K-O Blackjack vs HiLo

[bejammin075]

Benj. I will have to read post #124 a couple of more times to absorb it fully. But at first glance, it appears you are working hard. More importantly, working smart. Good job.

There is no deck estimation In a 4 column count. Percentage of cards played is the percentage of cards remaining. Explanation for large bets is complex but much simpler than true count was it's down.

It's a very sensitive count. I can detect a surplus or deficit of one quarter of an Ace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[moses]

Woody, from the show Cheers, is my inspiration


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How ironic since we have a Norm. Flash = Frazier. Pretty scary stuff.

[Frank Galvin]

Ahhh, the DHM Expert System by Professor Edward Gordon, a/k/a D. Howard Mitchell. Apparently this system has been lost through the ages. Never published (don't look to the LOC or Worldcat, as it's not even available at a library in Sin City). IIRC, Professor Gordon's sons (David - the D in D. Howard Mitchell, and Howard) are both dead at this point, and his grandson, Mitchell, in unavailable for comment/inquiry.

If anyone ever comes across lesson plans or notes that Professor Gordon provided while tutoring blackjack students with his DHM Expert System, I would truly love to view same.

PS - I know that Tarzan is generally familiar with the existence of Professors Fristedt and Heath, as well as Professor Gordon's work, but don't believe he had access to the DHME System either. So, we will never know if Tarzan reinvented the DHME System or created his own, more in depth system using the underpinnings from the academics' basic exploration of count groupings through columnar approaches.

[Zach Black]

Yes, you are right in your assumption moses. I play only SD, DD, h17, 1 to 3 spread on a quarter table. double only on 10/11, 3:2 bj with decent pen. And much of the time I will be playing heads-up....And contrary to popular belief on the site that it's even possible, I grind out right at $100 per hour with that spread, and it does tame br fluctuation.....

It really doesn't matter which level 1 system you use, the results are quite close

Below are the CVCX sim results for your rules with full indices, dealer deals 6 rounds heads up, $25-$75 spread

REKO F (KO) $29.33/ 100 hands

Hi Lo $28.93 /100 hands

Silverfox $25. 81/100 hands

Full indices includes splitting 10's, so the actual result will be lower if you exclude these plays.


Hope your good luck continues with a win rate several times your EV.



single deck reko.jpgsd hilo.jpgsd silverfox.jpg

[moses]

Great work Zack. Hmmm. REKO is 14% higher than Silver Fox. That is a little eye opening. Instead of play all, a more realistic list of viable indices to employ and remain under the radar would be
12,13vs2,3,4. 14vs2,3,10,A 15,16vs9,10,A. Not split tens. I'd be surprised if REKO didn't pull away from the pack.

Perhaps remove that note about 7 rounds providing such a vast increase.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

" ... DHM Expert System by Professor Edward Gordon, a/k/a D. Howard Mitchell. Apparently this system has been lost through the ages. Never published (don't look to the LOC or Worldcat, as it's not even available at a library in Sin City). IIRC, Professor Gordon's sons (David - the D in D. Howard Mitchell, and Howard) are both dead at this point, and his grandson, Mitchell, in unavailable for comment/inquiry.

If anyone ever comes across lesson plans or notes that Professor Gordon provided while tutoring blackjack students with his DHM Expert System, I would truly love to view same.

PS - I know that Tarzan is generally familiar with the existence of Professors Fristedt and Heath, as well as Professor Gordon's work, but don't believe he had access to the DHME System either. So, we will never know if Tarzan reinvented the DHME System or created his own, more in depth system using the underpinnings from the academics' basic exploration of count groupings through columnar approaches."

I spent a full day at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas,
going through the "Special Collections" in order to discover
that my buddy, Tarzan had indeed reinvented Dr. Gordon's
Expert System. Dr. Gordon published several Card Counting
Systems that were no different from Hi-Lo, etc. In 1974 he
published a system that he specified was for the (then worst
game available), a Four Deck Shoe. It was not much at all,
balancing 2's through 5's against Tens. It was called the
"D.H.M. System" The next year, 1975, he published the
"Professional Version of the D H M System" A powerful but
difficult count with 5's counted as +4, Tens as -3, etc. The
initial count had a copyright update in 1990 and 1995 but
added little beyond some generic tournament advice.

The Expert System was NEVER published. It was sold as a day
of hands-on lessons from the professor. The price was $1,000
and that was a truly immense bargain 40 years ago ~ certainly
that is the 2016 equivalent of roughly $5,000.+

Note that for a small fraction of that impressive sum, Tarzan will
provide, face to face, "the keys to the kingdom", and Yes, I found
ample evidence in those secretive library stacks that Tarzan, acting
independently, (and with almost no assistance) had re-discovered
the professors lost "columnar" count. Working initially without any
computers, over the course of more years than you would expect,
Tarzan generated the inner-workings of his powerful count.
I have personally known this grizzled 21st Century pioneer for a
long time, on and off of the tables. I have always concluded
that he outperformed me, using Hi-Opt II with Side-Counted Aces
and Sevens in DD games ~ and that no practical count could have
higher BC, PE, IC than he has.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

This is a VERY good article by Dr. Gordon.

It was published in the Feb. 1978 issue of "Gambling Times" periodical.

Does a magazine copyright its contents?

Is it good for 38.8 years? I think not.

The article concludes stating that the only playable systems that are on an

Expert Level are Hi-Opt II with Side Counts and (his) D.H.M. Expert System.


This is the entire magazine:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ic3oqil94...ms%29.pdf?dl=0

This is just the Dr. Gordon article:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hmf5p5tw6e...le%29.pdf?dl=0

You will enjoy the read.

[seriousplayer]

This is just the Dr. Gordon article:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hmf5p5tw6e...le%29.pdf?dl=0

You will enjoy the read.

I already read the Dr.Gordon article that you posted from Gambling Times before I responded to some of the posts. Here is the original website of the article:

http://www.gamblingtimes.com/blackja...ckjack_10.html

[Tarzan]

And he sayeth let there be cards... and there were cards. Something to point out, I created T count completely independently of DHME and Gordon, although it's the same groupings. The methodology is completely different although it follows the same math to guide it. You can't just dream something up and assume it's correct, though. You have to verify it against all known sources, essentially try to find error to prove it wrong avoiding confirmation bias, and submit it for peer review.

Simply stated, from a series of numbers you can get a very exact TC. From this same series of numbers you can get a very precise playing decision for any given hand, since you have a very clear picture of deck composition. It's mathematically sound, my empirical results seem to coincide with it being effective, but the question comes up for the level of difficulty being worth the gain. A fraction of a percentage point given a large enough volume and period of time can add up to a lot but for small money in a short period of time it means little. Add to or alter the variables of time and volume and you can compensate to achieve the same result.

On this level of difficulty issue, I see it as being too difficult for most, but incredibly simple for a few. It's a completely unique way of looking at things involving recognizing patterns, ratios of groupings to one another, and key card effect. It's recognizing a pattern and comparing it to studied, known patterns, following procedure, very automatic most of the time, and you can arrive near perfect play doing it. I find it fascinating in the sense of taking the extremely complex and putting it into terms that can be utilized in real time without the aid of a computer. I am considering putting together some sort of suitable training syllabus for the few that may be interested and whom it would be beneficial to.

Now back to this volume and time variable thing. Mama Luigi from Luigi's has excellent eyesight and counts down seven tables at one time using the Ace-Five count... Checkmate advanced count enthusiasts!

[Frank Galvin]

Seasons greetings Lord Greystroke.

And while I, and others here have interest in gaining access to your unique methodology, I suspect most who are interested still need proof as to its effectiveness, and are eagerly awaiting the simulations and studies underway.

Hopefully the new year will provide you health, happiness and success, and finally prove to others the merit and value of your efforts.

Happy Festivus, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Good Vishnu wishes, and a Happy New Year to all.

[Bigdaddy]

I have always concluded
that he outperformed me, using Hi-Opt II with Side-Counted Aces
and Sevens in DD games ~ and that no practical count could have
higher BC, PE, IC than he has.

ZMF - I'm interested in the side counting of 7s in HO2. I assume you use this for playing decisions only? What are the plays and what are the adjustments; i.e., does it modify your decisions re: hitting or standing on 13s and 14s?

[Frank Galvin]

Bigdaddy,

Isn't it obvious that excess 7s remaining would lead a player to hit his/her 13 and 14 valued hands? Likewise, a deficit of 7s remaining would cause a player not to hit those same hands.

But just as obviously (I trust you can comprehend), those decisions depend upon the deviation point for each situation against the dealer's various possible hands. Thus, index numbers.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"ZenMaster_Flash - I'm interested in the side counting of 7s in HO2. I assume you use this for playing decisions only? What are the plays and what are the adjustments; i.e., does it modify your decisions re: hitting or standing on 13s and 14s?"

Yes, playing decisions only.

I recently posted my surprise in finding that some posters here are

unaware of what a Side-Count is and how it is used.

I derived my adjustments using Griffin's tables from The Theory of Blackjack.

Those tables displaying the changes in e.v. (for one card only) made

it a very doable task, that I have benefitted from, in dollars and cents.

Anyone who wants my adjustments for sevens and Aces should feel free

to contact me. Perhaps I will post them here.

Caveat: Side-Counting Aces is always crucial,

but side-counting sevens has insufficient value for shoe games.

Bear in mind that sevens are often 'bad' (negative) cards for the dealer

Understand that stiff hands comprise 51% of all hands,

but sevens can be important with soft doubles A-2, A-3 as well.

Also when considering doubling a hard 8, 9 or 10. How about splitting

pairs of 3's, 4's, 6's, 9's. ?

Just imagine a game with no sevens and a game with triple the normal

quota of sevens. Thus, by extrapolating to the logical extremes you can

taste the power. Keeping Side Counts of two ranks is not at all hard.

Back to the late great Peter Griffin ...

His invaluable chapter in TTOBJ on Multivariate Counting, shows that

MOST of the Side-Counting gain comes from the Aces and the Sevens.