I cant believe the index plays were worth "many thousands of dollars" even in that outlier shoe. At least not in terms of increased EV. You may say that you won many thounsands more by making those index plays but even if that's true then it would be almost entirely due to positive variance.
Those exotic index plays could have just as easily backfired and cost you money. The way to measure the value of the plays themselves is in the change to your EV, not in terms of the results you have on the day.
As an example i was playing a DD game and the TC was over 20. On the last round i had 2 max bets out and doubled my 9 and soft 19 against the dealers 2. I lost 4 max bets but it didn't alter the EV of the plays.
I disagree. The act is important. I bet according to index on that play, 16 vs 10, all the time. You delay, pretend to think, ask others, maybe say "it seems I never win and they don't allow surrender, lost standing last time, going to hit" or vice versa. Whenever I get to win, it's just luck. Even with index you lose that hand more often then you win.
You are right there. The EV gain for the plays is fast after the index is exceeded but I was talking what they were worth in that shoe not the EV. The EV increase was substantial but nowhere near the win boost. These kinds of plays will never reach the long run. You very rarely ever see the counts and when you do you still have to get the matchups. Having the dealer get one of the few low cards left as an up-card and you getting the cards necessary for the play at the same time is very rare. It was so long ago I don't even remember what the matchups were. I just remember making a high percentage of plays I had never made before or even considered for that matter. Almost every round seemed to have an exotic play. That may just be selective memory but at the time I tallied the money saved or made by using the exotic plays and it was in the thousands of dollars. The deck composition was really crazy. Side counted ranks were also way out of whack. I was making index plays that the main count didn't even have indices for. The side count adjusted index was something like plus 50. You had no hope of ever making the play without the side count info being out of whack. Knowing how to use all the extra info gathered really helped make a lot of exotic plays.
That was back in my block side counting days. I was side counting the 6,7,8 group and aces using Hiopt2. I gather and use side count information very differently now. I was a bit green back then and just did what was published by others. There are better ways to gather extra information that allow much more creative ways to use the information gathered. It is even more work but it is actually worth it. At least if you value increased certainty of results over more EV with crazier swings, particularly downswings. If all you care about is getting every ounce of EV no matter how crazy the swings you probably wouldn't see the value. These kinds of people just ask about variance without realizing variance is blind to the direction of the swings that cause variance. Once you realize you can stack variance more in your favor by reducing the ratio of downswing variance to upswing variance with big bets out by not making EV your primary focus, you tend to stay closer to or above EV more as the rule rather than the exception. You don't have to worry about reducing variance you should worry about the ratio of downswing variance to upswing variance with your bigger bets out. You do that by increasing the accuracy of decisions and trading some of that EV gain for waiting for more EV gain before doubling or splitting certain matchups with big bets out and surrendering more aggressively when surrender is slightly negative EV especially for splits. I like watching my BR grow rather than watching swings so crazy around EV that it is hard to be sure which direction things are trending without looking a a very long period of time.
But that is just me. I know most people try to play a lot because they need to get in a lot of time to see their results trend in the right direction. I take a more surgical approach that doesn't fit what they observe playing their way. My results are a lot less extreme and a lot more steady. I don't look the threat to the casino that they do. I don't need the time exposure to get the money and don't need to show as much money to make the same amount because swings are muted, particularly downswings. I made my goal making money more certainly while putting less money at risk in order to make the largest swings be stacked toward upswings by reducing downswings associated with EV maximizing decisions. It is just a different goal that makes money differently but requires more work to have additional information that is gathered in a way that is more useful for making quick and more accurate decisions. I don't care to use the extra work to generate more EV. More certain BR growth is much more important to me. I can have about the same EV and make results behave much more predictably if I trade the extra EV from more accurate decisions for more certain BR growth. To me the extra EV isn't worth much because I generate plenty of EV already. The increased predictability of results is worth a lot more to me than the increase in EV would be. It makes all the extra work well worth it in my book. Others might see it differently. They are resigned to enduring brutal swings and putting in lots of time to get the money. It is just a matter of personal preference. I have mine and they have theirs. Both work fine if you have put the dedication in to master the approach in question and can find casinos that will take your action.
It is funny that you think you are fooling anyone. They have evaluated your play and either took action against you or decided to tolerate you for a while to see if you are a counting treat or a counting cash cow. They will do what they can to make things harder for you and see what happens. If they don't like the way things are going they will either act or make things even harder until you decide it isn't worth playing. You described it happening to you but seem to think you are putting one over on them when in fact they are working you. If your lucky streak holds the joke is on them. If your results goes the way their analysis says it will in the long run the jokes on you.
The whole idea that you play the same game the same way or the casino will suspect you are a counter is ridiculous. The poppy bunch player is not always consistent. Your saying that you always play 16 vs 10 the same way or else is bizarre paranoia.
I would rather, ocassionally, but 16 in a positive count, stand on 16 in a negative count (the loss is pennies), do a lot of misplays, as indicated in BJA3 (pages 92-96 or so) that cost little. For my act, it suits me.
I have not played as long as you but I seem to be doing okay. You, not even knowing where I play, seem to think that they know it all. I tend to think my act as a guy who makes hunch plays, who decides after seeing what lies on the face up dealt cards, works.
I've been trying to drag this thread back to a theoretical discussion, but you guys kept throwing practical or useful suggestions.
Every wise counter knows the benefit to always stand on 16 vs 10 when there's potential heat.
I simply would like to know if standing at RC 1, on average, is mathematically better than standing at TC 0. Anyway, I seem to get the answer.
Bookmarks