Memory Palace

[Cimsfe]

This question has to do with Memory Palace betting or even pseudo memory palace betting in BJ. Has any of the more sophisticated players who watch this site ever seriously tried it?

What if you watched and counted the removal of all say 4s through 7s or even 3s through 7s plus kept a count relating to the 10s. What would the betting efficiency and playing efficiency be if you can do it?

You can look up online a couple of videos on You Tube of some Brit magic guy who said he was doing it in the video. Plus I saw it somewhere else but cant remember.

[genini1]

The problem is having all this information isn't incredibly useful. In order for a counter to make use of knowing there are two 4's and three 7's left in the deck they need to do math in order to get a number that tells them what to do and it gets order of magnitude complicated for each additional level. For example say you have 17 showing and the dealer has a 9. What you want to know is what are the chances of busting versus succeeding and what are the dealer's odds. Just too much math to do while pretending you aren't doing something.

[Cimsfe]

Actually I found the you tube video of the Brit - Derren Brown - using Memory Palace techniques to play blackjack. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1mweFSqACU

He claims to be able to memorize all the cards seen by putting a sticker on them and posting the sticker in a palace object or a house object. When there are three stickers for any particular card he knows there is only one left (in a four deck game), for example.

So, Let's say there are four decks in a shoe that are cut with only 1 deck behind the cut card, and you could literally Memory Palace all the cards before then (and I'm wondering how hard that could be), my question is what would the betting and playing efficiency be? I must be greater than 70% or so which Norm's book says the best systems getting on playing efficiency.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

The answer is that Playing Efficiency would be "about" .80

[ohbehave]

I don't quite get the middle step of the sticker. If the cards can be remembered shouldn't he just put the cards in the room and skip the sticker step. Seems more efficient. But then I'm no rainman.

[Marvin]

Actually I found the you tube video of the Brit - Derren Brown - using Memory Palace techniques to play blackjack. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1mweFSqACU

He claims to be able to memorize all the cards seen by putting a sticker on them and posting the sticker in a palace object or a house object. When there are three stickers for any particular card he knows there is only one left (in a four deck game), for example.

So, Let's say there are four decks in a shoe that are cut with only 1 deck behind the cut card, and you could literally Memory Palace all the cards before then (and I'm wondering how hard that could be), my question is what would the betting and playing efficiency be? I must be greater than 70% or so which Norm's book says the best systems getting on playing efficiency.

Darren Brown is a great illusionist. Often times his explanation to the audience is part of the misdirection; I wouldn't take him at his word for the explanation of his BJ play.
Computer perfect play doesn't get you all that much unless the game is very deeply dealt.

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/sdcnt.htm

Memory techniques could be better used with AP modalities other than counting.

[Cimsfe]

That seems to be an incredible increase over other systems. Why shouldn't I try to really get there in terms of a goal.
Right now I watch/count aces and Q Hearts in my six deck games (mainly for Lucky Ladies - see my other thread on Lucky Ladies and Push Your Luck) in addition to true counts. I don't find it that hard. I summarize in my mind after each round. What if I started also keeping the elimination counts of 3s, 4s, and 5s just like the aces?
So for example if the T.C. was 6 or 7 near the end of a shoe, but I also knew it was composed of mostly 4s and 5s having been eliminated or rather they were in defici trather than 3s or 6s, wouldn't this allow me to be way more confident in betting decisions?

[Cimsfe]

The premise to my latest point is that the effect of removal (EOR) in terms of player advantage of 4s and 5s is greater than the EOR of 3s and 6s. So why shouldn't I try and keep track of whether there is a deficit from the expected of 4s and 5s in a high true count situation.If there are six decks in a shoe that is cut 1.5 off at the shuffle point, and if the TC is 6 or 7 but I know that there are only 2 5s and 2 4s very near the end of the shoe (say last round or so) - and there should normally be 6 5s and 6 4s (i.e. there are 24 of each in the deck and at the point of only 1.5 decks left that means there should be at least 6 of each left), wouldn't I have a lot more confidence of increasing my bets prior to that round - maybe to a full Kelly or something like that?In other words, shouldn't I be be striving to get closer and closer to the Memory Palace type of counting so that my betting could be more precise?

[Marvin]

That seems to be an incredible increase over other systems. Why shouldn't I try to really get there in terms of a goal.
Right now I watch/count aces and Q Hearts in my six deck games (mainly for Lucky Ladies - see my other thread on Lucky Ladies and Push Your Luck) in addition to true counts. I don't find it that hard. I summarize in my mind after each round. What if I started also keeping the elimination counts of 3s, 4s, and 5s just like the aces?
So for example if the T.C. was 6 or 7 near the end of a shoe, but I also knew it was composed of mostly 4s and 5s having been eliminated or rather they were in defici trather than 3s or 6s, wouldn't this allow me to be way more confident in betting decisions?

Not with betting decisions, no. All ace reckoned counts have a betting correlation in the 95%+ range. FELT, RPC, and halves are in the 99% area. There just isn't much to be gained from a betting perspective.
http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage172.htm

Having more granular information would help you with playing decisions and insurance decisions, but in most modern games (shoes with 1 deck or more cut off), the gain from playing decisions is relatively small.
If you're looking at this from a personal challenge and perfectionism perspective then you can learn Hi Opt 2 with all sorts of side counts, or see if Tarzan would be willing to share some info on his count.

If you're mainly looking to increase your winnings, then, IMHO, you can be using the free brainpower on more effective things:
As KJ often suggests, if you can see an adjacent table clearly enough then you can count that table while playing the one you're on, and switch tables if the count is better on the other one. If you can do this effectively then the benefit will far outweigh any gains from an improved playing efficiency.
You can also try to learn shuffle tracking or sequencing, etc.

One area where being able to keep multiple counts is useful is in games that include a lucrative side bet that isn't effectively countable with the main count. Lucky Ladies correlates fairly well with most counts; Lucky Lucky, not so much.

[Cimsfe]

There's a lot to to think about here with both your responses and URL references. Thanks so much.

I am going to put a lot of thought and study to the points you both made. For some reason I seem to be fixated on Memory Palace memorization/counting and EOR.

I wish someone would address my question about Push Your Luck strategy in my other recent new thread I started.

[Cimsfe]

Thanks for the helpful info.

[njrich]

"Moonwalking with Einstein" is an excellent book on the subject.