Blackjack Card Count Hoax

There have been several occasions where if i'd been barred for the for the volitile conversation between ourselves, i would have taken it gracefully. I can fully accept that when you get to the point that we have many times in the past, the "discussion" stops being productive and starts just being an irritation for everyone else. I once again would like to state that i fully support this decision. If you have a history of knowingly posting rubbish and attacking other members, getting barred from time to time is part of the game and it's not like this is a permanent ban - simply a slap on the wrists for stepping over the line.
I am glad to hear you acknowledge that you don't have any evidence to support your previous allegations of any posters here having a buisness relationship with Mike. As such, i would politely request that in the future if you feel this is the case you do some research and find some evidence or just keep your suspicion to yourself. Ultimately however that's up to you.

RJT.

Death to Jackbooted kook banners! zg

I had to look that one up! z:laugh:g

----------------

Tennis anyone?

Early in this thread:
Originally Posted by JSTAT
"Obviously, the silent majority agrees that a High/Low hoax could exist."
Zengrifter reply: "Maybe this thread belongs in the ZZone rather than the Voodoo forum?" zg

For reasons known only by errr... um; shortly after zg's tongue-in-cheek reply (above), this thread took off from Voodoo and flopped down in the Zen Twilight Zone, where JSTAT was happy to continue trying to show the world his correct facts. But then wtf!, he finds himself rewarded by being batted back here under... Card Counting; where he could hold court? I like tennis! Who's got my racquet? Ah, whose serve was it now? Balls to the server... :joker:

A Cloud is Not a Storm

Why is hi lo so popular?
It is one of the first counts developed.
If one was developing counting the simple +1 -1 would probably be what you would try first.
There is so much analysis of the count which further improves it and adds to popularity.
It builds on itself, it was one of the first, it's popular, it's easy, lot's of research and articles written on it.

In your analyses of A depletion and disadvantage I will take you at your word but I think you miss something.

Ok, at times there may be no A's and you have a disadvantage where you thought you had one.
However,
At times you will have more A's then you thought and you will have a higher advantage.

Now, on average we will have an even distribution of A's to 10's in high counts and you will receive the average of bj's for those high counts.

hi lo shows us when there is an advantage of A's and 10's in the remaining cards so you will get more bjs in the long term.:joker::whip:

Hi opt 2 which side counts As for betting does outperform hi lo.

Off the top of my head, the Rever Point Count counts As as -3 and 10s as -2 and outperforms hi lo.

It seems what you say has some merit, perhaps it's a matter of degrees?

I will go with what you stated here.

Beat the dealer introduced the 10 count?
the casinos panicked and added decks

then Dubner hi lo came out.

I believe it is common for knowledge to build over time "standing on the shoulders of giants" it seems reasonable that more work and discovery would be made in this field of beating the casinos. If only in response to the casinos overreacting and trying to make things tougher.

On Brauns mistakes, counting was in it's infancy still, computers were not as powerful as they are now. We are only human.

Even with Wong's corrections the difference according to Snyder between Braun's and Wong's indices are minimal

So we have Thorp
Braun improved from the ten count with hi lo
Wong slightly improved hi lo
knowledge should build over time

An A by Any Other Name

Wong in his 81 book uses a side count of As for playing decision variations not for betting. I used a side count of As for a period of time, it was mind numbing. The experts seem to feel that some side counts can improve win rate but it is a lot of extra work. I can attest to that. My attempt at side counting As did not last long. Side counts have less value in multi decks.

The math you provided? yes, one can set up a subset of cards that can probably produce excellent results for almost any form of play..

Do you belive in basic strategy? One can establish a subset of cards where BS will get you killed or will win every hand.

On average in high counts you will get more bjs then normal, this takes into account those uncommon instances where there are no As.

Matter of Complexity, Matter of Return, personal Value

Must agree? or do agree?:joker::whip:
There are enough experts in the field and professional antagonism to keep the authors honest and correct honest mistakes. There are other silent experts who are watchdogs that will comment on the work being produced.

I know nothing about your system. I am just assuming it is keeping a count or side count of As to make bets.

in the history of the game, I think in the 70s and 80s systems were getting more complex. Then it was realized that simple systems (like hi lo) were still effective. If you are writing for the masses then it seem reasonable an easy effective system would be the way to go.

wong made an editorial decision to drop the A side count information because it added little value for a lot of extra work. With probably all the counts you can do more to add power but the authors make a decision to not include or discover the information.

Simple systems make less but are easier to implement
Complex systems make more but are harder to implement
Which way to go is a matter of opinion. I use a high level count easily and to me the approx 5% more over hi lo is worth the effort, to others the opposite is true.

Rever Point Count probably outperforms Hi opt 2 in most situations without using an A side count.

If you think the A has extra value that needs to be considered in betting
HI opt 2 or Revere are the way to go. They are better then hi lo in most if not all situations.

A little more history of the game.
Jerry Patterson and his "Target System"
Patterson was I believe a respected author in the bj community. He had a couple books that talked about counting. Then he brought out Target which was bascially to look for tables where players are winning and avoid tables where players are losing. The other experts read and studied his thoughts and have debunked them, though you will still have some people tout it from time to time.

I don't have every bj book known to man but I think Schlesinger's books are interesting. He presents a bj problem, he shows you the math and his findings. He also offers himself up to discuss his ideas. All I believe rather inline with scientific discovery.

It seems you are on the right track, you need your ideas studied and then consider the results. The danger is in the human element, getting the study correct and not letting any bias; including yours, cloud the results.

I agree that the ban seemed pretty premature, but this discussion is entirely useless anyways.

Unless JSTAT can dispute any of the simulation results (By the way, his count is slightly WORSE than Hi-Lo and involves side counting), who cares?