looking to get serious about my play

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"But in shoe games betting is more important.
There is more gain to improving the betting
strategy than playing strategy in shoe games."

That is not nearly as true as it was 20 years ago, when we used to spread 20 to 1 with impunity.

Your Level One counts have you spreading wide enough to get barred with shocking frequency,

besides making it easy for the Pit to view you as a threat, because he can predict your action.

My eight to one spread in good shoe games keeps me affluent. Does Hi-Lo let you do the same ?

I have watched TARZAN beat the daylights out of barely marginal games with a 5 or 6 to 1 spread.

[Three]

Sims dont lie. You're deluded.

I have the sims to back it up. I am usually a hair above EV because I can adjust to changing casino conditions where a sim just makes assumptions. Have you simulated a long run of short runs? It is rather enlightening. You see how a strong increase in EV can change the likelihood of what is likely to happen in a trip or a day. When you are more likely to post wins around a lose and more likely to win more and lose less you would be amazed at how it feels to have little to complain about in the way of short term swings that become a long term beating. It is like playing progressions. You just change the likely short term results to something you are more comfortable with. The long term stats don't change as much as what the short term results make it feel like. Since you just take what is spoon-fed to you and don't investigate how to improve your chances when you lose I wouldn't expect you to understand. Next time you are crying about the losses that wreck your EV try figuring out how to make your count more efficient while increasing certainty and EV. You might be amazed at what you find.

[Three]

My eight to one spread in good shoe games keeps me affluent. Does Hi-Lo let you do the same ?

I have watched TARZAN beat the daylights out of barely marginal games with a 5 or 6 to 1 spread.

The value of increased certainty is a lot more than most believe.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Sims dont lie. You're deluded."

You probably bet on fast horses as opposed to overlaid ones.

You probably bet on 'home' team favorites in the NFL too.

Sim's are useful.

If you think that they are like Moses in the

desert with stone tablets you are wrong.

[moses]

Sims are great for comparing counts. Game selection is the key to success. Getting to the large bet is the point. The rest is just sitting in traffic. Variance minimizes by putting yourself in the best position to win. Winning 50.39% and losing 49.61% which in includes blackjacks, insurance, and double downs is a threshold - not an advantage.

[Three]

Sims dont lie. You're deluded.

I would think you would believe you are the one that have been deluded by sims after your performance. The sims say you should win but in a casino you don't. In a casino I perform slightly better than the sims because I can adjust to real factors that affect my results. A simulator can try to make similar things happen but it is not the same thing. The sim follows formulas to leave the table, raise your bet, and make playing decisions while these are generally good choices with the added info of what is going on in the casino you can make better. You think the casino should be like playing in your house on the computer but there are things going on in the casino that you can interact with that is not in a sim or on the game you play at home. The way you interact can either help or hurt your results.

[ZeeBabar]

Here we go again. Count discussion! While I respect Tthree and others, the analogy is ridiculous. It should be more like driving a Ferrari or a Mustang, a Rolls Royce versus a Camry. The Ferrari may get you there faster if there were no cops and no speed limit (The casinos are the equivalent), Rolls Royce may make you feel better but for most of us a Camry gets to the same point comfortably enough.

[Three]

Well since my point was the damage when you get slammed along the way for one versus the other your transformation of it doesn't show the point.

be safe when some idiot crashes into me or something else bad happens that is out of my control. Sure that guy that drives that ridiculous golf cart looking car or whatever it is will also get where he is going but but he is dead as soon as something unexpected happens.

[RS]

6D, S17, DAS, RSA, heads up, 1-12 spread, $100K BR, half Kelly, 2 hands, 5/6 pen, play all, full indices.

HiLo:
2x$50 to 2x$600
1.192% edge
$293.65/hour
$392.58/round SD
$3925.82/hour SD
2.2% ROR
7.48 DI
55.95 SCORE
$139.95 CE
17,873 N0

HiOpt2 w/ ASC:
2x$50 to 2x$600
1.258% edge
$320.65/hour
$403.42/round SD
$4034.15/hour SD
1.9% ROR
7.95 DI
63.18 SCORE
$157.91 CE
15,828 N0


Is one better than the other? Yes, in every regard (except variance, but that's due to betting more money more frequently, but the variance for both is practically the same).

Better, yes. But is it that much better as people are making it seem? I don't think so.

[LoneWoLF]

I would think you would believe you are the one that have been deluded by sims after your performance. The sims say you should win but in a casino you don't. In a casino I perform slightly better than the sims because I can adjust to real factors that affect my results. A simulator can try to make similar things happen but it is not the same thing. The sim follows formulas to leave the table, raise your bet, and make playing decisions while these are generally good choices with the added info of what is going on in the casino you can make better. You think the casino should be like playing in your house on the computer but there are things going on in the casino that you can interact with that is not in a sim or on the game you play at home. The way you interact can either help or hurt your results.

Playing in a casino is literally like playing on my computer. Nothing affects me. Variance is just getting the best of me for now thats all. But im already turning the corner again it seems.

Good cards to you.

[LoneWoLF]

6D, S17, DAS, RSA, heads up, 1-12 spread, $100K BR, half Kelly, 2 hands, 5/6 pen, play all, full indices.

HiLo:
2x$50 to 2x$600
1.192% edge
$293.65/hour
$392.58/round SD
$3925.82/hour SD
2.2% ROR
7.48 DI
55.95 SCORE
$139.95 CE
17,873 N0

HiOpt2 w/ ASC:
2x$50 to 2x$600
1.258% edge
$320.65/hour
$403.42/round SD
$4034.15/hour SD
1.9% ROR
7.95 DI
63.18 SCORE
$157.91 CE
15,828 N0


Is one better than the other? Yes, in every regard (except variance, but that's due to betting more money more frequently, but the variance for both is practically the same).

Better, yes. But is it that much better as people are making it seem? I don't think so.

Shhh, how dare you post those stats. Go ahead and post halves vs hi opt II ASC. The difference or lack thereof might amaze some.

[Three]

6D, S17, DAS, RSA, heads up, 1-12 spread, $100K BR, half Kelly, 2 hands, 5/6 pen, play all, full indices.

HiLo:
2x$50 to 2x$600
1.192% edge
$293.65/hour
$392.58/round SD
$3925.82/hour SD
2.2% ROR
7.48 DI
55.95 SCORE
$139.95 CE
17,873 N0

HiOpt2 w/ ASC:
2x$50 to 2x$600
1.258% edge
$320.65/hour
$403.42/round SD
$4034.15/hour SD
1.9% ROR
7.95 DI
63.18 SCORE
$157.91 CE
15,828 N0


Is one better than the other? Yes, in every regard (except variance, but that's due to betting more money more frequently, but the variance for both is practically the same).

Better, yes. But is it that much better as people are making it seem? I don't think so.

This post is one you want to read if you are the type to skip my longer posts. I talk about an effect you don't hear others ever discussing that is very important. If you care about how you can do something about BR swings this is your post.

First thing. This is not a fair comparison if you are using EV as a measure of how much is gained. Much of the gain is not in EV but reduced RoR for Hiopt2/ASC. Looking to the EV cage for the gain is missing much of it. If you had both with the same RoR Hiopt2/ASC would bet more at each level. Plus you are not including the added variance for worse plays and bets you say the variance difference is due to a higher average bet. What would be the effect if Hiopt2/ASC randomly bet more or less than the optimal bet on occasion? That is what Hilo player looks like to a Hiopt2 player. Wouldn't that increase variance? It isn't so much about the bet differences as it is about the amount of error from the true advantage which neither count knows. Why does this increase variance when you could argue the error is in both directions? This is because it comes to luck as to whether you win more of the errant bets that you over bet or less when using Hilo from the Hiopt2 perspective.

This link shows that when the hilo player believes he has an advantage the actual range of advantage for that TC is wide and the Hilo player is more often over betting but will under bet by a larger amount. The ranges of actual advantage around the counts advantage estimate for any TC is smaller in negative expectation situations but that is where Hilo suffers most from its playing weakness of including the ace in the main count.

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...orial-Analysis

This thread shows just what is going on with the betting difference:

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-at-tc-1/page2

Look at post #17 for the hilo actual advantage bell curve around it's average that you equate everything to.
Post #30 shows the Hiopt2 equivalent TC and the bell curve of actual advantage around its average advantage estimate for the situations equated into that TC bin. Several observations can be made. First Hiopt2 has a higher advantage on average for the equivalent bin. Second the shape of the bell curves are almost identical. Third the range of the bell curves are very different. This is the added slop where Hilo is betting more poorly.

Graph stat comparison:
Count: Avg EV; Advantage range of the Bell curve body; Extreme advantage range of the bell curve
Hilo count: 0.36%; -0.5% to 1.25%; -2.3% to +3.8%
HO2/ASC: 0.43%; 0% to 0.75%; -1.1% to +2.3%

All that extra range of actual advantage within the TC bin causes increased variance as the random nature of what you face causes more significant runs of one extreme or the other to occur. To a degree long run sim results will make this seem less than it is when you play through the short run. Things average out in time which includes the range you wander from expectation. In the long run the effect of this wider range of possible advantages around your advantage estimate causes higher variance. In the short run it causes longer duration, more frequent and more severe deviations from expectation (swings) in both direction. We call this variance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for average bet and variance here is what I consider to be the most unbiased comparison of systems. It was done by Brett Harris:

ps Brh-0 is Red 7 (with all sevens counted as half values)

------------------------------------------------------

Here the SCORE's as promised. The game is 6 deck, 75% pen, S17, DAS, DOA, no RSA, no surrender.

For the play-all case, I have used optimal 1-16 spreads, this will exercise both the PE in negative counts and the BC in positive counts. It is not intended to be too realistic because you would have to have rocks in your head to play this way, just look at the size of the ekb (unit bet x 1.5 x ekb = 5% ROR bank), and N0 is not too crash hot either.

Spread: 1-16 Play All Rounds

System ekb DI N0 Unit Bet EV/100(SCORE) SD/100
Brh-I/Brh-II(t) 1066 5.51 32952 | $ 9.38 $30.35 $550.88
AOII/Halves 1070 5.50 33088 | $ 9.35 $30.22 $549.75
HiOptII/RPC 1066 5.47 33397 | $ 9.38 $29.94 $547.20
HiOptII (A-side)1057 5.52 32762 | $ 9.46 $30.52 $552.48 ***
Brh-II(t,A-side)1064 5.46 33546 | $ 9.40 $29.81 $545.98
AOII (A-side) 1076 5.46 33572 | $ 9.29 $29.79 $545.77
Brh-I (true) 1105 5.32 35275 | $ 9.05 $28.35 $532.46 **
Uston SS (true) 1119 5.31 35514 | $ 8.94 $28.16 $530.64
Zen 1092 5.31 35526 | $ 9.16 $28.15 $530.55
Halves(x2) 1113 5.30 35632 | $ 8.99 $28.06 $529.76
UBZ11 (true) 1106 5.28 35833 | $ 9.04 $27.91 $528.27
RPC 1107 5.22 36706 | $ 9.04 $27.24 $521.95
Brh-0 (true) 1124 5.22 36749 | $ 8.90 $27.21 $521.62
TKO (true) 1147 5.13 37939 | $ 8.72 $26.36 $513.40
Hi-Lo 1174 4.99 40095 | $ 8.52 $24.94 $499.41
Brh-I/Brh-II(r) 1144 5.42 34043 | $ 8.74 $29.37 $541.98 *
Brh-II(r,A-side)1139 5.37 34695 | $ 8.78 $28.82 $536.87 *
Brh-I (run) 1173 5.22 36670 | $ 8.52 $27.27 $522.20
UBZ11 (run) 1174 5.16 37486 | $ 8.52 $26.68 $516.50
Uston SS (run) 1213 5.12 38128 | $ 8.24 $26.23 $512.12
Brh-0 (run) 1200 5.08 38705 | $ 8.33 $25.84 $508.37
K-O (run) 1146 4.97 40561 | $ 8.73 $24.65 $496.53

Now the other one is a play only roughly Hi-Lo TC of +1 or above, spreading 1-8, resulting in approximately 26-27% of rounds being played. There are those who don't like to compare Wonging schemes by equalising the playing percentages, but I am unconvinced there is a better alternative. In any case, given the method, the comparision is valid. The only caveat is that these were generated from the same SBA result files as the play-all cases, the unit bet was simply set to zero for all TC/RC less than the Wong point. These were not separate sims
with leaving points set, so technically these sims correspond to a player jumping in and out the same shoe at will. But again, I do not think it affects the ranking all that much.

Spread: 1-8 Backcounting

System ekb DI N0 Unit Bet EV/100(SCORE) SD/100 %pl Wong(RC/TC)
AOII/Halves 223 6.96 20667 | $44.85 $48.39 $695.60 27.41% 2
Brh-I/Brh-II(t) 225 6.95 20706 | $44.54 $48.29 $694.94 27.29% -2
HiOptII/RPC 221 6.91 20945 | $45.27 $47.74 $690.97 26.25% 2
HiOptII (A-side) 213 6.98 20524 | $47.02 $48.72 $698.02 24.83% 2 ***
AOII(A-side) 214 6.92 20853 | $46.72 $47.95 $692.49 25.81% 2
Brh-II (t,A-side) 215 6.90 21001 | $46.47 $47.62 $690.05 25.64% -2
Brh-I (true) 230 6.81 21557 | $43.47 $46.39 $681.09 27.27% -2 **
Halves(x2) 229 6.78 21763 | $43.66 $45.95 $677.86 27.41% 2
Uston SS (true) 235 6.77 21805 | $42.56 $45.86 $677.21 27.89% -2
Zen 218 6.77 21815 | $45.78 $45.84 $677.05 24.88% 2
UBZ11 (true) 226 6.73 22053 | $44.33 $45.35 $673.39 25.61% -2
RPC 226 6.71 22233 | $44.34 $44.98 $670.65 26.24% 2
Brh-0 (true) 233 6.70 22265 | $42.93 $44.91 $670.17 26.84% -2
TKO (true) 231 6.62 22786 | $43.24 $43.89 $662.48 27.32% -3
Hi-Lo 234 6.48 23842 | $42.82 $41.94 $647.63 26.66% 1
Brh-I/Brh-II(r) 253 6.79 21674 | $39.58 $46.14 $679.25 26.42% -6 *
Brh-II (r,A-side) 259 6.75 21965 | $38.63 $45.53 $674.73 27.14% -7 *
Brh-I (run) 271 6.53 23432 | $36.91 $42.68 $653.28 26.42% -6
UBZ11 (run) 273 6.53 23427 | $36.58 $42.69 $653.34 27.08% -7
Brh-0 (run) 255 6.51 23595 | $39.22 $42.38 $651.02 26.02% -6
Uston SS (run) 268 6.49 23772 | $37.32 $42.07 $648.59 26.97% -6
K-O (run) 281 6.39 24465 | $35.60 $40.88 $639.34 26.02% -9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First I will say all counts bet their own optimal bet ramp using the same spread, BR, and RoR for the same game conditions so all gain is in the form of EV.

The thing to notice that has to do with what you are saying is unit bet, variance and % played for backcounting.
Backcounting:
Hilo count: $42.82 unit; SD/100 $647.63 ($41.94/100 EV) SD/EV ratio 15.44; 26.66% of hands played
HO2/ASC: $47.02 unit; SD/100 $698.02 ($48.72/100 EV) SD/EV ratio 14.33; 24.83% of hands played

So in a true comparison of counts that is friendliest to Hilo (backcounting) Hilo bets less, has a lower SD but a higher SD to EV ratio, and bets more frequently (possibly indicating betting into a disadvantage when trying to only play advantage deck compositions). While I would say to the user the Hilo player would perceive higher variance due to the higher SD to EV ratio HO2/ASC actually has higher monetary variance. As you play monetary EV would go up faster while both experienced the decrease in SD expected as you play longer. Basically the EV would accumulate as expected and the SD would increase as the square root of the number of rounds played relative to the rounds played at the SD benchmark.

If I am not having my slow brain morning messing me up, at 12100 rounds (121 hours of play) the difference in EV is higher than the difference in SD:
Hilo count: EV $5074.74 with SD of $7123.93
HO2/ASC: EV $5895.12 with SD of $7685.92

At this first integer break point for the difference in EV being higher than the difference in SD for HO2/ASC versus Hilo the difference in EV $820.38 and the difference in SD is $561.99. This effect grows EXPONENTIALLY as you continue to play after 121 hours at 100 rounds/hour. Imagine what happens when you have a higher monetary EV difference than the monetary SD difference. You 0 SD point has a higher EV than the other count. Then the frequency increments for moving down are longer (more of a monetary drop) for the lower starting EV so the same frequencies (# of SD's into the negative) will be a further drop monetarily from a lower monetary starting point. The moving into the positive HO2/ASC starts at a higher EV at 0 SD and increases that monetary amount more than Hilo does with each SD. Since we are assuming the same frequencies at the same # of SD's you get increasing larger difference in monetary amount won for Hiopt as you have positive variance and an increasing larger difference in monetary loss for Hilo as you look into negative variance (This will hold into the negative until 2 SD's at 121 hours). With the exponential increase in this effect it isn't long before the negative has higher frequencies at every monetary loss for Hilo compared to HO2/ASC.

This effect is how swing control works. It is about the ratio of SD to EV. If your ratio is smaller this effect will be present to some degree. If it is a large enough difference this type of swing control extends to the short run. What is happening is you are making it more likely to have larger wins surrounding a bad run and less likely to have losses. This affects the way winning and losing runs are likely to stack up. Winning runs are increasingly more likely and losing runs decrease in likelihood. Isn't that the whole point of choosing a system. So in the long run the stats are increasingly stacked in your favor for both EV and the likelihood of BR swings.

[mcallister3200]

RoR is not even a consideration for most full time players who have been playing for more than a couple years, your "most important" point is invalidated for many serious players. Heat/tolerance is often the only consideration for bet sizing. The compounding gains/RoR point is only a relevant point when you cherry pick small-medium bankroll sizes. Now most part time players will have smaller bankrolls at least that are dedicated to gambling, but do they have the time to commit to stay sharp with somethin complex for only a modest gain? Idk maybe some, for most I would think not, would hope they also have other important things in their life.

The point about lower variance...wanting to control variance once your capitalized well is a core psychological flaw in the context of advantage play if you are capitalized to the point where RoR is not a relevant factor.