"The Color of Blackjack" – My Observations

[Phoebe]

1. That stands to reason.

2. See, that’s what I figured originally but I’ve been second guessing that for the better part of the last 24 hours. I appreciate you setting that straight. That makes sense that because of the extra four 7’s being counted per deck that the equation for the TC should also add four.

Not really a proof.
More evident is that if IRC=-24 for 6 decks, as required by Brett Harris's formula, initial true count should be a strange -8 with the wrong formula.
Period.

[seriousplayer]

Maybe, I'm wrong but I think that :

1) Risk averse only makes sense for split or double.
To specify risk averse for hit / stand is absurd.

Citations needed.

2) The Brett Harris's TKO formula is wrong, in Modern Blackjack and in the post of the serious player.

TC = RC/ Decks unplayed + 4not -4

I will look it up and confirm.

Untitled.jpg
Brett Harris Formula Example.jpg

Erratum : surrender and insurance too but still not Hit/stand.

Ok, I will do a separate index generation of True Counted KO using CVDATA to confirm. If the indices come up to be the same for both surrender and insurance as in Modern Blackjack that is what I will be following.

[Phoebe]

I meant that RA makes sense for surrender and insurance too.
But only Don could convince me of the relevance of RA for Hit / Stand

Yes, you substract 4 to Hi-Lo indices to find TKO indices equivalence if you use the formula TC = RC/ Decks unplayed

But that doesn't mean that TC = RC/ Decks unplayed - 4 is relevant.
Insert any RC (in particular The IRC) in the formula if you don't trust me.

IRC = -24 (as required by Brett Harris for 6 decks)
Initial TC= -24/6 - 4 = -8

Ca me fait une belle jambe de connaître ce TC

[DSchles]

But only Don could convince me of the relevance of RA for Hit / Stand

Makes little sense. But, consider this: when you hit, it's possible to tie the dealer, therefore lowering overall variance. When you stand, it's impossible to push. Therefore, if you made it such that you hit more frequently than for the e.v.-maximizing index, I suppose that would lower variance. But it would also lower e.v., and since you aren't betting any more, as with splits and doubles, it wouldn't make any sense to me.

Ca me fait une belle jambe de connaître ce TC

LOL! Et pourtant, ca ne peut pas te faire de mal !

Don

[Norm]

Knowledge can become useful in the future in ways one may not see at the moment.

[Phoebe]

Don and Norm, you are right. Knowlege can't hurt a priori.
But partial knowledge, yes.
In the present case, the knowledge of the TC, without knowing that it is necessary to shift the equivalent indices HiLo by -8, can pose problem.

Seriously, Norm, can you confirm (or not) the typo in Modern Blackjack ?

[PinkChip]

"Belle jambe", ce bonmot 'était neuf pour moi. :-)

[Norm]

There was a typo in that area in the print edition. I believe it is corrected in the online version.

[Phoebe]

Thanks !

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Freightman, let it go. You seem to be quite sensitive about everything.

I hesitate to reply Norm, but obviously Freightman thinks I am a sock and has said so many times before. So I'm just repying to say I am not and do not think that I come off as such. Except to him for some reason.
I do not think I am disruptive to threads, if anybody is I think it's Freightman.
Anyway, thanks to Don for joining this discussion. And really all I said was that I agreed with Seriousplayer and somehow Rathernotgivemyrealname became upset with both of us.

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

I hesitate to reply Norm, but obviously Freightman thinks I am a sock and has said so many times before. So I'm just repying to say I am not and do not think that I come off as such. Except to him for some reason.
I do not think I am disruptive to threads, if anybody is I think it's Freightman.
Anyway, thanks to Don for joining this discussion. And really all I said was that I agreed with Seriousplayer and somehow Rathernotgivemyrealname became upset with both of us.

You really do like conflict. Again, I am not upset at anyone, merely appalled. If you read back, you will see me and some others discussing a counting system, then seriousplayer chimes in with an attitude and a need to attack others. Then you chime in just to call me numbnuts and that my opinion doesn’t matter so I shouldn’t give it. I am happy to hear any intellectual content (something your posts here lack) from seriousplayer but it’s the way that he delivered it that disgusted me. Spiting rather than helping.

I will give my opinion regardless of your maturity level. Good day.

[Counting_Is_Fun]

You really do like conflict. Again, I am not upset at anyone, merely appalled. If you read back, you will see me and some others discussing a counting system, then seriousplayer chimes in with an attitude and a need to attack others. Then you chime in just to call me numbnuts and that my opinion doesn’t matter so I shouldn’t give it. I am happy to hear any intellectual content (something your posts here lack) from seriousplayer but it’s the way that he delivered it that disgusted me. Spiting rather than helping.

I will give my opinion regardless of your maturity level. Good day.

Holy hell...I do not see anywhere that Seriousplayer or myself attacked you.
If you are "appalled and disgusted" then god help you in this world my friend.

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Don't sweat Counting. He's an unsophisticated mental midget with the attention span of a gnat. He will thus not take your argument on its own terms because he's unable, make huge assumptions and resort to personal attacks out of the ensuing frustration. Don't waste your time explaining yourself to him.

Would you mind quoting this personal attack you claim I made?