Freddie: Halves vs HI-Lo

[pm]

SSR, I think what they're saying is that the SCORE comparison provides the best general comparison. Your comparison certainly wasn't "wrong", and it is indeed the only comparison that matters when you are playing under the conditions that you listed. But since no specifics were mentioned in the question, it makes more sense to provide an overall comparison of the systems than to assume any specifics and then provide a comparison.

Your answer was one type of answer, but not the best one. It was certainly an informative comparison, but as these four blackjack gurus are all saying, a slightly better comparison was available to answer this question. I don't think the case is that your contribution wasn't appreciated; I think the case is that a total of four blackjack gurus were simply informing you of the small misstep you took.

I'm sure it looks weird to people to see a regular blackjack player trying to butt heads with four giants of the field..but who knows, what these four blackjack gods are all telling you could be wrong, so I definitely support you in clarifying your point over and over again until they finally see that you are right and they are wrong...I mean, that's the logical outcome of this situation, right?

[stainless steel rat]

> SSR, I think what they're saying is that the
> SCORE comparison provides the best general
> comparison. Your comparison certainly wasn't
> "wrong", and it is indeed the only
> comparison that matters when you are playing
> under the conditions that you listed. But
> since no specifics were mentioned in the
> question, it makes more sense to provide an
> overall comparison of the systems than to
> assume any specifics and then provide a
> comparison.

> Your answer was one type of answer, but not
> the best one. It was certainly an
> informative comparison, but as these four
> blackjack gurus are all saying, a slightly
> better comparison was available to answer
> this question. I don't think the case is
> that your contribution wasn't appreciated; I
> think the case is that a total of four
> blackjack gurus were simply informing you of
> the small misstep you took.

> I'm sure it looks weird to people to see a
> regular blackjack player trying to butt
> heads with four giants of the field..but who
> knows, what these four blackjack gods are
> all telling you could be wrong, so I
> definitely support you in clarifying your
> point over and over again until they finally
> see that you are right and they are
> wrong...I mean, that's the logical outcome
> of this situation, right?

my first point was that an "assumption" made by Don was false. I didn't fix the minimum bet. I only picked three totally different games, two without and one with LS, to avoid that fiasco again. I gave results that favored halves in every case. But apparently the results didn't favor halves "enough" or something.

And I really haven't "butted heads" with anyone. I gave a simple opinion with some precise data to back it up. An opinion is _never_ wrong. Because it is not a "fact" at all...

But sometimes that isn't good enough.

[pm]

> And I really haven't "butted
> heads" with anyone. I gave a simple
> opinion with some precise data to back it
> up. An opinion is _never_ wrong. Because it
> is not a "fact" at all...

No, no, you're not understanding the issue. Let me reiterate:

> Your comparison certainly wasn't
> "wrong", and it is indeed the only
> comparison that matters when you are playing
> under the conditions that you listed. But
> since no specifics were mentioned in the
> question, it makes more sense to provide an
> overall comparison of the systems than to
> assume any specifics and then provide a
> comparison.

That's what Norm and Parker were saying. See? That's the issue. Parker and Norm were simply pointing out the small misstep you took that prevented the best answer to the question from coming to light. These blackjack gurus are trying to explain this small, simple misstep to you, but it's taking you a while to understand. (Remember, you provided an insightful answer, but the gurus generally make sure that the BEST answer is what people remember..)

[Koolipto]

One number is so precise its beautiful. But you have to know what it means and what to do with it.

You can describe the games any way YOU want. Let's measure DD games with a $5/300 min max, available only at 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm. Also, it has to be a left handed dealer who has a twitch.

OK SCORE doesn't do it for you.

Look, I agree that there could be a roomful of women that look and act completely different from one another. But if my only objective is to get lucky (score), than I can evaluate all of them by one return/risk tradeoff. How attractive are they (EV) and what is the likelyhood of success (SD).

No one is making you use SCORE (or use it properly), but if you don't/won't, you should do everyone the favor of refraining from comment on game comparisons.

> 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. )

[Sun Runner]

> An opinion is _never_ wrong. Because it is not a "fact" at all ...

Is this the kind of logic you and the circle of people you work with who are a 'bit more professional than the rest of us' teach?

I thought you taught Science, not Humanities.

Comments like that continue to reinforce my general lack of faith in the lifers employed in higher education.

Reread Freddie's post.

Before you launch in again with your new found sim machine, learn how it works first, then read the post and see if you know the answer or have at least a well informed opinion before beginning in.

To wit ... does Halves have a higher efficency percentage (whatever that is) than HiLo and does it allow a player to disguise his play better while playing an optimal betting system (whatever that is)?

Well, does it? Freddie would still like to know.

[Count of Montecristo]

How do you guys ever have time to actually play??? Some of these posts go on and on forever. I don't know how you read every post, write these long answers back, do everything else you have to do in life and still have time to play. I can't believe when I clicked on that there were 40+ new posts in the last 12 hours, and they were all basically on two issues. It's going to get to the point where I'm going to have to pick and choose which threads to read from now on... and this was one I could have avoided.

> my first point was that an
> "assumption" made by Don was
> false. I didn't fix the minimum bet. I only
> picked three totally different games, two
> without and one with LS, to avoid that
> fiasco again. I gave results that favored
> halves in every case. But apparently the
> results didn't favor halves
> "enough" or something.

> And I really haven't "butted
> heads" with anyone. I gave a simple
> opinion with some precise data to back it
> up. An opinion is _never_ wrong. Because it
> is not a "fact" at all...

> But sometimes that isn't good enough.

[Parker]

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

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

[Brick]

You're actually getting good at getting down on people. SSR was only trying to be helpful and took the time running sims for Freddie. I admit he got offended when Don said he ran them wrong. A less offending answer would have been "The SCORE is the best way to compare systems.".. or something like that. I also thought his sims were also wrong and blabbed about it,but come to find out it was a format error in SSR's post.

It's obvious SSR has a great interest in card counting and willing to work at it. So in my books, he's my friend. I believe in time he can be a great contribution to us card counters and does not deserve the sarcastic arrogant remarks,you've seem to develop over the internet.

Bye.

[KidDangerous]

[stainless steel rat]

> One number is so precise its beautiful. But
> you have to know what it means and what to
> do with it.

> You can describe the games any way YOU want.
> Let's measure DD games with a $5/300 min
> max, available only at 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm.
> Also, it has to be a left handed dealer who
> has a twitch.

> OK SCORE doesn't do it for you.

> Look, I agree that there could be a roomful
> of women that look and act completely
> different from one another. But if my only
> objective is to get lucky (score), than I
> can evaluate all of them by one return/risk
> tradeoff. How attractive are they (EV) and
> what is the likelyhood of success (SD).

> No one is making you use SCORE (or use it
> properly), but if you don't/won't, you
> should do everyone the favor of refraining
> from comment on game comparisons.

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...

[stainless steel rat]

> No, no, you're not understanding the issue.
> Let me reiterate:

> That's what Norm and Parker were saying.

ANd I didn't have a problem with what norm said, you notice? I explained my point of view. But you _did_ notice that my original post _did_ give the SCOREs, correct? You did notice that my original post was jumped on for the wrong reason?

That's been the point here.

The "quibble" about general score vs specific game scores I understand, and I happen to prefer specific game score for obvious reasons.

But, as always, the thread gets hijacked for the _wrong_ reason ("You did the same thing as last time, you fixed the minimum bet size _and_ the bankroll, which is invalid." I didn't fix the min bet size. I tried to explain that.

It was all wasted effort it would seem..

> See? That's the issue. Parker and Norm were
> simply pointing out the small misstep you
> took that prevented the best answer to the
> question from coming to light. These
> blackjack gurus are trying to explain this
> small, simple misstep to you, but it's
> taking you a while to understand. (Remember,
> you provided an insightful answer, but the
> gurus generally make sure that the BEST
> answer is what people remember..)

[stainless steel rat]

> Is this the kind of logic you and the circle
> of people you work with who are a 'bit more
> professional than the rest of us' teach?

Ever thought about going to your dictionary and looking up the word "opinion"? Might be educational, and your "opinion" on this might change.

> I thought you taught Science, not
> Humanities.

Absolutely do.

> Comments like that continue to reinforce my
> general lack of faith in the lifers employed
> in higher education.

And comments like that continue to reinforce my general opinion that we are failing in what we "pass on". It apparently "isn't taking".

> Reread Freddie's post.

> Before you launch in again with your new
> found sim machine, learn how it works first,
> then read the post and see if you know the
> answer or have at least a well informed
> opinion before beginning in.

> To wit ... does Halves have a higher
> efficency percentage (whatever that is) than
> HiLo and does it allow a player to disguise
> his play better while playing an optimal
> betting system (whatever that is)?

> Well, does it? Freddie would still like to
> know.

Halves clearly has a higher "efficiency". I gave both score and hourly win rate for three different games to show that. I even made sure that LS was not an issue as it was last time...

Did you even read my original post?

Didn't think so.

[stainless steel rat]

> You're actually getting good at getting down
> on people. SSR was only trying to be helpful
> and took the time running sims for Freddie.
> I admit he got offended when Don said he ran
> them wrong. A less offending answer would
> have been "The SCORE is the best way to
> compare systems.".. or something like
> that. I also thought his sims were also
> wrong and blabbed about it,but come to find
> out it was a format error in SSR's post.

> It's obvious SSR has a great interest in
> card counting and willing to work at it. So
> in my books, he's my friend. I believe in
> time he can be a great contribution to us
> card counters and does not deserve the
> sarcastic arrogant remarks,you've seem to
> develop over the internet.

> Bye.

While I appreciate the kind words, and the thought, and while it gives me some confidence that there are some reasonable folks scattered around in card counting circles, there's really no need to jump in, as you only get yourself involved in something that really shouldn't be happening in the first place.

thanks again, however.