Whoa! Hold on here. My jaw just dropped! So the observed hands also go to N0??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BoqCMRBFk
Whoa! Hold on here. My jaw just dropped! So the observed hands also go to N0??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BoqCMRBFk
My Ability in Blackjack is a Gift from God!!
No, nothing wrong at all. Just turn it around and look at your negative edge as a player as the house's positive edge, and calculate N0 from the house's point of view. Since the house is playing against you, that number has to be the same for either side, just with different meaning.
But, keep in mind that, if you know you're playing with no edge, there is no interest in betting at all, and so we have the concept of "maximum boldness," which says that, to make (negative) SCORE as large (least negative) as possible, you'd want the variance in the denominator to be as big as possible -- hence the "bet it all" approach. Because, if you make constant, "reasonable" flat bets, all with a disadvantage, you're going to lose with certainty.
Don
Sigh. If we say it ten more times, will you ask ten more times if we really mean it?
It is inconceivable to me that anyone could believe it could be anything but what we are trying to explain. If you find an unbalanced roulette wheel that gives you a 20% edge, but it takes you a year of scouting and thousands upon thousands of hours to identify such an edge, do you just want to state that you have a 20% edge playing roulette and fail to inform us that you get to play once a year?
Don
This would also be useful, or can be at least, in certain situations. Perhaps you're playing a game where once you play a certain amount of hours or put through a certain amount of action, you get a bonus at the end. In this type of a game, you're playing with an advantage overall, assuming you can complete the play-through requirement. You would still certainly want as little variance as possible. If this was on something like roulette, I'd just bet red and black and grind it out and not just put everything on black. I'd rather get as close to a guarantee to losing 5.26% on the play-through part then get the bonus at the end, instead of having a 47% chance to double up and a 53% chance to lose it all.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
I'm a little bit confused. Sorry gentlemen to interrupt but I got question as well about N0.
Even though I'm a KO player I also have certain exit points for my game if either the first deck or the second deck dealt and not reaching a fix running count level being worthwhile to be continued playing.
So my question is
Will I get closer to my N0 by not playing those bad negative shoes because I wong out?
Thanks for any reply
Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk
You have to compare apples to apples.
Your N0 is going to be calculated via simulation (most likely). Including exit points in your simulation is going to decrease the N0. You can't just sim something, say, a 1-16 spread play all approach....but then in real life wong out at whatever exit points you decide, and expect the N0 in the simulation to be useful for the way you're playing. Granted, if you can't simulate something but you know it's better than what you did sim, then it's going to be beneficial to actually play that way, then use the sim as a sort of a guideline and know you're playing better than the sim would dictate.
If you're going to wong out of a shoe, you're better off (EV wise) to go find another shoe, unless you're in some situation where you can constantly wong in and out of the same shoe (like what baccarat players do). As far as "getting closer to N0"....well, that just seems kind of a weird concept/question. Staying at the table after the count hits your "exit point index" and watching is kind of antithetical to exiting the shoe. Why continue to watch a table if it's reached the point at which you would no longer want to play? You came up with your exit point for a reason. Follow it.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
Bookmarks