FBM ASC Basic and Advanced - Outline, by request

[Freightman]

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%).
Attachment 4687

Thank you for this. Before commenting, I would be very interested in your output for 6d H17, RSA ES10 DAS 3-2 SPL3. I suspect given identical deck pen, that results would be even better (on your S17 8d sim)

Essentially, your results are in line with my gut feel. It appears that the most modest of gains translates to heavy improvement of EV, essentially validating my thoughts. Further, my initial gut feel was that additional contribution to EV is also a function of deck pen. Dynamite stuff.

The base concept for good QTC is that there is never a surplus of intermediate over high cards. One thing I had not developed in my thought process is the effect of intermediate density at varying TC’s, but the output was logical.

[bejammin075]

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

The sim player is using doubled Halves with full indexes.

Thinking on this some more, I don't think the SCOREs that I reported are relevant, because the deck with the higher score (middle card poor) is showing increased frequencies of the higher & more profitable TCs, and that's more of an artefact rather than a revelation. The way I'm thinking about it is, suppose you can gather this information in real time (middle cards rich or poor), what do you do with it? I think at the TC where you might increase your bet from minimum, e.g. at TC around +1 to +2, you might increase your bet slightly if the deck is middle card rich, and above TC +6 you might bet more if the deck is middle card poor.

[Freightman]

Benjamin said

I think at the TC where you might increase your bet from minimum, e.g. at TC around +1 to +2, you might increase your bet slightly if the deck is middle card rich, and above TC +6 you might bet more if the deck is middle card poor.

Or, for built in cover, Higher ramp bets at TC1, (where indicated) and utilizing lower ramp for most high TC’s with middle card surplus, thus saving higher ramp max bets for High QTC’s. You’re either a lousy deck estimator or a Chicken shit spreader at most higher counts, thus no danger to house.

This also contributes to the concept of beating optimal.

[bejammin075]

Using the 3 shoe compositions from the post above, I checked how that would change the indexes of a few plays that are common and affected by these cards. All of the differences make intuitive sense, except for there wasn't much difference with the A8 v 5/6 doubling.

		More Mids	Normal	Less Mids
Take	Insurance	12	7	1
Hit/St	12 v 2	16	7	-2
Hit/St	12 v 3	10	3	-4
Hit/St	12 v 4	6	1	-6
Hit/St	12 v 5	2	-2	-8
Hit/St	12 v 6	4	-1	-8
Double	9 v 2	11	2	-3
Double	9 v 3	2	-1	-4
Double	A6 v 2	No Index	1	-9
Double	A7 v 2	15	3	-14
Double	A8 v 5	3	3	4
Double	A8 v 6	1	2	2

[DSchles]

This also contributes to the concept of beating optimal.

Optimal what? You don't understand what you're writing. Or, you don't understand the English language. Optimal: "the greatest degree or best result obtained; the most favorable or best." What would better than that be? Stop writing gibberish. And stop being so goddamned thick-headed. I don't care if your system beats Hi-Lo by 30%. THAT ISN'T THE DISCUSSION! The discussion is whether you play your system optimally or you don't. If you don't, then you don't beat optimal for your system. If you do, then you equal optimal; you don't beat it.

Please have the last word. I'm sure everyone else here already has understood what I'm writing. You probably do too, but you're too busy blindly defending your system to understand that I'm not attacking it in the first place.

Don

[Freightman]

Optimal what? You don't understand what you're writing. Or, you don't understand the English language. Optimal: "the greatest degree or best result obtained; the most favorable or best." What would better than that be? Stop writing gibberish. And stop being so goddamned thick-headed. I don't care if your system beats Hi-Lo by 30%. THAT ISN'T THE DISCUSSION! The discussion is whether you play your system optimally or you don't. If you don't, then you don't beat optimal for your system. If you do, then you equal optimal; you don't beat it.

Please have the last word. I'm sure everyone else here already has understood what I'm writing. You probably do too, but you're too busy blindly defending your system to understand that I'm not attacking it in the first place.

Don

Okay then. Though it does appear there is validity to FBM ASC.

[Freightman]

Using the 3 shoe compositions from the post above, I checked how that would change the indexes of a few plays that are common and affected by these cards. All of the differences make intuitive sense, except for there wasn't much difference with the A8 v 5/6 doubling.

		More Mids	Normal	Less Mids
Take	Insurance	12	7	1
Hit/St	12 v 2	16	7	-2
Hit/St	12 v 3	10	3	-4
Hit/St	12 v 4	6	1	-6
Hit/St	12 v 5	2	-2	-8
Hit/St	12 v 6	4	-1	-8
Double	9 v 2	11	2	-3
Double	9 v 3	2	-1	-4
Double	A6 v 2	No Index	1	-9
Double	A7 v 2	15	3	-14
Double	A8 v 5	3	3	4
Double	A8 v 6	1	2	2

Interesting. I wouldn’t have guessed the spread on the extremes. After seeing it though and thinking about it, there is a logic to it.

[DSchles]

Okay then. Though it does appear there is validity to FBM ASC.

I think there is likely great validity, because you have a deep understanding of the game and have honed your system and skills over many, many years of high-level casino play. So, let's move on. Keep playing the system, and, one day, we'll simulate it and derive SCOREs for all the common games. Then you can see how it stacks up against the heavy-hitters.

Note that, by its very construction, a dual-ramp system is NOT initially intended to maximize SCORE. It's intended to get the money while leaving pit bosses confused as to why high-count bets can be low and low-count bets might be high. So, once again, it really isn't fair to compare this to optimal betting. It's doubtful that you bet your system optimally, because, well, that isn't your primary objective. However, when deriving SCOREs for ANY system, we have to bet optimally in order to compare apples to apples. It would make no sense otherwise.

Don

[Freightman]

Don said

It's doubtful that you bet your system optimally, because, well, that isn't your primary objective.

Not always, but very often the case. Two thoughts here. When not optimal, longevity is key and huge really where I’m known. On local I often tell my wife - think I’ll go play, likely get bounced tonight - and yet they let me play - for the time being. Outrageous win streak achieving high hourlies with “lousy” deck estimating and other inconsistencies thrown in. These gambits don’t require any amount of courage, as such - but do require sound financing. Not for the shoestring bankroll.

Somehow, my screen got screwed up - I’ll send this and then make another point.

[Freightman]

Don said
“we'll simulate it and derive SCOREs for all the common games. Then you can see how it stacks up against the heavy-hitters.”

With all of its nuances, I’m not sure a truly accurate picture can be drawn - a reasonable facsimile is likely the best that can happen.

Im very shortly headed for a $100 min game. I won’t use my full dual ramp - theoretically I should be able to handle full bore, but it stretches me to my max bets available comfort zone, especially when coupled with infrequent play at min bet level. Instead, tantamount to the same thing, I’ll use a bet range per true count coupled with a chip up style at max range should I get so fortunate - of course utilizing FBM ASC.

[Freightman]

Further point
I’ve hidden nothing regarding sims not being done. It’s a work in progress and approach subject to frequent tweaking and experimentation. Gut instinct guides my thought process and I trust my instinct. I will also listen to those considered “whack jobs”. What they say may well be crap. OTOH, I absolutely won’t deny that some of my best concepts come from looking outside the box and adapting other peoples thoughts to my purposes.

[aceside]

Further point
I’ve hidden nothing regarding sims not being done. It’s a work in progress and approach subject to frequent tweaking and experimentation. Gut instinct guides my thought process and I trust my instinct. I will also listen to those considered “whack jobs”. What they say may well be crap. OTOH, I absolutely won’t deny that some of my best concepts come from looking outside the box and adapting other peoples thoughts to my purposes.

I have never understood your two-ramp betting spread! It seems to me that you are saying this: when the remaining deck is rich in 7,8,and 9 you you use a high ramp; when poor, you use a low ramp. Right ???

I gave up this part long ago but suddenly see a lot of posts.

[bejammin075]

Freightman, I think your main system (Halves) is already so efficient at BC, there is probably not a whole lot to gain by tracking the additional info. But a more general question occurs to me, which is, with a good main count for BC, what is the best orthogonal vector of cards that could be tracked for even better betting? Maybe it is a block of cards around 6 to 9, but I don't know of a great way to systematically analyze it.