"Shame on you for deviating off course. You should have answered the question, and only the question. Correcting the error simply added unnecessary commentary. Meaningful side dialogue, as proffered by the second amendment is unnecessary puffery not directly related to the OP"
Guys, squeeze your sphincters next time you consider responding, else Don may slap your peepee.
To Exoter 175: Everything that you've written in your math analysis is wrong. Pushes have absolutely nothing to do with the math and have been excluded in every text, chart, and discussion of e.v.s in blackjack since time immemorial. The existence of pushes adds absolutely nothing to the math or the discussion. NOTHING. Not a single chart of an e.v. in blackjack takes account of pushes, as rightly it shouldn't. Period.
Second, except for the original typo, which didn't change the answer in any manner, the numbers are exactly as I represent them. Your realized edge is NOT 20.7%.
Don
Notice the attempt to draw me in a post, calling it "a Zeeish move". Answering the questions in a post, for many AP's, does not fulfill the purpose of their being on this forum. These AP's already think they know most everything about BJ anyway and of course they are not altruistic enough to want to simply help them. They are here because they want to get their hostilities out, want to humiliate someone or get into a fight with other AP's.Originally Posted by DSchles
I seriously believe there are long range effects to being a full time AP and one is the development of a crappy personality.
First, let me start by saying I did NO math analysis as I found it wasn't needed to explain to the guy the value of purchasing a double down option, even if its getting taxed. My posting was targeted at the much larger issue, which is that of purchasing the full value of the hand, rather than simply the double down, from both an AP perspective, as well as a moral one. The guy you buy the hand and DD from, no longer suffers risk of a loss, and as such won't have the memory to question your double down when it yields a low card loss to the dealer 17, often arising in a small argument, or at least a side of visual disdain.
Second, let me be the first to say that I don't give a rats arse about every text, chart, or discussion about EVs in blackjack since time immemorial. Just because YOU wrote a book about it, doesn't make you the foremost expert on it. It just means you were able to monetize it. To paraphrase T3's response from the other day, I'm surprised your response wasn't simply "Buy my book". I'm no expert in the field by any stretch of the imagination, but I DO this as a living among many other AP maneuvers most of you aren't privy to, and I'd ask you to be respectful when you're talking to others, Don, for it was you that made the gross mathematical error, not I.
Third, lets get this out in the open real quick. To ignore a push simply because of academic standpoint is one thing, but to consider it a nonsensical addition to narrative here is absurd. As a full-time, live by the sword, die by the sword, AP, my job depends upon a great number of things to take place. Finding an opportunity and exploiting said opportunity in perpetuity is one of them. Pushes absolutely affect my bottom line from every scope and perspective. The math might not be affected from a simple +/-EV perspective, but the Push itself is absolutely a factor in my $/hr, and to ignore it would be silly. I didn't hammer on and write a novel about it ad nauseam, I simply implied I didn't agree with the removal of all pushes from the discussion, primarily on the grounds that it gives a false view of Winning vs. losing hands. If you're going to lay the numbers out, do them justice at least. Don't make it seem like he'll win 70+% of his hands in this scenario, because he won't.
Lastly, if you say his edge (OP misquoted +EV% and I followed along so he wouldn't get lost) is 23%, you'd be wrong. Considering he has to give up 10% of the win, or 2.3% of the edge to the guy in the seat. Unless, of course, you're going to argue that the % is in fact lower due to some long rant about how you perceive the scenario to play out, adding extra valuables here and there, to which I don't continue to argue. Its a simple figure, really. If the guy has a 23% +EV to the second double, but has to give up 10% of it to the seat, he's giving up 2.3% of that +EV% on each win.
Are you really that against further discussion beyond the answering of a question? You comment about having 6 people come into the thread to toss around their thoughts, as if its a bad thing, as if you're the only one with answers, and the only one worth giving it. Implying that there is no need for further discussion about other odds and ins in relation to the OP's post. If we had things your way, T3 might be right, this forum would be filled with "Buy my book" on ever post, after, of course, you yourself had posted what you perceived to be the correct answer, having chastised every poster on this forum so much to the point they stop posting. Give me a break, broken record. You talk about the math as if its finite in your example, and I can add 17 more variables to them to make the calculations incorrect, as you did by merely posting them in the first place. You said my numbers were wrong, but gave no evidence of that fact either. Keeping in mind, again, I didn't do any analysis of my own, simply took your twisted garbage of a response, and straightened it a bit. To a degree, you're arguing with your own post. How quaint.
The APBJ community is certainly a different crowd than the regular AP community, that's for sure. While its safe to blanket the entirety of the AP community with that crappy personality comment, honestly, its far more prevalent with APBJ because of the very reasons you mentioned. Every APBJ thinks he or she knows everything there is to know about everything in the world, with zero regard for others in the industry, or regard for the ever changing environment itself.
Perhaps I need to go back on hiatus, I'm not a fan of all of this negativity, and I had heard a few rumors about the KJ thing going on, and read a few posts elsewhere. There was a reason I stopped viewing this forum back when ZenKing was allowed to troll all damned day long, pretending to be a real AP. It seems now Don, too, has succumbed to the rigors of boredom. Must be lonely upon that mountain top.
It was actually a very legitimate comment. Do you not recall your insistence in defending your stated position of demanding your rake for letting other players play your side bet? If not, I'll be more than happy to refer the thread. Concept is exactly the same.
Zee, I've defended you many a time, however, it gets a bit tiring listening to the same drone of mediocrity month after month. As well, your expectation that all should automatically understand your inquiry, when the wording of your posts are quite cryptic. The crappy personality is not mine.
Many of us can quote song and verse of your typical dd and 6d bet spreads, as well as your reluctance to make the proper play when there is a need to put more money on the table.
There are many newer players whom are anxious to learn and grasp new concepts. Then, of course, are others, such as yourself, who bask in the glory of mediocrity.
I'll be honest, I only recently heard that ZK was banned (For good???) and figured I'd check the forums out. Been super busy, grew a little older, but the money in the bank has grown significantly. Got to travel most all of the country this year with my partners and wreaked havoc all over. Been a pretty dynamite season. Back home for a month or two now as I relax and enjoy some football and retool the TravelWagon a bit.
If I'm coming off a bit angsty, I don't mean it. I just remember a version of Don when he'd come in, post wisdom, and that was it. Not this new one where he comes in to thrash others' opinions and viewpoints, and leaves the post in a worse manner than before he posted. And I'll be honest, I still don't know the full deal about what happened around KJ and I believe Norm?, but I wouldn't mind hearing the other side, that is unless I have it all wrong. As some of you guys know, I looked up to KJ quite a bit and views him as somewhat of a mentor in the way that his play and my play are of a similar style, and I come back from the road to hear that he's basically off of all 4 forums now?
"First, let me start by saying I did NO math analysis as I found it wasn't needed to explain to the guy the value of purchasing a double down option, even if its getting taxed."
You did an analysis later (see below), and it was incorrect.
"My posting was targeted at the much larger issue, which is that of purchasing the full value of the hand, rather than simply the double down, from both an AP perspective, as well as a moral one. The guy you buy the hand and DD from, no longer suffers risk of a loss, and as such won't have the memory to question your double down when it yields a low card loss to the dealer 17, often arising in a small argument, or at least a side of visual disdain."
In fact, it turns out that the guy's asking for a 10% tax on the winnings would be a perfect way to satisfy both players. He now does the same as if he were allowed to hit the hand more than once. The hitting edge is 29%, while the non-doubled edge is 23%. Taxing the winning hand would yield just over 29% to the original bettor, so he would be made whole for not being able to hit more than once. Naturally, a slightly higher tax would make the move profitable for both players. Try doing the math this time; you might like it!
"Second, let me be the first to say that I don't give a rats arse about every text, chart, or discussion about EVs in blackjack since time immemorial."
Well, you should because that's the way problems like this are discussed and solved. Not just by me but by everyone. Pushes add nothing to that discussion. All the numbers are for resolved hands. Doesn't matter who the author is. You give the e.v. for the hand, it's for RESOLVED hands. Period. I can' help it if you don't like that.
"Just because YOU wrote a book about it, doesn't make you the foremost expert on it. It just means you were able to monetize it. To paraphrase T3's response from the other day, I'm surprised your response wasn't simply "Buy my book". I'm no expert in the field by any stretch of the imagination, but I DO this as a living among many other AP maneuvers most of you aren't privy to, and I'd ask you to be respectful when you're talking to others, Don, for it was you that made the gross mathematical error, not I."
Yet again, the error had nothing to do with the calculation of the final edge, which stands there for all to see, since the first writing, as correct. As for the charts in my book, they are matched by those in dozens upon dozens of other books; the methodology is identical. There is only one way to calculate the edge of a hand, and pushes don't enter into the calculation. As for "monetizing it," that's a joke, right? You just wanted to inject a little humor into the discussion. I've won more in a single shoe than the total royalties from my book in 19 years, so don't make an "arse" of yourself by making a stupid, condescending statement like that.
"Third, lets get this out in the open real quick. To ignore a push simply because of academic standpoint is one thing, but to consider it a nonsensical addition to narrative here is absurd. As a full-time, live by the sword, die by the sword, AP, my job depends upon a great number of things to take place. Finding an opportunity and exploiting said opportunity in perpetuity is one of them. Pushes absolutely affect my bottom line from every scope and perspective. The math might not be affected from a simple +/-EV perspective, but the Push itself is absolutely a factor in my $/hr, and to ignore it would be silly."
That's a ridiculous statement, as it applies to this problem. You aren't making the play 100 times an hour; you're making it once. So, are you going to tell me that the fact that you might get a push on the hand will somehow affect your decision to ask to buy the double or not? Don't be absurd. Heads you win a million dollars, tails you lose $500,000, but you don't want to play because the coin might land on its edge? Gimme a break.
"I didn't hammer on and write a novel about it ad nauseam, I simply implied I didn't agree with the removal of all pushes from the discussion, primarily on the grounds that it gives a false view of Winning vs. losing hands."
It doesn't give a false view of the math necessary to determine the attractiveness of the wager or its e.v. And no blackjack authority would care about it in discussing the e.v. of the hand.
"If you're going to lay the numbers out, do them justice at least. Don't make it seem like he'll win 70+% of his hands in this scenario, because he won't."
He will win 61.5% of the resolved hands and lose 38.5%. You're the only one who cares about the pushes. They can't possibly influence the (correct) decision to buy the hand, even if you have to pay a 10% tax.
"Lastly, if you say his edge (OP misquoted +EV% and I followed along so he wouldn't get lost) is 23%, you'd be wrong."
The stated edge, after doing the math in my OP, was 16.85%, which is the correct number. It's there for you to read. And it was correct the first time.
"Considering he has to give up 10% of the win, or 2.3% of the edge to the guy in the seat. Unless, of course, you're going to argue that the % is in fact lower due to some long rant about how you perceive the scenario to play out, adding extra valuables here and there, to which I don't continue to argue. Its a simple figure, really. If the guy has a 23% +EV to the second double, but has to give up 10% of it to the seat, he's giving up 2.3% of that +EV% on each win."
I showed you the math. A 23% edge on the undoubled, one-hit hand is 61.5% wins and 38.5% losses. Each $100 win requires a forfeit of $10 tax. It is now a $90 win, and there are 61.5 of them per 100 resolved hands. So, the player picks up from the table $190 61.5 times. That's $11,685. Since he bet 100 x $100 = $10,000, the profit is $1,685, or 16.85%. Period. Your calculation is wrong. Restating it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Don
Last edited by DSchles; 10-27-2016 at 08:29 PM.
This is why you mentioned me in the post. Waiting for a response from me so you can humiliate or bash me. Only you, and perhaps one other are obsessed enough with me (preferred victim) to remember my earlier posts. Yes, I struggled with a lot of stuff and I learned from responses to my postings but there was no need to bring me in to this one. It is sad that you do not recognize that this post says more about you than it does about me.
I've long considered these forums (AP Forums as a whole) as more of a hindrance than anything, but there are nuggets of wisdom here and there that truly shine through. Not long ago I was really green around the gills to APBJ, and I've since mastered the basics, learned a few more odds and ins, and adjusted my game here and there. Some people, especially the older folks, seem to think that 30+ years in the business makes them an expert, even if they log less than 200 hours per year and I disagree with that heavily, but then again I play close to 2,600 hours/yr. I've actually met quite a few of the guys over here and on others forums, and haven't really had a bad run in with anyone, but I know there's a few bad apples here and there, especially so on the tables more than anything. Had a guy in ABQ all but call me out for card counting on the table in an otherwise low-non existent heat location. Wanted so badly to knock this guy out, but hey, he was probably having a bad night full of negative variance.
I read a little about it all, and I think I have a pretty good idea of what set him off. I wouldn't say his cheese slid off the cracker, I'd say something caused the cracker to tilt first.
I'm legitimately not going to respond to much of your response simply because of the eyesore that you've created. Do the forum a favor and break it down into quotes, it only takes a few moments to create a much more appealing response. You could literally just write your response, highlight each portion, and click "quote" and it does it for you. Or perhaps learn to input the hard code itself, doesn't take long and its super simple to perform.
You're right and wrong though, the former you'll admit, the latter not so much. Yes, 16.85% is accurate here, and yes 10% of 23% is in fact 2.3%, yielding 20.7%, and yes the seat you're borrowing will see something like 29.xx% for the action while you only see 16.85% of it, and that's precisely why I suggested buying the guy out of his hand, and then giving him 10% on the action, yielding 33.70% for the action. I'll be honest, I'm guilty of throwing that 20.7% line in there seeing if you'd bite, and you did. However, if you sim out 500 decisions of this example, tell me they don't bring the realized +EV/hr within a half% of 20.7% for the single double action without the 10% rake, from 23% simulated. Again, though, the math won't change, the +EV% will be the same, but the realized +EV over those 500 hands with the results of pushes added into it, will bring down the realized +EV over 500 decisions, will it not? What I was getting at, which you failed to hit on, is that by including the pushes into the mix, with a finite number of hands to view from, the realized +EV/hr will be less than the actual +EV% for the action of the hand, which ONLY adds value to my assertion that you should buyout the player from the hand, as it benefits the both of you and is the morally right action to take.
However. If you see 110 hands, where 61.5 hands are won, 38.5 hands are lost, and 10 hands are pushed, the value of all hands played becomes ~$15.32 per decision. As you can see, the +EV/hr is affected by the existence of the push, and shouldn't be ruled out. You wanted to make this scenario realistic, but removing the push from the scenario is silly in that regard. The +EV% will always remain the same, but the +EV/hr will be affected, and that's the part of the game I wish to speak for, the part of the game I have the most experience in. So when I contend your comment about ruling out pushes, that's exactly where I'm coming from. If you're not at all concerned about +EV/hr, you're just not cutout to do this as a career, so naturally, defining these scenarios and examples, and putting them into a decisions per/hr perspective is going to be the appropriate "realistic" vantage to view the action from, not a simulated play all where simply the +/- results are calculated with no regard for the breakeven. As I told you before, there's like 17 other variables I can add to the equation to skew things largely. I'm not arguing with your math, despite your obvious error. I'm arguing with your application of the math. When I sit down in the casino, its not a simulation, its live action. HPH and +EV/hr are the most important parts of our business, past the regard or disregard for longevity.
But pardon me for thinking about an actual living wage, rather than the specifics of simulations, Don.
Story zee - don't buy it. I guess im cursed with phenomenal memory. Concept still holds true. We all screw up. Most of us learn from our mistakes - you don't, and that is very frustrating.
One other thing, this constant woe is me comment is getting old.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks