Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 57

Thread: Myooligan: Value of Precision - Preliminary Results

  1. #27
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Thank you

    It takes some courage to talk in my favor here.
    Many people don't understand that using fractional indices is not only more efficient but also simpler than dealing with whole number indices where there is a lot of confusion about whether to truncate,floor or round.
    The disagreement about indices in BJ-literature that existed when I started my career made me create my own index generator.It was a CA-program that was able to find indices as precise as you like with the infinite deck approach.Later on I integrated them in my simulation program and when I saw that the results were very encouraging I decided to become professional BJ-player.
    Seven years later, I have no reason to regret this decision.
    The faith in my own indices gives me a lot of assurance while I'm playing and allows me to take quick decisions even if it's a close call.

    Francis Salmon

  2. #28
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: 20% is not marginal

    I think there is agreement that about 20% of the gain from hilo stems from strategy variations, and this is for a relatively crude system like the Ill18.
    Full fractional indices would probably add another 5%.
    I think earning $100 an hour is much better than $80, and $105 is better than $100.
    You have to find your own personal balance between simplicity and efficiency.If you're comfortable with a multi-level system why not. There you have your challenge and your additional reward.Personally, I would use multilevel systems only for pitch games.

    Francis Salmon

  3. #29
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Impact of penetration

    Let's compare two situations with 15 v 10 both with a TC of +4 but in the first case there are 5 decks remaining, in the second one 1 deck. In both cases it's equally likely that you get a five bringing you to 20 but in the first case this hit has caused no significant change in TC while in the second case it has risen to TC+5 making it a bit more likely that the dealer will equalize your 20 or even beat you with a snapper.That's why it is less rewarding to take a hit at the end of shoe. But as I said, this is no big deal.

    Francis Salmon

  4. #30
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

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

    > 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?

    Depends on what you mean by "most." With the Catch 22 indices, in a shoe game, you get about 90% of all the gain by using all the indices. But, with no indices at all, you get probably only about 60-65% of all the gain.

    The point is -- whatever gain there is from indices, whether you use 1, 1.4, or 2, makes virtually no difference whatsoever.

    > 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?

    Yes.

    > 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.

    It's a free country. Don't accept it!

    > 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.

    Not at all.

    > This was a
    > large part of the allure for me: the mental challenge
    > and not just the potential of monetary payback.

    Sorry to disappoint you.

    > If this is the case, then why has the game of
    > blackjack evolved in to such a complex mathematical
    > study

    Because we can. :-)

    > when the "simple" systems account for
    > most of the gain experienced by players?

    The highest-winning teams in the history of the game all played Hi-Lo. Go figure. :-)

    > 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?

    For Francis! :-)

    > And why do blackjack books and
    > sites such as this one continue to proliferate, if
    > there is little to be gained over simplicity?

    Define "little." If you play for high stakes, then an extra, say, 10% annually can amount to a decent amount of money. Obviously, there is no penalty for playing "perfectly." So, people such as you will do just that, to be satisfied that they are doing everything they can to get all the advantage possible. There's nothing wrong with that. It only becomes silly when you delude yourself into thinking that indices with decimal points make a fig of difference, when they don't.

    > I am sorry, I just have my doubts and worries.

    That's your privilege. Why apologize?

    > 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. :-)

    Enjoy it. It was written for people like you.

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

    Of course you can.

    > 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.

    Samuel Johnson's famous quote goes something like this: "I have furnished you a reason; I am not required to furnish an understanding." I did the best I can. The rest is up to you.

    Don

  5. #31
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Finish the analysis

    > 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!

    You're right, it's not pennies; it's hundredths of a penny! Finish the analysis. We get a holding of A,8 v. 5 once every 1,111 hands. The count comes into play, roughly, 5% of the time (a guess). So, once every 22,000 hands, we lose $2 (if we've bet $200!!), if we round to the nearest integer.

    Using a rounded index for this particular play, therefore, costs us, on average (using the standard 100 hands per hour), $2/2,200 = 0.09 CENTS per hour!!!! (Translation: Play 11 hours, and it's worth a penny to you personally. For the player who plays for 1/10 of your stakes, it's worth a penny every 110 hours, or maybe a penny a year.)

    Now, just how stupid do you feel to use a decimal index for this play?

    Don

  6. #32
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Amendment

    When I wrote: "Now, just how stupid do you feel to use a decimal index for this play?," I should have written: "Now just how stupid do you feel claiming that it matters to use a decimal index for this play?"

    There is a difference. You needn't feel stupid at all for using your decimals. They make you feel good, and they cause little harm, so what's the problem? There's only a problem when you pompously (and, I'm afraid, somewhat ignorantly) claim that using such indices actually earns you much more money for all your alleged preciseness. Clearly, that is abject nonsense, and I know it hurts you somewhat to learn that these values are of theoretic import only.

    Live with it.

    Don

  7. #33
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: Why bj pundits analyze the game to death. . .

    Don's poignant answer notwithstanding, part of the purpose of analysis is to identify which aspects of the game require precision, and which do not. It instructs us as to where to focus our attention. The complex math that Don and others do brings back much more than pennies. Maybe Don or someone else that's been around the game for a long time can name and place a value on some of the key developments in blackjack theory over the last 30 or so years.

    How do they say it. . . "Does a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa affect the wind beating on the Golden Gate bridge?"(excuse the paraphrase) Well, it probably does in some miniscule, immeasurable way. But should we conclude that the bridge doesn't work, since their technique "crudely" ignores the whole butterfly phenomena? Or, alternatively, that the "complex mathematics" behind bridge building is altogether unnecessary, since the whole business is basically just a shot in the dark anyway?

  8. #34
    T. Hopper
    Guest

    T. Hopper: Re: Lovely piece of work, yes but to what consequence?

    > 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?

    In a good single-deck game with a powerful system, you could make almost as much money flat-betting as you could with any bet spread.

    Even in 6 decks with 4.5 decks dealt and a 1-12 spread, you can increase SCORE nearly 100% by adding insurance, complete indices, and an ace side count to the same count with basic strategy. With multiple side counts, the theoretical gain is over 100%.

  9. #35
    T. Hopper
    Guest

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

    > Right! But is there any reason why this weighted
    > average should be rounded to a whole number,especially
    > if it's somewhere in between?

    You are using an infinite deck approximation which is insensitive to the effects of rules, number of players, and your own playing strategy to the overall TC distribution of the shoe. If you really wanted to be "exact" you'd even have to adjust for your bet spread when calculating the index. Your precision (1/10 of a High-Low TC point) greatly exceeds the accuracy of your indices. Maybe you could get within 1/2 or 1/3 of a point around TC 0, but you may be off by a point or more on some of the higher counts. That number behind the decimal point is little more than random noise in most cases.

  10. #36
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Error dividing

    I wrote, above:

    > So, once every
    > 22,000 hands, we lose $2 (if we've bet $200!!), if we
    > round to the nearest integer.

    > Using a rounded index for this particular play,
    > therefore, costs us, on average (using the standard
    > 100 hands per hour), $2/2,200 = 0.09 CENTS per
    > hour!!!! (Translation: Play 11 hours, and it's worth a
    > penny to you personally. For the player who plays for
    > 1/10 of your stakes, it's worth a penny every 110
    > hours, or maybe a penny a year.)

    The above should have read "$2/220 = 0.9 CENTS per hour."

    So, I've been overly harsh on Francis. His knowledge for this play is actually worth almost an entire penny per hour. :-)

    Don

  11. #37
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: To neutralize the 9 and "correct" the 6

    > 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,

    I am not sure, but let's see.

    What you have said sounds pretty reasonable to me as it keeps the system balanced while it neutralizes the 9 and more accurately weighs(values) the 6, but will I be able to keep all of the same AO2 indices if I am now using HO2 for playing decisions?

    I have a copy of "Blackjack for Blood" and do not desire to pay the outrageous and exorbitant fee for a HO2 manual, if it is even available.

    Actually while I do not wish to influence your response, I am going to attempt to answer my own question here hoping that both Don and Myooligan will be proud of me for reading and "getting" the point of this whole thread. Because the precision of the index does not have to be exact, and that AO2 and HO2 have such similar count values, I would probably be able to keep the AO2 index values(while playing HO2) without much detriment or loss. Right?

    And about the ace side count with 3/6, will this give me Revere APC, Revere plus-minus or what? Also, what is the BC of this system? I believe (Wong) Halves is over 99% making it very accurate for betting purposes.

    > TAO

    Hearing back from somebody always helps, so thanks TAO and thanks to everyone else who has commented.

    Desi. D.

  12. #38
    SpiderMan
    Guest

    SpiderMan: Re: HO2

    > I am not sure, but let's see.

    > What you have said sounds pretty reasonable to me as
    > it keeps the system balanced while it neutralizes the
    > 9 and more accurately weighs(values) the 6, but will I
    > be able to keep all of the same AO2 indices if I am
    > now using HO2 for playing decisions?

    > I have a copy of "Blackjack for Blood" and
    > do not desire to pay the outrageous and exorbitant fee
    > for a HO2 manual, if it is even available.

    The HO2 manual costs $39.95 US over bjrnet.com and GBC. And if you get a copy of Humble's WGBJB, you could get the address of IGI, which sells the manual at the same price in CAN $.

    As recorded in BJA3's SCORE article, HO2 is slightly stronger than AO2, but is slightly weaker in some SD games when compared to UAPC.

    > Actually while I do not wish to influence your
    > response, I am going to attempt to answer my own
    > question here hoping that both Don and Myooligan will
    > be proud of me for reading and "getting" the
    > point of this whole thread. Because the precision of
    > the index does not have to be exact, and that AO2 and
    > HO2 have such similar count values, I would probably
    > be able to keep the AO2 index values(while playing
    > HO2) without much detriment or loss. Right?

    > And about the ace side count with 3/6, will this give
    > me Revere APC, Revere plus-minus or what? Also, what
    > is the BC of this system? I believe (Wong) Halves is
    > over 99% making it very accurate for betting purposes.

    > Hearing back from somebody always helps, so thanks TAO
    > and thanks to everyone else who has commented.

    > Desi. D.

  13. #39
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: What's your message?

    So according to you, next time I encounter the situation A,8 v 5 at a TC of exactly +1, I should double my $200 bet knowing full well that this is a 1%-error. After all, it costs me only 1 ct./hour in the long run.
    As Arnold Snyder used to say. This is like handing $2 to the dealer and I would really feel stupid doing that.

    Francis Salmon

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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.