See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 89

Thread: T3’s multydecks and Mose’s SD

  1. #27


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by cc12b View Post
    If it was contest like Olympic archery, you shoot at the target not each other, then I am find with that. How about each play his own game in real life casino with witness/judge. After number of hands you compare the result to see who win the most? Just my 2 cents.
    To make this a relavent learning experience, you need 2 or 3 participants at the same table. You would want to compare styles of play at various true counts, throwing in additional deck composition issues for good measure, and again, spectators taking notes and asking questions after the contest.

    Who has the most money at the end if the contest is one way if keeping score, however, the salient point is that it does not matter who wins - only that participants have played their A game.

    Another intangible would be quality of play at supersonic speeds.
    Last edited by Freightman; 02-24-2017 at 08:08 PM. Reason: To add last paragraph

  2. #28
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The friendly joust you speak of would prove nothing, since it's too small a sample group. Hi-Opt2ASC is talked about as being the best because it is the best. It's going to outperform what Moses does. Moses is up against a difficult game. It's the noDAS and d10 that kills you. Look at Don's charts for the difference between 31/52, H17 and 31/52, H17, noDAS, d10 and you'll see that the SCORE value is chopped nearly in half.
    Last edited by Tarzan; 02-25-2017 at 03:15 AM.

  3. #29


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Why would you ever dream of settling a bet on such a piddling number of hands? Why wouldn't you just run a simulation with SE so small as to satisfy both participants, and then simply respect the outcome of the sim?

    What do you think you can possibly demonstrate mathematically about blackjack by playing 10,000 hands? Shows how little you understand about the math.

    "Apples to apples, I believe the Tarzan count would pull away from Hi Opt Ii by the time you played 10k hands in the 6 deck game."

    You're going to be disappointed that you made that statement. :-)

    Don

  4. #30
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  5. #31


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    I'm also going with a Biblical qoute.
    .
    My favourite biblical quote - "he knew her"

  6. #32
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Why wouldn't you just run a simulation with SE so small as to satisfy
    both participants, and then simply respect the outcome of the sim?
    I am not basing the challenge upon just whose count may be stronger,
    but upon PLAYER strength as well, and sample size needed to fit a day.
    However, Norm is displeased with my suggestion. It is hereby revoked.

  7. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Dosadi
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Resurrection of this thread just because we seem to agree on a lot of stuff Moses. I have kept a journal from the start of my interest in this game. Notes, math, trip reports, etc.
    And some of my early notes concern not a 4 column count but a 3 category count, hi, lo, mid. I could see that it would lead to better info, but I was pretty far along with my own thing, and tabled it,
    since I was concerned mostly with shoe games from the start, I could see it would be tough to count 6 decks that way. But definitely see how it could be good for 1 or 2 deck after reading your posts, and expect at some point to explore it further.
    I assume you have tried to run it with bigger shoes. How was that?
    Anywho, I have come to believe that any count that reduces the whole picture to one number is simply obsolete, just not enough info. No matter what count is used, even adding the simple ace side count, I just don't see as giving enough info.
    And it's all about having a lot of good info to make decisions with.
    Don't want to step on Norm's toes, but my belief is that the Thorp Orthodoxy has been conventional wisdom for 50+ years and any conventional wisdom is probably obsolete by about the time it becomes conventional wisdom. A few years at best.
    Not familiar with Tarzan's system, but will look tomorrow.
    I make a habit of NOT talking about what I do, but as food for thought: I believe thorp designed about the absolutely worse betting system possible. And it has survived almost unchanged (and unquestioned) for almost 60 years. There is a fundamental wrongness there. The small, tenths of a percent improvements are not what should be seen over 60 years, especially not with computer and technology advancements available to everyone.
    I do firmly believe it requires more from players. One count is not at all sufficient, nor is two.
    I've avoided posting this kind of stuff for a long time, and may live to regret it. But IMHO the perpetual discussion of the Thorp Orthodoxy is ancient history.

  8. #34


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    fjrider,

    I am interested in following your advances in tailoring alternative (Thorp-contrarian) approaches to counting/tracking.

    Although some venerable mathematic AP authors will likely discount the merit of nontraditional methods, such as the Tarzan Count, I firmly believe that the method of the Ape Man's madness can provide tremendous access to a bevy of information at the tables.

    With all due deference to cash, information is king.

    Please do not shy away from exploring and sharing any card counting/tracking advances you can dream up and design.

    I look forward to following your posts.
    "Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."

    Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/

  9. #35
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,570


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Galvin View Post
    With all due deference to cash, information is king.
    Top engineers have the ability to understand complex information and equations. The best make complex simple again. This gets your cash at the table.

  10. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Dosadi
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Galvin View Post
    fjrider,

    I am interested in following your advances in tailoring alternative (Thorp-contrarian) approaches to counting/tracking.

    Although some venerable mathematic AP authors will likely discount the merit of nontraditional methods, such as the Tarzan Count, I firmly believe that the method of the Ape Man's madness can provide tremendous access to a bevy of information at the tables.

    With all due deference to cash, information is king.

    Please do not shy away from exploring and sharing any card counting/tracking advances you can dream up and design.

    I look forward to following your posts.
    A lot of what I do I consider proprietary and plan never to discuss it. But I would like to encourage alternative thinking. So, I'm going to sound a lot like T3 in posts, hints but no hard statements.

    Here's one example I think people could benefit from pondering.
    You sit down at a fresh 6 deck shoe, playing heads up. If the cutoff is one deck there are going to be roughly 50 hands to play. The way I look at EV is simply to apply my advantage to the number of hands using the base bet. I raise much more selectively than T.O. (Thorp Orthodoxy) players, so I don't try and add in every dollar. KISS principle.
    So if you are looking for a 1% advantage over the house, I would consider that 1% on every hand played, win lose or draw. That means $5 on that 50 hands using $10 as base bet(1% of $500). (10's are just easier)

    So, what is the minimum that you have to do? You play the first hand and win. You have made $10 against that shoe, 2%, twice the EV for the entire shoe. Do you get up? You play the first hand and win a double, 4%, 4 times EV of the entire shoe, and you haven't had to make a raise, do you get up? What is the optimum win? What decides if you stay or get up? What if in the first hand the main count is now -4?

    So there's a hint, I'm very much a minimalist. And a microcosm guy instead of macrocosm. Let's say I'm up $100 in the first 15 hands and the main count is -12 and three of the other numbers I count agree with getting out, do I care about the rule of big numbers or that I'm barely into the shoe? Not a whit, I'm getting up with 20% profit on the whole shoe even though I only played 15 hands(figure out that adv. on hands actually played). And if 4 of my numbers said that even though the count was +12 I'd still get up.
    Here's a hard statement: I never raise based on main count plus ace count alone and those are the only 2 numbers of 6 that I will define. I could have a true count of +6 and that doesn't necessarily mean I'll raise. I'll be looking hard for corroboration though. It's wonderful built in cover too.

    Finally my problem with the bet ramp idea. You ramp your bet because the money advantage shifts slightly to you, not the odds on you winning a hand, so the risk is ramped right up with the bet.
    I won't do that. And one of my very first design rules was that any system that lead to a series of large bets is a no go, too much risk. Of course, that is the whole goal of TO play, and the root of all the variance talk. So right from the start I was veering far away from TO. It actually took me quite a while to include a, more or less, hi/lo type of count, I'm very interested in predictability, not slight odds changes.
    Last edited by fjrider; 03-22-2017 at 12:12 PM.

  11. #37
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    If you wish to post something completely contrary to the thread, please start a new thread. Then, it can be shifted to the disadvantage forum without shifting the entire thread.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  12. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Dosadi
    Posts
    133


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    If you wish to post something completely contrary to the thread, please start a new thread. Then, it can be shifted to the disadvantage forum without shifting the entire thread.
    Amazing. This post speaks volumes about this site. Clear as a crystal bell.

  13. #39
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    A simple request after two years of posts. If you wish to discuss something different, start a different thread. Clear as a crystal bell.

    Incidentally, I've read Whipping Star (precedent to The Dosadi Experiment) three times and was thinking about it a few hours ago on a completely different subject.
    Last edited by Norm; 03-22-2017 at 06:37 PM.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.