Just wanted to know.

i'll go with that variance, ROR and all the hard work not with standing. i would not how ever invest my money on a team using it. but that's just my preferance as i'm one of those people that wants to be hands on, in the driver's seat so to speak.
exactly thats part of the problem i also fore see with such an approach. not just greater than optimum Kelly bankroll growth but even approaching a given quantificatiion of Kelly bankroll growth. it's for sure a fly by the seat of your pants sort of a way of playing i will definately admitt. what my approach is currently is to THINK about my bets (using what i have learned from the likes of experts such as Blackjack Institute, experts on this forumn, books,ect. ect. again betting for this approach is definately a problem that needs to be addressed.

here i can't totally agree with you. yes it would be great to cut out a lot of the work, i'm all for that but even more so what i'm shooting for is greater efficiancy for the work extended. i can see the potential for greater risk but i believe that can be contained.
with respect to gaining a greater advantage, well right it probably wont. the approach should gain an advantage however for a player that 'knows' what they are doing. i know that it defies simulation overall. especially the part where i'm advocating using thought and intuition. frankly i consider my self a mediocre advantage player by your standards. a skill level that i don't believe i can improve upon by Blackjack Institute methods or any other expert methods that i've studied. frankly my mind is just not nimble enough to deal with it all in such a precise manner. i'm no spring chicken. i do have how ever what i consider to be a rich understanding of advantage play and a fairly crafty ability for thinking on my feet. this coupled with what has been a respectable amount of time employing strict advantage play counting methods is what i'm banking on with respect to my approach. if you looked at that link i inserted in my earlier post you'd know that i'm not currently going to be playing nearly as much blackjack in the near future as i have played in the past. with the lower blackjack playing schedule that i expect for the near future it's my belief that my chances of doing pretty well with this approach are fairly good.
for some antedoteal arguement here's a graph depicting the results of my experimentation. let me be honest and report that i've done some cheating when playing through these hands. i peeked at the true counts some to see how my estimations were holding up before wonging out and sometimes if the count was fairly positive i'd keep playing but only at minimum bet level.
this was for a six deck das nrsa s17 pen 1.5 decks game. nearly full table. one spot open for me to play two hands when i wanted
it's for 11,000 hands. 1:10 spread. unit=$5

yeah come on AutoMonkey reduce that file size an lets see it...
i'm interested in a system with the name Franklin attached....
er eh Benjamin that is
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=33502&postcount=14

Frog, I know that personally, I wouldn't trust my intuition to determine a positive count.

There have been quite a few times where my count has crossed the key count and I've thought "wait, it can't POSSIBLY be time to bet!?" It may "feel" like there were a lot of high cards out on the table, but the little ones sneak in, when one player takes 6 cards, and still busts, or the dealer draws to 21 (again).

with respect to determining a positive count i don't think i'd use it either except in a

situation where i feel unsure if i should wong out or continue play as a result of not

knowing if the remaining pack is positive or negative at a critical juncture with respect

to how many cards are left to play. the times that intuition would be most appropriate

to apply would be in those dammed if you do or dammed if you don't situations ie. 'the

double bind'. the wide marginal situation as i believe Zengrifter described it. example

16vs dealer's 10. another example might be lets say your fairly deep into the pack and

the true count has lingered at zero. the question would be play or wong out. intuition

could play a part in that decision. risk averse playing decisions could also be a time you

might use intuition. example the true count is high enough to double your 10 against

the dealers 10 or Ace. but it would be less risky to just hit. one might as well apply

some intuition in this one, also some thought since you might just have a large bet out

at the time. do you want to risk doubling that big bet or just hit it?
well i'm not advocating increasing your bets on feelings. but on your awareness of how

fluffy the remaining pack is in aces, faces and tens. i'm finding that if i just closely

watch the cards round by round that i can get a good sense of a bias with respect to

how positive or negative the remaining pack has become. first and foremost i want to

be sure i'm playing against a shoe that is positively biased. if the remaining pack gets to

tc=-1 i want to be out of there or at least sitting out and watching. any lower than tc=-1

and i'm definately out of there.
i only play six deck shoes and unfortunately usually fairly crowded tables. for me a +4

RC is kind of magical. to get a tc=+1 you need an RC=6,5,4 or 3 for six, five, four or

three decks to be dealt respectively. see how close RC=+4 is to RC=6,5,4 or 3 ?
lets say a round has been played and the remaining pack is positive by at least an rc=1.

lets say the next round presents that magical RC=+4 (where all you do is count the

running count for that round). well now you know you've darned near got a tc=+1 don't

you? lets say your further into a pack say 4 decks undealt and that tc=+1 and lets say the

next round presents that magical RC=+4 (where all you do is count the running count

for that round)
well now you have a tc=+2 don't you?
so with this in mind what i'm really doing is making sure i'm playing a positive pack to

begin with. then i'm watching out for 'spurts' of positive RC's for a given round. i

especially like the one round RC=+4 presentation but smaller round running counts can

be ok. it's just that then your hoping the next round will have another positive RC

presentation. then if you keep in mind the number of rounds for which those spurts

took place and the number of decks remaining to be dealt during these fortunate

presentations you can estimate pretty closely where the true count is. admittedly i may

get to the point where i don't know the integral value of the true count but what i'm

looking for is the fact that the true count is getting up there, that it has increased. i may

get lost and the true may be tc=+2 or it may be tc=+3. i might not know which but i

know it's getting up there in the juicy region. heck it may be tc=+4. well i'll be betting

up into it. so yeah i may be betting rather high in an only tc=2 or tc=3 but there will be

times i'm betting into a nice tc=4 or better. but for the most part i'm at least betting up

into a positive true count. what i'm doing is using common sense judgement for betting

with respect to the cards that i've seen on a round by round basis. when i say common

sense i mean with respect to what i've learned experience wise from having used

orthodox counting methods for nearly two years.
the thing is people will say well it's bad to ride a max bet on only a tc=+2 or tc=+3 .

that is probably true but it's still putting those bets out at an advantage and at one that

comes more often than the sacred tc=+4. and you will still be tying into some tc>=+4's

also. as i see it your getting more action in positive counts considering the game

conditions one has to play under these days. heh, heh as far as how i'm betting is i'm

trying to use thought, intuition and intelligent (hopefully) guessing. kind of like what

you might do on a multiple choice test where you don't confidently know the answer

but can gleen a sense of what is probably right from the question and offered answers.

1.Serious-I'm there to win money.
2.To win money and be as great a player as I can be.
3.Fred Renzey/Blackjack Bluebook II-I was a Basic Strategy player 'til I read his book. Before reading it I never dreamed I could be a card counter.
4.Yes I'm satisfied with Advantage Play results.
5.Al Francesco-I'd like to ask him two things:What's the latest in cutting edge Advantage Play and has he forgiven Ken Uston for writing The Big Player behind his back.
I'd also like to meet Semyon Dukach to let him know how much I appreciate the fact that he was born in Russia and raised in Newark,N.J. and Houston,Texas and has and is living the American Dream!

Thx sagefrog. If that's about 10% of the time wouldn't that mean you should get =>TC+3 like 6-10 times an hour?

1) Semipro. I refuse to lose, even if I have to camp out a bit (subject to perceived level of heat, of course). I will not quit my day job anytime soon though. I get numerous travel perks from it that fit perfectly with my current blackjack goals.

2) Black chip play ($100-$500 spread) with $50-k per year tax-free earnings might satisfy me. We'll see... For now purchasing a new car every couple years with my cash winnings would be cool. It would also be nice to start pummeling the mortgage a bit but with the rate I have why bother? $25-$125 play will be appropriate for me for a while.

3) Somehow I heard about the KO book and it has been great for me. Not a perfect book/system, but so easy and effective. This board and the hit or stand one have also been great. Sonny, Ihate, Sagefrog, thanks for your support guys!

4) Since I became more choosy and smarter about picking my games, I have been doing fantastic. The future's looking bright!

5) Wong and the MIT guys. Wonging and think of all the great stories those guys would have. Cover play, team play, and casino surviellance would be great topics for the MIT guys.


Regarding some of the above discussion, I think the "pissing contests" are silly. I really don't see a need to count down a deck in 10 seconds. It is not necessary for me to be successful. I can't see a need for more than 25 indices and 18 is probably fine. If you make an occasional error I don't think it matters much in the grand scheme. Shuffle tracking may be worthwhile but as long as I keep winning playing my way I am in no hurry to learn it.

Oh yeah, and that ploppy on third base, he really doesn't have any effect on your EV...

LOL

in the long run that sounds about right if you are getting in about 100 hands per hour. in my own experience of playing maybe 60 hands per hour for 1-3 hours a day three or four days a week for over a year and a half i seriously doubt if i even came close to realizing a TC>= +3 6-10 times an hour even on average. more like once or rarely twice an hour i'd guess.
well look at my graph above. look at the red TC line. thats for 11000 hands. so at the hundred an hour say 110 hours play. looks pretty typical to me.

That's pretty much why I asked - it sounded like you weren't getting it as much as I thought one would.

One can only ask why. Penetration levels? Bad counting? Rounding vs truncating? Just normal variance? Different counting system? Full tables?
Wong is wrong lol.

Seems like more than normal variance though to me. Maybe you're due for 10/hr instead of 6 for the next 11000 hands but I doubt it.

If you come up with a theory let me know.

i think your pretty right on with the above. for my real casino play. especially on the penetration levels, truncating vs rounding, normal variance and full tables.
not to mention mistakes i would make.
but the graph isn't real play. it's just cvbj practice, trying out my fuzzy counting.... on that with the 11000 hands and wonging out as i've been doing i'm guesstimating it's more like realizing circa $17/hour. at a rate of about 60 hands per hour or probably less. i been wonging out in those practice sessions like crazy. makes me want to ask QFIT if there is a keyboard short cut for getting the game to shuffle :joker:
purely anetdoteal stuff i realize .......

I guess it's mistakes I'd worry most about. No idea what your fuzzy counting system is lol. What's the predicted win rate for whatever you're doing? Let's face it everything looks so nice and perfect in the books but there's a million reasons why one realizes less than that in actual play.

Maybe at a full table the first five cards would turn a TC+2.9 into a TC+3 but by the time the round is over it's lost again so u'd have no chance to place the bet at that level? I don't know.

Couldn't you use standard windows keyboard shortcuts to induce a shuffle?
Like ALT+F would drop down the file menu and then hit S for shuffle?

i posted about it some in these links:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=34059&postcount=40

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=34098&postcount=51

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=34379&postcount=64

i couldn't say what the win rate might be. far as i know there is no way to simulate such an approach. this is especially true since it allows for the application of thoughtful and intuitive decision making. in essence fuzzy counting as i call it is an attempt to mimic genuine hi/lo counting, illustrious 18 & fab 4 basic strategy departures and optimal betting by estimation rather than strict counting. you just watch the cards as they stream out on a round by round basis and decide through estimation what you think the true count is at that point. then apply your departures and bets accordingly. no over all running count is kept. running count is estimated on a round by round basis. and then the true count is estimated.
so your bets are really judgement calls rather than a quantitatively applied ramp to a precise true count.
no that doesn't work. you gotta go alt-m then alt-f then alt-s ..... pretty many key strokes ya know. i guess one could set up a macro in the background to make a quick easy shuffle. guess i'll look into that.

Well on this whole perfection vs guessing/estimating thing, I think one should try to get as good as one can get. But also realize how little errors may cost you. I think Fuchs did a study on how little one is effected by being "off by 1" on index departures. And, even if we could calc a true count to the exact card, and know index numbers to 6 decimals, I don't think it would make a whole lot of difference. Some yes, alot no.

As far as who can down a deck faster, what the heck?? Utterly meaningless and I'm surprised an advantage player would even suggest it as a yardstick of whether one can win money.

So if you want to "fuzzy count", go ahead. Although doing it on a round-by-round basis makes no sense at all to me. That's not a fuzzy count - that's a "no count" lol. I think that might give away too much. Sounds like it would pretty much result in a BS EV. But whatever.

Is this that Franklin system or is that something else? Or is that just a joke lol?

I use Casino Verite (very old version lol) so all I have to do is that ALT F S thing! Really 2 keystrokes since I can do the alt f simultaneously lol.

yea it seems that way i know. i feel like when i was back in elementry school in math class trying to explain to my teacher how i got the correct answer to her math problems. i'd write the answer down on the paper nothing else. i wouldn't even be able to explain to her how i got the answer except to say i just figured it out in my head. of course (rightly so) she would insist that i work the problems out with paper and pencil.
it does seem as if it's "no count" at all and well actually that is true. but it is really keeping track of the hi and lo cards. just in a differant way than the orthodox method that for me at least is easier. it's estimating the true count instead of determining it exactly. i can tell by watching the cards from the beginning of the shoe if the bias is negative or positive. as long as the bias is positive ie. the cards remaining to be dealt holds a bias in favor of aces, faces & tens then i'm relatively safe to estimate what happens in the next round. what i'm seeing is spurts of RC increases or decreases or lack there of on a round by round basis. the magic number i'm looking for is +4 or -4. that represents a significant change in the bias virtually anywhere in the six deck shoe. although the further into the shoe the better as long as it was positive to begin with. but of course you can and do have other smaller RC 'spurts' and one needs to then consider them cumlatively round by round. and of course a RC spurt greater than +4 is really good news. this all needs to be considered cumulatively round by round and the number of decks left to be dealt needs to be keep in mind. so because of all the estimation what you end up with is a qualitative analysis rather than a quantitative analysis. so the answer your getting is more about what is the nature of the game i'm playing now. what we are cursed with when it comes to casino gambling is bad games. we want to play only the best games possible and only if they are positive ev. the better the game +ev-wise (heh heh i guess thats a new word now) the higher we can bet on it. so how i'm betting is a judgement call based upon the quality of the game (as i percieve it) after any given number of rounds. additionally i'm trying to keep the level of betting or the rungs in the bet ramp in line with how one would bet using orthodox hi/lo counting and optimal betting. this all involves thought, judgement and some intuition. to borrow a well worn phrase what i'm trying to do is stand on the shoulders of giants (ie. orthodox counter's methods) with out going through all the work required by those methods.
well anyway i haven't yet applied this err uhmm fuzzy counting yet live in a casino. just been tinkering with it in cvbj. but i intend to give it a shot.
no, the Franklin system is apparently something AutoMonkey came up with unless it's a joke.... i dunno.
well i have the new version. unfortunately that doesn't work for me.

I'm not going to fill out all the questions, but I will do number 3.

My biggest influence in BJ has been this site, no question. As far as individuals, that would be this forum's very own, zengrifter. Also supercoolmancool has influenced me because if he wouldn't have expressed interest in card counting with me I probably would have dropped it by now, or I would at least be way farther behind than where I am now.