Problem in counting 2 and 7

[Dbs6582]

At any rate, I got the answer I was looking for from everyone, including Freightman. Don's advice was the best, stay with the count and bet accordingly. Don't make adjustments for an excess of aces.

I have already told everybody I got the answer I needed back in post 58. I also said I was going to follow Don's recommendation. See comments above. The only reason this thread continued is because Three wanted to get it to the nuisances of it, which I was okay exploring. The only thing I had to endure is the normal insults that comes from being an AP too long. I guess it comes with the territory. I've known from the start this didn't amount to much, even if the ace had more value than the 10 for BE.

I wasn't trying to yank anybodies chain. I actually thought the old bulls were trying to yank my chain. I have a thick skin so I can handle the usual insults that come from disagreeing with an AP.

[Dbs6582]

"I've also wondered if I should use it for betting decisions, betting more than the count calls for when I know there are an excess of aces left."

You've already counted the aces for betting in Hi-Lo once. How many times do you want to count them for the same purpose? The EOR of an ace is virtually the same as that of a ten. The answer to your question is no, you shouldn't bet more.

Don

Don, I understand if you don't want to answer my question, but I've spent more time researching it. I went to a book that I've seen you reference called "Blackjack For Blood". It gives the relative values for each card based on I.E., BE, and PE. For BE, it shows the ace is more valuable than the 10. The ace removal is given a -8, while the 10 is given a -6.5. I know in hi lo, the ace and 10 are given the same value as -1.

By side counting aces I will know if I have a surplus or deficiency in aces. I get that the EOR is the same for the ace and 10 but it appears the ace is still more valuable than 10 for betting purposes. If the value of the ace and 10 for betting purposes is correct in Bryce Carlson's book, wouldn't it make sense to bet slightly more then the count calls for when I know the positive count is due to an excess of aces left in the deck? Thanks!

[Three]

Don, I get that the EOR is the same for the ace and 10 but it appears the ace is still more valuable than 10 for betting purposes. If the value of the ace and 10 for betting purposes is correct in Bryce Carlson's book, wouldn't it make sense to bet slightly more then the count calls for when I know the positive count is due to an excess of aces left in the deck? Thanks!

Another expert given a 1.2:1 ratio of A to T betting EoRs. Who are we to trust, WoO and Don, or Griffin and BJstrat and Carlson?

Did Bryce Carlson state the rules and number of decks etc for generating his EoRs?

[DSchles]

This has to be the most foolish discussion I've seen in ages. When we published the EORs in BJA3 softcover edition, we stated how the values improved those given by Griffin. And, it's obvious that some of you have no clue as to how to use the combinatorial analyzer, because, when you do it properly, the values are virtually identical.

So, you can keep debating this until the thread count hits 98, but it's a stupid discussion. The ace is never worth 1.2 times the 10, and, for all H17 games, it's worth LESS than the 10 for betting purposes. Do you think that, if you run this by the board another five or six times, I'll suddenly see the light and change my mind?

What an utter waste of time. Please have the last (useless) word. I'm done in this thread. I'm not going to contribute anymore to help it reach 98 when it should have stopped at 2.

Don

[Three]

So, you can keep debating this until the thread count hits 98, but it's a stupid discussion. The ace is never worth 1.2 times the 10, and, for all H17 games, it's worth LESS than the 10 for betting purposes. Do you think that, if you run this by the board another five or six times, I'll suddenly see the light and change my mind?

Don, I was baiting you. I sited the ones from your book for S17. The only one that is 1.2:1 is nDAS, S17, 6 deck. The question on who to trust is valid but first we need to know the rule sets used by all the experts when generating the EoRs. That should show that everyone did it right, hopefully. But I was just taking Dbs6582's word for Bryce Carlson having an even higher value for the ace. I am guessing that since Dbs6582 doesn't seem to understand this, he is taking Carlson out of context.

And, it's obvious that some of you have no clue as to how to use the combinatorial analyzer, because, when you do it properly, the values are virtually identical.

I have not done any analysis myself. I have just quoted top experts when they generated EoRs. I quoted Don, WoO, BJstrat, Griffin, and now Dbs6582 has quoted Carlson. Your criticism needs to be aimed at the "experts" that generated the EoRs being quoted. There is the list.

[Three]

That is the formula for side counting one rank. If you side count multiple ranks it gets a lot more complicated. See BJA3 p500.

[Dbs6582]

Don, I was baiting you. I sited the ones from your book for S17. The only one that is 1.2:1 is nDAS, S17, 6 deck. The question on who to trust is valid but first we need to know the rule sets used by all the experts when generating the EoRs. That should show that everyone did it right, hopefully. But I was just taking Dbs6582's word for Bryce Carlson having an even higher value for the ace. I am guessing that since Dbs6582 doesn't seem to understand this, he is taking Carlson out of context.
I have not done any analysis myself. I have just quoted top experts when they generated EoRs. I quoted Don, WoO, BJstrat, Griffin, and now Dbs6582 has quoted Carlson. Your criticism needs to be aimed at the "experts" that generated the EoRs being quoted. There is the list.

Thank you for insulting me again Three (I'm saying that sacrastically). I fail to understand why you keep saying I don't understand this. It's really a pretty easy concept to understand. Do I have more of an advantage when there are an excess of aces or 10s for the same positive count in hi lo? Intutively, I thought it would occur when there're more aces left in the deck. Your originial answer supported this view and then you seemed to waffle when Don said you were incorrect.

After reading through your posts again, I think we're more on the same page than you think. No, Bryce Carlson did not give the number or decks or rules. And I am not taking him out of contect. Carlson gave a good fundemental outline of blackjack theory in Chapter 5 of his book, where he describes the three reasons (IE, BE and PE) for a count and gives the EOR for each one of these. It's written in layman's terms so I can understand it. I've never claimed to be a genius AP, or a genius in anything. Personally, I think this book is worth having just for this chapter. I've had this book for a while but I gained a new appreciatation for it when Don referenced this section in one of his posts a while back.

I have gone back and reread the chapter in bja3 on EOR for betting effects. I don't think Don and Bryce are that far off for the game I play most of the time, which is DD, DAS, S17. On page 522, Don shows the ace as -0.5794 and the 10 as -0.5121. That's not 1.2 to 1.0, but it still shows that having more aces left in the deck is more valuable to the player than having more 10s. As you've already pointed out, it appears all the experts are not on the same page on this.

I fail to see why Don sees this as a stupid discussion since I'm trying to gain an additional edge in bj. Isn't that what an AP is suppose to do? If I'm using hi lo and side counting aces, I feel I should try to get as much benifit as possible. Why is this stupid? Who should I believe? Don's bja3 book, or the book Don has referenced, Blackjack For Blood?

I thought we had a good discussion on how to use the ace side count in hi lo for insurance decisions a while back. Why is this any different? I get that none of this probably adds much to my edge but I enjoy trying to get all the edge I can with the system I use.

This brings up my final thought. Why is it so hard for APs to have constructive disgreements and argue a point without insulting people or calling a discussion stupid. I'm starting to see this just goes with the terrority of being an AP.

[tater]

This has to be the most foolish discussion I've seen in ages. When we published the EORs in BJA3 softcover edition, we stated how the values improved those given by Griffin. And, it's obvious that some of you have no clue as to how to use the combinatorial analyzer, because, when you do it properly, the values are virtually identical.

So, you can keep debating this until the thread count hits 98, but it's a stupid discussion. The ace is never worth 1.2 times the 10, and, for all H17 games, it's worth LESS than the 10 for betting purposes. Do you think that, if you run this by the board another five or six times, I'll suddenly see the light and change my mind?

What an utter waste of time. Please have the last (useless) word. I'm done in this thread. I'm not going to contribute anymore to help it reach 98 when it should have stopped at 2.

Don

WTF? It all comes down to SCORE. No? Many assumptions always were you took Griffin's work to a new, higher, and yet much simpler level. Are we missing something? If so, then a few of us have done a shitload of work ourselves. All for nothing? About to go sideways.

[Three]

Intutively, I thought it would occur when there're more aces left in the deck. Your originial answer supported this view and then you seemed to waffle when Don said you were incorrect.

See, this shows you don't understand it. It all depends on the rules of the game but from Don's extensive analysis summarized on p522 of BJA3 shows that I was a hair off for the games I play (1.1:1 for S17 games, I don't play H17 games). And with LS rule added to S17 the ratio becomes 1.0:1. I am not sure why so many other respected sources have different values when they should all be the same. I know Griffin's are for rules of yore that are rarely seen anymore. But the rest of the ones that agree with my original position I can't resolve why they differ.

Something you need to understand if you want to use this information is that these values are for full deck EoRs. The EoRs change after you start removing cards from the full deck. If you play DD and want to get crazy with the effects of ace deletion or ace excess you should look at the specific ace surplus and deficit situations. It is not linear. Here is the CDA that WoO was using and gave such accolades for:

http://www.bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

It shows full deck advantage for 2 deck S17, DAS as -0.3484%.

Remove an ace and you have -0.6400%. That is a .2916% difference.
Two aces removed , you have -0.9419%. That is a .3019% difference for that additional ace.
Three aces removed, and it is -1.253%. That is a .3111% difference for that additional ace with some possible rounding error.
Four aces removed, you have -1.574%. That is a .321% difference for that additional ace.
Five aces removed, you have -1.905%. That is a .331% difference for that additional ace.
Six aces removed, you have -2.243%. That is a .338% difference for that additional ace.
Seven aces removed, you have -2.589%. That is a .346% difference for that additional ace.
Eight aces removed, you have -2.942%. That is a .353% difference for the removal of the last ace.

Now if you had a Hilo TC of +2 balanced across all counted ranks with 1 deck left (2-A cards remaining: 4,4,4,4,4,3,3,4,17,5) the advantage is +1.504% with 1 surplus ace.
If aces were at expectation (2-A cards remaining: 4,4,4,4,4,3,3,4,18,4) the advantage is +1.419%.

But if the deck were rich in 4 and 5's and had all 8 aces left (2-A cards remaining: 2,3,6,7,2,3,3,4,14,8) the advantage is +0.7580%.

But if the deck were poor in 4 and 5's and had 0 aces left (2-A cards remaining: 7,5,2,2,4,3,3,4,22,0) the advantage is +2.643%.


All the above situations have the same Hilo TC of +2. So as you can see there are more important cards to consider than aces for fine tuning your advantage by TC. Using a level 2 count will tighten advantage estimates more than than side counting aces with an ace reckoned level 1 count and making adjustments for the ace. Those fours and fives are far more important for betting than a level 1 count can tag them.

[Three]

To sum up post #84. While the A is slightly more important than the T for S17, DAS from a betting EoR perspective, you must play hands to win them except for a BJ. The ace weakens play on a lot more matchups than it strengthens playing hands when counted as a high card. Ten value cards are very important for playing hands and so are the four and five. While you need to win a hair fewer hands when you get more BJ bonus payouts, without considering the surplus/deficit of 4 and 5 using ace info to fine tune advantage is like worrying about sharpening your hooks when fishing but putting rotten bait on the line that only a crab would be interested in. First get fresh bait, then, when you have more fish interested in biting, worry about how sharp your hooks are.

[tater]

Nice work three; The OP was asking about 2 and 7. DBS took us into the land of Ace and 10. If we are talking about pitch games and Hilo? Then yes, the 5 is crucial. The 4? Not so much. But the 7 is the key tag to increase to SCORE and especially when considering the prudent move on 14 vs 10 with more money bet.. The 2 is pretty much a non factor as is the 8. All inclusive, are the words that come to mind. Put in your ingredients, run your sim, get your SCORE. Simply No?

But you don't need to count and then side count the 7. Simply drop or reduce the 2.

Don S. I think I read somewhere that you expressed the importance of the Ace when doubling 10 vs 10. Rare, but it's good info because this will happen with a max bet out.

[Three]

Nice work three; The OP was asking about 2 and 7. DBS took us into the land of Ace and 10. If we are talking about pitch games and Hilo? Then yes, the 5 is crucial. The 4? Not so much. But the 7 is the key tag to increase to SCORE and especially when considering the prudent move on 14 vs 10 with more money bet.. The 2 is pretty much a non factor as is the 8. All inclusive, are the words that come to mind. Put in your ingredients, run your sim, get your SCORE. Simply No?

Thanks Tater. As you probably know I said all that needs to be said about the OP in post number two:

It is not anything to worry about. But if you must worry you can side count key ranks to fix specific issues for certain matchups.

Short and simple.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"We can see the different of outcome if you get 2 or 7. Any solution?"

There is no "difference in outcome" as you put it unless the 2 OR the 7 are somehow the only low cards being counted.

You are clearly confused.

The count you use will tell you nothing about how to play the hand in question any differently if 2's and 7's are or are not counted.

You can use Hi-Opt I where neither rank is counted for that matter. Overall, both of these ranks contribute almost nothingre: bet-sizing

and it would take a completely anomalous configuration of remaining cards to play where it could make any difference in your play of (any) particular hand.

The E.O.R. of minor cards like 2's, 7's and 8's are of only very little value compared to the 3,4,5,6