The Apple Barrel Game

[psyduck]

Whoever started this apple thing obviously had no clue:grin:
joking southpaw

all ego aside

Some of you need to go to the store and buy:
50 red marbles
50 yellow marbles

take out 10 red marbles
take out 20 yellow marbles

the ratio is now:
40 red
30 yellow

the ratio is now 4 red to 3 yellow

Put the marbles in a dark bag
Would you bet on the next marble being red?

shake the marbles up in the bag
would you still bet?

shake the marbles in the bag 1 million times
would you still bet? for each bag shake?

split the marbles into 2 different bags
would you still make the bet?

split the marble into 10 different bags
would you still make the bet?

there are 70 marbles left
put them in 70 different bags
would you still make the bet?
line the 70 bags up, does it matter if you bet on the first or the last bag?

Why would anyone make an argument that any of the above bets need to be different? They are all the same bet, same ev

Now, some of you hopefully can now see the jump in logic to blackjack.

the marble bags analogy show that the distribution through a shoe does not matter once you have a positive TC. One can bet on the next hand of the shoe or the last.

In case you run out of objects, you can use colored beans in your next post. For me beans will be more convincing than apples or marbles. I am not sure why, maybe because of the gas it can generate after digestion.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Marbles

In case you run out of objects, you can use colored beans in your next post.

marbles one can probably more easily visualize vs apples or beans, one can even do the experiments with the bags.

If someone does not like the debate, then don't read or comment. However, some do find it interesting.

Some might be getting touchy because their thoughts may be getting challenged.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Well Said

The TC theorem doesn't break down here. What if it was groundhog day for the rest of your life and you had to keep seeing this same shoe every day. Same setup, you see the first hand TC~+1 but never see any of the rest of the shoe and can only play the last hand.

The answer is easy. You play it because the first hand sets up the shoe for a player advantage. If played forever, some of the last hands will ultimately not be favorable but the majority will be favorable to the player. And all together all those last hands will average TC+1.

I would hope your post and MagoJ's excellent post will help some see the light. Thanks for a positive contribution to this basic important topic many don't seem to quite grasp.

 

[Southpaw]

I would hope your post and MagoJ's excellent post will help some see the light.

This thread has shown me the light.

Spaw

 

[psyduck]

marbles one can probably more easily visualize vs apples or beans, one can even do the experiments with the bags.

If someone does not like the debate, then don't read or comment. However, some do find it interesting.

Some might be getting touchy because their thoughts may be getting challenged.

Your example is equivalent to playing a 6 deck shoe with more than 5 decks cut out. In this case, TC 1 does not occur very often in the first deck. You EV is definitely lower than 0.5%. Maybe it is good enough for some players.

BTW, who do you think cannot get your idea and how many times do you want to repeat your analogy with different colored objects in the bag?

 

[ohbehave]

Not you Psy, you get it, but there are 1 or 2 others who have been silent lately who were arguing the other side. It is an important concept to understand and one that can easily be misunderstood.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Nothing Changes

Your example is equivalent to playing a 6 deck shoe with more than 5 decks cut out. In this case, TC 1 does not occur very often in the first deck. You EV is definitely lower than 0.5%. Maybe it is good enough for some players.

BTW, who do you think cannot get your idea and how many times do you want to repeat your analogy with different colored objects in the bag?

Some still don't get it. I think you do, if you agree with me.
I explained a more real world example, if it's the only bet you have at the moment .5% is fine. Just make the example a higher ev if you wish, that does not change the idea.

The idea of a debate is to come up with different/better examples to try to get the other side to see the light. I think the marble game is an improved example over the apple game.

 

[psyduck]

I think the marble game is an improved example over the apple game.

Maybe, at least marbles do not rot in the long run.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Instead of just saying I am wrong, critique the apple barrel game! You have counted the first round (INFORMATION YOU HAVE), then you have a ratio, then you know what the final round will be! Just focus on the apple barrel game and Mangoj's respone and my one follow up to him.

FORGET THE APPLE BARREL GAME, GO TO "FROM APPLES TO MARBLES" A FEW POSTS DOWN

I have read the apple and marble example and they really dont change anything. I ran 3 sims to prove your method is wrong:

Sim 1:

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 50% penetration (3/6)
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Sim 2:

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 83.33% penetration(5/6), except you always join in the game after 2 decks have been dealt, you start counting with an RC=0 and your starting divisor for true count is 6.
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Sim 3

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 91.66% penetration (5.5/6), except you always play and count the first 2.5 decks, you go away for 2 decks and come back to play the last 0.5 deck, you start counting using the last RC you had when you left the game and a divisor of 3.5.
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Results: Sim 1 SCORE:$10.21/hour, Sim 2: $10.24/hour, Sim 3: $10.19/hour

Is that convincing enough?

 

[Southpaw]

I have read the apple and marble example and they really dont change anything. I ran 3 sims to prove your method is wrong:

Sim 1:

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 50% penetration (3/6)
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Sim 2:

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 83.33% penetration(5/6), except you always join in the game after 2 decks have been dealt, you start counting with an RC=0 and your starting divisor for true count is 6.
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Sim 3

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 91.66% penetration (5.5/6), except you always play and count the first 2.5 decks, you go away for 2 decks and come back to play the last 0.5 deck, you start counting using the last RC you had when you left the game and a divisor of 3.5.
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Results: Sim 1 SCORE:$10.21/hour, Sim 2: $10.24/hour, Sim 3: $10.19/hour

Is that convincing enough?

Can you elaborate your conclusions? It seems (to me at least) that the results of these sims accord perfectly with the marble / apple analogies.

Spaw

 

[blackjack avenger]

We Are in Agreement

I have read the apple and marble example and they really dont change anything. I ran 3 sims to prove your method is wrong:

Sim 1:

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 50% penetration (3/6)
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Sim 2:

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 83.33% penetration(5/6), except you always join in the game after 2 decks have been dealt, you start counting with an RC=0 and your starting divisor for true count is 6.
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Sim 3

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 91.66% penetration (5.5/6), except you always play and count the first 2.5 decks, you go away for 2 decks and come back to play the last 0.5 deck, you start counting using the last RC you had when you left the game and a divisor of 3.5.
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

Results: Sim 1 SCORE:$10.21/hour, Sim 2: $10.24/hour, Sim 3: $10.19/hour

Is that convincing enough?

Missing cards (apples) is a bad thing. I never said it was a good thing. In the apple game you are offered to make the last bet or not, with no other barrel games available. I pointed out in my bj example that you have no other betting opportunities, with both it's either bet or not. What you have done is further shown that the bets are positive expectation bets in my examples.

To further show the point, in your third example. Let's say your partner is watching the shoe, he signals you to join the table but someone goes to 2 hands or a new player sits down and you cannot play. So you watch other tables, later with nothing else available that table opens up.

Who would place a bet?
I would and anyone who would also will make more money then those who would decline. At least according to the #3 sim above it's a positive expectation bet.

 

[blackriver]

Sim 3

You are playing in a casino with 6D DAS LS S17 91.66% penetration (5.5/6), except you always play and count the first 2.5 decks, you go away for 2 decks and come back to play the last 0.5 deck, you start counting using the last RC you had when you left the game and a divisor of 3.5.
Hi-Lo full indices, play all 1-15

I think in practice this might work better but for discussion and thought experiements it seems more clear to say we would return to the game assuming the same true count. Algebriacally the same, but thinking in terms of tc is easier for me at least.

Results: Sim 1 SCORE:$10.21/hour, Sim 2: $10.24/hour, Sim 3: $10.19/hour

Is that convincing enough?

im convinced that sims proved the TC gang correct

 

[MangoJ]

What is your point you're trying to prove ?
All SCORE are equal, or SCORE differ by $0.03/hour ?

Given the descriptions of your sims, TC theorem predicts that all 3 games are equivalent. Because on all 3 sims, you see exactly 3 decks played. Looking at your SCORE figures, they are equal up to $0.03/hour.


If you want to show that those sims are different, you need to specify an error of your SCORE, i.e. that the error in SCORE is way below $0.001/hour.
A way to do it: repeat the SCORE calculation with the same parameters used, but a different random pool. Estimate the standard deviation of the SCOREs you collect for each sim.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Missing cards (apples) is a bad thing. I never said it was a good thing. In the apple game you are offered to make the last bet or not, with no other barrel games available. I pointed out in my bj example that you have no other betting opportunities, with both it's either bet or not. What you have done is further shown that the bets are positive expectation bets in my examples.

To further show the point, in your third example. Let's say your partner is watching the shoe, he signals you to join the table but someone goes to 2 hands or a new player sits down and you cannot play. So you watch other tables, later with nothing else available that table opens up.

Who would place a bet?
I would and anyone who would also will make more money then those who would decline. At least according to the #3 sim above it's a positive expectation bet.

I think in practice this might work better but for discussion and thought experiements it seems more clear to say we would return to the game assuming the same true count. Algebriacally the same, but thinking in terms of tc is easier for me at least.



im convinced that sims proved the TC gang correct

What is your point you're trying to prove ?
All SCORE are equal, or SCORE differ by $0.03/hour ?

Given the descriptions of your sims, TC theorem predicts that all 3 games are equivalent. Because on all 3 sims, you see exactly 3 decks played. Looking at your SCORE figures, they are equal up to $0.03/hour.


If you want to show that those sims are different, you need to specify an error of your SCORE, i.e. that the error in SCORE is way below $0.001/hour.
A way to do it: repeat the SCORE calculation with the same parameters used, but a different random pool. Estimate the standard deviation of the SCOREs you collect for each sim.

Point 1:

The disagreement was not on whether the TC is a constant or not, of course the TC would be constant for both cases, however the disagreement was on the divisor for the true count. BA is advocating that for 8 deck show if TC was 4 after 2 decks, i missed 2 decks, came back the TC would be 4 (so far so good), to get the RC multiply by TC by the divisor (4), this is where we disagree the divisor should be 6 and not 4, because the TC divisor should include ALL nonseen cards, NOT the remaining cards.

Point 2:

The purpose of the sims was to show that all the INFORMATION we have when we are counting cards is contained in the running count and the number of unseen cards. All 3 sims yield the same SCORE (within the sim standard error, the second decimal will not match for 500 million hands) which shows what i have mentioned several times: missing cards during a shoe has the effect of reducing the effective shoe penetration, for instance turning a 91% game into a mediocre 50% penetration game.

Point 3:
The TC theorem has nothing to do with the sim results. The sim results are so because the information you have with card counting is contained in the running count and the number of unseen cards (TC divisor) The TC is the same because your RC and DIVISOR DON'T CHANGE when you miss cards during a shoe and come back to the show to play, not because of the true count theorem.
Again again, the TC theorem states that the cards played during a round must be SEEN and COUNTED, if they are not you can't use the TC theorem.

 

[k_c]

hi lo count
6 deck shoe
tc 1 is an advantage

You innocently stroll by a table during the first hand and you see:
12 low cards, 108 low cards remaining to be played
6 high cards, 114 high cards remaining to be played
8 neutral cards, 64 neutral cards remaining to be played

26 cards, 1/4 deck has been played

approx tc > 1

Then you notice there are no seats available, best to move on.

Later you look and there is a seat open at the first table. Nothing else is available. So you go over to have a look, there is probably 1 hand to be played (1.5 decks to go). Oh, I forgot to mention the table has beauties playing; don't let this cloud your judgement, and the dealer asks if you would like to play?

Do you place a bet?
Do you place a tc1 bet?

If you understand the concepts in the apple barrel game; and the tc theorem, then the choice should be easy.

sorry I have to say it again.
Vindication is sooooo sweeeeet:celebrate

Sorry but this does not vindicate any of your previous arguments regarding interpolating running count in an attempt to maintain true count when some cards have been dealt but not seen, and then to play the altered running count as if the unseen cards had actually been seen and counted.

I really don't think there is anything anyone can say that will change your mind, though. The one thing you get right is what the true count is. Proceeding from that point you are incorporating irrelevant facts into the mix. If that's the approach you prefer then go ahead.

 

[blackriver]

Your example is equivalent to playing a 6 deck shoe with more than 5 decks cut out. In this case, TC 1 does not occur very often in the first deck. You EV is definitely lower than 0.5%. Maybe it is good enough for some players.

BTW, who do you think cannot get your idea and how many times do you want to repeat your analogy with different colored objects in the bag?

There is an intersection between the TC theorem and the 21gunsalute theorem that the shoe feels some unknown pressure to return to a tc = 0. ie future true counts tend to be closer to 0 than futher

The TC theorm says that whatever the TC is at any given point is, at that point, the expected TC of all future decks, segements, cards and points of observation for that shoe. Occasionally the future observed TC will actually equal our expected TC or more likely the TC will be higher or lower with an equal probability. At various points and specifically at the beginning the TC = 0. At this point both theorems see the expected TC values as 0.

I dont see any reason people who understand and believe in the TC theorem would chose to focus on the intersection of the TC theory with a false theory. You can see why people would be unsure where you stand since emphasizing how a false theory can make an almost correct prediction only makes the discussion more ambiguous. If i were to just start talking about a subset of TC theorem where 21's theorm is less wrong than usual i would want to use that case as a place to begin explaining why the antithesis is wrong and the TC theorem is right. As arduous and pointless as that would be, it would be even more weird if I understood TC theorem and posted things like this

If one examines the shoe at the start when TC = 0, shouldn't the TC approach zero at the end with TC theorem? You cannot pick a point where TC is positive and say the TC at the end tends to be positive. These positive TCs do exist, but in the long run they will be balanced out with negative TCs. As a result, in the long run TC does tend to end at zero more than any other counts. What am I missing?

I understand that, but then you will have times when TC = -12 to balance out your TC = +12 times. In the long run, the whole shoe tends to end more likely at TC = 0 than any other counts.

Was I wrong to say that in the long run the shoe ends at TC = 0 more than any other counts? If you believe it was wrong, then what TC do you think the shoe tends to end at?

BTW, your birthday theorem does not make any sense because I can only be born once.

Which shoe starts with TC = anything else (not zero)?

If one examines the shoe at the start when TC = 0, shouldn't the TC approach zero at the end with TC theorem? You cannot pick a point where TC is positive and say the TC at the end tends to be positive. These positive TCs do exist, but in the long run they will be balanced out with negative TCs. As a result, in the long run TC does tend to end at zero more than any other counts. What am I missing?

I understand that, but then you will have times when TC = -12 to balance out your TC = +12 times. In the long run, the whole shoe tends to end more likely at TC = 0 than any other counts.

Was I wrong to say that in the long run the shoe ends at TC = 0 more than any other counts? If you believe it was wrong, then what TC do you think the shoe tends to end at?

BTW, your birthday theorem does not make any sense because I can only be born once.

Which shoe starts with TC = anything else (not zero)?

 

[psyduck]

Can someone restate what we are arguing about here in BJ terms? I am lost in the games of apples and marbles.

 

[zengrifter]

An apple barrel has
50 red apples
50 yellow apples

The game is when the carnie picks a red apple you win!
You stroll buy a barrel and see 10 red apples and 20 yellow ones have been picked and then put in the garbage, so you have an advantage. The ratio is 40 red apples to 30 yellow apples or 4 red apples to every 3 yellow apples. However, there are no seats available for the game.

So you go and watch another barrel game. In this game many red apples are picked so you look away. Then you see there is a seat available at the first game. Of course, you have missed what other apples were chosen, they are in the trash. The carnie shouts "there are only 7 apples left, who is going to bet"?

Would you?

No. Because its a CARNEY GAME... its rigged! zg

 

[blackjack avenger]

The Divisor Step

I think we all/most agree on the apple and marble game?

As far as the divisor question perhaps this?:

2 sims, which are beyond my capacity:

6 deck h17 das 4.5/6 cut
hi low ill 18

in both sims you see the first deck, rc 10, tc 2
in both sims you then miss 2 decks
you return to play

sim 1, billion hands
you come back and pick up rc 10 with a divisor of 5?
you are considering the 2 decks you missed as unseen and the cards moving forward in the divisor.
you finish the shoe

sim 2, billion hands
you come back and pick up rc 6 with a divisor of 3?
you are assuming the 2 decks you missed by dropping the RC by the average per deck, so you only consider the cards moving forward in the divisor.
you finish the shoe

VERY IMPORTANT; I THINK, THE SHOES FOR THE 2 SIMS NEED TO HAVE THE SAME CARDS? SEEDS?

what is the EV and SCORE of the 2 sims

 

[ohbehave]

The 2 sims should have the same SCORE, no? In each sim, upon returning to the game the RC is an equal multiple of the TC. So, either of the 2 ways that the RC is calculated is correct for returning to the game, as long as the player stays with the same divisor until the end of the shoe.