See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 50

Thread: I think I found a serious flaw in most Counting Systems

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    I think I found a serious flaw in most Counting Systems

    Am I Right or Am I Wrong?

    https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...rom-Peek/page3

    I made a post in the Software forum (link above) in which I said that I think I have discovered a very serious flaw in the way that many of the greatest authors and experts in the world of Blackjack count cards and use those counts to adjust their strategy and wagers. I must admit the odds that I'm correct about this would appear to be pretty low. After all, who am I to dispute the findings made by all these geniuses who have devoted so much of their lives to the game. People like Thorpe, Braun, Einstein and others?

    But please let me tell you. For the longest time now, when I've been playing for money, I get a high True Count (like +6) and bet big expecting to win. But I just lose so often that I have been thinking something must be wrong. So, I wrote my own simulation and in so doing, I discovered a little flaw that turns out to mean I'm losing a lot of money because of a serious flaw in the Counting Systems I've tried. I'm going to show you what I mean. I sure do hope I'm not wrong.

    I discovered this supposed "serious flaw" while I was creating my own BJ simulation and this is why I think it's so important for people to either create their own sims or at least to be able to examine the source code used to create the sims they use so they can understand exactly how it works. I pledge that if and when I release my BJ sim, it will absolutely be "open source".

    I'd like to explain why I consider this flaw to be so serious. Unfortunately, I'm very worried that I'm the one who has made the "serious flaw" and I will wind up looking foolish.

    The flaw concerns Counting Systems. One of the most common system was proposed by Braun and the details can be found in The World's Greatest Blackjack Book on page 207. In his system, the cards count as follows: 2-6 are +1, T-K and A are -1 and 7-9 count are zero. Most every BJ player who counts cards should be familiar with this system.

    For the remainder of this post, I will use the following abbreviations: RC (Running Count) TC (True Count)

    Most every well known BJ author and expert explains how to use these values to compute the RC as well as the TC. I will assume that everyone here understands how to compute TC.

    All the authors explain that when TC (True Count) is a specific value (let's say +6), that means the player should alter their strategy and their wagering in a specific way. My problem is that all these authors have everyone believing that a TC of +6 means the cards will behave in a specific way and they will always behave in the same way just as long as the TC remains +6. I think that is terribly flawed.

    A TC of +6 does not always mean the same thing. The shoe can have a TC of +6 but it can be in very different states. The odds that you will be dealt a high card or a low card can be very different even though the TC remains +6. Allow me to demonstrate:

    Suppose you are the only player at a two deck table. In the following chart, there are always 52 cards remaining in the shoe. Therefore the TC is computed to be the same as the RC. In the following chart, the RC is always +3 and the TC is always +3 as well. Just look at all the different states that can mean and all the different odds that exist for you to be dealt a high card or low card:

    (Thank you ZenMaster_Flash for finding my error here and correcting it so both counts are +3).

    In a single deck, there are 3 zero cards in each suit (7-9) and so there are 12 of them in the deck and 24 in the two-deck shoe.
    There are 5 high cards in each suit (T-K and A) and so there are 20 in the deck and 40 in the two-deck shoe.
    Likewise, there are 20 low cards in the deck (2-6) and 40 in the shoe.
    So, when the RC (Running Count) is +3, the shoe can be in any one of the following 11 states:

    The following 11 cases are the only cases in which you can have an RC of +3 in a two deck shoe with half the shoe (52 cards) remaining. You can have a RC +3 under any of the 11 following conditions.
    But, just remember this. The number of zero cards in the shoe can not exceed 24. Likewise, the number of high cards cannot exceed 40 and the number of low cards cannot exceed 40. OK. Here we go:

    Zero High Low RC TC Odds of High Card
    1 27 24 +3 +3 27/52 = 0.52
    3 26 23 +3 +3 26/52 = 0.50
    5 25 22 +3 +3 25/52 = 0.48
    7 24 21 +3 +3 24/52 = 0.46
    9 23 20 +3 +3 23/52 = 0.44
    11 22 19 +3 +3 22/52 = 0.42
    13 21 18 +3 +3 21/52 = 0.40
    15 20 17 +3 +3 20/52 = 0.38
    17 19 16 +3 +3 19/52 = 0.37
    19 18 15 +3 +3 18/52 = 0.35
    21 17 14 +3 +3 17/52 = 0.33

    Remember in a two deck shoe there are a max of 24 zero cards, 40 high cards and 40 low cards. In each of the above cases, there are 52 cards remaining in the shoe and the RC is +3 and the TC is +3.
    In the 1st case. There is one zero card, 27 high cards and 24 low cards. The total is 52 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In the 2nd case. There are 3 zero cards, 26 high cards and 23 low cards. The total is 52 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In the 11th case. There are 21 zero cards, 17 high cards and 14 low cards. The total is 52 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In all these cases since there are 52 cards remaining out of the original 104, that means the TC is the same as the RC.

    But, now look at the odds you will be dealt a high card:
    In the 1st case, there are 27 high cards out of a total of 52 total cards. That means the odds are 27/52 or 52% your next card will be a high card.
    In the 2nd case, there are 26 high cards out of a total of 52 total cards. That means the odds are 26/52 or 50% your next card will be a high card.
    In the 11th case, there are 17 high cards out of a total of 52 total cards. That means the odds are 17/52 or 33% your next card will be a high card.

    Do you see the flaw? Even though the TC remains at +3 for all 11 cases, the odds of being dealt a high card vary from 33% to 52%. 33 is only 60% as much as 52. So that is a very large difference.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Would you like to see how this applies to a single deck game? The following chart pertains to a single-deck game in which exactly one half the deck has been dealt and 26 cards remain.
    In the following 6 cases the RC is always +3 and the TC is always +6.

    Zero High Low RC TC Odds of High Card
    1 14 11 +3 +6 14/26 = 0.54
    3 13 10 +3 +6 13/26 = 0.50
    5 12 9 +3 +6 12/26 = 0.46
    7 11 8 +3 +6 11/26 = 0.42
    9 10 7 +3 +6 10/26 = 0.38
    11 9 6 +3 +6 9/26 = 0.35

    Remember in a single deck game, there are a max of 12 zero cards, 20 high cards and 20 low cards. In each of the above cases, there are 26 cards remaining and the RC is +3 and the TC is +6.
    In the 1st case. There is one zero card, 14 high cards and 11 low cards. The total is 26 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In the 2nd case. There are 3 zero cards, 13 high cards and 10 low cards. The total is 26 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In the 11th case. There are 11 zero cards, 9 high cards and 6 low cards. The total is 26 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In all these cases since there are 26 cards remaining out of the original 52, that means the TC is computes as double the RC.

    But, now look at the odds you will be dealt a high card:
    In the 1st case, there are 14 high cards out of a total of 26 total cards. That means the odds are 14/26 or 54% your next card will be a high card.
    In the 2nd case, there are 13 high cards out of a total of 26 total cards. That means the odds are 13/26 or 50% your next card will be a high card.
    In the 11th case, there are 9 high cards out of a total of 26 total cards. That means the odds are 9/26 or 35% your next card will be a high card.

    Do you see the flaw? Even though the TC remains at +6 for all 6 cases, the odds of being dealt a high card vary from 35% to 54%. 35 is only 64% as much as 54. So that is a very large difference.

    I have put a lot of work into this post. I sure do hope that I won't come away looking like a fool.

    P.S. I think I should explain one of the reasons why I consider this to be such a serious flaw is because if the odds can vary so wildly that your next card dealt will be a high card or a low card, then it would be highly suspect that you should alter the Basic Strategy based on the TC. Most authors have a table that shows when the TC exceeds a certain value, you should Stand instead of Hit or vice versa. Also they show you should change the way you Double or Spllit based on the TC. My point is that since the odds swing so greatly that you will be dealt a high card or low card, it's really not very wise to base these kinds of decisions strictly on the TC. After all, if you hit instead of stand, I think you expect not to be dealt a high card since you will be more likely to bust. I think before changing the decision as to what Action to do (whether you Stand, Hit, Double or Split), you really need to know what the odds are that you will be dealt a high card or low card and as I have shown in the above charts that is MOST DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME AS THE TRUE COUNT! The high swings in the odds of being dealt a high card next make the TC a bad way to make those decisions.
    Last edited by Skyler62; 03-19-2017 at 12:43 PM.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    A forum user destined to challenge Tthree for depth and length of posts. And please understand, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

    It appears that you are simply demonstrating that RCs and TCs are not just simple points that travel along a linear path, but rather, can be amongst a wide array of points that can be averaged (may not be the optimal term, but I suspect my point is sufficiently clear) to a point on a line (RC or TC).
    "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/

  3. #3
    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
    Card counting strategies are not perfect play. The strategy you are talking about, Hi-Lo, has a playing efficiency of 0.51, 1.00 meaning perfect. 0.7 is about as high as you are going to get with counting. You can improve this with higher level strategies or side counts (and will find all too many posts here about such). CC is meant to give a human an edge with a reasonable amount of effort. It's not designed for use by computers.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  4. #4
    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 Skyler62 View Post
    TC is computed to be double the RC.
    Fatal Flaw:

    With 52 cards remaining RC = TC


  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyler62 View Post
    Am I Right or Am I Wrong?

    https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...rom-Peek/page3

    I made a post in the Software forum (link above) in which I said that I think I have discovered a very serious flaw in the way that many of the greatest authors and experts in the world of Blackjack count cards and use those counts to adjust their strategy and wagers. I must admit the odds that I'm correct about this would appear to be pretty low. After all, who am I to dispute the findings made by all these geniuses who have devoted so much of their lives to the game. People like Thorpe, Braun, Einstein and others?

    But please let me tell you. For the longest time now, when I've been playing for money, I get a high True Count (like +6) and bet big expecting to win. But I just lose so often that I have been thinking something must be wrong. So, I wrote my own simulation and in so doing, I discovered a little flaw that turns out to mean I'm losing a lot of money because of a serious flaw in the Counting Systems I've tried. I'm going to show you what I mean. I sure do hope I'm not wrong.

    I discovered this supposed "serious flaw" while I was creating my own BJ simulation and this is why I think it's so important for people to either create their own sims or at least to be able to examine the source code used to create the sims they use so they can understand exactly how it works. I pledge that when I release my BJ sim, it will absolutely be "open source".

    I'd like to explain why I consider this flaw to be so serious. Unfortunately, I'm very worried that I'm the one who has made the "serious flaw" and I will wind up looking foolish.

    The flaw concerns Counting Systems. One of the most common system was proposed by Braun and the details can be found in The World's Greatest Blackjack Book on page 207. In his system, the cards count as follows: 2-6 are +1, T-K and A are -1 and 7-9 count are zero. Most every BJ player who counts cards should be familiar with this system.

    For the remainder of this post, I will use the following abbreviations: RC (Running Count) TC (True Count)

    Most every well known BJ author and expert explains how to use these values to compute the RC as well as the TC. I will assume that everyone here understands how to compute TC.

    All the authors explain that when TC (True Count) is a specific value (let's say +6), that means the player should alter their strategy and their wagering in a specific way. My problem is that all these authors have everyone believing that a TC of +6 means the cards will behave in a specific way and they will always behave in the same way just as long as the TC remains +6. I think that is terribly flawed.

    A TC of +6 does not always mean the same thing. The shoe can have a TC of +6 but it can be in very different states. The odds that you will be dealt a high card or a low card can be very different even though the TC remains +6. Allow me to demonstrate:

    Suppose you are the only player at a two deck table. In the following chart, there are always 52 cards remaining in the shoe. Therefore the TC is computed to be double the RC. In the following chart, the RC is always +3 so the TC is always +6. Just look at all the different states that can mean and all the different odds that exist for you to be dealt a high card or low card:

    In a single deck, there are 3 zero cards in each suit (7-9) and so there are 12 of them in the deck and 24 in the two-deck shoe.
    There are 5 high cards in each suit (T-K and A) and so there are 20 in the deck and 40 in the two-deck shoe.
    Likewise, there are 20 low cards in the deck (2-6) and 40 in the shoe.
    So, when the RC (Running Count) is +3, the shoe can be in any one of the following 11 states:

    The following 11 cases are the only cases in which you can have an RC of +3 in a two deck shoe with half the shoe (52 cards) remaining. You can have a RC +3 under any of the 11 following conditions.
    But, just remember this. The number of zero cards in the shoe can not exceed 24. Likewise, the number of high cards cannot exceed 40 and the number of low cards cannot exceed 40. OK. Here we go:

    Zero High Low RC TC Odds of High Card
    1 27 24 +3 +6 27/52 = 0.52
    3 26 23 +3 +6 26/52 = 0.50
    5 25 22 +3 +6 25/52 = 0.48
    7 24 21 +3 +6 24/52 = 0.46
    9 23 20 +3 +6 23/52 = 0.44
    11 22 19 +3 +6 22/52 = 0.42
    13 21 18 +3 +6 21/52 = 0.40
    15 20 17 +3 +6 20/52 = 0.38
    17 19 16 +3 +6 19/52 = 0.37
    19 18 15 +3 +6 18/52 = 0.35
    21 17 14 +3 +6 17/52 = 0.33

    Remember in a two deck shoe there are a max of 24 zero cards, 40 high cards and 40 low cards. In each of the above cases, there are 52 cards remaining in the shoe and the RC is +3 and the TC is +6.
    In the 1st case. There is one zero card, 27 high cards and 24 low cards. The total is 52 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In the 2nd case. There are 3 zero cards, 26 high cards and 23 low cards. The total is 52 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In the 11th case. There are 21 zero cards, 17 high cards and 14 low cards. The total is 52 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In all these cases since there are 52 cards remaining out of the original 104, that means the TC is computes as double the RC.

    But, now look at the odds you will be dealt a high card:
    In the 1st case, there are 27 high cards out of a total of 52 total cards. That means the odds are 27/52 or 52% your next card will be a high card.
    In the 2nd case, there are 26 high cards out of a total of 52 total cards. That means the odds are 26/52 or 50% your next card will be a high card.
    In the 11th case, there are 17 high cards out of a total of 52 total cards. That means the odds are 17/52 or 33% your next card will be a high card.

    Do you see the flaw? Even though the TC remains at +6 for all 11 cases, the odds of being dealt a high card vary from 33% to 52%. 33 is only 60% as much as 52. So that is a very large difference.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Would you like to see how this applies to a single deck game? The following chart pertains to a single-deck game in which exactly one half the deck has been dealt and 26 cards remain.
    In the following 6 cases the RC is always +3 and the TC is always +6

    Zero High Low RC TC Odds of High Card
    1 14 11 +3 +6 14/26 = 0.54
    3 13 10 +3 +6 13/26 = 0.50
    5 12 9 +3 +6 12/26 = 0.46
    7 11 8 +3 +6 11/26 = 0.42
    9 10 7 +3 +6 10/26 = 0.38
    11 9 6 +3 +6 9/26 = 0.35

    Remember in a single deck game, there are a max of 12 zero cards, 20 high cards and 20 low cards. In each of the above cases, there are 26 cards remaining and the RC is +3 and the TC is +6.
    In the 1st case. There is one zero card, 14 high cards and 11 low cards. The total is 26 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In the 2nd case. There are 3 zero cards, 13 high cards and 10 low cards. The total is 26 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In the 11th case. There are 11 zero cards, 9 high cards and 6 low cards. The total is 26 cards. There are three more high cards than low cards which means the RC is +3.
    In all these cases since there are 26 cards remaining out of the original 52, that means the TC is computes as double the RC.

    But, now look at the odds you will be dealt a high card:
    In the 1st case, there are 14 high cards out of a total of 26 total cards. That means the odds are 14/26 or 54% your next card will be a high card.
    In the 2nd case, there are 13 high cards out of a total of 26 total cards. That means the odds are 13/26 or 50% your next card will be a high card.
    In the 11th case, there are 9 high cards out of a total of 26 total cards. That means the odds are 9/26 or 35% your next card will be a high card.

    Do you see the flaw? Even though the TC remains at +6 for all 6 cases, the odds of being dealt a high card vary from 35% to 54%. 35 is only 64% as much as 54. So that is a very large difference.

    I have put a lot of work into this post. I sure do hope that I won't come away looking like a fool.

    P.S. I think I should explain one of the reasons why I consider this to be such a serious flaw is because if the odds can vary so wildly that your next card dealt will be a high card or a low card, then it would be highly suspect that you should alter the Basic Strategy based on the TC. Most authors have a table that shows when the TC exceeds a certain value, you should Stand instead of Hit or vice versa. Also they show you should change the way you Double or Spllit based on the TC. My point is that since the odds swing so greatly that you will be dealt a high card or low card, it's really not very wise to base these kinds of decisions strictly on the TC. After all, if you hit instead of stand, I think you expect not to be dealt a high card since you will be more likely to bust. I think before changing the decision as to what Action to do (whether you Stand, Hit, Double or Split), you really need to know what the odds are that you will be dealt a high card or low card and as I have shown in the above charts that is MOST DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME AS THE TRUE COUNT! The high swings in the odds of being dealt a high card next make the TC a bad way to make those decisions.
    I haven't posted in a while but maybe I can help you with an answer to this problem.

    It is true that a given count in a given counting system can consist of many varying compositions relative to the system as you have pointed out with your example using the HiLo count. We can call each of these counting system compositions a "count subset." However, each of these count subsets are not equally probable to occur. In order to determine the probability of drawing each rank we must first compute the probability of occurence of each subset. I have written a program that does this and I am going to post some sample outputs and hopefully it will shed some light regarding your question.

    The following shows what the possible inputs are followed by what is output. I'm sorry that there is so much posted but it is relatively simple to see what is happening in each screen with just a short glance and I wanted to somehow show all that is input. In this case the output shows that for a HiLo running count of 0 with 26 cards remaining to be dealt and no specifically removed cards dealt from 1 deck there are 7 possible count subsets the probability of drawing A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 = 0.0769231 = 1/13, the probability of drawing a ten value card = 0.307692 = 4/13, and the probability the input running count = 0.124165. These probabilities are dependent upon the probabilities of each of the possible subsets. This may not seem remarkable because these are the full shoe probabilities but it turns out that for HiLo the only time the full shoe probabilities occur for less than a full shoe is when the remaining number of cards is exactly a half shoe for any number of decks.

    Simply put, the probability of drawing a given rank relative to a given counting system dealt from a given number of decks is dependent upon all of the count subsets and their probabilities. The number of possible count subsets and their probabilities is dependent upon running count and number of cards remaing to be dealt.

    Screen 1 - input of count tags and number of decks:

    Please input tags relative to what remains in shoe
    No input defaults to tag = 0

    Example: HiLo tags (1-10) {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
    rank: A tag: 1
    rank: 2 tag: -1
    rank: 3 tag: -1
    rank: 4 tag: -1
    rank: 5 tag: -1
    rank: 6 tag: -1
    rank: 7 tag: 0
    rank: 8 tag: 0
    rank: 9 tag: 0
    rank: T tag: 1

    Decks (no input defaults to 1 deck): 1


    Press any key to continue
    ************************************************** ************************************************** *************************

    Screen 2 - input of optional side counts (skipped in this case)

    The count you have entered consists of 3 groups:
    1,10 (1) 2,3,4,5,6 (-1) 7,8,9 (0)

    Press s or S to input optional side counts.
    Press any other key to skip side counts and continue.
    Skip side counts.

    Press any key to continue
    ************************************************** ************************************************** *************************

    Screen 3 - input of cards remaining, running count, and number of specifically removed ranks (none in this case)

    Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
    Decks: 1 (possible input for cards remaining: 1 to 52)
    Cards remaining (defaults to previous input; 1/2 shoe if none): 26
    Natural initial running count: 0
    Running count (no input defaults to 0): 0
    No side counts
    Number of each rank specifically removed (no input defaults to 0):
    A:
    2:
    3:
    4:
    5:
    6:
    7:
    8:
    9:
    T:


    Press any key to continue
    ************************************************** ************************************************** *************************

    Screen 5 - Program output for above input (probability of running count, number of count subsets, probability of each rank)

    Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
    Decks: 1
    Cards remaining: 26
    Initial running count (full shoe): 0
    Running count: 0
    Subgroup removals: None
    Specific removals (1 - 10): {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}

    ....computing, please wait

    Number of subsets for above conditions: 7
    Prob of running count 0 with above removals from 1 deck: 0.124165

    p[1] 0.0769231 p[2] 0.0769231 p[3] 0.0769231 p[4] 0.0769231 p[5] 0.0769231
    p[6] 0.0769231 p[7] 0.0769231 p[8] 0.0769231 p[9] 0.0769231 p[10] 0.307692

    Press x or X to exit program (it may take some time to close,)
    any other key to enter more data for same count tags/decks:

    k_c

  6. #6
    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
    Thanks KC. What it comes down to is a compromise between difficulty and efficacy. Which is why we have different strategies for people with differing circumstances. And counting is just the beginning.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  7. #7


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

    You are quite correct. Thank you for pointing out my error. However, I don't think that means any very serious changes to my point.

    As a result of some of the posts made here, I now understand that people don't find there to be a serious problem with using the Count Systems the way they do and the way I expected they would.

    I especially appreciated the following remarks very much:

    Card counting strategies are not perfect play.
    ......
    CC is meant to give a human an edge with a reasonable amount of effort. It's not designed for use by computers.

    -----------------------------------------

    This was an excellent learning experience for me however and ... I'd now like to ask the members of this forum something else.

    I am currently enhancing and revamping my simulation. It has many of the same features as the CVCX simulation. But I'd like to make mine available as "feeware" for several reasons.

    I'd very much like to make it Open Source so that I might be able to collaborate with people who may have some experience writing software and know BJ.

    Would anyone here be interested in following along with my development of my new version? In exchange for your collaboration I would be happy to provide you with my program source code and my notes which contain much of the reasoning as to why I designed my sim in the way that I did.

    If anyone is interested in collaborating or just posting their thoughts if I post some of my code, please let me know?

    I'd like to know if you might be interested in collaborating and if so, whether you have any ideas as to how a sim should be run. I have several ideas about the current sims that I've seen. I think they can be improved in several ways and I'd very much like to discuss just how a sim should be organized.

    Thanks.

  8. #8
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyler62 View Post
    I have several ideas about the current sims that I've seen. I think they can be improved in several ways and I'd very much like to discuss just how a sim should be organized.
    Of course I'd be interested in your comments along such lines. Also, I think you should look at CVData, which has vastly more functionality and data than CVCX. You might also want to spend some time reading, starting with Theory of Blackjack written in 1979, which would have explained why this isn't a flaw.
    Last edited by Norm; 02-25-2017 at 06:02 AM.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thank you Norm. I had never even heard of that book before.

    I am kind of shocked now that it is referred to as "Generally considered the bible for serious blackjack players".

    I currently have the following books. Some of these are much more valuable then others.

    BJ BOOKS
    Professional - Reference Michael Dalton
    BJ Secrets - Stanford Wong
    Knock Out BJ - Olaf Vancura & Ken Fuchs
    Million Dollar BJ - Ken Uston
    Perfect BJ System - Anon
    Science of Casino BJ - N. Richard Werthammer
    World's Greatest BJ Book - Lance Humble & Carl Cooper


    I really enjoy Stanford Wong's book. I often skim through parts of it when I'm too tired to work on my software.

    Let me just tell you my primary thought about the sims that I've seen.

    They all tend to have only one orientation. They all tend to operate in just one way.

    The user specifies a number of parameters. There are a great number of these. I have currently identified about 30. Very diverse kinds of things. But I see this website has a special section devoted to just identifying these parameters. I haven't had time yet. But I intend to visit that section. I am very confused about several of these options that seem to conflict with each other. But I need to stick to working on my software.

    Some of them are:
    "is DAS permitted",
    "how many times may a player split pairs"
    "is doubling on 9 permitted?"
    "is doubling on T permitted?"
    "is doubling on E permitted?"

    Once the user specifies the values of all these parameters (as well as the number of rounds they want the sim to run), the sim begins to chug away and after running the specified number, it comes back and gives a result.

    But there are so many other possible ways a sim can operate. Let me just specify a few.

    Given a specific group of cards for the player and for the dealer and a specific count, find the best Action for each possible hand.
    For example: If the player holds a 7,T or A5 or 9,6 and the Dlr has an up card of 7 or 8 and the TC is +3, run two million rounds and produce the results that show for each combination, how much money will be won or lost depending on whether the player Stands, Hits, Doubles, Splits, Surrenders, etc.

    I think of this configuration as producing the best Actions to take.

    I have a method of setting the count before any hands are played and then playing a round and then resetting the deck to contain that same TC and playing the round again - each time with a different Action. In this way, I can learn the best action to take under any of these circumstances.

    Another config is similar except it looks for the best amount to wager under each condition.

    Do you see where I'm going? I think these kinds of configs are very possible. But, unfortunately, most people seem to think a sim means just one thing. Run it given a specific count system and wagering system and just see what the result is in terms of money won or money lost.

    Once all the hard work is done in producing a sim, it's not that difficult to make it do so many interesting things. It can produce a tremendous wealth of information.

  10. #10


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

    Thank you so much for your input. I regret that I'm currently concentrating on completing my software project. But I will make the effort to review your results and hope to get back to you about it shortly.

  11. #11


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

    Thanks again for identifying my error in calculating the TC. I have edited my post and corrected the error.

    I'm glad that even though I made that error, it did not change my basic point that even when the counts remain a constant value, other factors can change a great deal.

    The one factor that got me all excited was the odds that you will be dealt a high card or a low card.

    I just flipped out when I saw the odds of being dealt a high card can be as low as 30% or as high as 50% - even though the TC remains constant all the while.

    These authors all recommend you should adjust the strategy tables as to when you Stand, Hit, Double, Split or Surrender depending on the TC. But if the odds you will be dealt a high or low card change so much - even when the Count remains the same, surely it can't be a very reliable factor to determine your Actions (when you should Hit or Stand, etc.)

    But thanks to all the good comments in this thread, I now understand this is just a compromise. Because keeping exact counts is just too complex for the human brain, we must find a way to use a count we can handle and use it as best we can. So long as it produces a winning result, that is good enough.

    I thank you all very much for your great comments.

  12. #12
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyler62 View Post
    Given a specific group of cards for the player and for the dealer and a specific count, find the best Action for each possible hand.
    For example: If the player holds a 7,T or A5 or 9,6 and the Dlr has an up card of 7 or 8 and the TC is +3, run two million rounds and produce the results that show for each combination, how much money will be won or lost depending on whether the player Stands, Hits, Doubles, Splits, Surrenders, etc.
    This can be done either with simulation or combinatorial analysis. CVData does this via simulation, with some CA -- but not in the manner that you think as that's too slow. It takes billions of hands that are relevant, which would be trillions in a normal counting sim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skyler62 View Post
    Another config is similar except it looks for the best amount to wager under each condition.
    For non-camouflage play, this is done after a sim as per Kelly Criterion. You will note in CVCX, you do not set any betting strategy before a sim. You can change the bets after a sim and instantly see changes in results. Or, change depth, rules, decks, bankroll, desired risk and instantly have it calculate the best bets without rerunning the sim. If you wish to use cover play, that still must be handled via separate sims.
    Last edited by Norm; 02-25-2017 at 07:46 AM.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyler62 View Post
    Would anyone here be interested in following along with my development of my new version? In exchange for your collaboration I would be happy to provide you with my program source code and my notes which contain much of the reasoning as to why I designed my sim in the way that I did.

    If anyone is interested in collaborating or just posting their thoughts if I post some of my code, please let me know?
    Skylar62,

    Although my programming skills have fallen off the deep end (college ended in the mid-80s, and never used computer programming skills for work, being an attorney), I would fully appreciate the opportunity to "audit" the collaborative efforts, and perhaps gain an updated understanding of programming (doubt many programmers use fortran, cobol, basic or assembly language any more) as your software simulation program evolves.

    Thanks for participating on this website's forum so far, and look forward to your future contributions,

    Frank
    "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/

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. fat chris: counting systems
    By fat chris in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-10-2004, 06:37 PM
  2. Gladstone: Counting systems
    By Gladstone in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-13-2004, 07:32 PM
  3. John: Counting Systems
    By John in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-05-2003, 01:21 AM

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.