Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 17

Thread: TC Harmonic Frequency Question

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    TC Harmonic Frequency Question

    I’m developing a betting strategy analysis that analyzes CVCX results from different parameters including 1:8 to 1:16 spreads (6 shoes) and unit values between 10-25. I also want to quantify in my analysis a “heat” value based on each spread and unit value combination.

    To do this, I plan to use some of the coefficients in CVBJ “Heat” option (i.e. >double bet, >triple bet, bet>25, etc). However, I also need to know the average harmonic frequency (sine wave peak to peak frequency) of the TC. It would seem that this TC frequency is (mostly) independent of the parameter settings, and mostly dependent on the # hands.

    Does anyone know the average, overall TC harmonic frequency in units of # of hands?

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Trying to understand your question. How is it different from asking what the frequency of each true count is, say, per 100 hands dealt? And, if it's different, how is it relevant to your system?

    Don

  3. #3
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Trying to understand your question. How is it different from asking what the frequency of each true count is, say, per 100 hands dealt? And, if it's different, how is it relevant to your system?

    Don

    One example is: how often the true count trips from one to two. When this happens my bet more than doubles, and there is a heat penalty in CVBJ "heat" options for this. This is what I want to capture in my analysis.


    If I use the TC frequency percentages I have to assume they represent a complete cycle. What is that complete cycle representative of? 10 hands? I don't think so because in 10 hands I do not see The true count fluctuate from 0 to -5 to 0 again to positive 5 and then back to zero. Is it representative of 100 hands? And then if it is, that means (on average) I only see a TC trip from 1 to 2 one time in a hundred hands. Is that a true representation? I don't know. But it seems to me that if a simulation tracks the true Count over a million hands then yes there will be noise but if you smooth it out it seems to me that there should be a natural frequency of high peaks to low Peaks. That frequency I could apply to my analysis and estimate the number of times my betting doubles in relation to the number of hands played... and thus apply to my "heat" analysis of that particular betting ramp and unit bet combination.
    Last edited by SteinMeister; 07-09-2018 at 07:21 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I should also add that each analysis has a set number of hands played, that is the number of hours required of play for the results minimum to be $0. That number of hours x the number of hands per hour equals the total number of hands played for each analysis and represents the total number of hands played for each bet spread and unit bet combination. They do differ.
    Last edited by SteinMeister; 07-08-2018 at 05:56 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    From the lack of response from the gurus (other than Don’s initial inquiry for further explanation), I assume that as far as TC natural harmonic frequency goes, one or more of the following applies:

    1). No one has built their simulator to analyze this phenomenon.
    2). It has been analyzed, but is too noisy / chaotic to make sense from it and therefore is worthless
    3). No one has built their simulator to analyze exactly because it is considered noisy / chaotic and is therefore worthless.
    4). It has been analyzed, but is considered proprietary information
    5). It’s a ridiculous question because there is no such thing.

    My gut feel is that #5 is not correct, but I could be wrong.

    Norm, do you have any comments on this?

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    SteinMeister,

    How about 6). No one understood the question? Because that's my choice.

    What do you want to know? For example, do you want to know the number of times the TC jumps from +1 to +2 divided by the number of rounds played?

    The simulators typically do not track this (though, for example, it could be tracked using CVData): instead, they simply count the number of rounds played at each TC.

    Perhaps if you clarify your request, you'll get some more useful responses. Also, be sure to specify the precise conditions you want, especially the number of decks, the penetration, and the count (HiLo or something else).

    Hope this helps!

    Dog Hand

  7. #7
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Dog Hand View Post
    How about 6). No one understood the question? Because that's my choice.
    Thanks Dog Hand for pointing that out. It was clear in my mind, so I assumed everyone knew what I was talking about.

    Below is a graphical representation of what I'm wanting to know. And it may be that no one has simulated it before.

    The first graph is representing the first ? 200 ? hands of a multi-million hand simulation that tracks TC with # of hands played. This is a fictitious set of raw data.
    The second graph is the "smoothed out" version of the first graph (again, concentrating on the first 200 hands only for simplicity).
    The third graph is the resulting distribution table of the many myriad of frequencies from the multi-million hand simulation. And the mean average (the funny looking "mu" symbol) is the value that I would like to know.

    It's a fairly specific piece of data. I just assumed that it had been analyzed before, but perhaps not (??).






    Frequency Request Graphic Depiction -jpg.jpg

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Seems to me that you've taken an awfully long time to ask, "What is the average (mean) true count?" And, of course, that answer depends on a number of factors, including methodology for calculating the true count in the first place (rounding, flooring, truncating), number of decks, and rules, among other variables.

    But, I can tell you, with reasonable certainty, that it is, of course, very close to zero, but is slightly negative. That is, there is a very small but discernible bias for the TC bin of, say, -1 to -2 to have slightly higher frequency than its 1-2 counterpart.

    And the reason has to do with WHEN we reckon and tabulate the TC frequencies (i.e., at the END of every round), and the fact that there is a greater tendency for a round to end with a higher card than a lower one (we try to fill a hand and break with a 10, for example).

    Don

  9. #9
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Seems to me that you've taken an awfully long time to ask, "What is the average (mean) true count?"

    Thank you Don for your response. I have the highest regard for your insight and wisdom, and I am very glad that you are an active member in this forum. I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this forum that "hones in" on your particular response, as it does carry a lot of weight.

    However, I believe that my question / request still was not very clear. My "holy grail" data that I was hoping to obtain is not in the units of TC, but in units of # of hands.

    I do appreciate your attempts to understand my cloudy conception, and maybe it's best to file this one in the waste bin.

  10. #10
    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 SteinMeister View Post
    My "holy grail" data that I was hoping to obtain is not in the units of TC, but in units of # of hands.
    In other words TC frequency expressed in number of rounds played at that TC during the entire sim rather than a percentage.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by SteinMeister View Post
    Thank you Don for your response. I have the highest regard for your insight and wisdom, and I am very glad that you are an active member in this forum. I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this forum that "hones in" [homes] on your particular response, as it does carry a lot of weight.

    However, I believe that my question / request still was not very clear. My "holy grail" data that I was hoping to obtain is not in the units of TC, but in units of # of hands.

    I do appreciate your attempts to understand my cloudy conception, and maybe it's best to file this one in the waste bin.

    What difference would that make? When you get the frequency, or magnitude, of the highest point in your bell curve, you then multiply that percentage by the number of hands in the sim.

    This is very old stuff. Wong did it almost 40 years ago. I have all the TC frequencies in Chapter 10, except I don't bother with the negatives. Frankly, I don't think you understand what you're asking for.

    Don

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I could be misunderstanding, SteinMeister, but I'm not sure that thinking of the frequency as a wave form is the right way to do it (rather than just a simple average over a simulation or set of sessions). To think of it as a wave form with a predictable frequency would be going down the route of "well it hit the lowest point, so now it is more likely to go back to the high point and back down", like a cycle, which it is not. :-/

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesonDetroit View Post
    I could be misunderstanding, SteinMeister, but I'm not sure that thinking of the frequency as a wave form is the right way to do it (rather than just a simple average over a simulation or set of sessions). To think of it as a wave form with a predictable frequency would be going down the route of "well it hit the lowest point, so now it is more likely to go back to the high point and back down", like a cycle, which it is not. :-/
    Not only correct, but, in actuality, at any given moment, whatever the true count happens to be, it has no tendency to change at all! Naturally, it DOES vary, but that is due to standard deviation of the statistic and not because of any mean-reversion property, which the TC doesn't have.

    Don
    Last edited by DSchles; 07-11-2018 at 05:32 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 6,7,8, frequency
    By roliin in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2014, 05:56 PM
  2. Hand frequency ??
    By White Guy in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-29-2012, 09:09 PM
  3. MJ: TC Frequency Distribution Question
    By MJ in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 06:34 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.