Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 37

Thread: New to counting - Couple questions

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    IMO the n0 for 2SD is a better estimation of the "long run." Just take 4x(n0.) Much more confidence than just 1SD, you have a VERY good shot of being up at this point provided your skill level is good.

    Up, down, sideways. It's all one session. The only thing that focusing on whether you are winning or losing does is piss you off. Put in the volume, play within your bankroll, game select well and the money will take care of itself.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Member Name Hidden View Post
    My average spread for shoes is 45-1 and limited table time exposure. That seems to work massively.
    This is why, it depends, is a most appropriate answer to questions about spread. Aside from the math/probability issues, a spread at $5 - $225 will not be anywhere near as egregious as $25 - $1,125.

    While 1-45 may work for you with your game in your casino at your unit level, giving others the false impression that 1-45 is great on shoes is doing them a disservice.

    BTW you 1-45 is likely to have some issues of its own, long term.
    Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    For me it's just bankroll * advantage * variance *.5 all day long, whatever the table minimum is. I think people give up way too much because they are paranoid about casino staff who are inevitably clueless. In the long run your profit is edge * action, so you really need to put in the volume and bet appropriately (without overbetting obviously).

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "For me it's just bankroll * advantage * variance"

    But, for the rest of us, it's bankroll*advantage/variance. :-)

    Don

  5. #18


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    optimal spread is often not " optimal". you dig? that is the reason i didn't included that in my advice . i would say wong , wong wong ! if possible. play to less than 1/3 kelly if possible . the reason is you will likely make some" mistakes ". i would avoid deck estimation and use unbalanced count unless the game is worthwhile to use a higher level count. i often make " mistakes " , i " don't _____ much neither. . " what a loser! ", yeah go figure.

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    But, for the rest of us, it's bankroll*advantage/variance. :-)

    well u can arrive at the correct answer by either multiplying or dividing because if u multiply a number by an amount less than one you actually end up dividing. for example if u divide 50 by 1.25 u get 40 but if u multiply 50 by .8 u also get 40.



    Anyway, if you want to bet 1/3rd kelly or less that is fine. You will have a lower hourly but that doesn't mean your way is 'wrong' per se. In fact with a large bankroll it makes a lot of sense to be very conservative, especially because you can still have an appreciable hourly while betting a smaller fraction of kelly. But I don't think your logic that we should bet less because we mistakes are going to occur is really all that sound. The reason to bet less than say half kelly is because you are willing to forgo long term expectation in order to take less risk and experience softer (in terms of absolute dollar amounts) fluctuations. Risk tolerance and demand for reward are subjective. Of course there are dangers in betting too little, especially if you do not have a huge bankroll, mostly that expenses will cause your ROR to skyrocket or that your hourly will be too small.

    But I'm not too worried about errors. Of course I certainly do make mistakes, especially when I am tired, but they are pretty rare and almost never anywhere near as catastrophic as the ones that dealers make against me. Let's say I misjudged the number of decks dealt, came up with TC 3.8 when in reality it was actually TC 4.2 and I hit 15 v T instead of standing. Well this is just completely irrelevant because the decision is so close anyway. Even if you ended up miscounting, which I suppose could happen, and were off by 1 or 2, it would be for the most part irrelevant. Virtually all of your decisions would sink up, and the ones that didn't would be so close that it wouldn't matter. Instead of playing a game where u r winning 150 an hour u would play a game where u r winning 145 an hour. But what if the dealer pays a push or pays a loss? This is massive. Of course I suppose I could also end up overlooking a "loss" that was actually a push or a win, so it cuts both ways, but given that both me and the dealer are actively trying to prevent that (or should be) and that I actively re-tally every hand to check for this possibility I am very confident that it is at least a ratio of 10:1 if not greater between dealer mispays for me and me not noticing dealer mispays against me. So a dealer mispay is absolutely huge. Maybe an hour's worth of EV. It would be very difficult for a counter to make a mistake anywhere near that bad.
    Last edited by Meistro123; 07-23-2017 at 08:20 PM.

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    my " errors" are intentional , none of my statement should be taken at face value. dig?

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by stopgambling View Post
    my " errors" are intentional , none of my statement should be taken at face value. dig?

    You now just defeated the whole purpose.

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I wrote: "But, for the rest of us, it's bankroll*advantage/variance." :-)
    You wrote: "well u can arrive at the correct answer by either multiplying or dividing because if u multiply a number by an amount less than one you actually end up dividing. for example if u divide 50 by 1.25 u get 40 but if u multiply 50 by .8 u also get 40."

    But, this has nothing to do with using reciprocals as a shortcut. It makes no difference what the value of the variance is. If you're giving a formula, then you have to DIVIDE by the variance, in this case. Now, if the variance happens to be 1.33 and, and, as a shortcut, you mentally multiply by 0.75 instead, that's fine, but then you're not multiplying by the variance at that point; rather, you're multiplying by the reciprocal of the variance. So, the original formula, as you wrote it, just isn't correct.

    Don

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Heard this once " the strong ones must appear weak...." . i know someone that did what i thought was pretty ineffective but turned out he was more successful . That person made multiple times more than I and a few others. His technique was situational, therefore i conclude i should use the right approach for each situation instead of a a general approach that is not really optimal . So "optimal " is not optimal , dig?

  11. #24


    0 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Don't be such a pedant.

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Correcting an incorrect formula that someone might go on to use is not being pedantic. It's being helpful. Correcting it in your original post would also be helpful.

  13. #26


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Meistro123 View Post
    Don't be such a pedant.
    Agree with Gronbog. You tell someone to multiply by something that he should be dividing by, and you call my correcting that pedantic? Sad.

    Don

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Couple of questions
    By Vezalke in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-31-2012, 05:19 PM
  2. Zach: Couple of Questions
    By Zach in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-23-2007, 12:14 PM
  3. Hollywood: Couple of addtional questions?
    By Hollywood in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-07-2004, 08:55 PM
  4. happycounter: A couple questions about dealer errors
    By happycounter in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-13-2003, 02:47 PM
  5. Slippery: Couple Questions for Norm
    By Slippery in forum Software & Simulations
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-06-2002, 06:38 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.