See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 27 to 39 of 39

Thread: Please help to better understand the N0

  1. #27
    Senior Member BigJer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    In your soul.
    Posts
    1,528


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by therefinery View Post
    The metric is hands played OR seen. They count towards n0.
    Whoa! Hold on here. My jaw just dropped! So the observed hands also go to N0??

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BoqCMRBFk
    My Ability in Blackjack is a Gift from God!!

  2. #28
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJer View Post
    Whoa! Hold on here. My jaw just dropped! So the observed hands also go to N0??
    Of course they do.

  3. #29
    Senior Member BigJer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    In your soul.
    Posts
    1,528


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Of course they do.
    Okay. Is it the number of hands or rounds?
    My Ability in Blackjack is a Gift from God!!

  4. #30
    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
    Rounds

  5. #31


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Proofread please.
    Thank you. Fixed.

    Don

  6. #32


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    Don, is there anything wrong with the notion that, when playing a game at a disadvantage, the concept of N0 can still be applied as the number of rounds for which your negative expectation equals one standard deviation?
    No, nothing wrong at all. Just turn it around and look at your negative edge as a player as the house's positive edge, and calculate N0 from the house's point of view. Since the house is playing against you, that number has to be the same for either side, just with different meaning.

    But, keep in mind that, if you know you're playing with no edge, there is no interest in betting at all, and so we have the concept of "maximum boldness," which says that, to make (negative) SCORE as large (least negative) as possible, you'd want the variance in the denominator to be as big as possible -- hence the "bet it all" approach. Because, if you make constant, "reasonable" flat bets, all with a disadvantage, you're going to lose with certainty.

    Don

  7. #33


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJer View Post
    Whoa! Hold on here. My jaw just dropped! So the observed hands also go to N0??

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BoqCMRBFk
    Sigh. If we say it ten more times, will you ask ten more times if we really mean it?

    It is inconceivable to me that anyone could believe it could be anything but what we are trying to explain. If you find an unbalanced roulette wheel that gives you a 20% edge, but it takes you a year of scouting and thousands upon thousands of hours to identify such an edge, do you just want to state that you have a 20% edge playing roulette and fail to inform us that you get to play once a year?

    Don

  8. #34
    Senior Member BigJer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    In your soul.
    Posts
    1,528


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    No, nothing wrong at all. Just turn it around and look at your negative edge as a player as the house's positive edge, and calculate N0 from the house's point of view. Since the house is playing against you, that number has to be the same for either side, just with different meaning.

    But, keep in mind that, if you know you're playing with no edge, there is no interest in betting at all, and so we have the concept of "maximum boldness," which says that, to make (negative) SCORE as large (least negative) as possible, you'd want the variance in the denominator to be as big as possible -- hence the "bet it all" approach. Because, if you make constant, "reasonable" flat bets, all with a disadvantage, you're going to lose with certainty.

    Don
    Don,

    I tried reading through it, but I was more shocked than anything else. I didn't ask anyone to re-explain it again and again.
    My Ability in Blackjack is a Gift from God!!

  9. #35


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    No, nothing wrong at all. Just turn it around and look at your negative edge as a player as the house's positive edge, and calculate N0 from the house's point of view. Since the house is playing against you, that number has to be the same for either side, just with different meaning.

    But, keep in mind that, if you know you're playing with no edge, there is no interest in betting at all, and so we have the concept of "maximum boldness," which says that, to make (negative) SCORE as large (least negative) as possible, you'd want the variance in the denominator to be as big as possible -- hence the "bet it all" approach. Because, if you make constant, "reasonable" flat bets, all with a disadvantage, you're going to lose with certainty.

    Don
    This would also be useful, or can be at least, in certain situations. Perhaps you're playing a game where once you play a certain amount of hours or put through a certain amount of action, you get a bonus at the end. In this type of a game, you're playing with an advantage overall, assuming you can complete the play-through requirement. You would still certainly want as little variance as possible. If this was on something like roulette, I'd just bet red and black and grind it out and not just put everything on black. I'd rather get as close to a guarantee to losing 5.26% on the play-through part then get the bonus at the end, instead of having a 47% chance to double up and a 53% chance to lose it all.
    "Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]

  10. #36


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I'm a little bit confused. Sorry gentlemen to interrupt but I got question as well about N0.
    Even though I'm a KO player I also have certain exit points for my game if either the first deck or the second deck dealt and not reaching a fix running count level being worthwhile to be continued playing.
    So my question is
    Will I get closer to my N0 by not playing those bad negative shoes because I wong out?

    Thanks for any reply

    Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk

  11. #37
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by ferenc11 View Post
    I'm a little bit confused. Sorry gentlemen to interrupt but I got question as well about N0.
    Even though I'm a KO player I also have certain exit points for my game if either the first deck or the second deck dealt and not reaching a fix running count level being worthwhile to be continued playing.
    So my question is
    Will I get closer to my N0 by not playing those bad negative shoes because I wong out?

    Thanks for any reply

    Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk
    If you stayed and watched with the intention of winning in then yes. If you left the table then no.

  12. #38


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    If you stayed and watched with the intention of winning in then yes. If you left the table then no.
    Thanks Three!!! Is it because the count might still rise again towards the end of the shoe?


    Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk

  13. #39


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ferenc11 View Post
    I'm a little bit confused. Sorry gentlemen to interrupt but I got question as well about N0.
    Even though I'm a KO player I also have certain exit points for my game if either the first deck or the second deck dealt and not reaching a fix running count level being worthwhile to be continued playing.
    So my question is
    Will I get closer to my N0 by not playing those bad negative shoes because I wong out?

    Thanks for any reply

    Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk
    You have to compare apples to apples.

    Your N0 is going to be calculated via simulation (most likely). Including exit points in your simulation is going to decrease the N0. You can't just sim something, say, a 1-16 spread play all approach....but then in real life wong out at whatever exit points you decide, and expect the N0 in the simulation to be useful for the way you're playing. Granted, if you can't simulate something but you know it's better than what you did sim, then it's going to be beneficial to actually play that way, then use the sim as a sort of a guideline and know you're playing better than the sim would dictate.

    If you're going to wong out of a shoe, you're better off (EV wise) to go find another shoe, unless you're in some situation where you can constantly wong in and out of the same shoe (like what baccarat players do). As far as "getting closer to N0"....well, that just seems kind of a weird concept/question. Staying at the table after the count hits your "exit point index" and watching is kind of antithetical to exiting the shoe. Why continue to watch a table if it's reached the point at which you would no longer want to play? You came up with your exit point for a reason. Follow it.
    "Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. something i just dont understand, if there is a pro can tell me why
    By abc4000 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-29-2017, 09:32 PM
  2. I don't understand his thinking
    By Bodarc in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-17-2015, 06:51 AM
  3. Trying to understand indices and the I18
    By 22playing21 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-03-2014, 08:01 PM
  4. Help me understand EV
    By Mr2Project in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-13-2012, 09:53 AM
  5. Kasey: Something I don't understand about DI
    By Kasey in forum Theory & Math
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-25-2002, 07:58 PM

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.