Norm Wattenberger: REKO - Another simplified KO strategy

[Sun Runner]

> Page 8 of Ken Uston's SS Count "The use of most
> strategy decision numbers has a minimal effect on win
> rates."

Bet one for bad and two for good is still a pretty powerful technique.

> The Uston SS Count has only six indexes for shoe games
> including Insurance.

While I obviously agree with Uston, Snyder, etc regarding certain elements of lite play I sympathize with Salmon in that vulgarizng the techniques, as he calls it, should not be construed with sloppiness.

MJ -keep questioning everything.

The quotes from Uston above does not make lite play any more valid because Norm quotes him. Can you believe Uston -evertime? Maybe, who knows. He didn't even use his own count when he played for real money. Gee, thanks Kenny, for being upfront.

So Snyder's endorsement put it over the edge for you on this issue. Can you believe him -eveytime? Per his website he can not now "in good conscience" endorse ANY commercially available BJ simulator now on the market! None. He does recomend PowerSim however.

I have learned much, from most, but you keep figureing it out yourself MJ, you can do it, the truth is out there.

By the way, your MIT boy and his +7 max bet concept. Obviously these guys are not stupid. Either this guy is a poser, or you mis-understoof him, or maybe they were trying to smooth out the flux. When your bet spread is effectively 1:1000, maybe their ramp does not look like mine.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> By the way, your MIT boy and his +7 max bet concept.
> Obviously these guys are not stupid. Either this guy
> is a poser, or you mis-understoof him, or maybe they
> were trying to smooth out the flux. When your bet
> spread is effectively 1:1000, maybe their ramp does
> not look like mine.

The problem with vague references is you have no idea of the circumstances. There do exist situations where a max at +7 could exist. Say Early Surrender and very deep penetration. Your advantage is so high you can start with a higher bet and ramp more slowly. But, you ain't going to find that game in Vegas

[pm]

Hey Francis, I'm always fascinated when I read these threads, so sometimes I just have to ask. It's been shown by simulation that going from half- to quarter-deck resolution in 6 decks doesn't result in any kind of real gain (almost zero). Just the other day I was simming full-deck vs. half-deck resolution and, when bet optimally, there wasn't much of a difference even between those two. The same was true for TC rounding & deck rounding methods, i.e. when bet optimally, there was very little difference between rounding and flooring the TC and rounding and flooring the # of remaining decks.

Is it that you literally don't believe in the results of simulations? To be fair, I ran my sims with CVData, which is Norm's product, and obviously from your stance, Norm is a complete idiot who has hidden agendas and must OBVIOUSLY be putting out completely bogus products (a fair assumption, since that's generally the case with most reknowned experts in their fields). So forget that. But even still, I'm sure that other simulators would produce the same results. Is it that you think all these simulators are wrong and that there are actually significant gains to be had from using quarter-deck precision? Or from rounding the TC as opposed to flooring?

[Francis Salmon]

There is no disagreement about the fact that bet sizing is more important than strategy adjustments but if you think that Uston was an advocate of lite-play you're totally wrong.In fact,he was literally obsessed with indices.
You just have to open his book "Million Dollar Blackjack" on page 124.The next 20 pages are full of flash cards for his APC count,12 on each page.This makes 240 indices reaching from TC+23 to TC-25.
Of course he was overdoing it,the range between -5 and +10 is sufficient for all practical purposes.
Unbalanced counts are not so well suited for indices and that explains Ustons remarks concerning his SS count.

Francis Salmon

[Norm Wattenberger]

Uston was indeed a believer in numerous indexes. He also played single deck almost exclusively in his early days. (I played at the same time and was barred before he at Benny's.) But we learn as time goes on. A more complete quote from Uston SS:

New Developments in Blackjack

Since I developed the Uston Advanced Point Count in 1978, there have been many new developments in blackjack, Studies conducted by several noted Blackjack authorities, have shown that:

- There is an insignificant effect on win rates when optimal running count values are used, as compared to True Count values, when varying from basic strategy. [Prof. Armand Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Gambling]

- The use of most strategy decision numbers has a minimal effect on win rates. [Dr. John Gwynn, jr.]

And on.

Decades ago researchers came to these conclusions and Uston changed his mind. We are not reinventing the wheel. No one in the field agrees that the kind of precision you are talking about has significant value in today's games. Everyone's studies for decades say this is the wrong area on which to concentrate.

Look, you can play anyway you wish. If it works for you, great. But calling everyone else delusional morons is not helpful.

[jblaze]

Using indices solely ranging from -5 to +10 is not sufficient with the UAPC.

> Uston was indeed a believer in numerous indexes. He
> also played single deck almost exclusively in his
> early days. (I played at the same time and was barred
> before he at Benny's.) But we learn as time goes on. A
> more complete quote from Uston SS:

> New Developments in Blackjack

> Since I developed the Uston Advanced Point Count in
> 1978, there have been many new developments in
> blackjack, Studies conducted by several noted
> Blackjack authorities, have shown that:

> - There is an insignificant effect on win rates when
> optimal running count values are used, as compared to
> True Count values, when varying from basic strategy.
> [Prof. Armand Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on
> Gambling]

> - The use of most strategy decision numbers has a
> minimal effect on win rates. [Dr. John Gwynn, jr.]

> And on.
> Decades ago researchers came to these conclusions
> and Uston changed his mind. We are not reinventing the
> wheel. No one in the field agrees that the kind of
> precision you are talking about has significant value
> in today's games. Everyone's studies for decades say
> this is the wrong area on which to concentrate.

> Look, you can play anyway you wish. If it works for
> you, great. But calling everyone else delusional
> morons is not helpful.

[Francis Salmon]

Why did he never use the SS count?I'm sure,he used his indices till the end of his life.

By the way,I never called anybody a moron and you should stop putting words in my mouth.I'm not interested in a flame war.

Francis Salmon

[Norm Wattenberger]

And Don continues to use a massive number although he now knows the gain is paltry. If its automatic that's fine. But, when designing a new strategy or advising new players, why throw out whatever knowledge you've gained since you learned?

[Francis Salmon]

[Mr. Lee]

> You and this MIT member are making valid points and
> it's sad to see that these are only met with
> platitudes and contempt from Norm and Don.
> They delude themselves into thinking that they can
> correct the imprecision of an index by adding more
> inaccuracy in deck estimation and TC calculation in
> general.
> Please,keep your critical mind.It's needed on these
> pages.

> Francis Salmon

I think deck estimation is more important w/ insurance and playing decisions as opposed to betting where half a deck should be OK.

[Norm Wattenberger]

The Chileans took French vines and techniques and transplanted them to the ideal weather of the Andes. A eunologist might suggest a Chilean Marques de Casa Concha Chardonnay while sipping his French Pouilly Fuisse knowing that it is not quite as good but half the price.

[Cacarulo]

> The Chileans took French vines and techniques and
> transplanted them to the ideal weather of the Andes. A
> eunologist might suggest a Chilean Marques de Casa
> Concha Chardonnay while sipping his French Pouilly
> Fuisse knowing that it is not quite as good but half
> the price.

... Argentinian wines are far better than Chilean wines Besides, they use their own techniques!
An Argentinian friend told me that.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Norm Wattenberger]