See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 62 of 72 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... LastLast
Results 794 to 806 of 936

Thread: Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

  1. #794


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    You sound like a "ploppy" in blackjack. Instead of wasting all these time fighting and fighting he could of revised his system. Bj experts like doghand already gave us the answer. He is just stubborn to not listen. It is not about not giving up. It is about when things don't work revisions need to be made. Wasted all these time, energy, and work. With all these spreadsheets and calculations he could of just drop the idea and reverse all his methods.
    It's because he's a theoretician. This is just an academic exercise with no jeopardy.

  2. #795


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by therefinery View Post
    It's because he's a theoretician. This is just an academic exercise with no jeopardy.
    He is applying theory backwards then. Making a conclusion (KO with all the extra "goodies" will beat HOII w/ ASC) and *then* running an experiment looking for data points that validates his claim. He is attempting to cherry-pick. This is *not* scientific at all. Period! No questions asked!

    We, as researches (both academic and amateur): observe phenomenon, research past data points, and look at previous experiments. New ideas are born out of refutation and validation. Both are necessary for a sound argument. bjanalyst has failed to demonstrate capacity of performing basic research (anyone looking to develop a new system, I recommend reading The Theory of Blackjack 6th ed. by Griffin!) Not only that, but the up-most ignorance of scientific research is demonstrated when the claim that an increase in CC for specific hand match-ups concludes that a particular system "beats" another system, where the mechanics of this so-called increase in CC fails to demonstrate how such increase changes overall EV per round. Don and Norm both are the top dogs who can explain why such thinking is flawed.

    Anyway, the overall issue has been pointed out. bjanalyst is not someone who needs to be spouting off nonsense. No only that, the blatant cherry-picking and tuning of dependent variables of his system to validate an already refuted claim shows dishonesty on his part.

    Why does Norm allow this thread to go on? This needs to go to the Voodoo section. Period.

  3. #796
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Very well put. I have a problem moving this to voodoo as it's not totally nutcase, albeit the rationales are filled with potholes and the constant "math" postings are all inexact (and extremely repetitive). And I don't think I should close it as it doesn't break any rules, even though it's truly boring. But, if enough folk think this should be moved, I'll do so. It really belongs in a subscription forum where pontifications can be discussed without punishing visitors.
    Last edited by Norm; 02-18-2019 at 05:41 PM.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  4. #797


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Very well put. I have a problem moving this to voodoo as it's not totally nutcase, albeit the rationales are filled with potholes and the constant "math" postings are all inexact. And I don't think I should close it as it doesn't break any rules. But, if enough folk think this should be moved, I'll do so.
    I am +2 on moving this thread to voodoo. This discussion is not going anywhere. Bjanalyst is just going to post the same thing over and over again and thinks that we going to surrender and accept his flaw and crappy idea.

  5. #798
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thinking about this. I don't call it voodoo -- I call it the Disadvantage Forum. Perhaps we could come up with a new name, like "Bad Ideas" that would include a wider range of topics of little practical interest to APs. Obviously you could gain a theoretic advantage with such. And we need discussions about avenues of investigation that could be of use in niche areas like oddball side bets. I'm open to other forum names.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  6. #799


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Thinking about this. I don't call it voodoo -- I call it the Disadvantage Forum. Perhaps we could come up with a new name, like "Bad Ideas" that would include a wider range of topics of little practical interest to APs. Obviously you could gain a theoretic advantage with such. And we need discussions about avenues of investigation that could be of use in niche areas like oddball side bets. I'm open to other forum names.
    Oh, I know! It seem like Bjanalyst like to talk about the same thing over and over. Maybe I should be like Jackie Chan in Rush Hour 1:

    "I like to let people talk, who likes to talk, it makes it easier to find out how full of shit they are."
    Last edited by seriousplayer; 02-18-2019 at 06:47 PM.

  7. #800
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Yes well. I don't want to be highly rated on Google for "shit".
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  8. #801


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Yes well. I don't want to be highly rated on Google for "shit".
    I think leave the thread. It'll wind down eventually.

  9. #802


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I guess I see your point, Norm.

    Maybe immortalize it as a "lessons to be remembered" for anyone who wants to work on a new system?

  10. #803


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    My comments were about your system alone.
    Again. My comment was on your system against Hiopt2/ASC playall. The sim included both play-all and back counting. Your system lost miserably in play all and barely geeked out a win in back counting. Overall I would say your system did not outperform Hiopt2/ASC.
    I will include an exhibit from Gronbog's sims with just the HL full indices, my KO system and HO2 w ASC. For play all my KO system almost closed the entire gap with the HO2 w ASC. How is that a failing miserably. Also I did not include many negative indices whereas the HO2 w ASC has its full set of indices. If I include more negative indices the story for the play all would have been different. And my KO system beat that HO2 w ASC for the back counting which is what I designed the system for in the first place. So I have a system that came very close for the play all mainly because not many negative indices included and beat that HO2 w ASC for back coning and to you that is failing miserably? I am not sure what your definition of success is.

    Also I stated that sims only show theoretical power. You neglected the other times shat should be considered when choosing a count system which are Accuracy, Camouflage Plays and side counts possible helping with side counts. I mentioned these benefits in details in pervious posts so I will not repeat myself here - refer to previous posts for details if you are interested.

    Finally these sims were for the NO Late Surrender game. If LS is included, I predict that my KO system will leave the HO2 w ASC in the dust.

    l will attach an exhibit to this showing that my KO system beats the HO2 w ASC in EVERY SINGLE LS decision and the BC of my KO system outperforms the HO2 w ASC by an even greater with LS EoR than with no LS EoR. So with both PE and BE increasing with LS the only conclusion is that my KO system will trounce the HO2 w ASC when LS is offered.

    So your definition of failure is that my KO system is a failure because of a very small theoretical SCORE gap with the HO w ASC for the NO LS game when my system did not include many negative indices and that fact that my system beat the HO2 w ASC for back counting does not matter and does not count. Also forget about accuracy, camouflage and help with side counts and totally ignore the LS game performance which is the game you should be playing anyhow. You have a very strange definition of failing miserably.

    My KO system was designed for back counting and it succeeded in back counting so how is that failure. My system was never designed for the play all game yet still did very will with play all.

    So the first exhibit shows that my KO system won in six of the scenario and lost in only 3 and by small amounts and is because of a lack of many negative indices in my system for the Play ALL game. But in your mind none of that counts. My system is a utter failure in your mind despite that sims showed my system won 6 out of 9!
    KO no LS vs LS (1).jpg
    KO no LS vs LS (2).jpg
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 02-18-2019 at 09:01 PM.

  11. #804


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Very well put. I have a problem moving this to voodoo as it's not totally nutcase, albeit the rationales are filled with potholes and the constant "math" postings are all inexact (and extremely repetitive). And I don't think I should close it as it doesn't break any rules, even though it's truly boring. But, if enough folk think this should be moved, I'll do so. It really belongs in a subscription forum where pontifications can be discussed without punishing visitors.
    My posting are repetitive because the readers of this form ask the same questions over and over and over again and so I answer them. If they actually read the previous posts then they would not have asked these repetitive questions. I should just tell them to refer to previous posts.

  12. #805


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Oh, I know! It seem like Bjanalyst like to talk about the same thing over and over. Maybe I should be like Jackie Chan in Rush Hour 1:

    "I like to let people talk, who likes to talk, it makes it easier to find out how full of shit they are."
    Maybe it is a good idea for you to STOP asking the same questions over and over and over again that I already answered. I am too nice answering questions that I already answered. I suggested in a previous post that I should just give a one or two sentence answer and say refer to previous posts for your answer and to please read pervious posts before asking question that was already answered before.

    that I already answered over and over and over

  13. #806


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    If I include more negative indices the story for the play all would have been different. And my KO system beat that HO2 w ASC for the back counting which is what I designed the system for in the first place. So I have a system that came very close for the play all mainly because not many negative indices included and beat that HO2 w ASC for back coning and to you that is failing miserably? I am not sure what your definition of success is.
    You still don't get it. The advantage is not in the playing indices especially for shoe games. You are wasting time just trying to add more negative indices to KO. You can add more indices to your KO system but it doesn't guaranteed that it will increase SCORE. Remember to add late surrender this time to the simulation. I don't think Gronbog simulated the Hi-OPT II ASC with full indices anyway. I think he simulated Hi-OPT II ASC and your KO system with the same amount of indices. If Hi-OPT II ASC is simulated with full indices the SCORE would be even higher. Also, you can't force indices in KO if the full set of indices for KO is only 74 you can't make it 100 indices. It is still a fair comparison in that situation.

Page 62 of 72 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. High Edge Side Bets
    By knoxstrong in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-26-2021, 07:44 AM
  2. Adding AA78mTc to High Low
    By bjanalyst in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-27-2021, 05:21 AM
  3. Betting side bet lucky ladies on High Counts?
    By Tenlavuu in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2018, 05:24 PM

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.