Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 57

Thread: Myooligan: Value of Precision - Preliminary Results

  1. #14
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: My system is simple

    You shouldn't overestimate the impact of penetration on indexes. After all the true count does already allow for this.But deep in the deck the true count will be altered more easily with a newly drawn card causing a slight change of the ev-situation. Not a big deal though.
    Of course I don't use different indices for different penetration levels, nobody does as far as balanced counts are concerned.
    I get my indices with the infinite deck method and I'm confident that for shoe games they are very close to the weighed average obtained by other more complicated methods that T-hopper referred to.

    Francis Salmon

  2. #15
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: What a pity

    After having served as a confusing cocktail of single deck,shoe games,H17,S17,NDAS,DAS and different spreads you finally come up with the confession that it wasn't even hi-lo which had been the object of all the previous discussions.
    Even if this doesn't comkpletely invalidate your data, it tunes down their impact considerably.

    Francis Salmon

  3. #16
    T. Hopper
    Guest

    T. Hopper: What I should have said

    > The exact index varies at different points in the
    > shoe. So even a so-called "exact" index is
    > nothing more than a weighted average.

    There is no such thing as an exact true count index. There is an exact running count index for each possible number of cards remaining. These numbers generally approach zero as the deck is depleted, so a single true count index number is an approximation of the entire set. You can have a "best" TC index but not an "exact" one.

  4. #17
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: No such thing as "exact" indices

    > The exact index varies at different points in the
    > shoe. So even a so-called "exact" index is
    > nothing more than a weighted average.

    Is this because of the varying effects of individual card removal at different points of the shoe?

    Hello T. Hopper.

    I have read/heard that your counting systems are possibly the most powerful devised. I am currently practicing AOII for use in DD games, but have read that an unbalanced system used with a true count conversion can be more accurate. I also know that the only difference between the Omega 2 and T-Hop 2 systems is the count value of the nine, with the Omega counting it as -1 and T-Hop as 0. I have read that counting the nine as a negative has a detrimental effect on the accuracy of the system.

    Are your counting systems commercially available? I am very interested in playing with the best and most accurate/powerful system currently devised.

    If not, can you give me some advice on how to modify the AOII to neutralize the nine(counting it as 0), adjust the IRC and possibly even the incides to account for the new systems consequent net unbalance.

    I hope you can help an eager and earnest student of the game to play the best he possibly can, and will greatly appreciate any response.

    Desi. D.

  5. #18
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: Lovely piece of work, yes but to what consequence?

    > Now that we know how costly being off by 5 is (not!),
    > I can't wait to learn how much tremendous extra edge
    > Francis is getting for precise, decimal-point indices.
    > Has to be hundreds of ... pennies in a ... lifetime.
    > :-)

    > Don

    I hope it is okay to chime in here and contribute my own two cents(and sixth sense: intuition), but it seemed to fit in here the best. Also I think I was in the original discussion about index precision and "volatility", and the use of decimals.

    While I agree that Myooligan has produced a very fine and "lovely" piece of work I do have some serious problems with his findings, not so much with the results themselves, but with the consequences they entail.

    It seems to me that if this were the case(the results from his "Value of precision" study which he had posted above), then it would almost undermine the entire theory of card counting itself. I mean if the systems were/are so imprecise that they could be rounded and averaged(to the nearest FIVE, 5!) from so many different games and rules variations, then it was be so crude of a method that it would hardly have any accuracy and therefore validity of use, IMHO.

    How would you refute this? Is card counting really only a crude estimation of the ratio of high cards to low? And if it is, how accurate, precise(quantitatively), meaningful, significant and reliable is this information? Is it really enough to to be able to beat the dealer consistently, winning a lot of money in the process?

    Desi. D.

  6. #19
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: My system is simple

    I also use a decimal or fractional index matrix and believe that I play(more accurately and comfortably) with a simple system.

    > You shouldn't overestimate the impact of penetration
    > on indexes. After all the true count does already
    > allow for this. But deep in the deck the true count
    > will be altered more easily with a newly drawn card
    > causing a slight change of the ev-situation. Not a big
    > deal though.

    I agree.

    > Of course I don't use different indices for different
    > penetration levels, nobody does as far as balanced
    > counts are concerned.
    > I get my indices with the infinite deck method and I'm
    > confident that for shoe games they are very close to
    > the weighed average obtained by other more complicated
    > methods that T-hopper referred to.

    > Francis Salmon

    Thank you Francis, for voicing a lot of my own questions and concerns I have had about this thread.

    Desi. D.

  7. #20
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Lovely piece of work, yes but to what consequence?

    > It seems to me that if this were the case (the results
    > from his "Value of precision" study which he
    > had posted above), then it would almost undermine the
    > entire theory of card counting itself. I mean if the
    > systems were/are so imprecise that they could be
    > rounded and averaged(to the nearest FIVE, 5!) from so
    > many different games and rules variations, then it was
    > be so crude of a method that it would hardly have any
    > accuracy and therefore validity of use, IMHO.

    Well, quite simply, the evidence shows that your intuition is wrong. Rounding indices to the nearest 5 means that, at worst, you are off by 2.5. While that might represent a decent error for a few plays, it doesn't matter very much for most others. The bulk of the gain in card counting (especially in multi-deck with large spreading) comes from bet variation. While there is additional gain to be had by using indices, we have stated over and over agin (some people listen better than others!) that being very precise with those indices simply is not very important.

    Francis is always quite vociferous in his protests, but he has never produced any simulations or numbers to back up his claims, and the reason is quite clear: He can't, because no such evidence exists. In fact, the evidence to the contrary is quite clear. That said, I see no reason to round to 5, because I am quite capable of doing "better." But, I don't delude myself into thinking that "better" is worth very much. It isn't.

    > How would you refute this? Is card counting really
    > only a crude estimation of the ratio of high cards to
    > low? And if it is, how accurate,
    > precise (quantitatively), meaningful, significant and
    > reliable is this information?

    Don't attack card counting. See above.

    > Is it really enough to
    > to be able to beat the dealer consistently, winning a
    > lot of money in the process?

    Yes.

    Don

  8. #21
    T.Hopper
    Guest

    T.Hopper: Re: No such thing as "exact" indices

    > Is this because of the varying effects of individual
    > card removal at different points of the shoe?

    See my other reply.

    > I have read/heard that your counting systems are
    > possibly the most powerful devised. I am currently
    > practicing AOII for use in DD games, but have read
    > that an unbalanced system used with a true count
    > conversion can be more accurate. I also know that the
    > only difference between the Omega 2 and T-Hop 2
    > systems is the count value of the nine, with the Omega
    > counting it as -1 and T-Hop as 0. I have read that
    > counting the nine as a negative has a detrimental
    > effect on the accuracy of the system.

    I came up with that count a long time ago, and haven't done anything with it lately. You can get a very high playing efficiency with it even without true count conversion. A secondary count of 3,5 +1 Ace -2 gives you BRH-2 for betting. You could also use the same secondary count added to AOII to get Halves for betting.

    > Are your counting systems commercially available? I am
    > very interested in playing with the best and most
    > accurate/powerful system currently devised.

    Not right now, but I have started working on my simulator again and I might finally come out with some books or software. I do have simulations showing AOII + Halves has better betting efficiency than Ace-Adjusted AOII.

  9. #22
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: crudeness

    I think it's great that you're asking some of these questions. You know how I can tell if someone I meet wouldn't be a good blackjack player? They believe me when I tell them they can beat the casino. Only a sucker would believe something like that. A successful player figures out what kind of advantage he has for himself, rather than putting faith in convincing testimonies from the internet. Personally, I only became comfortable putting real money into blackjack once I started experimenting with simsimp (a bare-bones freeware blackjack simulator). It allowed me to confirm some of the key elements of "blackjack theory" for myself.

    Nevertheless, here's a simple explanation to why the "crudeness" of card counting doesn't make it invalid: For any given index, the majority of the time the TC will be other than that index. And for all index numbers greater than 1 or less than -1, the majority of the time the TC will be other than (index +- 2). (This is true for level two counts like the one used in the study). In general, the evs for the two play decisions, near the index number, are fairly close. So, less than half the time you encounter a given decision, you'll be playing in the (index +- 2) zone, where the ev differences are insignificant. No more than half of that time, you'll make the incorrect decision and sustain a negligible loss. Which is why it doesn't pay a whole lot to be precise when you count cards.

    But if you compare the two play decisions at a TC far away from the index number, there will generally be a significant difference in their EVs. So, more than half the time you encounter a given decision, you'll be playing outside the (index +- 2) zone, where the ev differences are significant. In 100% of those instances, you'll make the correct decision, and avoid a significant loss. Which is why it pays to count cards.

    Hope that helped.

    > It seems to me that if this were the case(the results
    > from his "Value of precision" study which he
    > had posted above), then it would almost undermine the
    > entire theory of card counting itself. I mean if the
    > systems were/are so imprecise that they could be
    > rounded and averaged(to the nearest FIVE, 5!) from so
    > many different games and rules variations, then it was
    > be so crude of a method that it would hardly have any
    > accuracy and therefore validity of use, IMHO.

    > How would you refute this? Is card counting really
    > only a crude estimation of the ratio of high cards to
    > low? And if it is, how accurate,
    > precise(quantitatively), meaningful, significant and
    > reliable is this information? Is it really enough to
    > to be able to beat the dealer consistently, winning a
    > lot of money in the process?

    > Desi. D.

  10. #23
    ToAnyOne
    Guest

    ToAnyOne: To neutralize the 9

    I think that if you want to neutralize the 9, the best way to go is to take 1 off the 6 ... which leaves you with HO2 instead of AO2, but I think it is clearly a better system because the 6 is definately overvalued in AO2. If you do this, you could use the same trick suggested by T-Hopper for the A s/c, except, count 3/6 as +1 and A as -2; which would give you the Revere for betting instead of Halves.

    Hope this helps,
    TAO

  11. #24
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Real costs are easy to see for everybody

    Myooligan said he would round every index to the nearest 5.
    This would mean that any index of up to +2 would be rounded down to 0 thus altering BS-play.
    For example: A,8 v 5 which has an index of +1.5 would be doubled already at a neutral count.Now we know that at TC 0 standing here has an EV of 44% versus 41% for doubling.
    This makes an error of 3% of your bet for being off by only 1.5 TC.
    The worst case error would therefore be 5% for being off by 2.5 TC. With a $200bet this represents a loss of $10 for one single case.
    The worst case error for rounding to whole numbers is 0.5 TC or 1%. With a $200bet this represents $2 for one single case.
    So you see that we're not just talking pennies here,and what's more important you can get this extra money for free, just memorizing the right indexes!

    Francis Salmon


  12. #25
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: Lovely piece of work, yes but to what consequence?

    > Well, quite simply, the evidence shows that your
    > intuition is wrong. Rounding indices to the nearest 5
    > means that, at worst, you are off by 2.5. While that
    > might represent a decent error for a few plays, it
    > doesn't matter very much for most others. The bulk of
    > the gain in card counting (especially in multi-deck
    > with large spreading) comes from bet variation. While
    > there is additional gain to be had by using indices,
    > we have stated over and over agin (some people listen
    > better than others!) that being very precise with
    > those indices simply is not very important.

    Is this to say that you can realize most of the gain from card counting by simply playing basic strategy while using a count system(with a good BC like Hi-Lo or K-O) solely to vary your bets, and that only a very small gain in comparison comes from making playing decisions(Basic Strategy deviations) based upon a precise count? And also that the strategy-index matrix itself can actually be simpified(rounded) and really only include plays like the "Illustrious 18", or "catch-22" without losing much overall profit?

    I know I should probably be happy about this , but I hate the idea. I find it not only difficult to believe, but even harder to accept. I thought that math was supposed to be precise and exact(and I know that it is here, but it is just not showing what I want it to) and that the game(blackjack) had to be played perfectly to yield any profits. This was a large part of the allure for me: the mental challenge and not just the potential of monetary payback.

    > Francis is always quite vociferous in his protests,
    > but he has never produced any simulations or numbers
    > to back up his claims, and the reason is quite clear:
    > He can't, because no such evidence exists. In fact,
    > the evidence to the contrary is quite clear. That
    > said, I see no reason to round to 5, because I am
    > quite capable of doing "better." But, I
    > don't delude myself into thinking that
    > "better" is worth very much. It isn't.

    If this is the case, then why has the game of blackjack evolved in to such a complex mathematical study when the "simple" systems account for most of the gain experienced by players? And why do blackjack pundits such as yourself continue to analyze the game to death, if little or no real(practical) gain can be had from the more "advanced" and precise techniques? And why do blackjack books and sites such as this one continue to proliferate, if there is little to be gained over simplicity?

    > Don't attack card counting. See above.

    I am sorry, I just have my doubts and worries. And while I hope I am not overstepping here and above(if I am I sincerely apologize), I wish to say, that if it were not for my own financial situation I think I may actually prefer analyzing the game rather than playing it, as I suspect may be the case with you. It is more interesting. But of course my intuition may be wrong like it was before, and if it isn't I am greatly served and appreciate it, your work that is. I have recently placed an order and look forward to receiving your book BJA 3. :-)

    > Yes.

    I hope so, because I will get my chance to see(if I can win using only traditional card counting strategies).

    > Don

    While you definitely made things a bit clearer, I still don't know if I like what I see. But at least I am not ignorant and blind anymore, nor am I being led by the blind.

    Thank you,
    Desi. D.

  13. #26
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: crudeness is not rudeness

    > I think it's great that you're asking some of these
    > questions. You know how I can tell if someone I meet
    > wouldn't be a good blackjack player? They believe me
    > when I tell them they can beat the casino. Only a
    > sucker would believe something like that. A successful
    > player figures out what kind of advantage he has for
    > himself, rather than putting faith in convincing
    > testimonies from the internet. Personally, I only
    > became comfortable putting real money into blackjack
    > once I started experimenting with simsimp (a
    > bare-bones freeware blackjack simulator). It allowed
    > me to confirm some of the key elements of
    > "blackjack theory" for myself.

    I am the same way. I not only need to see it for myself, I need to do it for myself, otherwise I am not truly convinced.

    Please see bottom. :-)

    > Nevertheless, here's a simple explanation to why the
    > "crudeness" of card counting doesn't make it
    > invalid: For any given index, the majority of the time
    > the TC will be other than that index. And for all
    > index numbers greater than 1 or less than -1, the
    > majority of the time the TC will be other than (index
    > +- 2). (This is true for level two counts like the one
    > used in the study). In general, the evs for the two
    > play decisions, near the index number , are fairly
    > close. So, less than half the time you encounter a
    > given decision, you'll be playing in the (index +- 2)
    > zone, where the ev differences are insignificant. No
    > more than half of that time, you'll make the
    > incorrect decision and sustain a negligible loss.
    > Which is why it doesn't pay a whole lot to be precise
    > when you count cards.

    > But if you compare the two play decisions at a TC far
    > away from the index number , there will generally be a
    > significant difference in their EVs. So, more than
    > half the time you encounter a given decision, you'll
    > be playing outside the (index +- 2) zone, where the ev
    > differences are significant. In 100% of those
    > instances, you'll make the correct decision, and avoid
    > a significant loss. Which is why it pays to count
    > cards.

    > Hope that helped.

    After a quick reading, I think I get the jist of it and it does seem to make good sense. But it is getting really late(or should I say early) and I will pick it up again later, read it over carefully and get back to you then.

    Thanks, and it really was a lovely piece of work.
    Desi. D.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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.