See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 24

Thread: Betting Ramp Changes Based on Depth of Shoe

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Betting Ramp Changes Based on Depth of Shoe

    Being a newbie, I'm just wondering if anyone makes changes to their betting ramps based on current penetration in the shoe? Example, if CVCX optimum bet shows to bet 5x at TC=1, that CVCX derived statistic covers the entire shoe range (i.e. early on, and late into the shoe). However, TC=1 is statistically more accurate late into the shoe than early on. Just wondering what adjustments anyone's made for that. Thanks in advance. -Nascent

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Nascent Norm View Post
    Being a newbie, I'm just wondering if anyone makes changes to their betting ramps based on current penetration in the shoe? Example, if CVCX optimum bet shows to bet 5x at TC=1, that CVCX derived statistic covers the entire shoe range (i.e. early on, and late into the shoe). However, TC=1 is statistically more accurate late into the shoe than early on. Just wondering what adjustments anyone's made for that. Thanks in advance. -Nascent
    It's not a question of the count's being more "accurate"; it's a question of the fact that, deeper into the shoe, the same true count confers a greater advantage than at the beginning.

    See the entire "Floating Advantage" chapter of BJA3.

    Don

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks Don. I was able to quickly get a copy of BJA2 (not 3) but assume the tables / data haven't changed. First, let me say very impressive work that you and Professor Gwynn accomplished. Second, I (like you when you published the Floating Advantage results) am surprised by the results. Setting aside the zero and negative counts (tables 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15; 4.5/6 decks), the positive counts appear to have a detrimental effect late into the shoe. Example; Table 6.13 reveals at TC=3 the Per Hand Contribution is + 0.040 at 0-4deck range, but drops later in the shoe to + 0.006 at 4.0-4.25 and 4.25-4.50 ranges. This is counter-intuitive to my general belief that high counts are more favorable later in the shoe. OR, am I reading the data incorrectly?

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Nascent Norm View Post
    Thanks Don. I was able to quickly get a copy of BJA2 (not 3) but assume the tables / data haven't changed. First, let me say very impressive work that you and Professor Gwynn accomplished. Second, I (like you when you published the Floating Advantage results) am surprised by the results. Setting aside the zero and negative counts (tables 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15; 4.5/6 decks), the positive counts appear to have a detrimental effect late into the shoe. Example; Table 6.13 reveals at TC=3 the Per Hand Contribution is + 0.040 at 0-4deck range, but drops later in the shoe to + 0.006 at 4.0-4.25 and 4.25-4.50 ranges. This is counter-intuitive to my general belief that high counts are more favorable later in the shoe. OR, am I reading the data incorrectly?
    You don't want to look at the per-hand contributions, which are also a function of the frequencies of the hands/counts. Rather, you want to look at the per-hand expectations. More often than not, these increase for the same true count, as we go deeper into the shoe -- but not always. Simply due to sampling size and randomness earlier in the shoe, these just aren't monotonic functions; that is, they jump around a bit. But, when you get to the 5-deck or deeper level, the increases are general and pronounced.

    Don

    P.S. You really do need to have BJA3, not BJA2.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    P.S. You really do need to have BJA3, not BJA2.
    Some of us want BJA4!
    "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/

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Galvin View Post
    Some of us want BJA4!
    What do you want in it that isn't already in BJA3?

    Don

  7. #7


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    What do you want in it that isn't already in BJA3?

    Don
    I've got a suggestion

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


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    I think that Freightman is offering his photographic skills.
    He wants you to include his favorite topic in a new addendum.
    It has become clear to him that he wants to provide 8.5" X 11"
    glossy photos of the standard positions for scrotal scratchings.

  9. #9


    0 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash View Post

    I think that Freightman is offering his photographic skills.
    He wants you to include his favorite topic in a new addendum.
    It has become clear to him that he wants to provide 8.5" X 11"
    glossy photos of the standard positions for scrotal scratchings.
    Excellent commentary by Flash. I am well aware that different individuals learn in different ways. Some individual require a cognitive approach, and thus, pictures, showing what to do, are the order of the day. For others, simple text commentary is sufficient.

    In addition, indices for the FBM ASC, which may be referred to as addons, are essential for maximizing the power of this new and exciting protocol. Addons, such as adjustable finger pressure, to reflect different true counts, and of course, the new "Scratch and Sniff" will add profits to your personal AP relief funds.

    For Feel Good Play, I look forward to the inclusion of the FBM ASC to BJA4.

  10. #10


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Tell us about this new fangled FBM ASC AP play. I am sure I haven't heard of it before.

  11. #11


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Tell us about this new fangled FBM ASC AP play. I am sure I haven't heard of it before.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by SpikeBJ View Post
    Tell us about this new fangled FBM ASC AP play. I am sure I haven't heard of it before.
    Simply put, I have not as yet, revealed its power. Final touches are being evaluated during the last phase of Beta testing. However, to increase market anticipation, I shall bestow upon the forum, its basic tenants.

    Consider the effectiveness of deodorant, and its changing olfactory effect during varying levels of both stress and arousal. Scientific study, overseen by Freightman, conclusively demonstrates a like effect during actual play. The trick, of course, is the subtle finger sniff, which reveals stronger scents based on depth of shoe, coupled with true counts.

    These exciting addons, will likely be demonstrated both by commentary and revealing tables, to be shown in the new version of BJA4. I trust, that this brief, yet informative dialogue will provide a taste of the exciting new directions available through intelligent usage of the FBM ASC.

  13. #13


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Wow, this idea keeps getting better and better. I missed the subtly of the olfactory affect based on stress. Thanks.

  14. #14
    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
    Don. My suggestion for BJA4 is to use level 2 counts in all the examples so it is clear how the formula would be used with multiple magnitude count tags. Level 1 count examples for use of formulas leave much ambiguity for those using multi-level counts. A level one counter would not be confused by the increased clarity when a multi-level count is used in formulas. This was my main complaint about the contents of your book. There was too much ambiguity on how to use formulas when they are only used by level 1 counts.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Blackjack optimal depth-based betting
    By Norm in forum Software
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-05-2014, 06:37 PM
  2. Norm Wattenberger: Optimal Depth-Based Betting
    By Norm Wattenberger in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 09:51 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.