Error at WizardofOdds

[BoSox]

Put another way, what is the player advantage & standard deviation using only the illustrious 18 vs. the risk adverse version of those numbers

You can find most of what you are looking for in the following tables in Don's book. Table5.1 The"I 18 and Fab 4" on page 62. Table13.11 The " Catch22" Indices and table 13.12 "Comparative Study of EV-Maximizing and Risk-Averse Approaches" Both tables are on page 375.

When you do not see something listed in the charts, such as the "Catch 22" Indices, you can rest assured that it was not missed by mistake. If the play is not listed it is because of the lack of importance period. Don S, takes his work seriously and did not waste space in his great book.

 

[London Colin]

I have 16 vs. 10 with TC at -2 and it is telling me to stand, but in all 3 cases (Wong, BJA and "Risk Adverse") it says to to hit. How do you explain that....is Wizard wrong?

In the Wizard's description it says -

By clicking "analyze" you can determine the odds for any situation according to a perfect combinatorial analysis.

It appears that the strategy corrections (if enabled) are based on the same, perfect figures. That's not entirely helpful for a card-counting training tool, since there can be times when perfect play contradicts the index play.

I didn't verify that the figures it is producing are correct; you would have to keep track of the exact deck composition and compare with the figures from another combinatorial analysis program.

 

[SlyPooch]

In the Wizard's description it says -

It appears that the strategy corrections (if enabled) are based on the same, perfect figures. That's not entirely helpful for a card-counting training tool, since there can be times when perfect play contradicts the index play.

I didn't verify that the figures it is producing are correct; you would have to keep track of the exact deck composition and compare with the figures from another combinatorial analysis program.

why would they contradict?

 

[JohnCrover]

Whether or not to hit my 16 vs a 10 at TC-2 or to surrender it...these are the questions that keep me up at night!

 

[KewlJ]

At a TC -2, my preference would be...

jumping to a new game, preferably at the next table, in the same pit, different pit in same casino, nearby casino, or not-so nearby casino, in that order. Deciding how to minimize the negative expectation is far down on my list. A result of zero (not playing) is always preferable to minimizing a losing situation to me.

Minimizing negative expectation rounds, better known as the aggressive wong out, will also allow you to play with a smaller spread or other betting cover techniques, which in turn can increase longevity many times over.

 

[SlyPooch]

So nobody knows why perfect play contradicts index play?

 

[LC Larry]

So nobody knows why perfect play contradicts index play?

Probably because index play is just an estimate and perfect play take into account every single card that been used. Don or someone can correct this if wrong.

Take 9/6 Jacks or Better for example. Basic strategy is to hold 3 cards to a royal over 4 to a flush. But perfect strategy will have you hold the 4 card flush IF the 3 ROY consists of an Ace AND a 10, AND the fifth card is another 10 or a card that would fill a straight. Example: A♠️ Q♠️10♠️ 7♠️ J ♦️ or A♥️ Q♥️ 10♥️ 7♥️ 10♣️

 

[London Colin]

Probably because index play is just an estimate and perfect play take into account every single card that been used

Basically, yes.

Card counting, whatever system(s) of tags and indices you use, has estimation at its heart.

The HiLo tags are designed to give an estimate of the pre-deal EV. And that estimate itself has the potential to be far enough out to cause you to size your bet wrongly in some situations. Using those same betting tags as the basis for strategy decisions adds another level of distortion.

Ultimately, I guess the point is that deviating from basic strategy in accordance with an index play will not always yield the correct decision; it's just that it will do so more often than sticking to basic strategy will.

In the two specific examples that were posted -

Doubling 10 v 10 with a TC of +3 :- I guess the main unknown factor will be the ratio of aces to tens hidden in that +3 excess of tens and aces per deck.
Standing on 16 v 10 with TC at -2 :- Similarly, if a greater than average proportion of aces, rather than tens, has been removed to give the -2 count, then that favours standing. There might also be an excess of 6s, 7s, 8s, or 9s that the count tells us nothing about.

 

[DSchles]

I did find chart on 375....Here is another example....I have 16 vs. 10 with TC at -2 and it is telling me to stand, but in all 3 cases (Wong, BJA and "Risk Adverse" [AVERSE!!]) it says to to hit. How do you explain that....is Wizard wrong?

You're really jumping around all over the map. This thread has degenerated into free-thought, not sticking to one topic. Confusing and not good.

Shack's application apparently has not permitted you to enter index values that you use personally to make the playing departures. You can, of course, do this in CV products. Instead, Shack appears to be using perfect deck analysis of cards remaining to be played, to give the proper decision. You can't be surprised that such decisions can and will differ from what H-Lo will tell you to do, especially considering Hi-Lo's overall playing efficiency of "only" 55%, compared to Shack's apparent 100%.

On the other hand, Shack's application really isn't very helpful for a counter who wants to practice. His advice may often be at odds with the way we mere mortals have to play the game. So, his app is more of an intellectual curiosity as it is an aid to card counters.

Do you understand?

Don

 

[SlyPooch]

I wish we could have gotten here sooner, but fair enough

 

[BoSox]

Whether or not to hit my 16 vs a 10 at TC-2 or to surrender it...these are the questions that keep me up at night!

John, all due respect there is a lot wrong with your thinking in that above quote. The hand should have a waiting bet out and should be meaningless in the overall scheme of the session. Somehow you are putting your priorities in all the wrong places. Make the right play regardless of its unit size, PROVIDED YOU ARE NOT OVERBETTING YOUR ROLL. Sounds like you are overbetting and worrying about playing hands that you should have possibly wonged out earlier on, based on how many cards remained in the shoe.