Learning about side counts

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I'm waiting.

You'll have to keep waiting, as there are no computer programmers
that have 'risen to the occasion' of simulating performance for some
non-standard strategies that have much reduced linearity and
extremely complex betting/playing decisions.

RE: TARZAN COUNT.

I, ZenMaster_Flash, do hereby depose and swear that the posted
statements by Tarzan RE: frequency of winning sessions, etc.
are T R U E. I have known him personally and have travelled with,
(and played with), him for many years.

RE: Three

The same statement as above holds true. However he and the
reader are rarely referencing the same game.

RE: ME

No mystery here. I use Hi-Opt II with Side-Counted Aces (and 7's
in a DD game) I have done very well for decades.

I estimate my BC at .99 my P.E. at .71 and my I.C. at .98

I also indulge in Spanish21 using (my) FlashIII Count.

I retired in my 40's from being a professional person, and doing so
has resulted in markedly reduced annual earnings, but a priceless
sense of freedom, that I call the "Outlaw Existence."

[Three]

I'm not trying to add to or renew the old which count is better argument. My understanding according to Norm and Don is that you can't play enough hours in a lifetime to determine that. You can be above or below EV at any point in time but it means nothing. You are where you are but it takes billions of rounds of simulation to determine whether one method is preferable to another. Their comments on this caught my eye and maybe Norm and Don will contribute a little to this discussion.

This quote is correct but I think you are misunderstanding it. You are using it to say sims are worthless even though you don't use those terms. You say your system choice is worthless. It just says variance has a larger affect on outcome than expectation until you have played long enough. You may never play long enough. How long depends on variance and EV (SCORE//n0). How far do you stray from expectation depends on variance. How quickly expectation accumulates depends on EV. These very basic few lines tell you what you need to know. You want low variance with high EV. Your system choice and the table conditions you choose to play and to a lesser degree the rules that the game uses will determine what is the best choice to achieve this goal. It has nothing to do with simple or complex but there is a definite tendency for one to fit the bill better than the other.

[LoneWoLF]

I'll not spark a new flame war by arguing with an amateur,
but I will say is that the position espoused above is incorrect,
while the counter-position is mathematically provable.

Amateur? Ill make more than anyone on this forum by the time im done with this.

[Three]

Real world isnt a sim. Is your deck estimation in a shoe game to the exact card? Is your ace side count estimation of 1/4 deck to the exact card. If it isnt, you're getting the same EV. Keep in mind, im talking about 6-8 deck games, highly dealt pitch game are a different story. Delusional people i swear.

What people don't seem to understand is there is value to knowing the rank side counted is not out of whack. These people think it doesn't change my bet or play most of the time. The truth is it allows you to play with far less variance. The info can change a weak index into a strong index. This is talking about correlation of the count tags to the play. This makes EV accumulate much faster for each decision made using that index. It may only change a few plays but you are accumulating EV faster each time you make the decision. Look at any of these graphs:

https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

With better correlation to count tags the EV difference would be greater for each point in the graph. Some of the plays are not even worth making like splitting 3,3v8. There just isn't much EV difference to make it worth the risk. This isn't because 8 is a greta dealer upward or having one hand of 6 is better than 2 hands of 3. We know none of that is true. The m-value for 6 decks is only -1.4149. You would think splitting would be done very very frequently. The trouble is the play depends almost exclusively density of 8's and 7's and to a lesser degree 6's. These cards give you strong double totals if you get them on the split hand and give the dealer the weakest hands (14, 15 and 16) if one is the hole card. The main count is almost irrelevant. If you side counted those ranks or a rank the play would accumulate EV very fast rather than have next to no EV differential. This would become a very strong index play rather than one so weak you should just ignore it simply because you know the side counted ranks are at expected levels, surplus or deficit.

For betting the side counting the ace has a big impact if you count it properly. The trouble is most systems tell you to count it the same as the T's but it is 20% more important. System sellers like things to be as simple as possible. The wisdom is people are to lazy or stupid to buy into things that are too complicated. This is a marketing decision not a comment on anyones intelligence or work ethic. They just want the largest customer base possible. If the ace is counted properly betting variance decreases and you can bet more at the same RoR because you bet more when that is appropriate and less when that is appropriate. This allows a spread of say 12 to have a higher bet while using the better info than using weaker info.

Anyway I see value in betting more without increasing risk. I also see value in accumulating extra EV with every decision I make. I also see value in betting more accurately. Let us not forget the value of the variance reduction relative to EV (increase in SCORE) that each one of these affords. To me the ones that try to deny these absolute mathematical certainties are the ones that are delusional. There is nothing wrong with choosing to play with weaker stats but it is wrong to say the stronger game is delusional. Whenever I run the numbers I am always amazed at how much everyone seems to think is not worth it and just throw away. As games deteriorate and your advantage dwindles very one of these things that people say are not worth it increase EV more and more significantly. How bad do games need to get and how low does the EV need to be before this wisdom left over from the era of great games finally dies? Those that argue the gains aren't worth it look at the dollar amount but not the way it changes all the important stats that define your chances of success and the likelihood of your busting your BR. The effect of the gains become more and more significant as conditions deteriorate. The dollar amounts never change but their recent of dwindling EV keeps getting more significant. Basically that means the effect on your chances to be successful keep increasing as the games deteriorate.

The wisdom of it isn't worth it started when the 4 deck shoe was introduced because your advantage was still huge but the dollars gained were not worth it due to the ratio of that to EV. Then you got 6 and 8 deck show lowering EV more. Then you got H17 which was a brutal blow to EV. Then you got no LS which again was a huge hit. Then 6:5 BJ and restricted doubling. I got news for you. The time that it became worth it has long passed. It is not so much the increase in EV as it is the decrease in n0, the increase in CE (certainty of BR growth), increase in SCORE, and increase in the percentage gain of tactics widely viewed as not worth it. When your EV dwindles so much that it doubles EV without changing the dollars gained will it be worth it then. If you still think it is not worth it maybe what you really mean is playing BJ at all is not worth it.

[Three]

the lack of frequency of surplus and deficits in card denominations such as depleted 4s or 5s or 6s or a surplus of 4's, 5s, and 6s for example just wont be enough in the long run to make what they're doing even worth a damn.

See post 32 for the flaw in this thinking. It is really a misunderstanding of how a better correlation of info gathered to the decision being made that makes the uneducated say these kids of things. With a stronger correlation of info gather to the decision count tags the EV difference of every decision made is affected. It matters not whether the decision is changed. Basing a decision on better information causes the EV gained from the deviation to be higher. Basically, like in anything else in BJ, you have to look at the long run. Without the side count(s) the EV of the decision is based on the average EV of all the decisions that are lumped into the same TC. The EV of the decision being made is not based on the current deck composition because you can't distinguish that. It is based on all the situations that are averaged together that are equated as equivalent by your count. The average EV is the EV for your decision. With weak info the EV of the deviation is tiny. With strong correlation to the decision of the info you are basing the decision on EV accumulates much faster as the deviation boundary is exceeded. This causes each decision to be worth more with better correlation. This stronger decision making affects increases EV while reducing variance.

The important stars in BJ are proportional to EV or EV^2 and inversely proportional to variance or variance squared. I think anything that increases EV while decreasing variance shouldn't be dismissed so easily. Then to use an argument that cards don't get out of whack frequently enough shows you don't understand that the EV gain is not based on the current deck composition but rather the difference between all situations equated as the same by the count the decision is made using. BJ stats are about the long run and equating situations into decision bins. I am not sure why you think that looking at the individual decision rather than all the decisions that are equated by the count would have any relevance to long term results. It is ploppy thought.

We are about the long run. We group everything into bins and play by the average of all things equated into each bin. The more accurately you define your bins the better your results will be. Sometimes your play is wrong for the specific deck composition despite your bins average. But the gain from each decision can only be defined by the bins average and how much it differs from BS. By grouping bins to have better correlation to the decision each progressive bin will have a higher gain in EV. This is called how fast EV accumulates after the index (or betting decision) is exceeded. Every time you make that decision the EV difference is greater if correlation is better even if the decision is not changed. Stop thinking like a ploppy. The nuts and bolts of why EV is what it is is determined by how well correlated bins are to the decision. Making accurate betting and playing decisions is all you have control over. Seize the game and beat the hell out of it using the most accurate bins you can whether for betting or playing decisions.

[Three]

Amateur? Ill make more than anyone on this forum by the time im done with this.

LoL. I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

[mofungoo]

RE: TARZAN COUNT.

I, ZenMaster_Flash, do hereby depose and swear that the posted
statements by Tarzan RE: frequency of winning sessions, etc.
are T R U E. I have known him personally and have travelled with,
(and played with), him for many years.

RE: Three

The same statement as above holds true. However he and the
reader are rarely referencing the same game.

RE: ME

No mystery here. I use Hi-Opt II with Side-Counted Aces (and 7's
in a DD game) I have done very well for decades.

I estimate my BC at .99 my P.E. at .71 and my I.C. at .98

Not what I asked for at all. Anecdotal "evidence" at best. What you just said to me is essentially, "I don't know." Why not simply say that?

I will accept that the side count approach works well in 1D games, is less effective in 2D games, and is a hinderance in shoe games @ 6 or 8 deck games with 75% pen or less. Because I did not design any of these custom counts, I have no idea what they are worth. I just know their efficacy diminishes with more decks and worse penetration. That's why I ask the question, "What are they worth in various types of games?"

I question why a person capable of designing a complex multiparameter counting system cannot do the math to determine the % advantage of their system. Or why they have not made enough money to hire a talented programmer to sim their count and determine SCORE. The Scientific Method demands peer review, and we have not seen hard numbers that show how good these systems are or aren't. So far all I have not gotten quantification, just qualification.

Still waiting...

[Boz]

What literal nonsense. Exactly like mofungoo said--no numbers, just talk. Variance doesn't care what counting system you use. It cares what your average bet is. What is the point of doubling EV for zero gain in dollars? To bet less? Of course betting less gives you less variance. Why are we betting less if EV doubled? And how did it double? Low variance didn't double it. The lower the bet, the lower the EV--unless you're playing at a disadvantage.

To Lonewolf's point, using hi-lo works fine. But it's not delusional to use more powerful counts. You can get about 20% more out of it. If your edge is 1%, you can get 1.2%. That adds up. The biggest part of the gain comes from moving up to a level 2 count. The next biggest comes from going ace-neutral (probably switch them around if you're playing pitch). Next biggest is fine-tuning a couple of the tags to get something like Hi-opt 2 or a Wong Halves. You only get a teeny bit from side-counting, unless you skipped some of those steps and customized your count. Sorry Tarzan, but I think it's an extremely inaccurate analogy to say hi-lo is a horse and buggy and a higher level count is a nice car. Most of the horsepower is in hi-lo--everything else is just a turbo-boost. Eric Farmer has a nice sim somewhere where he shows there's no impressive gain over a level 1 count and perfect computer play in a shoe. Now a Gordon-like (Tarzan-like?) count in SD? I don't know--there could be something big there.
As for the idea that it would take a lifetime to see an upper level count overtake hi-lo, I don't buy it. I've seen the argument before. You could use the same argument to say forget counting altogether. N0 gives you a decent assessment of when you'll probably be seeing the law of large numbers.

[Bodarc]

You are using it to say sims are worthless

Just the opposite Tthree. I am saying one person's playing results are not significant statistically.

[Norm]

Variance doesn't care what counting system you use.

I don't know what that means; but obviously the system you use affects variance. I don't subscribe to multi-column counts. But, most of your first paragraph makes no sense to me.

[Villiam]

HA moses. So funny man!...

I opened up a couple cans of worms, I see. Given everything I've read and knowing my tastes for accuracy I have to say that I will not be using HiLo much longer.

I am going to start practicing Hi-opt II and side counting aces. Any advice on how to start would be appreciated. Waiting on my book, ZMF... Or should I learn the Boz count, Boz?

[Eye of the Eagle]

HA moses. So funny man!...

.. Or should I learn the Boz count, Boz?

What is the Boz count ? All these super natural counts someone please explain them!

[Eye of the Eagle]

I don't know anything about these super duper linear counts with bins can someone please explain them to me? Are they just something you sim up on a computer and do not play in the casino? I know my real life experience's I have used 3 different counts. Hi-Lo, Kiss3, UBZ and I have had success with all of them. In 13 years as a part time player I can HONESTLY say I am up over $150,000. Just a part time recreational player. Not bad for playing with no super duper count. One thing that Three3 did say did make sense "Variance can be a bitch."