Comparing new and traditional ways of using information gathered

LC Larry

Well-Known Member
#21
johndoe said:
So how do you even know this works at all? What simulation or analysis did you do to conclude that this was beneficial? Surely you have some data of some kind, and aren't just relying on anecdotes and "personal experience".
They don't. They make up crap just like the civilians do to make them "sound like" an expert. We've all hear the ploppies say, "I don't hit my twelves because I ALWAYS get a ten!"

There just isn't much left to figure out with this game. But some will waste time trying.
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#22
When I figure out how to do short term stats that would show this I will consider sharing it. But I know the flat landers will not understand it and still ridicule those that see more dimensions in the games we play. The difference when playing one way versus the other is immediately apparent. Many have described the difference as like the difference between night and day. There are years of records that support it for multiple players for both methods of using the same main count but if you have used both you don't need much time to tell that results accumulate in a completely different manner.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#23
Now you're getting into the ad hominim with the "flat landers" remarks.

What evidence do you have, of any kind? Surely you have some kind of simulation results. Let's see them. If it's so "immediately apparent" then let's see the actual results.
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#24
dogman_1234 said:
May I consider asking you *where* one can go about learning/simming this? It seems like in the word-soup essays you post something gets lost in translation.
Commercial simulators can't sim this. You need a custom simulator written for this way of using information. Basically you collect data into more groups. You would be looking at the success rate of doubles and splits in those subgroups and looking for a subgroup that does poorly. Now just dividing into smaller groups does nothing unless you the smaller group is a family of related deck compositions. If your groupings do nothing more than gather a random sampling of unrelated deck compositions you will find no additional information because the subgroup is representative of the parent group. But by thinking about how to make sub-groups that are populated by highly related deck compositions what happens to that sub-group might not be reflective of what happens in the parent group. When you do that you have harvested additional information that may have a use. You at least have more specific information that applies to the group and may be very different from the parent group average. There is a lot of ways to use this better assessment of related deck compositions. Some affect things in opposite ways than others. Like raising your bets because that sub-bin has higher stats than the parent bin average. I would recommend examining the effectiveness of individual doubles and splits and giving up the weak EV close to the index on the weak ones. Raising bets increase variance, especially for doubles and splits. You can give back some of that EV gain to be more patient on the doubles and splits that are weak. That hopefully makes variance less by giving up more of it as lost negative variance rather than lost positive variance. It is the same concept as risk averse index plays only you have EV gain from the increased bets to give back and still have increased EV instead of just giving up EV for reduced variance where variance is more likely to be negative. Doubles and splits are a big cause of variance. When EV is gained from correctly betting larger it will increase variance across the board from doubles and splits. But when you have little gain from doubling and splitting and a lot of negative variance as indicated by not much change in EV from just hitting or standing you can still have a net increase in EV by foregoing those risky weak doubles or splits and just doubling and splitting stronger doubles and splits.

This means reassessing each play for each sub-bin. Doubles that you would make in the parent TC bin may be negative EV doubles in the more specific sub-bin (the same for splits) or they may not generate much EV compared to the parent sub-bin. You can either look at the play from the sub-bins specifics or less accurately use traditional methods of side count adjustments to look at the play. I think I explained enough for you to get the idea. There is so much more potentially useful angles to what can be gleaned from the information if you make wise decisions on forming sub-groups that are populated by related deck compositions that I could go on forever.When you have just around a dozen bins you need huge differences to make a significant change. When you use hundreds of sub-bins small differences add up 50 fold when compared to what they can do using a traditional approach. The problem is with the traditional approach more information produces very broad stroke and clumsy changes. But with 50 times as many bins changes can be done surgically. Where it affected a TC bin, it affected deck compositions within the TC bin differently and your gain is the average of the plusses and minuses. With more specific related deck sub-bins the positives can be larger and the negatives eliminated or reduced. I learned to ficus on using the power to reduce swings. If you ignore that you usually chase EV and SCORE and cause downswings to become worse. Where you can use sub-bins to increase EV and SCORE it is best to make sure you give some back to decrease the low EV volatility producers by forgoing those doubles and splits. Unfortunately in BJ volatility stats are directly correlated to EV so betting more in low volatility situations is a step in the wrong direction. But you can target the downswing producers (low EV gain doubles and splits) and forgo the low EV doubles and splits until they have gained enough EV. Just try to gather extra information that divides TC bins into sub-bins that are correlated to the success rate of many doubles and splits. Many doubles and splits are largely made based on the increased odds of the dealer busting. You base that assessment on the playing count which mostly tells you the T density without regard to neutral cards. Few neutral cards means the dealer busts a lot more, but a lot of neutral cards has the dealer making strong hands more often. Some doubles and splits benefit from more neutral cards. Of course if you are going to this trouble you should be starting with a very strong playing count. Counts that count the 7 have a much better use of neutral card information since the neutral cards are just the 8 and 9. That is why they rightly criticized the Hilo use of this. The 7 was a neutral card. If you understand what Tarzan or Moses did with the column counts this is the same thing but different. Knowing there is a main count RC of +5 for your level 2 count and that there has been 20 aces seen and that you have seen 25 neutral cards in a 6 deck shoe with 1 deck left, the count know that you expect to have 4 of each rank left. But there are 12 aces left and combining the ranks of 8 and 9 (expecting 8 left) that there are 7 left. That leaves 41 cards with a RC of +15. The average low card is tagged at +1.25 and the T is tagged at -2 to get the +5 RC. That defines a pretty specific family of deck compositions with an expected density of T's that has far less of a range around that average. You don't even need to use any of the information because it has already been figured out in advance, you just need to know what sub-bin you are in. That information tells you your bet and play with no need for adjustments. You just make the bet and play for that bin. That is much faster than the way a traditional counter would use the side count information.

I got to stop somewhere but there is so much to say.
 

DSchles

Well-Known Member
#25
Dummy said:
I am working on a way to have a short term downswings statistic. So far every expert says there is no such statistic, so I will have to invent something. Without that there is no way to show what I am talking about through sims. You can't even seem to understand that. If you were an expert you would know that you are asking for something that hasn't been invented yet. Of course it is the perfect way to make a straw man argument, which is a tactic of someone that can't argue facts and instead, after realizing he has no valid argument to make, attacks the other person rather than the idea being debated. It is the tactic of someone that has no leg to stand on in the discussion. I am curious as to what you think ferreting out deck compositions that fair worse on the doubles and splits and maybe makes them more and doing something about it by betting them less and doubling and splitting less aggressively would do to those sessions where you play those deck compositions. Being a bit of a rhetorical question, as I think we all know that results in those session will not be as volatile and be far less likely to be negative. The EV will be slightly less but you will win more often and lose less when you lose. But you can't discuss that because we all know that is true. Instead you attack the poster instead of the idea because that is all you can do. You demand stats you know don't exist or worse, show how little you understand by believing long term stats will tell you anything about the short term. Statistically this shouldn't affect an AP. Just have the BR for the swings and fire away. But we don't play on a computer, we play in a casino. Things that help you get away with playing are a big asset. This would shape results and buy-ins in a way that helps casinos be more comfortable with letting you play while at the same time make your results more tolerable for you.
You seem to have an infinite capacity, somewhat like a person with Alzheimer's, to repeat the same thing over and over again and think that you are saying it for the first time. It's one of the strangest traits I've ever seen in an otherwise intelligent person. If I had to win a bet, I could take the time to find the above post, in one form or another, a HUNDRED times over the years. Do you think there's any possibility that you'll stop? Or do you think you can BEAT it out of us? That if you persist to do the same thing over and over again, you'll achieve a different result, and that suddenly, all those who read you will see the light? You understand that trying to do this is Einstein's definition of insanity.

Long-term variance, made up of chunks of discrete short-term variances, is additive. If I want to know what the variance of my total play is for, say, 100 hours, I can add smaller variances, 10 hours at a time, to get the global result. So, it is illogical to present an argument that says your long-term variance isn't affected, but each smaller period of time's variance is lower than usual. Because, if that were true, then the sum of the ten discrete periods would be lower than normal 100-hour variance is well. You haven't made a discovery to change the laws of mathematics.

And, so help me, if you answer this post with the SAME crap you've written 100 times, a) I won't read it, but, more importantly, b) I won't read anything else you write going forward.

Your blind stubbornness really has to stop. You think entirely too much of yourself. You have too much disdain for other intelligent people.

Don

P.S. When asked to demonstrate mathematically the powers of TARGET, Jerry Patterson famously replied: "I can't. It's above the mathematics of the game." A few short months later, he was the laughingstock of the blackjack community and was never heard from again.

A word to the wise.
 

bjo32

Well-Known Member
#26
Boy, this is one of the funnier threads I’ve read in a while. I had to stop several times just to wipe the tears out of my eyes from laughter. Three is like the energizer bunny. No matter what anybody says, he comes right back at them with the same gobbly goop. Nothing, and I mean nothing, slows him down.

My take away is that all this super duper system does is smooth out short term variation. Three admits it does nothing to help SCORE or EV. So for sake of argument, let’s says everything Three is saying is correct. Why would anybody go to all this work when it won’t make them any more money in the long run?

Who cares about smoothening out the short term variation if it’s going to take this much work? Aren’t we just interested in the long run anyway? And I don’t see how it helps longevity since we all know the primary reason we get kicked out is due to our spread. The bigger the spread, the more EV but also the more likely we’ll be backed off. I get that there are other betting and cover strategies to increase our longevity. I know I’d never spend the time nor energy in learning such a complicated system for what sounds like no gain. What I am missing?
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#28
DSchles said:
Long-term variance, made up of chunks of discrete short-term variances, is additive. If I want to know what the variance of my total play is for, say, 100 hours, I can add smaller variances, 10 hours at a time, to get the global result. So, it is illogical to present an argument that says your long-term variance isn't affected, but each smaller period of time's variance is lower than usual.
I know that. See this is why I repeat things. People say I said something other than what I said. Obviously they didn't get what i was trying to say. How many times has that happened in these threads. The answer is as many times as I have repeated an answer in a slightly different way in a new post. I said variance is blind to whether the swing was positive or negative. I also said that variance can't tell how swings tend to clump. A 100 trials that have 50 straight wins and 50 straight losses with all being the same data points in a different order have the same variance as if they alternated wins and losses. The variance would be exactly the same but swings would go from extreme to minimal. Your comments indicate you agree with both but said you disagree with what I said. I was pretty careful to refer to short term as swings and global stats as variance. I kept referring to lessening downswings. Variance is irrespective of sign. When EV drops slightly from betting less where doubles and splits perform worse, that decreases negative variance for the portion of play that you make this adjustment but increases positive variance slightly due to the average EV being slightly less making all the differences between other positive variance results more. The net change in variance is minimal but the short term change is not. Variance might go up slightly or down slightly. Remember I explained variance can't tell what the direction a swing is. Variance only makes measurements from the average which now has changed. Less of a difference for results below EV and more of a difference for results above EV. All the addends in the variance equation alter slightly. Some of addend the squares are for bigger differences and some smaller differences. The biggest affect on variance is the big bet doubles and splits. I was describing would to make a positive impact in the way of downswings that didn't affect variance in a significant way. I think you took what I said too literally. But I believe the common statement I made was variance is mostly unaffected or something like that. When you have a move that is 5 significant digits down from the most significant digit most people call that unchanged even though it has in fact changed an insignificant amount.
bjo32 said:
My take away is that all this super duper system does is smooth out short term variation. Three admits it does nothing to help SCORE or EV. So for sake of argument, let’s says everything Three is saying is correct. Why would anybody go to all this work when it won’t make them any more money in the long run?

Who cares about smoothening out the short term variation if it’s going to take this much work? Aren’t we just interested in the long run anyway?
This is exactly what I have been pointing out. people keep demanding stats to show it makes more money but I keep saying it makes less money. Most of what people like to call super-duper systems don't win that much more money and may not win any more money. You want two things from your system. Winnings and being able to get away with it. I keep saying they aren't going to make you a significant amount of extra money, but it will be quite useful for helping you get away with playing in casino. That is the most important battle to win unless you are a slash and burn player. Then that doesn't matter at all to you. Bjo is right that you shouldn't care. That is why I think it is so funny that people are caring and making all these comments elevating what I said to making a lot more money. I said you have to give up EV to get what I consider to be most valuable, smoother results and more longevity. If you put little or no value on that then what are you arguing about. Smoother results means less of a BR requirement but again that difference here is fairly insignificant, like 4% less. At least according to the sims.
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#31
dogman_1234 said:
Dummy mentioned that such analysis of each sub-set can enable the player to reduce variance.
No. Dummy said it can reduce downswings, which can reduce the frequency and severity of losing sessions and increase the frequency of winning sessions which steadies BR fluctuations. There is no significant change in variance. Based on what I see there are some deck compositions whose contributes to variance by poor performance on doubles and splits and others in the same TC bin that contribute to variance by strong performance on doubles and splits. Variance can't distinguish between variance from more positive versus more negative variance contributions. The difference between the average EV and results get squared so they are both positive when they get added to variance. They both contribute about equally to variance if they are bet and played the same. Hand frequency for split and doubled hands is what separates them in their contribution to variance. The key to grouping these related deck compositions that have worse performance together is picking their common element missed by the main count and separating them from other deck compositions and treating them differently. Griffin described moving them to another bin and treating them as the average of all those unrelated deck compositions are treated. That distinction is what allows improvement. The initial problem is this family of deck compositions aren't reflective of the bin they are in. Moving them to another bin isn't going to change that. They will still be in a bin populated by much more frequent and very different deck compositions and treated as the average of all those deck compositions suggested in the sim that generated the data. But the other key is when you know doubles and splits perform poorly for this density of neutral cards you don't bet them optimally or make doubles and splits optimally. That latter is what caused the problem to begin with. The density of neutral cards made some doubles and splits negative EV plays and others having too little added EV to make the double worth the added risk. Altering playing strategy for the sub-bins that display this while at the same time betting less trade EV for making these downswings less severe from both bet size and playing strategy. Both decrease EV a little. If you ever had a big bet situation where the dealer kicked your ass on all your doubles and splits there is a chance that losing all those big bets was due to playing through one of these poor performance deck compositions rather than just bad luck. If so betting less and doubling less by this criterion would have reduced the damage significantly.

Now to be clear this is not something I researched and created. It was something that other players did by reading the forums and figuring out what some of the outside the box thinkers were doing. Namely that neutral cards can affect the performance on hands and that treating them as their own group rather than moving them to another group would allow for playing differences and betting differences that help reduce short term downswings. Moses got ridiculed for the ideas that contributed to their thinking, but they were valid ideas. That is to wait for a higher density of T's to double or split weaker doubles and splits or make plays that draw heat. With such a small spread for SD Moses wanted the EV to be worth the heat and/or risk exposure. Tarzan described and showed with charts how information can be used differently. And I used a totally different approach that uses the strengths of the same ideas. They used more specific deck composition information for finer playing decisions. I used it for betting decisions. To be far Moses also used it for betting decisions. They figured out what volatile plays were more sensitive to neutral card density and waited for more a higher density of T's to make those plays and bet less in deck compositions that had a higher density of neutral cards. Now EoR's would say to bet more with more 8's and 9's but getting an 8 or 9 instead of a T often on some volatile plays or the dealer getting them just kills you. That can cause more downswings when you have a higher advantage. While having a low density of neutral cards increases the density of the T's for the TC and has the opposite effect for the plays that are effected that way by the decreased density of T's and increased density of 8's and 9's. This group of AP's made an educated guess based on what they could know. They got lucky that these out of the box thinkers ideas worked out without simming the strategy. They asked me to see if it made sense based on my research. I didn't have an answer until I figured out where my swing control came from. I advised them on other ways to further get utility out of the information gathered while explaining exactly what was happening.

Unlike my system they weren't betting and less while playing more conservatively based on higher overall variance and covariance and betting more based on lower variance and covariance, they were just betting less and playing more conservatively based on higher negative variance to accomplish the same type of swing control by using T density to predict the success rate of many doubles and splits. They didn't sim it. They had someone that understood the concept Tarzan, Moses and I were talking about and used that to make a change based on faith of concept and their understanding of the game rather than actual data. In my posts I described how to make more accurate changes based on research rather than faith of concept. It seems that most don't understand the concepts so faith of concept is meaningless. You must understand a concept before you can make changes based on that concept. After years of team play the evolving changes caused changes in how results add on each other make the value obvious when results are analyzed or you play at the tables. But if all that matters to you is the long run rather than making money more consistently by decreasing frequency and magnitude of short term losses this offers nothing. In the long run it washes out and statistics are affected slightly negatively. KJ would call much bigger changes in statistics insignificant.

That is some background on how they developed their approach. They didn't want to do the side count adjustments at the table so they liked Tarzan's everything has already been figured out before you play by considering specific deck compositions concept rather than doing all these mental adjustments to the RC to change the number on the number-line for the decision barrier (After all, very deck composition in the sub-bin would use the same adjustment to the RC. For plays there is a critical side count that you would use as enough EV for the added risk). They liked Moses's patience to just make money from higher quality situations to steady BR growth and they liked my technique of regrouping sub-bins that are related deck compositions. They took the parts they liked from all of our out of the box techniques and did something with it to accomplished just what they wanted to do. If you tried this without understanding the concept specifics you might make things more volatile in terms of downswings. That is why I outlined the method of actually researching this. I just don't think there are but a few that actually understand the concepts Moses, Tarzan, or I use based on the comments made on the forums.
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#32
dogman_1234 said:
While I have no doubt that Dummy lacks the acumen to pull off what they are doing, many of us may or may not be interested in giving up long-term EV for short term Var.
I am not sure you wrote what you meant. But acumen is needed for the traditional approach to using the extra information gathered. memorization is required for doing what I described. There are no computations at the table other than keeping the count. You just make the play or bet that is appropriate for the bin you are in. You have memorized that before you make a bet. Now if you mean acumen for keeping the count. I think column counts are beyond me but believe I can do them with enough practice if I wanted to. And Moss and Tarzan think my two count with significant count overlap method is beyond them. But I am confident they could do it with enough practice even though they aren't. I can keep two side counts and the main count but adding another side count, as the column counts do, seems harder by an order of magnitude to me.

Like I said this is more trying to inspire out of the box thinking and understanding what can be done using counting than trying to hand someone a system. The traditional methods work fine but can have you enduring far worse swings than you have to. You can smooth swings in general as my system does or target smoothing downswings as this group of AP's did.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#33
If commercial sims can't handle it (which I doubt), then how have your claims been validated? Writing a custom simulator for blackjack is really, really easy. I've done it myself (more precisely modified an open source version to analyze a special opportunity). Anyone with rudimentary programming skills can do it.

So someone must have simulated your "system". Who did, and what were the results? How, exactly, do you know that there is any benefit of any kind here? And if you say it's just from your personal experience and that of some mysterious other players, it confirms you're a crank. It's exactly the same argument progression players use.

This is pure crackpot territory. Listen to Don.
 

ZenKinG

Well-Known Member
#34
The funniest thing is how I exposed Dummy to be Three before anyone knew, but let's not digress.

You want to see something else get exposed? This is how I know Three is full of shit regarding this. Three has been known to never want to mention certain AP exploits on a public forum and jumps on people all the time for releasing sensitive AP info where casinos are possibly lurking, etc. He always warns players to not talk about things on an open forum, BUT when it comes to this super count grouping system, he has no problem of talking about it on an open forum. Why not? Because he knows it's full of shit and he just likes to hear himself talk and like others have said, maybe he has a problem where he needs to be seen as 'smart or above everyone' so he just types out hogwash with essay long posts trying to seem like someone who is above you especially to newbies who are first starting out. Maybe he wants to feel like he can be a mentor to these people and he gets pride and a buzz from that.

Three you've just been exposed twice now by the king. Thanks.
 
#35
ZenKinG said:
The funniest thing is how I exposed Dummy to be Three before anyone knew, but let's not digress.

You want to see something else get exposed? This is how I know Three is full of shit regarding this. Three has been known to never want to mention certain AP exploits on a public forum and jumps on people all the time for releasing sensitive AP info where casinos are possibly lurking, etc. He always warns players to not talk about things on an open forum, BUT when it comes to this super count grouping system, he has no problem of talking about it on an open forum. Why not? Because he knows it's full of shit and he just likes to hear himself talk and like others have said, maybe he has a problem where he needs to be seen as 'smart or above everyone' so he just types out hogwash with essay long posts trying to seem like someone who is above you especially to newbies who are first starting out. Maybe he wants to feel like he can be a mentor to these people and he gets pride and a buzz from that.

Three you've just been exposed twice now by the king. Thanks.
Slightly ironic considering the first thing you ever said to me was "I'm 10 times the counter you are." :rolleyes:
 

DSchles

Well-Known Member
#36
Dummy said:
No. Dummy said it can reduce downswings, which can reduce the frequency and severity of losing sessions and increase the frequency of winning sessions which steadies BR fluctuations. There is no significant change in variance. Based on what I see there are some deck compositions whose contributes to variance by poor performance on doubles and splits and others in the same TC bin that contribute to variance by strong performance on doubles and splits. Variance can't distinguish between variance from more positive versus more negative variance contributions. The difference between the average EV and results get squared so they are both positive when they get added to variance. They both contribute about equally to variance if they are bet and played the same. Hand frequency for split and doubled hands is what separates them in their contribution to variance. The key to grouping these related deck compositions that have worse performance together is picking their common element missed by the main count and separating them from other deck compositions and treating them differently. Griffin described moving them to another bin and treating them as the average of all those unrelated deck compositions are treated. That distinction is what allows improvement. The initial problem is this family of deck compositions aren't reflective of the bin they are in. Moving them to another bin isn't going to change that. They will still be in a bin populated by much more frequent and very different deck compositions and treated as the average of all those deck compositions suggested in the sim that generated the data. But the other key is when you know doubles and splits perform poorly for this density of neutral cards you don't bet them optimally or make doubles and splits optimally. That latter is what caused the problem to begin with. The density of neutral cards made some doubles and splits negative EV plays and others having too little added EV to make the double worth the added risk. Altering playing strategy for the sub-bins that display this while at the same time betting less trade EV for making these downswings less severe from both bet size and playing strategy. Both decrease EV a little. If you ever had a big bet situation where the dealer kicked your ass on all your doubles and splits there is a chance that losing all those big bets was due to playing through one of these poor performance deck compositions rather than just bad luck. If so betting less and doubling less by this criterion would have reduced the damage significantly.

Now to be clear this is not something I researched and created. It was something that other players did by reading the forums and figuring out what some of the outside the box thinkers were doing. Namely that neutral cards can affect the performance on hands and that treating them as their own group rather than moving them to another group would allow for playing differences and betting differences that help reduce short term downswings. Moses got ridiculed for the ideas that contributed to their thinking, but they were valid ideas. That is to wait for a higher density of T's to double or split weaker doubles and splits or make plays that draw heat. With such a small spread for SD Moses wanted the EV to be worth the heat and/or risk exposure. Tarzan described and showed with charts how information can be used differently. And I used a totally different approach that uses the strengths of the same ideas. They used more specific deck composition information for finer playing decisions. I used it for betting decisions. To be far Moses also used it for betting decisions. They figured out what volatile plays were more sensitive to neutral card density and waited for more a higher density of T's to make those plays and bet less in deck compositions that had a higher density of neutral cards. Now EoR's would say to bet more with more 8's and 9's but getting an 8 or 9 instead of a T often on some volatile plays or the dealer getting them just kills you. That can cause more downswings when you have a higher advantage. While having a low density of neutral cards increases the density of the T's for the TC and has the opposite effect for the plays that are effected that way by the decreased density of T's and increased density of 8's and 9's. This group of AP's made an educated guess based on what they could know. They got lucky that these out of the box thinkers ideas worked out without simming the strategy. They asked me to see if it made sense based on my research. I didn't have an answer until I figured out where my swing control came from. I advised them on other ways to further get utility out of the information gathered while explaining exactly what was happening.

Unlike my system they weren't betting and less while playing more conservatively based on higher overall variance and covariance and betting more based on lower variance and covariance, they were just betting less and playing more conservatively based on higher negative variance to accomplish the same type of swing control by using T density to predict the success rate of many doubles and splits. They didn't sim it. They had someone that understood the concept Tarzan, Moses and I were talking about and used that to make a change based on faith of concept and their understanding of the game rather than actual data. In my posts I described how to make more accurate changes based on research rather than faith of concept. It seems that most don't understand the concepts so faith of concept is meaningless. You must understand a concept before you can make changes based on that concept. After years of team play the evolving changes caused changes in how results add on each other make the value obvious when results are analyzed or you play at the tables. But if all that matters to you is the long run rather than making money more consistently by decreasing frequency and magnitude of short term losses this offers nothing. In the long run it washes out and statistics are affected slightly negatively. KJ would call much bigger changes in statistics insignificant.

That is some background on how they developed their approach. They didn't want to do the side count adjustments at the table so they liked Tarzan's everything has already been figured out before you play by considering specific deck compositions concept rather than doing all these mental adjustments to the RC to change the number on the number-line for the decision barrier (After all, very deck composition in the sub-bin would use the same adjustment to the RC. For plays there is a critical side count that you would use as enough EV for the added risk). They liked Moses's patience to just make money from higher quality situations to steady BR growth and they liked my technique of regrouping sub-bins that are related deck compositions. They took the parts they liked from all of our out of the box techniques and did something with it to accomplished just what they wanted to do. If you tried this without understanding the concept specifics you might make things more volatile in terms of downswings. That is why I outlined the method of actually researching this. I just don't think there are but a few that actually understand the concepts Moses, Tarzan, or I use based on the comments made on the forums.
102 and counting. Or is it 103? May have missed one. You're incorrigible, in the literal sense of someone whom it is impossible to correct.

Don
 
#38
DSchles said:
102 and counting. Or is it 103? May have missed one. You're incorrigible, in the literal sense of someone whom it is impossible to correct.
Au contrair, mon ami...
...real genius cannot be corrected, only misunderstood.
 
Top