Freddie: Halves vs HI-Lo

[stainless steel rat]

> I feel like Bill Murray, as we keep
> repeating the same thread, over and over.

> Be glad you're not in my shoes. :-)

Note that you can tell me to "get lost" at any point in time. I'm not much for paying attention to "hotheads" that abound on the internet, but I'll give you enough respect to abide by your wishes since you are responsible for this place.

You can make it exactly what you want it to be. At the present, I don't particularly think it is that great a place. Not nearly as bad as that "other web site" (where I have never posted and never will) but there are problems here at times. If I'm at the "root" just say the word...

[Parker]

> Note that you can tell me to "get
> lost" at any point in time. I'm not
> much for paying attention to
> "hotheads" that abound on the
> internet, but I'll give you enough respect
> to abide by your wishes since you are
> responsible for this place.

I have no intention of telling you to "get lost" or anything similar. You are reading entirely too much into my post.

> You can make it exactly what you want it to
> be. At the present, I don't particularly
> think it is that great a place. Not nearly
> as bad as that "other web site"
> (where I have never posted and never will)
> but there are problems here at times. If I'm
> at the "root" just say the word...

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I merely, without pointing any fingers, noted that we seem to be repeating the same thread over and over. We have people from a variety of cultures,backgrounds, and education levels, many with strong opinions, all attempting to communicate with each other via a medium that is far from perfect.

I have the impossible task of trying to keep everyone happy. :-)

It's a dirty job, but . . .

[stainless steel rat]

> I have no intention of telling you to
> "get lost" or anything similar.
> You are reading entirely too much into my
> post.

> You are, of course, entitled to your
> opinion. I merely, without pointing any
> fingers, noted that we seem to be repeating
> the same thread over and over. We have
> people from a variety of
> cultures,backgrounds, and education levels,
> many with strong opinions, all attempting to
> communicate with each other via a medium
> that is far from perfect.

If only _everyone_ here had your insight into that particular issue. But they don't. I'm reminded of my _favorite_ unix "fortune -O" quote (fortune with obscene option enabled).

"opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has one, and nobody wants to look at anybody else's."

Apropos or what?



> I have the impossible task of trying to keep
> everyone happy. :-)

> It's a dirty job, but . . .

Yes, and sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. So the offer above will always be open.

[stainless steel rat]

> That's correct provided that you compare SD
> against SD, DD against DD and so on.

> Correct.

> Sincerely,
> Cac

Thanks for the comments, and the civility...

[Koolipto]

> Hmm. So I say halves is better, give three
> example games, with win rates _AND_ SCORE
> for each, and somehow that is wrong?

> I guess I don't get it.

> I _gave_ the SCORE. I _gave_ the hourly win
> rate. You seem to imply I didn't mention
> SCORE at all. It is in my _original_ post.

> Is the attention span here so incredibly
> short that the details go missed? My
> original error was the wong-in/wong-out
> which skewed the DD results mainly. Don said
> I had fixed the min bet and bankroll, which
> is not the right way to compare. But I had
> not fixed the min bet.

> As I said, details, details, nobody reads
> details, just "jump in and flail
> away"...

> And I wonder why I bother...

SSR,
I have NOT read every post in this string. It is simply not worth it to me. Undoubtedly, if I took the trouble to find where you went wrong and made my case we would add ad nauseum to this string. So, I stand down from the specifics of this argument. You win.

There was a time when I read every single post on this page in order to learn. That is now largely a waste of time.

Let's say you did discover an anomoly that got by the "Masters". Does it not occur to you that your own discovery process doesn't deserve the magnitude of exposure on this site that you generate.

Do you have no sense of your place in the scheme of things? Like Brick, I believe you have the background and experience to make a contribution to this site - but in my book it's not clear you have the judgement to do so.

Now, why did I weigh in without reading every post? Because, after the earlier string and samples of this one, I honestly don't believe you understand the risk component of the discussion. And while I am not going to go back through all the posts to prove this, I will point out to you that in the specific post I responded to you were essentially trashing the usefulenss of SCORE.

[stainless steel rat]

> SSR,
> I have NOT read every post in this string.
> It is simply not worth it to me.
> Undoubtedly, if I took the trouble to find
> where you went wrong and made my case we
> would add ad nauseum to this string. So, I
> stand down from the specifics of this
> argument. You win.

> There was a time when I read every single
> post on this page in order to learn. That is
> now largely a waste of time.

> Let's say you did discover an anomoly that
> got by the "Masters". Does it not
> occur to you that your own discovery process
> doesn't deserve the magnitude of exposure on
> this site that you generate.

> Do you have no sense of your place in the
> scheme of things? Like Brick, I believe you
> have the background and experience to make a
> contribution to this site - but in my book
> it's not clear you have the judgement to do
> so.

> Now, why did I weigh in without reading
> every post? Because, after the earlier
> string and samples of this one, I honestly
> don't believe you understand the risk
> component of the discussion. And while I am
> not going to go back through all the posts
> to prove this, I will point out to you that
> in the specific post I responded to you were
> essentially trashing the usefulenss of
> SCORE.

Sorry, but that is your reading error. To make this absolutely clear, I originally supplied two values for each counting strategy, for three different games. I supplied SCORE and hourly win rate. That "trashed" score?

The "score" I dislike is the so-called "composite score" that tries to show a SCORE for a particular counting strategy across all possible BJ games, allowing betting quantities that can not possibly be used in a real casino.

Feel free to criticize any of the following:

1. I gave score/winrate for HiLo and Halves, for three common games. SD, DD, no LS, and 6D with LS.

2. I inadvertently had the wong-in/wong-out box checked with a TC of 1 for the wong point. Would have been OK except +1 for HiLo and +1 for halves probably doesn't equate (I don't know anything about halves and am not going to look it up since I really don't care).

3. I corrected that.

4. Don said "you've done it again, fixing the min bet size and bankroll. You can only fix one or the other."

5. I showed I had _not_ fixed the min bet size, only that the min bet had to be a multiple of $5 since that is what every casino I have played in uses for the basic chip size.

6. I said that I prefer comparing SCORE for two strategies using specific games I play, with specific betting limits (multiple of $5 for example) that I have to use, rather than looking at the general case of SCORE, which _could_ be wrong for every game I play.

That's all there is to it. If that is "trashing" score, you are reading more than I wrote.

jeez...

One thing I _can_ say. I'm 57 years old. _EVERY_ person I meet, that appears to be as old or older than myself, I _always_ use "yes sir" or "no sir" out of respect to them. I don't assume they are idiots. I let them prove it rather than assuming it. I don't glance at what someone writes and make a quick (and wrong) assessment of it, and then on those occasions where I do jump to the wrong conclusion, I certainly reply "sorry, I mis-read that and gave a wrong response." A little courtesy and respect goes a long way. But it is sorely missing here (for the most part although some are quite helpful _and_ civil.)

If you think I should listen to everything anyone says, you got the wrong person. I'll listen to what sounds right. I'll question what sounds wrong until it is either righted or I understand why it was originally right. I believe that is my personal right. You have the right to ignore _any_ post with "by stainless steel rat" at the top, which won't offend me one scintilla.

However, Don could do better. He was clearly wrong in this particular case as I have been wrong in several previous cases. I have great respect for his BJ skills. But less respect for his inability or unwillingness to communicate at times.

Some like a simple yes or no answer. I've found students like more details. I've found that in general _I_ like more details.

On the other hand, I abhor acrimony. Yet it abounds here. The root cause is beyond my ability to understand at the moment. Perhaps in time.

Now feel free to show me where I have "trashed" score, when that was the measure I have been posting from the get-go in this thread. Beyond me...

[Koolipto]

> Now feel free to show me where I have
> "trashed" score, when that was the
> measure I have been posting from the get-go
> in this thread. Beyond me...

Your post:
"That was my point. "one number" is too vague. In computer science, hashing is the game, and collisions are the problem. Too many different things hash to the same n-bit signature. How many different women will fit that total above? I don't want to think about it. (and yes, women could do the same thing for men and draw some wrong (or right) conclusions in the processs. ) "

[stainless steel rat]

> Your post:
> "That was my point. "one
> number" is too vague. In computer
> science, hashing is the game, and collisions
> are the problem. Too many different things
> hash to the same n-bit signature. How many
> different women will fit that total above? I
> don't want to think about it. (and yes,
> women could do the same thing for men and
> draw some wrong (or right) conclusions in
> the processs. ) "

I'll say it again. A "composite SCORE" is not so interesting. A "score" for a specific set of rules, betting increments, betting spread, _is_ useful.

what makes that so hard to understand? Why would you think I would give the score/win rate for _three_ different games?

I'll try again. A single "SCORE" for all possible games, for optimal betting amounts even if it involves betting pennies, and so forth" does provide some useful data. But a score for a specific game that you can actually sit down at an play according to the rules used to produce that score seems (to this player anyway) to be more interesting.

YMMV of course. But I _clearly_ didn't say "score" was bad. Not ever.

[Cacarulo]

[Dog Hand]

"opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has one, and nobody wants to look at anybody else's."

stainless steel rat,

When I was in graduate school, I took several classes from Professor O'Leary, who (echoing a comment by you about academicians in an earlier thread) was as non-P.C. as they come.

His version of your quote, which he frequently used in class, is as follows:

"Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one, and everybody else's stinks."

I for one always enjoy reading your posts. They are usually insightful, often entertaining (especially the "live play" incidents), and almost always respectful of the other posters, excepting the "a**holes" ;-)

Keep up the good work!

Dog Hand