See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 58

Thread: The “why” of the floating advantage

  1. #27


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by angle_sh00ter View Post
    Ok. Under which conditions?

    Hi Lo RC of 0 with 52 cards remaining from a 6 deck shoe, what would be the expected HE on the next hand assuming only playing composition dependant [dependent] BS?
    Asked and answered a million times. About half a percent higher than off the top of the shoe. And NOT because you get more blackjacks. I already quoted Griffin to you to show that that assumption of yours (which you restated above) was also wrong (see Griffin, bottom of page 209).

    Don

  2. #28


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by angle_sh00ter View Post
    Im not trying to be stubborn. I would genuinely like to know under what conditions that graphical representation of floating advantage is true? And who better to ask than the author!
    The floating advantage always exists, deeper into the shoe, under any conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by angle_sh00ter View Post
    At a TC of zero there is [are] no playing discrepancies, so what am i missing?
    Of course there are. To start with, you stand on 16 vs. 10. BS and TC = 0 aren't the same thing. You keep making statements that you have to know are wrong, yet you persist. If that isn't being stubborn, then what would you call it? If you keep repeating the same myths, are told each time that they're wrong, and yet you keep saying them, how is that not being stubborn?

    Don

  3. #29


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Angle -

    The reason I started this thread is that I was having trouble, despite the good info in BJA and Griffin, wrapping my head around why this effect happened. For me, the lightbulb went on when I re-stated the effect in another way, as I said in my OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    as the pack depletes, the true count *indicating* a given advantage must decrease at moderate true counts.


    It amounts to the same thing, but my brain seems to prefer thinking about it that way.

  4. #30


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    Angle -

    The reason I started this thread is that I was having trouble, despite the good info in BJA and Griffin, wrapping my head around why this effect happened

    Trust me im not engaging in these discussions for fun. And I do not think of myself as any kind of expert on these theories. I realise im talking to people regarded as top experts but the problem is I am just not seeing anything that answers my specific question, as annoying as the question may be.

    Im ready to just switch off from this topic altogether as its practical value is unlikely to be worth the time amd effort lol

  5. #31


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by angle_sh00ter View Post
    What is responsible for the HE changing from -0.5% to 0%
    It. Doesn't. Change. How many ways are there to say it?!?!?!?!?

  6. #32


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Youre the only one I see saying that. Go to the link I posted to norms site.

    Or read don's response to me where he says the difference off the top is about 0.5%

  7. #33


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    [/QUOTE=DSchles;261283]
    Of course there are. To start with, you stand on 16 vs. 10. BS and TC = 0 aren't the same thing. You keep making statements that you have to know are wrong, yet you persist. If that isn't being stubborn, then what would you call it?
    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know it to be false though. It could be that making a statement that you disagree with is in itself grounds for being stubborn. Or at least, doing so more than once is. In which case, I guess Im guilty as charged.

    So "to start with" 16 vs 10:

    Assuming with 52 cards remaining TC is 0 and using Hi Lo:

    T,6 vs T: RC drops to -1
    9,8 vs T: RC drops to -1

    So in either scenario the TC will be -1 and the player will hit regardless if playing BS or counting.

    I'm guessing if that was to start, the logical encore would be 12 vs 4:

    T2 vs 4: TC increases to +1
    9,3 vs 4: TC increases to +2
    8,4 vs 4: TC increases to +2
    7,5 vs 4: TC increases to +2

    Again there would be no change in the way the hand is played whether counting or BS.

    Any other "count dependant" plays that would differ from BS @ TC of 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    About half a percent higher than off the top of the shoe. And NOT because you get more blackjacks. I already quoted Griffin to you to show that that assumption of yours (which you restated above) was also wrong (see Griffin, bottom of page 209).
    Don
    Ok so my next question, again, what are the underlying reason/s for that 0.5% change in HE?

    You have already labelled my "more blackjacks theory" as patently false.

    And I'm not liking the "count dependant playing strategy theory" for reasons above. So what other theories have we got to go with?

  8. #34


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Read the whole thing, k_c. Nice to see you posting here, my friend.

    1. Is there a reason why you make all the traditional positive count tags negative and vice versa? Found that odd.

    2. I'm not understanding 27 subsets with RC zero of 52 cards remaining from 6 decks. Why such a small number?

    3. Both your work and Eric's, above, clearly reiterate that if no count is employed, BS edge cannot possibly change as the shoe is depleted. Yet it took me about a week to disabuse two of our more prominent posters of this silly notion. In a similar vein, I'm still not understanding why people don't accept Griffin's explanation of the origin of the FA, which is clearly enunciated both in his book and mine. I've already given the references.

    Don
    1. I use tags relative to what remains to be dealt rather than what has been removed. In order to figure the running count of the subset you just algebraically sum what is in it. Example: HiLo subset consisting of 10 cards from group {2,3,4,5,6}, 6 cards from group {7,8,9} and 12 cards from group {T,A} - running count = 10*(-1) + 6*(0) + 12*(+1) = +2

    2.
    1) 26,0,26
    2) 25,2,25
    3) 24,4,24
    4) 23,6,23
    5) 22,8,22
    6) 21,10,21
    7) 20,12,20
    8) 19,14,19
    9) 18,16,18
    10) 17,18,17
    11) 16,20,16
    12) 15,22,15
    13) 14,24,14
    14) 13,26,13
    15) 12,28,12
    16) 11,30,11
    17) 10,32,10
    18) 9,34,9
    19) 8,36,8
    20) 7,38,7
    21) 6,40,6
    22) 5,42,5
    23) 4,44,4
    24) 3,46,3
    25) 2,48,2
    26) 1,50,1
    27) 0,52,0

    The first number is the number of {2,3,4,5,6} in the subset
    The second number is the number of {7,8,9} in the subset
    The third number is the number of {T,A} in the subset

    There are only 27 subsets because the program deals with groups of cards and not individual ranks. The probability for each subset is calculated and used as a weight in computing the probability of drawing each rank.

    3. A method is needed so that all subsets are not considered. Using a counting system is it. It may be possible to write a combinatorial analyzer based on the rank probabilities of a counting system. I wouldn't be looking forward to working on it.

    k_c

  9. #35


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "Ok so my next question, again, what are the underlying reason/s for that 0.5% change in HE?"

    Now you're just being plain belligerent. I'm not going to answer you. Did you completely miss my "balloon" analogy? The BS player edge increases at TC = 0 and nearby; IT DOESN'T INCREASE EVERYWHERE!!!!! READ MY LIPS.

    Don

  10. #36


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
    There are only 27 subsets because the program deals with groups of cards and not individual ranks. The probability for each subset is calculated and used as a weight in computing the probability of drawing each rank.
    Ah, that's VERY different than saying there are 27 subsets with RC = 0! 26, 0, 26 might comprise 24 deuces and two 3s or it might comprise 24 5s and 2 6s. You're talking about VERY different subsets there. In reality, there are so many subsets with RC = 0, that I don't even know how to express the number that describes them.

    Don

  11. #37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    "Ok so my next question, again, what are the underlying reason/s for that 0.5% change in HE?"

    Now you're just being plain belligerent. I'm not going to answer you. Did you completely miss my "balloon" analogy? The BS player edge increases at TC = 0 and nearby; IT DOESN'T INCREASE EVERYWHERE!!!!! READ MY LIPS.

    Don
    I've never once referred to any other time or example other than TC = 0. In this thread or the previous one.

    It seems you are the only one who has stated that the floating advantage will assist the basic strategy players at the bulk of TCs at or close to 0. Everyone else seems to have been disputing that fact.

    The ballon analogy may explain the phenomen that over the range of all TCs the player edge evens out due to the extremes having an inferior player edge (than would otherwise be expected) and the middle TCs having a superior player edge (than would otherwise be expected)

    But it still does not answer the question of why that is the case. What are the specific mechanisms that make it better in the middle counts. Ok the extreme highs have more pushes. Ok the extreme lows have worse odds for doubles. But that in itself doesnt necessary make the neutral counts superior, deep in the shoe. There must be a similar phenomen going on that improves the neutral counts.

    What is better at a neutral count with 50 cards remaining than with 300 remaining? Thats the question ive been asking.

    Its obviously got nothing to do with playing strategy. Even though you have tried telling me it does. So what is it?

  12. #38


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Angle, the questions you're asking are the exact ones I answered (in a different, but I think still valid, way than Don does), very carefully, in the OP. Please re-read the OP, the relevant sections of BJA3 and Griffin, and think about it for a few days in the back of your mind. Hopefully the lightbulb will go on. I don't know any way to explain it other than what is already here.

    Your hangup appears to be confusing HE with advantage at TC 0. HE doesn't change with how many cards remain. Advantage at TC 0 does. That's it. I've said all I can say.

    Luckily, understanding this won't help your game much anyway (that's also in BJA3).

  13. #39


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    Your hangup appears to be confusing HE with advantage at TC 0. HE doesn't change with how many cards remain. Advantage at TC 0 does. That's it. I've said all I can say.
    For the BS player they are interchangeable (albeit inversed.)

    To calculate the player advantage u would multiply HE by -1, and vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    luckily, understanding this won't help your game much anyway
    With this we are in agreement.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. BJA Floating Advantage question.
    By San Jose Bella in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-17-2018, 05:49 PM
  2. terrellj: Floating Advantage
    By terrellj in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-29-2004, 07:28 AM
  3. newbie: floating advantage
    By newbie in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-25-2003, 10:33 AM
  4. Sun Runner: BJA .. Floating Advantage
    By Sun Runner in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-19-2002, 09:36 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.