T count simulation

[moses]

You state, "a split count that tracks (2,3) and (4,5) separately", but that's not what is happening. You have a finite number of {2-5} in your grouping, and know the ratio of this grouping to the others. From there you assess whether more (4,5) have been removed than (2,3), an imbalance within the {2-5} groupings impacting both TC and playing decisions differently than an even distribution, a balanced grouping within the {2-5}. There is no "separate" count for (2,3) and (4,5) in the way you are thinking of it. There is a simple rule defining the impact of any imbalance within the grouping.

Actually, you've stated the counting between the columns of 2,3 and 4,5 not me. Also, the 67s and 89s. I was asking how do you "know" the amount if you don't "count" the cards. Please don't tell me you have a system for guessing within each column. That would be ludricous...especially since Norm invented variance. (I'm kidding Norm). Suppose sixteen 6-9s are played. It could be 8 each. 9-7. 7-9. 4-12. 12-4, all sorts of combinations. Nonetheless, that's going to throw everything out of whack by assuming and not knowing.

[Three]

What I am saying is the Gordon Count almost near perfect play when including all the side counts with a PE of .92. The the indices in the system is very complete. What I don't understand is how you execute your count differently to come up with the play doubling on 12 vs 6 to be an optimal play? What are you doing difference with the similar grouping? The Gordon Count has a running and to improve PE or BC it does a side count. Then the count is converted to TC a playing strategy is then reveal for the play. What hasn't been talked about is the BC, PE and IC of the T-count. Is it the same math that is use to come up with the efficiency of all the other counts for the T-count?

What you aren't considering is, while T count has a very specific deck composition to use to decide the play, Gordon count has a lot of other situations, which translate to the same TC, that the correct doubles reside in. That causes the average for the TC bin that includes the very rare double situations to say not to double. But for T Count the Gordon TC bin is broken up into many different deck compositions, each of which is a separate decision bin for T Count. Only a very small percentage by frequency is it a correct double.

Then the count is converted to TC a playing strategy is then reveal for the play.

This step is what dilutes the bin that contains the correct doubles for the Gordon Count with lots and lots of situations that are don't double situations. The result is an average decision for the TC bin to not double.

[moses]

Tarzan: You set it up so I can't answer to your reply or question. I wouldn't say I have the "world by the balls." Others might that are still employed in their retirement years. But I was smart enough to find out the do's and don'ts that keep an adequate stream of income without extensive travel.

It's not what you make. It's what you keep. This comment could not be more true than for those competing against the casino. There is no health benefits, no SSI, no pension. No rental income anymore. It's just my "ass" against their assets. So you take what they "give" you. The key is being smart enough know what that is and not over step into their circle to play a game you can't win. Otherwise, you'll be running over cows in Kansas.

[Three]

T3. The casino is not your circus and the ploppies are not your monkees. Stop trying to be Superman. Just play the game.

It is all part of the game. The employees let you get away with more if having you around makes their day more pleasant. They either act because you make their day worse or you leave them no choice but to act because what you do will get them in trouble if they don't act. Making their job easier and allowing them the ability not to act without getting in trouble is what tolerance is about. Most employees constantly watch people lose money they can't afford to lose. It tears them up. Most of them are happy to see someone make money if they don't catch shit for it. What they want to do is not catch shit at the weekly meeting and be able to get a good nights sleep and feel good about themselves. The last thing they want is more work like taking action when they won't catch shit for doing nothing. If you don't see this then you just aren't paying attention. Or maybe they all just hate you but feign politeness, as they should for everyone. And you see it as you being liked.

[moses]

Not in my world. I'm always polite and cordial. For me, going out of bounds might be telling one of Freighters jokes..which usually brings a laugh or few. But I've seen players blow smoke in the dealers face, stare them down, cuss at them, grab his crotch, and I could go on and on. But none of that matters as long as the players is handing over his money which is the likely result that brought on his antics in the first place.

But let me get a stack ahead and one whisper from the pit boss in their ear and am pretty much fucked for the day. Damn, all that listening I had to do is wasted.

[Bubbles]

I'm waiting for one of these geniuses to proclaim they are Raymond Babbitt and side count EVERY card!

Only when playing bridge

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Crutoy37]

How long till we see the results published?

[Frank Galvin]

Crutoy37,

It has taken Tarzan years to get to this point, what's a few more weeks/months/years (pick one, or more /s)? Be patient.

[Gronbog]

Sims are being run for several levels of the system against several different games. There is also a set of sims being run against each game for the purpose of tuning one particular aspect of the highest level of the system.

The results need to be consolidated and will first be presented to Tarzan and (at Tarzan's request) to Don. It will then be up to Tarzan to decide what will be released, to whom, when, and in what form. Realistically, it will probably be weeks not days.

[Ustonzen]

Gronbog lets meet in canada under the pale moon light..

[ZenMaster_Flash]

" ... side count EVERY card"

I have a friend capable of memorizing the precise order
of every card in an 8 deck shoe. He is rather wealthy and
actually does play some (in short sessions) for huge comps.
He will find a good DD game and bet $1,000 off the top and
spread from $200 to $2,000.
However, as lazy as he says he is, working 20+ hrs weekly,
as a top computer consultant, he earns an impressive weekly
sum for a single 46 yr. old without debts, dependents or bad habits.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Only when playing bridge."

My buddy was the youngest EVER (touring) international Professional
Bridge Player. He also was the youngest person to ever represent
the USA in international team play. He was 15. He was the youngest
person to ever head up an Ivy League Debating Team. When The State
of New York sued General Electric, in the (then) biggest lawsuit ever, this
skinny nerd teenager represented the State, presenting the Economic and
Environmental impact studies. There was billions of bucks hanging in the
balance. He was 16.5 if memory serves. He has forgiven his parents forcing
him to wait until he was 15 and in Graduate School at Princeton, as he was
ready to be a world-class Chess, Bridge, Backgammon, etc. player as a pre-
teen.

At the Math Club at Princeton, at 15, bored, he played his first game
of Chess after looking at the rules andpracticing (playing himself for
two hours) and he played BLINDFOLDED, against the entire Chess Club,
which not only had Nobel Laureates but some accomplished internat'l
tournament players. He had some draws and stalemates but won all
of the other games. No losses. Bobby Fischer, Paul Morphy, Capablanca,
Gary Kasparov, etc. cannot claim to have done so. He did the equivalent
in (on-line) backgammon when he was accused of being a neural net;
having risen to become the top-ranked player (ELO formulation, like Chess
Fide Ratings) in record time. There were > 5,000 ranked players at the time.

He knew that the World Chess Championships would be a cinch as there were
no better chess players (ever) and he had not studied the important matches
of prior Champions. He never so much as read a book on Chess.

[Three]

What I am saying is the Gordon Count almost near perfect play when including all the side counts with a PE of .92. The the indices in the system is very complete. What I don't understand is how you execute your count differently to come up with the play doubling on 12 vs 6 to be an optimal play? What are you doing difference with the similar grouping? The Gordon Count has a running and to improve PE or BC it does a side count. Then the count is converted to TC a playing strategy is then reveal for the play. What hasn't been talked about is the BC, PE and IC of the T-count. Is it the same math that is use to come up with the efficiency of all the other counts for the T-count?

What you aren't considering is, while T count has a very specific deck composition to use to decide the play, Gordon count has a lot of other situations, which translate to the same TC, that the correct doubles reside in. That causes the average for the TC bin that includes the very rare double situations to say not to double. But for T Count the Gordon TC bin is broken up into many different deck compositions, each of which is a separate decision bin for T Count. Only a very small percentage by frequency is it a correct double.

Then the count is converted to TC a playing strategy is then reveal for the play.

This step is what dilutes the bin that contains the correct doubles for the Gordon Count with lots and lots of situations that are don't double situations. The result is an average decision for the TC bin to not double.

I should add for those that have never tried this and since I haven't looked at the Gordon adjustments, that often you get a new index that didn't exist without the side count that gets such a high index value that the TC bins are virtually empty without the side count adjustments. Like you might have an index of +32 and side count(s) adjustments that are quite large for each surplus/deficit side counted card. The result is a play that is not diluted by all the deck compositions since none populated the bin before the side count adjustment was applied and almost entirely based on the side count(s) with the main count being inconsequential. In this case Gordon Count would be able to flag the 12v6 doubles that T Count flags. But if the index when using the side count(s) falls in a populated bin the play will be diluted by a massive amount of unrelated deck compositions that populate the bin when the side count(s) is at or near expectation. The bin will be populated by almost all don't double situations so the decision for the adjustment is to not double even though the bin contains the deck compositions that would have you double.