See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 79 to 89 of 89

Thread: T3’s multydecks and Mose’s SD

  1. #79
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    There is an absolute ceiling, a very finite theoretical gain possible through card counting alone, and a fairly small gap between any advanced counting methods and what can be construed as perfect play. Therefore, comparing the evolution of aviation, a relatively limitless potential (because the universe is a big place!) doesn't work unless you go a little beyond the Wright brothers. There is always the most optimal fraction of bankroll to wager, there is always the most optimal playing decision based on deck composition, and beyond that time. Adjust any of these variables and you get a different theoretical result. There is optimal and there is less than optimal, with no such thing as more than optimal.

    Think of the cosmological constant, change any one value and all the other values across the board can be drastically altered. There are strong forces and there are weak forces, finely tuned to a specific value. You can't exceed the speed of light. Now think of the speed of light as perfect play in our blackjack universe. We have proven that you can't travel faster than the speed of light but we know that Hi-Opt2ASC, full indices comes fairly close to the speed of light. It is possible to travel slightly faster than this with considerable effort, perhaps a little closer to the speed of light but no matter what, you can't travel faster than the speed of light. In addition to this, merely adjust one of the variables (time) and this can compensate for less than optimal betting and playing decisions to come up with the same end result even if you are traveling considerably less than the speed of light. Altering other variables, such as the amount of money (spread), which we would think of as a strong force in our blackjack universe, greatly exceeds any potential impact through a weaker force, such as perfect play.

    Be careful out there and don't get sucked into any black holes!
    Last edited by Tarzan; 03-30-2017 at 11:08 AM.

  2. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    Be careful out there and don't get sucked into any black holes!
    Oh no, the Black-hole of Calcutta is back again. You wouldn't want to get sucked into her. LoL

  3. #81


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Their work should be directed towards how the game is actually played.
    The point of the work is to establish what the theoretical ceiling is. We will then know how close we already are to that ceiling and therefore whether any additional effort would be worthwhile.

  4. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    The point of the work is to establish what the theoretical ceiling is. We will then know how close we already are to that ceiling and therefore whether any additional effort would be worthwhile.
    This works on a simulator but our game is in a casino. Half the battle is not getting 86'ed. I would argue the biggest use of counting is having counts than can get closer to that ceiling is they gather and allow to use information in a way that the can make low cost or plus EV decisions that afford them extreme longevity. There is more to a value of a count than its EV. What is the value of the best count in the world if you can only play an hour or less before you are 86'ed. I will take the count that allows you to play unmolested for years over any count that sims better but gets you the tap in no time. What is needed is a way to measure a count's or player's longevity. Scratch that it would be used to hurt those who can get away with playing until the lifetime backoff hits.

  5. #83


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Sure the work is theoretical, but theoretical work helps to define the boundaries within which the practical application of the theory must exist. It tells us what is possible and what is impossible. Practical applications then need not strive for the impossible.

  6. #84


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I am very junior when it comes to playing the game and also when it comes to this forum.

    However, I have been working on a computer BJ simulation and lately I have bee putting a lot of time and effort into repairing some of the bugs and getting it ready to run.

    I would like to propose that the best reason for choosing one particular option over another is the following:

    Suppose you have the choice of playing at one casino that offers single deck BJ and another casino that offers 4 deck shoes, isn't the most sensible way to make that choice to run your simulation over several million hands and see what the expected result would be. If the results of one option (like "single deck") is markedly better than another option (like six decks), then, the decision should be fairly clear. You will be better off if you play at the casino where you can play at a "single deck" table.

    If you have a working BJ simulation and you can run several million hands using a few different values of the options, IMO, that is the best way to make your decision. Don't you think?

    There are several other ways to decide. The issue of how much money you expect to win or lose is very likely the most important factor. But, it's not always the most important factor. Some other options may very well give you more pleasure than others and you may choose to play using one set of options that give you more pleasure than another set. That is how I would suggest you choose.

  7. #85


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Skyler, You're admittedly a bit late to the party, but you do have it right when you say that sim results are one way to help choose which games to play and which systems to use to attack them. Change 'million' in your post to 'billion' and you're in the right ballpark. Software for this purpose has existed for decades and our host Norm has made available the best there is.

    You are also correct that other factors come into play. Some of them have been mentioned in this discussion. Some of these factors are practical limitations and others are less tangible considerations. Some believe that there is a disconnect between sim results and reality because, if you play like a simulator you'll be discovered very quickly and, in the case of the "Perfect Play" project, no human can hope to play that way.

    Another part of the discussion has centred on the (lack of, in one opinion) progress in card counting theory. My point has been that theory and simulation provide a guide for practical, real life application of what they reveal both in terms of potential and limitations and that, when it comes to card counting alone, we may be approaching the limit.

  8. #86


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Sorry Moses, but I don't understand what you're asking.

  9. #87


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I posted a thread a while back showing that the need to simulate billions of rounds is for the purpose of arriving at precise numerical results, down to several decimal places and that it is not necessary to play anywhere close to that number of rounds in real life to be successful. N0 is a better indicator of how many rounds one must play to have a reasonable probability of success.

    As for your suggestion of determining count tags based on indices, it's not a 1 to 1 relationship. One set of count tags does imply a particular set of indices (depending on rules, true count conversion method, etc.), but a given set of indices does not suggest one particular set of count tags. There may, in fact, be no set of count tags which would realize a given set of indices.

  10. #88


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    The was some brilliant work done but it was a 1/2 century ago or more. It all comes down to one number, a chart, and the ability to deck estimate.

    Today, we have some brilliant minds, far more advanced computers, and face more difficult challenges. Perhaps there is more?
    A demonstration of my point that card counting knowledge started out with results which achieved a large fraction of the possible results and that there is not much farther to go (with card counting alone).

  11. #89


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    The importance of the 5. I read an article, by Micheal Shackelford. The 5 will get you or the dealer to winning hand with a 12, 13,14,15. Won't the 6 also?
    Yes, but the 6 will bust you or the dealer from 16.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

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.