FBM ASC Basic and Advanced - Outline, by request

[Freightman]

Should have added.
Sims incorporate everything. Sims can be beaten easily. I don’t think there’s a way (without possibly extraordinary effort) to put QTC into the sim.

Think of a robotic skilled deck estimator, optimal betting counter. Long term results would effectively mirror sims. You have big days, and then you have days you get slaughtered. Now for (obvious to me) percentage of hands in both the lower and higher QTC ranges. Well over 50% of hands are in the lower ramp. You’re in the lower ramp off the top, and the cut card reduces further higher QTC rounds further affected by deck pen. Margins are thin.

So, when QTC’s are high, you’re in the upper range. You can still get beat. When QTC’s are low, you can obviously still win. With that explanation, you can further extend your thinking.
-average win is reduced as bulk of hands are in lower range
-average loss is greatly reduced as you have a lower frequency of high QTC’s
-effect over several sessions is a higher dollar win rate - kinds screws with concept of optimal

Let me know if you’re interested in an excercise to demonstrate.

[DSchles]

-average win is reduced as bulk of hands are in lower range
-average loss is greatly reduced as you have a lower frequency of high QTC’s
-effect over several sessions is a higher dollar win rate - kinds screws with concept of optimal

Let me know if you’re interested in an exercise to demonstrate.

I'm sorry, but, with a great deal of respect for you, what you're saying/claiming doesn't make any sense. I give you a bankroll and say, Play the game. If you play and bet optimally with that total amount of money, you maximize your SCORE. If you don't, well, ...you don't! Optimal is optimal. You can't turn wine to water or build a perpetual motion machine.

Happy to hear your explanations, but be careful of what you claim to be true mathematically.

Don

[Freightman]

I'm sorry, but, with a great deal of respect for you, what you're saying/claiming doesn't make any sense. I give you a bankroll and say, Play the game. If you play and bet optimally with that total amount of money, you maximize your SCORE. If you don't, well, ...you don't! Optimal is optimal. You can't turn wine to water or build a perpetual motion machine.

Happy to hear your explanations, but be careful of what you claim to be true mathematically.

Don

Don, also with all due respect - you’ve missed the point. I think you would agree that SCORE and optimal are based on simulation. I realize that my theories are not in accordance with standard practice and are difficult to grasp. That said, the point is an approach bypassing traditional simulation, essentially utilizing what I refer to as QTC.

For lots of reasons, most players try to knock it out of the every time at bat. I advocate a different approach whereby my goal is not to knock it out of the park (with associated big losses by the attempt), rather maximize $win over X number of sessions - and there is a difference.

My own philosophy cost me dearly the other day. Lousy QTC, with high TC’s betting confined to lower ramp. Simply couldn’t lose - and I don’t care about the lost dollars. Win could have been double the 2k actually won. BUT, without QTC, I could have (and have been many times) been slaughtered with an easy 5k loss.

Im not as good as I used to be at keeping records. It was however, at the time meticulous records which identified weaknesses in my game and led to theories developed I’ve over a long period of time.

[DSchles]

Don, also with all due respect - you’ve missed the point. I think you would agree that SCORE and optimal are based on simulation.

No, they're based on mathematics. Doesn't have to be simulation. Lovely papers have been written on optimal betting with no simulation required.

I realize that my theories are not in accordance with standard practice and are difficult to grasp. That said, the point is an approach bypassing traditional simulation, essentially utilizing what I refer to as QTC.

You're entitled to play any way you please. I'm not criticizing that. I'm simply pointing out that your way of playing will win LESS money over a period of time than if you had played optimally. It's impossible to refute that. Jerry Patterson once claimed that TARGET was "above the mathematics of the game" and that it "couldn't be simulated." Of course, that was nonsense. Why would you assume that, if your mind can describe what you do, a programmer can't simulate it? Gronbog simulated Tarzan's system. Is what you do more complicated than that?

rather maximize $win over X number of sessions - and there is a difference.

You CANNOT maximize average dollar win over X sessions without betting optimally. You're simply fooling yourself if you think you can. If you win more than SCORE for those sessions, then you've overbet and your variance is too large. If you've underbet, well, then, you didn't win more in the first place. Reducing the magnitude of swings is admirable. It means that your average bet is less than optimal, your variance is less also, but that, overall, you win less than SCORE. If you win more than SCORE, then your ROR is too large. You CAN'T turn wine into water. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you can.

All you're saying is that, like many players, you hate the big swings. I hear you; you set out to reduce them. Fine, if that floats your boat. But, do not claim that, in so doing, you also win more for any given period of time than if you had bet optimally over that same period of time. You can reduce swings or you can win more money. You can't do both at the same time!

Don

[Freightman]

No, they're based on mathematics. Doesn't have to be simulation. Lovely papers have been written on optimal betting with no simulation required.



You're entitled to play any way you please. I'm not criticizing that. I'm simply pointing out that your way of playing will win LESS money over a period of time than if you had played optimally. It's impossible to refute that. Jerry Patterson once claimed that TARGET was "above the mathematics of the game" and that it "couldn't be simulated." Of course, that was nonsense. Why would you assume that, if your mind can describe what you do, a programmer can't simulate it? Gronbog simulated Tarzan's system. Is what you do more complicated than that?



You CANNOT maximize average dollar win over X sessions without betting optimally. You're simply fooling yourself if you think you can. If you win more than SCORE for those sessions, then you've overbet and your variance is too large. If you've underbet, well, then, you didn't win more in the first place. Reducing the magnitude of swings is admirable. It means that your average bet is less than optimal, your variance is less also, but that, overall, you win less than SCORE. If you win more than SCORE, then your ROR is too large. You CAN'T turn wine into water. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you can.

All you're saying is that, like many players, you hate the big swings. I hear you; you set out to reduce them. Fine, if that floats your boat. But, do not claim that, in so doing, you also win more for any given period of time than if you had bet optimally over that same period of time. You can reduce swings or you can win more money. You can't do both at the same time!

Don

My easiest response is that my hourly consistently well exceeds simulation.
The following link aptly describes 2 stubborn individuals meeting head on - enjoy

https://youtu.be/73qFmSOfRac

[21forme]

My easiest response is that my hourly consistently well exceeds simulation.

With all due respect to you, shades of Tthree in that statement.

[Freightman]

With all due respect to you, shades of Tthree in that statement.

Results are results. Mind you, note my comments of current poor record keeping vs prior years. There would be more veracity to my comments if I continued with prior review keeping habits.

[DSchles]

Results are results. Mind you, note my comments of current poor record keeping vs prior years. There would be more veracity to my comments if I continued with prior review keeping habits.

There's no discussion to be had. Your personal results are meaningless. You take your (changing?) bankroll over the years. You simulate every game you've ever played (rules, etc.), playing optimally. You observe the SCORE. You've exceeded that? Congratulations! You're on the right side of the curve, as are 50% of all such people doing the same thing. Translation: you've had good luck. That you aren't aware of the other 50%, while not your problem, would be the more scientific way of looking at things, instead of saying: I've built a better mousetrap, I won more, so my way must be better.

Don

[Freightman]

There's no discussion to be had. Your personal results are meaningless. You take your (changing?) bankroll over the years. You simulate every game you've ever played (rules, etc.), playing optimally. You observe the SCORE. You've exceeded that? Congratulations! You're on the right side of the curve, as are 50% of all such people doing the same thing. Translation: you've had good luck. That you aren't aware of the other 50%, while not your problem, would be the more scientific way of looking at things, instead of saying: I've built a better mousetrap, I won more, so my way must be better.

Don

Seriously Don, Im surprised that a man of your intellect fails to grasp the basic premise of what I’m suggesting.

Yes, personal results are meaningless. Yes, for the most part, I’ve had good luck. Perhaps I’ve failed to logically articulate those thoughts beyond the obvious - yet crystal clear to me.

[Sharky]

Omg...freighty...if u r srill "ascared" of the stakes u are betting (& var)....why don't u just lower stakes to what u can handle???....not that's difficult, buddy...no need to re-create the wheel...it's all there 4 u already....enjoy!

Good luck!

[Freightman]

Omg...freighty...if u r srill "ascared" of the stakes u are betting (& var)....why don't u just lower stakes to what u can handle???....not that's difficult, buddy...no need to re-create the wheel...it's all there 4 u already....enjoy!

Good luck!

Don said

All you're saying is that, like many players, you hate the big swings. I hear you; you set out to reduce them. Fine, if that floats your boat.

Don is usually spot on, but he missed the boat on that one. Of course, you’re naturally quick on the draw for your typical cheap shot. Means nothing though - too bad you dribble before shooting. What else is new. Seems you’re still pissed over your own deficiencies. Trust your enjoying your Bugatti.

Does bring up an interesting point though. Variance is best handled by playing a series of identical min max games. Playing varying min max games can play havoc with short term variance, though all works out in the long haul. I play various min games of $10, $25, $50 and $100. The $100 min requires a flight, and it’s associated expenses. My bankroll handles this without a problem - though I would prefer more play over an extended time frame to handle potential issues of negative variance.

[bejammin075]

I ran some sims to look at the idea of altering betting strategy based on having rich or poor middle cards. The system is normal Doubled Halves with full indexes, game is 8D (7/8 pen), S17 DAS LS, 1 to 12 bet spread. 750 million rounds per condition tested.

I came up with 2 alternative deck compositions, either rich or poor with the middle cards 7, 8, 9. Freightman’s proposed side block also counts the 6, but I wasn’t sure how to easily deal with that, since the 789 block is neutral relative to the main count whereas 6789 is not neutral. The TC for these altered decks is neutral, with the normal ratio of Tens & Aces (to each other). The 789 block cards are either rich or poor by 2.5 cards per deck in the altered decks.

There is a slight effect that changes over the range of TCs:

From negative TC to +1 TC, extra middle cards slightly favor the player.

From TC +2 to +5, a normal number of middle cards is very slightly best.

At TC +6 and above, extra middle cards are increasingly worse for the player. The advantage at TC +7 in a middle card poor deck (2.56%) is about the same as TC +8 in a middle card rich deck (2.48%).
789RichPoorSims.jpg

[Secretariat]

Interesting stuff Benjammin!
This is the first time I see that kind of sim.
I assume is was against basic strategy, right?