Question re: 6-5 double deck

[mcallister3200]

N0 is a mathematical term that express the amount of hands that you are required to play before the player can be ahead by one standard deviation. N0 is dependent on the rules of the game and strategy you use. N0 can be determined by taking the Variance divided by the expected value raised to the second power.

Source: bj21.com Blackjack Glossary.

no argument here....but not sure that will help given the context of the way the question was asked. Number of rounds observed whether you play zero, 1, 2, or 7 hands it's the number of rounds observed. Certainly there is a relationship where more hands played when you have an advantage and less action or rounds observed but not played with a disadvantage will lower the NO given proper bet scaling.

[RS]

Please help me understand N0 correctly.
You play on 2 or 3 spots but N0 counted them as 1 round. However if you seat there and bet nothing for 3 round then N0 counts as 3. Please help me out here. Thanks

I'm sure Don can answer much better (and he can correct me if I'm wrong?) -- but N0 is number of rounds to reach EV = 1 SD. (If you graph EV and +/- 1 SD, you'll see -1 SD curves downwards initially then swings back upwards as it moves to the right....so first it goes negative then it hits 0 then it goes positive. When -1 SD is at $0, then that's N0 in # of rounds.)

Yes, playing 2 or 3 or however many hands in one round still counts as one round. But by playing multiple hands in a round, you decrease N0 (Don?). If you're a back-counter, then rounds observed count towards N0.

[Phoebe]

No one seems to understand that the alleged gains that are hyped here on a daily basis, ad nauseam, are just that -- hype. There's no basis in fact.
n

Really ? Next time I will talk in french to be better understood :-)

[seriousplayer]

I can't even remember what we were talking about in which thread. It all always boils down do HiLo or Hi Opt ii with the armchair Quarterbacking approach to van Alpo commercial..

Personally, I liked Phillppe's use of REKO. Eliminating steps to achieve similar or better results in a no brainer. I'd be curious as to how Uston SS stacks up in Don S calculation of SCORE comparison. If its for double deck then switch the values of the 2 and the 7.

Don S has been clear and adamant many times times that it all comes down SCORE. Yet other terms are used such as n0 which is just another way to figure SCORE. What's the purpose of creating confusion as opposed to striving for simplicity? Confuse the issue to confound the understanding? I get that concept. But what's the point or purpose?

Uston SS perform close to UBZII. Uston SS beats UBZII in lower penetrations and UBZII beat Uston SS in a significant margins in deeper penetrations. Both using the same number of indices and indices in running count. Most definitely Uston SS will beat Hi-lo with the same amount of indices even in running count mode.

[cc12b]

For the second game, Hi-Lo SCORE of 52.04 implies N0 of 19,216, while the Hi-Opt II SCORE of 61.61 yields N0 of 16,231, which is 84.5% of the former.

So, can we stop all the silliness, please?

Don

To all: if you can buy things you want for 15% discount but have to stand in line (more complicate count) or you want to pay full price at no line (simple count)store?

[Three]

Sitting, counting, and winning at a table for two hours is just begging for trouble.

You are out of touch with shoe games, the way most people play BJ.

[Three]

This thread was titled 6- 5 doubled deck. At what point did that change?

Not sure but I know it wasn't by me.

[RS]

You can list 12 counts in a comparison which is a lot of work to compile. Or you can pick the most commonly used count from the bottom of balanced count production and the top count and show the approximate lower and upper limit for traditional balanced count approaches by listing Hilo and Hiopt2/ASC. It isn't that it comes to those 2 being compared. It is that those two represent the lower and upper limits you can expect to experience from commonly used balanced counts. I am surprised you haven't figured that out yet.

SCORE and n0 are the same thing only represented by different numbers. n0 = 1,000,000/SCORE. And in a computer sim it all comes down to SCORE but in a casino that is half the battle. You need to use an approach that allows longevity if you are in the longevity camp. If two players have the same SCORE and each sit at the same table and one is backed off in 2 hours and the other can play seemingly endlessly it is clearly about more than just SCORE. Of course if you are in the burn games as fast as you play them camp longevity isn't an issue and the more quickly backed off simpler approaches fit the approach just fine. That is why many pros use a simpler count. They play aggressively and expect a quick backoff much of the time. Longevity camp pros are not so likely to use a simple approach unless the advanced techniques they employ are best suited to simple counts.

Can you put this bullshit to rest already? A HILO player and a HO2 w/ASC player are going to be raising and lowering their bets in damn near unison. Raising and lowering your bets at slightly different times than when the surveillance or PB who's counting (in a different count) along with you isn't going to think you're not a counter because you didn't raise your bet at the exact time he thought you would.

And if HO2 w/ASC is as amazing and far superior than HILO as you claim (which we should all know is BS), then you should stand a greater chance of being backed off more quickly than a HILO player because you're making all the right moves and winning more money in a quicker period of time and your variance is (supposedly) so much less.

[Three]

A HILO player and a HO2 w/ASC player are going to be raising and lowering their bets in damn near unison.

Having played at tables with a Hilo player while using Hiopt2/ASC myself I know that this is not true. Of course my version of Hiopt/ASC is different than the traditional one but the same holds true for when I was playing Hiopt2/ASC in the traditional manner. Both plays and bets varied quite a bit.

And if HO2 w/ASC is as amazing and far superior than HILO as you claim (which we should all know is BS)

I haven't made any such claims in probably a year. I just said Hilo is near the bottom and Hiopt2/ASC is near the top of the range of results for counting traditional counts. Nobody would disagree with that.

then you should stand a greater chance of being backed off more quickly than a HILO player because you're making all the right moves and winning more money in a quicker period of time and your variance is (supposedly) so much less.

You show a lack of understanding of what you are trying to do in a casino. You aren't trying to fool them into thinking you aren't counting. You are trying to make them comfortable letting you play even though they suspect you are counting. If your bet moves and playing decisions correlate exactly with the count they are all trained to use when looking at possible counters (Hilo) they will not be able to have any doubt that you are a counter. With the higher swings and lower EV of Hilo you will need a more aggressive spread to make the same or maybe even less money which makes it hard to play a winning game within tolerance for spreading by the casino. If your bet moves and plays often are contrary to the Hilo they are all trained on they are more comfortable not taking action agaainst you. With a lower n0 and fewer rounds required to make the session worth it the Hiopt2/ASC player plays shorter sessions to earn the same EV while being able to play longer sessions unmolested. If you understand why you get backed off you would realize the opposite of what you are saying is true. The Hilo player forces the suit to act because he has no other option if he doesn't want his job threatened. If he is watching a probable counter that he knows he won't get in trouble for not acting against the suit is not likely to act. Also the higher EV of Hiopt2/ASC can be partially spent on the more intelligent use of cover play and betting if you choose to do such a thing. Hilo has no higher EV to spend and the info gathered is not strong enough to call it intelligent cover. You seem to think the casino employees go he is counting so we must back him off. I can tell you that is not true. I believe they all know I am counting but really appreciate the extra effort I put in so they are not forced to act against me. I play with the super card catchers working in the pit and they treat me with respect and seem happy to see me because they know they never have to act against me. Some day someone I never see will decide I got too greedy and the BO will come. This is why I try never to be too greedy.

[Freightman]

Can you put this bullshit to rest already? A HILO player and a HO2 w/ASC player are going to be raising and lowering their bets in damn near unison. Raising and lowering your bets at slightly different times than when the surveillance or PB who's counting (in a different count) along with you isn't going to think you're not a counter because you didn't raise your bet at the exact time he thought you would.

And if HO2 w/ASC is as amazing and far superior than HILO as you claim (which we should all know is BS), then you should stand a greater chance of being backed off more quickly than a HILO player because you're making all the right moves and winning more money in a quicker period of time and your variance is (supposedly) so much less.

There will be differences in ramps employed by different players who are utilizing identical counts. There are various valid explanations for this.

[Phoebe]

What mean "SAT" ?

No answer ?

[seriousplayer]

I haven't made any such claims in probably a year. I just said Hilo is near the bottom and Hiopt2/ASC is near the top of the range of results for counting traditional counts. Nobody would disagree with that.

Tthree, I did simulations on other count systems vs Hi-OPT 2 with Ace side and I found that some level 2 ace reckon and some level 3 ace reckon strategy perform on an equality of value to the Hi-OPT 2 count with side count of Aces. Perhaps Hi-OPT 2 with side count of ace out perform UBZII-True at about .51-.75 differences in SCORE. UBZII-True out perform Hi-OPT 2/ASC slightly in lower penetrations with four players. With the same number of indices for both systems in Six deck S17, DAS, LS game.

So, I don't understand why other count strategies would make that much of a significance.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"UBZII-True out perform Hi-OPT 2/ASC slightly in lower penetrations
with four players. With the same number of indices for both systems
in Six deck S17, DAS, LS game."

I note that you are attempting to bias your
preconceived notions by strangling Hi-Opt II
by limiting the number of indices and, I imagine,
using Hi-Opt II without the Side Count ~ that is
mandatory for its proper use.

Ask our two resident authorities.
Don Schlesinger and Norm W.
Both, I imagine, will tell you that
you are wrong.
Until then, I am telling you !