every day in this BJ "shelter" called
BJ math.

You weren't specific enough to be sure how you did the bets for the comparison. When I do a comparison between counts I try to follow Don's SCORE model that reduces all gain to EV. I set the same RoR, BR, spread (1-whatever), rules, number of decks and pen to be the same and have the sim generate optimal ramps for each system given the parameters. I also use full indices. Different counts have different correlations to various index plays. Picking only some indices or no indices handicaps the systems potential in a comparison. Then I run a comparison. This reduces all gains to changes in EV and allows stronger systems to bet more when they can due to reducing RoR. This will reduce all gain to change in EV just as Don's SCORE did. It gives the most accurate comparison.

I understand some people can't really adjust their bets because higher betting is not something they would consider. They may be already betting against table max or a tolerance choke point and either can't or don't want to increase their bets. They get a smaller increase in EV but the rest of the gain is in reduced RoR. While they may be betting to essentially a 0% RoR that is still gain even if it is relatively meaningless to the individual. For comparisons look at it like Don's SCORE and standardize all parameters but use the optimal ramp for each count. I think that is the only way to get a fair comparison and not be cherry picking whether you tried to cherry pick or not. That is how I do all my comparisons. I think many just keep betting amounts the same which hides much of the potential gain in other stat changes like RoR. If you want to say the difference between counts is worth this much you should make sure all gains are reduced to EV change only. Otherwise you are hiding gain in some stats and haven't reduced all gain to EV like Don's SCORE did.

[Gramazeka]

Tthree, this is no my simulations )) You work with SBA ?

[Gramazeka]

Tthree, what the soft you use for comparison of systems?

[BJGenius007]

Tthree, what the soft you use for comparison of systems?

T3 doesn't use any software or computer, he uses his brain.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Could someone please clue me in as to the name of Richard Reid's new e-book ?

[Bodarc]

Dynamic Blackjack but it is not a new ebook. It was printed in 2001 but is not available now as far as I know. You may find someone who has a copy.

[Marvin]

I've been trying to find a copy of that book for quite a while; no luck. It was easier to get Exhibit CAA.