At one time, the website CardCounter.com held an active message forum with many contributors. When the previous site owner planned to shut down the site, he allowed us to archive the messages here at BlackjackInfo. They are formatted as they originally appeared, but no further comments on threads are permitted. If you want to discuss any of these topics, please do so at the BlackjackInfo Forums.
Legalities of counting - AC vs LV laws?
Posted by ace on 20-Nov-2002 16:48:40 (#753)
Can someone run down for me a summary of the counting laws in both AC and LV.
What can they do if they catch you etc. Never read a good summary of this but would be interested as I visit both places an equal amount during a year.
Re: Legalities of counting - AC vs LV laws?
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Nov-2002 20:00:38 (#758)
In Las Vegas they can read you the tresspass act and tell you that you will be arrested if you return to the property. That's about it, from a legal standpoint. If they ask for your ID, you can say no. If they ask you to remain on the premisis, you can leave. If they force you to go to a backroom, you can file felony abduction charges. However casinos often illegally transmit your digital image, your financial information, and other private information, without your consent in violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act (see article by CardKountr on this site).
And more, of course.
--Mayor
Re: Legalities of counting - AC vs LV laws?
Posted by Cardkountr on 24-Nov-2002 13:31:55 (#984)
Although AC Casinos cannot "bar" you or read you the Trespass Law simply for being suspected as a skilled player as they do in LV, the AC casinos can legally take other actions such as cutting the shoe in half or more, restricting you to one hand, reshuffling anytime, or a flat bet restriction for you. They can employ any one or multiple actions cited above.
NJ law requires the casinos to offer a 10 to 1 spread on any game with less than a $100 min, therefore once they identify you as a counter, in lieu of a flat bet restriction, the casino can just changes the table min to $5 with a $50 max and then ask everyone else at the table (other than you) if they want permission to bet higher than the new posted limits while combining the other permissible actions to thwart you. So essentially it is tantamount to the same effect as a barring.
May all the dealers blackjacks occur while you're in the bathroom!!
Card.
counting in small local casinos
Posted by PaddyBoy on 20-Nov-2002 19:42:35 (#755)
Hi all,just found this site and have read a lot of posts and feel i will be reading and posting a lot more.I have posted a bit on BJ21 and RGE but i feel these sites are too much into the technical side of the game and lose sight of the human side.Anyway can i introduce myself?I live in Europe and got interested in BJ around this time last year thru the online casinos.Anyway througout this year have played at about 130 online casinos and have made about 6000 euros from them(dont have it now though as i havent been working since Febuary).I have played all the good bonuses and now this source of income has almost dried up!
I am fascinated by BJ and other games which can be beaten so when i get back to work i want to build up a bankroll and try to make a bit from my local casinos.I did a bit of counting during the summer but just came out about even.I would like to start with a BR of 5000 euros as i have heard of all the 1st time counters that start off with to small a BR and lose it fast.
My local casinos are small but have ok rules and from what i see below is that your act is very important.
during my stint in the summer i was genuinely friendly towards dealers and ploppies.but there must be more to it than that,to get away with keeping your max bets out during a high count (while losing hand after hand) and min betting during lows(and winning hand after hand) what kind of act do i need?some sort of progressionist?A guy who chases loses?
How can i blend in well with the ploppies and get a good spread?
Also the shuffles in these places are not great so i would be interested in techniques such as ace and shuffle tracking.After i get my act together!
Re: counting in small local casinos
Posted by darksun on 20-Nov-2002 19:55:37 (#756)
I'm just curious, but what kind of rules do these casinos offer?
Re: counting in small local casinos
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Nov-2002 19:56:01 (#757)
Welcome, it is great to have you here. I have no experience in European casinos, but there are several who visit and post here who do. But the commonality of act should be universal (or nearly so).
First, make sure you are really getting a good game before you play. The variety of rules in Europe range from incredibly poor to exceptional: it is even broader than what you find in this country.
Next, get the book "Burning the tables in Las Vegas." There is a new edition coming out in which the author talks about mid/low level play. At any rate, the book is devoted to getting away with it for the long run.
Next, experiment. Try a variety of things, see which draw heat, which work in your casinos. For example, if you only Wong on busy nights, you find your return is high with virtually no heat. But if you play long stints during quiet times, you will need an excellent act.
Next, make sure you are technically sound, and have an adequate bankroll. You should not even begin to consider making this a living with a bankroll under 10K, and probably 20K is more like it. You have to be able to bet 2 hands of $100 each before you earn a decent living wage, and it just goes up from there.
Next, never stop learning.
Finally, really listen to the advice you get, here and at bj21, rge21. There are some incredibly experienced and knowledgeable people who post at these sites. What they have to say is worth more than you can imagine.
With best regards,
--Mayor
Re: counting in small local casinos
Posted by Paddyboy on 20-Nov-2002 20:34:12 (#760)
Thanks.I am not thinking about making a living just a bit of extra money.
is not really possible to wong in but wonging out is viable.There are 3 i play at.rules are casino A;4D,S17,DAS,D9,10,11 only,ENHC and ES10.Casino B:the same with 6D.Casino c:same as a but with H17.
Nice to have ES10,Casino a and b are really small 2 tables each,Casino c has about 7 so more opportunities for wonging there.
Casino B has a rule which pays you 80 euros if you get a 7 card hand,anyone know the odds of this?and 30 euros for a 7-7-7.I dont change Bs for this as i dont know if i should!
There is another casino but the pen is crap so i dont play,they have a poker room though i will try that during Xmas.
Regarding ploppies here they always seem to stand too much on 15 and 16 v dealer highs.They also seem to dissect every hand after the dealer has played,such as "oh if i stood on the 14 and then you hit the 15 then the dealer would have bust",they also seem to have little competitions to see who figures out how the dealer would have bust "Ah yes William is right, if Mildred hadnt doubled and if I split the dealer would have bust,good chap John."
I am going to try a lot of this when i start playing to blend in,although this even seems a lot more complicated than a level 4 count!
THANK GOD FOR PLOPPIES
Posted by learning to count on 20-Nov-2002 20:58:46 (#761)
I love it when they come in with 500 or more buy ins. They start betting drinking and being obnoxious. I had one tell me last trip theat his friend sitting across at first base was an expert in black jack and he read all the books. This was out loud that even survelliance heard it and they have no microphones. Well they both dumped at least a grand in red and green chips in about twenty minutes between them. ALL the while when they won a hand they would yell and cheer like banshees. The PC told them no problem with the cheers but not in his (me) ear. When they were ready to leave. I could not resist asking where I could buy the book.
Ploppies are great for cover. I had two oriental ploppies walk up pull out what looked like several thousand in rolled up hundreds and buy in for eight hundred a each. They bet like banshees yacking loud in chinese each time they won or lost. Great cover for me. When they bet BIG I bet large. They lost I won. I went unnoticed they were offered free buffets. Gotta love them ploppies!
Sounds like Germany? Ya? *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Nov-2002 21:22:33 (#763)
I was thinking Ireland
Posted by The Mayor on 20-Nov-2002 21:48:01 (#765)
Given the "Paddy" part of his name and his articulate English.
Re: I was thinking Ireland
Posted by PaddyBoy on 21-Nov-2002 00:10:51 (#772)
close i am Irish but live in England.The Irish are called "Paddies" here.
Are we still called "Micks" in the states?
Doubles, splits, and matchplays (repost)
Posted by zengrifter (Theef) on 20-Nov-2002 21:24:49 (#764)
Theef raises a good question which I have reposted here, anyone? zg
-------------------
Doubles, splits, and matchplays
Posted By: Theef
Date: Wednesday, 20 November 2002, at 11:31 a.m. rge21
When the floorman will only let you double your $25 matchplay for $25, instead of $50, or when you are allowed/forced to split for only $25, are there any BS doubles or splits that are no longer advisable? Are there any defensive splits that BECOME advisable?
I'd be shocked if this question hasn't been asked before, so a link to an earlier thread will do fine if you have one.
Re: Doubles, splits, and matchplays (ANSWER)
Posted by zengrifter (J Morgan) on 22-Nov-2002 01:28:50 (#821)
I thought maybe we'd find the answer here first, but here it is anyway. zg
-------------
Posted By: J Morgan
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, at 8:59 p.m. rge21
In Response To: Doubles, splits, and matchplays (Theef)
If you have $25 live cash + match-play coupon, but you can double or split for only $25 instead of $50, the deviations to BS are (S17 play precedes slash, H17 play follows slash):
IF COUPON IS RELINQUISHED ON PUSHES:
12 v. 3 H/S; 16 v. T S; A2 v. 5 H; A2 v. 6 H/D; A4 v. 4 H; A8 v. 6 S. DAS: 22 v. 8 PC; 33 v. 8 PC; 44 v. 5 H/P; 66 v. 7 PC; 77 v. 8 PC; 99 v. A PC. NoDAS: 66 v. 2 PC; 77 v. 8 PC; 99 v. A PC.
IF COUPON IS SAVED ON PUSHES:
11 v. A H; A2 v. 5 H; A2 v. 6 H/D; A3 v. 5 H/D; A4 v. 4 H; A7 v. 2 S; A7 v. 3 S/DS; A8 v. 6 S. DAS: 22 v. 8 PC; 33 v. 8 PC; 44 v. 5 H; 44 v. 6 H/P; 66 v. 7 PC; 77 v. 8 PC; 99 v. A S/PC. NoDAS: 22 v. 3 PC; 33 v. 8 PC; 66 v. 2 PC; 77 v. 8 PC; 99 v. A S/PC.
PC means to sPlit the hand containing the Coupon. All these changes would amount to about a nickel on your $25 match-play coupon.
The upcoming BJF will have an extensive article on all this. Some of it gets very complicated.
Uston interview
Posted by MLB Scout on 20-Nov-2002 22:01:31 (#766)
Im looking for a copy of the 1981 60 Minutes interview with Ken Uston. If you have a copy, please email me. I will pay for all costs. Im also looking for "The Uston" it's a BS reference wheel that Uston marketed in the late 70's. Both items are for my personal collection, and NOT for re-sale.
Thanks...
MLB
Re: Uston interview
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Nov-2002 22:05:34 (#767)
Let me know if you find the 60 Minutes piece, may use it with the docufilm project. Are you around the local neighborhood currently? zg
Re: Uston interview
Posted by MLB Scout on 20-Nov-2002 22:26:20 (#769)
Yeah, I just got in from LV. Mostly phone work this week as we have a couple of block buster deals in the works. I'll email you my new cell number. I would really love to spend some time with you and the princess sometime soon. Dinner and a couple Captain Morgan's?
MLB
Re: Uston interview
Posted by zengrifter on 20-Nov-2002 22:41:50 (#770)
Another one of them cubano pitchers? zg (ps, you are on)
Just Read: Bringing Down The House.....
Posted by JayMan on 21-Nov-2002 03:16:12 (#774)
I just finished reading the book, "Bringing Down The House". I must say it was a real page turner, and I found it extremely entertaining. After doing alot of research and reading other BJ books I have discovered that these MIT brainiacs were amazingly successful using a very basic hi-lo system with team play. Am I missing something??? Is this book really true??? Is team play really viable??? Could this be more fiction than fact????
Any and all thoughts would be great,
JayMan
Re: Just Read: Bringing Down The House.....
Posted by ace on 21-Nov-2002 07:42:27 (#775)
I enjoyed this book as well, though I couldnt help think how much was embellished to make a good story sound great. Still, I read it in two sittings, I could barely put it down. Regardless of what was true or not true, it was very entertaining to read.
: Bringing Down The House.....
Posted by hammer on 21-Nov-2002 09:30:11 (#778)
Yes,
true,GOES TO SHOW all the funky systems of ao11,halves,etc,maybe not
worth the trouble. And they play 6deck. But the real
point is large bankroll-over a million to start-
Do you have that??
Re: : Bringing Down The House.....--__PW_FORM_DATA
Posted by Dave--__PW_FORM_DATA_BOUNDARY__ on 21-Nov-2002 14:52:25 (#795)
Could be that they are just saying that they used hi-lo because if you got a great system they aren't going to give out their secret. If you have a team of 10 or so students from one of the most highly selective schools in the country, just think what those guys are capable of. They were raised with computers and are very gifted mathematically. I'm thinking that they made up their own system or something.
--__PW_FORM_DATA_BOUNDARY__
HiLo w/ 40+ indices is a standard *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 21-Nov-2002 22:21:43 (#817)
Re: Just Read: Bringing Down The House.....
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 21:10:09 (#814)
I just checked out advantage player.com site. Mr. schlesinger says that the MIT team was very successful and that the book is very close to the truth. Interesting thread there.
what a night
Posted by Shell on 21-Nov-2002 10:03:46 (#779)
Thanks for everyone reply my first post last time. Although some stones did
bruise my forehead.
I went the casino yesterday night, played from 6:30 to 10:30 Pm. It was a
tough night, most of my table-mates could sit there for no more than 2 hours.
One asian bought in $400 and lost within 30 minutes, actually his bet was
spread from 10 to 40, wasn't so bad.
Re: what a night
Posted by SammyBoy on 22-Nov-2002 15:55:57 (#836)
It is really difficult to keep up with the count while other players or the dealer wants to chit chat with you. It is getting easier though the more I play.
In what order do you count?
Posted by ace on 21-Nov-2002 10:09:32 (#780)
Interested in what order people track shoe games?
Do you keep track after the first cards come out, then track the seconds?
Do you wait until all hands are out before play starts?
Do you go hand by hand as play starts?
Interested to get some opinions as to what works for people.
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 10:24:28 (#781)
Interesting question. I have a firm rule. I only count the cards after the dealer has exposed them. For example, if a person flashes his cards because he wins a side bet, I do not count them, but if he doubles down and places his cards face up, I then count them. I always wait, even if I see the cards, for the cards to be finally turned up on the table. This is my personal way, just discipline. The only exception I make is in pitch, when I am considering an insurance play, I will then take any information that comes my way.
--Mayor
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by MrPill on 21-Nov-2002 10:36:20 (#783)
Mayor,
Shoe game. See my other post in this string.
Pill
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by MrPill on 21-Nov-2002 10:30:59 (#782)
Ace,
In a face up game I will wait until all players have the first two cards dealt out, or close to it. As you get more proficient with your count, you gain the ability to look at a table full of cards and eliminate the cards that cancel each other out on sight in a level-1 or an unbalanced count. This may happen with one players cards, or it may be the 2 cards from one player and the 2 cards from the player next to him.
And then don't forget the dealers up card. Sometimes I will also use this to cancel out a players card in the running count.
This process should take you only a few seconds.
Pill
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by ace on 21-Nov-2002 10:39:31 (#784)
Thanks Pill. Essentially what I have been doing is what you describe. I have been dealing 7 hands to myself out of my 6 deck shoe. I give myself 2 seconds before I wipe the cards away. What I am getting fairly good at is quickly maching up the aces/faces and low cards as well as not even looking at the 7 - 8 - 9.
The "good" thing is the friends I tend to always play with are very slow players, so it gives me a bit of extra time, though through practice I hope not to need it.
Thanks for the reply.
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by SammyBoy on 21-Nov-2002 13:18:08 (#789)
This is the method I use as well. If I can see the ploppy's cards next to me I count them also while he is still holding them.
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by Theef on 21-Nov-2002 12:37:00 (#788)
In a face-up game I count every card as it is dealt. As a backup I try to remember what the count was at the start of the hand, and if I get confused I count them again after they're all dealt while the ploppies are taking their sweet time.
In a face-down game I count my own hand and every other card as it is turned over. If I glimpse another player's cards I count them and curl one of my toes to remind myself not to count them again when he turns them over. Even if the guy's hand sums to zero, so double-counting it wouldn't matter, I give myself the curled-toe signal for the sake of consistency.
Counting the cards as soon as you see them is harder than waiting until they're all dealt for some people, but it's much more reliable in my experience. Otherwise, sooner or later you'll run out of time and have to count six cards in a half second between the dealer's fingers while he's scooping them up.
Re: In what order do you count?
Posted by jnubro on 21-Nov-2002 17:53:29 (#799)
I use my left hand to store the count after all hands are collected. I let this hand rest on my thigh under the table and use a combination of finger,knuckle and wrist positions. Whether the fingers are in a very slight push vs. pull state indicates whether the count is pos vs. neg, thumb=1...pinky=5, any one or two finger combination makes a number from 1-9, raised vs collapsed knuckle and wrist position takes care of tens. Sounds harder than it is...works for me, anyway.
I find it indispensible for keeping the "main" count accurately between each hand. I adjust my left hand stored count during play only for blackjacks and busts since these cards are removed from play. I only mentally adjust the left hand stored count for any cards that I happen to spy including my own hand.
When a round is over I quickly count all the cards as the dealer reveals them but do so based on zero and just add the positive or negative number to whatever my left hand stored count is. I reconfigure my left hand for the new stored count and relax.
I find this method enables me to socialize while playing because I only have to count in spurts instead of trying to keep track of which cards I haven't already counted while trying to remember the current count. I found I couldn't resist adjusting the count for cards I happened to spy; but then I couldn't always remember which cards I didn't count yet and what the running count was before I lost track.
We have met the Enemy
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Nov-2002 11:50:57 (#787)
We have met the enemy.
So despite your standing on hard 14 vs 7, your body language and mannerisms have attracted the pit's attention. Sorry, but since he was standing 10 feet away at the podium, he didn't even see you stand on soft 18 that last round. He walks over to stand behind the dealer, crosses his arms, and starts staring directly at you. He is boring a hole into you with a grim look on his face.
You make the classic anti-heat counter move -- flat bet the rest of the shoe, and just play basic strategy. Of course, the pit really had no way to know what spread you were betting before, he wasn't paying attention to that. Besides, he doesn't know what the count is, he wasn't watching the cards, for all he knows the count might be negative, and you should be flat betting. All you are doing is demonstrating that you do know basic strategy.
Let's step back and examine the dynamics of the situation. The pit suspects something. They are staring at you. This is because they are not sure, and they are trying to confirm what they suspect. Your reactions are what they are trying to gauge.
Let's look at some typical ploppy reactions:
>Seeing the pit boss coming, 3rd base yells out, "Boy am I hot tonight!", as he doubles up on his next bet.
>Smiling broadly at the pit boss standing there (after all the pit is the giver of comps, the ambassadors of fun of a nights entertainment, the hander-outer of the free show tickets, the source to the free buffet), 2nd base says, "Can we get a new dealer? This guy hasn't busted for the past five hands?"
>1st base never notices the pit boss, he is too busy trying to figure out if he should split his 2s against the dealer's Ten, and is still grumbling about the last round when 3rd base stole the dealer's bust card. He is also trying to keep up some clever banter with the cocktail waitress, while keeping an eye behind him on his wife playing the slot machines a few rows down. Pit boss? What pit boss?
Contrast with a typical counter reaction:
>Making sure that you don't make any eye contact with the man glaring at you, you radically alter your betting patterns, and start flat betting. You start putting chips into your pockets, only planning on playing a couple more hands, until you can 'slip away' from this heat. You pause on a hand, "Should I stand on this 15 because this the count calls for it, or hit it because that is basic strategy?" Afraid to alert the looming pit boss, who is probably just watching for a move like that, you decide to hit. Your former rapid-fire play style has changed. You now seem to be thinking about simple hands, as sweat starts to break out on your brow.
I mean you might as while just jump up, knocking your chair over, and scream, "YES, I'M COUNTING CARDS. I ADMIT IT!" Then rapidly run for the door with pee running down your leg. Even if you leave quietly and discreetly, the Pit has done its job. You have removed yourself from play. The pit's suspicions were confirmed. The threat has been neutralized. AND HERE IS THE BEAUTY OF THE STARE TECHNIQUE: They didn't have to say a word. The ploppies didn't even realize anything has happened. They are still sitting at the table, laughing, joking, grumbling and crying, while they continue to give their money to the casino. They don't have a clue that they just witnessed a back off.
Okay, here are some hints:
I used to have a girl friend who gave me the 'evil eye' when my behavior didn't meet with her approval. After a while, I learned that a mean look didn't break any of my bones, cause internal bleeding, cuts, scrapes, or even minor bruises. A mean look is completely harmless. Not content with just my own observations, I searched the medical literature. NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM HAVING A FROWNY FACE STARE AT THEM! So when you are getting the stare, and you win your next hand, LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE PIT BOSS AND LAUGH REAL LOUD - HAW HAR AHAW HAW, as you scrape up your winnings. (the pit is now confused, you aren't acting like the typical counter, now are you?)
Maybe the pit boss isn't actually staring at you anyways! Maybe he got tired of holding up his chin at the podium, has walked over to your table, and has now zoned out, staring into nothingness, as he realizes what a truely boring job he has with nothing to do. So do your duty, give the pit something to do - Look directly at the pit boss, AND ASK FOR A COMP FOR 2 FOR DINNER!
At this point the pit now has a couple of choices:
1) Grant your request and go write you a comp.
2) Tell you to get a comp you need to play longer and bet more. (At this count? Gladly!)
3) Walk away with a disgusted look on his face. (Great, while his back is turned, I think I will spread to two hands)
4) Escalate the whole deal, and tell you no more blackjack.
The last is least likely, but it now gives you the perfect response. "SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU KNOW HOW TO PLAY AND WHAT A COMP?", direct this comment to poorest basic strategy player at the table, for the benefit of all the others, "PLAY A REASONABLE GAME AND THEY WANT TO THROW YOU OUT, WHAT KIND OF RIP-OFF JOINT IS THIS?"
Of course, you have your chips picked up and are moving towards the door while you say this ....
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 13:24:38 (#790)
I ask your permission, sir, to archive this as one post when you have completed it. Thanks in advance.
You are welcome to send it to me and I will format it for a permanent place on this site.
By the way, my anti-boss-staring move is to increase my bets as the count gets more negative.
Best,
--Mayor
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Nov-2002 13:59:14 (#792)
These posts were given freely to your site. Any and all posts with the word 'Enemy' in the subject line, are yours to do with what you will.
Feel free to cut and paste and stick them all together, with whatever formatting you feel is necessary.
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 14:02:23 (#793)
In that case, please let me know what name you would like attached, and any short biographical info you would like added at the top.
Thanks.
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Nov-2002 14:44:41 (#794)
Name? You need my name? The 3rd shift boss never asked for my name to give me a lousy comp, I left my ID in my room, and my girlfriend is around here somewhere using my player's card on the slots. Guess I'll just go back across the street, the host over there has been real good to me, gives me just about everything I want, that's why they get most of my play. ;>)
Abraham de Moivre -- will be fine, I don't think he will be suing me. ;>)
Let's just say I am a free-lance contract type employee, who doesn't sweat periods of unemployment between assignments, anymore. For the past four years, I have been able to fall back on Blackjack for periods of time, in order to support my lavish lifestyle. When employed, I use Blackjack as a part-time job to supplement my income.
I owe Stanford Wong and Don Schlesinger a large debt for showing how to open the doors to the casino vaults. I am an observer of people and behavior, and have studied what the casino marketing type folks are looking for, and want, from their customers. I have found that by playing certain roles, I can dramatically increase my longevity, despite a winning record.
It is not what you are, or what you do - It is what they think you are and what they think you do.
Thanks for the site!
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 15:17:46 (#796)
You said: Name? You need my name?
What I wanted was the name you wanted me to write the posts under. Of course, I did not expect it to be your real name -- but for all I know, you are Celini, or someone else with a highly well known "name", and I wanted to give you the opportunity to use that instead.
Thanks again,
--Mayor
Re: We have met the Enemy
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 21-Nov-2002 15:38:37 (#797)
From the grapevine, I have heard that most of the 'Celini' posts are a fraud.
No, I am not a recognized 'name'. Like the most 'best' spy or the 'best' bankrobber, etc. -- You wouldn't know or recognize my name.
Ego has left a long time ago, I'm in this for the money ;>)
excellent one
Posted by Shell on 21-Nov-2002 13:26:49 (#791)
should be archived.
Re: excellent one
Posted by ace on 21-Nov-2002 15:49:15 (#798)
Great post, thanks
Eight decks; my head hurts...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 18:21:21 (#801)
I am going on a cruise and I found out that there is a Casino on board. The game is as follows:
1) 8 decks, 1.25-1.5 cutoff; sometimes one deck cut off.
2) split and resplit any pair, thrre times into four hands
3) split aces only once
4) double down on any two card combination
5) double after a split except on aces
6) dealer stands on s17
Miscelaneous: insurance, no surrender allowed.
Any advice would be appreciated. Mayor at what true count would you bet max in this game? I know this is a great wonging opportunity. I calculated it a disadvantage of -.408 for 8 decks off the top.
Re: Eight decks; my head hurts...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 20:18:21 (#805)
If it is true that you only get 1.25 decks cut off sometimes, this is a fantastic game.
Max bet at TC = +5.
Patience and Wonging are called for. Don't expect too much -- it can take a long time to get that monster count, but when you get it expect it to stay for a while. Be willing to put out the big bets for most of a very long shoe, and hold on!
--Mayor
Re: Eight decks; my head hurts...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 20:37:15 (#810)
Thanks Eliot. Last june I played this game or I should say I wonged in and out. You are right I back counted for a long time before I found plus 1 TC. Plus five is rare. I cant remember it going that high for more than a couple of shoes. As far as the 1 and quarter cut it happened usually late after one am and only two tables open. The only other game with a low ror was the coin toss machine...haha!
Kelly criterion
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 18:22:57 (#802)
Any one like to explain it in english as it pertains to betting in blackjack.
Re: Kelly criterion
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 20:21:21 (#806)
The Kelly criterion refers to the bet size that most quickly grows your bankroll. It takes only two variables into consideration, the current size of your bankroll and your current advantage. Based on these two numbers, it produces a correct bet. Using this system comes with a 13.5% risk of ruin (losing your entire bankroll), but the shortest mean time to doubling your bankroll as well. It is a wild ride and very few play full-kelly. If you play "full kelly" based on 1/2 of your bankroll, and leave the other 1/2 in reserve, your risk of ruin reduces to under 2%. Many do this.
Hope this helps,
--Mayor
Thank you! *NM*
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 20:31:10 (#808)
BJ in London
Posted by jnubro on 21-Nov-2002 19:02:46 (#803)
Has anyone played BJ fairly recently in London who can recommend any
places to play? I have never been to London and have no idea what kind
of BJ is available.
Re: BJ in London
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 20:29:49 (#807)
I was in london in march of 98 and march 0f 99. I tried to go to a Casino but I was advised at the door that they were for memebers only and you needed a ecorted member invitation. From what I gathered six decks, dbl on 9,10,11. Bad cuts and sweaty. If you go to Stanford wongs bj21 and look in the freepage archives I remember there was an international page there should be info. Also check rge pages as well. London is great. Never a boring moment. If you are a military/history buff dont miss the Imperial war museam.
uston simple +/-
Posted by Z on 21-Nov-2002 19:36:17 (#804)
I am wondering where I could get the exact basic strategy deviations for the Uston simple +/-. I find it impossible to get straight answers from his book for a 6-8 deck game, DAS, DA2, S17, Late Surrender, and when these deviations should be made. I.e. what should be running or true count?
Thanks,
Z
Here it is...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 20:35:38 (#809)
PROFESSIONAL BLACKJACK ANALYZER
<Version: PBA 4.3.7>
Results for file: C:\PBA437\USTON.txt
November 21, 2002
The following rules were specified in the rules menu:
R>---------------------------------------------------
6- deck shoe
Insurance offered
Dealer stands on soft-17
With dealer blackjack, player...
Loses one bet max
On ties, player pushes, except...
Loses with 22-26
Resplit to make four hands
Resplit aces allowed
Doubling allowed on aces
OK to split unlike 10s, like J-Q
Check hole card under 10, A
Double any hard total
Soft doubling allowed
surrender two cards
late surrender against 10
late surrender against A
initial hand only
After splitting...
Double any hard total
Soft doubling allowed
Double two cards only
Shufffle used was: Random Swaps
Dealt to 78 cards remaining.
R>--------------------------------------------------
The following counting system was used:
C>--------------------------------------------------
System name: Uston
Count indices...
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
Minimum count for playing decisions: -20
Maximum count for playing decisions: 20
C>--------------------------------------------------
B>---------------------------------------------------
The following strategy tables were obtained:
A>----------------------------------------------------
A> INSURANCE INDEX
Insure hands at counts greater than or equal to 6
A> HARD HIT/STAND
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
21 S S S S S S S S S S
20 S S S S S S S S S S
19 S S S S S S S S S S
18 S S S S S S S S S S
17 S S S S S S S S S S
16 S S S S S 17 H 14 1 8
15 S S S S S H H H 9 11
14 S S S S S H H H 16 15
13 -2 S S S S H H H H H
12 6 3 -1 S S H H H H H
11 H H H H H H H H H H
10 H H H H H H H H H H
9 H H H H H H H H H H
8 H H H H H H H H H H
7 H H H H H H H H H H
6 H H H H H H H H H H
5 H H H H H H H H H H
4 H H H H H H H H H H
3 H H H H H H H H H H
2 H H H H H H H H H H
A> SOFT HIT/STAND
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
A,10 S S S S S S S S S S
A,9 S S S S S S S S S S
A,8 S S S S S S S S S S
A,7 S S S S S S S H H H
A,6 H H H H H H H H H H
A,5 H H H H H H H H H H
A,4 H H H H H H H H H H
A,3 H H H H H H H H H H
A,2 H H H H H H H H H H
A,A H H H H H H H H H H
A> HARD DOUBLE
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
12 - - - - - - - - - -
11 D D D D D D D D D 0
10 D D D D D D D D 8 6
9 2 -1 D D D 7 17 - - -
8 - 17 12 8 4 - - - - -
7 - - - - 19 - - - - -
6 - - - - - - - - - -
5 - - - - - - - - - -
4 - - - - - - - - - -
3 - - - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - - - - -
A> SOFT DOUBLE
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
A,10 - - - - - - - - - -
A,9 - 16 13 10 8 - - - - -
A,8 17 10 6 3 0 - - - - -
A,7 0 D D D D - - - - -
A,6 4 D D D D - - - - -
A,5 - 6 D D D - - - - -
A,4 - 11 0 D D - - - - -
A,3 - 14 5 D D - - - - -
A,2 - 15 7 2 D - - - - -
A,A - 14 8 4 0 - - - - -
A> PAIR SPLITS
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
A,A P P P P P P P P 8 7
T,T - 16 13 10 8 - - - - -
9,9 P P P P P 6 P P - 7
8,8 P P P P P P P P 12* -2
7,7 P P P P P P 8 - - -
6,6 P P P P P - - - - -
5,5 - - - - - - - - - -
4,4 - 15 6 -1 P - - - - -
3,3 0 P P P P P - - - -
2,2 P P P P P P 7 - - -
A> SURRENDER (HARD TOTALS)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
21 - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - -
19 - - - - - - - - - -
18 - - - - - - - - - -
17 - - - - - - - - - 4*
16 - - - - - - 9 -1 R R
15 - - - - - - 15 5 0 -1
14 - - - - - - 20 11 5 6
13 - - - - - - - 19 13 19
12 - - - - - - - - - -
11 - - - - - - - - - -
10 - - - - - - - - - -
9 - - - - - - - - - -
8 - - - - - - - - - -
7 - - - - - - - - - -
6 - - - - - - - - - -
5 - - - - - - - - - -
4 - - - - - - - - - -
A>----------------------------------------------------
Re: Here it is...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 20:39:14 (#811)
Mayor, Any suggestions on software to figure out max bet true counts and such?
Re: Here it is...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 20:58:53 (#812)
Just about any out there can do it, it is not a big deal. PBJA, SBA, Casino Verite, 6-7-8. But you don't need any software to answer your question because I'll tell you. For Hi-Lo, max out at +5 without surrender and +4 with surrender. Done!
The tougher task (much tougher!) is to actually put those max bets out there when the count says to.
--Mayor
Re: Here it is...
Posted by learning to count on 21-Nov-2002 21:07:25 (#813)
Okay okay Plus seven and I lost my nerve. All I can say is wait to next time maybe in january I will see you at yolies. HAHA> LTC
Re: Here it is...
Posted by Z on 21-Nov-2002 21:41:28 (#815)
THANK YOU, MAYOR!
Now, can somebody help me interpret the charts?
And is there a difference between 6 and 8 decks?
Re: Here it is...
Posted by The Mayor on 21-Nov-2002 21:59:50 (#816)
For practical purposes, there is no difference between 6 decks and 8 deck indices or basic strategy. (There are some difference between 2 and 6 deck BS though).
What question do you have about the charts? I will help if you ask a question I can answer.
--Mayor
Re: Here it is...
Posted by Z on 21-Nov-2002 22:42:28 (#819)
I am new to this. I have Uston's book and figured simple +/- would be a good place to start. So, I would play basic strategy and keep a running count. I would deviate from it in both betting and playing when the count reaches say +/-20 (?). Which would mean that I would have a + strategy and bet say 4 units and deviations such as staying on a 12 vs. 3, 16 vs. 10 etc. And a minus strategy and a bet say 1 unit and deviations like hitting 4,4, and 13 vs. 2,3, etc. When the running count is between -20 and 20 then just play basic strategy and 2 unit bets. I was looking to verify my deviation strategies, particularly surrender on plus and minus counts for Foxwoods rules. Basic strategy tells me to surrender 16 vs. 9, 10, A and 15 vs. 10.
How would I read your surrender chart? I just don't know what those numbers mean.
Sorry for my ignorance.
Thank you for your help!
Z
Re: Here it is... HERE
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 00:17:59 (#820)
HERE, borrowed (loosely) from JGrossjean's 'RunningHiLo' page 34 -
1. Buy insurance w/RC +10 or higher
2. Stand on 16v10 w/RC +2 or higher
3. Stand on 15v10 w/RC+11 or higher
4. Surrendar 16v9/10/A w/RC -1 or higher
5. Surrendar 15v10/A w/RC -1 or higher
--------------------
6. Bet the RC -2 chips (ie, RC=+4 bet 2u)
7. Max bet of 10u @ RC of +12
8. When RC of -6 exit to a fresh shoe
9. Best to bet -0- w/RC of +2 or lower
--------------------
Would someone like to proffer a guess as to the RORuin playing this way with a starting bank of 500u? I would guess it to be 33%+ zg
Re: Here it is... HERE
Posted by Z on 22-Nov-2002 07:24:21 (#822)
OK. I give up. Maybe there isn't an Uston Simple +/- system.
I.e. 3 bet sizes (1,2,4 units), 3 strategies (-,Basic,+) and keeping a running count.
It seems that I should learn a matrix of strategies with a running count. I am still unclear about bet sizes, I think bet=RC is a bit radical. 33% element of ruin is unacceptable. While I am at it, should I just convert to true count as well? Anyone know the difference between the playing accuracy of RC vs. TC?
Thank you for your patience and help guys,
Z
Re:duce RISK by 75%+...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 13:05:41 (#830)
...by doubling the BR #units to 1000. zg
Re: Here it is... HERE - RoRuin...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 13:07:44 (#831)
...can be reduced by 75% by DOUBLING the BR to 1000u. zg
A better suggestion
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 22-Nov-2002 09:56:21 (#823)
Get "Knockout Blackjack".
An unbalanced count that is also 1-level, no TC conversion.
Much more clear on what and when to bet and play.
More effective on getting the money than the +/- in RC mode.
Re: A better suggestion AGREED...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 10:54:42 (#827)
...or my preference for a newbie - Red7 as contained in 'Blackbelt in BJ' zg
Re: A better suggestion AGREED...Red 7
Posted by MrPill on 22-Nov-2002 11:17:39 (#829)
Here! Here!
Red 7 has been, and continues to be, a "comfortable" system for this casual player. It has performed well for me over this past year and hopefully will continue to in the future.
Pill
Re: A better suggestion AGREED...Red 7
Posted by joe_r_black on 22-Nov-2002 16:36:18 (#837)
Red 7 is the perfect count for 6-8 deck games with mediocre to poor penetration.
Red7 vs KO?
Posted by AcesFool on 19-Jan-2003 23:27:10 (#2701)
i just read BB in BJ by Snyder. if both red seven and KO are equally strong, wouldn't it be better to just use KO since I dont have to worry about Red/black.
Also, if I'm only playing, say once a month at foxwoods, is their any point to using high/low with a true count conversion?
finally, do you surrender 8,8 vs. 9,10,A or split? (Foxwoods)
Red Sevens vs. Knockout vs. Hi-lo
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 21-Jan-2003 20:36:17 (#2737)
This is one of the most frequently asked questions by beginners and novices alike who are contemplating the use of a simple system. Many "experts" have often recommended that "it doesn't matter which count you use, just pick one you are comfortable using..." or something of the like. I believe when contemplating the use of counts of _similar difficulty levels_, which count is best for you should ultimately be decided by several factors:
- Advantage play methods you intend to employ in the future
- Modifications to "base" count you intend to add in the future
- Playing style
- How often you play
I'll briefly comment on each factor, to give you an idea of what I mean.
A simple example of the first point is if one is planning on adding shuffle-tracking to his arsenal...the obvious choice would be the balanced option, hi-lo (some research I am conducting, which stems from earlier work by Pete Moss and Michael Hall on unbalanced ST'ing, may alter this, but is beyond the scope of this post). Another example would be a zealous player who wants to use sequencing ON TOP of counting methods...he would be much better off using an unbalanced count, so he only needs to keep a simple running count on top of his sequencing info.
A simple example of the second point is a player who intends to incorporate some sort of "pseudo" or "quasi" true count in the future. IMO he would be better off with the +4 unbalance of KO, rather than the +2 unbalance of R7. My reasoning for this is that with the KO pivot you are always _exactly_ accurate with your max bet out, and fairly accurate at other points because of the "quasi" TC adjustments. With Red Sevens, we will be _exactly_ accurate at lower bet levels, and only fairly accurate at point of max bet.
As for playing style, it should be fairly obvious, as I and others (including Dr. Brett Harris) have pointed out the great utility of the Red Seven's +2 unbalance for Wonging purposes. Red Sevens would be the obvious choice for the player who's primary style of play is backcounting. Another example would be a player who uses Schlesinger's "White Rabbit" metholodogy, and might want to use hi-lo so they are always _exactly_ accurate at 0.
The final point should also be fairly obvious, a player who plays very infrequently would be advised to stick with a running count system, as their deck estimation would be very gross with limited practice.
These points can each affect each other, and I'll post some more thoughts later.
ANS
Surrendering 8,8...
Posted by Adam N. Subtractum on 22-Jan-2003 02:39:13 (#2755)
"...finally, do you surrender 8,8 vs. 9,10,A or split? (Foxwoods)"
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this question in my previous post. Basic Strategy tells us the only time we would surrender 8,8 is against an Ace, with H17, two or more decks. So in your case, do not surrender 8,8.
If you are using surrender indices, then there will be a point where surrendering 8,8 will become the favorable option.
-Hi-Lo-
8,8 v 9 >= +7
8,8 v T >= 0
-KO(8 deck)-
8,8 v T >= -5
I'll post a follow-up with the Risk Averse numbers if you'd like.
ANS
On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Nov-2002 10:20:39 (#824)
Dear group,
Lately there has been a meltdown at several Internet web sites devoted to holding discussion groups focused on Blackjack. First there was the problems at bj21 that forced them to close their free pages. Then the fully moderated status at rge21 that recently saw the moderators openly flaming published and respected individuals, followed by cross flames occuring on different web sites. In October, there were posts at this site that forced security measures to be put in place as well that restrict posting (e.g. you cannot be using an anonymous IP). And now, it seems, it is Yahoo's Card Counter Cafe's (CCC) turn.
On 11/20 the CCC changed to a fully moderated status. I would personally like to ask CCC to reconsider this move. Freedom of speech is the most precious right we have. My experience with rge21 (the only other fully moderated site) is that they do not hear the very clear information about the weaknesses of their site precisely because they do not allow public discussion of those issues. If a site needs to grow, it also needs the full participation of its membership in discussions concerning its growth -- and that can be tough.
For example, rec.games.blackjack.moderated was ultimately shut down due to a law suit (by Doug Grant) because his posts were not being acceptd. That is how dangerous this step is! CCC and Yahoo are subjecting themselves to litigation from those who feel they have been unfairly censored.
And thus, it is my firm belief that this is not an appropriate step for CCC at this time, and I ask the moderators and those in charge to reconsider this step. Silencing public debate at a time of change is not the way to work out the current problems, please reconsider.
Best,
--Mayor
My stupid opinion
Posted by Abraham de Moivre on 22-Nov-2002 10:36:31 (#825)
I think this site has the potential to be THE site for blackjack discussion.
bj21 free pages have contained what you find underneath a garbage can for the past several years.
rge21 has it's own philosophy, and it is not about sharing knowledge.
CCC is too much about ego stroking, and has poor software for a discussion.
This site could be the best. Everyone here seems to be friendly, polite, and actually interested in BJ, not who is more 'respected' than who. The Mayor seems to be keeping a good handle on things.
Let's spread the word -- this is THE SERIOUS BJ site.
Re: My stupid opinion
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:18:51 (#868)
"I think this site has the potential to be THE site for blackjack discussion.
bj21 free pages have contained what you find underneath a garbage can for the past several years.
Yes, I think this site is fantastic. You can keep off topics on the second board, and it is focused on blackjack. When you respond to a message only the person that you respond under gets it in their email so the group doesn't get every message sent to them.
"rge21 has it's own philosophy, and it is not about sharing knowledge.
CCC is too much about ego stroking, and has poor software for a discussion.
Agree, agree, agree.
"This site could be the best. Everyone here seems to be friendly, polite, and actually interested in BJ, not who is more 'respected' than who. The Mayor seems to be keeping a good handle on things.
Let's spread the word -- this is THE SERIOUS BJ site.
This board is in it's infancy and there is a lot of new excitement. I hope we can keep this site happy and homie and watch it grow.
Re: My stupid opinion
Posted by Paddyboy on 23-Nov-2002 21:14:19 (#898)
as a newbie to this site i agree completely with you.i have posted at bJ21 but it seems there if you say 1+1 is 2,someone will post that you are wrong(probably just to mess).I post a Rge21 but if you disagree with one of the big boys there or say anything that is not 'nice" your post is busted
A friend of mine has posted at ccc but now is fed up because posts do not come up automatically and take a few hours to register.
Yes i think this will be a great site.but for it to rise above the rest there must be concentration on beating the casinos.
I cant stand going to a forum and seeing the most knowledgable people bickering among themselves.It is happening with john May and victor Nacht at the moment and Zen Grifter and CCC.For newcomers this is disheartening.
Mr.A says this can be done,Mr.B says no it cant.Then Mr.As buddies come along with facts and semi facts,likewise with Mr.B.Then Mr.c,d,e,f and on and on give their opinions and in the end they are all creating factions of this belief or that.
Iniatially i thought it was funny but now i think this is seriously jeopardising the respectability of these BJ pros.
In other words let us have meaning discussions and not resort to calling names.Imagine any casino bosses looking at these flames,they must be having a luagh.
Let us concentrate on beating casinos instead of beatinfg each other!
Thanks, and...
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 01:17:52 (#955)
I am allowing this one thread on the subject, as a good will gesture to try and help jumpstart CCC again. But this type of dialog will spread no further on these pages, you have my word!
--Mayor
Re: Thanks, and...
Posted by learning to count on 24-Nov-2002 09:56:04 (#971)
HERE HERE! CHEERS! CHEERS! Now lets play. HIT me. stand. aaaaah bust.OH well next hand. hmmmm +7tc hmmm max bet max side.....QH QH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol' ?
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 10:58:51 (#828)
From: zengrifter
Subject: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol' ?
To: blackjackcardcounterscafe@yahoogroups.com
---------------
4th Notice (CC.com)*
---------------
As of the evening of 11/20/02 the Yahoo!CCCafe took on a decidedly DIFFERENT moderating style - when several members of CCCafe began to voice concerns about the current moderator's behavior, and then subsequently engaged in a duly-seconded member's vote, the subject criticsm and votes were removed by one or more of the following CCCafe moderators: John May, Rob McGarvey, THopper, or Ted Forester.
Simultaneously, the operation of the communications and posting functions of CCCafe have been interrupted and altered to require EVERY POST to be approved.
As a principal and major contributor to the subject forum, I must protest and call into question -
1) which (if any) of the CCCafe moderators are in agreement with the new CCCafe 'totalitarian-protocol'?
2) which (if any) of the moderators have authorized the apparent capricious and selective post-busting agenda of late?
3) what was the result of 11/20/02's member vote to remove the 'active' CCCafe moderator?
I urgently invite all concerned CCCafe members to weigh-in on this important community matter and seek answers to the above so that we may assess the continued viability of the Yahoo!CCCafe community and the current selection of moderator(s) appointed there.
sincerely, zg
------------
*This Notice has been posted at CC.com as a matter of public record ONLY - Prior notices have been refused publication at Yahoo!CCCafe by that forum's current moderator(s). Poster specifically requests that ALL discussion of CCCafe affairs be NOT carried on at the CC.com forum - further, the opinion(s) reflected within this Notice relect soley upon the Poster and NOT CC.com or its administrator.
------------
Love Letter to McRobo
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2002 05:58:17 (#1427)
--- blackjackpro2000 wrote:
> Listen Doltster, Daltster, whateverster, you posted the casino
> FIRST. I don't get a kick back from this casino. Your warning is
> identical to mine, and you don't even point the "ploppies"
> to the free money. It's not your game bro.
>
> Get off of my case ZenGangster (He's a Con Artist™) Why don't you
> just admit you are calling me out to have a go at me? Just in need
> of a little attention again? I think I can help you there....grin
-------------------
My Open Love Letter to
The (REAL) Robo McCoy
Your previous disclosure, from the old CCCafe, was adequate,
sufficient, and defacto 'approved' - to assume a lesser standard now
is inappropriate.
Regarding My ™-slogan for you, I borrowed it from Bob Stupak He's
Polish™ - it worked for him and it seemed to work for you when I
advertised your Fs&As book at bj21, recently.
When I referred my Dad in Samoa to your online soirree (one of MANY
friends and relatives I have referred and continue to refer), he
called me to ask about one of the promotions that you had recommended
and said the 200 members could take a certain online casino for
$20,000.
My Dad asked me if wasn't that still only $100 per member?
I replied oh well, he's Canadian - and it hit me - The He's Canadian™
School of Online Couponomics and BR funds arbitrage and virtual
capital consolidation.
Seriously, McRobo, I have only ever taken offense when you attacked
me outright, which has been often since (no not "sence") late last
year. Nor have I taken offense when you explain the joys of
profiting from Canadian/US exchange-rate differential, though cringe
I do... as I also cringe when when start that Jesus-yoodling
raterfarian rock `n roll trap-crap-rap, as also I do when you call
Teddy Binion "BINNY", but I do not take offense, nor do I when you
poke fun at me which I honestly enjoy.
When it comes to market branding, the ™-handle-slogan already is true
to a ti for me - The Grifter™, Zengrifter, make sense? (no
not "sence")
But yours (BlackjackPro) is oddly misleading - you are NOT, by
classic nor resourceful definition a "pro" - you are an intermediate
semi-part-timer with incredible insight, creativity, and dedication
and with a HEART that embraces all who you come into contact with -
with the good news of Jesus, card-counting, and of course
YOU, `Shoeless Joe from Hannibal Mo'.
Thus, by adding the offsetting 'He's Canadian™' we achieve a unique
and differentiated yet tempered MARKET BRANDING, disclosed yet
loveable - adding an underlying UNDERSTANDING with which to grasp the
CHAOS that is otherwise YOU.
A unique market positioning indeed. (even Forbes says I'm a marketing
genius, not to mention LAT, NYT, WSJ, etc.)
And while I am on the subject of loveable you, do you recognize the
dawning revelation of my public love letter here to you?
Except one more love-hate thing that really makes me cringe, my skin
crawl, its - 'grin' - thats right - GRIN - 'grin' is NOT a proper
newsgroup 'emotive' - FROM NOW ON USE A G***MN SMILEY FACE :-) YOU
JOHN DENVER CAKES-ON-THE-GRIDDLE HILLBILLY COUNTRY-COUNTER KOOK FOR
JESUS! grin
Listen up Real Robo, Adi Da loves you and so do I!
zg
moderators
Posted by george I. on 22-Nov-2002 14:49:27 (#833)
I think that the moderators should have their own domain of discussions on the board, some are better on EV and other on math. A brainstorming you cannot have if each poster tries to take the control of a discussion and also a voting system will make the board very funny,
George I.
Re: moderators
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:19:15 (#870)
"I think that the moderators should have their own domain of discussions on the board, some are better on EV and other on math. A brainstorming you cannot have if each poster tries to take the control of a discussion and also a voting system will make the board very funny,
George I.
Very well said.
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by The Mayor on 22-Nov-2002 14:53:29 (#834)
I hope the readers really get that I (and this site) remains totally neutral on the issues raised in your post. I am happy to allow the discussion here, however, I will certainly have very little patience if individuals carry their flame wars to new turf.
Let's treat this like neutral territory, you are in the Switzerland of Blackjack sites -- now start figuring it out!
--Mayor
Robo FLAME COMMENTARY
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2002 06:02:50 (#1428)
Robo FLAME COMMENTARY
From: zengrifter
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 3:37 am
Subject: Re: Full Details w (FLAMING ROBO)
COMMENTARY BEGIN
> > The previous !!!***NOTICE***!!! was removed by yourself,
> attempting
> > to cover-up your past.
SCARY
I recently had someone ask me about you,
> whom
> > I told about your charges. He was very upset that he
> > didn't know this before he met you....yes, just as I was before I
> > made plans to team up with you.
FREAKY
> > If you were advertising it you would have used a link
> > like you did on Queens onLine casino post.
CRAZY
> > You were doing him a big favor, and quite possibly helped me out
in
> > the process.
GRATITUDE
$20,000 is equal to around $32,000 up here.
HE' CANADIAN™
> > I know you take it as an attack. It is an unfortunate part of
> > warning other players about your past scammings cons and
> racketeering
> > charges.
JUSTIFYING
As far as spelling goes, you also make mistakes. Check
> > your recent post telling me to warn people about basic "startegy"
I
> > think it was. Also see your post #23, the one that started the
> whole
> > thing. This post is full of your spelling mistakes.
MINE ARE TYPOS
> Sure it bothers you. Why would you bring it up if it didn't?
PARANOIA
I'm
> > across the lake from Rochester NY in the biggest city in our
> country,
> > and when I make $1000 totally on credit it's more like $1,600.
CANADIAN COUPONICS
> > not a farmer as you would try to make me out as, but I'm also not
a
> > street crawler like you are.
SOMEBODY SAY HILLBILLY
> > I am a writer and a musician and I think I came
> off
> > pretty well for a white boy.
GO WHITE BOY GO WHITE BOY
I do get kind of spiritual and feel
> > the "force" a lot around Christmas.
PAGAN HOLIDAY, YULETIDE CHEER
> I know that my relationship
> with
> > the most powerful source of LOVE bothers people like you, so I
have
> > toned it down out of respect so you can feel what you like to
feel.
DID SOMEONE SAY COP OUT?
> > Basically a stolen term to refer to yourself as, but yes,
> definitely
> > you.
STOLEN FROM FORBES
I'm about to metatag it to you, and it shall follow you
> around
> > as long as there is the Internet.
RETURN TO SCARY
> A pro knows when to avoid playing as well as when to play.
> I
> > use a count that remains superior to yours. I focus my attention
> on
> > the areas that provide the greatest EV, return on investment that
I
> > can.
PRO @ WORK -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/4543
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/4545
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/4547
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/4998
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/6203
>I do not hide behind the mask of a counter like you do to
> > prevent people from knowing what you really are, looking for
> > unsuspecting people to email to get them to join bankrolls so you
> can
> > scam their money from them. You ARE a professional.
A VENGEFUL PARANOID
> > The chaos is created by you struggling away from what you really
> are.
I"M TRYING BODHISATTVA, NO WAIT, I"M TRYING NOT TO TRY, NO WAIT...
> > even Forbes says I'm a marketing
> > > genius, not to mention LAT, NYT, WSJ, etc.)
> >
> > That's what they said before they realized what you really are.
> > Then they
> > followed up with scammer, con man, etc
NO, BEAR BREATH, IT WASN'T LATER - DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU SPOUT YOUR
OWN UNREAL CONCLUSIONS? (WHICH IS MORE AND MORE OFTEN)
> > I Like to end with a smile... Like
> > you do when you depart with a pocket full of someone's cash "for
> > the
> > team."
ARE YOU CHANNELING? ARE YOU POSSESSED OF DEMONS?
> > It seems to me that your
> psychopathic
> > needs are coming to a head and you need to make a new score to
get
> > your high, to get the flow of the compulsive gamblers toxin one
of
> > your post describes.
"FEED MY PSYCHOPATHIC NEEDS" WOWIE FREAKY SCAREY GUY!
> >
> > I really don't have the time for this, but thought I would
> entertain
> > you one last time.
THANK YOU CHURCHMASTER, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?
> Without an audience it is not as much fun for
> you
> > is it? I would like this little war to carry on somewhere else,
> but
> > you won't have that now will you?
THIS TOO IS NOW AT BJFLAME, WAS IT AS GOOD FOR YOU AS IT WAS FOR ME?
LOVE, ZG(KARMA-PURIFIED BY ROBO-FLAME)
Where CCCafe may have gone wrong...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 17:05:49 (#843)
... was its lack of TOS or guidelines that posters and moderators could mutually agree and rely upon. zg
Re: Where CCCafe may have gone wrong...
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:20:01 (#873)
"... was its lack of TOS or guidelines that posters and moderators could mutually agree and rely upon. zg
They are all there in the Yahoo! agreements.
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:19:30 (#871)
"I hope the readers really get that I (and this site) remains totally neutral on the issues raised in your post. I am happy to allow the discussion here, however, I will certainly have very little patience if individuals carry their flame wars to new turf.
I think that is what you want, but it is very hard to start a discussion with your own opinion on a subject and remain neutral. ;>
"Let's treat this like neutral territory, you are in the Switzerland of Blackjack sites -- now start figuring it out!
--Mayor
What a concept. The Swiss tell you the Germans wouldn't attack them because every man had a rifle and was a sharp shooter. I have also heard it was simply because they were hording pulled gold teeth, wedding rings, and other riches. I know you Mayor from one conversation, and know you are neutral, but the Swiss, Germans, and all of their allies can turn your house into a war zone.
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by joe_r_black on 22-Nov-2002 16:43:28 (#839)
I think when the sole postbuster and moderator is left, after deleting other people's posts, with 60% of the posts orginating from the mederator that it is safe to say there is no longer any discussion going on on the discussion board.
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 16:46:17 (#841)
Good point. But is was bad manners that ended the free pages at BJ21.
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:20:16 (#874)
"I think when the sole postbuster and moderator is left, after deleting other people's posts, with 60% of the posts orginating from the mederator that it is safe to say there is no longer any discussion going on on the discussion board.
You may be right, but now it is 100% BJ. What is missing is the off topics, political infighting, and personality clashes. Someone said the board is dead and to come on over here where BJ in alive and well and living in Switzerland ;> Important to stick with blackjack, and let the other things sliiiiiiiide. If people want gosip and politics, watch the evening news, or start your own board as the Mayor has.
Re: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol'
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:19:03 (#869)
I will simply say this: moderators are not voted into or out of office on boards. Anyone can open a board, join it, or leave it.
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 16:38:10 (#838)
Well Well we are getting off the main theme here: Mathmatical and logical discussions of advantage play.
Mayor with all due respect you do moderate and do censure any BJ mythologies, BJ rubbish and mischevous type posts.
Free speech was originally something for street corner box criers. Free speech is political in nature. It was created so as to "not stop" the common citizen from stating his oppinion for or against the governing powers that be. This and the right to vote are mainstays in our democratic process.
With this we were also given the right to private property and our personal rule over it. This according to great political thinkers such as Locke created capitalism. When we mix our labor with something that we make our own we produce a valuable object that we can exchange for other values; Thus we have capitalism. Capitalism is protected like private property is protected. This site is owned by the mayor it is his property and his valuable item which he chooses to do what he wishes. He has so far made it free for use. No where do I see any issues of freedom of speech here or the mayor to have a responsibility to be the free speech moderator.
If the mayor offered this site for a fee and did not allow someone to state his oppinion then there would be civil issues of fraud and theft.
It is interesting that a web site was sued for restricting someones free speech. I dont know about that situation but in this day and time any one can sue for any thing. I would be interested in seeing the issues in that law suit. It must be based on some type of financiel quarrel. The person in question probably paid to be on the web site that offered posting and then he was not allowed to post or he was deleted due to the owner of the site judgeing his posts not to be the same vain of the site.
This site is new and pure. It needs moderation and it may need censure from time to time. The one thing we have here is the right to discuss what we all love to do: "beat the house". I applaud the mayor and his patience and inginuity in the inner workings of this site. Lets all keep our home here clean and full of intellectual logical theories of advantage play. Oh by the way the mayor does allow "intellectual" endeavors on the non bj page. Zengrifters article on intuition was very interesting and edible. This just my oppinion and I hope I am allowed to give it. I love this site because even a begginer like me can learn to count.
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:20:40 (#875)
"Well Well we are getting off the main theme here: Mathmatical and logical discussions of advantage play.
Yes, dollars per hour this ain't. Add all this to the hours you do play and do the math.
"Mayor with all due respect you do moderate and do censure any BJ mythologies, BJ rubbish and mischevous type posts.
Good news.....
"Free speech was originally something for street corner box criers. Free speech is political in nature. It was created so as to "not stop" the common citizen from stating his oppinion for or against the governing powers that be. This and the right to vote are mainstays in our democratic process.
"With this we were also given the right to private property and our personal rule over it. This according to great political thinkers such as Locke created capitalism. When we mix our labor with something that we make our own we produce a valuable object that we can exchange for other values; Thus we have capitalism. Capitalism is protected like private property is protected. This site is owned by the mayor it is his property and his valuable item which he chooses to do what he wishes. He has so far made it free for use. No where do I see any issues of freedom of speech here or the mayor to have a responsibility to be the free speech moderator.
Well put....
"If the mayor offered this site for a fee and did not allow someone to state his opinion then there would be civil issues of fraud and theft.
No money, no contract.
"It is interesting that a web site was sued for restricting someones free speech. I dont know about that situation but in this day and time any one can sue for any thing. I would be interested in seeing the issues in that law suit. It must be based on some type of financiel quarrel. The person in question probably paid to be on the web site that offered posting and then he was not allowed to post or he was deleted due to the owner of the site judgeing his posts not to be the same vain of the site.
"This site is new and pure. It needs moderation and it may need censure from time to time. The one thing we have here is the right to discuss what we all love to do: "beat the house". I applaud the mayor and his patience and inginuity in the inner workings of this site. Lets all keep our home here clean and full of intellectual logical theories of advantage play. Oh by the way the mayor does allow "intellectual" endeavors on the non bj page. Zengrifters article on intuition was very interesting and edible. This just my oppinion and I hope I am allowed to give it. I love this site because even a begginer like me can learn to count.
An awesome post. All it takes is one criminal, like Sammy Bin Ladden, to start things up, and then you have to do something about it. Sometimes you only have limited resources to work with. Is it 25 million for his head now?
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:18:40 (#867)
Dear group,
"Lately there has been a meltdown at several Internet web sites devoted to holding discussion groups focused on Blackjack. First there was the problems at bj21 that forced them to close their free pages. Then the fully moderated status at rge21 that recently saw the moderators openly flaming published and respected individuals, followed by cross flames occuring on different web sites. In October, there were posts at this site that forced security measures to be put in place as well that restrict posting (e.g. you cannot be using an anonymous IP). And now, it seems, it is Yahoo's Card Counter Cafe's (CCC) turn.
Hello Eliot. You are taking some rather brave steps into this issue. You will find that once you hang the sign moderator around your neck it is open season on you. The present situation started because someone reported to me that my posts were being taken down here. I know from a phone conversation that I had with you that a number of posts were taken down that were posted by this member (remember the threat and threatening to post someones picture on Yahoo) and mentioned it to him. Go take a look at where it went from there.
I think board politics and personality issues should take a back seat to what the board is there for. That is what is happening now. I too have failed (as you just have) to stay out of these areas.
"On 11/20 the CCC changed to a fully moderated status. I would personally like to ask CCC to reconsider this move. Freedom of speech is the most precious right we have. My experience with rge21 (the only other fully moderated site) is that they do not hear the very clear information about the weaknesses of their site precisely because they do not allow public discussion of those issues. If a site needs to grow, it also needs the full participation of its membership in discussions concerning its growth -- and that can be tough.
I understand these issues very well, but there is a limit. A blackjack board is there to learn about blackjack, not about highschool politics or about hurting peoples feelings.
"For example, rec.games.blackjack.moderated was ultimately shut down due to a law suit (by Doug Grant) because his posts were not being acceptd. That is how dangerous this step is! CCC and Yahoo are subjecting themselves to litigation from those who feel they have been unfairly censored.
If you take a look at the Yahoo agreements you will see that the moderator has certain rights. Actually obligations.
"And thus, it is my firm belief that this is not an appropriate step for CCC at this time, and I ask the moderators and those in charge to reconsider this step. Silencing public debate at a time of change is not the way to work out the current problems, please reconsider.
Let the public debate be done here then if you feel this way. We've been over it numerous times and it is getting old.
Best,
--Mayor
Of St.Robo and CCCafe (long-articulate-critical)
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 21:51:37 (#900)
Rob McGarvey writes -
>>Hello Eliot. You are taking some rather brave steps into this issue. You will find that once you hang the sign moderator around your neck it is open season on you. The present situation started because someone reported to me that my posts were being taken down here. I know from a phone conversation that I had with you that a number of posts were taken down that were posted by this member (remember the threat and threatening to post someones picture on Yahoo) and mentioned it to him. Go take a look at where it went from there. <<
---------------
ZG responds -
Where it went from there was that St.Robo posted at CCCafe that I was "causing trouble" at CC.com. Subsequently, Robo posted at CCCafe that The Mayor had "removed several-dozens of [zengrifter's] posts," which is NOT true yet he refused a retraction of those statements when presented with the truth from Mayor.
Robo has effectively run-off ALL of the remaining knowledge-based CCCafe posters with his semi-lucid posts, and his presence here at CC.com is primarily an irritant to other reasonably-knowledgeable counters, whereas newbies may not properly initially distinguish his homespun-quackery from bonafide counter knowledge and expertise.
The real culpability for Robo's out-of-control behavior at CCCafe may rightly lie with the ineffable John May who essentially placed Rob well above his competence-level as a moderator, and who has never answered or addressed the concerns that the remaining pros have articulated repeatedly at CCCafe regarding the issue of Rob's moderator-competence and multiple previous threats of censorship. In light of the current and continued attacks upon John May's credibility, knowledgable parties are free to speculate as to May's reasoning or lack thereof.
I note as well that Rob has thus far failed to account for or address the criticisms and issues that I specifically posed in my Totalitarian Notice further up in this discussion.
As of this writing Robo is NOT allowing any communication that is critical of him to be placed at CCCafe, though he presumes to post what he wants there (and now here), regardless.
The CCCafe is now Robo's, to the victor goes the spoils, but I know that I speak for several here when I state that Robo's participation in discussion at CC.com makes this a LESS-DESIRABLE venue for quality-discussion.
Robo, as the self-professed "fundamentalist Christian" that you are, you have proven to be very much like many in your genre - hypocritical, arrogant, self-serving, and intolerant - your poor style combined with your apparent lack of discernment-powers and inability to come clean is distasteful and unbecoming of you and bothersome, as well, to many here at CC.com, at CCCafe, and elswhere throughout the BJ web-communities.
sincerely, zg
Ps - included below are the off-the-cuff responses, to my Totalitarian CCCafe notice, from the two senior CCCafe moderators disavowing any knowledge of Robo's recent and continued misbehavior at CCCafe:
---------------------------------------------
- Ted Forester responds -
Ted on Totalitarianism
Posted By: alienated on 23 November 02, 3:15 a.m. in response to: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol' ? (zengrifter)
As a "socialist/anarchist", at least according to my bj21 profile, I feel compelled to confirm that I am an enemy of almost everything, including totalitarianism. Accordingly, I would never contemplate busting anyone's post.
Seriously, though, this is news to me. Can you reveal anything more about the situation? Is it just a technical change by Yahoo or something more sinister? Certainly, I would be very much opposed to systematically biased treatment of any CCCafe poster.
Regards,
Ted
--------------------------------------
John May responds
Not my doing...
Posted By: John May <sys381@yahoo.com> on 23 November 02, 4:16 a.m. in response to: Red Ted on Totalitarianism (alienated)
...and I can't believe its Rob or T-hopper. So I guess its a hacker or a system change.
This is What You are Good At
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 22:36:20 (#910)
You have been attacking me since I revealed your criminal past and how it makes you an undesirable team player, which is the main reason you are on these boards. Your moderator status was taken away from you for a good reason. I am not a Saint. My religion has nothing to do with this.
I do not want you to turn the Mayors board into the same thing you have turned the CCC into. Let's agree not to speak to or at each other anymore shall we?
NO DICE...
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 22:44:20 (#914)
... you need to come clean if you are posting here, diverting attention to half-truths about me will NOT back me off. zg
To ZG and Rob
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 01:21:25 (#958)
I would like to state that although ZG has made a couple of posts that did not respect the no Mythology doctrine of this site (and were busted), at no time have I ever considered ZG a trouble maker here. In fact, he is a welcomed and respected contributor. I am aware of his past and reputation, as are many. That simply does not matter here. His past is not a reason to treat him any differently here if he posts valuable and worthwhile information for the readership.
Likewise, I have spoken with Rob on the phone, and genuinely like him. His dedication to the game and his moral backbone ring true with me (though you wouldn't know it from my smiley face), and I am happy to have him here as a poster.
So, for the record, you are both welcome here, I like you both, and I encourage you both to continue discussing your issues (in this thread only), with (and this is my hope) an eye towards resolution of these issues. At least, that is my hope. Any flames or other carrying on in other threads that are disruptive to the positve spirit I wish to maintain here will be (the "b" word). Thank you for your understanding.
Best wishes to both of you, and to the future of CCC,
--Mayor
Re: To ZG and Rob
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 08:14:10 (#967)
Thank you Mayor! Have a great day ya'self.
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by alienated on 24-Nov-2002 01:50:47 (#960)
I don't know the ins and outs of this matter, but it seems from some of ZGs posts both here and at bj21.com that recent posting attempts by various CCC members have been thwarted. Rob, can you shed any light on this matter? Is this a deliberate policy or simply a technical glitch with Yahoo? I am somewhat perturbed that as a moderator I may inadvertantly be contributing to the frustration caused to CCC members.
If anyone would like to communicate with me privately on this matter, feel free to email me at:
I apologise to The Mayor for posting this here. I tried to post the same at CCC but couldn't seem to get it onto the board. (I am sure this was my own incompetence, not the actions of anybody else, since I have moderator status over there.)
It seems a pity to be burdening The Mayor's site with these internal difficulties rather than airing our views at CCC, but of course this is not possible if members are not free to express their opinions. I am grateful for The Mayor's tolerance (and also Stanford's at bj21.com) for allowing some communication between us at their sites.
Regards all,
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 08:11:39 (#966)
Hi Ted.....
Didn't know you were alienated here ;> I see you allowed some posts which I responded to that didn't need to be allowed, and you put the board back on to moderation, so I had to allow my last message over there. Feel free to bust any of them, including the ones I responded to.
I am busy this AM. We should talk later on. It is nice to see you are taking an interest in the board. Zengriper call you and get you out of bed?? ;>
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by alienated on 24-Nov-2002 10:06:38 (#975)
Hi Rob.
"Didn't know you were alienated here."
In 'name' only. Actually, I chose that handle the first time I ever posted at bj21.com. The choice had nothing to do with any website. Just the way I was feeling at the time. With the interaction made possible for us lonely gamblers with all these websites, the handle is increasingly becoming a misnomer, but I stick to it for old time's sake...
"I see you allowed some posts which I responded to that didn't need to be allowed, and you put the board back on to moderation, so I had to allow my last message over there."
To be honest, I'm not really sure what's going on. But with the recent debate I realised I should probably sign in at CCC. Once there I simply noticed that there were some posts 'pending', so I approved them. I'm not sure what you mean by the board being "back on to moderation". (?) Is it really necessary for posts to await 'approval'? It seems rather draconian.
"Feel free to bust any of them, including the ones I responded to."
I would never bust one of your posts, Rob. Out of the question. Nor would I bust posts by any of the other regulars. I hope it's clear from past correspondence and my previous posts that I have a great deal of respect for all the regulars and moderators at CCC, including yourself and ZG. Surely you haven't forgotten my exuberance over your book!!!???
"I am busy this AM. We should talk later on."
Sure.
"It is nice to see you are taking an interest in the board. Zengriper call you and get you out of bed?? ;>"
I thought my sleeping habits were a safely guarded secret... No, not at all, though I will admit to receiving a slight shock when I saw my (other) handle associated with accusations of censorship, etc. Imagine how that makes an "anarchist/socialist" feel!!!??? Though, I guess, as an enthusiast of the 'free' market, you wouldn't know about that... :-)
Regards,
Ted
Re: On Moderated Sites and Yahoo's CCC
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 14:47:32 (#987)
Hi Rob.
"Didn't know you were alienated here."
In 'name' only. Actually, I chose that handle the first time I ever posted at bj21.com. The choice had nothing to do with any website. Just the way I was feeling at the time. With the interaction made possible for us lonely gamblers with all these websites, the handle is increasingly becoming a misnomer, but I stick to it for old time's sake...
#I know of the alias but didn't connect it to you. I am happy that you don't feel like you used to.
"I see you allowed some posts which I responded to that didn't need to be allowed, and you put the board back on to moderation, so I had to allow my last message over there."
To be honest, I'm not really sure what's going on. But with the recent debate I realised I should probably sign in at CCC. Once there I simply noticed that there were some posts 'pending', so I approved them. I'm not sure what you mean by the board being "back on to moderation". (?) Is it really necessary for posts to await 'approval'? It seems rather draconian.
#I checked the site and saw some new posts go up, and saw that you approved them. I responded to them and my posts went up right away, so this means the switch was "turned on." Then my final post didn't go up automatically, so someone put the switch back to off, which is where it is at now. As you stated earlier, you porbably sat on it by accident or something....smile
"Feel free to bust any of them, including the ones I responded to."
I would never bust one of your posts, Rob. Out of the question. Nor would I bust posts by any of the other regulars. I hope it's clear from past correspondence and my previous posts that I have a great deal of respect for all the regulars and moderators at CCC, including yourself and ZG. Surely you haven't forgotten my exuberance over your book!!!???
#No, never my fine man. I am trying to keep the board "clean" of personal problems and highschool politics. ZG says my posts were busted, I said his were busted, he wants to overthrough me since I am the only mod doing anything over there, sends letters to his anal butt plug community so they can come on over and have a wet farting contest at the CCC.
"I am busy this AM. We should talk later on."
Sure.
"It is nice to see you are taking an interest in the board. Zengriper call you and get you out of bed?? ;>"
I thought my sleeping habits were a safely guarded secret... No, not at all, though I will admit to receiving a slight shock when I saw my (other) handle associated with accusations of censorship, etc. Imagine how that makes an "anarchist/socialist" feel!!!??? Though, I guess, as an enthusiast of the 'free' market, you wouldn't know about that... :-)
#I can live with anarchism, socialism, capitalism, all of the isms known to man since I am none of those ideas. Given any job to do, I try to focus on how to do it with everyone's interests involved, plus my own, and sometimes, as anyone would, am willing to fight for it. You must understand this as an anarchist. I find that when an anarchist attacks a peaceful person, or a capitalist, or a socialist, or a moderator, that they think that the person is bound by their beliefs and will not fight back. Sun Tzu is laughing at me, I can hear him right now, the wrotten demon. Censorship is a word, like prejudice is. It is how it is used that makes it good or bad. Prejudging a person because of their skin color is not good. Keeping cigarette butts out of the evening salad is always good news. There are those that like to eat butts with their salad, and they are free to do so anyplace but at our house.
Regards,
Ted
PS to The Mayor: Thanks for letting us have this thread re: CCC. I understand it's annoying/tiresome for other posters/readers. From now on my posts will be strictly BJ, at least on the BJ Message Board.
#Yes, thanks. I think the Mayor in his own way likes the drama, but has kept it under control, which I respect. Drama Control, what a concept! ;>
~the end~
You tickled me 8-)
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 14:54:23 (#989)
You said: "I think in his own way the mayor likes this drama..."
There is a ring to truth in that. What I like is for people to work on their dramas, and not let them hang. When issues are raised and there is not opportunity or a forum for the issues to be cleared, then this has the potential to become an all out flame war, crossing many different sites and threads. Not only the CCC, but many other flames, cross this boundary, including the Nacht/May flame, the Schlesinger/Cant flame, the Grant/RGBM flame, and many others. Flame control is what its all about, and my way of handling this is to allow it here in this thread and bust it elsewhere on this site. Thus, those who have something to say will keep it to this thread, and have a forum for their thoughts where they are not censored, but will still understand that this site is primarily about blackjack, not personalities.
--Mayor
Re: You tickled me 8-)
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 15:09:51 (#990)
grin I can set up something similar for the CCC. Actually zengriper has set up his BJ Flame War site. I can put a link up to it from the front page of the CCC to let people air their dirty laundry. I think he has about a dozen members at this site.
I have a sense of humour as I see you do too.
Strange Rumblings.
Posted by Hinoon on 22-Nov-2002 21:24:30 (#854)
So, I've been reading all of this. I'm a new face here, and not anyone of any note at the tables. But, this is a forum, and you have to participate in order for these things to work.
First, there have been some brilliant effing posts lately, by Abraham de Moivre, Zengrifter and Mayor, just to name a few. Those are the things that keep acolytes like me coming back. There's no amount of thanking I can do, so instead, I'll encourage you all to write more.
Second...I don't even know what the Yahoo CCCG *is*. Obviously it degenerated into a mess. Lots of forums do this. No matter what the subject is (though often the subjects are in the "low profile" arena), sometimes, groups just breakdown...little ego wars and the like. Rules get broken, toes get stepped on. Mayor has done an admirable job of clarifying his position as owner/moderator. He's posted his personal information, which...in this day and age...take balls. Mayor isn't a faceless name in the digital ether. He may edit a few words (and it's tempting to type a list to see which ones they are...hehehe), but at least his rules are clear.
I agree with his postion on not "outing" scam artists. It's destructive and creates dischord. What he does is debunks poor or faulty logic. He says, "Progression betting doesn't work...and here is why." And he does so in a clear and accessible manner. So...when Joe McScam tries to sell you a progression system...you don't NEED to know that he's trying to rip you off. You know his system doesn't work. By pointing out the fallicy behind the technique, you undermine the vehicle for the scam. Pointing fingers and naming names may feel good in a vindictive way...but does little to solve the problem. As many on this page point out...assuming a new identity in this world is an easy thing to do.
So...back to the game and this site. What does the group feel about the increasing traffic/celebrity of a group like this? Obviously, it's great to have fresh voices and new ideas. Mayor has next to no advertising support, so it's probably not paying his rent to have new faces. I wouldn't have found this page if not by luck (or some factor of probablity, for all of you pureists). But my experience with this kind of open forum is that, after a point, the celebrity is the undoing. Particularly since, to some degree, the anonymity factor has been reduced by the forum rules. How does all of this change the game? Rules in Vegas are getting worse. A lot of casinos are introducing the continuous shufflers. Is this a result of the growth of advantage play?
I don't know.
MGM has bought the MIT book's film rights. Will that effect the teams and groups playing once the scheme is made very public? (there's a parallel here that has to do with drug runners who want drugs to stay illegal so that they can maintain a profit...but I just can't make it work)
There will always be more suckers than pro's. There will always be people like me who only 'kind of' know basic strategy and +/- counting and thus lose their bankrolls in the details. But in a big way, the less "common knowledge" card counting is, the more mythical, the less likey the casinos are to change their rules to combat the real players out there.
Anyways, it's Friday night. I'm not making much sense. Time to go home.
If anything coherent comes out of this post it's that I appreciate the info here, and want to see it thrive and learn as much as I can. I hope that this forum CAN be the Switzerland of counting pages.
Cheers
even Stranger Rumblings.
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 21:38:55 (#855)
I guess when you open a site and want to discuss how to breed chickens someone always has to take the discussion to a lofty social political level of debate. We just cant keep it at the chicken ranch and exchange ideas on whether its better to leave the light on at night or to turn it off. So as to further a more romantic atmosphere for fowl love making. I just dont get it do chickens know that the universe in infinite and that thier level of existance is that above the egg or did the egg come first. Oh i'm sorry this site is about counting cards or what. How about registering your handle like the mayors wants. Its his site. LTC
Re: even Stranger Rumblings.
Posted by hinoon on 22-Nov-2002 23:01:04 (#859)
I thought the chicken ranch closed down...or was that the mustang?
hmm.
excellent points tho.
*off to register my screen name*
Re: even Stranger Rumblings.
Posted by learning to count on 23-Nov-2002 07:43:45 (#880)
By the way hi-noon I thought your post was very clear and honest. When I posted I was being sarcastic about the recent rise in trolls that are more interested in starting long drawn out debates on issues that are derived from thier own frustrations and boredom. I was in agreement with you. I also want people to register and be active. Even trolls can add to the soup.
As far as your comments on blackjack I was a ploppy who thought you could beat slot machines if you used progressions at one time. When I started learning about blackjack my first book was "so ya wanna be a Gambler" by John Patrick. Then One day while going through a used book store I obtained a couple of used books by a guys named Thorp and Uston. That was it. JP went into the garbage and my ploppy days faded. I have found out one thing about this game. Blackjack is easy to learn how to lose at. It is a BITCH to win at. The journey is a blast!!!!
You appear to be one that will learn how to win you have the right attitude. The only thing that most have to understand is you have to find and learn the "right information". You have to practice and you have to find someone or a "website" to mentor you. This site has improved my game. I am having
incredible experiences and I am seeing the theory of counting come alive. In turn I am self analyzing and improving very rapidly. If you want it its there inside of you and with the help from your friends. LTC
Re: Strange Rumblings.
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Nov-2002 00:10:02 (#862)
Thank you for your clear and supportive thoughts. You said a lot of things better than I have been able to, and I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
--Mayor
QUAKE II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:43:46 (#881)
Come on over and take a read thru the messages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/
Mayor I am sure you don't mind a little link back as we have them on our site to yours. Lots of room in cyberspace for everyone. It is not set up as nicely as this site is, but the info is there if you have the time to sort thru everything else.
I will be promoting this board in my newsletter at the end of the month, and will also try to put a hub together of some kind if I get the time for it. I should be playing BJ online!! Discipline, discipline..... A framed page that will load say 4-6 different boards at once.
St.Robo Rumblings.
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 22:31:40 (#909)
Rob McGarvey writes -
>>Hello Eliot. You are taking some rather brave steps into this issue. You will find that once you hang the sign moderator around your neck it is open season on you. The present situation started because someone reported to me that my posts were being taken down here. I know from a phone conversation that I had with you that a number of posts were taken down that were posted by this member (remember the threat and threatening to post someones picture on Yahoo) and mentioned it to him. Go take a look at where it went from there. <<
---------------
ZG responds -
Where it went from there was that St.Robo posted at CCCafe that I was "causing trouble" at CC.com. Subsequently, Robo posted at CCCafe that The Mayor had "removed several-dozens of [zengrifter's] posts," which is NOT true yet he refused a retraction of those statements when presented with the truth from Mayor.
Robo has effectively run-off ALL of the remaining knowledge-based CCCafe posters with his semi-lucid posts, and his presence here at CC.com is primarily an irritant to other reasonably-knowledgeable counters, whereas newbies may not properly initially distinguish his homespun-quackery from bonafide counter knowledge and expertise.
The real culpability for Robo's out-of-control behavior at CCCafe may rightly lie with the ineffable John May who essentially placed Rob well above his competence-level as a moderator, and who has never answered or addressed the concerns that the remaining pros have articulated repeatedly at CCCafe regarding the issue of Rob's moderator-competence and multiple previous threats of censorship. In light of the current and continued attacks upon John May's credibility, knowledgable parties are free to speculate as to May's reasoning or lack thereof.
I note as well that Rob has thus far failed to account for or address the criticisms and issues that I specifically posed in my Totalitarian Notice further up in this discussion.
As of this writing Robo is NOT allowing any communication that is critical of him to be placed at CCCafe, though he presumes to post what he wants there (and now here), regardless.
The CCCafe is now Robo's, to the victor goes the spoils, but I know that I speak for several here when I state that Robo's participation in discussion at CC.com makes this a LESS-DESIRABLE venue for quality-discussion.
Robo, as the self-professed "fundamentalist Christian" that you are, you have proven to be very much like many in your genre - hypocritical, arrogant, self-serving, and intolerant - your poor style combined with your apparent lack of discernment-powers and inability to come clean is distasteful and unbecoming of you and bothersome, as well, to many here at CC.com, at CCCafe, and elswhere throughout the BJ web-communities.
sincerely, zg
Ps - included below are the off-the-cuff responses, to my Totalitarian CCCafe notice, from the two senior CCCafe moderators disavowing any knowledge of Robo's recent and continued misbehavior at CCCafe:
---------------------------------------------
- Ted Forester responds -
Ted on Totalitarianism
Posted By: alienated on 23 November 02, 3:15 a.m. in response to: The Yahoo!CCCafe's New 'Totalitarian-Protocol' ? (zengrifter)
As a "socialist/anarchist", at least according to my bj21 profile, I feel compelled to confirm that I am an enemy of almost everything, including totalitarianism. Accordingly, I would never contemplate busting anyone's post.
Seriously, though, this is news to me. Can you reveal anything more about the situation? Is it just a technical change by Yahoo or something more sinister? Certainly, I would be very much opposed to systematically biased treatment of any CCCafe poster.
Regards,
Ted
--------------------------------------
John May responds
Not my doing...
Posted By: John May <sys381@yahoo.com> on 23 November 02, 4:16 a.m. in response to: Red Ted on Totalitarianism (alienated)
...and I can't believe its Rob or T-hopper. So I guess its a hacker or a system change.
Re: St.Robo Rumblings.
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 00:31:01 (#938)
Although I appreciate your perspective, as I also appreciate Robert's, I hope that all threads related to these issues will be in the space alloated for this discussion in the thread below. In other words, please do not carry that thread outside of that discussion. Please reserve that single discussion for all the claims, counter-claims, etc., you wish to present with regard to issues surrounding CC and CCC.
Thanks!
--Mayor
Re: St.Robo Rumblings.
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 00:45:50 (#942)
fair enough. zg
KO vs Hi-lo
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 21:41:38 (#856)
I use hi-lo and I play mainly six deck shoes. From what I read KO is better than hi-lo. I have heard other oppinions that KO is weak when playing shoes but strong for single deck. Can any one elaborate. Thanks LTC
Re: KO vs Hi-lo -OVERALL...
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 22:01:00 (#857)
... KO is slightly weaker than HiLo. zg
Re: KO vs Hi-lo -OVERALL...
Posted by learning to count on 22-Nov-2002 22:12:46 (#858)
Is hilo better for deviation indices on a shoe game than KO.
yes *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 22-Nov-2002 23:58:02 (#860)
Re: KO vs Hi-lo Differences
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:35:28 (#878)
Hi Lo requires you to divide your Running Count to come up with a True Count, and in the end will give you a better understanding of what you are doing than KO with the one running count. Hi-Lo is also a good jump off point for higher levels of counting, which require you understand a True Count, or TC for playing and betting purposes.
Hello to Everyone Here
Posted by bigplayer® on 23-Nov-2002 02:45:50 (#864)
I just wanted to drop a quick line to say hey...nice Website Eliot.
Holla Back
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:31:16 (#877)
I just have to say I like your "r" siggie at the end of your name.
Re: Hello to Everyone Here
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Nov-2002 12:35:31 (#889)
Bigplayer and I met once, in a very interesting way. We were at the same table playing DD, and caught that we were both advantage players (in about 5 seconds). About a month later through a variety of connections, we learned who each other was. It was kind of fun, and in retrospect, obvious.
--Mayor
Guestbook
Posted by bigplayer on 23-Nov-2002 02:53:32 (#865)
Looking through the guest book I find an entry a short way down in October by Stephanie Wallace "who's learning more about the subject"
Stephanie Wallace runs the Las Vegas SIN-Fax (Surveillence Information Network) and is a top surveilleince person at one of the Arizona Charlies. I thought her signature of the guest book and its comment to be amusing.
bp
Re: Guestbook
Posted by sighguy on 30-Nov-2002 20:40:19 (#1065)
Do you really think a "well known" surveillance person would actually use their real name on a card counter website? I have to think that there's more than one Stephanie Wallace in the world...of course, this is just IMHO.
Re: Guestbook SIN?
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 04:21:35 (#866)
SIN is an extension of 'Central Credit' - a centralized server arrangement to which member-casinos upload there entire surveillance DBase for mutual-reciprocal use. Using SIN, for example, Jim Hartley of MGM surviellance could drop me a line that he saw a photo-file of me and the beautiful Michela (Mrs) Janacek cashing out at Mainstreet, and that I had also been at Barona as 'Alan Watts' in previous months. Is Stephanie cute? zg
Everyone is Welcome ?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:29:15 (#876)
She probably doesn't make much doing the 9 to 5 and is ready to "rolla-costa" switch side possibly?
Re: Guestbook
Posted by learning to count on 23-Nov-2002 08:11:39 (#883)
Hey how did or why did nadia russ register here. Check her out in the registered members list. Is stephanie hot? Is he looking for a good man? Does she want to learn how to be taken advantage of by an advantage player. I bet I could hook her up with some positve EV!
Re: Guestbook
Posted by The Mayor on 23-Nov-2002 08:46:09 (#884)
Nice to see you here BP.
Thanks for the info about the Guestbook. We are actually getting a LOT of casino activity here, much of it is quite candid and insightful, but some of it is not. Now we know SIN (and hence Griffin, Biometrica...) have passed through these electronic doors as well.
Best regards,
--Mayor
Re: Guestbook
Posted by Theef on 23-Nov-2002 13:00:11 (#890)
I'm glad the spooks are interested in learning more! Hopefully, one of the things they'll learn is that passing our personal information to and fro without our consent is a crime. (See CardKountr's article on this site.)
Hi-Opt II
Posted by BJfool on 23-Nov-2002 07:43:29 (#879)
where could I get the exact basic strategy deviations for the Hi-Opt II counting system?.
thank you in advance
bjfool
Re: Hi-Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 07:50:16 (#882)
That's the count I use, and have some info for you:
Hi Opt II Count Advanced Play Flash Cards for Single Deck Games
http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/1deckho2.htm
Hi Opt II Count Advanced Play Flash Cards for Two Deck Games
http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/2deckho2.htm
Hi Opt II Count Advanced Play Flash Cards for Multi-Deck Games
http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/flashho2.htm
You can just learn the Multi Deck indices and use them to keep things simple. If you only play 2 deck lets say in the deep south, then you can stick with the double deck ones.
Take a look around my site while you are there.
Re: Hi-Opt II
Posted by BJfool on 23-Nov-2002 09:27:38 (#885)
thx Rob.
I play a 6 deck game, S17/DAS,DOA, poor to fair pen.
Are your indices for Hi-Opt II (multideck) right for these above rules?
tx
Re: Hi-Opt II
Posted by BJfool on 23-Nov-2002 10:20:51 (#886)
forgot to mention that the dealer has a hole card, i think this would change the indices chart..
Hole Card
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 10:32:56 (#888)
These indices are for games with the dealer hole card. There is also a no hole card set at the same site for multi-deck.
Yes
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 10:28:16 (#887)
Multi-deck is good for 6 deck. That is the number of decks I used to create these indices with Strategic Blackjack Analyzer
many missed indicies
Posted by hammer on 23-Nov-2002 22:10:29 (#902)
but I guess it depends on who you go to,many different books
and different web sites differ on bs too.Key pros for db deck say
for ex.
a9,5= 6 or higher
9,9,7= 6 or higher
8,8,10 stand at 8 or higher
a2,4 double 7 or higher
9,2=db 2 or higher
8 ,6=db at 3 or higher..way off compared to yours ..
Re: many missed indicies ANYONE...
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 22:14:42 (#904)
... who in this day and age would even show you different i#s for diffent #decks is SUSPECT to begin with. zg
Re: many missed indicies ANYONE...
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 22:18:47 (#905)
The indices were produced using Karel Janeks SBA 5.0
Is he a suspect?
Re: many missed indicies ANYONE...
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 23:24:34 (#921)
>> The indices were produced using Karel Janeks SBA 5.0, Is he suspect? <<
------------------
NO just YOU are for running different i#s for different #decks. zg
Re: Different Indicies
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 16:15:56 (#991)
but I guess it depends on who you go to,many different books
and different web sites differ on bs too.Key pros for db deck say
for ex.
a9,5= 6 or higher
??
9,9,7= 6 or higher
this is not one of the "Terrible Twenty" indices in my book
I can produce every indice, but stuck to the most highly profitable plays ala Donny S with his Ill 18
8,8,10 stand at 8 or higher
this is not one of the "Terrible Twenty" indices in my book
a2,4 double 7 or higher
you mean 12 v 4? +1 this indice is around +1 for every type of count, including the high low, and the III level counts in my book.
9,2=db 2 or higher
9 vs 2 +2 in my book - same
8,6=db at 3 or higher..way off compared to yours ..
8 vs 6 +6 which is on the high side. SBA also produces numbers like:
+5 -0.15224235
+6 +0.15282373
+7 +0.44383384
Re: Hi-Opt II -NOT
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 21:06:08 (#897)
BJF, you would likely be best served to NOT learn HO2, which has been somewhat antiquated since mid80s (see ASnyder BJF'82, KUston Uston on BJ'86), despite its recent resurgence and apparent high SCORE - RPC, ZEN, UBZ2, BRH-0, Half7s, and other single-parameter level-2 systems will out perform HO2 UNLESS HO2 is overlayed with an Ace-secondary count: A-2 v 2/5+1 (eg, a simple estimate of Ace-desity per qtrD will NOT retrieve the full potential strength of HO2 and will leave you working harder with out commensurately extra gain). zg
Re: Hi-Opt II -NOT
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 01:18:55 (#957)
I completely agree. For shoes, especially, you want a single parameter system.
floating advantage
Posted by learning to count on 23-Nov-2002 16:53:20 (#891)
Would someone like to explain what the theory behind this much argued about issue. I really dont want a mathimatical explanation just a brief insight and a final summation of its worth. Thanks
Clarke Cant on Floating Advantage
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 19:08:38 (#892)
I understand that you are interested in this "deep math" subject but don't want a "deep math" explanation, so I would not really bother myself with it. How many hours do you play a year x bankroll x count system?
To me, floating advantage has caused more trouble than Sammy Bean Ladden has. The TC count represents a simplified version of your advantage either + or - and tells us when to play hands differently and change bet size within the realm of the table heat we could expect. That is what it is supposed to do. If you want to knock yourself out, read the following. Have you seen the movie A Beautiful Mind?? ;>
===============================================================
From: clarke_cant
Date: Thu Sep 26, 2002 10:46 pm
Subject: Before I forger just to archive
Since Puiu is driving the PBers nuts on bj21.com I figure I better
archive here--in case my laptop crashes too--a copy of my final
floating advantage paper. I still await the review Steepen is setting
up.
Here is the slighly revised version of my paper to use, of course not
all typos have been lassoed either:
Wongy on bjmath.com wanted to see a version of this without any
partition theory being included. This would be just another boring
idea for me except that elimination of partition theory mention leads
to a proof, in the proof of Postulate IIb, that penetration
absolutely cannot change any basic strategy expectation.
Theorem I: That any pack of remaining or original cards can be cut
such that any penetration can be transformed into any other.
Theorem II: That the average mean path of a random walk is a straight
line from origin to destination. Inclusive of this would be all
Euclidian postulates for a straight line.
Postulates:
I: The otherwise proven Jalib's True Count Theorem in a simpler proof
here, that any observed true count tends to remain at the same value
until all cards are drawn.
II: That actual mean basic strategy edge does not change with
penetration within a given pack or subpack.
III: That the difference between actual and true count predicted edge
(with basic strategy) increases with penetration.
IV: That more extreme True Counts progressively overestimate edge,
and less extreme True Counts progressively underestimate edge with
penetration.
Axioms:
I: True count =running count/cards left unseen in the pack.
II:Any pack composition subset can be precisely defined by a
combination of balanced rank versus rank, or ranks versus ranks,
balanced counts
III: All balanced counts, and some unbalanced counts, end at a
running count of zero.
IV: The difference between any actual edge and single, or multiple,
true count prediction of edge can be positive or negative.
V: Mean changes in expected value for a remaining pack subset are
proportional to the true counts used to measure them.
Postulate I: By Axiom III for any running count, RC(j) at j cards
left, RC(0)=0, for zero cards left.
Applying Theorem II for all j and k not equal to zero, with k less
than j, but j and k greater than zero, RC(k)=(k/j)*RC(j).
Applying Axiom I True count TRC(j)=n=RC(j)/j, TRC(k)=m=RC(k)/k.
(j/k)=(n/m) j*m/k=n j*m=k*n n/j= m/k
QED
Once you observe a true count the average true count does not change
no matter how many other cards are seen, for the boundaries set for j
and k above, in that the true count is the slope of the line of the
mean tendency of the running count to approach zero with no cards
left.
Postualate IIa: Proven by Theorem I with challenges answered in Cases
I thru IV. The basic strategy edge for any given round is independent
of the penetration in that any round starting point can be
transformed by cutting the pack into any other. The basic strategy
edge is the mean of all rounds played, and their original or new
position does not change the edge for any round.
Postulate III:
Step 1:A complete pack has the ijmplied balanced counts: +4 for every
non ten ranked card, and -9 for every ten ranked card, and serperate
balanced counts -12 for every rank, and +1 for all other ranks. by
the True Count Therem, or TCT for short, the mean composition for
this complete set of counts, after drawing 13 cards, is for the true
count of them all to remain the same as at the start, or zero. This
composition is the most predicted: removing one each of every rank
aces thru 9s, but removing 4 ten ranked cards. (See PIIb and Case I
however down below).
Step 2: At 13 cards drawn this most predicted mean pack is, by
inspection, only a tiny fraction of the total number of compostions
possible from drawing any 13 cards. At each level of penetration via
Axiom II, a new series of counts is needed is otherwise needed (the
10 seperate counts in Step 1 is different from the usual situations--
see below) to track the difference between the main count(s)'s
predictions and the actual composition. The solution in Step 1 is
trivial for comparing the difference between most predicted
compositions, and actual compostions, in that this set of counts
directly gives you the actual composition, but the result that each
most predicted pack subset is such a small fraction remains at least
down to the 3 cards left level--well past the smallest size needed to
complete a round of cards.
Step 3: At 3 cards left there will a constalation of balanced counts
added to the main count (see Axiom II) such that there will be some
card drawn, of the 3 left, that keeps the most number of such true
counts the same. But the 3 cards have the same probability of being
drawn. Thus the number of possible compositions that results in other
than the most predicted pack always excedes the number of
compositions that are most predicted.
In all such cases compositions are comparable to two dice totals in
craps, where the most likely total is 7, but the most likely set of
totals is some number other than 7.
Step 4: By Step 3 with just one rank versus another rank, used as a
balancd count, this property can be extended to drawing just one
card, to the 3 cards left point, which is far smaller that the number
of cards left to have a complete round.
Step 5: An algebraic simplificaton occurs when all such counts that
are added via Axiom II, to the main count(s), have a zero count, in
that then the composition is exactly that predicted by the main count
(s).
Step 6: The probability that any round will result in the need for a
new side count to precisely define the remaining subset pack will not
change for any round, via Theorem I. But with deeper penetration
every new count needed via Axiom II will have higher initial true
counts via Axiom I, and involve more difference between the actual
remaining pack, via Axiom V (with Axiom IV also applying), and the
subset pack predicted by all previously applied counts.
QED
Penetration increases the difference between the edge predicted by
the main count(s) and the exact pack composition. This difference,
and need to add new counts, occurs with a frequency that is
proportional to the number of cards sampled from the start of the
orginal pack of cards too, as explained in step 6. Overall the
presense of extreme counts, added to the main counts to define the
actual pack, as opposed to the most probable pack indicated by the
main count(s), provides a mechanism by which the expected value
associated with the most probable pack, for a given penetration
point, is reduced by such exteme true counts also being included, to
lower the actual mean expected value to that of the original starting
pack. The added counts are tending to have higher initial true
counts, and extreme true counts have negative bow effects.
Postulate III is proven without needing to modify Postulate II. See
Cases I thru IV below to refute arguments otherwise.
And the mechanism discussed above by which differences between the
main count(s)'s prediction of edge, and actual edges, occur negates
any postulate that the rise in the value of true counts in middle
ranges implies any sort of rise in overall basic strategy edge for
all true counts, as penetration increases.
Re: Clarke Cant on Floating Advantage cont.
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 19:09:17 (#893)
Postulate IIb: A cards left penetration count ends in zero and is
subject to the TCT as well. Anytime you specify the start of a round
you specify a penetration point for a shuffled pack of cards.
Penetration cannot have any effect on a strategy that is optimal for
a full pack of cards in that penetration not only is subject to the
TCT. and on average does not change, but the true count of the
penetration, cards left, number absolutely never changes. Axiom V
applies meaning that the effect of setting a boundary for the start
of a round of cards does not change anywhere with penetration.
Penetration by itself cannot change basic strategy edge or basic
strategy recomendations.
Postulate IV: A balanced rank count of all tens, versus all other
ranks is well accepted to result in an underestimate of edge at its
extremes, in that such a count has all pushes at its all tens
extreme, which is all 20 to 20 pushes with the dealer.
A balanced rank count of all aces versus all other ranks will result,
at its all aces extreme, in a player loss in that most rules do not
allow resplitting or rehitting split aces. Thus the ace count
underperforms at its extremes.
A balanced count of a single low card and all others will
underperform predicted edge when it is at its all low card extreme in
that the player will spit and stand on lower totals than the dealer,
with the exception of all 7s, where the player and dealer will push
with 21 totals, the player having split to 4 hands.
A neutral count, especially with more practical counts, implies a
pack that resembles a pack that started with less decks, as
penetration increases.
In all of the above, such bow effects increase with penetration.
As per Axiom II, every practical count that is intended for actual
use has to be a combination of the above, and exhibit the sum of such
characteristics.
Thus the general characteristics of the bow effect have been proven
without any Postulate (I,III,IV) being shown to necessarily modify
Postulate II.
The following Cases refute challenges to the above statement:
CaseI: The most expected composition at any penetration level (though
any penetration level also means predictions involve fractions of
cards compositions and not just integer numbers of cards) matches the
most expected composition, at that level, for a true count =0.
Doesn't this imply that since the edge for a True Count of
0, "floats" upward with penetration, that the basic strategy edge
does as well?
Answer: A TC=0 is a statement that excludes other TCs, where some
have postive bow effects and the extreme TCs have negative bow
effects. Case I does not modify Theorem II in that the sum of all of
the excluded bow effects at those other TCs is allowed to balance the
postive bow effects at TC=0. Imbalance must be demonstrated to
require this modification.
Case II: if basic strategy edge does not change over all TCs, doesn't
the behavior of all likely TCs, as penetration increases, still
require some rise in basic strategy edge?
Answer: Bow effects, as proven in Postulate III, included any
balanced count, and can be postive or negative as per Axiom IV. The
flaw in the Case II objection is that the effects of extreme counts
is being excluded on their probability alone and not the product of
their probability and effect when observed, and it is ignored how
such effects can involve a main count near middle ranges, and
necisarily included side counts, as per Axiom IV, that may be well
into such negative bow effects ranges. Case II is a pure attempt to
evade Axiom IV, by attempting to exclude more extreme count ranges.
Case III: Simulations still appear to show increases in basic
strategy edge with increased penetration. What gives?
Answer: Simulation results are typically reported with several layers
of rounding in how observed true counts are grouped with similar
groups of observed true counts at different penetrations. Such
reports, or reporting modules of code frozen within the popular
simulators, ignore how the true count is a discrete number, and how
the average true counts that are possible, within any rounding range,
creap upward as penetration increases.
Cut card effects are present also that are near universally
overcorrected, and because cut card effects increase with
penetration, such adjustments result in the appearence of more edge
with more penetration for basic strategy playing decisions also.
Case III: is a simple example of equating apples to oranges in two
areas.
Case IV: Sometimes a composition will be formed at random that is the
same as starting out with less decks of cards initially. Gotcha?
Answer: This is a highly improbable event, but it is a limited
exception. There is otherwise a collection of true counts, required
by Axiom II, that have conserved true counts, where there are
pertibations in composition and edge that are only possible from
those subsets originating with a larger initial pack. But this
exception is also overvalued in a reverse of Case II fallacies.
In all of the above the idea of a strong floating advantage is a
stubborn one in that the fallacies decribed in Cases I thru IV often
are combined. They arrise simply because most people are too trusting
or too compartmentalized in their thinking to reason through them.
Notes:
Griffin omitted any sort of Axiom IV in his discussion, in Theory of
Blackjack, of a regression function operating with penetration for
the changes in compostion as a pack depletes.
ML, in his paper posted on bj21.com and bjmath.com, made intersection
of means errors, as shown in Case I and Case II, by omitting any sort
of Axiom IV, in step 4 of his "proof" claiming that the bow effect
required modification of what is given here as Postulate II.
Don Schlesinger, in Blackjack Attack, both editions, used a squeezed
balloon analogy, for his version of step 4(ML)/Postulate III(myself)
that is based upon the Graham-Stokes result for the topomorphic
properties of the true count prediction of edge and the actual edge.
His version of error, in claiming this need to modify Theorem III, is
different than ML's. His derivation misses how what is set here as
Postulate II is a boundary condition for the Graham-Stokes result to
be applied and is not modified.
Those who accept simulation reports rather blindly usually make Case
III errors.
the post you copied here from Clarke...
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 20:41:43 (#894)
... was specifically NOT about floating-advantage per'se, it was in response to YOUR confusion about whether/not the TC tends to remain constant or return to zero.
As long as you are in the mode of mis-applying Cant, repost some of his several admonishments against your proposed and current Totaliterian Protocol CCCafe moderation. zg
Re: Clarke Cant on Floating Advantage
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 22:29:58 (#908)
... was specifically NOT about floating-advantage per'se, it was in response to YOUR confusion about whether/not the TC tends to remain constant or return to zero.
I think you are confused.
"Since Puiu is driving the PBers nuts on bj21.com I figure I better
archive here--in case my laptop crashes too--a copy of my final
***floating advantage paper***
Why do we bet more into high counts? Because we expect them to try to return to zero. In other words, start spitting 10's and Aces out. This is why tracking is so important - we can track spots that are neutral, ie, stick to 0 23%, and track dead spots, ie neg EV, and track plus EV spots, and what they are shuffled with.
No one has to worry about having ontopic posts go down. Clarke was making sure that the "mod squad" knew his higher math was part of advantage play, and not some psycho-bable astro physics drug induced delerium.
Try to be more constructive over here instead of wasting your time dogin me. It's old, it's tired, it's history. Go for higher ground.
Balanced count start at 0
6 deck
TC 0 23.2877%
TC 1 13.1418%
TC 2 9.6193%
TC 3 7.0801 %
TC 4 5.4209 %
TC 5 4.0655 %
TC 6 3.1428 %
TC 7 2.3829 %
TC 8 1.8886 %
TC 9 1.4364 %
TC 10 1.1376%
True-count theorem
Posted by alienated on 23-Nov-2002 23:32:49 (#926)
The true-count theorem tells us that we expect the true count to stay exactly where it is, not return towards zero. Rather, we expect the _running_ count to return towards zero. It is a common misperception that the true count tends towards zero (the first time I considered the matter I made the same error), so I think it is important to distinguish carefully between tendencies of the running count and tendencies of true counts.
Example: 2 decks remaining, running count = 4, true count = 2. What is our 'best guess' of the running count once only 1 deck remains? Since there are 2 more big than small cards remaining per deck, we expect the running count to fall by 2 over the next deck. Thus, we expect a running count of 2 once only 1 deck remains. So what do we expect the true count to be? True count equals running count divided by decks remaining, which we expect to be (4 - 2)/1 = 2. To sum up, the running count is expected to return towards zero (down from 4 to 2), whereas the true count is expected to remain exactly where it is (at 2).
The basic intuition behind this result is simple. While we expect the running count to return to zero (ie, become smaller in absolute terms), we also know that the number of decks remaining will also become smaller. Consider that:
t = r/d
where t = true count, r = running count and d = decks remaining. As the shoe is depleted, we expect |r| to fall, which acts to reduce |t|, but at the same time we expect d to fall, which acts to increase |t|. The two effects offset each other exactly provided more than one card remains to be dealt. (The true count is undefined once no cards remain; ie, r/d = 0/0, which is undefined.)
Re: True-count theorem BEST!
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 23:45:06 (#929)
That is the BEST plain-english non-math explanation of the TCT ever posted, kudos! zg
I think you have a Misconception, Robert
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 00:49:06 (#943)
You said: Why do we bet more into high counts? Because we expect them to try to return to zero.
This is false, we expect the runnin gcount to return to 0, but the TC to stay the same. Think of a line that begins at a high point and returns to the x axis. Its slope (the TC) is the same, but it still is returning to 0 (RC).
I have seen you make this same mistake elsewhere, you might give this one some serious thought.
--Mayor
Re: I think you have a Misconception, Robert
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 14:47:42 (#988)
"You said: Why do we bet more into high counts? Because we expect them to try to return to zero.
"This is false, we expect the running count to return to 0, but the TC to stay the same. Think of a line that begins at a high point and returns to the x axis. Its slope (the TC) is the same, but it still is returning to 0 (RC).
I understand this. Just as we expect the count to stay close to 0 23% of the time, we also know that it may stay constant (23%) for periods of time at +1TC or +2TC or -3TC etc. These are neutral areas of the decks. This is why tracking is soooo important to multi-deck players, and the reason why they are facing more and more CSM's.
An example would look like this where each | is an RC
6 left 0|||||1|||||2|||||3
5 left 0||||1||||2||||3
4 left 0|||1|||2|||3
3 left 0||1||2||3
2 left 0|1|2|3
1 left 0123
Of course it will take longer for the TC to change when there are many decks left, and the RC to match the TC when we are at one deck left. It would be like a speedometer that only told you that you were doing 40 or 50 or 60.
"I have seen you make this same mistake elsewhere, you might give this one some serious thought.
I understand these concepts, and that when we go from 60 to 59 mph we haven't hit 50 yet, but since there is a stop sign up ahead we will be back to 0, or be starting from 0 again, unless you want to blow the next light......that's what trackers are doing by avoiding neutral and neg EV areas, if not pounding plus EV areas.
And thank you for being so kind and patient with me. I respond much better to your positive atmosphere. I probably didn't stop long enough on some of these steping stones as I traversed the AP River, so please forgive me for being in such a hurry to get to the other side. Patient I am not....with myself that is.
Re: Clarke Cant on Floating Advantage
Posted by Paddyboy on 23-Nov-2002 20:42:25 (#895)
Hello Rob,Like ltc i do not really understand the ins and out of the FA.to me it means that if you start counting a 6 deck(Ev -.5%) and say after 1 deck is dealt and the tC is +2 your advantage is even with the house is .5% or thereabouts).But then as the deck is dealt down and say the pen is quite good and you get to 5 decks in the discard tray,1 deck left and the TC is +2 then you should have a bigger bet out than before ,because now you can consider playing against 1 deck with the same rules,is this it?
yes, essentially...
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 20:55:42 (#896)
...for a given TC, rules being equal, as the #decks deplete from say 8Ds to 2Ds to 0.5Ds the house or player edge tends to recapitulate - thus with a TC=0 count of the top of 6D h17 DAS the housEdge is relatively high (-.69% approx?) that same shoe dealt down to the 0.33D level with a TC=0 now yields a player advantage of (+0.50 approx?).
This is something that was emphasized by LRevere and later forgotten untill DSchlesinger revived it in debates with ASnyder and PGriffin in BJForum circa '85 (see BJAttack). Notwithstanding Clarke Cant rebukes the FA and the net effect of a theoretical FA is negligable in any event. zg
Re: yes, essentially...
Posted by Paddyboy on 23-Nov-2002 21:18:39 (#899)
This is something that was emphasized by LRevere and later forgotten untill DSchlesinger revived it in debates with ASnyder and PGriffin in BJForum circa '85 (see BJAttack). Notwithstanding Clarke Cant rebukes the FA and the net effect of a theoretical FA is negligable in any event. zg
how do you mean the net effect is negligable, if you get into a deep pen should you not use it?
Password:
Re: yes, essentially...
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 21:58:36 (#901)
>>how do you mean the net effect is negligable, if you get into a deep pen should you not use it? <<
----------------
Well, I will say that I DO use it, but the longterm use-benifit is minimal... and there is still some scientific debate over whether it even exists - if it does, it ain't worth much. zg
Re: yes, essentially...
Posted by bigplayer on 23-Nov-2002 23:06:58 (#919)
6 Deck off the top edge .54, same rules deal 5 decks now 1 deck remaining true count is 0...house edge is now .19 (the exact edge of a 1 deck game with count of zero) That is the floating advantage.
For practical considerations it means that in neutral counts, deeper in the pack, you can use a bit more betting cover with less cost or bet slightly bigger slightly faster in moderate counts.
Re: Clarke Cant on Floating Advantage
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 23-Nov-2002 22:11:20 (#903)
"Hello Rob,
Like LTC i do not really understand the ins and out of the FA.to me it means that if you start counting a 6 deck(Ev -.5%) and say after 1 deck is dealt and the tC is +2 your advantage is even with the house is .5% or thereabouts).But then as the deck is dealt down and say the pen is quite good and you get to 5 decks in the discard tray,1 deck left and the TC is +2 then you should have a bigger bet out than before ,because now you can consider playing against 1 deck with the same rules,is this it?"
I think this over simplifies it, but you are getting some of the idea, which is great. I think the Mayor can give a better explanation since he has a degree in higher math?? I really don't think that is what you want.
Example:
The QBack fires the ball down the field to be caught. He gets the trajectory right, put the stabilizing spin on the ball, and lets it go. A rifle bullet works much the same way. There is a ton of math involved, but the ball goes to its target. A shorter distance (2 decks left) can make for a better shot. The more math you understand does not necessarily make you a better shot. If you have a correct TC, have your indices down, have your bankroll loaded, you are doing fine.
Re: Clarke Cant on Floating Advantage
Posted by paddyboy on 23-Nov-2002 22:44:02 (#912)
Hey i dont know about all the math.but if i am playing a 4d and then get down to 1d left,dont you think as if you are playing against 1d regardless.I thought this before i even heard of this theory,it feels right,it seems right.
My thinking is that if i start off playing a 4d at 0TC and then 3 D are depleted and then you are still at 0TC,then on average every rank should be depleted equally leaving a 1 Deck with same rules left,but with a better EV for the player.
Is this such a great concept seems intuitive to me?
Or is it counter intuitive,such as NRS formulea(havent a clue about this formulea but know it is not what you would expect!)
Re: Clarke Cant on Floating Advantage
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 01:03:47 (#951)
Thanks for saying that I can explain this, but I can't very well. The truth is, on this one I leave it to DS and MathProf to do the explaining. This is one of those parts of playing that is so microscopic and academic, that I have never bothered. I know that it has brought DS and Clarke to near blows.
--Mayor
Foxwoods
Posted by Z on 23-Nov-2002 22:19:57 (#906)
Can somebody who is willing to help a semi-beginner e-mail me bjz21@yahoo.com? I would like a complete system that I can learn to beat an 8D, DA2, DAS, S17, Late Surrender game. What is the best system for this game?
Thanks,
Z
Was Your Question Answered?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 29-Nov-2002 09:46:57 (#1056)
It was Foxy where I got my first exposure to playing other peoples hands, and to surrender. I am faced with 8 deckers in Ontario, so I am very familiar with the game, its shuffle, and the opportunites the game can present. The gent that used to play other players hands with them has been barred. He can't even buy cigarettes in the place now!
The diff between 6 and 8 decks is around -.03, so I would never divide the running count (balanced counters) by any more than 6 to get a true count for betting purposes. This will help you get into your spread a little quicker during the first two decks of the game. Once you are at 6 decks you can begin to divide your RC by decks left.
Learn to track cards thru the shuffle if you can. The swing of the game will freak you out unless you get into a winning streak and never have to look back, which can but will seldom happen.
With games like this 1 1/2 hours away from me I prefer to travel by cable connection to the nearest single deck game that offers a 100% bonus.
Re: Foxwoods HERE
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 22:26:10 (#907)
tags and indices (use first set)-
http://cardcounter.com/Everything.htm#System Indices
free online counting school -
http://www.gamemasteronline.com/indexa.shtml?GameMasters/GameMasterClassicsIndex.shtml
search this site for many addt'l clues about improving the odds at shoe-games (such as avoiding neg-counts). zg
Re: Foxwoods
Posted by joe_r_black on 23-Nov-2002 22:44:19 (#913)
When I was on the East Coast I used to play at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun 2-3 times a month. With the poor penetration and 8 decks there is little volatility in the count. Red 7 with its low pivot was perfect for those playing conditions. Best count to take advantage of the advantage around +1 TC.
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ...
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 22:48:41 (#915)
...Red7 found in Snyder's 'Blackbelt' is a fine count for a beginner AND it can be enhanced/evolved over time to a hybrid TC level-2 WITHOUT changing counts, making it a near ideal selection for someone starting out. zg
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ...
Posted by joe_r_black on 23-Nov-2002 22:50:27 (#916)
I thought you would agree. You are the one that recommedned it to me back then.
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... FINALLY
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 22:54:40 (#917)
...someone took my advice, who were you then? zg
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... FINALLY
Posted by joe_r_black on 23-Nov-2002 23:05:58 (#918)
Casino_bound_east. I started with an $800 bankroll and over about 8 months turned it into $13,000.
Now that I'm on the West Coast I changed counts due to the availability of 1 and 2 deck games although I play infrequently.
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... HA!
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 23:14:17 (#920)
... well you didn't need to change counts. Can you spot me a loan? zg
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... HA!
Posted by joe_r_black on 23-Nov-2002 23:26:49 (#922)
I should probably go back to it. Haven't won like that since. I have B. Harris' book with BRH-0,1 and 2. Should probably reread that since BRH-0 is Red 7 with all sevens counted and he has the optimal betting ramps as well.
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... HA!
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 23:37:12 (#927)
if you would still be confortable with the R7 tags, just cut BH's i#s in half, later you could count all7s +.50 - the point being that extra-complexity does NOT typically translate out to extra-winnings at the table. Don't tell me that you went to Brh-2? Brh-2 is the logical final extension of ZEN and will perform beyond HO2 SCORE, but without a full-fledged Ace-secondary count it will underperform regZEN - nobody plays that beheemoth (brh-2) - and as for the 'optimal bet charts', they are of limited value at the table. If you don't play brh-2, what is it now? zg
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... HA!
Posted by joe_r_black on 23-Nov-2002 23:43:31 (#928)
I went from Red 7 to Zen but that took all the fun out of counting. Began to resemble work. So the I went to the other extreme with KO. KO was very easy but not very good for 1 or 2 decks. Currently I'm playing Hi Lo.
I'm the equal opportunity counter, trying them all.
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... HA!
Posted by zengrifter on 23-Nov-2002 23:56:05 (#933)
They all are fine for any #decks - I would think that ZEN would be a snap for you, is it the tags or the TC adjustment? If tags, then stay with HiLo, if TC not tags, move to UBZ2, or if all or non of the above then stay with HiLo and add more i#s or return to R7 and add more i#s. and, if its the i#s that slow you down, add more i#s BUT first perform a 'radical-cross-index-rounding' upon the enlarged (50+) matrix (ie, round to 0-2-4, etc. or 0-3-6, GeoC uses 0-5-10, ZEN'97 uses 0-4-8). zg
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... HA!
Posted by joe_r_black on 24-Nov-2002 00:02:49 (#934)
I use rounded index numbers similar to hi lo lite in Blackbelt in Blackjack. I haven't gone past the first 22 because of changing counts all the time.
I just found that with Zen I had to concentrate with the level two count and with a level one I didn't. The extra theoretical gain didn't seem worth the work with the little amount I play plus Zen doesn't appear to be that good for 6-8 decks due to the lower BC.
It could be that I didn't stick with Zen long enough to become automatic with it like the level one counts.
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... SETTLED!
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 00:05:56 (#935)
Settled, you are sticking with HiLO... add the 40+ addt'l i#s! zg
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... SETTLED!
Posted by joe_r_black on 24-Nov-2002 00:09:16 (#936)
Since I use the Catch 22, what 18 others do you recommend?
Re: Foxwoods AGREED ... SETTLED!
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 00:38:03 (#940)
>>Since I use the Catch 22, what 18 others do you recommend? <<
18 AT LEAST, i say go for an additional 40+ (its no harder than multiplication tables), so 18 more is the next gradient - add the i#s -2 to +4 excluding A2-A6 and 22-99. oh, and increase a few of the DD indices by 50%, including 10v10/A, 9v2/7, A8v4-6, etc. (these are the 'risk-averse'mods) zg
Great discussion, thanks! 8-) *NM*
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 01:01:27 (#950)
Re: Foxwoods - follow up question
Posted by Zagger on 23-Nov-2002 23:47:48 (#931)
I am also considering the Foxwoods game to begin my card counting adventure... I'm at the point of having perfected BS for the game rules, and just beginning serious count practice (I'm leaning towards using KO). My question is more theoretical though - can the Foxwoods game be beaten? If so, what advantage can be gained?
I know the game can be beaten in an ideal world with great penetration and spread (and no heat), but I don't know if the conditions at FW provide for that - I guess I'm asking the question in the qualitative sense. In other words, before I invest a bunch of hours getting my game ready for the big show I want to make sure my expectations are in line... If it matters at all, I will likely be a red chip player to start.
I have read online that Foxwoods provides better penetration than Mohegan Sun (the Sun being nearly unplayable), etc. Anything anyone can contribute would be appreciated...
Thanks in advance!
Re: Foxwoods - follow up question
Posted by joe_r_black on 23-Nov-2002 23:55:05 (#932)
Foxwoods is a huge place, actually a number of casinos in the same complex.
Penetration varies from less than 1 deck cutoff to around 2.5 cutoff.
The way to beat the place is to move around and find the best penetration and stay away from poor games.
They manage the tables well so wonging in is pretty hard to do. Better to wong out in negative counts.
If you get to know some of the other players you may find that sharing of dealer info is to everyone's advantage.
Re: Foxwoods - follow up question
Posted by Theef on 24-Nov-2002 00:27:52 (#937)
Unless it's changed recently, my experience is that the Foxwoods penetration hardly ever varies from 2.0 decks.
If you observed only 1 deck cutoff, you didn't happen to remember the dealer's name, did you? <:-)
East coast blackjack is the pits
Posted by Theef on 24-Nov-2002 00:36:19 (#939)
The game at Foxwoods is theoretically beatable, but it is hardly worth the effort. As with any eight deck monster, you have to spread like it's going out of style, so you subject yourself to immense variance for a piddling hourly EV. Furthermore, Foxwoods is notorious for crowding its tables, so more often than not, you'll spend ten or fifteen minutes backcounting only to have the table fill up long before the count ever gets decent.
If you're a total novice, you may find Foxwoods worthwhile for practice, but otherwise I'd rather save my bankroll for trips to Vegas.
By the way, the same goes for Mohegan Slum and AC, except the Slum has even worse penetration, and AC doesn't offer surrender (although the tables are a little less crowded.)
By the way, it's tough to find nickel tables at Foxwoods and the Slum, and sometimes there aren't any ten dollar tables either.
by TODAY's standards...
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 00:43:12 (#941)
Foxwoods is not half-bad - the deeper-pene 6D games are barely 1D cuts ($50 min), and the 8Ds are fine with wong-OUT (exit tactics) 1-12+(approx spread) exit at -1 or -2 (depending on system). zg
Re: by TODAY's standards...
Posted by Zagger on 24-Nov-2002 00:56:28 (#945)
>>Foxwoods is not half-bad - the deeper-pene 6D games are barely 1D cuts ($50 min), and the 8Ds are fine with wong-OUT (exit tactics) 1-12+(approx spread) exit at -1 or -2 (depending on system). zg <<
Could I get away with a 1-12+ spread at Foxwoods? With a 1-12 spread and wong-out usage, what appoximate (ballpark) advantage could I exect?
Thanks for the input. These are the kind of research questions I am trying to figure out before exposing myself to enemy fire!
Re: by TODAY's standards...FIGURE
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 01:00:13 (#949)
FIGURE a gain of about 2u per 100hands/rounds - the quicker you can play and the faster you can exit to a fresh shuffle the more win per hour. zg
Re: by TODAY's standards...
Posted by joe_r_black on 24-Nov-2002 02:58:44 (#962)
When I played there I never did 1-12. I usually spread 1-8 on two hands and wong out at -1 TC.
I also had dealer info provided by other players and yes sometimes there were dealers who cut 1 deck or less off of eight. With the size of the place and three shifts to play you should keep a log of the dealers you run across and take notes. Before long you will know which tables to play at.
If you join Green Chip or Green Belt you might want to ask some Foxwood questions to Jpdave13. He helped me alot when I started out.
Re: by TODAY's -CLARIFY 1-12...
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 03:13:17 (#963)
-CLARIFY 1-12 = 1-2x6 (2hands of 6u) zg
Re: by TODAY's -CLARIFY 1-12...
Posted by joe_r_black on 24-Nov-2002 03:23:33 (#964)
I never played 1-12 on 1 hand. Always jumped to two hands with a max of 8 units per hand (1-16) but with less variance.
Re: East coast blackjack is the pits
Posted by Zagger on 24-Nov-2002 00:51:01 (#944)
>>If you're a total novice, you may find Foxwoods worthwhile for practice, but >>otherwise I'd rather save my bankroll for trips to Vegas.
Thats essentially my other option, don't take Foxwoods too seriously - just use it for practice for the true "big game". I live within an hour of both CT casinos, so if I can find "good" conditions there I could get there much more often than Vegas. I won't be inclined to try to beat the CT games though if it just isn't worth it (a judgement call).
>>By the way, it's tough to find nickel tables at Foxwoods and the Slum, and >>sometimes there aren't any ten dollar tables either.
You are correct on this, I go to Foxwoods often enough I should have thought of that - I've never played much live BJ though. Nickel tables are always mobbed at both places, I wouldn't even bother playing them. I can do $10 and $15 tables at this point, but any more than that would be tough to stomach until I gain some experience. I can do easy weeknight trips, and I am sure I've seen $10 tables on weeknights before.
Thanks for the input!
Re: East coast BJ /Foxwoods
Posted by nocountfool on 25-Nov-2002 17:49:49 (#1010)
Foxwoods opens up nickel tables at about 3am, and changes them over to $10 at approx 11am. They also have the best rules for Spanish 21 (split and hit pairs of aces (MoSlum does not)
BR for 6-8D...
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 00:57:45 (#948)
... Foxwoods game $10min with early exits discussed elswhere in this thread, req. min $10000 (1000u) for 20% (approx) RoRuin. The Mohegun Sun is notably poorer games than FWs. Some decent games in AC also. zg
getting the numbers together
Posted by Zagger on 24-Nov-2002 01:18:05 (#956)
>>... Foxwoods game $10min with early exits discussed elswhere in this thread, req. min $10000 (1000u) for 20% (approx) RoRuin. The Mohegun Sun is notably poorer games than FWs. Some decent games in AC also. zg <<
zg, thanks for the info thus far! I do have a couple of followup questions if you don't mind...
Assumed $10 unit, 1-12 spread, wong-out
Bankroll : 1000 units (appox 20% RoR), $10k
Gain estimate : 2 units ($20) per 100 hands
Is there an approximate hourly (or per 100 hands) standard deviation I can assume?
Also, what will end up being my average bet? I'm thinking in terms of "If I am making $20 (2 units) per hour on average, what % return is that on total wagered?"
Thanks for the help, these are all questions I have been tossing around for a while now... I know they are addressed in the KO book as well as others I have, but I'm trying to get a firm handle on what I should expect.
Re: getting the numbers together
Posted by zengrifter on 24-Nov-2002 01:28:09 (#959)
**My responses -
Assumed $10 unit, 1-12 spread, wong-out
Bankroll : 1000 units (appox 20% RoR), $10k
Gain estimate : 2 units ($20) per 100 hands
Is there an approximate hourly (or per 100 hands) standard deviation I can assume?
**Yes, but I don't have the software or a copy of BJAttack handy to tell you what approx StDv is... probably about 35u+ (sheer guess)
Also, what will end up being my average bet?
**Again, guessing $20
I'm thinking in terms of "If I am making $20 (2 units) per hour on average, what % return is that on total wagered?"
**Another guess - 1%
Thanks for the help, these are all questions I have been tossing around for a while now... I know they are addressed in the KO book as well as others I have, but I'm trying to get a firm handle on what I should expect.
**Expect BIG up/down swings REGARDLESS of which games you primarily choose into. zg
Mohegan no mid shoe entry
Posted by Pal on 24-Nov-2002 12:12:58 (#982)
I was at Mohegan a few months ago and I noticed there were "no mide shoe entry" signs up all over the place. However, it would be extremely difficult to wong in at foxwoods b/c they keep closing tables unless they are full.
I am in the same boat as you Zagger. I am just learning to count and want to use foxwoods as practice, very tough to find $5 tables at FW, but there are 10's. I plan on doing a lot of practice on the computer.
After reading Wong, I learned the Hi-Lo count. I can count a single deck face up 2 at a time in 15 secs easily. I haven't done any practice w/ indices or true count conversion yet. Before going any further I think I am going to read up on an unbalanced count as this seems a lot easier.
Pal
Re: Mohegan no mid shoe entry
Posted by joe_r_black on 24-Nov-2002 13:08:03 (#983)
Wonging in at Foxwoods is pretty difficult. Less so in the early morning hours or around noon when they start opening additional tables in the old casino.
The thing to remember about these eight deck games is that when the count goes positive it can stay there for quite a while, escpecially if you are playing heads up. So the idea is not only to wong in on the table but get rid of some of the other players at the same time.
My favorites were to wong in at third base and then hit 13 or 14 against a dealer 5 or 6 and take the dealer's bust card. Once or twice and the whole table leaves. Or wong in at second base to a table of heavy smokers and tell them you're allergic to smoke and make awful faces and nasty comments when they reach for the cigs.
Foxwoods
Posted by LaShisna Brown-Fox on 20-Aug-2004 15:54:41 (#9786)
I would like to be added to the e-mail list of "Foxwoods".
I don't understand the jist of your post????? *NM*
Posted by Learning to count on 20-Aug-2004 20:32:42 (#9796)
NRS intuition
Posted by alienated on 24-Nov-2002 06:35:56 (#965)
Below, Paddyboy expressed the understandable feeling that the NRS formula seems counter-intuitive. What follows is an attempt to explain in simple terms the basic reasoning underlying that very useful tool for shuffle trackers. Nothing presented here is original. The ideas are developed in more sophisticated form in posts by Statman and DvBj, archived at bjmath.com in the section entitled "Shuffle Tracking / Card Location", which is accessible from that site's Table of Contents page.
Consider the first deck of an 8-deck shoe and imagine the following two scenarios.
Scenario 1. Before the shoe commences, you happen to know that the first deck has a total hi-lo running count of -4. That is, it is a favourable deck, having 4 more big than small cards.
Scenario 2. Before the shoe commences, you happen to know that the first deck is made up of a half-deck, X, with a count of -4, that is mixed with another half-deck, Y, with an unknown count. That is, you know the count of X, but know nothing specific about Y.
After the first round of play, you observe that the running count has dropped to -4.
Is your expectation for the next round better in scenario 1 or scenario 2?
The NRS formula tells us that you are better off in scenario 2.
Let's see why.
In scenario 1 you know that the count of the cards remaining in the first deck must be 0. This is because the overall count for the first deck is -4, and part way through the first deck the running count has already reached this end total. In other words, you know that 4 more high than low cards are due to come out during the first deck, and this has already happened by the end of the first round. There is no longer an excess of high cards for the remainder of the first deck.
Scenario 2 is different. Here we don't know for sure what the overall count is for the first deck. We know that one half of it, X, has 4 more big than small cards. But we don't know anything directly about the other half deck, Y. So the question arises: is the running count after the first round -4 because the extra big cards from X have been dealt, or because the unknown half deck, Y, just so happened to have an excess of big cards as well?
The correct answer to this question (which is what the NRS formula achieves) involves balancing two different considerations:
CA. Prior to the commencement of the shoe, we could form our 'best guess' of the first deck's count. Since the first deck is made up of 26 cards with a count of -4, and another 26 cards drawn from 7.5 decks with a count of +4, our best guess would be -4 + 4/7.5 = -3.47.
But there is another, separate issue to consider.
CB. In the dealing of the first round, the dealer has drawn cards that have probably come partly from the known half-deck X and partly from the unknown half-deck Y. Perhaps the negative count at the end of the first round is because cards were mainly drawn from X, which we know has a negative count. On the other hand, perhaps many of the cards didn't come from X, but instead came from Y. We don't know much about Y. Our best guess could easily be wrong. Therefore, perhaps the negative count of the first round provides us with some evidence that Y also contains an excess of big cards, just like X.
The idea behind CB might be made clearer by a simple example. Suppose I say to you, "I am holding in my hand 2 half decks, A and B. A has a count of +10, B has a count of -10. I will deal 5 cards from one of the half decks. Then you must guess whether I am dealing from A or B." Imagine that I deal the 5 cards and the count goes negative. Would you guess that I am dealing from A or B? The correct answer could be either, but your best guess would certainly be B. A small sample from B is more likely to give a negative count than a small sample from A, simply because on average our sample will reflect its population.
To sum up, our prior knowledge (before the shoe commences) suggests that Y will have a slightly positive count. This is CA. But our sampling evidence (once a round has been dealt) suggests that Y may actually have a negative count. This is CB. By correctly weighting these two considerations, the NRS formula is able to provide a correct answer for any particular situation.
Relating all this back to our 8-deck game with 1 round dealt and a running count of -4, the critical point is that we don't know where the 4 excess big cards came from. Perhaps they came from X. But they also may have come from Y, which would mean that the extra big cards that we know are in X would still remain to be dealt.
The implications for the player's expectation over the first deck are quite interesting:
IA. Prior to the commencement of the shoe, the player's expectation for the first deck is higher in scenario 1 than scenario 2. This is simply because the first deck is expected to have a count of -4 in scenario 1, but -3.47 in scenario 2. Thus, the expected excess of big cards is slightly greater in scenario 1 than scenario 2.
However...
IB. After one round has been dealt and the running count is -4, the player's expectation for the remainder of the first deck is now higher in scenario 2 than in scenario 1. The situation has been reversed. In scenario 1 no excess of big cards remains, whereas in scenario 2 the running count will still be expected to fall.
If the basic tension between CA and CB is kept in mind, perhaps IA and IB will not seem quite so counter-intuitive.
Re: NRS intuition
Posted by Mister M on 06-Dec-2002 14:14:38 (#1273)
Dear Alienated
This is actually the first time that I have seen the nrs ecplained in relatively straightforward terminology.
Can you please expand on this farther with a few real world examples?
The higher level math by Statmen and Dvbj on bjmath make no sense to the masses
and I have always found your postings aesy to comprehend and well written.
BTW you state that you will not post at rge.Any particular reason for this?.
I have generally found the site informative and well moderated. But anyway it would be nice to see you there with some st advice etc. Arnold's gone,George C is nowhere to be found and you must rank up there along with the "experts"
Just mho.
Re: NRS intuition
Posted by alienated on 09-Dec-2002 07:21:13 (#1360)
Suppose an 8-deck shoe. You note a 26-card slug with running count -10 that gets mixed with another 26 cards to form 1 deck. Cut this deck to the top. We want to know the true count off the top of the shoe and at various points throughout the first deck.
The true count can be calculated using the formula:
TC = (rc + A)/(N - L)
where:
A is the regular running count (zero at the start of the shoe),
L is the number (or fraction) of decks dealt from the segment containing our slug,
c is the running count of our slug,
r is a multiplier,
N is the number of pseudo decks we use as our devisor in determining the true count.
In our example, c = -10. We will calculate the true count at three points in our segment: off the top (ie, L = 0), after the first 13 cards have been dealt (L = 1/4) and after the first 26 cards have been dealt (L = 1/2). Off the top, the regular running count is zero (A = 0). We will assume that after 13 cards have been dealt A = 2, and after 26 cards have been dealt A = -8. So we know c, A and L. However, to use the above formula we first need to know r and N.
We find N as:
N = [(q^2)(d - k)]/[((q - k)^2) + k(d - k)]
where:
q is the size of the segment that contains our slug,
k is the size of our slug,
d is the size of the entire shoe.
In our example, q = 1, k = 1/2, and d = 8, so:
N = [(1^2)(8 - 1/2)]/[((1 - 1/2)^2) + 1/2(8 - 1/2)] = 7.5/(0.25 + 3.75) = 1.875
We find r as:
r = -1(N/q)[1 - (q - k)/(d - k)]
For our example:
r = -1(1.875/1)[1 - (1 - 1/2)/(8 - 1/2)] = -1(1.875)(1 - 1/15) = -1.75
We are now ready to use the true-count formula to calculate the true count: a) off the top; b) after the first quarter deck; c) after the first half deck.
a) Off the top, A = 0. The values for the other terms are r = -1.75, c = -10, N = 1.875, and L = 0, so:
TC = [(-1.75)(-10) + 0]/(1.875 - 0) = 9.33
Notice that this makes sense quite apart from the NRS formula. We know that in the first deck, our 26-card slug has a running count of -10. We also know that the other 26 cards are drawn from 7.5 decks with a running count of +10. Since 26 cards is 1/15th of 7.5 decks, we could expect the 26 cards to have a running count of 10/15 = 0.67. So our best estimate of the running count for the first deck would be -10 + 0.67 = -9.33. That is, we would expect the running count to fall by 9.33 over the first deck, implying a true count of 9.33.
The power of the NRS formula becomes evident once the segment has been partially dealt.
b) Assume now that 13 cards have been dealt and that the regular running count, A, is 2. The true count is:
TC = [(-1.75)(-10) + 2]/(1.875 - 0.25) = 12
The rise in the regular running count to +2 has two counteracting effects. On the one hand, it strengthens our expectation that the running count will fall before the end of the first deck. This is because we know that our slug has a count of -10, so unless the unknown 26 cards have a positive count of at least 10 (unlikely), the running count will be negative by the end of the first deck. On the other hand, the fact that our running count has not fallen up until now suggests that the unknown cards may well have a positive count. We can't tell for sure, but the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.
The contradictory effects are revealed in the fact that our true count has increased (from 9.33 to 12), but the expected running-count movement over the first deck has decreased. Off the top we thought the running count after the first deck would fall to -9.33, whereas now we expect it only to reach 2 - 3/4(12) = -7. (NB. A true count of 12 means we expect the running count to fall by 9 over three quarters of a deck.)
c) Now suppose that after 26 cards have been dealt, the running count has dropped dramatically to -8. That is, almost all of cards 14-26 were big cards. Suddenly, things are reversed. On the one hand, the abundance of big cards suggests that most of our slug has been dealt. On the other hand, it seems to suggest that the unknown 26 cards must also have been rich in big cards. We now have:
TC = [(-1.75)(-10) + (-8)]/(1.875 - 0.5) = 6.91
So the true count has dropped, but we are still very much in positive EV territory. Notice again that counteracting effects are present. The true count has dropped because a lot of high cards have been dealt. Yet, because of the implication that the unknown cards are also rich in big cards, we now expect that by the end of the first deck the running count will drop well below -9.33 to -8 - 1/2(6.91) = -11.455.
Re: NRS intuition
Posted by Mister M on 11-Dec-2002 11:01:54 (#1520)
Dear Alienated
This is one amazing post!
It is so hard to find information regarding the "formula". The more normal responses consist of simply ignoring the question or more commonly referring the poster to the purchase of Black belt etc!
The articles by Statman et al are higher-level mathematical equations and are not translatable into English by the masses. Do you actually understand the math involved and posses the ability to use this in real play?
A hypothetical situation:
A = 26 cards and the rc = +8
B =39 cards and the rc = -6
C = 26 cards and the rc = +15
Suppose we know that that post shuffle A & C end up in the bottom 3 decks (game is 4.0/6) and that B ends up in the top 3 decks.
We know that 52 of the bottom 156 have a rc of+23 and that 39 of the top 3 decks have a rc of -6, but then what?
Assuming control of the cut, the logical (to me anyway) would be to cut 1 deck from the bottom (casino cut minimum applicable here). How do we then compute both the starting running count and the true for betting and playing decisions and what is the correct divisor? Obviously, we would expect the rc to be rising during that first 1 deck therefore the correct play would be to flat bet it and play as if the count was minus for strategy departures. no?
What happens if a player cuts 1.5decks from the top putting 66% of the "good cards" behind the cut? Although the best move would be to play only the first deck and depart, is it feasible to use the nrs here if the decision to stay and play all is made to track the next shoe?
The above examples will apply to any situation of course; therefore, the real question is how do you use the nrs formula when the player has 2-3 seconds only to make that betting and playing decision?
Can you suggest a "quick and dirty" method that can be used effectively using mental ability alone??
Many thanks for your time.
M
Re: NRS intuition
Posted by alienated on 12-Dec-2002 21:39:05 (#1586)
I certainly can't use the NRS formula on the fly at the tables. What I do is work out various cases at home, then apply the results in the relevant situations in the casino. The cases worked out at home are guided by the type of shuffle I will face. For instance, for some complex shuffles it is hard to do much more than know that a small number of cards, n, will end up in a single deck, or two decks, or whatever in the next shoe. I would then work out 'realistic' cases for n-card slugs in appropriately sized segments. For simpler shuffles I prefer to estimate expected counts for all segments, rather than just one or two slugs. I then use the information conservatively.
You ask whether I can follow the mathematics in the NRS posts of Statman and DvBj. The short answer is, it depends what you mean by 'follow'... ;-) I have not had formal training in mathematics as such, although my studies back in my university days required a minimal level of competence in mathematics and statistics. These days, I do try to teach myself stuff as much as possible, but my math knowledge is still very limited. So, no, I could not have derived the NRS formula, including N and r, myself. Also, I can't understand every mathematical step in the reasoning. But in the posts by Statman and DvBj they kind of help you along, by explaining the intuition of what they are doing. So I understand (I think!) the basic logic of their argument. And in any case, it is not necessary to understand the derivation to apply the formula.
Counter-intuition
Posted by The Mayor on 24-Nov-2002 09:12:13 (#970)
Thanks for explaining this subtlety, I am not a Shuffle Tracker, so this is really the first I have seen of this type of argument, and it is highly counter-intuitive. Because the argument appears rock solid, I suppose I will just have to live with the counter-intuitive being true. 8-)
--Mayor
Re: NRS intuition
Posted by PaddyBoy on 24-Nov-2002 13:41:43 (#986)
Excellent explanation.It is crystal clear to me now.Except in scenario 2 you never tell us what the count is after the 4 highs have been dealt,how do we use the formula for this?
Re: NRS intuition
Posted by alienated on 28-Nov-2002 08:28:38 (#1038)
See the posts at bjmath.com that I referred to above. These posts give the actual formula and explain the terms involved.
In the specific example I gave, the true count at the commencement of round 2 in scenario 2 will depend on how many cards have been consumed during the first round. If 13 cards are used up in the first round, the true count will be approximately 1.85 at the start of round 2. After reading the posts at bjmath.com, you'll be able to get the same answer.
Uston +/-
Posted by Z on 24-Nov-2002 13:39:08 (#985)
Thank you guys for all your help regarding my previous postings: Uston simple +\- and Foxwoods. I read all the lessons recommended by zengrifter, and many of my questions have been answered. Now the tables Mayor gave me for Uston's simple +\- make a lot more sense. Can someone please put up tables for Uston advanced +\- which converts to true count?
Also, what do the *'s mean in the tables?
8,8 vs 10 is 12* in the uston simple +\- tables:
Does this mean you would surrender 8's vs. 10 at 12 RC or higher?
17 vs. A is 4* in the surrender table.
I assume you'd surrender 17 vs. A at RC>4
But what does the * mean?
I am assuming that using HiLo or Uston makes no difference in the strategy tables with true count.
Thanks Again,
Z
Re: Uston +/-
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 24-Nov-2002 16:16:59 (#992)
"Thank you guys for all your help regarding my previous postings: Uston simple +\- and Foxwoods. I read all the lessons recommended by zengrifter, and many of my questions have been answered. Now the tables Mayor gave me for Uston's simple +\- make a lot more sense. Can someone please put up tables for Uston advanced +\- which converts to true count?
The USPM is not designed to have a TC.
"Also, what do the *'s mean in the tables?
8,8 vs 10 is 12* in the uston simple +\- tables:
Does this mean you would surrender 8's vs. 10 at 12 RC or higher?
I have the book but didn't see the table the Mayor put up on this.
I would think this means you should stand if you can't surrender.
"17 vs. A is 4* in the surrender table.
I assume you'd surrender 17 vs. A at RC>4
But what does the * mean?
Same as above.
"I am assuming that using HiLo or Uston makes no difference in the strategy tables with true count.
Hi Low counts the 23456 and USPM counts the 34567 as +1, but the systems are different. USPM uses strike numbers of -9 and +9 for a 6 deck game for plus betting and play, and minus betting and play, 12 for 8 deck. HL uses specific indices for play decisions and bet decisions. They are different in this respect.
Does anyone use Uston?
Posted by Z on 24-Nov-2002 21:43:32 (#1006)
For multideck games?
Greetings all
Posted by BradRod on 26-Nov-2002 23:17:34 (#1013)
I am an architect in Cleveland, Ohio. Started playing BJ seriously while recovering recently from cancer treatments. ( totally effective thank G-d).
I am currently playing with the K-O system. Yesterday I made my first $600 single bet and took a snapper, in the same weekend of play I bet on a $250 black jack.
My game has improved a lot since I came across this board. It really is a great resource, I would like to make some positive contributions in kind.
I wish you all great sucess.
Brad
Re: Greetings all
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 27-Nov-2002 16:26:11 (#1028)
Hey Brad. We have a lot in common. I don't make too many $600 bets on blackjack, but had a brush with the "big C" when I was 12, but that turned itself into a blessing. Radiation, chemo, but here to tell about it 28 years later.
Stay Strong, Play On,
Re: Greetings all
Posted by BradRod on 03-Dec-2002 22:50:08 (#1171)
I notice many players of all types in casinos who seem to be recouperating from one ailment or another. Now I can relate to them more than I could before.
I'm not sure if its the hope of great winnings to help with medical payments, just having more time on hand while being laid up, or other more emotional reasons that make casinos such a popular rehab place.
The hospital suggested I find a not too strenuous pastime. I could not get into tv, nothing i particular wanted to read and was not always up to working. so, I figured i would use the time constructively to master BJ. I dont think i'm there yet but think the time spent has given my game a big boost.
I'm curious Mayor, in what way was having gone through cancer a blessing for you ? I feel as though in some ways it has been to me also ( particularly the surviving of it part) but, I think it is a little too recent to see exactly how.
Re: Greetings all
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 23:26:18 (#1175)
"I notice many players of all types in casinos who seem to be recouperating from one ailment or another. Now I can relate to them more than I could before."
"I'm not sure if its the hope of great winnings to help with medical payments, just having more time on hand while being laid up, or other more emotional reasons that make casinos such a popular rehab place."
It is important to keep your mind occupied period, but on positive things, so much more so.
"The hospital suggested I find a not too strenuous pastime. I could not get into tv, nothing i particular wanted to read and was not always up to working. so, I figured i would use the time constructively to master BJ. I dont think i'm there yet but think the time spent has given my game a big boost."
"I'm curious Mayor, in what way was having gone through cancer a blessing for you ? I feel as though in some ways it has been to me also ( particularly the surviving of it part) but, I think it is a little too recent to see exactly how."
First, I am not the Mayor, but if I get a few more promotions I will be ;> You are bang on. It took me over 25 years to see how full the blessing was. Of course the survival can make you aware of the value of life. For me one thing in particular was the fact that I was sterilized by chemo treatments which caused trouble in my first marriage since I didn't know until it was over. Shootin blanks can be a lot of fun! ;> This turned into a blessing since there was no permanent ties, and the woman I am now married to has two wonderful children. All of the pieces of the puzzle came together beautifully. I have scars which kept me humble during the wild years of my life that I am now thankful for. If you are a Bible reader check he book of Job for his brush with death, and read Romans about Paul's thorn in his side. There is so much more that I could touch on, but this is not really about me, and I think you will see that over some time you will see your pieces of your puzzle fitting together for you. You have a second chance.....use it wisely.
Re: Greetings all
Posted by BradRod on 04-Dec-2002 09:49:27 (#1187)
First, I am not the Mayor, but if I get a few more promotions I will be ;>
I guess my short term memory was more effected by my tretment than i thought.LOL
In my case it was more through providence than any reasonable medical advice that I took the step of freezing 20 solid vials of seed before I started my chemo treatment. Good thing too because while they say my fertility may return, it is not there now. So, I am enjoying shooting blanks in the meantime but, do intend to have kids under the right circumstnces.
I do see the providence of G-d more personally and closer in events in my life.
Other than that I think I have a lot more patience for certain things now like time with family, friends , being in nature, birdwatching, sketching and seeing the essence, reality and beauty of the world and my faith - Jewish. Oh yes and even endless hours of blackjack
On the other hand a total intolerance of fools, superficialities, toxic relationships, BS, deceit, mundane and petty things, ignorance.
In my practice I am much more selective about projects that I take on. I am no longer driven by the income exclusively or by the need to establish myself professionally to support my sense of my identity. I actually did some of my most creative work in residential design while under the influence. So, now I accept only the projects and clients that have the potential of becoming satisfying and expressive projects. This has served to give me a exclusive professional image so that I am atracting more appreciative clients.
I am looking forward to a strong finish of this extended life.
Re: Greetings all
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 06-Dec-2002 14:05:40 (#1272)
First, I am not the Mayor, but if I get a few more promotions I will be ;>
I guess my short term memory was more effected by my tretment than i thought.LOL
In my case it was more through providence than any reasonable medical advice that I took the step of freezing 20 solid vials of seed before I started my chemo treatment. Good thing too because while they say my fertility may return, it is not there now. So, I am enjoying shooting blanks in the meantime but, do intend to have kids under the right circumstnces.
#I was 12 and the thought never crossed my mind, although I was shooting hot lead at that age. Almost anyone can father a child, but there is so much more to being a great Dad and a positive influence on your children. I think you have what it takes ;>
I do see the providence of G-d more personally and closer in events in my life.
#He has ways of getting our attention at times doesn't He?
Other than that I think I have a lot more patience for certain things now like time with family, friends , being in nature, birdwatching, sketching and seeing the essence, reality and beauty of the world and my faith - Jewish. Oh yes and even endless hours of blackjack.
On the other hand a total intolerance of fools, superficialities, toxic relationships, BS, deceit, mundane and petty things, ignorance.
#Time is in short supply, and I think it tends to focus you on advantage play and not so much on just playing with your time and energy to no good end.
In my practice I am much more selective about projects that I take on. I am no longer driven by the income exclusively or by the need to establish myself professionally to support my sense of my identity. I actually did some of my most creative work in residential design while under the influence. So, now I accept only the projects and clients that have the potential of becoming satisfying and expressive projects. This has served to give me a exclusive professional image so that I am atracting more appreciative clients.
#Are you an architect or a draftsman? Hemmingway spewed forth some of his more advanced prose when he was virtually hammered. That should tell you more about his readers than about him! ;> I can tell you know that after a rye and coke I am a better blackjack player. The rye calms my nerves, helps me with my betting, and the caffiene speeds me up, helping out my counting. It is also good cover since many counters can't drink and count.
I am looking forward to a strong finish of this extended life.
#Do not go quietly into that cold dark night ;> When I finish I'll turn my afterburners on and go for Mach IV
This board is OPEN! Please read!
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Nov-2002 14:06:50 (#1018)
Moderation Guidelines
This board is semi-moderated. What this means is the following:
1) This board will remain open to all for viewing. If you want post, you are welcome to do so.
2) For those who do not have "bypass moderation status" your posts will go into a holding area and be reviewed for content before they are placed on the board. This is not fun, so you want to get "bypass moderation status" just as soon as you can. Typically this review will take less than 24 hours.
3) IF YOU WANT TO BYPASS MODERATION, YOU MUST CREATE A PROFILE.
4 All those who had created profiles before 11/25/02 have automatically been granted bypass moderation status. You are allowed to post freely.
5) All those I know personally will be automatically granted bypass moderation status. Just create a profile and request the bypass via email ( advantageplayer@hotmail.com ).
6) All those who are referred to me personally by someone else who is an established poster on this site will automatically be granted bypass moderation status. Again, have the established poster send me email requesting bypass moderation status for this individual.
7) All posts by those without a profile will be have each post reviewed before it is posted.
8) Those who create a profile and have not otherwise been referred, will have a 2 week waiting period before they can by-pass moderation. For those two weeks, your posts will continue to be moderated.
9) After you have had your profile for two weeks, you must send email to me at advantageplayer@hotmail.com requesting that you be allowed to bypass moderation. At that time, you will almost automatically be granted bypass status.
10) The only cause for not being granted bypass-moderation status is that you post in continuing violation of the posting rules. Likewise your status allowing you to bypass moderation will be revoked if you continue to violate the posting rules.
11) There is no cause for appeal. All decisions regarding moderated status are my own and are final. I can and will use whatever security tools I have available to determine in advance if posters and profiles are legitimate.
Now, lets get back to the fun!
--Mayor
Re: This board is OPEN! Please read!
Posted by learning to count on 27-Nov-2002 14:28:35 (#1020)
TEST TEST TEST...HMMMM...TEST TEST TEST
Re: This board is OPEN! Please read!
Posted by learning to count on 27-Nov-2002 14:29:56 (#1021)
yay HURRAY YAY HURRAY....lets get back to work. LTC
Re: This board is OPEN! Please read!
Posted by learning to count on 27-Nov-2002 14:32:44 (#1022)
Oh I almost forgot Happy thanksgiving to all. Dont eat too much turkey eliot! I'm going to play on a cruise boat this weekend I will have a trip report. Happy T-DAY to all!!!!! LTC
Rat-ta-ta-ta, rata-tata-ta-ta! *LINK*
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 27-Nov-2002 15:04:19 (#1024)
GREAT news. Now I have to change my newsletter! ;>
Welcome back, Mayor
Posted by ZOD on 27-Nov-2002 19:56:21 (#1034)
Glad to see my favorite board back up. Hope everything works better this time. Good luck...
ZOD
Re: This board is OPEN! Please read!
Posted by joe_r_black on 27-Nov-2002 22:01:37 (#1035)
Glad to see there is still one board discussing blackjack instead of posting personal attacks!!
Unbalanced Tens for insurance, anyone?
Posted by SplitFives on 27-Nov-2002 15:56:27 (#1026)
Thanks, Mayor, for keeping this site running.
I'm curious about something in Wong's 'Professional Blackjack'.
He discusses the Unbalanced 10's count, especially its perfect correlation with insurance decisions, and gives figures for the higher expectation that this count would generate when used as a side count with Hi-Lo.
I always figured the discussion was merely for the theoretical interest, since I have plenty to do with keeping one running count at the tables.
But then I got to thinking about why he would mention using such a side count in the first place.
So I'll ask: Does anybody actually do this? I'm sure 2-person teams would prosper this way, but what about solo players?
Re: Unbalanced Tens for insurance, anyone?
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 27-Nov-2002 18:27:50 (#1031)
"Thanks, Mayor, for keeping this site running.
Hear ye, hear ye!
"I'm curious about something in Wong's 'Professional Blackjack'. He discusses the Unbalanced 10's count, especially its perfect correlation with insurance decisions, and gives figures for the higher expectation that this count would generate when used as a side count with Hi-Lo.
which page??
"I always figured the discussion was merely for the theoretical interest, since I have plenty to do with keeping one running count at the tables. But then I got to thinking about why he would mention using such a side count in the first place. So I'll ask: Does anybody actually do this? I'm sure 2-person teams would prosper this way, but what about solo players?
It depends on the solo players abilities. I am sure there are people that can keep track of many different inter-related concepts at the table, but most of us are doing well by keeping a count, remembering indices, and our eyes on any grouping of Aces or 10s that we may be able to follow through the shuffle. I know of a team that has one woman using the 10 count, the male using the Hi Low count, and the other two women are just keying cards. That's a lot of brain power on one table. W1 tries to sit at 3rd, and when she takes insurance they all do. W2 signals W1 when to black up and W3 signals M1 when to black up, and M1 tells them all by his bet what to play based on the count. I'm sure 3rd base is signaled when to stand and hit based on what the key carders were telling her. They look like well to do people out gambling. He owns a business and his wife sits beside him, and the other two women work for them, office help from the table talk. Wonder if they are hiring? ;> It's a great way to team play and know what the money is doing at all times. If you can hide a blacky from the eye in the sky, you can also hide it from the team if you are capable of getting your mind around that.
Yes.
Posted by The Mayor on 27-Nov-2002 18:38:42 (#1033)
Thanks for your kind remarks about this site.
I have definitely heard of people keeping side counts for insurance, but only on behalf of a BP at the table. If 3 people at the table are playing correlated units and strategy deviations (insurance is a strategy deviation), you bet they will last about half-a-heartbeat into a high count. Let the BP get really drunk, have a guy signal bet size, another signal strategy deviations. Done.
--Mayor
Indices Hi-Opt II
Posted by BJfool on 27-Nov-2002 16:30:26 (#1029)
Are there just 20 indices for the Hi-Opt II system?
Standford Wong's Professional BlackJack contains lots and lots of indices for splitting,doubling etc. for the Hi-Lo system.
How come i just can't find more indices for the Hi-Opt II (i've only got 20)
Can anyone help me find ALL the indices for Hi-Opt II?
game: S17,DAS,6 Deck, fair pen
thank you
Re: Indices Hi-Opt II
Posted by ako on 27-Nov-2002 17:15:08 (#1030)
Forget about using Hiopt11 for 6 deck. Use Hilow which is more than enough or
any Ace reckoned system.
Re: Indices Hi-Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 27-Nov-2002 18:31:11 (#1032)
I'll take a look around. I think I only ran the program to check for the Terrible Twenty, and if I can get SBA running again I could whip off a set of the whole ball of wax for you if you are still interested.
Re: Indices Hi-Opt II
Posted by BjFool on 28-Nov-2002 13:22:22 (#1049)
Thanks Rob I would certainly be interested in having all the indices for the hi-opt II system
BjFool
let me know if you can find /generate them
tx
Re: Indices Hi-Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Nov-2002 14:12:09 (#1050)
Will try to run them tonight for you for rules you have specified.
Indices for Hi-Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Nov-2002 19:03:16 (#1052)
I had the #'s run while I was out playing taxiand forgot to check the Insurance button. I ran that sim separately.
6 deck 5 dealt S17 DOA DAS 7 at the table and you sitting at first base.
// Indices generated by SBA STRATEGY GENERATOR, Version 5.0.5
// NOTE: the indices are reversal for:
// splitting 8,8 vs. T, 8,8 vs. 9, 3,3 vs. 7, and late surrender 17 vs. A up
INSURANCE = 5; // Buy insurance if true count >= INSURANCE
// 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A (Dealer's up cards)
// hard standing table (stand if >= number, hit if < number)
DEFTBL HHT
(
5, 2, 0, -2, -1, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // hard 12
-1, -3, -5, -7, -7, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // hard 13
-5, -7, -9,-11,-11, 25, 25, 23, 13, 19, // hard 14
-10,-11,-13,-15,-16, 19, 18, 14, 6, 16, // hard 15
-13,-15,-17,-20,-19, 13, 11, 6, 0, 13, // hard 16
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-10) // hard 17
// soft standing table (stand if >= number, hit if < number)
DEFTBL SHT
(
-23,-24,-23,-24,-99,-99,-23, 99, 99, 1) // soft 18
// hard doubling table (double if >= number)
DEFTBL HDT
(
99, 25, 22, 19, 19, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // hard 7
25, 17, 12, 8, 5, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // hard 8
2, -1, -4, -7,-10, 8, 17, 99, 99, 99, // hard 9
-14,-16,-17,-19,-22,-11, -8, -2, 14, 8, // hard 10
-17,-18,-19,-22,-22,-13,-11, -7, -6, 2) // hard 11
// soft doubling table (double if >= number)
DEFTBL SDT
(
22, 14, 8, 1, -2, 99, 99, // A,2
25, 14, 7, -2, -6, 99, 99, // A,3
23, 13, 1, -5,-10, 99, 99, // A,4
23, 11, -2, -9,-15, 99, 99, // A,5
8, -4, -8,-13,-18, 99, 99, // A,6
1, -2, -7,-10,-10, 99, 99, // A,7
14, 10, 7, 4, 2, 99, 99, // A,8
18, 15, 12, 10, 9, 99, 99, // A,9
23, 19, 16, 14, 12, 99, 99) // A,T
if (DAS) // doubling is allowed after splitting
// splitting table for DAS (split if >= number, except reversals)
DEFTBL SPT
(
-6, -9,-12,-15,-21,-99, 22, 99, 99, 99, // 2,2
0,-12,-14,-21,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 3,3
99, 16, 9, 0, -2, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 4,4
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 5,5
-3, -6, -9,-13,-17, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 6,6
-14,-16,-17,-20,-99,-99, 21, 99, 99, 99, // 7,7
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 5,-21, // 8,8
-5, -7, -9,-11,-11, 9,-15,-19, 99, 8, // 9,9
18, 15, 12, 9, 8, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // T,T
-17,-18,-18,-20,-21,-14,-12,-11,-12, -6) // A,A
else // doubling is not allowed after splitting
// splitting table for no DAS (split if >= number, except reversals)
DEFTBL SPT
(
99, 99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 2,2
99, 99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 3,3
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 4,4
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 5,5
99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 6,6
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // 7,7
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99, 99,-99, // 8,8
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99, 99,-99,-99, 99, 99, // 9,9
99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, // T,T
-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99,-99) // A,A
Re: Indices for Hi-Opt II
Posted by BjFool on 29-Nov-2002 07:03:34 (#1054)
Much appreciated Rob thanks a million
BjFool
BjFools for Hi-Opt II?
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 02:24:00 (#1111)
Clearly not BjSmarts if one committs to this over-rated sportscar. zg
Calculating BC, IC & PE of Multiparameter Systems
Posted by alienated on 28-Nov-2002 04:37:57 (#1036)
(Note: Unless you are interested in how to calculate the playing efficiency of multiparameter systems, this post should be avoided. It is written in response to a query at AP.com. Since I do not wish to post there, or be associated with that site in any way, I have posted my reply here.)
----- ----- -----
INTRODUCTION
Calculating BC and IC is relatively straightforward. Calculating PE using Griffin's method is somewhat more involved. For single parameter systems, there is an easy shortcut - a simple formula used by Snyder. (The formula can be found in chapter 3 of Cant's _Blackjack Therapy_, accessible at BJ Review Net.) For multiparameter systems, calculating PE without the aid of a computer is time consuming, though doable. Allow maybe 2-3 hours with pen, paper and pocket calculator. The good news is that you have all the information you need within the covers of Griffin's book, though it is scattered to all parts.
----- ----- -----
PRELIMINARIES: THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
To calculate BC, IC and PE, you first need to know how to calculate the various correlation coefficients for your count system. Some simple examples will illustrate the procedure. Unless otherwise specified, all worked examples will assume use of Revere's level 1 primary count (0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1) and, depending on the circumstances, (A) and/or (78) side counts.
-----
- Definition -
The correlation coefficient is calculated by taking the inner product of the count system's tags and the EORs and dividing by the product of the sum of squares of the system and the sum of squares of the EORs. That is,
CC = IP/[(SSc.SSr)^1/2]
where IP is the inner product of the count system's tags and the EORs, SSc is the sum of squares of the count system's tags and SSr is the sum of squares of the effects of removal.
-----
- Single-Parameter Balanced Count Systems -
Let's calculate the betting correlation of Revere's level 1 system, R1, in Griffin's benchmark game (described p.11). We have:
R1: (0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1)
EORs: (-.61 .38 .44 .55 .69 .46 .28 .00 -.18 -.51)
Here IP = 0(-.61) + 1(.38) + 1(.44) + 1(.55) + 1(.69) + 1(.46) + 0(.28) + 0(.00) + -1(-.18) + 4(-1)(-.51) = 4.74
SSc = 0^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 0^2 + 0^2 + (-1)^2 + 4(-1)^2 = 10
SSr = -.61^2 + .38^2 + .44^2 + .55^2 + .69^2 + .46^2 + .28^2 + .00^2 + -.18^2 + 4(-.51^2) = 2.84
So BC = 4.74/[(10 x 2.84)^1/2] = .8894
-----
- Single-Parameter Unbalanced Count Systems -
If the count system is unbalanced, it is first necessary to convert it to its balanced equivalent before calculating the correlation coefficient. This is done by adding -u/52 to each tag, where u is the system's 'unbalance'. For wagering decisions you might use an ace side count together with Revere's level 1 count:
R1 - (A) = (-1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1)
which is unbalanced. The unbalance, u, is -4 (since if you count through a deck using IRC = 0, your running count will end up at -4). Thus to get the balanced equivalent, call it x, add -u/52 = 4/52 = 1/13 = .077 to each tag:
x = (-.923 1.077 1.077 1.077 1.077 1.077 .077 .077 -.923 -.923)
Notice x is balanced (all the tags add up to zero). The sum of squares of x's tags is 10.923.
Here IP = (-.923)[-.61 + -.18 + 4(-.51)] + (1.077)(.38 + .44 + .55 + .69 + .46) + (.077)(.28 + .00) = 5.35
So BC = 5.35/[(10.923 x 2.84)^1/2] = .9601
To take another example, for insurance you might use:
R1 + (A) + (78) = (1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1)
The unbalance is now 12, so we need to add -12/52 = -3/13 = -.231 to each tag to get the balanced equivalent, y:
y = (.769 .769 .769 .769 .769 .769 .769 .769 -1.231 -1.231)
The sum of squares of y's tags is 12.308. The EORs for insurance are given by Griffin on p.71:
EORs: (1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 -4.07)
The sum of squares of the insurance EORs is 95.7. The inner product of y's tags and the insurance EORs is 28.95. So the insurance correlation is:
IC = 28.95/[(95.7 x 12.308)^1/2] = .8435
The correlation coefficient can also be calculated for the play of any strategy decision, using the EORs in Griffin's tables on pp.74-85. For example, for 14 v T you might use:
R1 + 2(78) = (0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 -1 -1)
By converting this to its balanced equivalent, the correlation coefficient for 14 v T can be calculated in the usual way. As will soon be explained, the correlation coefficients, calculated separately for all strategy decisions, form the basis of the calculation of PE.
For more information on the conversion of unbalanced counts to their balanced equivalents do a search on Harris' unbalanced true-count theorem.
-----
- Multiparameter Systems Using Traditional Adjustments -
In the traditional method outlined by Griffin, the player adjusts the primary count according to the richness/poorness of the side-counted denomination/s. If you plan to use this method, you need to convert your multiparameter system into a single-parameter 'effects of removal' count. Griffin explains how to do this on pp.244-5. He also provides a simple-to-follow numerical example, so there is no need to repeat the explanation here. Once you have converted your multiparameter system appropriately, you simply take the correlation coefficient between the normal EORs and the 'tags' of the 'effects of removal' count.
-----
- Summary of Preliminaries -
The discussion so far has explained how to calculate correlation coefficients. This is all that is needed to calculate a system's BC and IC. However, for PE, what has been explained so far is merely a prerequisite. Once you have correlation coefficients for every hand - actually, by convention, the 71 decisions 10-16 v 2-A plus insurance (see Griffin, p.45) - you use these to determine PE.
----- ----- -----
CALCULATING PLAYING EFFICIENCY
Armed with correlation coefficients for every strategy decision, you are now ready to calculate PE. The method is explained, with examples, by Griffin in chapter 6, pp.88-90. To carry out the calculations, you will need to make constant reference to:
1) The UNLLI table (p.87).
2) Approximations of the probabilities of occurrence for each hand (endnote F, p.39).
-----
- The Basic Approach -
The method requires two sets of calculations to be made. Firstly, you need to calculate the gains (over basic strategy) that are attainable from 'perfect play' (such as could be carried out by a computer that kept track of all denominations separately and made optimal decisions based on the precise composition of the cards remaining). Secondly, you must calculate the gains from 'actual play' - ie, those attainable through 'best use' of your particular count system ('best use' in the sense that all indices and multiparameter adjustments, if applicable, are correctly determined and accurately employed). Because count systems devised for human use are necessarily approximate in nature, the gains from actual play will obviously be less than the gains from perfect play. PE is calculated simply as (Gains from Actual Play)/(Gains from Perfect Play); ie, it is an estimate of how much of the potential theoretical gain your count system can capture if employed flawlessly.
- The Specifics -
To calculate gains from perfect play, the steps are as follows:
1) Calculate b by taking the square root of [ss.(N-n)/13.(N-1).n)] and multiplying this amount by 51. Here ss is the sum of squares of the EORs for the particular hand under consideration (provided in column 12 of the EOR charts), N is the number of cards initially in the pack, and n is the number of cards remaining to be dealt (assumed to be 20).
2) Calculate z = m/b, where m is the full deck favourability of hitting (12-16) or doubling (10-11) and is provided in column 11 of the EOR charts.
3) Look up the UNLLI chart to find the corresponding number for z.
4) Multiply the number found in the UNLLI chart by b.
Steps 1 to 4 give you the conditional gain from perfect play.
5) Weight the conditional gain by the probability of the relevant hand occurring. For example, Griffin estimates the probability of being dealt 15 v T as (165/1326)(188/663), so you would multiply the conditional gain for 15 v T by this probability of occurrence. This will give you the weighted gain for this particular hand.
Repeat these 5 steps for all 71 decisions to get all the weighted gains. You then simply add them all together to estimate the gain from perfect play of these 71 decisions.
To calculate the gains from actual play, do exactly the same 5 steps as above, except that instead of using b in the calculations, you use b', where b' is simply b multiplied by the CC of your count system for the hand in question.
Once you have the gains from actual and perfect play, take their quotient to obtain your estimate of your count system's PE.
Re: Calculating BC, IC & PE of Multiparameter Syst
Posted by Mr.Black on 28-Nov-2002 09:50:58 (#1041)
wouldn't the number of cards remaining in the deck be "40"..not the "20" that you assumed?
Mr.Black
Re: Calculating BC, IC & PE of Multiparameter Syst
Posted by alienated on 28-Nov-2002 16:44:02 (#1051)
You can actually choose whatever number of cards remaining, n, you prefer. The smaller you make n, the greater the gains from 'perfect play' and 'actual play' - since you are considering strategy decisions at a deeper point in the deck. I chose n = 20 to follow Griffin (see bottom of p.45, top of p.46). Griffin writes that the choice of n does not significantly effect the relative performance of different systems.
Incidentally, I think I forgot to mention that all page references in my earlier post refer to the 6th (Elephant) edition of Griffin's TTOBJ.
Great post!
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Nov-2002 12:37:03 (#1044)
Hi alienated,
Thanks for your great post, I appreciate your sharing your talents on this site. Apparently your reference to this site was busted over on ap.com, so your post is currently hanging unattached. I don't quite get the post-busting requirements over at ap.com, but I wish them well in succeeding down the path they have chosen.
It is a curious world.
--Mayor
The Important Thing is.....
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Nov-2002 12:42:17 (#1045)
that Mr. Black got his answer ;>
yes, thxs very much...sorted! :) *NM*
Posted by Mr.Black on 29-Nov-2002 07:23:47 (#1055)
Re: Great post!--__PW_FORM_DATA_BOUNDARY__
Posted by Dave--__PW_FORM_DATA_BOUNDARY__ on 29-Nov-2002 16:23:00 (#1058)
Yeah, that was a good post. I saw something on BJmath or something about Moss's approximation formula yet could not understand it until this post. Actually, if you have anymore on finding PE for certain hands such as 15 v 10, or 16 v 10 and it isn't too much trouble, I know that I would certainly appreciate it. `
--__PW_FORM_DATA_BOUNDARY__
Worked examples
Posted by alienated on 30-Nov-2002 06:31:35 (#1062)
In these examples I estimate the PE for 14 v T of the following systems:
a) R1 = (0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1)
b) R1 + 2(78) = (0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 -1 -1)
c) R1 + 4(7) = (0 1 1 1 1 1 4 0 -1 -1)
d) R1 + (7) using traditional adjustments
The EORs for 14 v T are presented by Griffin, p.76:
-0.08___0.44___0.17___-0.26___-0.77___-1.41___-4.21___0.22___0.77___1.28___6.64___27.5
The last two entries are m (the full-deck favourability of hitting) and SSr (the sum of squares of the EORs), respectively.
We will refer back to these EORs constantly.
----- -----
First we need to find the gains from 'perfect play' (see Griffin, p.88):
STEP 1. b = 51[{ss(N - n)}/{13(N - 1)n}]^1/2 = 51[{27.5(51 - 20)}/{13(51 - 1)20}]^1/2 = 13.06
Here, ss is the sum of squares of the EORs for 14 v T (ie, 27.5), N is the number of cards in the full deck, n is the number of cards remaining. I have used N = 51, rather than N = 52, since a little more accuracy is gained by removing the dealer's upcard - in our example, a ten. (See Griffin, p.89.)
STEP 2. z = m/b = (6.64 + 1.28)/13.06 = .6064
Note that I have adjusted m, which is 6.64, for the removal of the dealer's ten upcard, to be consistent with the choice of N = 51. If you choose N = 52 during the first step, you should not adjust m in this second step.
STEP 3. From the UNLLI table (Griffin, p.87), the corresponding value for .6064 lies somewhere between the entry for .60 (.1687) and .62 (.1633). It wouldn't hurt just to use the closest entry (the one for .60), or you could take the midpoint between the values for .60 and .62. I usually extrapolate: .32(.1633) + .68(.1687) = .1670.
STEP 4. .1670b = 2.1807
This is the conditional gain (in %).
Referring to Griffin, note F, p.39, the frequency of 14 v T is (188/663) x (160/1326) = .0342.
STEP 5. (2.1807)(.0342) = .0746.
So the maximum potential gain for 14 v T, using 'perfect play', is .0746% (assuming, of course, 20 cards remain in a single deck with Griffin's benchmark rules).
----- -----
a) 14 v T using R1 = (0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1)
We need to calculate the correlation coefficient, CC, between R1's tags and the EORs for 14 v T. SSc (the sum of squares of R1's tags) is 10. SSr (the sum of squares of the EORs) is 27.5. The inner product, IP, of R1's tags and the EORs for 14 v T is 7.72. So:
CC = IP/[(SSr)(SSc)]^1/2 = 7.72/[(27.5)(10)]^1/2 = .4655
Now we can estimate the gains from 'actual play' using R1 for 14 v T. We follow the same steps as we did for 'perfect play', except we use b' instead of b.
STEP 1. b' = CC.b = (.4655)(13.06) = 6.0794
STEP 2. z = m/b' = 7.92/6.0794 = 1.3028
STEP 3. UNLLI: .86(.0456) + .14(.0437) = .0453
STEP 4. .0453b' = .2756
STEP 5. .2756 x (188/663) x (160/1326) = (.2756)(.0342) = .0094
So the gain for 'actual play' using R1 alone is .0094%.
Overall playing efficiency is the sum of gains from 'actual play' for all hands divided by the sum of gains from 'perfect play' for all hands. That is,
PE = (gains from actual play)/(gains from perfect play)
Similarly, the PE for an individual hand is simply the gain from actual play of this hand divided by the gain from perfect play of this hand:
PE (14 v T) = .0094/.0746 = .1260 = 12.60%
Obviously, any count that excludes the 7 will perform very poorly for this decision.
----- -----
b) 14 v T using R1 + 2(78) = (0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 -1 -1)
To calculate the relevant correlation coefficient, we first need to convert R1 + 2(78) into its balanced equivalent, x. Since u = 16, we need to add -u/52 = -16/52 = -4/13 = -.3077 to each tag:
x = (-.3077 .692 .692 .692 .692 .692 1.692 1.692 -1.3077 -1.3077)
The sum of squares of x is 16.77. The correlation coefficient between x and the EORs is:
CC = 15.70/[(27.5)(16.77)]^1/2 = .7310
Turning to the gains from 'actual play':
STEP 1. b' = CC.b = .7310(13.06) = 9.55
STEP 2. z = m/b' = .8293
STEP 3. UNLLI: .1141
STEP 4. .1141b' = 1.0900
STEP 5. (1.0900)(.0342) = .0373
So PE = .0373/.0746 = .50 = 50%
----- -----
c) 14 v T using R1 + 4(7) = (0 1 1 1 1 1 4 0 -1 -1)
The balanced equivalent, y, is:
y = (-.3077 .692 .692 .692 .692 .692 3.692 -.3077 -1.3077 -1.3077)
The sum of squares of y is 24.76. The correlation coefficient between y and the EORs is:
CC = 24.55/[(27.5)(24.76)]^1/2 = .8886
The gains from 'actual play':
STEP 1. b' = CC.b = .8886(13.06) = 11.61
STEP 2. z = m/b' = .6822
STEP 3. UNLLI: .1473
STEP 4. .1473b' = 1.7097
STEP 5. (1.7097)(.0342) = .0585
PE = .0585/.0746 = .7841 = 78.41%
----- -----
d) 14 v T + (7) with traditional (rich/poor) adjustments
This case is somewhat more involved. Before calculating the relevant correlation coefficient, we need to derive a special 'effects of removal' count. The procedure is outlined by Griffin, pp.244-5.
The 'tags' for this special 'EOR' count are derived using the following steps (my numbering here is slightly different to Griffin's):
1. Assign the side-counted card (the 7) its correct EOR.
That is, E7 = -4.21
2a. TEMPORARILY assign to cards designated as small by the primary count the average of the EORs for these cards.
For us, R1 treats 2-6s as small. So we set:
E2 = E3 = E4 = E5 = E6 = (.44 + .17 - .26 - .77 - 1.41)/5 = -.37
2b. TEMPORARILY assign to cards designated as big by the primary count the average of the EORs for these cards.
For us, R1 treats 9 and tens as big. So we set:
E9 = ET = [.77 + 4(1.28)]/5 = 1.18.
3. Assign to any noncounted cards the sum of the J side-counted cards' EORs divided by J-13.
For us, the ace and 8 are not counted. J = 1 (only one card is side-counted). So we set:
EA = E8 = -4.21/(1 - 13) = .35
4. We now need to adjust our 'temporary' values for bigs and smalls, calculated in 2a and 2b. We do this by subtracting our noncounted cards' 'tags' from their true EORs, summing the resulting amounts together, and dividing this total by the number of denominations included in the primary count. (!) The result must then be added to each of our 'temporary' values for bigs and smalls. (This is actually much simpler than it reads.)
For us, we subtract .35 from the ace's EOR, and subtract .35 from the 8's EOR, add the amounts together and divide by 10 (the number of denominations included in our primary count, R1). That is,
(-.08 + .22 - .35 - .35)/10 = -.06
We now add this amount to our temporary big and small values to get our 'tags' for these cards. That is,
Small tags = -.37 - .06 = -.43
Big tags = 1.18 - .06 = 1.12
So finally we can write our special 'EOR' count, z, for 14 v T as:
z = (.35 -.43 -.43 -.43 -.43 -.43 -4.21 .35 1.12 1.12)
The sum of squares of z is 25.1656. Now we can calculate the correlation coefficient between z's tags and the true EORs:
CC = 25.1568/[(27.5)(25.1656)]^1/2 = .9563
From here it's all down hill. Turning once more to gains from 'actual play':
STEP 1. b' = .9563(13.06) = 12.49
STEP 2. z = m/b' = 7.92/12.49 = .6341
STEP 3. UNLLI: .1591
STEP 4. .1591b' = 1.9872
STEP 5. (1.9872)(.0342) = .0680
PE = .0680/.0746 = .9115 = 91.15%
The PE using a (7) side count with traditional adjustments is higher than the PE using the unbalanced R1 + 4(7) because +4 is not the optimal tag for the 7 when using R1. The optimal (7) adjustment is almost 6. (Griffin shows how to calculate the (7) adjustment for hi-opt I on p.64.) I chose a tag of +4 to keep the 'unbalance' in examples b) and c) the same, for illustrative purposes.
Re: Calculating BC, IC & PE of Multiparameter Syst
Posted by zengrifter on 02-Dec-2002 23:56:58 (#1106)
Would this (your post) prove my theory - that ZEN w/7s multiparam-side is stronger than HO2 w/As betting-side (assuming 50+ indices and a typical play-all 2D or wong 6D game)? zg
Re: Calculating BC, IC & PE of Multiparameter Syst
Posted by alienated on 03-Dec-2002 19:55:14 (#1154)
The post shows how to calculate PE, IC and BC for any system. The relative importance of these three measures will depend on the game.
Note that the conventional PE measure is calculated implicitly assuming flat betting.
To test a system more fully, you might like to: (i) weight gains by bet size, and (ii) calculate gains at different penetration levels (values of n) and average the results.
Note on (i):
The idea here is to weight gains by the average bet placed when the relevant strategy departure is made. For instance, 12 v 5 calls for departures from basic strategy only during negative counts, where our bets will be zero or minimum (say, 1 unit). Thus, although the flat-bet gains for 12 v 5 are high (and therefore quite important in small spread single-deck games), the gains in a 6-deck game will be relatively unimportant (since we'll be betting very little, if at all). On the other hand, the gains for plays with positive index numbers become more significant when bet spread is factored in, because departures from basic strategy will occur when bigger bets are placed. To account for bet spread, you need the distribution of true counts for the game you play, and the bets placed at each true count. These things will tell you the average bet for each departure.
Note on (ii):
For a 5/6 game you might calculate gains for n = 52, 65, 78, 91, 104, ..., 284, then average them. A quicker method makes use of Simpson's Rule (described in Schlesinger's _Blackjack Attack_, 2nd Ed., p.66).
Incidentally, Schlesinger used steps (i) and (ii) in deriving his I18.
Regarding the relative performance of Zen + (7) and HOII + (A) for betting only, I haven't done the necessary calculations. The latter has a higher BC and IC. The former has a higher PE. The (7) side count will help Zen's performance in strategy decisions, but add little for betting and insurance. I haven't calculated the PE of Zen + (7), but my guess is that it would be about .70-.71. This guess is based on calculations I have done for similar counts (ie, 2-level counts that give the 7 a +1 tag). For instance, I have previously calculated that using a (7) side count raises the efficiency of HOII from .67 to .75.
Remember that BC, IC and PE calculations implicitly assume that systems are used flawlessly - that is, all indices and side-count adjustments are calculated correctly, and employed accurately in actual play. Thus the higher theoretical BC of HOII + (A) is only fully realised if all adjustments are made accurately; likewise the higher theoretical PE of Zen + (7).
I can't (or choose not to)...
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 23:17:58 (#1174)
... do the math! z(a math-challenged)g
Another way to figure PE
Posted by T-Hopper on 10-Dec-2002 20:03:14 (#1464)
Run 3 simulations of a given game.
A = Flat bet edge Basic Strategy
B = Flat bet edge Count System
C = Flat bet edge Perfect Play
PE = (B - A) / (C - A)
This is the result that the calculations above are trying to approximate. Not many simulators can do this, but John Gwynn figured PE this way nearly 20 years ago.
Nice post *NM*
Posted by alienated on 11-Dec-2002 17:40:14 (#1538)
And another
Posted by T-Hopper on 11-Dec-2002 21:36:54 (#1547)
I can't remember the source (Dalton? Griffin? Snyder? all 3?) but someone came up with a set of approximate playing EORs. You figure the correlation and make an adjustment so that a 1.00 correlation gives you about .70 PE. This works well as a very fast approximation for a single parameter count.
Yes, a great time saver...
Posted by alienated on 13-Dec-2002 00:54:10 (#1610)
... for single parameter systems. I first saw this formula (or a version of it) in Clarke Cant's BJ Therapy. I don't know for sure who first developed it, but I really like the paragraph Clarke wrote to introduce it:
"The CC [correlation coefficient, not Clarke Cant!] is not used directly for estimating the PE, but is used in a formula that Arnold Snyder has stated several times came from his jazz mode of doing math, with a model that made Peter Griffin cringe, but which gives very good estimates never the less. Snyder developed predictive effects of removal that derive from a count Griffin developed to give optimal single parameter results with values ranging up to 180. Here we have another instance of a math model that gives good results but in no way precise in its ingredients, and which also gives results which are accurate enough that no one will ever be able to feel any impact of their errors." (BJ Therapy, ch. 3)
Clarke then presents the special EORs, from ace to ten, as (.25 .30 .43 .62 .85 .61 .58 .22 -.26 -.90). These do indeed appear to come from the TTOBJ, 6th ed., p.46, where Griffin lists the following 'system': (51 60 85 125 169 122 117 43 -52 -180) with PE of .703. So the special EORs are basically Griffin's tags divided by 200. Clarke then gives the formula as:
PE = [1.405 - (1 - CC)]*CC/2
which works very nicely. So maybe the credit should correctly go to Snyder? I'm not sure, but I notice Snyder includes Clarke in his list of acknowledgements for BBIBJ, so maybe Clarke knows. (?)
Re: Yes, a great time saver...
Posted by T-Hopper on 13-Dec-2002 22:48:05 (#1672)
This can be simplified:
PE = [1.405 - (1 - CC)]*CC/2
to:
PE = (CC + .405) * CC/2
This is one of many formulas that can be much easier to understand after a little junior-high pre-algebra is applied.
Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 11:30:24 (#1129)
Please not that the Uston version of Hi Opt II is not a side counted Ace program like the original Hi Opt II was (A -2 and two other + cards had to be kept track of at +1 to balance!)
"Would this (your post) prove my theory - that ZEN w/7s multiparam-side is stronger than HO2 w/As betting-side (assuming 50+ indices and a typical play-all 2D or wong 6D game)? zg"
further more, using side 7's and the Uston version of Hi Opt II with just as many indices, U7 Hi Opt II would still end up being the top dog.
ZEN is the lazy mans Hi Opt II, and adding side sevens defeats the purpose of the idea of ZEN, and puts the complications back into Hi Opt II that were done away with by Ken Uston.
Most of Rob's (above) is...
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 13:08:48 (#1131)
... news to me. zg
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II
Posted by Mr.Black on 03-Dec-2002 15:21:26 (#1136)
Please explain to me Uston's version of the Hi-Opt II....must admit I have never heard of it! What are the point values etc?
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 22:49:53 (#1170)
"Please explain to me Uston's version of the Hi-Opt II....must admit I have never heard of it! What are the point values etc?"
I call it "U" Hi Opt II because it was the way Uston's team used the Hi Opt II count. The point values are the same. Let me quote from Million $ BJ:
'As we will see, professional level systems are based on the identical ingredients. Thus, this chapter (8) can be used by the student of Uston APC, Hi Opt I or II, the Revere APC, or other counts as an assist in preparing for casino play.'
When a half a deck has been dealt we should see 2 Aces. If not, we are 2 Aces rich. If we count a certain card(s) to offset the Ace and those cards have not been played either, then we do not know that we are 2 rich. This is the flaw of the original Humble Hi Opt II. By expecting the Ace to be non random, and expecting two other cards to be random at the same time defeats the entire exercise.
Re: Hi Opt II vs Hi Opt II
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 23:13:11 (#1173)
Which is exactly why both Uston and Snyder concurred as early as mid80s that HO2 and ALL OTHER Ace-neutral counts were "OBSOLETE" (see ASnyder BJF'83 'The Best Count' and KUston 'Uston on BJ'86) - NOT HUMBLE and virtually no one else (sans maybe 5 counters in the world) actively utilize the seconday-Ace-count overlay, without which AO2, HO2, and their ilk, do NOT perform relative to their computer-indicated SCORES... they may not even perform on par with 'Ace-reckonned level-2s like ZEN and RPC, and they do NOT meet the SCOREs of the latter IF the latter ustilize MORE INDICES - so as a former HO2 160i#s A-7 multiparam practioner I laugh EVERYTIME some newbie decides that he/she is going to learn HO2 for its "superior SCORE" - newbies, work SMART NOT HARD! zg
Re: Hi Opt II vs Hi Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 03-Dec-2002 23:36:41 (#1176)
New players should start with Hi Low and take it from there, I agree. Unfortunately for me, I was one of these people that saw stars when I learned the Hi Opt II. I learned it because I saw that it was equal to Uston's APC from the book M$BJ and was easier to master. It's been good to me. The fact that I have been watching for Ace imbalances naturally gave me an advantage once I got into tracking etc. Each step was preparation for the next.
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 10-Dec-2002 20:20:14 (#1465)
This method was suggested by Arnold Snyder, not Ken Uston. And it works just as well as the ace side count for betting. See the link below.
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 10-Dec-2002 22:44:24 (#1483)
Chapter 8 M$BJ
"As we will see, professional level systems are based on the identical ingredients. Thus, this chapter can be used by the student of UAPC, Hi Opt I & II, Revere APC, or other counts as an assist in preparing for casino play."
1981
I have AS article printed out here. What is the date on it TH?
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II *LINK*
Posted by T-Hopper on 10-Dec-2002 23:44:09 (#1488)
"As we will see, professional level systems are based on the identical ingredients. Thus, this chapter can be used by the student of UAPC, Hi Opt I & II, Revere APC, or other counts as an assist in preparing for casino play."
That's not a description of the secondary count. Uston is telling players who have already learned a professional-level system not to skip that chapter. Here's what Snyder said:
For those players who want to count aces, for whatever reason, I will present the best ace-counting methods I know. In BJF II #3, I reviewed a book by C. Ionescu Tulcea titled A Book on Casino Blackjack (1982). In my review, I mentioned that although Tulcea's counting systems were presented impractically for non-mathematicians, I liked his method of side-counting aces. What he proposed was to keep the ace count as a balanced count, balancing the aces vs. specified low cards, then adjusting the primary running count by adding the two counts together.
...
The simplest count system which would lend itself well to this approach is the Hi-Opt I count: Tens = -1; 3s, 4s, 5s, and 6s = +1. For your ace side-count, you would count aces as -1, and deuces as +1.
...
But what if you are capable of using a multi-level counting system, and maintaining a secondary count. Okay, blackjack fiends, this is how to ace-adjust the Hi-Opt II Count system. Your primary count is Hi-Opt II: 10s = -2; 2s, 3s, 6s and 7s = +1; 4s and 5s = +2. Your secondary count is: Aces = -2; 3s and 6s = + 1.
...
The nice thing about this counting system is that when you make your ace-adjustment, which is done exactly as with the Hi-Opt I Count, by adding your two running counts together, your ace-adjusted Hi-Opt II Count becomes Revere's Level II Point Count, with a betting correlation of .99.
One more comment
Posted by T-Hopper on 11-Dec-2002 00:06:55 (#1494)
Peter Griffin occasionally referred to side counts as "secondary counts". I've chosen to use that term exclusively for counts such as the ace-deuce, where there are both + and - values. With a regular side count, you are just counting the number of cards of the rank or ranks seen or remaining. I prefer to start my ace side count at 4 x decks and count down to 0, unlike the method recommended by Uston and Humble (start at 0 and count aces seen).
Re: One more comment
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 11-Dec-2002 09:14:28 (#1511)
"Peter Griffin occasionally referred to side counts as "secondary counts". I've chosen to use that term exclusively for counts such as the ace-deuce, where there are both + and - values. With a regular side count, you are just counting the number of cards of the rank or ranks seen or remaining. I prefer to start my ace side count at 4 x decks and count down to 0, unlike the method recommended by Uston and Humble (start at 0 and count aces seen)."
RM-oh my goodness! How did I know that you also side count Aces?? ;> I'm sure that I have not put in as many hours as you have at the tables and I am able to know the density not by counting up to 4 or down from 4 and just by seeing the discard tray and remembering what I have seen so far. Whether counting down from 4 or up to 4 it is all about training your mind to know the Ace density of the decks.
And I hope you are not saying "do as I say, and not as I do" which is fine for new players, but not for people that want something a little more powerful than an A included count.
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 11-Dec-2002 08:59:15 (#1509)
"As we will see, professional level systems are based on the identical ingredients. Thus, this chapter can be used by the student of UAPC, Hi Opt I & II, Revere APC, or other counts as an assist in preparing for casino play."
#That's not a description of the secondary count. Uston is telling players who have already learned a professional-level system not to skip that chapter.
RM-Later in the book he shows players how to keep track of Aces without using this side count, and that is why I call it "U" Hi Opt II. 1981
Here's what Snyder said:
For those players who want to count aces, for whatever reason, I will present the best ace-counting methods I know. In BJF II #3, I reviewed a book by C. Ionescu Tulcea titled A Book on Casino Blackjack (1982). In my review, I mentioned that although Tulcea's counting systems were presented impractically for non-mathematicians, I liked his method of side-counting aces. What he proposed was to keep the ace count as a balanced count, balancing the aces vs. specified low cards, then adjusting the primary running count by adding the two counts together.
...
The simplest count system which would lend itself well to this approach is the Hi-Opt I count: Tens = -1; 3s, 4s, 5s, and 6s = +1. For your ace side-count, you would count aces as -1, and deuces as +1.
...
But what if you are capable of using a multi-level counting system, and maintaining a secondary count. Okay, blackjack fiends, this is how to ace-adjust the Hi-Opt II Count system. Your primary count is Hi-Opt II: 10s = -2; 2s, 3s, 6s and 7s = +1; 4s and 5s = +2. Your secondary count is: Aces = -2; 3s and 6s = + 1.
...
The nice thing about this counting system is that when you make your ace-adjustment, which is done exactly as with the Hi-Opt I Count, by adding your two running counts together, your ace-adjusted Hi-Opt II Count becomes Revere's Level II Point Count, with a betting correlation of .99.
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II
Posted by T-Hopper on 11-Dec-2002 13:49:41 (#1525)
You're misssing the whole point. With Snyder's method, you work a little bit harder on the counting, and save a LOT of trouble by having 2 balanced counts to work with and no "expected number of aces" difficulty to deal with every single hand.
No he isn't...
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Dec-2002 17:12:32 (#1535)
RM-Snyder is still talking about using the antiquated version of the side count in 1982.
-------------------
Re: No he isn't...
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 11-Dec-2002 17:23:41 (#1536)
Then why is he saying this if he is using Uston's quarter-deck strategy?
"But what if you are capable of using a multi-level counting system, and maintaining a secondary count. Okay, blackjack fiends, this is how to ace-adjust the Hi-Opt II Count system. Your primary count is Hi-Opt II: 10s = -2; 2s, 3s, 6s and 7s = +1; 4s and 5s = +2. Your secondary count is: Aces = -2; 3s and 6s = + 1."
SIGH! *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 11-Dec-2002 18:07:18 (#1541)
(NO GOOD ROBSTER)
Posted by zengrifter on 10-Dec-2002 23:51:13 (#1492)
No good Robster, you clearly have a short and med-term memory deficit - Uston changed his thinking and by 85 he agreed with Snyder and said "HO2 and other Ace-Neutral systems are obsolete" - page 29 Uston on BJ'86 zg
Nice to see the sight back up and running!
Posted by SammyBoy on 28-Nov-2002 12:31:54 (#1043)
Hopefully it will be up for a long time to come!
Re: Nice to see the sight back up and running!
Posted by The Mayor on 28-Nov-2002 12:42:37 (#1046)
Thanks for your good wishes!
Creating and moderating this site has been a far tougher task than I ever anticipated, and my wife often wonders why I devote so much time to it. Among other things, there are personality clashes among well respected posters here, cross-site flame wars, and posters who insist on violating every posting guideline they can.
Still, I honestly enjoy the feeling of community here, and trust that with just the most modest corrections from now on, this conversation will be a productive and fun one.
--Mayor
Doing a Great Job
Posted by Rob McGarvey on 28-Nov-2002 13:06:45 (#1048)
Keep at it, you have the knack.
Rob McGarvey
Ever the optimist
Posted by scobee 1 on 01-Dec-2002 09:55:04 (#1072)
Glad to see you are back. This moderation thing is the wave of the present..... like you say, this community should be fun to be part of and not a battlefield of personalities. I have no problem with differing opinions, but sometimes the attacks and consequent rebuttals are tiresome.
By the way....I think that Snyder's 'High-Low Lite' indices are the easiest to remember and have merit since they sacrifice practically nothing to a player's PE over the 'catch 22.' But that is another thread....
Congratulations for persistence and prudence, Eliot.
Regards,
scobee
Re: Nice to see the site back up and running!
Posted by Slowhand on 28-Nov-2002 12:49:10 (#1047)
Welcome back, Eliot. Glad to see things back up and operational. Hang in there.
Good Luck,
Slowhand
Re: Nice to see the site back up and running!
Posted by ace on 30-Nov-2002 15:15:19 (#1063)
Here here, welcome back one and all.
Interesting Barrings *LINK*
Posted by Buck Riviera on 29-Nov-2002 01:06:54 (#1053)
Detriot's Greektown casino recently barred 30 VP players and it got local press coverage with the original story reported here: http://www.detnews.com/2002/business/0211/25/a01-19565.htm
The story was also the subject of an opinion column (follow link at the bottom of this post). I mention all of this because there has been past discussion in the BJ community to the effect that if there was enough publicity about the practice of barring that public outrage would bring it to a halt.
I personally think that is naive thinking but perhaps following the Detriot story will be instructive in that regard.
Buick
2nd Attempt
Posted by phantom007 on 29-Nov-2002 13:34:36 (#1057)
I was trying to post "VP Winners (and Card Counters) are GOOD for CASINO PROFITS!"
The IRS says "give me 39.5% of your income", and the State says "give me 9% of your income", and then the County and City says "give me 7% of the roughly 50% that you have left to spend". Even professional PLOPPIES avoid this game (when possible).
Now, Mrs. X, from Detroit, spends 50+ hours/week at the VP machines, 9:6 of course, and only when the 5-coin Royal pays out a certain amount, and plays 5 coins only, and all of the time, and in net, eeks out a few hundred $ profit per week. Before mandatory tax withholdings at this level.
We envy her, and we play! We play the 8:5 machines. We play with sub-optimal strategies. And when our $ are low, we drop back from 5 coins played, and thus, drop back from most any potential advantage that we did have.
AND THE CASINO WINS!
From memory, the book "Gambling for a Living" by Slansky and Malmouth, estimates that there are between 300 and 1,000 people currently making a regular F/T 6-figure income by playing BJ. By logic, there are several hundred thousand that are profiting much less. Thus there are likely 10-20 million people, who are, in net, losing. Yet they play, because they know there are a few who win.
SO, THE CASINO WINS AGAIN!
I know this from personal experience. My FREE LIMO ride from the LV Hotel to the airport cost me $17,000. plus a $20. tip for the driver.
Re: 2nd Attempt
Posted by The Mayor on 29-Nov-2002 16:33:02 (#1059)
Hmmm... I don't agree with this statement: I know this from personal experience. My FREE LIMO ride from the LV Hotel to the airport cost me $17,000. plus a $20. tip for the driver.
In fact, if you are playing with an advantage, you should not be looking at any of this based on the results of one trip. I have many friends who win/lose 10K or more on a daily basis, but are long term winners. I encourage you to view your $17k loss the same way. After you have 1000 hours in playing at that level, let us know how much that Limo ride really cost you.
--Mayor
That is the Point.
Posted by phantom007 on 30-Nov-2002 20:55:13 (#1066)
I was not playing at an "advantage". I suggest that many, if not the majority, would retreat to Keno after such a hit. I took it as a signal that more practice and study were required...this was in my "Basic Strategy Progressive Days".
I was trying to point out that, in my opinion, Card Counters are GREAT for the Casino's bottom line, in that from the 10,000 who attempt it, only 100 do it right, and about 5 have the Bankroll resources to survive the downward fluctuations, and only about 1 in 10,000 hits the Casinos for 6-figure $.
The fact that there are a few who win big $, keep the rest playing, and unfortunately, losing, in an attempt to attain this goal.
Shuffle Tracking computer
Posted by phidiasv on 30-Nov-2002 15:31:21 (#1064)
I was wondering if anyone here had any experience with wearable blackjack computers. I have spent the last six months developing a shuffle tracking program that can be used to predict the cards coming out of the shoe by analyzing the shuffle. It achieves accuracy of about 25-30% of the cards in a shoe. In addition, it also predicts the hole card of the dealer with 80-90% accuracy. I am looking for a way to input data into the device and receive output about the playing decisions.
Thank you for any input.
Re: Shuffle Tracking computer
Posted by zengrifter on 03-Dec-2002 20:08:58 (#1157)
Input: toe-operated micro-switches
Output: ankle-strapped morse-code electro-shock
Location of computer: In the shoe
Source: Ken Uston's 'Million Dollar BJ'
For interesting additional data on casino-wearable computers see this board "World's First Wearable Computer" also Thomas Bass' 'The Eudemonic Pie'
zg
Re: Shuffle Tracking computer
Posted by phidiasv on 04-Dec-2002 13:35:24 (#1196)
Thanks for the feedback. The only problem is that I need to input a lot of information. I need to input rank and suit of each card played, the actions of each player at the table, and the actions of the dealer. I believe that this information is necessary because I need to input the cards as they come out of the shoe, but need the computer to know how they go into the discard tray. I have not read the book, but will certainly give it a look. I wonder how many bits the system is capable of representing? The information that I need entered may have to be divided between a team of two at a table.
Re: Shuffle Tracking computer
Posted by Buick Riviera on 04-Dec-2002 21:14:29 (#1219)
Before you go too far with this, the use of devices in Nevada (and most other regulated casinos) will costitue one or more felonies. Neither our host or any ethical advantage player considers cheating "advantage play". In Nevada at least two statutes would be violated. Each are felonies:
NRS 465.070 It is unlawful for any person:
***
2. To place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing or decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or outcome.
***
This statute, a little more specific, would also be violated by using such a device:
NRS 465.075 Use of device for calculating probabilities. It is unlawful for any person at a licensed gaming establishment to use, or possess with the intent to use, any device to assist:
1. In projecting the outcome of the game;
2. In keeping track of the cards played;
3. In analyzing the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. In analyzing the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,except as permitted by the commission.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Buick
Re: Shuffle Tracking computer WHERE?
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 21:41:30 (#1222)
WHERE is using a hidden BJ computer NOT cheating? zg
Nowhere that I know of *NM*
Posted by Buick Riviera on 04-Dec-2002 21:57:49 (#1223)
I mean "illegal" *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 04-Dec-2002 22:15:29 (#1225)
Re: Shuffle Tracking computer
Posted by phidiasv on 04-Dec-2002 22:02:29 (#1224)
I understand that it would be illegal to wear one of these into a casino. I wasn't planning on waltzing into LV with one of these strapped to my leg. I was only asking about the way to input that much information into a system. The system the computer would use would require much more information than the rank of the card. I have a workable system on my home PC. And, since on-line casinos don't hand shuffle their cards, I thought I would give some thought to what it would take to get a system like this working in a real situation. It was MOSTLY for academic curiosity.
Thanks for the input.
NOT illegal in all venues *NM*
Posted by zengrifter on 05-Dec-2002 08:19:23 (#1228)
English
Français
Italiano