6D game, first 20 cards came out TC is +3
vs
6D game, first 230 cards came out TC is +3
how different is the expectation between the 2 situations?
i think that the second situation gives a better expectation because deeper pen is generally better but we are still betting the same amount according to the TC, why?
You’ve missed the most interesting part. As preamble, we are comparing 6.4% vs. 73% of cards dealt. Expectation, in terms of percentage, I think Don would say that expectation is the same. He would look at it as a linear true 3 regardless of where you are (i think)
True 3 at 230 cards is somewhat more predictable, with potential volatility having the potential of going through the roof - nice situation.
With only 20 cards dealt creating true 3, 18 of 20 cards dealt are low VS high cards. This has the super potential of being 1 crazy ride, creating either a great shoe, or one where you wished you stayed home. An abstract way of looking at it would be if you cut out out of the deal those same 20 cards, knowingly creating true 3 off the top. Another abstract way of looking at it is to continue your multi unit bets with increasingly higher negative counts, perhaps knowing that all the crap is behind the cut card.
My approach would differ depending on how many players are at the table. With a full table (not likely for me) I would spread to 2, manipulating my bet, doing my best to make sure that other factors were in play before I went hog wild. Heads up, I’ve got the time to practice some artistry. Just because the count is plus 2,3 or 4, doesn’t mean you have to have the equivalent sized bet out. It can be higher or lower. You salivate for situations like this, but you need to excercise caution. On a recent trip, i got lambasted big time, for reaching the wrong conclusion, and I paid a big price.
On a very recent excursion, I had a very similar situation heads up, came to the right conclusions, and proceeded to empty the tray. I’ve rambled a bit, because I found your query interesting.
I tend to bet more at equivalent true counts deeper into the shoe. There should be additional certainty.
Your TC average takes all these into account. The average would have a far larger sampling from deeper in the shoe for TC +3 than very early in the shoe. The latter will have almost no representation in the set that is average to get the TC average you base your bets on. If you bet the TC average you should bet them all the same. Early you will be slightly over betting and late you will be slightly under betting but without sim data to base the sub-groups by depth you would be guessing as to how to alter strategy. The difference is what I like to call certainty. Early in the shoe what cards are coming is are less certain. Late in the shoe they are more certain. The extra comes from playing advantage deeper in the shoe from one card being removed having a bigger impact on the remaining shoe composition.
I am just slower to raise my bet early in the shoe. Like if I barely make it into a TC bin I might bet the next lower bins called from bet. How things are running is part of that decision. If I am winning I will bet the appropriate TC bet but if I am losing I am more conservative. But late in the shoe I aggressively bet the called for bet. If the TC falls just short of the next higher TC bin and I am winning I might bet the next bin up's bet. If the shoe is near the last round I might do that regardless of my last round results. The follow the results thing is as much a heat reducer and money management decision as it is a betting strategy decision. Long losing streaks start with one loss. If you wait for being further into a betting bin to raise your bet after a loss you are better off if the loss becomes a long streak of losses. If you win you pushed over two rounds. There is nothing wrong with that. So you reduce big downswings at the expense of small steps forward. It is like having three bets for each betting bin (The bet the sim suggests, the next lower bin's bet, and the next higher bin's bet) and using heat concerns, where you are in the TC bin, certainty, how things have been running, and how many rounds remain to be played to decide which of the three bets you make. This can have many useful side effects when used at the casino. Deep in the shoe you may need to jump your bet in the next round if you are at the top of the betting bin. Betting the next higher bin can make the bet change called for seen as more reasonable by any critical eyes that may see what you are doing. If you don't have an advantage but think you may be jumping your bet shortly to a much bigger bet raising your bet to a point that the bet change seems more reasonable when eyes end up watching your play.
xxx
Excellent post by Three - though not for amateurs - who have never 'deconstructed'
the True Count Theorem via (very) extensive finely tuned simulations. Three often
takes a surgical scalpel to blackjack issues - while the rest of us mere mortals use a
dull butter knife. In reality, his "tool" selection is preferable for all of us, as we need
but benefit a smidge from his replies to have a good day, where simplistic responses
may or may not have any value at all, (and can actually be misleading). Sure, Three
has an obsessive personality, but without such persons who invent, explore and expand
our knowledge base, where would we be?
Xb
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 08-29-2018 at 07:57 AM.
Kind of shocking (and disappointing) to me that, of the five responses you received, not one referenced the concept of the Floating Advantage. Frankly, I'm insulted!Originally Posted by deviru
In any event, the correct answer to your question (see p. 85 of BJA3), is that, because the SAME true count is worth more as you progress more deeply into the shoe, a TC of +3 in a 6-deck game, at the 4.25-4.50-deck level, is worth about 1.21% while that same true count at the top of the shoe is worth somewhat less. I can't tell you precisely how much less because, as you can see, our study didn't distinguish very much between various levels of penetration early on, and lumped all such counts from 0 to 4 decks into a single category (in this case, a 0.98% edge). That decision was based on space constraints and the fact that, in the beginning, the FA doesn't really manifest itself, and edges don't change meaningfully till much deeper into the shoe (as the article clearly discusses).
In any event, a ballpark estimate is that the TC of +3 at 230 cards is worth at least 0.25%-0.30% more than at the top, after only 20 cards. That's the answer you should have gotten, but, as usual, it's very difficult to get a straight answer to a perfectly straight question on this (or any) site.
Don
I will bang my head on the floor until forgiven (Cheech and Chong - The Corsican Brothers) for having believed your numerous comments regarding the floating advantage not being a relevant factor until well into a deeply cut shoe. The difference quoted is more than semantics.Kind of shocking (and disappointing) to me that, of the five responses you received, not one referenced the concept of the Floating Advantage. Frankly, I'm insulted!
In any event, the correct answer to your question (see p. 85 of BJA3), is that, because the SAME true count is worth more as you progress more deeply into the shoe, a TC of +3 in a 6-deck game, at the 4.25-4.50-deck level, is worth about 1.21% while that same true count at the top of the shoe is worth somewhat less. I can't tell you precisely how much less because, as you can see, our study didn't distinguish very much between various levels of penetration early on, and lumped all such counts from 0 to 4 decks into a single category (in this case, a 0.98% edge). That decision was based on space constraints and the fact that, in the beginning, the FA doesn't really manifest itself, and edges don't change meaningfully till much deeper into the shoe (as the article clearly discusses).
In any event, a ballpark estimate is that the TC of +3 at 230 cards is worth at least 0.25%-0.30% more than at the top, after only 20 cards. That's the answer you should have gotten, but, as usual, it's very difficult to get a straight answer to a perfectly straight question on this (or any) site.
Don
Henceforth, prior to commenting, I shall consult with Bluebeard (The Corsican Brothers) regarding other relevant theory.
Captain Hook
Since each TC averages .5% increase in advantage in Hilo, isn't my count adjustment spot on. I can't give him a number because my research is not for Hilo. Understanding what is going on better is more important than a number that truly answers his question that says nothing about how to use the information. Which answer do you think will help him more at the tables? A direct answer to his question, or an explanation of what is going on and how to use that knowledge to your benefit? I guess we just see different things as being helpful when answering a post.
A direct fucking answer to his question! If he wants a dissertation from you, next time, he'll ask for a dissertation instead. Years and years of this stupid discussion, and you've still learned nothing.
Do you think that, maybe, if you tell him that the edge is greater later on, he can figure out for himself to bet more money, or do you really feel that you have to share your life story with him, because he needs to hear it just one more time?
Look up "incorrigible" in the dictionary.
Don
A different and perhaps, simpler explanation - average rules assuming .5 off the top house edge with increasing player .5 edge per each increase in true count until the higher counts when increases are greater than .5 per true count.
Perhaps another way of explaining floating advantage.
Maybe it went over your head but there was a lot of ways to use the strategy I outlined to deal with real casino issues. Of coarse in a simulation these nuances to being allowed to play while hardly changing EV rather than computer perfect and quickly backed off are absent. Is he trying to learn how to have the highest EV in a sim, or to make the most money with the least amount of heat in a casino? For actual casino play my answer was much more valuable. For anal retentive, its all about answering the question rather than helping the poster, it isn't. I am anal retentive as well so that wasn't intended as an insult. Being that way can be your biggest weakness if you can't reign it in, or your biggest strength if you can reign it in properly. We both struggle with that.
And we disagree on what is most helpful to the poster. That is fine. Unless someone tries to force their opinion of what is best on everyone else. Like I said properly reigned in. If your ranting is serious then reign it in, if you can. Have you changed anything on any forum with your rants? How was insanity defined? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Do you think your next rant will change anything? I think everyone knows how you think posters should be responded to. Is your repeating yourself over and over any different from me doing the same? Think about what you think of that type of activity. You are fairly outspoken about it. Why do you have another standard for your behavior? Are you "incorrigible" as well or can you change?
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks