Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 62

Thread: Freddie: Halves vs HI-Lo

  1. #1
    Freddie
    Guest

    Freddie: Halves vs HI-Lo

    I currently am pretty proficient with the Hi-Lo system, but wish to also learn the Halves system. I have a two part question.
    (1) Is the efficency percentage higher for the Halves system than the high-low and if it is so whether it will make a difference to my profit margin.

    (2) Since the high low system usually shows an extreme amount of variability throughout my bets if I was to burn a shoe and the count "sky rockets" does the halves system allow a player to "disguise" his play more efficiently while maintaining a optimal betting system?

    I appreciate your input.

    Freddie

  2. #2
    Table Max
    Guest

    Table Max: Re: Halves vs HI-Lo

    You can use the comparison chart on the qfit website to get the differences in efficiencies. We can see that BC and PE are higher for Wong Halves and that IC is a bit lower than Hi-Lo. It also appears that Wong Halves is the most difficult of those compared in the chart.

    Someone else can give you more information on the difference in profit margin and I don't have an answer for your second question since I don't know enough about Wong Halves.

    > I currently am pretty proficient with the
    > Hi-Lo system, but wish to also learn the
    > Halves system. I have a two part question.
    > (1) Is the efficency percentage higher for
    > the Halves system than the high-low and if
    > it is so whether it will make a difference
    > to my profit margin.

    > (2) Since the high low system usually shows
    > an extreme amount of variability throughout
    > my bets if I was to burn a shoe and the
    > count "sky rockets" does the
    > halves system allow a player to
    > "disguise" his play more
    > efficiently while maintaining a optimal
    > betting system?

    > I appreciate your input.

    > Freddie

  3. #3
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: Halves vs HI-Lo

    > I currently am pretty proficient with the
    > Hi-Lo system, but wish to also learn the
    > Halves system. I have a two part question.
    > (1) Is the efficency percentage higher for
    > the Halves system than the high-low and if
    > it is so whether it will make a difference
    > to my profit margin.

    > (2) Since the high low system usually shows
    > an extreme amount of variability throughout
    > my bets if I was to burn a shoe and the
    > count "sky rockets" does the
    > halves system allow a player to
    > "disguise" his play more
    > efficiently while maintaining a optimal
    > betting system?

    > I appreciate your input.

    > Freddie

    Since my responses to such questions generally produce a _lot_ of discussion, I'll give some answers and hopefully in all the discussio that follows you will get a few useful pieces of information in addition.

    I'm going to compare halves to hilo for three different games, SD, DD, and 6D. I'll use the usual DAS, DA2, S17, LS rules for the 6D game, and drop the LS for SD/DD games since they rarely offer LS. I'll also assume a starting bankroll of $3000, just to have some starting point. I'm using CVCX and will let it choose everything optimally except that I will force it to use normal chip sizes (bets a multiple of $5) since I'm not going to play anywehre and bet $13.29 or some such insane amount.

    I'll give SCORE and hourly win rate

    pen spread Halves HiLo
    SD RO6 1-4 272 / $78.68 255/$80.45
    DD 66% 1-8 145 / $44.29 137/$39.18
    6D 83% 1-20 102 / $34.26 94/$34.26

    If you want to see different penetrations, or different spreads, I can easily supply that, although if the spread remains the same for both systems, their relative gap in win rate should remain proportional to the spread.

    Note that the first number (before the /) is the score as reported by CVCX. The second is the hourly win rate assuming $3K BR, optimize for BR growth, letting CVCX choose optimal bet ramp and min bet size.

    let the fun begin...

  4. #4
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Halves vs HI-Lo

    It's really a shame that we have to rehash the same principle over and over again. But, I'll try once more. You cannot make comparisons the way you do. You cannot dictate simultaneously BOTH the bankroll and the unit size for a given spread (why owuld you, anyway?). In comparing, you may pick the unit size and let the software tell you what an optimal bank would be. Or, you may pick the bank, force the unit size, and then note that ROR will be different.

    Your comparisons lead to the totally erroneous conclusion that there is little to recommend for choosing Halves over Hi-Lo, and that is absolutely wrong. To compare properly, see the SCORE comparisons in BJA3. To compare improperly, ... well, there are 1,000 ways to do that!

    This will be a one-time post. I'm not going to debate the topic. You will respond -- copiously, I am sure -- but you will not be doing the reader a service by perpetuating your incorrect methodology for comparison.

    Don

  5. #5
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: Halves vs HI-Lo

    > It's really a shame that we have to rehash
    > the same principle over and over again. But,
    > I'll try once more. You cannot make
    > comparisons the way you do. You cannot
    > dictate simultaneously BOTH the bankroll and
    > the unit size for a given spread (why owuld
    > you, anyway?).

    OK.. This time I am ready.

    Please _read_ what I wrote. Here it is for reference:

    quote on----------------------
    I'm using CVCX and will let it choose everything optimally except that I will force it to use normal chip sizes (bets a multiple of $5) since I'm not going to play anywehre and bet $13.29 or some such insane amount
    quote off----------------------

    Now do you see anywhere where I say I am forcing any minimum bet size? Or do you see where I only said "use a multiple of $5 chips" which could easily be a starting bet of $10 or $100 for that matter.

    Do you also see why it often gets to be a bit frustrating when you say "you can't do this" when "I didn't do it in the first place anyway?"

    Had you looked at the sim data I quoted, you would have discovered that to get those win rates (I'll take just the SD game here) the bets go from 15 to 60. Not 5 to anything. Ditto for the Halves data.

    Turns out there was an error in my data, because I had played with "wonging in/out" a while back and had left that checked, so that the numbers I quoted for both systems were wonging in and out at +1.

    Here is corrected data, and this time I will include the actual $ bet spreads rather than just 1-4 or 1-8.

    HiLo Halves
    SD 130/39.98 144/40.92

    ($15-$60) ($15-$60)
    DD 79/16.30 85/33.56

    ($5-$40) ($10-$80)
    6D 68/24.88 110/29.26

    ($5-$100) ($5-$100)

    > In comparing, you may pick
    > the unit size and let the software tell you
    > what an optimal bank would be. Or, you may
    > pick the bank, force the unit size, and then
    > note that ROR will be different.

    Note that I did _exactly_ that. And the above data (corrected) turns off the "wong in / wong out" option and makes it a play all for both. So there was an error, but it had nothing to do with bet size or bankroll size.

    > Your comparisons lead to the totally
    > erroneous conclusion that there is little to
    > recommend for choosing Halves over Hi-Lo,
    > and that is absolutely wrong. To compare
    > properly, see the SCORE comparisons in BJA3.
    > To compare improperly, ... well, there are
    > 1,000 ways to do that!

    And there are 1000 ways to make totally wrong assumptions, it seems. Even when a post specifically says that the only option used was to make bets a multiple of $5 which is what I have to do in any casino I have visited. I believe I can play at a $100 min table using red chips if I choose?

    > This will be a one-time post. I'm not going
    > to debate the topic. You will respond --
    > copiously, I am sure -- but you will not be
    > doing the reader a service by perpetuating
    > your incorrect methodology for comparison.

    > Don

    I will be doing myself a service however, by pointing out that your perceived error in my post is simply 100% incorrect. I didn't "fix" the minimum bet other than to say it must be a multiple of $5. The numbers in () above are the actual bet sizes, rather than the original spreads I gave, which ought to eliminate that particular point from the discussion.

    You know, every now and then even you can make a mistake. I make plenty. But not the one you claimed above. Sorry.

  6. #6
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Halves vs HI-Lo


    Using any of the simplification options invalidates comparisons of the general case. The comparisons will only be valid for the specific cases that you are looking at. To make a general comparison between different strategies, you need to turn off any of the simplification options. For the greatest accuracy, set a $1,000,000 bankroll. Then using the 'Chart It' feature, you can compare two or more strategies across all penetrations.

    norm



  7. #7
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: Halves vs HI-Lo

    > Using any of the simplification options
    > invalidates comparisons of the general case.
    > The comparisons will only be valid for the
    > specific cases that you are looking at. To
    > make a general comparison between different
    > strategies, you need to turn off any of the
    > simplification options. For the greatest
    > accuracy, set a $1,000,000 bankroll. Then
    > using the 'Chart It' feature, you can
    > compare two or more strategies across all
    > penetrations.

    > norm

    I certainly would not argue with that. The problem I run into from time to time is that CVCX is not always consistent in what it "remembers" from one session to the next.

    For example, it will remember the game I last looked at (2d, 6d, etc). It will remember the last bet spread I used. But it won't remember the last penetration I selected.

    So the error I made in the first batch of results above was that I was wonging in at +1, which (since I am not a halves users at all) is probably the wrong value for halves.

    However, I don't consider it completely wrong to require that all bets be a multiple of $5, as that is how I am going to have to play at a table, and the quantization effect of doing that is relevant to the real game results. For example, suppose you compare two strategies, and if you allow any sort of bet, strategy A is better, with a starting bet of $8.31, and ramping to $41.50, but if you limit the thing to using $5 chips, strategy B is better. Does it really mean much that A is better with insane bet amounts?

    That was really all I limited in the data I posted. I doubt if the person asking about halves performance really gives a stainless-steel-rat's a** about how the two compare with a betting schedule that can't be played.

    My original error was caused by my answering a similar question on another board, where someone asked about wonging in and out at +1, and how that would affect the HiLo win rate. I didn't notice that once I checked that option, it stayed checked the next time I selected "view archived sims".

    The discussion about my choosing a minimum bet size was just a red herring. Never happened.

  8. #8
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: A picture of the problem


    Understood. But the original question related to the differences between HiLo and Halves. Not the differences between the two assuming your particular bankroll and betting resolution. The best way we have of measuring this is SCORE. SCORE assumes no bet simplification at all, bets optimized to the penny and provides a better general answer. The problem with adding requirements like $5 increments is that you will not have a smooth curve and may pick a bad point on the curve. An example. Below is a chart of Win Rate comparing HiLo and Halves. But, I used the Rational Bets option. In order to force the bets to rational numbers, there will be jumps in the WR at certain penetrations and those jumps will be at different points for HiLo and Halves. If you just pick a particular point on the X-Axis, you may get a completely incorrect idea of relative power.



    Of course a spread and set of indexes must still be assumed. Incidentally, the above is why I believe the Golden Touch Blackjack Speed Count claims are invalid. No attempt was made to calculate SCOREs. Without this calculation, comparisons are simply not valid.



  9. #9
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: A picture of the problem

    > Understood. But the original question
    > related to the differences between HiLo and
    > Halves. Not the differences between the two
    > assuming your particular bankroll and
    > betting resolution. The best way we have of
    > measuring this is SCORE. SCORE assumes no
    > bet simplification at all, bets optimized to
    > the penny and provides a better general
    > answer. The problem with adding requirements
    > like $5 increments is that you will not have
    > a smooth curve and may pick a bad point on
    > the curve. An example. Below is a chart of
    > Win Rate comparing HiLo and Halves. But, I
    > used the Rational Bets option. In order to
    > force the bets to rational numbers, there
    > will be jumps in the WR at certain
    > penetrations and those jumps will be at
    > different points for HiLo and Halves. If you
    > just pick a particular point on the X-Axis,
    > you may get a completely incorrect idea of
    > relative power.

    No question about that at all. The last time this "discussion" came up, the first criticism of my reply was "you only picked one game." Later it turned out the game I picked was actually "critical" because of the LS issue.

    So this time I chose three different games, two with no LS, one with, and only said "compare with the bets I can actually play in a casino." Hence the "bets must be a multiple of $5" which appears to be the least intrusive option I can select on the "simplify" page??

    I should add that I'm not trying to purport HiLo as the best there is. I clearly understand it is not. I just tried to answer a question that could be answered in a practical way. Personally, I want to know "How am I going to do in a casino with a real set of rules, using real chips, and so forth?" For that reason I tried to pick three different types of games (SD, DD, 6D) so that I might luck into a game close to what someone might actually try to tackle with card counting...

    > Of course a spread and set of indexes must
    > still be assumed. Incidentally, the above is
    > why I believe the Golden Touch Blackjack
    > Speed Count claims are invalid. No attempt
    > was made to calculate SCOREs. Without this
    > calculation, comparisons are simply not
    > valid.

    Don't know a thing about that system, so I'll plead 100% ignorance and take you at your word there.

  10. #10
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: A picture of the problem

    > Hence the "bets
    > must be a multiple of $5" which appears
    > to be the least intrusive option I can
    > select on the "simplify" page??

    Use $1 when making a general comparison. For a better comparison, pump up the bankroll to a million.

  11. #11
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: An observation

    SSR -

    If VN puts a little AP.com get together in place late this year, I'm going to bring you an award.

    No kidding, and all in fun ..

    .. you are getting the award for 'Most Posts In A Single Season That Slid Clear Off The Monitor.'

    (DS was quick to jump ship on this one; NW -you're going' down dude!)




  12. #12
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Hey

    as long as it's about BJ and not somebody's hair

  13. #13
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: An observation

    > SSR -

    > If VN puts a little AP.com get together in
    > place late this year, I'm going to bring you
    > an award.

    > No kidding, and all in fun ..

    > .. you are getting the award for 'Most Posts
    > In A Single Season That Slid Clear Off The
    > Monitor.'

    > (DS was quick to jump ship on this one; NW
    > -you're going' down dude!)

    >

    Doesn't matter who "jumps ship" to me. The original "conclusion" was wrong. I pointed out exactly why. No response is really necessary.

    My only quibble here is that apparently I work in a bit more "professional circle" than is the norm here. I tend to assume people know what they are talking about, and if I have something contradictory to say, I try to make sure I have understood everything in the discussion first.

    I made a "mistake" early on about fixing the min bet because many people play that way. Don said it was wrong to do so. Then when I post again, it gets a very cursory inspection and the same conclusion is reached a second time around.

    Cursory inspection. New book about Ace sequencing. Etc...

    things that make you go Hmmm...

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.