True Counts! Betting vs. Playing?

[Jack Jackson]

Does anyone have any insight on the accuracy of TC's on any one counting system verses another? Or any one system where the true counts are more accurate and reliable with betting over playing? Or vice versa.

Is this what we refer to when it comes to the "efficiency" of any particular counting system? Meaning, the more efficiency it has for betting and playing the more accurate the true counts are?

I was just curious because it seems like Ace-reckoned counts seem to be more accurate and reliable when it comes to using the TC for betting. Likewise, non reckoned counts seem to be more accurate and dependable when it comes to using the TC for the play of hands.

Even when using the ace-side count for betting it feels or seems as if the true counts arent as accurate or dependable as they are with an ace reckoned count. Any thought on this?

[aceside]

It's always a compromise. The Hi-Lo is very accurate for doubling down on 10v9 but not so accurate for 11v10. However, the Hi-Opt is just the opposite.

[k_c]

Does anyone have any insight on the accuracy of TC's on any one counting system verses another? Or any one system where the true counts are more accurate and reliable with betting over playing? Or vice versa.

Is this what we refer to when it comes to the "efficiency" of any particular counting system? Meaning, the more efficiency it has for betting and playing the more accurate the true counts are?

I was just curious because it seems like Ace-reckoned counts seem to be more accurate and reliable when it comes to using the TC for betting. Likewise, non reckoned counts seem to be more accurate and dependable when it comes to using the TC for the play of hands.

Even when using the ace-side count for betting it feels or seems as if the true counts arent as accurate or dependable as they are with an ace reckoned count. Any thought on this?

I have come to the conclusion that true count is not necessarily the best metric to analyze blackjack.

I think that at some point Eric Farmer ran some sims that showed basic strategy outperformed TC indices in a significant portion of cases for many counting systems, although TC was a bit better statistically overall.

I would instead opt for running count and pen as the parameters by plotting a relevant RC versus pen graph. The position of the current (pen,RC) point relative to the graph would determine strategy. This approach would be more consistent than the TC approach which can more often be erratic.

Also I think that side counts may be more trouble than their worth.

A simple example of this approach: 6 decks, S17, NDAS, 1 allowed split all ranks, 1 card to split aces
Full shoe EV = -.579% (Using comp dependent basic)
Full shoe EV = -.582% (Using total dependent basic)
Some sample data points (using HiLo) to determine when appropriate to increase bet using only basic strategy

Cards remaining     RC     Estimated overall EV using basic strategy (composition dependent)
51                  0      -.249%
51                  +1     +.473%
50                  0      +.011%

26                  -1     -.347%
26                  0      +.484%
26                  +1     +1.442%

It may be unlikely to find a such a deeply dealt game, but the point is that there is an advantage at an RC of 0 that would not be identified using TC.

I get this data by using combinatorial analysis to get statistical probability of each rank using HiLo, then use these values to compute estimates.

Basic concept is simple.

k_c

[Cacarulo]

Does anyone have any insight on the accuracy of TC's on any one counting system verses another? Or any one system where the true counts are more accurate and reliable with betting over playing? Or vice versa.

Is this what we refer to when it comes to the "efficiency" of any particular counting system? Meaning, the more efficiency it has for betting and playing the more accurate the true counts are?

I was just curious because it seems like Ace-reckoned counts seem to be more accurate and reliable when it comes to using the TC for betting. Likewise, non reckoned counts seem to be more accurate and dependable when it comes to using the TC for the play of hands.

Even when using the ace-side count for betting it feels or seems as if the true counts arent as accurate or dependable as they are with an ace reckoned count. Any thought on this?

Well, this is an interesting question but for me it doesn't necessarily have to do with TCs. It has more to do with the efficiencies between one system and another. But there are two types of efficiencies, those of betting and those of playing.
Playing efficiencies are based on a set of plays evaluated up to a given penetration. Griffin did it with a 71-play set. Betting efficiencies are calculated based on EORs and are also evaluated up to a given pen.
If a system has a higher PE than another it means that the plays you make "on average" are going to be more accurate (independent of the TC). At this point we could talk about the PE of specific plays like for example 16vT and compare
which system is more efficient for this particular play.
On the other hand, a system with higher BE means that the bets you make are going to be more accurate. Here we could say that the TC is important since the bets are made based on the TC.
Ace-reckoned systems have a higher BE than those where the ace is not counted and this is so since the ace is very important for betting purposes.
Finally, there is a combination between PE and BE that makes the SCORE of one system better than another.
Just my two cents.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Jack Jackson]

Well, this is an interesting question but for me it doesn't necessarily have to do with TCs. It has more to do with the efficiencies between one system and another. But there are two types of efficiencies, those of betting and those of playing.
Playing efficiencies are based on a set of plays evaluated up to a given penetration. Griffin did it with a 71-play set. Betting efficiencies are calculated based on EORs and are also evaluated up to a given pen.
If a system has a higher PE than another it means that the plays you make "on average" are going to be more accurate (independent of the TC). At this point we could talk about the PE of specific plays like for example 16vT and compare
which system is more efficient for this particular play.
On the other hand, a system with higher BE means that the bets you make are going to be more accurate. Here we could say that the TC is important since the bets are made based on the TC.
Ace-reckoned systems have a higher BE than those where the ace is not counted and this is so since the ace is very important for betting purposes.
Finally, there is a combination between PE and BE that makes the SCORE of one system better than another.
Just my two cents.

Sincerely,
Cac

Kinda interesting to know that although one counting system may have a higher playing efficiency than the other, but yet, a system with a lower PE is more accurate for particular hands..It would be pretty cool if there was some sort of "lets just call it" "playing efficiency engine" that allowed you to input the tags of a system and it then would instantly calculate the efficiency of every hand. Perhaps displayed in the format of a basic strategy chart...

Of course im well aware that a Ace reckoned strategy will be more accurate for the purpose of betting because it includes the ace...However, what troubles me is, is even if one is side-counting aces, (that would make it equal to) the betting efficiency of an ace reckoned system, i still dont believe that the true counts are as accurate..Or as KC said theyre much more erratic.

The point that im trying to make here is(my reasoning) is because for one, the ace can only be compared to every 1/4 deck played. But more importantly, the shortage or surplus of aces will really wreak havoc with your true counts since the ace plays a huge role to your edge when betting..So my analysis would conclude me to believe that unless you really really know what your doing when side counting aces your true count is gonna be lying to you..Where as with an ace reckoned count i find the TCs to be much more stable and reliable...Does that make any sense?

[DSchles]

but the point is that there is an advantage at an RC of 0 that would not be identified using TC.

Clearly, that isn't true. All you're doing is talking about the floating advantage, which was analyzed in great depth in chapter 6 of BJA3. See, in particular, page 89, to find edges at TC = 0 for deep penetration, similar to yours, for RC. Why are you so fixated on RC? When RC = 0, TC = 0, also. What's the problem?

I can't imagine why you'd say that you can't use TC late in the deck to find advantage at TC = 0. That was the precise question that started the great debate between Peter Griffin and me.

Don

[Gramazeka]

I've always stuck with the concept that BC is important for shoes games and PE is important for single deck games. I also paid attention to how the system considers 5 and Ace for the accuracy of bets. In this regard, I especially like the Halves. But some of Cacarulo calculations about the contribution of PE to shoe games confused me.

[Jack Jackson]

I have come to the conclusion that true count is not necessarily the best metric to analyze blackjack.

I think that at some point Eric Farmer ran some sims that showed basic strategy outperformed TC indices in a significant portion of cases for many counting systems, although TC was a bit better statistically overall.

I would instead opt for running count and pen as the parameters by plotting a relevant RC versus pen graph. The position of the current (pen,RC) point relative to the graph would determine strategy. This approach would be more consistent than the TC approach which can more often be erratic.

Also I think that side counts may be more trouble than their worth.

A simple example of this approach: 6 decks, S17, NDAS, 1 allowed split all ranks, 1 card to split aces
Full shoe EV = -.579% (Using comp dependent basic)
Full shoe EV = -.582% (Using total dependent basic)
Some sample data points (using HiLo) to determine when appropriate to increase bet using only basic strategy

Cards remaining     RC     Estimated overall EV using basic strategy (composition dependent)
51                  0      -.249%
51                  +1     +.473%
50                  0      +.011%

26                  -1     -.347%
26                  0      +.484%
26                  +1     +1.442%

It may be unlikely to find a such a deeply dealt game, but the point is that there is an advantage at an RC of 0 that would not be identified using TC.

I get this data by using combinatorial analysis to get statistical probability of each rank using HiLo, then use these values to compute estimates.

Basic concept is simple.

k_c

I def. see your point..I knew there had to be some instances where basic strategy would be a better move than your playing strategy, but it seems like it happens a little more than i expected.

As for me, im finding myself(as you mentioned above) already using the running count and the deck depth approach to both determine the play of hands and betting and therefore doing away with true counts altogether..And more less using the true count as a guide or so called reference point...

And i agree that side counts, particularly the "infamous ace side-count" may be more trouble than its worth. Especially for players who are just now beginning to use it..And believe it or not, ive seen running counts(HI-Opt2) as high as +15 to +20 with 1 deck remaining and your edge only being between -5 to .5 this was because ALL the Aces were played/exhausted from the deck. Hence, no chance of getting a blackjack..So if your side counting aces you have to be very careful and know what your doing..Alot depends on deck depth, number of aces played, and of course your running count...Fortunately for me, ive lhave this down to an exact science and im able to calculate my edge within a few tenths of a percent when betting..And thanks to CVCX i know exactly what to bet based on your edge rather than using the true count..The deeper in the deck you get the more erratic your edge can get..And true counts dont always tell the whole story when side-counting aces for betting purposes...

[Cacarulo]

Kinda interesting to know that although one counting system may have a higher playing efficiency than the other, but yet, a system with a lower PE is more accurate for particular hands..It would be pretty cool if there was some sort of "lets just call it" "playing efficiency engine" that allowed you to input the tags of a system and it then would instantly calculate the efficiency of every hand. Perhaps displayed in the format of a basic strategy chart...

Exactly. For example, Hi-Lo is generally more efficient than Silver-Fox but in a play like 16vT, Silver-Fox is more efficient than Hi-Lo.

Sincerely,
Cac

[k_c]

Clearly, that isn't true. All you're doing is talking about the floating advantage, which was analyzed in great depth in chapter 6 of BJA3. See, in particular, page 89, to find edges at TC = 0 for deep penetration, similar to yours, for RC. Why are you so fixated on RC? When RC = 0, TC = 0, also. What's the problem?

I can't imagine why you'd say that you can't use TC late in the deck to find advantage at TC = 0. That was the precise question that started the great debate between Peter Griffin and me.

Don

RC and pen are the components of calculating a TC. Once a TC is computed for a given pen/RC it is specific to that condition. Generalizing a TC to all conditions may more or less work but using actual pen/RC is never less and possibly more efficient.

Essentially this approach treats all counts the same way, whether balanced or unbalanced.

k_c

[DSchles]

You have to be aware of how people play the game. It is highly impractical and somewhat unreasonable to think that people are going to learn potentially different indices for a great many different penetrations. It just isn't worth it, and if you run simulations, you will undoubtedly realize that the "one TC fits all" approach works almost as well, with a fraction of the effort. There's a reason people don't play your way.

Don

[k_c]

You have to be aware of how people play the game. It is highly impractical and somewhat unreasonable to think that people are going to learn potentially different indices for a great many different penetrations. It just isn't worth it, and if you run simulations, you will undoubtedly realize that the "one TC fits all" approach works almost as well, with a fraction of the effort. There's a reason people don't play your way.

Don

Strictly basic strategy player could pretty simply know when EV is positive (using HiLo)

6 decks, S17, NDAS, 1 allowed split all ranks, 1 card to split aces
Not that great a game but just an example

Remaining decks   Min RC for +EV
5.5               7
5                 6
4                 5
3                 3
2                 2
1                 1
.5                0

Just a simple basic approach. Minimal mathematical worries.

k_c

[DSchles]

I'm not trying to bust your chops, k_c; I know you're one of the "good guys." But, since you have to know decks remaining in any event, and since 0.5 remaining doesn't exist in this world, do you not realize that you're simply advocating playing with an edge at TC>=+1?

Don