Norm Wattenberger: Which is better negative or positive expectation

[Norm Wattenberger]

Several days ago, I posted on this subject. ET Fan has chosen to respond where I cannot. This is in response to his post titled "Pretty Silly"

If you're not laughing at this point, you're just not paying attention. What a riot -- the man just can't let it go!

I don't know what he means by "let it go." Let what go? Arnold has been saying for years "You won't win!" Most people lose even though they play a "winning" strategy. Shouldn't we examine why? I have made a few posts recently on this subject as I feel it is the most important, understudied phenomenon in advantage player. And I'd wager that a large number of frustrated players would agree.

First, he says this hypothetical player "would like to win of course, but it?s more important that you don?t exhaust your budget before your trip ends..." So he gives him a trip bankroll of $500! On this basis, he concludes "OPP (perfectly played) will win 39.7% and go bankrupt 54.5% of the trips."

That is correct. I haven't seen MathProf disagree.

How is it possible a winning system loses more often than it wins?

There exist any number of well known reasons. In fact, it is normal in BJ because your wins are supposed to be larger. Everyone knows that you lose more hands than you win. Even at higher counts. Whether you win or lose most sessions depends primarily on session length. But, there are many variables. This is really very basic Blackjack.

Because he gives it a $500 stop-loss and no stop-win, that's how! If you apply a $500 stop-win, then naturally, OPP will win more often than it loses. Not true for a basic -- a negative EV strategy.

First, neither statement is true. I can easily create a system based on Basic Strategy that wins more often than it loses. That's common knowledge. And a stop-win most certainly makes no such guarantee. But more importantly, a stop-win violates the assumptions. Look, this person goes to Vegas once or twice a year. He is not an AP, he just takes a vacation now and again. He likes to play BJ. He isn't going to say "I won $500 so I will just sit in my room until my return flight." He came to play cards and times awastin'.

There was no need to do a sim. As MathProf said, you can cook statistics in this way for any counting system.

Just another insult. I didn't "cook" any numbers. I gave my assumptions. I haven't heard anyone argue with my assumptions or conclusions. In fact, I agree with most every word in MathProf's post. And in fact, I just reread MathProf's post. You made this up. He said nothing like I cooked stats.

Why doesn't Norm say basic is better than the Hi-Opt II, or the Revere APC?

OK. For a player that plays once or twice a year, BS is vastly better than Revere APC. Unless he has an eidetic memory. "Better" depends on circumstances.

Start with the same $500 but make it a $10 table instead of a $5 table.

A weak system would be a disaster in that circumstance. Run the numbers and you will see my point is made even stronger under that assumption.

And are we allowed to even look at how much is won? You would think that might factor into the comparison just a tiny bit, wouldn't you?

Of course you can. Why must you state everything in such nasty terms. And I specifically did. Reread the post.

And then he claims: "The problem with weak counts is they force a large spread." You know, there's this new thing called "Wonging" I guess Norm hasn't heard about. You can win with NO spread whatsoever Wonging with a valid counting system.

Again with the nastiness. One of the reasons I rarely respond to you. Of course I know what Wonging is. But, will this player in his few days a year in LV actually stand around staring at other people play most of his trip? Players like this don't backcount. He'd barely get to play at all. And he's playing at a $5 table. They get mighty crowded in the day and a guy on vacation normally doesn't switch shifts. [Ya know, I never understood the point of porn. Why would anyone want to watch other people have sex? The typical recreational player in LV a few days a year is not going there to watch.]

Finally, he claims: "Arnold has chosen to respond where I cannot post." If anybody believes that, I have a bridge in New Orleans ...

Now why did you have to end the post with an outright lie. A lie posted over and over again. Karen has barred me from posting at BJFO. Is there anyone that has watched me post over the years that thinks I would hesitate to respond? That I am afraid to respond? I went toe-to-toe with Doug Grant for a year defending STanford and Arnold despite constant threats of suits. In fact, I spoke to Grant's lawyer three times. That I would be afraid of posting to BJF is downright laughable. If anyone believes that, I'll sell them the island I live on. They get great enjoyment from repeatedly saying I'm chicken to post while secretly barring me.

Just ask yourself -- why doesn't he call this the Speed Count? He says it's the same count, and it was called Speed Count first. WHY is he so hell-bent on trashing OPP specifically rather than its namesake?

The specific count is irrelevant. The class of count is the subject. In fact I also mentioned an Ace-Five count. The statement that I am "trashing" OPP is false, although it has been made many times. I am merely posting the numbers as I have with many strategies. I have posted more OPP sims than anyone for anyone to examine. I optimized the bets to improve OPPs performance and I posted every reasonable set of assumptions instead of picking and chosing ones to make a point. My comments have been absolutely honest. OPP doesn't perform well. Why are you trashing me just because that's what the numbers from MathProf, Cacarulo and me show? Why are some people so "hell-bent" on avoiding risk discussions? Do you really want to send newbies into casinos telling them they have an advantage without detaling the risk first? The casinos love this. As for Speed Count; I have been making strongly negative comments on the entire Speed Count debacle for over a year. Where have you folk been all this time? Your site even has a front page link to one of the Speed Count instructors site's containing a Golden Touch ad. This site rejected the offer to exchange links and free trials for its readers.

Put on your thinking cap -- I'll bet you can figure it out.

Just more nastiness.


Blackjack Scams

[Cyrus]

Are you now or have you ever been a supporter or fellow traveller of the Speed Count ?

That's the accusation that is implicit in the flame war.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Funny history there. 23 months ago when SC was announced I was told that I would not be allowed to sim it. The reason? Well, I simmed Walter Thomason's 21st Century Blackjack. Since it's a progression system, it had negative EV. Surprise, surprise. My sim is still on my Blackjack Scams site. I even published all the code to the simulator on the old BJ21 free pages. Turns out, Speed Count is owned by Scoblete and Scoblete is the publisher of 21st Century. That didn't stop me from simming it and I criticized SC in several threads since. Behind the scenes I informed the SC people that their numbers were incorrect. I even told one of the principles face to face at last year's BJ Ball what was wrong with the numbers. Funny thing is now I'm being criticized for not criticizing SC. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Whenever you publish numbers someone is going to be pissed. I even got flamed by these folk when I posted all the CVCX sims online.


Blackjack Scams

Walter Thomason Sims