Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Designated Driver: With an unbalanced pendulum, does anybody really know what time it is?

  1. #1
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: With an unbalanced pendulum, does anybody really know what time it is?

    I am a little reluctant to ask this question as it is so basic and may actually belong on the beginnger's page, hmmmmmm..... but I have been agonizing over it for so long that I just have to ask so I can end my toilsome plight, anguish and frustration.

    After all of my most critical thought I still cannot for the life of me really understand how an unbalanced count system works. Can someone please explain to me the logic and validity behind such a system?

    Now I own and have read "Knockout Blackjack" by Vancura and Fuchs and get the concepts of the initial running count(IRC), key count, pivot point, etc.(I mean they explain it by counting gumballs for goodness sake), but for the life of me I just do not truly and fully understand how it works. I guess the logic just doesn't compute for me. Error. :-)

    I have also read some web articles and pages(by Fred Renzy among others, last night) explaining an unbalanced count and it seemed to make pretty good sense, but when I try to apply it to what I am interested in, my though processes break down and I am saddled with doubt of it's validity and correctness.

    I do completely understand how to use the unbalanced insurance count and why it works though. :-)

    And while I have absolutely no interest in playing KO(I want power and accuracy over simplicity), I am interested in modifying my current system(Zen) to an unbalanced count in order to neutralize the ace for greater playing efficiency to be used in handheld games, particularly Double Deck.

    I know that George C. has developed the unbalanced Zen II count and I have actually read part of the book, but I am not really interested in playing the system.

    At this point I am pretty well settled into(and content with) playing the Zen count(modified with side counts to increase BC, IC and PE to a lesser extent) in multiple deck games, but I desire to play a more precise count(an ace neutral count) for pitch games because of the relatively greater value of Playing Efficiency in such games.

    Don if you are listening, this is for you. I took your advice given me a long time ago that someone playing a level-2 system should compute the True Count to the nearest half-deck, and have consequently adjusted all of my index numbers to reflect this change to which I am quite pleased, given that it is a bit more precise which I am certainly a fan of. Actually I calculate the TC to the nearest fraction of a half-deck and do still plan on using full indices calculated to two decimal places in multiple deck(4D and 6D) games. Sorry, but I do not believe this to be that difficult(and do it fairly well with little strain) given that you would only have to divide by at most twelve(six decks x 2-half decks) and mixed numbers can be converted to fractions to be multiplied after reciprocated to the RC.

    But anyway, here's my question. If I were to neutalize the ace(my primary desire), I would need to keep a side count and make the necessary adjustment for betting purposes by adding or subtracting the appropriate value to the RC for each "extra" or "deficient" ace per quarter deck. I was only planning to use this count in a DD game and would also calculate the TC to the nearest quarter deck which would make the ace adjustment moderately simple as I should expect one ace for every "unit" in my divisor, eight aces in eight quarter decks(two decks x 4-quarter decks).

    This sound pretty reasonable, right?

    Okay now, moving on.

    I know I have asked this question before, but I haven't gotten a satisfactory(helpful) answer back from anyone yet, so I am going to try again as this is the last thing holding me back from playing comfortably and confidently, well at least for now. :-)

    This follows from the top. I had read an article by Brett Harris about the value and legitimacy of the unbalanced true count after which he devised/developed his own system dubbed Br-h II(also T-Hop II), which he claimed was more powerful overall than both Wong Halves and Advanced Omega II. The point values, "tags" as he called them for this system are identical to the Zen count, except that the ace is zero making it unbalanced. I wanted to order his system manual, but it was out of print or something and is still not available to my knowledge. I haven't been able to find it or the article I referred to above, despite my recent greatest efforts.

    Now I know what some of you may be saying(if you have read a previous post of mine), why don't you just play Advanced Omega II if you have the book. And if you want better, than why don't you try Hi-Opt II, as that is available? The answer is because I have already become quite proficient with using my Zen count for multiple deck games, and I do not want to have to count different values(for handheld games)if I don't have to. And essentially, if I could do it the way I want to, then I could play a single count(an advanced Zen II let's say), slightly modified and optimized for each particular game for play in all games except for single deck, for which I reserve another, more powerful system which I am still working on and will hopefully have metrics of 100% BC, 90+% PE and 100% IC. I mean AO2 counts the 9 as -1 and HO2 the 6 as +1 instead of +2 like Zen does, and to change these values would make things rather inconvenient as Zen is almost automatic and second nature to me after hundreds of hours of long and painstaking practice.

    How would I modify the IRC and indices if necessary for the DD game if I neutralized the ace in the Zen count consequently making it unbalanced?

    Right now I am thinking start with an IRC of -4, to compensate for the unbalance of the sevens(no longer counterbalanced by the ace) while keeping all the same strategy index numbers, but divided by 2, to reflect the TC now being calculated to the quarter deck(from half deck), which also makes the TC the true edge in percent advantage. Is this right, am I on the right track at least? I'll ask you about the floating advantage and what I can do about it later.

    Also, would it be as accurate if not more so than a good, balanced system? And would the accuracy be uniform throughout the DD game capable of being used to play all hands if I wanted to?

    This really is the last obstacle to my feeling ready and confident in my ability to play the games, and if I can navigate this hurdle than I will be so much the better off both technically and psychologically, knowing that I can play any game with confidence when I do actually make my trip down to Vegas and put my money on the table, and I promise the trip is already booked, and the date is coming up fast. So any comments would be greatly appreciated and I provide my thanks in advance.

    Desi. D.

  2. #2
    Trapper
    Guest

    Trapper: Brh systems book


    Here is a link to a site which sells the Brh systems (including Brh II) I believe this is Richard Reid's site. I have never purchased anything there so I can't vouch for it.



  3. #3
    thanks4thefish
    Guest

    thanks4thefish: The smarter you are, the more problems you find

    >After all of my most critical thought I still cannot
    >for the life of me really understand how an unbalanced
    >count system works. Can someone please explain to me
    >the logic and validity behind such a system?

    THE LOGIC:

    The framework for an unbalanced count like KO or Red 7 is hi-lo, ie counting small vs large cards.

    Rather than true the count by dividing the running count by the no. of decks/ half decks remaining we simply track the appearance of a given card, NOT COUNTED by hi-lo.

    The 7 is chosen because it has a positive weighting for playing strategy variation, moreso than the 2 in fact, but less valuable for betting purposes.

    Now this is where the system gets ugly to the perfectionists like youself & even Griffin!

    As there are four 7's in each deck we ASSUME that after seeing four sevens one deck has been depleted from the shoe.

    In Red 7, (counting all 7's as +1/2) you would start counting at Zero minus (the no. of decks X -2).

    In Hi-lo you would start counting at 0 disregarding the 7's.

    So half way thru the shoe with a hi-lo count of say 8, you would divide by the number of decks left & arrive at a true count of 2. (most AP's initial strike)

    With Red 7 starting at -16 you would have also have counted 8 more small cards than large, however you should also 'expect' to have seen 8 red 7's also, (2 per pack dealt) giving you a count of 0. (most AP's initial strike)

    The Red 7 system is optimised around mid shoe, & as such will be significantly less accurate than hi-lo at the start of the shoe & end of the shoe.

    THE VALIDITY:

    You should probably be devoting more time to perfecting your use of an existing valid system, & finding a better game than trying to develop a system that will screw every last cent humanly possible from each shoe.

    Why make life difficult for yourself?, taking the casino's money is supposed to be fun

    As for the rest of your qu's I can only state that you're a hell of a lot smarter than me, but I reckon I could probably get the extra EV you end up with by playing for 10-20% longer especially in a shoe game. Besides with the mental effort I'll be expending I'll probably spend a lot more hours in the trenches than you without headaches

    In plain english, 'Thank God I'm not smart enough to play a multi level count with side Aces'

    One last point: I would not wish to play a game strategy I could not sim. If you are unable to sim adaptations to existing legitimate systems, & play them anyway, well.....your smart enough to know................

  4. #4
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: The smarter you are, the more problems you find and make up...

    > THE LOGIC:

    > The framework for an unbalanced count like KO or Red 7
    > is hi-lo, ie counting small vs large cards.

    > Rather than true the count by dividing the running
    > count by the no. of decks/ half decks remaining we
    > simply track the appearance of a given card, NOT
    > COUNTED by hi-lo.

    > The 7 is chosen because it has a positive weighting
    > for playing strategy variation, moreso than the 2 in
    > fact, but less valuable for betting purposes.

    Okay, I think I get you so far.

    > Now this is where the system gets ugly to the
    > perfectionists like youself & even Griffin!

    Yes it does, and you can say that again. I am an obsessive-compulsive, hyper-analytical, detail-oriented perfectionist who just "scrapped" his whole post after over an hour's work because it wasn't just so. Frustrating! But anyway, where was I?

    > As there are four 7's in each deck we ASSUME that
    > after seeing four sevens one deck has been depleted
    > from the shoe.

    Or, you could also say that if 52 cards are dealt randomly with "normal" distribution, you can expect four 7's, one for every thirteen cards. Correct? And not to be a smart ass, but you know what they say about ASSUMING things, right? That is exactly how I feel about it! But hey, we need to get out of bed in the morning knowing the sun rises in the east, right?

    > In Red 7, (counting all 7's as +1/2) you would start
    > counting at Zero minus (the no. of decks X -2).

    Is it no. of decks x -4 for KO?

    > In Hi-lo you would start counting at 0 disregarding
    > the 7's.

    > So half way thru the shoe with a hi-lo count of say 8,
    > you would divide by the number of decks left &
    > arrive at a true count of 2. (most AP's initial
    > strike)

    > With Red 7 starting at -16 you would have also have
    > counted 8 more small cards than large, however you
    > should also 'expect' to have seen 8 red 7's also, (2
    > per pack dealt) giving you a count of 0. (most AP's
    > initial strike)

    I understand the red 7's, but why would you count 8 more small cards than large? Except for the sevens the count is balanced as you said, and hence there are an equal number of point values(20, +1 for each of the four 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's and 6's versus -1 for each of the four T's, J's, Q's, K's and Aces) for high and low cards without the seven, right?

    > The Red 7 system is optimised around mid shoe, &
    > as such will be significantly less accurate than hi-lo
    > at the start of the shoe & end of the shoe.

    That is exactly it, what about the first half of the shoe? Are we saying that the count has to "make up" for the systems deliberate initial imbalance? What if this never happens? In fact, maybe I am thinking about this wrong, or over complicating it, but if dealt out completely randomly, with "normal" distribution, then won't the count never do this, make up for the initial imbalance, as the penetration will never be 100% and the deck will never be entirely played through? Are we only exploiting "fluctuations" in the deck as the cards are dealt out?

    > THE VALIDITY:

    > You should probably be devoting more time to
    > perfecting your use of an existing valid system, &
    > finding a better game than trying to develop a system
    > that will screw every last cent humanly possible from
    > each shoe.

    Unfortunately, I am not satisfied with any of the existing "valid" systems and have had to create my own to meet my own desires and specifications. But, I also realize that I am not a blackjack "expert" and am not fully confident and trusting in myself with what I have created, regardless of my research and understanding of the game. Even though what I have devised has worked well for me (in theory and practice play)and I believe it to be based upon solid and logical reasoning, supported by mathematics. I do still want that "validation" from some "expert" before I go and put my money on the tables.

    > Why make life difficult for yourself?, taking the
    > casino's money is supposed to be fun

    Because, making life difficult is fun for me, kind of. I really do enjoy the challenge of playing at a high level, and winning the money is only a practical consideration. A necessary evil if you will.

    > As for the rest of your qu's I can only state that
    > you're a hell of a lot smarter than me, but I reckon I
    > could probably get the extra EV you end up with by
    > playing for 10-20% longer especially in a shoe game.
    > Besides with the mental effort I'll be expending I'll
    > probably spend a lot more hours in the trenches than
    > you without headaches

    > In plain english, 'Thank God I'm not smart enough to
    > play a multi level count with side Aces'

    Actually, I am not really that smart. And I bet with a bit of practice, you could do it too. But I reckon you don't want want to. That's find. :-) But, if you would like, I could try to explain it(my ace side count)so you can use it and so I can get the validation I want. But I am a little timid as I had written about it briefly before and nobody seemed to understand what I was saying.

    > One last point: I would not wish to play a game
    > strategy I could not sim. If you are unable to sim
    > adaptations to existing legitimate systems, & play
    > them anyway, well.....your smart enough to
    > know................

    I am figuring this out the hard way I am sorry to say.

    Thanks for the feedback and answers,
    Desi. D.

  5. #5
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: Don't expect your results to tell you anything


    > Because, making life difficult is fun for me, kind of.
    > I really do enjoy the challenge of playing at a high
    > level, and winning the money is only a practical
    > consideration. A necessary evil if you will.

    Good thing you feel that way, because even after 50,000 hands of perfect Zen blackjack, with an optimal bet 1-16 spread at a 4.5 of 6 good rules game, you won't be able to tell how good a player you are, by your results.

    You'll have to take it on faith, just like a religion. Such is the life and reality of the individual bj player.

    Here is an example of 50,000 hands of perfect Zen play.

    See it and weep.

    Regards,
    John Auston






  6. #6
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: Don't expect your results to tell you anything

    > Good thing you feel that way, because even after
    > 50,000 hands of perfect Zen blackjack, with an optimal
    > bet 1-16 spread at a 4.5 of 6 good rules game, you
    > won't be able to tell how good a player you are, by
    > your results.

    > You'll have to take it on faith, just like a religion.
    > Such is the life and reality of the individual bj
    > player.

    I take nothing on faith. And although I do stand by what I said earlier about my playing, I do not subscribe to the Zen or buddhist philosophy as I am too much of a materialist. I only use Zen to count cards, and my money of course. :-)

    > Here is an example of 50,000 hands of perfect Zen
    > play.

    > See it and weep.

    Seeing that huge negative result does make me weep, and if this is the case then I cannot see how any individual BJ player can survive, let alone prosper. But I do not really understand what you are saying here John.

    Are you trying to scare me with the facts?

    > Regards,
    > John Auston

    Given your supposed reputation and expertise I do highly respect what you have to say. Thanks for the comments and feedback, truly, but what can I do to improve my situation and expectation?

    Desi. D.

  7. #7
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: Don't expect your results to tell you anything, then what will?

    > Good thing you feel that way, because even after
    > 50,000 hands of perfect Zen blackjack, with an optimal
    > bet 1-16 spread at a 4.5 of 6 good rules game, you
    > won't be able to tell how good a player you are, by
    > your results.

    > You'll have to take it on faith, just like a religion.
    > Such is the life and reality of the individual bj
    > player.

    Are you suggesting that I join/play on a team?

    Because, besides increasing my bankroll, I do not see how that would benefit me significantly. Given your sim results on perfect Zen play I would lose badly, but isn't this system one of the better and more accurate/powerful count systems available, at least for overall BC, PE and IC(far better than Hi-Lo, KO, Red-7 and other "simpler" systems)? I already keep a modified insurance count(based on Zen) raising the IC to nearly 92% to go along with a 99% BC and 66% PE. Without going into shuffle tracking and other more advanced methods, what more can you do?

    Not to mention that I am only a beginner, an eager, diligent and dedicated beginner, but a beginner none the less. Also I have no real world casino experience yet and probably will not be able to play frequently as I live in a non-gaming jurisdiction. Given my credentials, who would "draft" me to join their team? Lastly, I am a loner by nature, a bit reclusive and prefer to be and play alone unless the advantages of team play would GREATLY outweigh the problems inherent with playing with other people.

    Just a few thoughts on what I can do(so that I can win).
    Desi D.

    > Regards,
    > John Auston


  8. #8
    thanks4thefish
    Guest

    thanks4thefish: Buy a BJ sim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [I am an obsessive-compulsive, hyper-analytical,
    detail-oriented perfectionist who just
    "scrapped" his whole post after over an
    hour's work because it wasn't just so. Frustrating!]

    I recognised this as believe it or not I share this trait as do many AP's. I used to play hi-lo & am quite capable of learning a 3 level count with side of Aces. Hi-lo frustrated with me as the truing of running count is subjective. One may see just less than 2 decks remaining if in an aggressive mood, with the resultant true count indice dictating splitting or doubling, or just more than 2 decks remaining if in an conservative mood.

    Obviously one's judgement won't be skewed greatly, certainly not to the extent to have any meaningful difference between whatever action you take.

    BUT.....on close calls I found myself second guessing my decisons. I think the decks remaining don't quite dictate I should take insurance, the dealer gets blackjack & I find myself looking at the discard pile and seeing an extra few cards there that meant I should have taken it.

    It was something I couldn't turn off, & I just found it easier to play Red 7 like a robot, never second guessing my decisions, no subjective factors involved. I only learnt it because I wanted to fully understand it's application as I was teaching it to my wife. I liked it so much I converted.

    [Or, you could also say that if 52 cards are dealt
    randomly with "normal" distribution, you can
    expect four 7's, one for every thirteen cards.]

    It's pretty ugly however you phrase it unfortunately.

    [And not to be a smart ass, but you know what
    they say about ASSUMING things, right? That is exactly
    how I feel about it! But hey, we need to get out of
    bed in the morning knowing the sun rises in the east,
    right?]

    Thus the capitals, as I know it sounds ugly. You have to realise though that hi-lo is ugly too if you really look at it.

    Example Running count of 11 with 4 decks remaining is 'trued' to +2, so is a running count of 8.

    An unbalanced running count on the other hand whilst initially more inaccurate, accounts for the appearance of these 3 extra cards within the confines of it's system.

    In other words whilst it is a less accurate system compared to hi-lo, the application of it is more accurate.
    Especially when you consider there are NO subjective factors such as deck estimation, & less room for errors also. i.e. Keeping of one count only, & no divisions

    > Is it no. of decks x -4 for KO?

    I thinks so, but don't quote me as I'm not experienced with KO. Red 7 is more accurate if starting at a constant negative multiplication of no. of decks used.
    (ie the indices don't change quite as dramatically as KO, making it more accurate if only one set of indices is to be memorised for different games)

    >I understand the red 7's, but why would you count 8
    >more small cards than large? Except for the sevens the
    >count is balanced as you said, and hence there are an
    >equal number of point values(20, +1 for each of the
    >four 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's and 6's versus -1 for each of
    >the four T's, J's, Q's, K's and Aces) for high and low
    >cards without the seven, right?

    You count from the start of an eight deck shoe at -16, as there are 16 extra red sevens counted as small cards, Each 7 is essentially counted as 1/2, by counting all the red ones as 1. Thus at the end of a shoe you would have a zero count.

    If you were playing hi lo a running count of 10 would give you a true count of 2 with 5 decks remaining, but a true count of 5 with 2 decks remaining.

    Because we are not truing our running count we need to adjust it positively as the shoe is depleted to factor the increased pen. This is when the appearance of the red 7s'
    helps by adding 1 to our count.

    [what about the first half of the shoe? Are we saying that the count has to "make up" for the systems deliberate initial imbalance?

    Basically yes, which is why you will place more bets with small edges with hi-lo, especially in the first half of the shoe. Red 7 is after most of the money obtainable from hi-lo, (80-90% depending on rules) not all of it.

    [What if this never happens? In fact, maybe I am
    thinking about this wrong, or over complicating it,
    but if dealt out completely randomly, with
    "normal" distribution, then won't the count
    never do this, make up for the initial imbalance, as
    the penetration will never be 100% and the deck will
    never be entirely played through? Are we only
    exploiting "fluctuations" in the deck as the
    cards are dealt out?]

    Remember that the sim will work out the best indices within the confines of this system. You are not simply 'exploiting fluctuations' though I don't quite know what you mean by this. You are basically just counting hi-lo but in addition counting the 7's to factor penetration.

    [Unfortunately, I am not satisfied with any of the
    existing "valid" systems and have had to
    create my own to meet my own desires and
    specifications.]

    I wasn't either & being self taught initially used the Griffin count 4,5,6,7 vs 10, with a side of Aces as I read in his book it was the most powerful playing count. I later learnt that betting efficiency was more important for shoe games & converted to hi-lo.

    [But, I also realize that I am not a blackjack "expert" and am not fully confident and trusting in myself with what I have created, regardless of my research and understanding of the game. Even though what I have devised has worked well for me (in theory and practice play)and I
    believe it to be based upon solid and logical reasoning, supported by mathematics. I do still want that "validation" from some "expert" before I go and put my money on the tables.]

    As I stated at the end of my last post, I would be looking for that validation to come from a good sim. Even the experts are prone to make many mistakes when it comes to logical reasoning in blackjack.

    [Because, making life difficult is fun for me, kind of.
    I really do enjoy the challenge of playing at a high
    level, and winning the money is only a practical
    consideration. A necessary evil if you will.]

    I enjoy playing with 100% confidence, having no subjective factors in my play, very few errors, & being able to play for long hours without fatigue, looking casual whilst I'm doing it, all of which means winning very good money.

    If you haven't already, buy a good sim & start simming your system or adaptations & compare the results. Nothing speaks louder than the results of a 100,000,000 round sim.

    It will take you maybe 20 minutes or so to generate the indices & 5 minutes to run the sim. What are you waiting for?

    As John Auston advises you, your results of a measly 50,000 rounds or so will mean nothing!

  9. #9
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: Re: Don't expect your results to tell you anything


    > Are you trying to scare me with the facts?

    Well, yes and no. The 50,000 rounds I showed you, is just one of many possible outcomes of the next 50,000 rounds of perfect play you do. Here is another you might like better. Same player, same skill, different luck. Yes, luck.

    I'm just warning you that if you are hoping to tell how well you are doing, by your results after only 50,000 rounds, you won't be able to.

    Regards,
    John





  10. #10
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Basically he is right

    I agree that John Auston's figures look quite scary but remember that it's only a scenario. Doesn't mean that it will happen to you.Also the unit he chose was very big(150$). So you should probably divide everything by 15 to size it back to your conditions.
    I can tell you what happened to me.In my first your of serious blackjack I won 35K and in the course of the second year the winnings went up to 50K.But then I ran into a horrible losing streak and within three months all my previous winnings were gone.
    Fortunately I had kept my day job and I knew from my sims that something like this could happen. So,I didn't despair and during the third year I definitely got off the ground.
    May be you can understand better now why I advised you to keep your job for the moment.

    Francis Salmon

  11. #11
    Designated Driver
    Guest

    Designated Driver: Re: Brh systems book. Thanks Trapper. *NM*


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.