See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 50

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

  1. #27


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bigedge View Post
    Insurance is another reason to sidecount 10s; it provides a very precise decision to (not) insure.

    The most sensitive effect of 10s I can think of is 11 v. A, i.e. hit when 10s are thin. EOR is about 4% in DD.
    So, the question I pose to you.
    Would you rather use an insurance 10 count for perfect insurance, and to solve the the sensitive 11v-ace issue, or fir that matter, 11 v 10 problem, or aces for 99v7 - and to round it out, 9's fir the monster 12v2 problem in monster counts also adjusting the insurance calculation for halves.

  2. #28


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The answer can be derived in comparing perfect play with +- index play, analyzing what gains are obtained with [x] sidecounts, and adjusting accordingly. One could use I18 subset to simplify the analysis.

  3. #29


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bigedge View Post
    The answer can be derived in comparing perfect play with +- index play, analyzing what gains are obtained with [x] sidecounts, and adjusting accordingly. One could use I18 subset to simplify the analysis.
    I was leaning more to deviating from index than simple plus minus index play. I18 will improve results over basic, but will not maximize results - but you know that already.

  4. #30


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyler62 View Post
    Frank,

    My simulator is coded in Delphi v4. It is an older version of the language but it everything required plus a ton more.

    It runs under Windows. I don't know what to tell you if you don't have a Windows machine. I don't know anything about Apple hardware or software.

    I've kept the code very simple and so I suppose that if you have access to some Apple programming tools, you could always translate the software from Delphi to whatever Apple applications you may have. But I wouldn't recommend that unless you have a whole lot of time on your hands and a burning desire to do that.

    Is there any way I can send you a private message? I can't seem to see any way to send private messages on this site.
    To the best of my knowledge, you have to subscribe to this website for pm's.

    However, feel free to send me an e-mail at: [email protected].
    "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/

  5. #31


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    I was leaning more to deviating from index than simple plus minus index play. I18 will improve results over basic, but will not maximize results - but you know that already.
    I think we are saying the same thing. Look at 16 v. 10. Using Hi/Lo, playing error rates for TC [-3,+3] which constitute 71% of all count range are as follows:

    -3 32.2%
    -2 40.4%
    -1 49.3%
    0 41.5%
    1 33.2%
    2 25.2%
    3 18.5%

    Weighted error: 35.3%

    Using a sidecount of 5s, in which TC is TC + (5TC)x4, error rates for TC [-6,+6] which constitute 72% of all count range are as follows:

    -6 20.1%
    -5 25.3%
    -4 31.4%
    -3 39.0%
    -2 46.0%
    -1 46.7%
    0 39.9%
    1 32.9%
    2 27.0%
    3 21.0%
    4 15.5%
    5 11.7%
    6 8.8%

    Weighted error: 29.6%

    So, you can get a 6% playing edge improvement in this example.

  6. #32


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bigedge View Post
    I think we are saying the same thing. Look at 16 v. 10. Using Hi/Lo, playing error rates for TC [-3,+3] which constitute 71% of all count range are as follows:

    -3 32.2%
    -2 40.4%
    -1 49.3%
    0 41.5%
    1 33.2%
    2 25.2%
    3 18.5%

    Weighted error: 35.3%

    Using a sidecount of 5s, in which TC is TC + (5TC)x4, error rates for TC [-6,+6] which constitute 72% of all count range are as follows:

    -6 20.1%
    -5 25.3%
    -4 31.4%
    -3 39.0%
    -2 46.0%
    -1 46.7%
    0 39.9%
    1 32.9%
    2 27.0%
    3 21.0%
    4 15.5%
    5 11.7%
    6 8.8%

    Weighted error: 29.6%

    So, you can get a 6% playing edge improvement in this example.
    The simple message here is that playing efficiency is enhanced by side counts. So, 2 questions

    1. Are improvements in PE variable by count system used - Sure.
    2. What are those measured improvements by count system.
    3. Assuming the ability to choose 1 sidecount only, what would you use.

    Primary sidecounts for evaluation would be aces, tens, 9's, 7's, 5's.

  7. #33


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Your question requires quite a bit of analysis, dependent on several assumptions.

    My point was illustrating that +- counts are frequently wrong in playing decisions as the OP indicated, and sidecounts can improve that.

  8. #34
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Read the appropriate chapter in The Theory of Blackjack.
    This question is answered very clearly. Aces dominate, and if only
    one other rank is to be included it is the 7, which I use when I play
    Double Deck BJ with Hi-Opt II.

    You cannot begin to understand the game without reading the latest
    edition of TWO books. The other is Don Schlesinger's (priceless)
    magnum opus -- Blackjack Attack.

  9. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Sorry about the delay getting to your thread. I have been focusing on analyzing a new opportunity.

    The flaw you speak of is not so much a flaw but reality. My partner and I figured out what deck compositions were at 1 deck left recently. What you fail to take into account is the frequency of each deck composition. You will have a wide range of deck compositions but some will be the most frequent and others will be quite rare. The weighted average isn't that unpredictable but in shoes you get the same whacky deck composition for a while so when you are playing a tail of the curve, low frequency, deck composition you are likely going to see a lot of rounds in a short time if the event happens early enough.

    You can actually do something about this but in BJ the gains are modest. What you need to do is gather more information about the deck composition in a way that allows you to use it. But as Don points out the long term effect averages away with a much smaller gain than you might think. As long as you have the BR for the swings you needn't worry about this effect. If you do go to the extra effort, which is quite a bit of extra effort, you will find a more comfortable ride to a slightly larger long term EV. Most pros just accept the variance caused by all the inaccuracy of large bins that average a lot of unrelated deck compositions. They have a big enough BR they play to virtually a 0% RoR. To do something about it you need a way to group more similar deck compositions in the same bin. It becomes a much more complicated approach that isn't worth much in BJ but in other games it is worth a boatload. If you plan on attacking other games it is worth developing some extra skills (almost an imperative) even if they aren't worth much in BJ. I have developed a few approaches that accomplish this and there are others like Tarzan and Moses who gather and use information differently than the typical counter. The result is more accurate betting and playing and a more well behaved and certain BR growth. Your BR requirement is less. But the biggest improvement is with a lot of extra information you know when you are doing things that confuse the casino while playing optimally. You can wong to make the stupid play more frequent than typical play. The steeper growth of BR with less frequent crazy variance allows you to bet more at the same RoR. You can use a smaller spread that is easily tolerated by the casino and still make more money. While the overall sim shows modest statistical gain the stats are only half the story. The other half is getting away with turning the stats into profits in a casino.

    This all depends on you plan of attack. If you are planning on quickly burning casinos the huge improvement in longevity that is possible doesn't really matter much to you. But if you are a longevity player, who values and plays to not be barred at casinos, the effort required to do something about your glitch can be worth far more than the stats show. If you can play optimally while the suits hover over your table watching every bet move and play and after hours their assessment is that you are going to be a big loser and are a very bad player, then the value of the extra effort is priceless. The smarter the crew working to catch you the dumber you look. If you have some dumb critter that backs off a ton of ploppies because they vary their bets they will cost the casino a fortune and you will get caught in the net.

    You have to decide if it is worth it for your style of attack and your BR and RoR and your longevity. There are few that decide it is worth it but they generally would never go back to a simpler approach despite knowing the gains are less than 40% and likely more like 20%, at least for BJ. You start talking about other games and the gain is well worth it and almost necessary. Most that use the simple approach can't stomach the variance of almost random results with huge swings and a drift up (or down) that is difficult to be certain of from their results. That is how random the results look over time. That is not the case with quite advanced counting techniques that count for the glitch as you call it.
    Last edited by Three; 02-27-2017 at 05:35 AM.

  10. #36
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Too long to read -- but the upshot is that there is no serious flaw. Period.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  11. #37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Too long to read -- but the upshot is that there is no serious flaw. Period.
    Appreciate the paraphrase - saves me the read - welcome back 3 - keep it short - your best shit is when you keep it short.

  12. #38


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thank you very much T3.

  13. #39


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    In a double deck game, when penetration has reached 52 cards there are 107,632,809,909 possible [A,2,...,J,Q,K] permutations. This is the peak number possible in a double deck game.

    Of these, 95% of the most likely permutations are covered by the first 3,110,183,076, or about 2.89% of the total number of possible permutations.

    99% are covered by the first 8,071,684,634, or about 7.5%. This means that about 92.5% of all the possible deck compositions present at 52 card penetration are effectively useless at adding any value to analysis. Or, said another way, analysis that considers only the most likely 7.5% of all deck compositions will be quite sufficient in building an effective strategy.

    Of course, the number of permutations a 21 player needs to consider is significantly lower than 8,071,684,634, as the player is not concerned about the individual [T,J,Q,K] permutations but only their sum.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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.