Worst bj

[ZenMaster_Flash]

moses,

You play [exclusively] Single Deck games.
Playing Efficiency should be your focus.
When was the last time you split 9's vs. Ace or 7 ?
(My favorite play with surplus Aces)

Betting Correlation for Single Deck?
you can feel fine with any B.C. > 99%

[ZenMaster_Flash]

moses,

"... hitting without sacrificing pen"

You have mentioned this misconception on several occasions.

Even in a SD game, a one card reduction (or addition) will NOT

matter, except in a truly borderline situation.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

moses,

You are stating that you are willing to play BJ with preferential shuffling;
without a cut card and with dealers NOT shuffling away high counts,
but shuffling because the T C is LOW and you are playing correctly ?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I have not played BJ in Reno/Sparks/Tahoe in quite awhile.
From what you describe, I wouldn't consider playing there.
I'm glad that I do not have to.

[dharmaprija]

Try the odds at some INDIAN casinos in say, OK. For example....8 decks and the auto shufflers....ONLY. Not to mention a 50 cent ante per hand. Talk about being scalped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There will be dummies playing that game with no clue how bad it is. I'm amazed at what the Evil Empire is getting away with these days.

[dharmaprija]

just trying to repost enough to get back on board. been away. back. hello all.

[moo321]

Back to the OP, I have seen even money BJ at a handful of places.

[Bobcat]

Non-linear means the decision is not reduced to a single point on a number line. That point for linear counters is the TC. My betting decision is based on a TC pair. So you might bet the same for true counts pairs A,B and C,D and E,F because they all reduce to the same TC on a number line you use for betting. I may be betting my min bet for one a middle spread bet for another and a high net spread bet for the third. Your sim collects all these TC pairs into the same bucket that has the same TC. My count pairs has them each as individual buckets that may have similar advantages or very different advantages. I don't use a column count. The two counts have an overlap that implies a three column count so to the simulator it is in effect a three column count when the two counts are used in a nonlinear fashion (reducing things to a TC pair in 2 dimensional space rather than a TC on a number line). Rather than trying to convert it or equate it to a linear approach, which can't be done, try understanding how it works.

It sounds like your two counts are correlated (i.e., dot product of weight vectors is nonzero). This looks suspicious since only the uncorrelated parts of the two counts matter. The correlated parts are just seeing redundant information.

[Stealth]

In a linear approach you add counts as in adding vectors. In my approach they aren't added. You are interested in when both TC exist simultaneously, not all the counts that add to the same sum. The overlap is what makes it so strong. You are tracking 3 card groups. Two card groups against each other for each count. So you have a relationship of group A and B tracked in one count and group B and C tracked in another count. You then have an implied relationship between group A and group C that exists each time you have the same TC pair. You need not worry about knowing anything about this relationship but that specific group A, B and C simultaneous relationship exists each time you have the same TC pair. The sim gathers the data by TC pairs so each time that same level of A, B and C exist the simulator dumps the result in the same TC pair bin. Think of it like an equalizer Where A represents the number of cards counted in card group A and B counts as the number of cards counted in card group B and C counts as the number of cards counted in card group C. When A is 5 and B is 6 and C is 9 the TC pair will always be -1,-3 if A is counted as +1, B counted as -1 in the first count and B is counted as +1 and C counted as -1 for the second count. A linear application as you put it with vectors would reduce everything to -4. Lots of combinations that are totally different for the equalizer will reduce to -4 when added. Every time the 2 counts reduce to TC -1,-3 the bars on the equalizer will be the same. This is the difference between defining a very general decks composition and a very specific one. A very general composition will have lots of totally unrelated things that he very different results lumped together to get an advantage estimate. The specific one will only consider a very small subset of all those in the general that are very closely related as to their deck composition in order to get an advantage estimate.

Look at it from a math standpoint. The linear application gets the TC -4 by the sum (A - B) + (b - C) = -4 to get a point on a number line (I use big "B" and small "b" because these are multilevel counts and B has a different magnitude in both counts. They can be summed for a slightly more accurate linear approach than the standard way of making ace adjustment from a BC perspective. You would add a multiple of count 2 to count 1 that optimizes BC). The 2d application solves simultaneous equations A-B=-1 and b-C=-3 to get a point on a plane. There is a line in this plane that all reduces to a point on the number line of -4. This is what is averaged to get an advantage estimate using the linear approach. A point on that line is what is averaged to get an advantage estimate using a 2d approach. The 2 counts can be used in either way. You can sum them to come up with a line in the plane or look at them simultaneously to come up with a point on that line. If the 2 counts had no overlap the point would not be anywhere near as specific. The overlap is what allows the 3 bars on the equalizer to be used. Otherwise you would have a better model for determining advantage but the set described would not be as specific. You would be counting 4 card groups and only know a relationship between 2 sets of 2 card groups instead of all 4 card groups. You want a very strong overlap between 2 counts in order to produce a very specific deck composition as defined by the 2 TC's.

Hopefully that is something some people can follow. I have been emerged in this a long long time and it took me quite a while to fully shake the linear counting theory we are all raised on and view this for what it is. I fully understand if people in error to apply linear theory to the use of data in 2 dimensions. It really helps to forget most of the linear way of thinking. It is kind of like teaching someone to play a carny game. The best and often hardest piece of advice to take to heart is, "it may look like BJ but it is not BJ. Forget all your BJ BS and strategy and learn the new strategy. When you run home to that BJ momma you will be making a mistake at the carny game." The same applies here. BC is not a metric or limit that can be applied. BC assumes you will use information gathered linearly, reducing it to a TC on a number line.

And I keep telling people, "you do not have to be a rocket scientist to count cards"! LOL

[ZenKinG]

And I keep telling people, "you do not have to be a rocket scientist to count cards"! LOL

Can you be a mechanic?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to Count Cards ...

" ... but it can't hurt."

[ZeeBabar]

To get into Rocket Scientist school, you have to take an entrance exam that requires you to walk into the Sweaty Spaniard with $100, walk out with $1000 in 30 minutes!

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I guarantee that I can walk you into a casino and have you leave an hr. later with a small fortune.

However, in order to accomplish this masterfully, you need to bring with you a large fortune.