You can't assume ONE deck composition out of octillions and point to an increase in advantage and say, "look at that"! You need to average ALL of them. And they average to the off-the-top BS edge. If they didn't, we could just wait for every six-deck game to get to five decks, walk in, play BS, and proclaim that we're playing single-deck!Originally Posted by angle_sh00ter
IF YOU'RE NOT COUNTING, BS edge is the same no matter what cards you grab or where you grab them from!!
Don
Dare I post and summon the wrath of The Donald?
So let *me* get this straight: If we shuffle a 6D shoe and take exactly 52 cards off the top of this 6 decker, we should (off the top) have a HE exactly equivalent to the 6D game and not a single deck game. Same applies if we were to take those 52 cards from the bottom of the shoe, or anywhere in between.
That is, the reason we are not playing 1D game is because the composition of that 1D is not [4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 16] exactly. That is our given EV for a 52 card set drawn from a 6D shoe should be the sum of the probability of obtaining that 52 card set times the EV of that set.
We should get the HE of the 6D shoe for the first 52 cards, regardless and not the HE for a given 52 card 1D [4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 16], as we are getting different sets of 52 cards per selection.
Playing 52 cards from a 6D shoe is a lot different than playing 52 cards form a 1D shoe. This is due to the composition of the 52 card set, correct?
Edit: Just caught this posted by Don himself:
Because the six decks of 52 cards each aren't four of each rank anymore! Surely you can understand the difference.
There are some 6.8 decillion decillion (59 digits!) subsets of 312 cards taken 52 at a time. All the previous arguments have centered around choosing ONE of those subsets and showing how that particular one might have a HE better than standard 6-deck off the top. And, of course, such a simplistic argument is ludicrous, as I can quote you a decillion or so decks whose edge would be WORSE than standard 6-deck BS.
This is not a topic we should be discussing. The phenomenon has been known for over half a century. It's disappointing and surprising that two very intelligent posters can be so misguided on the concept. And it's even more disappointing that they actually would like to entertain the notion that they're right, in the face of overwhelmingly impeccable logic that they aren't.
Don
Yes i can. Its true that on any one occasion we have no idea what the composition will be but we do know that after a trillion shoes are played down to 1 deck the average composition of the final 52 cards will contain 4 cards of each rank.
Also i just used that example to make it more simple. The point is that for any given ratio of 10s and aces the frequency of getting dealt a blackjack will differ based on the number of cards/ decks. It doesnt need to be based on exactly 4 of each rank.
Take a 52 slug of cards and a 104 slug of cards out of the 6 decks. Now assume that in both slugs of cards there is the same % of 10 value cards and aces. According to your logic the chances of receiving a BJ should be identical but we both know they are not. And I would prefer to play the 52 card slug (even without knowing its composition)
Finally something we agree on. Although only up to a point.
If you grab an equal number of cards and then play from each one individually your BS edge (on average) would be the same for each. Say for example 6 lots of 52 cards.
Where we differ is saying that taking 52 cards from the 6 decks and then playing from the 52 cards or the 260 cards yeilds you the exact same BS edge.
You keep repeating yourself, so there's no sense in continuing. Your argument is fallacious and wrong. Believe whatever makes you happy. I've explained the concept to you. I can't force you to understand it. Famous quote from Samuel Johnson: "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Don
And how do you know that?
No, the chance of getting any blackjack is solely dependent on the composition of all possible cards, which we have determined, to be unknown: unless we are counting.Take a 52 slug of cards and a 104 slug of cards out of the 6 decks. Now assume that in both slugs of cards there is the same % of 10 value cards and aces. According to your logic the chances of receiving a BJ should be identical but we both know they are not. And I would prefer to play the 52 card slug (even without knowing its composition)
You are also looking at one subset of cards. You need to take into consideration all possible subsets to get an idea for that 52 card set. Which, again, you advantage would be the sum of the probability of a certain 52 card slug drawn from a 6D shoe time the Expectation of that slug. You would still get the same HE for that 52 cards, regardless of where the cards are drawn. AND, your probability of getting a blackjack is *still* the same...because we are drawing from a 6D shoe, not a 52 card shoe!
Last edited by lij45o6; 11-19-2018 at 07:38 PM.
Ok Don what concept is that? Multiple people have enquired of you in this thread for an explanation of the concept and what is behind it. Im yet to see one given, save for repeatedly telling people what pages to read in your book.
I dont see this as a huge deal either way... more so just a theoretical based discussion. Im happy to just agree that we see it differently or call it semantics, but at the same time if there is a concept im missing id be interested in reading/hearing about it.
I am still trying to find the quote of Peter Griffin you are talking about. The relevant quote I have found from Griffin is in the preceding paragraph to your Eureka! paragraph., Where you say Griffin and Wong independently made a remarkable discovery. " It wasn't just strategy variation that contributed to the increased edge for a true count of 0at the one-deck level; basic strategy itself was worth .5% more at that level than at the start of the 4-deck pack." I understand BS advantage at that level of pen averages all TC advantages by their frequency so this isn't saying BS itself has a .5% increase with one deck left. But it does say that the advantage at various TC has changed for basic strategy with one deck left.
I see the problem. What you say is a quote from Griffin is not presented as a quote from Griffin in your book. It seems to be a statement you made. No quotation marks. I don't know if it was a Griffin quote or not. You are the one that knows. No mention of Griffin previously in the paragraph and no quotation marks. I have read through most of Griffin's pages you reference and he did indeed say that. But again his conclusions are based on the assumption that the BS player advantage at one deck left must average to his overall advantage.
I am not convinced you can make this assumption. It is easy enough to check out for someone like Doghand. Let's say a player used Hilo as their count but flat bet and used BS as his playing strategy. That player would bet and play exactly the same as the basic strategist but the sim would have information on player advantage throughout the shoe. If he used the MRI feature to collect depth based cross-sections of the sim data advantage at different depth levels for the basic strategist flat betting counter could be determined by sim (I am pretty sure Norm's software can do that) and checked by the math of the frequencies and advantages for each TC. Given the fact that CSM games have a lower HE than shoe games with the same number of cards that the CSM uses I guarantee that advantage will not be constant at every penetration. How can it be if at zero pen advantage is different than the average advantage everyone accepts for the basic strategist for the entire shoe? The same logic that Griffin and Don used to say that with decreased advantage at extreme TC deep in the shoe (not to mention increased frequency there) must mean that there is advantage gain in-between to hold the advantage constant applies to compensating for decreased HE against a CSM. That section of the shoe the CSM repeatedly plays has a lower HE so the rest of the shoe must compensate with a higher HE. This says that HE can't be constant by depth which calls into question Griffin and Don's intuitive assumption that it has to be constant. If they weren't so sure that it had to be constant, which the use of CSMs proved to be wrong, would they be so sure that the average at one deck left in the shoe must have an advantage equal to the HE. The difference by pen may be insignificant but the CSM HE being different than the shoe HE for the same number of decks used shows it is definitely not constant. With that given I can't accept conclusions based on an assumption known to be false.
Don's logic example says the HE must be the same for the BS at the beginning of the shoe as the end of the shoe. That is the HE for the BS must be unchanged because he doesn't know anything about the deck composition for that 1 deck he will be playing. Now lets say you are a counter at the table and you counted all those cards thrown on the floor using Hilo and flat bet basic strategy. You are not so quick to assume his advantage doesn't change by depth then. Those cards are either counted at the end of the shoe or uncounted at the beginning. But your betting and playing strategy is that of a basic strategist. You can see the TC range and frequency change by depth. You can see the advantage at each TC change by depth. The idea that the sum of the TC frequency times its advantage for all TCs at each depth must be the same seems ludicrous. But this counter would bet and play exactly the same as the basic strategist. Now these two situations are equivalent and you would never argue the advantage must be the same on average. On you play near neutral TCs all the time and the other has extreme TCs at increasing frequency the deeper you get into the shoe. Just because the BS is oblivious to a difference doesn't mean you can assume there isn't a difference.
DogHand Are you up for the challenge?
Back in the day when CBJN would list all blackjack games, there was a code for fake single or double deck games. It was "fak1, fak2: Games using six or eight decks that can be mistaken for single or double-deckers."
I assume some folks thought they were playing single deck when what they really were playing was just a pack of cards off a six deck game. Hell, it was just a six deck game.
Email: [email protected]
No we dont need to be counting anything.
Take a fresh deck of cards shuffle them up.
Do the same thing with a second deck of cards. If the decks remain seperate the chance of getting a blackjack are higher than if you mix the 2 decks together. Are you missing anything there? The simple act of going from 2 separate decks to one combined deck just changed the odds. No counting required.
Do you know why that happened? Its extremely simple, it happened because you are now playing with more cards. Thats it. Nothing more. Noone can argue with that. Nothing else changed. Not even the conposition of the cards. Just the total number in play.
Now for some reason im meant to believe just by mixing the 2 decks together and then seperating them into 2 random 52 card decks that somehow that effect is negated? I cant see why or how it would be.
All that is accomplished by this is introducing more randomness and uncertainy regarding the composition of each 52 card deck.
I have to believe that on average playing a hand off the top from one of the random 52 slugs will be more advantageousus than shuffling them all back in together and playing a hand off the top from the 2 complete decks.
CSMs HE being different than shoe HE for the same number of decks shows the logic basic on the assumption that HE can't change by depth for a basic strategist is reduced to an error and the assumption must be wrong. That is basic mathematical proof. I know they came up with all this before CSMs but since the advent of CSMs and the proof that they have a lower HE with the same number of decks used has nobody realized that this proves the logical argument is based on a false premise and is therefore unreliable. It is basic mathematical logic. When an assumption is reduced to a falsehood the assumption must be wrong. That is one of the basics of doing proofs in math. CSMs absolutely prove the assumption of a constant advantage throughout the shoe is false. Any conclusions based on this assumption must be negated. They are not proved or disproved. I think we learned that in 8th grade or something. You have absolute proof your assumption is false. Isn't it time to try to make your point using more modern techniques. I never said you where wrong. Just that if the assertion is based on the assumption that advantage can't change by depth for the basic strategist you have no leg to stand on. If it is based on something else then that is another story. Griffin put forth reasons the advantage should both increase and decrease for the basic strategist with one deck left. No weighing of this push and pull has been presented. Just a conclusion based on an assumption we know now to be false. Therefore the conclusion is disproved. That doesn't mean it is proven false just that the conclusion has yet to be proven.
DogHand, are you up to the challenge? This isn't going to be resolved any other way. Don will only accept your work. Sim a flat betting Hilo player that uses BS as his playing strategy. He will bet and play just like the basic strategist but the sim can collect data by depth that can be analyzed to determine HE by depth.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks