I would like to get details on FBM system so I can run Correlation Coefficients on it

[bjanalyst]

I would like to get details on FBM system so I can run Correlation Coefficients on it since the FBM system has been touted as a such a great system. It uses a side count of Aces so I already do not like it from an accuracy point of view as an ASC depends on an estimate of decks played and plus/minus side counts are exact.

I would first run CC for the Illustrious 18 as I have included in an attached PDF for KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c which I compare with HO2 w ASC and with HL for the I18. I can run the CC of the I18 in like 15 minutes and get an exactly accurate gauge on the power or the system. If the results of the CC of the Illustrious 18 show promise then I can run the full WACC, OCCC, LSCC and Betting CC.

The attached PDFs show that my CC method is just as good as sims and that they complement each other and can be used to cross check each other.

Disadvantages of Simulations:

1. Take a long time to run and are tedious to set up.
2. Require the calculation of indices for each playing strategy (another potential source of error} for the counts being compared.
3. There is also the problem of variance with simulations which is reduced by increasing the number of hands simulated.

Advantages of Correlation Coefficients:

1. WACC and BCC can be done in a matter of minutes.
2. WACC and BCC are exact with zero variance.
3. WACC and BCC used to compare various counts require no indices.

Correlation Coefficients are calculated with the tag values of the count being analyzed and the EoR. EoR are LSL estimates, so they assume that blackjack is linear. Simulations have no assumptions on blackjack being linear. With less than one deck is remaining, non-linearity kicks in.

It should be noted that for every count system that simulations were run for, when more strategy changes were added, which increased the weighted correlation coefficients, the SCORE increased even when the increase in the weighted correlation coefficients was as small as one percent. This is a testimony to the accuracy of the weighted correlation coefficients, the accuracy the LSL (Least Squares Line} method used to calculate the optimal values of "k" and corresponding indices for each playing strategy departure and the accuracy of the twenty billion round simulations done each time more playing strategy changes were added.

Refer to Simulation 1: HL w AA78mTc, listed earlier in this Introduction. The increase in SCORE occurred even for very minor additional HL w AA78mTc strategy changes.

The major HL w AA78mTc strategy changes were the six top strategy changes of insurance and standing on hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, S and 6. This added the bulk of the playing strategy gain from adding AA78mTc to the HL as indicated in the simulations as HiLo + AA78mTc 6. The increase in the weighted correlation was significant and the increase in the SCORE likewise was significant.

When another additional minor six strategy changes were added to the HL as indicated by HiLo + AA78mTc 12, which resulted in a very minor increase in the weighted correlation coefficients, the SCORE also increased, also by a very small amount, in sync with the small increase in the weighted correlation coefficients.

When a final additional fourteen very esoteric strategy changes were added to the HL as indicated by HiLo + AA78mTc 26, the result was another very small increase in the weighted correlation coefficients and the SCORE likewise increased by a very small amount, again, in sync, with the very small increase in the weighted correlation coefficients.

HL with 7m9c was analyzed. I had used my LSL technique to calculate the values of "k' that maximized the correlation coefficient between the derived count and the effects of removal for the top six strategy changes shown below.

Each of these changes involved huge increases in stand along HL correlation coefficients. So, when simulations were done, I would expect the SCORE of HL + k*(7m9c) to exceed the SCORE of stand-alone HL. However, when sims were done the SCORE decreased that made no sense. Gronbog's sims involved 20 billion hand simulations. So, I suggested to Gronbog to test each of these strategies changed individually with just 100 million hands, which could be done in less than one hour, to see which of these situations decreased the SCORE. The result was that each simulation increased the score except surrender hard 14 v T which Gronbog later discovered he had miscoded with hard 14 v T hit/stand. Once the error was fixed then each strategy change taken individually increased the SCORE. This highlights the sensitive and accuracy of the Correlation Coefficient method of comparing various count systems and that it is a good check on the simulation results. It should also be noted that the indices calculated with the LSL technique matched indices calculated with sim programs. The LSL indices were used in the sims which also proves the accuracy of the LSL calculation of indices. So weighted Correlation Coefficients and Simulation results should both be used as cross checks for errors.

I am attaching PDFs with HL w 7m9c Weighted CC analysis and with the Sim results and proof that the CC works as well as sims.
01 KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c sim.pdf
02 HL w AA78mTc sim.pdf
03 WACC for various primary count systems.pdf
04 HL w 7m9c sims.pdf
05 KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c Illustrious 18.pdf

[21forme]

This guy is definitely a reincarnation of T3.

[Freightman]

This guy is definitely a reincarnation of T3.

A fin, a sawbuck, a cnote ,
Says he isn’t

[21forme]

I don't gamble.

[Freightman]

I don't gamble.

It’s a sure thing for me - wise choice.

[bjanalyst]

It’s a sure thing for me - wise choice.

If you give me details on your FBM system just for the Illustrious 18 for now, I can get CC of your system with the I18 which will give me a very good idea of just how good your system is.

I can do the I18 CC in less than 30 minutes and it is VERY accurate with zero variance.

I attached a PDF in my first post in this thread that compares I18 CC for HL, HO2 w ASC and KO w 5m9c and AA89mTc.

I can calculate I18 for your FBM count and add the FBM CC to this I18 exhibit you have and and this will tell everyone just how good your system is.

If the I18 shows your system shows promise I can do Betting CC, WACC, OCCC and LSCC to get a full idea of just where your system stacks up.

To repeat. Gronbog has done over 20 different simulations of various counts based on results of my LSL CC technique.

EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT EXCEPTION WHEN CC INCREASED THE SCORE INCREASED.

The LSL CC technique is just as good as sims and can be done in less than one hour for any count system.

[DSchles]

Is there anything that will stop your verbal diarrhea? Read my lips: NO ONE CARES!

Don

[bjanalyst]

Is there anything that will stop your verbal diarrhea? Read my lips: NO ONE CARES!

Don

Apparently Freightman cares. He wrote a post that his FBM system is so great that you would be putting it into your next book.

He touted his FBM system as the greatest blackjack break through in 20 years and that you were considering putting it into your next book.

So if you are considering putting his FBM into your next book you should care also.

Also no need for insults like "verbal diarrhea".

I guess since you can no longer attack my results as being inaccurate, you now need to resort to insults.

Also it make no sense to say that no one is interested in a more powerful blackjack system that will earn more money with less risk - that statement of yours makes no sense.

Finally, you really need to speak for yourself when saying you are happy with your sub par performing system earning less money with more risk, do not speak for others.

So instead of saying "no one" is interested, you should have said "I am not interested".

If you said "I am not interested" then that statement is acceptable. It is not acceptable to say "no one" is interested.

Lack of a response from Freightman for at least the I18 for the FBM system would indicate to me that Freightman is afraid his system will not stack up to his claims.

I offered to definitively prove for Freightman the strength of his system.

That fact that Freightman has put together this FBM system would indicate to me that at least he cares to know how his system performs, that is, unless, as I stated above, he is afraid to find out the results of his own system.

[ZeeBabar]

Apparently Freightman cares. He wrote a post that his FBM system is so great that you would be putting it into your next book.

He touted his FBM system as the greatest blackjack break through in 20 years and that you were considering putting it into your next book.

So if you are considering putting his FBM into your next book you should care also.

Also no need for insults like "verbal diarrhea".

I guess since you can no longer attack my results as being inaccurate, you now need to resort to insults.

Also it make no sense to say that no one is interested in a more powerful blackjack system that will earn more money with less risk - that statement of yours makes no sense.

Finally, you really need to speak for yourself when saying you are happy with your sub par performing system earning less money with more risk, do not speak for others.

So instead of saying "no one" is interested, you should have said "I am not interested".

If you said "I am not interested" then that statement is acceptable. It is not acceptable to say "no one" is interested.

Lack of a response from Freightman for at least the I18 for the FBM system would indicate to me that Freightman is afraid his system will not stack up to his claims.

I offered to definitively prove for Freightman the strength of his system.

That fact that Freightman has put together this FBM system would indicate to me that at least he cares to know how his system performs, that is, unless, as I stated above, he is afraid to find out the results of his own system.

You are truly incredible!!

[bjanalyst]

You are truly incredible!!

I offered my CC of the I18 for the FBM system as a favor to Freightman.

There is no need to insult me for doing a favor.

Freightman developed his FBM and FBM advanced system and apparently spent years to develop his system.

So contrary to Don's statement that on one cares, I would think that, at the very least, Freightman would be interested in the results of the power of his own system that he put so much time into developing and wants Don to publish in his next book.

If Freightman gives me his strategy changes for the I18 I can give him an answer in 30 minutes.

So what is the problem?

Also I never insulted Don even though I have now shown multiple statements he made were incorrect.

When I first introduced my CC method Don said I can guarantee you that the CC method does not work and that only simulations work. Now that the evidence is in, you can see that Don was wrong.

Also when I was introducing HL with 7m9c Don had a hard time grasping plus/minus side counts. He was insisting that the 7m9c side count was to different counts. It is in fact one statistic and one count and one integer that you need to remember. It took several post by both Gronbog and myself to explain to Don the 7m9c side count until he finally grasped it.

But I will NOT insult Don. He just did not understand. And I have no problem in explaining it to someone who does not understand and unlike Don, I will not insult.

So I am offering Freightman the opportunity to see just how powerful his system is.

If Freightman gives me his FBM for the I18 he will have his answer to the strength of his system that he spent years developing.

I see absolutely no need for insult someone who is doing a favor.

[21forme]

Is there anything that will stop your verbal diarrhea? Read my lips: NO ONE CARES!

Don

I agree. Not only are his posts absurdly long, but now he is supersizing and bolding the font, too. How annoying!
P.S. No one cares.

[bjanalyst]

I agree. Not only are his posts absurdly long, but now he is supersizing and bolding the font, too. How annoying P.S. No one cares.

Excuse me,

I had two sentences in font 4 that I wanted to emphasize, not to be annoying. The rest of my reply was font 2 or 3 which I find easier to read,.

You used font 7 for your entire annoying and sarcastic reply.

It is you who are annoying!.

Also I bolded two words in a two previous posts that I wanted to emphasize. That is the purpose of bolding or using larger font. I use them sparingly to highlight points I want to make. I do not use if for my entire post like you imply and which you did!.

Also, I never used font 7 like you did.

And stop saying no one cares. Say you do not care. It is very obnoxious and abusive to speak for others. Speak for yourself only.

The FBM system is about to be published.

Before you publish a systems it is a good idea to evaluate it.

I have made this reply font 1 so you need to squint to see it since that is what you deserve for your sarcastic and insulting post.

I am also making this post font 1 to match the size of your small pea brain, and that is all that you and your reply deserve, font 1.

Any any response to my reply here in other than font 1 would show you are the one who is being annoying and supercilious with your nonsense insulting posts,

Using other than font 1 will show that you are to emphasize you are correct and a big person by using bigger fonts.

You are a small person so use a small size 1 font, and that is all that you are!.

So if you reply then have the courtesy to use font 1 to your insignificant reply. A response to my reply in other than font 1 shows that you are the one being abusive.

Font 1 is needed for you and your response to show everyone how small you and your comments really are and that your words really mean nothing and are insignificant.

[Freightman]

Excuse me,

I had two sentences in font 4 that I wanted to emphasize, not to be annoying. The rest of my reply was font 2 or 3 which I find easier to read,.

You used font 7 for your entire annoying and sarcastic reply.

It is you who are annoying!.

Also I bolded two words in a two previ0os posts that I wanted to emphasize. That is the purpose of bolding or using larger font. I use them sparingly to highlight points I want to make. I do not use if for my entire post like you imply and which you did!.

I never used font 7 like you did and I never said

And stop saying no one cares. Say you do not care.

The FBM system is about to be published.

Before you publish a systems it is a good idea to evaluate it.

I have made this reply font 1 so you need to squint to see it since that is what you deserve for your sarcastic and insulting post.

I am also making this post font 1 because to match the size of your small mind, and that is all that you deserve.

21firme
Did you really use Font 7. Shame. 50 lashes with wet noodle for you.