SCORE is the whole game in a nutshell from my studies. I often forget to ace side count w/ UAPC and think a move to hi lo work better... what would be my loss of SCORE making this move be since I don't ace count often. I think it would be real close and hi lo is a much more widely used system so all the little nuances we discuss would mesh right up. I yearn to get back with the pack. Will you have me back?
Changing systems questioning SCORE
- Thread starter Dopple
- Start date
Such a general question can't possibly be answered until you furnish every detail of the game you're playing and how you're betting. I can, however, refer you to BJA3, p. 172, first column and next-to-last column for apples-to-apples comparisons.
BJA3 on the night table. Great book, kind of fat, I will be on 172, thanks Don. My thinking is that with a system as easy as hi lo, you could keep a rough count just out of the corner of your eye, while playing craps. It is just so much easier than a level 3. Just a quick glance at the table and you have the data.
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
This is ahhh….good thinking.
While I have never tracked a BJ table while playing craps (as I don't play craps), there are other very relatable times, like tracking a second table while playing one, or just walking through the casino and you get a fraction of a second glimpse of cards on the felt, or for that matter, even just playing you primary table and watching the nearby TV or almost anything other than the felt. A quick glance and you have your count, a glimpse, especially once the cancelation method takes over which it does automatically. I don't care what anybody playing whatever level 2, level 3, or side counting count, says....they cannot pick up the count as quickly, with a fraction of a second glimpse, with the same accuracy. Those saying they can are flat out wrong. Probably lying to themselves rather than intentionally lying to us.
AS one of the spokespeople for the "pack", especially on this topic (count debate)....we welcome you back!
In particular because you reasoning is well thought out and....just flat out correct. 
"I don't care what anybody playing whatever level 2, level 3, or side counting count, says....they cannot pick up the count as quickly, with a fraction of a second glimpse, with the same accuracy. Those saying they can are flat out wrong. Probably lying to themselves rather than intentionally lying to us."
Way too much of a generalization. I've used the level-two RPC for 43 years. Do you really want to claim that I can't reckon it as efficiently as someone else uses level-one Hi-Lo?! Because, for a slight fee, I'd be happy to disabuse you of that notion.
Don
Way too much of a generalization. I've used the level-two RPC for 43 years. Do you really want to claim that I can't reckon it as efficiently as someone else uses level-one Hi-Lo?! Because, for a slight fee, I'd be happy to disabuse you of that notion.
Don
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Do you really want to claim that I can't reckon it as efficiently as someone else uses level-one Hi-Lo?! Because, for a slight fee, I'd be happy to disabuse you of that notion.
Don
Now you are generalizing when you say "someone else". I wasn't talking about someone else, I am talking about me. Yes I accept that bet, if you are talking a "fee" large enough to make it worthwhile.
Normally, I avoid these types of "pissing" contests. I don't know what it is about AP's and the need to prove you are better than others. I play against the casinos, not other AP's. But I will make an exception because what you are claiming goes against the science of how the human brain works.
While I have great respect for you Don, and can appreciate the point you are making with your experience (43 years), the fact is that I play upwards of 100k rounds a year and am less than half your age, with I suspect better vision.
Again, not that any of that even matter because the real point is that the human mind can't do what you are claiming. The process that the human brain uses isn't even the same, between counting one number and counting two. I think Norm even wrote about this.
Here would be what I propose. Someone will take fifty to a hundred of shots of a table, lets say 4 players and a dealer with cards face up. Each shot will be edited down to a fraction of a second. Each shot will be flashed onto the screen for a tiny fraction of a second and I am talking the blink of an eye (literally) with you and I sitting next to each other. We each write down the count and move on to the next shot. At the end of the 50 to 100 flash shots, we'll see who was more acurate.
Agreed? Now what amount wager do you have in mind?
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
If this challenge takes place in Vegas, perhaps we can get Munchkin or LV Bear to be the administrator, responsible for flashing the screen shots. If it is to take place on the east coast, finding someone impartial and acceptable (not Norm) would fall to you. I will be on the East Coast in June for 11 days. Let me know.
I am happy to throw in for a nice dinner afterwards, so hopefully there will be no hard feelings.
I am happy to throw in for a nice dinner afterwards, so hopefully there will be no hard feelings.
You have a different understanding of my comments than you ought to. You read a single article, which you now take as the Holy Grail, and have decided that, because someone wrote something that you have interpreted as you see fit, it applies to every human being on the face of the earth, and that's just plain ignorant.
I've seen savants multiply ten-digit numbers in their heads more quickly than you and I could ever dream of multiplyingy two-digit numbers (and yes, I see a perfectly valid analogy here). Do you want to claim that it "goes against the science of how the human brain works"? You don't get to make that kind of statement, and it isn't remotely true.
You're incredibly naive to think that someone motivated to learn or apply a level-two, level-three, or even level-four count couldn't do so as skillfully or more so than someone using level one. The thought of such a claim is patently absurd. It's like saying that the most skillful Olympic diver couldn't possibly do a triple somersault with a double twist more skillfully than you could a swan dive. What would possess you to make such a ridiculous statement?
Could you honestly be so gullible as to think that you could see a jack and a four and cancel them to zero any more "skillfully" than I or ten thousand other players could call the same pair zero using level two?
Finally, if you were to win such a contest because you were half my age and had better vision, how would that in any way advance your argument? To win that contest, you would have to go up against someone whose only difference from you would be to use a level-two count, rather than a level-one one, but with all the other variables removed, to make it a true apples-to-apples comparison. Otherwise, how would you know that you "won" because "the human brain can't count level two as well as level one," as opposed to you won because you're up against a 72-year-old who wears glasses?
Bottom line: just drop it. The argument is pointless (and fallacious). You're entitled to your opinion, with which I steadfastly disagree.
Don
I've seen savants multiply ten-digit numbers in their heads more quickly than you and I could ever dream of multiplyingy two-digit numbers (and yes, I see a perfectly valid analogy here). Do you want to claim that it "goes against the science of how the human brain works"? You don't get to make that kind of statement, and it isn't remotely true.
You're incredibly naive to think that someone motivated to learn or apply a level-two, level-three, or even level-four count couldn't do so as skillfully or more so than someone using level one. The thought of such a claim is patently absurd. It's like saying that the most skillful Olympic diver couldn't possibly do a triple somersault with a double twist more skillfully than you could a swan dive. What would possess you to make such a ridiculous statement?
Could you honestly be so gullible as to think that you could see a jack and a four and cancel them to zero any more "skillfully" than I or ten thousand other players could call the same pair zero using level two?
Finally, if you were to win such a contest because you were half my age and had better vision, how would that in any way advance your argument? To win that contest, you would have to go up against someone whose only difference from you would be to use a level-two count, rather than a level-one one, but with all the other variables removed, to make it a true apples-to-apples comparison. Otherwise, how would you know that you "won" because "the human brain can't count level two as well as level one," as opposed to you won because you're up against a 72-year-old who wears glasses?
Bottom line: just drop it. The argument is pointless (and fallacious). You're entitled to your opinion, with which I steadfastly disagree.
Don
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear here, when you say I took a single article as ‘the holy grail’, you are talking about a paragraph from Norm’s book. You are inferring two things, one that I have “interpreted it as I see fit”? Let me post Norm’s exact quote, Please tell me where I misinterpreted?
I wanted to add a few words about stepping up to a level II strategy. At first glance, the difference does not appear great. You sometimes add or subtract two instead of always adding or subtracting one. However, adding one to something is not the same as adding any other number, as adding one is simply counting. Your brain doesn’t access an addition table or handle carries. (You sometimes add a pair of ones, but this can be handled by counting twice.) The difference sounds subtle, but not when you are keeping a running count very quickly. Level I and level II strategies are handled in a fundamentally different manner by the brain. Incidentally, the same is true for early computers. An “incrementer” had a fraction of the circuitry of an “adder.” --Norm Wattenberger from Modern Blackjack
Second thing you infer is that I took this single statement as you called it….”the holy grail”. I did no such thing. There are numerous studies comparing simple tasks to complex tasks. And usually the complex task is not really very complex, just a second layer of simplicity, which mirrors what we are talking about here. Each and every one of these studies finds a higher error rate, with what they label as the complex tasks vs the error rate for the simple tasks.
Now I suppose the part you are going to fight me on is that adding and subtracting 1 and 2 is no more complex than adding 1. Findings show that it. But you, just like most pro-complex count advocates, refuse to accept the science that proves that it is, which happens to be what Norm rightfully concludes.
Now you bring up savants, or extreme cases. That is not really what we are talking about, but if it makes you feel better, I will amend my statement.
I don't care what anybody playing whatever level 2, level 3, or side counting count, says.... absent being a very extreme example, the likes of a math ‘savant’, they cannot pick up the count as quickly, with a fraction of a second glimpse, with the same accuracy. Those saying they can are flat out wrong. Probably lying to themselves rather than intentionally lying to us.
It is doubtful that I have changed your mind, so at that, I am in agreement that we should just drop it, each entitled to our own opinion.
I wanted to add a few words about stepping up to a level II strategy. At first glance, the difference does not appear great. You sometimes add or subtract two instead of always adding or subtracting one. However, adding one to something is not the same as adding any other number, as adding one is simply counting. Your brain doesn’t access an addition table or handle carries. (You sometimes add a pair of ones, but this can be handled by counting twice.) The difference sounds subtle, but not when you are keeping a running count very quickly. Level I and level II strategies are handled in a fundamentally different manner by the brain. Incidentally, the same is true for early computers. An “incrementer” had a fraction of the circuitry of an “adder.” --Norm Wattenberger from Modern Blackjack
Second thing you infer is that I took this single statement as you called it….”the holy grail”. I did no such thing. There are numerous studies comparing simple tasks to complex tasks. And usually the complex task is not really very complex, just a second layer of simplicity, which mirrors what we are talking about here. Each and every one of these studies finds a higher error rate, with what they label as the complex tasks vs the error rate for the simple tasks.
Now I suppose the part you are going to fight me on is that adding and subtracting 1 and 2 is no more complex than adding 1. Findings show that it. But you, just like most pro-complex count advocates, refuse to accept the science that proves that it is, which happens to be what Norm rightfully concludes.
Now you bring up savants, or extreme cases. That is not really what we are talking about, but if it makes you feel better, I will amend my statement.
I don't care what anybody playing whatever level 2, level 3, or side counting count, says.... absent being a very extreme example, the likes of a math ‘savant’, they cannot pick up the count as quickly, with a fraction of a second glimpse, with the same accuracy. Those saying they can are flat out wrong. Probably lying to themselves rather than intentionally lying to us.
It is doubtful that I have changed your mind, so at that, I am in agreement that we should just drop it, each entitled to our own opinion.
"It is doubtful that I have changed your mind,"
Not even an iota. Not a single cogent argument.
"so at that, I am in agreement that we should just drop it, each entitled to our own opinion."
Wonderful idea. But, just one piece of advice: to not embarrass yourself going forward, I would suggest that you don't advocate too strongly for why human brains simply aren't equipped to handle "complex tasks," such as 2 + 2, as well as they are to process 1+1. Once you've learned the multiplication table by rote, do you really think we spend more time trying to get to the bottom of 7 x 8 than we do to reckon 3 x 2?
Your mind surely does work in a vastly different way from mine.
Don
Not even an iota. Not a single cogent argument.
"so at that, I am in agreement that we should just drop it, each entitled to our own opinion."
Wonderful idea. But, just one piece of advice: to not embarrass yourself going forward, I would suggest that you don't advocate too strongly for why human brains simply aren't equipped to handle "complex tasks," such as 2 + 2, as well as they are to process 1+1. Once you've learned the multiplication table by rote, do you really think we spend more time trying to get to the bottom of 7 x 8 than we do to reckon 3 x 2?
Your mind surely does work in a vastly different way from mine.
Don
