But they aren't minor! If we take Colin's word in the video I linked, 20 - 40% of our edge comes from playing deviations, not betting variation. But, a lion's share of the value from play deviations comes from Insurance and 16v10. So my question is how fast does the value of deviations drop off (for example, https://blackjackincolor.com/truecount3.htm here you can see in the first chart that the I18 get you most of the value of full indexes bet -3 and +6), and which are next on the list?
And, as a corollary, what indexes are valuable under different systems than those the I18 were made for? (3/4deck, s17, 1-12 bet spread)
I watched that video clip but intuitively I don't believe what is stated there. It is very clear to me that the most frequent encounter of hands is 16v10, so this must be the most valuable deviation if flat bet. The insurance bet is a lot less frequent, and thus a lot less important. I guess 15v10 should be a lot more important than insurance too. However, the ultimate question I ask is this: If we flat bet, how much edge can a player gain from playing deviations only? Additionally, if a player follow a bet ramping spread of 1/2/4/8/16 for step increasing true count, how much can a player get from combing deviation and spread?
Your intuition will lead you astray! Just because insurance may be rare (1 in 13 hands doesn't seem rare to me, but that's beside the point) doesn't mean it's not valuable. If you get a lot of EV from a rare event, it can balance out to be profitable. From Blackjack Attack, insurance is actually the most valuable deviation you can learn, one third of the total value of the Illustrious 18! (Also, it occurs twice as often as 16v10)
This is a very good question. These days, you can't really make money flat betting. You'd need a single or double deck game with very lenient rules to do that, or some other way to get an edge.
However, you can make money with a spread. I plugged in your 1/2/4/8/16 spread into CVCX, and you can make $38 an hour with a $10,000 bankroll and 2% risk of ruin
If you keep "trusting yourself" and not the math you are not going to be a successful card counter. I want to be nice, to help you out, but that mindset will destroy any chance of winning money consistently.
As for surrender, late surrender adds 0.07% to your edge off the top, it is a valuable rule if you can get it. (https://wizardofodds.com/games/black...le-variations/) It's hard to compare to deviations, especially since different bet spreads, rules will result in different edges, different values for insurance. But both are valuable.
In the same situation I simmed before, flat betting with the most valuable (I think) 25 indices still has you at a negative EV, -0.2%. If you wong out, leave the table when the count gets to a true -1, you can make money flat betting though. 10K bankroll and 2% risk of ruin lets you bet $20, for $7.25 an hour.
One issue with this is the N0 (https://www.blackjackapprenticeship....advantage-play) Your bankroll will swing a lot with that play. After 500 hours, you could be anywhere from $10,000 up to $3000 down.
I do every calculation myself. Let me show you that the player 16v10 is a lot more frequent than dealer Aces. Frequency of the player 16v10 is 42%*4/13=13% for six-decks. Frequency of the dealer Aces is 5%*1/13=0.4%. Therefore, 16v10 is a lot more frequent that insurance offers. I do not believe publications. The 16v10 must be the most important deviation. Besides, the surrender option will make this deviation more important. You cite of wizard of odds "late surrender adds 0.07%" is not correct for card counting. It should be 7% when counting. However, your calculation earning when flat bet with solely play deviation is very helpful for me. Thank you.
It's good to be sceptical of published data. I am that way myself. However, some sources have proven themselves to be reliable. The Wizard of Odds is one of those sources and the CV software is state of the art for our game.
It's also good to do you own research. However:
- Your calculation for frequency of a dealer ace is incorrect. The probability off the top of the deck/shoe is simply 1/13~=7.7%
- Your calculation of the occurrence of 16 vs T is also incorrect. 4/13 is correct for a dealer face card but what is the 42%? The correct probability for 16 vs T is 3.5% according to BJA3 (another irrefutable source).
- An additional player edge of 7% is grossly high for surrender when counting. There is no complete card counting system which furnishes an edge even remotely this high.
- You stated in an earlier post that surrender makes 16 vs T even more valuable. The opposite is actually true. This is because you would then surrender all initial 16 vs T hands at counts of -3 and higher and would hit at counts below -3. You would only have the opportunity to stand on 16 vs T for multicard hands and hands occurring after splitting. That is, the frequency of the hit/stand decision for 16 vs T drops dramatically.
Last edited by Gronbog; 01-12-2021 at 08:16 AM. Reason: Added surrender index for 16 vs T
What he said!
Actually, as Norm and I have already stated in this thread, it turns out that we are independently working (I, along with Gronbog) on ranking indices according to their incremental value to SCORE. The process is computationally intensive work if it is to be done properly, and, when it comes to that, I think that the membership here is aware of our standards for publishing research.
That said, unfortunately, most of what our new junior member, aceside, has stated is simply not correct. He's excused. If this stuff were easy, everyone would be doing it! Gronbog and I have already produced a prototype for this sort of endeavor, and simply as a reply to aceside, no, 16 vs. T is not twice or more as important as insurance. And, as Gronbog stated above, your frequencies are badly mistaken. While the new research may shuffle things a bit, you surely have the correct frequencies for making a departure with 16 vs. T or insurance from p. 62, column 6 of BJA3. You have to consider not only the frequency of the holding and the dealer upcard but also the frequency of the count at which the departure is made.
Finally, you can't possibly rank "surrender" as a single value or contribution to overall SCORE. Surrender is a rules variation, not a single index departure. Rather, surrender comprises an entire collection of (very important) departures. Taken together, they are worth a great deal. You can see that easily from the BJA3 summary charts that precede each group of tables. Just look at any given rules set and then compare the SCORE to that of the same rules set with surrender added. But, in this case, "surrender" means the Fab 4. Obviously, if you use even more surrender indices, their collective value and ultimate contribution to SCORE is magnified.
Frankly, I can't censor or suppress further discussion of this topic here or anywhere else, but I would simply ask you to be patient as we continue to work on this.
Don
I am glad I joined this forum. You are all very helpful. I am a blackjack player not a mathematician. This is some reason I joined this forum to seek help from you. I would like to learn from you, especially Don, Gronbog, Norm, and G man and more. I played a lot that is why I trust my intuitions. However, I made some mistakes in my calculation of blackjack hand frequencies. Let me correct them one by one. But firstly, let me simplify the math first. We assume it is a 6-deck game without surrender and consider only the player’s first two cards.
1. Player makes a stand/hit decision at 16v10 at a frequency of 42%*(13/169)*(4/13)=1.0%. Here the 42% is the frequency of true count +0.
2. Player makes insurance/no decision at dealer Ace at a frequency of 5%*1/13=0.4%. Here the 5% is the frequency of true count +3.
3. I overestimated the contribution from surrender option. I don’t know how to get a number here.
4. I totally agree with Don “you can't possibly rank "surrender" as a single value or contribution to overall SCORE”. I always combine surrender into the hit/stand option.
Finally, I will read more into your books to learn and expect to see more research results on this optic.
Last edited by aceside; 01-12-2021 at 12:29 PM. Reason: Dealer makes insurance/no decision at dealer Ace at a frequency of 5%*1/13=0.4%.
A few more clarifications. The TC is >=+3 8.69% of the time for 4.5/6, not the 5% that you mention. And the frequency of all holdings of 16 vs. T is the 3.5% given on p. 62 of BJA3. So, yes, you will make a departure of standing on 16 vs. T (.035 x 0.55 = 0.0192) 1.92% of the time, or about twice very 100 hands you are dealt. You will take insurance 0.077 x 0.0869 = 0.67% of the time, or once very 150 hands. So, you use the standing index 2.87 times more frequently than you take insurance. But that's just the beginning of the story.
Next, you have to consider your average bet that you have on the table when you make each play. And, it is here that you will find the insurance wager to be more than three times as large, with, say, a 1-12 spread. So, this is how insurance "catches up" to 16 vs. T in importance. Finally, and it's much too complicated to explain here, but I do it in the book, you have to consider the page 62, column 9 calculation that takes into account how efficient your particular count (in this case, Hi-Lo) is in actually detecting and correlating to the play under discussion. So that impacts the importance of the index as well.
Many people skip right to all the charts in my book without reading all of the preceding material as to how the charts were generated and the logic and math behind them. To each his own, but to me, understanding the concepts is important and shouldn't be skipped.
Bottom line: insurance and 16 vs. T are the two most important deviations in the game, and their importance and contributions to SCORE are very close to each other -- so much so that, under certain game conditions, 16 vs. T can be more important.
Enough for now.
Don
Last edited by DSchles; 01-12-2021 at 07:01 PM.
Bookmarks