I am making an educated guess as to how Avenger proposes to keep RoR the same for your bankroll while increasing your spread. He may be in a position were bankroll is really not much of a factor for RoR in the same way that increasing spread with the same max bet was not a consideration for you because you were already at table minimum. If he was considering your position and bankroll's effect of RoR I believe he mentioned sticking to optimal betting. I would get Flash's opinion. He has been helping people with small bankrolls and other newbie considerations I am sure he can help you sort this out.
Long term profit is seeing the big picture
- Thread starter tthree
- Start date
same goal different means
I agree with three's theme to play to promote longevity. I would emphasize; three mentions, this method:
Bet conservatively, this will keep your bets lower and improve one's chances for success by lowering ror. If one is now at a betting level they like then don't raise bets until at least 1/4 to 1/8 Kelly so u can stay at that level. Don't raise your bets into the teeth of heat until your bank warrants it. By being conservative you lower heat and increase chances for overall success.
Real longevity!
I agree with three's theme to play to promote longevity. I would emphasize; three mentions, this method:
Bet conservatively, this will keep your bets lower and improve one's chances for success by lowering ror. If one is now at a betting level they like then don't raise bets until at least 1/4 to 1/8 Kelly so u can stay at that level. Don't raise your bets into the teeth of heat until your bank warrants it. By being conservative you lower heat and increase chances for overall success.
Real longevity!
to assume r
Look at the EV of each sim. If you can get a job that pays more then half, the job is objectively better. Include car expense of $.50 per mile when comparing. You have to make twice at bj to justify risk (CE of honest work)
Do you cut your bets on losses? Then cut your EV by half which effects the above.
Do you have a job where you can add to bank consistently? If so then you need to bet so you make twice your job. Include expenses in this comparison. Once making more then twice your job at bj don't raise stakes aggressively so u can stay at that level.
The sims are fine, round some of the bets down for real world. Ex. In the real world can bounce a $35 bet around from 25, 30, 35 and occasional 40, higher with shoe depth and the "Flow".
Oh, probably should cut the ramp at TC 10.
Wong in when you can.
I think one should start with an optimal 13.53% ror bet ramp.
Look at the EV of each sim. If you can get a job that pays more then half, the job is objectively better. Include car expense of $.50 per mile when comparing. You have to make twice at bj to justify risk (CE of honest work)
Do you cut your bets on losses? Then cut your EV by half which effects the above.
Do you have a job where you can add to bank consistently? If so then you need to bet so you make twice your job. Include expenses in this comparison. Once making more then twice your job at bj don't raise stakes aggressively so u can stay at that level.
The sims are fine, round some of the bets down for real world. Ex. In the real world can bounce a $35 bet around from 25, 30, 35 and occasional 40, higher with shoe depth and the "Flow".
Oh, probably should cut the ramp at TC 10.
Wong in when you can.
I think one should start with an optimal 13.53% ror bet ramp.
Last edited:
You will definitely not. Be careful that the N0 calculations sometimes refer to hands played, rather than hands observed, and when we're talking about win rate per hour of our time it's hands observed.
In terms of results there is not that much difference between backcounting and Wonging out. Which is best depends on practical considerations: in casinos with a lot of available table space backcounting works well because you can move around and observe several tables easily, while in the usual crowded conditions where you have to fight to get into a game finding good pen and Wonging out as needed is best.
In terms of results there is not that much difference between backcounting and Wonging out. Which is best depends on practical considerations: in casinos with a lot of available table space backcounting works well because you can move around and observe several tables easily, while in the usual crowded conditions where you have to fight to get into a game finding good pen and Wonging out as needed is best.
Those little things that mean so much.
I don't see to many nightmare shoes if you define them as a high TC were you win few or no hands. This is anecdotal but the last one I had, I have analyzed what made it so bad. I did not win a hand at max bet. And was at max bet most of the shoe. I got nothing but stiffs against 7 thru A dealer upcard. I can uncharacteristically remember almost every hand. The changes I outlined would have cut my losses by 40 to 60%. A lot was due to improper use of the surrender option. I was not using a block of cards side count so I can't say whether I would have played differently had I been using it but if the deck was rich in 6, 7 and 8 allowing me to stand on some of my stiffs versus 7 or 8 that would have turned more than 2 losers into winners. After turning over his hole card the dealer had a stiff for a large number of his hands. I learned the hard way just how much surrender is worth and the value of added information beyond your base count when you have those large bets out. But at least I learned. How many have been there and didn't learn a thing?
I don't see to many nightmare shoes if you define them as a high TC were you win few or no hands. This is anecdotal but the last one I had, I have analyzed what made it so bad. I did not win a hand at max bet. And was at max bet most of the shoe. I got nothing but stiffs against 7 thru A dealer upcard. I can uncharacteristically remember almost every hand. The changes I outlined would have cut my losses by 40 to 60%. A lot was due to improper use of the surrender option. I was not using a block of cards side count so I can't say whether I would have played differently had I been using it but if the deck was rich in 6, 7 and 8 allowing me to stand on some of my stiffs versus 7 or 8 that would have turned more than 2 losers into winners. After turning over his hole card the dealer had a stiff for a large number of his hands. I learned the hard way just how much surrender is worth and the value of added information beyond your base count when you have those large bets out. But at least I learned. How many have been there and didn't learn a thing?
Sounds a lot like a shoe I had this week. What count is going to help me when I get dealt an 18 and the dealer has a 20, hand after hand?
Your reasoning about standing on stiffs is very flawed. Even if you are counting 6,7,8 as high cards the count is going to have to be enormous before you are standing on stiffs vs. 7 and 8 because having those middle cards in the shoe make it easier for the dealer to make his hand. (What do 6, 7, and 8 add up to?) Those cards are quite neutral in such hands. Forget that, and you end up playing like players from a certain continent (that I won't mention, because I don't want anyone to know I'm talking about Asian ploppies) play.
We worked out a special Surrender decision-making count on this site a while back, where the 8 is a high card and the 7 is a low card and it is biased towards the decisions you have to make when you have a lot of money on the table. 14 vs. 10 is the big one. That's great, if you have a partner with you at a table and I don't know if in a LS game you would be better off having a partner use a sidecount for surrender plays, or have him use the insurance count which makes you money on insurance but also the valuable 12 vs. 2 and 12 vs. 3 plays. If you are playing solo forget all that; just get a lot of money on the table when there are a lot of aces and 10s left and you will be fine.
Your reasoning about standing on stiffs is very flawed. Even if you are counting 6,7,8 as high cards the count is going to have to be enormous before you are standing on stiffs vs. 7 and 8 because having those middle cards in the shoe make it easier for the dealer to make his hand. (What do 6, 7, and 8 add up to?) Those cards are quite neutral in such hands. Forget that, and you end up playing like players from a certain continent (that I won't mention, because I don't want anyone to know I'm talking about Asian ploppies) play.
We worked out a special Surrender decision-making count on this site a while back, where the 8 is a high card and the 7 is a low card and it is biased towards the decisions you have to make when you have a lot of money on the table. 14 vs. 10 is the big one. That's great, if you have a partner with you at a table and I don't know if in a LS game you would be better off having a partner use a sidecount for surrender plays, or have him use the insurance count which makes you money on insurance but also the valuable 12 vs. 2 and 12 vs. 3 plays. If you are playing solo forget all that; just get a lot of money on the table when there are a lot of aces and 10s left and you will be fine.
How to improve PE were it counts
I have heard people say that HILO is fine with a .51 playing efficiency since perfect play is only about .7 PE. It may interest you to know that HIOPT II with a block side count of 6, 7, and 8 has a .797 PE. The effect on profit is understated as most of the gain in the playing efficiency increase comes from positive index plays. Playing efficiency is based on flat betting. This means a much improved win rate for your higher bets.
I have heard people say that HILO is fine with a .51 playing efficiency since perfect play is only about .7 PE. It may interest you to know that HIOPT II with a block side count of 6, 7, and 8 has a .797 PE. The effect on profit is understated as most of the gain in the playing efficiency increase comes from positive index plays. Playing efficiency is based on flat betting. This means a much improved win rate for your higher bets.
No, what? 
"Perfect play" is based on combinatorial analysis, recalculating the correct strategy based on every card seen for every play, and we normalize the effect of that kind of analysis as a PE of 1. The PE of a count is how often you will make the correct play using the information from the count compared to a hypothetical situation where you had a computer with you doing a CA.
PE is actually an arbitrary number because when it was calculated we didn't know the frequency of the counts or the spread. The playing EOR of each card changes with spread, and the frequency of the counts changes with number of decks and penetration. In a game with poor pen those extreme-index plays aren't going to be worth a rat's ass, because you will never see those counts. The most stunning example is the ace- it is treated as a low card in a game with a flat bet because the player usually just needs to know if he should hit or stand, but in a game with a large spread the player really needs to know whether he should split his 10's or double 10 vs. 10, these decisions always happen with a lot of money down and the ace acts like a high card for those hands.
So the classic values of PE aren't that useful for the modern game. My analysis showed me that the Mentor Count has the best system tags for PE for most games, and the very acceptable BC makes it probably the best overall choice, no sidecounts necessary.
"Perfect play" is based on combinatorial analysis, recalculating the correct strategy based on every card seen for every play, and we normalize the effect of that kind of analysis as a PE of 1. The PE of a count is how often you will make the correct play using the information from the count compared to a hypothetical situation where you had a computer with you doing a CA.PE is actually an arbitrary number because when it was calculated we didn't know the frequency of the counts or the spread. The playing EOR of each card changes with spread, and the frequency of the counts changes with number of decks and penetration. In a game with poor pen those extreme-index plays aren't going to be worth a rat's ass, because you will never see those counts. The most stunning example is the ace- it is treated as a low card in a game with a flat bet because the player usually just needs to know if he should hit or stand, but in a game with a large spread the player really needs to know whether he should split his 10's or double 10 vs. 10, these decisions always happen with a lot of money down and the ace acts like a high card for those hands.
So the classic values of PE aren't that useful for the modern game. My analysis showed me that the Mentor Count has the best system tags for PE for most games, and the very acceptable BC makes it probably the best overall choice, no sidecounts necessary.
How many extra 6, 7 and 8 in aggregate are we talking about
I didn't say all stiffs, I said some stiffs. Let us look at 16 v 7 or 8. In HIOPT II the stand index is 13 and 12. That means for you HILO players its probably in the neighborhood of 7. This is pretty rare and you probably have max bet out. Most of the time you have a TC under that with these matchups and a big bet out you will hit. Every card that is in the block is the same as a ten for you. 16 and a 6 or high busts your hand. Now look at what a 6, 7 or 8 hole card does to the dealers hand; for a dealer 7 he is hitting a 13, 14 or 15, and for a dealer 8 he is hitting 14, 15 or 16. That makes those cards more important than the surplus of ten value cards. Large TC tend not to have a lot of decks remaining and with the adjustment for each surplus 6, 7 or 8 being about twice the point value of your ten value cards to the running count. The net TC adjustment is about 1 per extra 6, 7 and 8 as a block for 2 decks remaining and and about .5 for each extra 6, 7 and 8 as a block for 4 decks remaining. These are TC adjustments of +1 per block surplus of 6, 7 and 8. So even if the HILO TC is 0 and there are only 7 extra 6, 7 and 8 in aggregate you stand against a dealer 7 or 8 as the mathematically correct move with 2 decks remaining. Think about how powerful that is toward turning losing hands into winners at the TC that have your big bets out. One or two maybe three extra 6 thru 8 in aggregate and the mathematically correct move is to stand on 16 versus 7 or 8 at your biggest bets at a point in the shoe were you are most likely to make them. Don't tell me that isn't going to have a large impact on your bottom line. You have been playing these match ups with very weak information. The most important cards are the ones you know nothing about.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/gordon.htm (Archive copy)
I didn't say all stiffs, I said some stiffs. Let us look at 16 v 7 or 8. In HIOPT II the stand index is 13 and 12. That means for you HILO players its probably in the neighborhood of 7. This is pretty rare and you probably have max bet out. Most of the time you have a TC under that with these matchups and a big bet out you will hit. Every card that is in the block is the same as a ten for you. 16 and a 6 or high busts your hand. Now look at what a 6, 7 or 8 hole card does to the dealers hand; for a dealer 7 he is hitting a 13, 14 or 15, and for a dealer 8 he is hitting 14, 15 or 16. That makes those cards more important than the surplus of ten value cards. Large TC tend not to have a lot of decks remaining and with the adjustment for each surplus 6, 7 or 8 being about twice the point value of your ten value cards to the running count. The net TC adjustment is about 1 per extra 6, 7 and 8 as a block for 2 decks remaining and and about .5 for each extra 6, 7 and 8 as a block for 4 decks remaining. These are TC adjustments of +1 per block surplus of 6, 7 and 8. So even if the HILO TC is 0 and there are only 7 extra 6, 7 and 8 in aggregate you stand against a dealer 7 or 8 as the mathematically correct move with 2 decks remaining. Think about how powerful that is toward turning losing hands into winners at the TC that have your big bets out. One or two maybe three extra 6 thru 8 in aggregate and the mathematically correct move is to stand on 16 versus 7 or 8 at your biggest bets at a point in the shoe were you are most likely to make them. Don't tell me that isn't going to have a large impact on your bottom line. You have been playing these match ups with very weak information. The most important cards are the ones you know nothing about.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/gordon.htm (Archive copy)
Here you go: "That isn't going to have a large impact on your bottom line."
The example you give will make a difference, but the differences in SCORE between Hi-Opt II and High-Low tell me that it will be swamped by the vast number of other factors which no verbal analysis can comprehend in its sweep.
If High-Low is a "weak" count, then Hi-Opt II with 5 sidecounts, which might yield a 13% higher return, is also a "weak" count. And it will not allow you to play above your EV most of the time.
The example you give will make a difference, but the differences in SCORE between Hi-Opt II and High-Low tell me that it will be swamped by the vast number of other factors which no verbal analysis can comprehend in its sweep.
If High-Low is a "weak" count, then Hi-Opt II with 5 sidecounts, which might yield a 13% higher return, is also a "weak" count. And it will not allow you to play above your EV most of the time.
Automatic Monkey said:
No, what? "Perfect play" is based on combinatorial analysis, recalculating the correct strategy based on every card seen for every play, and we normalize the effect of that kind of analysis as a PE of 1. The PE of a count is how often you will make the correct play using the information from the count compared to a hypothetical situation where you had a computer with you doing a CA.
"Perfect play" is based on combinatorial analysis, recalculating the correct strategy based on every card seen for every play, and we normalize the effect of that kind of analysis as a PE of 1. The PE of a count is how often you will make the correct play using the information from the count compared to a hypothetical situation where you had a computer with you doing a CA.
I would rather base the PE on the EV of all decisions, compared to the EV by perfect play (let's call it PE'). Then marginal decisions doesn't affect the PE', and a counting system can focus more on important decisions. Of course this PE' would then depend on the spread used, number of decks, penetration etc.
The most practical counting system would then like to maximize PE', which essentially will focus on non-marginal decisions at larger bet size.
But this is just my opinion.
I'm sort of in the same place, but the most practical system is the one with the system tags that help you make the decisions that actually make a difference, versus always doing something or always not doing something.
For example, hitting 16 vs. 6. Sure, that's an index play, I'm sure there's a time to do it but you can forget about ever doing it and allow your counting system to ignore 16 vs. 6 to the benefit of everything else. Same for standing on 12 vs. 8, doubling 8 vs. 7, etc.
So limit the scope of your PE analysis to decisions you actually have to make when the BC (much more precisely defined) is high and you have a lot of money down, because a count doesn't help you make a play, it helps you make a decision. Under this system 16 vs. 10 might be the most powerful deviation from Basic Strategy, but the 15 vs. 10 index is more important to a shoe counter because he can always stand on 16 vs. 10 and it won't make much difference, but the 15 vs. 10 play usually comes up with a big bet down and it's usually close. I added them all up, weighted for the total action you will play when the situation comes up and Mentor is right on for counter's PE. You'd have to go up to level 4 to get anything better.
For example, hitting 16 vs. 6. Sure, that's an index play, I'm sure there's a time to do it but you can forget about ever doing it and allow your counting system to ignore 16 vs. 6 to the benefit of everything else. Same for standing on 12 vs. 8, doubling 8 vs. 7, etc.
So limit the scope of your PE analysis to decisions you actually have to make when the BC (much more precisely defined) is high and you have a lot of money down, because a count doesn't help you make a play, it helps you make a decision. Under this system 16 vs. 10 might be the most powerful deviation from Basic Strategy, but the 15 vs. 10 index is more important to a shoe counter because he can always stand on 16 vs. 10 and it won't make much difference, but the 15 vs. 10 play usually comes up with a big bet down and it's usually close. I added them all up, weighted for the total action you will play when the situation comes up and Mentor is right on for counter's PE. You'd have to go up to level 4 to get anything better.