it's all about TIME

[sagefr0g]

at night
in the dark
it’s alright
on a dream to embark
awake or asleep
outside on a picnic table
looking upward into the deep
one is able
to watch the wind and atmosphere course through the trees
and the planets and stars swirl
a huge conglomerate of blessed freebies
as over space-time the universe does unfurl
a mixed bag of fathomable and unfathomable options
and even then
we can’t fully perceive that which unfolds in however many dimensions
like a kid in a candy store, its difficult to decide what or when
even though we know E=M times a constant squared
and great power our precious little time can yield
still relativity and quantum arithmetic must be paired
in always some degree of uncertainty when we play in this field
our task being, to choose our options wisely over space-time
so that we get it right
so that those free rolls do indeed rhyme
as over time the dark of the night becomes day light

 

[sagefr0g]

so what’s this thing about time, anyway? just me maybe, it’s a big deal. been working and hustling for you don’t wanna know how many years. a long, long time, let’s just say. at some point early on in all that hustle and bustle, i knew why i was working, then as time went on, i forgot why and just went on working my a$$ off. essentially work it’s self became the reason for working, far as i was aware, and the real reason became obfuscated. workaholic?, nope not really, just forgot the reason for even ever wanting to do a lick of work at all in the first place. the reason to work in the first place has to do with escaping the trap of having to work so one can have the freedom that time has to offer. get enough payoffs from work and you end up with a free roll of a life far as time goes, sorta thing (all this ignoring the noble aspects work may enshrine). cause, what, this is a card counting, advantage play forum sorta thing,right?, noble?, meh., payoffs?, oh yeah! so, yeah there is a monetary value of time with respect to a given individual and the work they do, thing is, time it’s self is even more valuable, way more valuable, given the obtained monetary position one has hopefully obtained.

so anyway, me thinks what happens with work, is that one allows one’s self to overdo it time wise and also effort wise. but squandering time, when time is the principle issue for doing something in the first place, seems a really dumb thing to do, lol. have i been guilty?, yea. but, i believe i’ve woken up, lol, hence i write this bable. maybe monkey does as monkey see’s, for this ole guy, sorta thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/science/old-monkeys-picky-behavior.html?_r=0 but yeah, it’s like a heuristic sorta thing, for me, how i woke up to this, time thang. i’d be hustling a joint, maybe 8, 10, or even more hours trying to score as many plays as possible. it’s like we all know, the rarity of finding advantage chances is a miserable aspect of AP stuff time wise and effort wise. so, i notice this hustler in the joints, he’d suddenly appear, check every possible AP chance, make plays and disappear. like, wham bam, thank you ma’am and he was gone. i’d be thinking to myself, what a dumb bunny this guy is, heck i’ve done wiped out most of what he’s looking for, but truth was, every so often, he’d land a play. pretty much same as me, time wise. truth was, this guy wasn’t wasting any time. just so happened as i observed him and his ways, that being an ole monkey (like referenced to above), that i was considering time, and how important it is. put two and two together, and decided to copy his methods, lol. freed myself from a trap of time and effort and still realize virtually the same payoffs, and more free time.

was going over some data, and found that pretty much on average, far as advantage plays made over time, that, for every hundred dollars won, it takes about seventeen dollars of that hundred to win another hundred, sorta thing. then i learn about this, Pareto principle, 80/20 rule. it’s not a hard and fast number 80/20, sorta thing it could be like, ehmm 83/17, lol, just a ballpark figure, sorta thing. thought, hmm, that fits my data, interesting. so but, the Pareto principle 80/20 rule, isn’t just to do with money, but all kinds of stuff, work, time, ect. hmm, time?, now that is interesting. would be great to get 80 units of time for 20 units of time, no? here’s some info on Pareto principle 80/20 rule:

i’d heard of the Pareto principle before, but like so many things, it had faded out of my awareness, until it was mentioned in some reading i was doing with respect to Nassim Taleb’s fat tail writings. something to think about for AP's, me thinks.

ahh well, just some rambling babbling.

 

[sagefr0g]

tic

tock

just a pick

of the clock

picking and ticking

on and on

past and present take a licking

and then they are seemingly gone

everything changes

millennia, nanoseconds, months, seconds, nights, minutes, hours, days, centuries, weeks, decades, years

time ever builds its ranges

now something new appears

same with our understanding

now is somewhere in space-time

warped by matter and ever expanding

in which matter and energy intertwine

entropic chaos

to the extreme extent

presents to us

at random a seemingly normal event

yet anything can happen

depending perhaps on how time went

even defying probability an event may open

tic tock , just a pick of the clock

ticking on, evermore

if its secrets should we unlock

a fortune we might just score

like a beating heart, breaths of air

we have options to choose

we can make it all fair

so that over all we can’t lose

its all for free

we owned it from our beginning

and ever shall be

even as we work for it till our ending

 

[sagefr0g]

been trying to better understand the Pareto principle and in the process was rummaging around in some books and files trying to see if the frequency of hi/lo true counts and concurrent advantage has any numbers similar to the Pareto principle 80/20 rule. closest thing i came up with (6deck game rules?s17das or h17das averaged? 62 cards cut out) was that circa 72% of the time one can expect the true count to be negative or zero (0.83% disadvantage for flat betting bs player caught up in that count range) and 28% of the time one can expect the true count to be positive (0.29%advantage for flat betting bs player wonging in if tc>0 and out if tc<=0). so kind of interesting 72%(negative & or zero) tc time frequency / 28% positive tc time frequency and 0.83%disadvantage / 0.29%advantage, sorta thing. confirmation bias far as the Pareto principle?, i dunno, but i kinda don’t think so. lol, i don’t want it to be lmao, cause if it’s not just confirmation bias far as the Pareto principle, if it’s a real deal, sort of thing, then it may be possible to leverage it in advantageous ways. just as it is possible to strategically wong a crappy -0.55% edge bj game and make it into a positive advantage.

but anyway while doing all that, ran into some interesting writings with respect to time in the book Blackjack Attack.

gotta say, as someone who has become so intrigued with the idea of mastering time with respect to advantage play, that Dschles’s chapter 13 New Answers to Old Questions from his book Blackjack Attack 3rd edition, is a real treasure. just that the chapter and the discussion there in are so laser centered over the aspect of time and strategy of dealing with it (not to mention the not discussed advanced math’s that John Auston, Kim Lee, Chris Cummings, Richard Reid and Dschles put forth) is imho inspirational. i’d read this chapter years ago, and was surprised how much better i understand it now.

not that there aren’t loads of stuff that i want to learn and master but i’m at a point in my AP learning curve adventures after 12 years, for which bingo!, the importance of dealing with time has become the most paramount factor (at present) in my learning curve development. we pretty much, all know that more advantage plays means more pays, sorta thing. convoluted and hidden but seemingly obvious is the aspect of time regarding more plays and more pays. maybe you, the readers knows this stuff, me?, not so much. i mean, heck, 12 years ago, i was, like, advantage?, so what, what the heck is that anyway? lol. then an ah hah moment. and 10 years ago as an example i initially couldn’t see the point of the value of comps, but i came to realize how over time that value really adds up significantly, another ahh ha moment. and 4 or 5 years ago, as an example, i became aware of several plays that would yield about ($25-$30)/play, i’m like, meh, yeah ok, $25, $30, meh. again, time was the hidden factor. thing that didn’t register at first was the fact that those plays could be made perhaps around 4 or 5 times each a day. and those plays were concurrent with other potential plays, sorta thing. add that value up over a year and the meh, becomes oh yeah!, sorta thing. another ahh ha moment. just saying that’s how it was for me. and then recently i find that with much less time and effort, it is possible to achieve pretty much the same results, sorta thing. another ahh ha moment. so now, for me, it’s all about time, far as this learning curve goes, for now.

anyway, i’m gonna read chapter 13 New Answers to Old Questions in Blackjack Attack, i dunno how many times, over and over, till i get it, lol. not so much over the aspect of learning about wonging efficiently, but more so as to get the frame of mind sorta thing regarding time and efficiency under such convoluted circumstances as wonging and or the availability of chances of play with respect to time. hopefully i’ll have another ah hah moment, if so, i’ll get back with yah.

 

[sagefr0g]

might just be the craziest post from me yet. it's just tinkering, as suggested by Nassim Taleb, in the book Antifragile. probably messed up some of those equations down in there. don't really care, i might bother and find errors and fix them. doesn't matter, just doing that tinkering thing. some stuff cut and pasted off the internet, some i typed out. no big deal, just fiddling around. just sharing:

Definitions

Work can be defined as transfer of energy. In physics we say that work is done on an object when you transfer energy to that object. If one object transfers (gives) energy to a second object, then the first object does work on the second object.

Work is the application of a force over a distance. Lifting a weight from the ground and putting it on a shelf is a good example of work. The force is equal to the weight of the object, and the distance is equal to the height of the shelf (W= Fxd).

Work-Energy Principle --The change in the kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on the object.

Energy can be defined as the capacity for doing work. The simplest case of mechanical work is when an object is standing still and we force it to move. The energy of a moving object is called kinetic energy. For an object of mass m, moving with velocity of magnitude v, this energy can be calculated from the formula E= 1/2 mv^2.

Types of Energy

There are two types of energy in many forms:

Kinetic Energy = Energy of Motion

Potential Energy = Stored Energy

Forms of Energy

Solar Radiation -- Infrared Heat, Radio Waves, Gamma Rays, Microwaves, Ultraviolet Light

Atomic/Nuclear Energy -energy released in nuclear reactions. When a neutron splits an atom's nucleus into smaller pieces it is called fission. When two nuclei are joined together under millions of degrees of heat it is called fusion

Electrical Energy --The generation or use of electric power over a period of time expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), megawatt-hours (NM) or gigawatt-hours (GWh).

Chemical Energy --Chemical energy is a form of potential energy related to the breaking and forming of chemical bonds. It is stored in food, fuels and batteries, and is released as other forms of energy during chemical reactions.

Mechanical Energy -- Energy of the moving parts of a machine. Also refers to movements in humans

Heat Energy -- a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature

What is Power

Power is the work done in a unit of time. In other words, power is a measure of how quickly work can be done. The unit of power is the Watt = 1 Joule/ 1 second.

One common unit of energy is the kilowatt-hour (kWh). If we are using one kW of power, a kWh of energy will last one hour.

Calculating Work, Energy and Power

WORK = W=F*d

Because energy is the capacity to do work , we measure energy and work in the same units (N*m or joules).

POWER (P) is the rate of energy generation (or absorption) over time P= E/t

Power's SI unit of measurement is the Watt, representing the generation or absorption of energy at the rate of 1 Joule/sec. Power's unit of measurement in the English system is the horsepower, which is equivalent to 735.7 Watts.

W = F*D as given above and then work done = F*D would be more properly written as below:

work done=Fapplied * Ddone thing is distance entails time (actually space-time) & Ddone = work done/Fapplied

one might commonly think of work, as typically a goal, a human has that is performed, but really that goal driven form of work is only a special case of work, but really there is a much broader general sense of work. eg. in the space-time of the universe, work is always going on in one way or another and it needn’t have anything to do with human (or any other creatures) goals . in other words, things (work) just happen as a result of ‘forces’ in the space-time of the universe.

power = work done/t taken = E/t & power = Fapplied * Ddone/ t taken = E/t & E = power*t & t = E / power

so t = E/work done/t taken & t taken = E/work done/t

so anyway this equation: power = work done/t taken = E/t

shows us that power we can gain is diminished for some given work done by the t taken in other words, less time taken to get a given amount of work done can yield a greater amount of power.

are the equations above even right, dunno maybe check them and see like my fifth grade math teacher Mrs Careth told me.

regarding advantage plays, if we look at an advantage play as equivalent to work done then we can get a greater amount of power out of an advantage play for less time taken to get and orchestrate that play.

question becomes, what is the wise way to leverage time? can time be leveraged over the vast space of potential plays (ie. plays one might ever expect to get in a lifetime) or would leveraging time reduce the potential, hence reduce value captured? or can value captured be leveraged, such that time can be tinkered with, leveraged, even capture and convert fluctuation into sustainable value errhh ehmm perhaps through antifragility?probably not but one can dream

so how about the Pareto principle 80/20 rule, can it be fit into this stuff?

and how about the mind set about time related strategy from chapter 13 New Answers to Old Questions, Blackjack Attack…edit: still reading that chapter, over and over………………….
again just some tinkering, fooling around, sharing.

 

[sagefr0g]

wandering in the desert, breathing free air, looking for water, adrift in a life raft lost at sea, in need of water in a vast ocean of undrinkable water. water used to be free, now not so much. is air next? yup, but maybe, just maybe we can still score a free roll. our task?, breath that air, get that water in enough time to enjoy it.

getting there, but not quite there yet.

salient points:

Power is the work done in a unit of time. In other words, power is a measure of how quickly work can be done.

Pareto principle 80/20 rule is it valid?

so valid strategy or not, try this:

for power = work done/t taken ( obviously if less time for same work done, power becomes greater & one gets the benefit of more time) a double whamee

for what has been a normal 10 hr work day, zero in on extending instead 2 hrs (20% of 10hrs) of search effort. note: excepting for valid potential play wait time (but move on soon as potential evaporates) over rides the 2 hr limit.

so for, five joints indicates, 120/5 = 24 minutes/ joint searched (actual plays or potential play waits not included, goofing around time neither) also may not be able to actually do it that quick, because real search time may take a bit longer. note: drive time circa 3 hrs . note: work done above is search work not actual plays made.

need information, know a given joint, # exploitable games, potential advantages #, # potential plays, need to work in here an estimate of realized plays:



joint ... # gametype1 ..... ev ..... # gametype2 ..... ev ..... # gametype2 state ..... ev ..... # gametype3 ..... ev

X…….........…..0……......$0…….......…114….....….$75……......……xxx……..........……?.....................4……........….$30

Y………..........12…....…..$140…….......81….....….$75….......………xxx……..........……?....................15…........……$30

Z….........…….11….........$140......…….94….....….$75…….......……xxx……..........……?.....................7……........…$30

W…........…...13……......$140……........?.............$75………........…xxx…..........………?.....................5.......………$30

from the table, hopefully can get a strategy, such as chapter 13, Blackjack Attack has far as optimal departure time, lag time, ect.

post script:

while it’s true that more advantage plays means more pays, and more days put in means more plays, it doesn’t necessarily follow that more time put in means more plays. time put in is trickier than days put in. a day is a day, a macroscopic event. time?, not so much. it’s maybe a microscopic event, like a wave, a fluctuating wave (hopefully with some average within a small probability space). again, a day is a day, time not so much. how small can a unit of time be? how many options (advantageous chances) can exist in some tiny unit of time? it seems the options could be virtually to the limit up to a point or limit (within the bounds of potential advantage). perhaps, a day, is too long, too imprecise, with the chances being so few and far between within a huge vast wildly fluctuating waves of sea of time. in other words, good luck picking a zinger play out of that vast probability space, more like, if it’s gonna happen, it’s just gonna happen, so don’t overdo a day, don’t waste time, apply a bit (maybe a whole lot of bit) of strategy, to leverage the time, let the chips fall where they may, and be done with it, for a while. make it not so much a day, but how much time and when of a day. machine gun blast that probability space of time with relatively small bits of leveraged time, at a time, but not all of the time, sorta thing, your time is vastly too valuable to squander. don’t be like a hopeless, hopeful slot machine player banging away at a 12% disadvantage, while inside his head he’s thinking, if i get in enough spins i’ll hit a zinger payoff. surely he will, but at what cost?, same with banging away time, the most valuable thing we own and the purpose of our endeavors in the first place. it becomes more about the lever we apply than the weight (wait) of time. the lever is the information available relative to the potential advantage (a number), the average of probable realized plays garnered out of the potential number of plays. the real amount of time (a number) needed to process these potentials.

it’s like advantage plays, if we can see the fluctuation of play as and how it goes (and we can for some games) then we can know when to take a shot. same with time, if we can discern the fluctuation of events over time, we can better manage it, sorta thing. again, similar to that huge vast wildly fluctuating waves of sea of time, sorta thing, there are aspects of advantage play that can teach us a lesson, there are plays for which, the advantage is able to be captured because the probability space is either constrained or can be constrained to a relatively small area, to where we know something ‘juicy’ is gonna happen within that space. this makes it possible for a relatively small cost to achieve a relatively large payoff. and in those conditions, it can be so, that even if the event we seek to achieve fails, that if the probability space further shrinks, we can possibly take another shot, with an even greater probability of succeeding, again at a relatively low cost to benefit ratio. point being, is it like that for time? dealing with relatively small chunks of anything is for the most part vastly easier and more productive than dealing with huge masses of anything. that’s part of how leverage works it’s magic. the other part normally involves the use of some sort of tool. in the case of time productivity that tool would be information.(example: a nice gnat sized drone equipped with camera, wifi capability to our phone, gathering information would be perfect, but probably illegal and expensive as hell, lol) but hey, we have what we have, so the idea is try and use it. point being again, time and strategy, the time we have to spend, isn’t only valuable for the present, but can be used to collect information for the future. that’s a bit of leveraging, right there. such information can be used for managing expectations, leverage for not only the present but perhaps for the future as well.

so now, got a somewhat understanding of time and dealing with it. got a started up platform chart, so as to put some numbers to it, visa v the idea behind chapter 13 of Blackjack Attack. just a bit more understanding and tinkering and i think this problem shall be licked.

 

[sagefr0g]

little more rambling, bambling, tinkering ruminations far as getting a handle on the valuable asset known as time:

gonna borrow, steal, beg this KJ quote: "It's really about the concept of diminishing returns. If you can capture the vast majority of any benefit with minimal effort, adding complexity beyond that is counter productive (pun intended). It isn't that their isn't some small gain to be had from adding layers of complexity, but it is such a small gain, that it is not worth the extra effort. That energy should be better spent concentrating on something that actually matters and makes a difference. "

also borrowing from DSches Blackjack Attack, pg 60 chp 5 The Illustrious 18, (i'm paraphrasing) 'the idea being, if one is a hi lo player using 200 to 150 index numbers, one might as well throw out 90% of those numbers and keep the Illustrious 18'.
note: that's not to mention the fab 4. so far as that circa 90% to throw out, a total of 22 index numbers to keep, sorta thing.
anyway, a severe case of the pareto principle, me thinks. instead of 80/20 rule vs here 90/10, sorta ratio.

also far as pareto principle, as previously stated, from my experience and data far as advantage play types engaged in, it takes on average 17% of 100% previous winnings to win another 100%. so 83%/17% ratio sorta thing on value won and value extended.
this can be visualized looking at this histogram graph depicting win/loss data, win only data & loss only data. it's obviously demonstrative of the pareto principle, imho. link to histogram below:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/attachments/summarygraph-jpg.8985/

still working on incorporating general ideas relative to wonging as given in Blackjack Attack, chapter 13 New Answers to Old Questions.
so far came up with an improved platform chart that will hopefully help strategics for determining time efficiency in various joints:
edit: frequency of plays is not exact, only estimated, but i believe frequency of plays is going to be a vital statistic relative to time efficiency, sorta thing.

 

[sagefr0g]

so, time and the pareto principle 80/20 rule. 80/20 or there abouts. me thinks it’s not just confirmation bias, but a fairness issue (quite often, think casinos & partrons), especially when it comes to our fellow man and our fellow man, sorta thing. how far we can push the limit on one another, a tolerance level demarcation of sorts. what? isn’t it most states with casino’s limit the house edge around 15%? magnanimous of them, no? state legislatures forcing the casinos to give up 5%, lol. naw, not really they know the limits people can be screwed over aren’t set in stone. besides, they have thousands and thousands of ‘customers’ and time is on their side.

so, here’s the true count frequency and expected values for true counts for some commonly dealt blackjack games.

note the percentage of time the player has a positive advantage and the percentage of time the dealer has an advantage. right around 28% of the time for the player and 72% of the time for the dealer. 72/28 rule? me thinks so. and from the top example, the ev of the dealer for negative tc & tc = 0, affords the dealer a 0.83 edge while the basic strategy player has a 0.29 edge from the positive tc time span. overall edge goes to the dealer (house) ev = HE = 0.55 . and about that time span, 72% of the time, this time, this day, this trip, and 72% of the time, the next time, the next day, the next trip. so multiply that 72% of the time by the number of times, or days or trips. that 72% becomes huge (example: say one plays 10hr/day, five days/week, so in a week 50hrs of play, 36hrs of play at a disadvantage, play for 52 weeks and that’s 1,872hrs/year of play at a disadvantage). a huge amount of time spent at a disadvantage. so waiting bets over a huge amount of times, likewise multiplies to a relatively huge number. and so on. to keep up with that the player needs to up his bets (spread) when the tc increases and the advantage increases. because of fluctuation, those increased bets don’t always win, thus adding to the losing waiting bet deficit. but because those increased bets are made at an advantage, a positive ev, the winning blackjacks, successful prudent insurance bets, double downs, splits and just plain winning hands, out strip that waiting bet deficit. the time though, has been spent, that 72% amount of time at a disadvantage and the 28% time at an advantage. therein lay the beauty of wonging. no time spent playing 72% of the time at a disadvantage, building a deficit of loss’s for bets made at a disadvantage. only ever making a wager when you have the advantage. now that time span of play is only 28% of the total time you would have spent had you been playing all, and it is at an advantage. now with respect to time spent playing one is multiplying 28% of the time by the number of time, or days or trips engaged in. a lot less time playing and no deficit of loss’s at a disadvantage, only loss is the normal fluctuation (degrees of standard deviation) that occurs when playing at an advantage. there will be some additional time spent observing table conditions for proper entry points but even that can be optimized visa v chapter 13 New Answers to Old Questions Blackjack Attack, if I’m beginning to understand those writing correctly.

so but anyway, wonging, it’s in general a good bit of the essence of advantage play, even if one plays all, in essence it’s an act of wonging if the play all is done from a strategic advantage play sort of action. the play all AP is just lurking in the game, waiting for those scarce advantageous opportunities to wong in with some real wagers.

again, just like above wonging is a critical trick up the AP’s sleeve. the game depicted below, which has been discussed with respect to the pareto principle and antifragility has another aspect with respect to the pareto principle that hasn’t been pointed out.

the entire game cycle from beginning to end is constructed such that 82% of the game cycle is worthless, 6% fragile, 3% robust and 9% antifragile, all of that while the ‘undercurrent’ of the game is influenced by a circa HE = 17%, (83/17 rule pareto principle, sorta thing, again) . so 82/18 rule, pareto principle, sorta thing, when it comes to game worthiness. in other words, the game is set up to screw the player 82% of the time while giving the player a definite chance for profit circa 18% of the time, that while the player is being chipped away at by a 17% HE. as discussed in another thread (antifragile thread), for this game the player overcomes the 17% HE by wonging into the game somewhere in the region of the fragile, robust or antifragile area depicted.

points being of this diatribe, time is a precious commodity, one for which it is not so obvious, how the inefficient use of it can really add up to a huge waste, time wise and moneywise. if anyone is like me, such waste escapes one’s awareness, with respect to the short run and the long run, unless one pencils it out, sorta thing.

wonging is the solution, imho, along with detection of salient information coupled with proper decision making.

 

[DSchles]

Your true count frequencies (44% for TC = 0) indicate that you seem to be truncating, rather than flooring. Any reason that you did that? I mention only because the double bin for TC = 0 is really the least accurate way of reckoning true count bins.

Don

 

[sagefr0g]

Your true count frequencies (44% for TC = 0) indicate that you seem to be truncating, rather than flooring. Any reason that you did that? I mention only because the double bin for TC = 0 is really the least accurate way of reckoning true count bins.

Don

no reason at all sir, but you are correct the true count values are truncated. not only that, you are even more correct when you zero'd in on the TC = 0 values. point being that 44.12% for TC = 0 is the sum from Wong's tables Professional Blackjack pg (286 - 289), where in his tables in fact had -0 (17.6%), 0 (9.35%) & +0 (17.15) . probably close to ten or eleven years ago i typed those values from Stanford Wong's book into excel. i did indeed omit the -0, 0, +0 entries from his book and just summed them. being it was ten or eleven years ago, i don't truly remember why i did that, but knowing me, it was probably because i don't much like any TC = 0 value, lol, so i just summed them probably for simplicity's sake. kind of surprising that i didn't just sum the negative TC values, as i dislike them even more intensely, lol. i believe tables for computing various values of interest regarding blackjack do sometimes omit or sum negative TC regions such as chapter 10 tables in Blackjack Attack. but anyway, as you probably know the values were generated by software known as Blackjack Count Analyzer.

edit: hmm, ok found this https://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount4.htm
edifies what you stated about the accuracy for TC = 0 frequencies with regards to truncating. i wish i could embed an image of the graph in the link above showing the difference truncating makes with respect to a TC = 0 but i don't feel comfortable doing so, far as copyright considerations may prohibit doing so. end edit

edit: i'm not sure what the term double bin for TC = 0 means. end edit.
edit: after sleeping on it, i think the term double bin for TC = 0 far as truncating goes, means the process that i failed to post, eg. -0 (17.6%), 0 (9.35%) & +0 (17.15) but if that's the case wouldn't it be called triple bin? end edit
edit: prior to some further sleep, i was considering changing the 72/28 rule regarding time wasted as a result of Don's pointing out how TC = 0 values are distorted (my words, not his) visa v truncation. but i decided against that after considering what i imagine the average card counter's proficiency level (using hi/lo) may be. just me maybe, i doubt the average card counter profits much from the +0 bin. the 72/28 rule is only a heuristic anyway. end edit

anyway, this discussion brings about a question a forum member had, for which i was at a loss to give an explicit answer, see: https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/rounding-counts.54915/#post-491085

 

[aslan]

Hey, Mr. Frog Man!

I see you're still up to your old tricks! Good to see you again. Still living at the Pond I presume? It's like old home week.

Good to see you.

Your Fuzzy Thinking Fan, Aslan

 

[sagefr0g]

Hey, Mr. Frog Man!

I see you're still up to your old tricks! Good to see you again. Still living at the Pond I presume? It's like old home week.

Good to see you.

Your Fuzzy Thinking Fan, Aslan

is? is? is that Aslan, King of the jungle in which the pond lay? same Aslan that taught the fr0g how it is that not just good things happen but bad things as well and that not just bad things happen but good things as well?
but yes indeed, old home times, indeed. and i was wondering would you, indeed show up. good to see you!
about TIME

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. -Charles Dickins

 

[aslan]

C'est moi, same Aslan, King of nothing, servant of all. Things do happen and at Blackjack you can always expect the unexpected, although more often than not the expected will occur.

You do see me, but not with your eyes. I was out of time, but now I am in time, I hope, for sage advice from the most wise resident of the pond and its greenly surroundings. What have you to say, Mighty Frog of Ferns, Flies, Firs, and Fins. What say thee, Mighty Explorer of the Deep and Murky Pond? Why have you summoned me here before you?

 

[sagefr0g]

C'est moi, same Aslan, King of nothing, servant of all. Things do happen and at Blackjack you can always expect the unexpected, although more often than not the expected will occur.

You do see me, but not with your eyes. I was out of time, but now I am in time, I hope, for sage advice from the most wise resident of the pond and its greenly surroundings. What have you to say, Mighty Frog of Ferns, Flies, Firs, and Fins. What say thee, Mighty Explorer of the Deep and Murky Pond? Why have you summoned me here before you?

summoned? not i sir, i only hoped.
i do have a concern that i reckon you could address, but i'm not sure how to phrase it in an appropriate way, fitting for this site. it has to do with one of the ten commandments. though shalt not covet. just me maybe, but the act of coveting is i believe an easy pitfall for an AP to fall into. one which brings about a sense of discomfort, trepidation and induces one to waste time, for not, all because one falls into a desire for an outcome that one does not have control over, sorta thing. comments?
sage advice? from a lost puppy of a fr0g? the lost-est of the lost?
meh, ok, try this:
Hakuna Matata
, if it doesn't work, call me in the morning.

edit: but yes, the swamp is teaming with life fulfilling vitality, scarce as the opportunities may be, but that's a normal principle of economics, no?

 

[aslan]

Covet... I guess I plead guilty. Keeping up with the Joneses, making your mark, getting ahead, being a "success"... It's all a grand waste of TIME. How do you know when you have arrived? What does it mean? Where is the satisfaction...? oh, there is... for a while. But it doesn't stay. Now I have to keep up with the "Van Joneses". Where does it end? It doesn't. It's a phantom notion of success for which we can always point to some higher manifestation. In truth, there is no higher success than being content with that which is given. Enough is enough, always has been, always will be. More is more than enough... discomfort. Two coats... one is not mine, it belongs to the guy laying on the cold street sort of thing. Follow me? Success or the right path to success I think is being happy with less. No 10 hour days searching for those elusive advantage plays. Much of that is just seeing if you can do it, anyway. It isn't the money, although we may think it is, it's the challenge and the triumph. The money is our brag but the real fulfillment is beating the house at its own game, beating the greedy misers who constructed this money trap we call a casino. It's outsmarting the smartest of the smartest. It's just fun, not so much coveting, but it can become coveting, and it generally does become coveting... if only I could find more advantage plays, do better at it, perfect my technique, make it into a cash cow sort of thing. But then we get carried away. More hours of study and more hours of testing out our discoveries. There is only so much out there, and only so many who will find it by hook or by crook. There are the black swans out there who fall into great fortunes. The Grosjean's, the Bill Gates's, the Trump's... but we can't make ourselves into black swans... if you're a white swan, that's what you are... an ordinary, everyday white swan. But white swans are beautiful in their own right and it does nothing to detract from them that there are many of them nor does it make a black swan more beautiful than a white swan, in fact, the opposite is probably true. So being content is success and being more content with even less is even more successful and wanting more is discomfort and the more you get the more you want and that is the ultimate discontent and discomfort. So you think that YOU ramble. LOL No worries!

 

[sagefr0g]

@ aslan,
your comment is genuinely appreciated. the gist of that commandment has alluded me to a great extent for all of my years. thanks to you and google (of course ), me thinks, me understands it. as suspected, its a biggie when it comes to the soul and psyche of an AP or a hustler.

as an aside, a poster on another blackjack site mentioned a song title that i think fits well into the subject of this thread:

 

[aslan]

Well, I appreciate that, but I may have overstated the case for coveting, since it's not so much the belongings of our neighbor that we seek (as in stealing) as much as equality in possessing as much as our neighbor has or superiority in possessing more than our neighbor has. Nothing wrong with that except that where your heart is there your treasure is and if our treasure is in how much stuff we accumulate or enjoy then we may have missed the best treasures of all which consist in spending more of our TIME with those we love and being free and with the TIME to deepen ties with our God, and with our spouses, daughters, sons, relatives and friends and with TIME to help and care for the ones in need who are all around us, our less fortunate brothers and sisters in the human race. RELATIONSHIPS require TIME. RELATIONSHIPS are the important thing. TIME allows us to engage in them and to deepen them.

A teacher held up a jar full of large rocks. He asked the class, "Is the jar full?" "Yes," they answered. "No," said the teacher as he added pebbles that found there way down between the larger rocks. "Now, is the jar full?" he asked. "Yes," they replied. "No," he said, as he poured sand into the jar and watched it fill in all the little cracks and crevices left by the rocks and pebbles. "It's full now!" exclaimed the class. "No," he said, as he proceeded to pour water into the jar, which the sand readily soaked up. "So then," he asked, "what is the moral of the story?" One student rose to his feet and said, "The moral of the story is that there is always room for more." "No," said the teacher, "The moral of the story is that we must always select our highest priorities first, the big rocks, then begin to add lower priorities into our lives. If we start with the lowest priority, represented by water, then we will have no room left for any on our other priorities, including our most important priorities. Or if we started with the sand, then we would only have room for the water, not any more important priorities. Even the pebbles will keep us from our most important priorities. So the secret of a fulfilled life is picking the highest priorities first, and then adding in the less important things. For most of us this means we need to empty our jar altogether and start all over with our highest priorities, which is easier said than done. It explains why we can never seem to find time for the things that mean the most to us-- our jars are full of water and sand and just don't have any room for anything else.

 

[sagefr0g]

i kind of like the words quoted below regarding coveting:

“Frequently we desire things beyond what we know is reasonable or just. This is what is meant by coveting. Coveting does not include momentary desires that occur to us and which we dismiss as being unreasonable or inappropriate. Rather, coveting involves the willful entertaining of inappropriate or excessive desires.”
Fr. Charles Pope

the words above, fit what i’m getting at, with respect to advantage play. in particular the unreasonable aspect of a some given desire. just me maybe, but it’s like God is saying Thou shalt not be stupid. so but ok let’s just stick with Fr Charles Pope use of the word unreasonable. that works too, lol.

point being, for an AP, well if it a’int reasonable, it a’int gonna work. or if it a’int a reasonable desire, it a’int gonna happen, sorta thing. further point being, if the AP goes after some unreasonable desired event, it’s likely just gonna end up his not reaching that goal and in the mean time, he’s ended up wasting TIME. in other words, an unreasonable use of time.

aslan's story of the jar above, is interesting with regards to the synopsis i'm trying to get across, because it implies getting priorities straight. the idea of having a valid strategy, prioritized. that's the sort of thing i think i see in chapter 13 New Answers to Old Questions in Blackjack Attack, being addressed far as wonging blackjack goes. and just me maybe, but wonging in general (as long as it's reasonably orchestrated) is a quintessential element of advantage play.

edit: i like the way Fr. Charles Pope states: "Coveting does not include momentary desires that occur to us and which we dismiss as being unreasonable or inappropriate."
since that allows folks to use a feedback loop (hypothesis) be it correct information or not, much as a ballistic missile uses feed back to reach a target (it's ever off target, but realizing through feedback the error in trajectory it adjusts towards ever being closer to on target, sorta thing).

 

[sagefr0g]

question: ergodicity? question being, not bang for your buck, but bang for your time.

regarding expected value, sessions (time) and goals.

consider that one is greedy for gain beyond the limit that some goal portends. yet, willing to always just accept reaching the goal, with respect to a given session. and even willing to accept the fact that for any given session one might not reach the goal. ok, and one more stipulation, the session is time limited (due to one’s inherent disdain for casinos and wasted time) but the expected value for a session is known (within reasonable limits), and realization of expected value meets the goal. oops, and also one won’t walk away from a known plus ev state other than the potential of further chances presenting.

the question becomes, should lady fortuna smile upon one and ev is met or exceeded long before a sessions time limit is met, then is it a breach of proper AP etiquette (conduct) to merrily waltz out the door, even while realizing lady fortuna may frown upon one in the future?

example:

yearly goal = $10,000.00

ev/8hr circa $75 thru $160

standard deviation = ? (unfortunately not known) guesstimate: std circa $350/session

session limit = 8hr

expected # sessions/year = 134 (hopefully not more)

question being, say some session, in one hour,& bingo you reach >= $117.50 . there are no apparent further plus ev chances presenting. is it an error to take the money and run, in the hopes of stealing time from lady fortuna? should one expect the variance monster (or standard deviation) to stalk you out the door? sooner or later in the future to leap upon your winnings to devour that which isn’t ev? the real question being, would such behavior endanger one in this example to spend more time than 134 sessions a year in order to reach one’s goal?

does one necessarily diminish the ergodicity (edit: (in other words are the two work paths dependent or independent, related or not related. end edit) of one’s expectations when time extended is reduced? considering that not all time extended is actually making a plus ev play, but some of that time extended is used finding a plus ev play.

my guess is that it doesn’t much matter and that one can indeed sneak off with a bit of extra free time if one is goal driven and not shooting for the moon, far as the pursuit of ev goes.

true or false? thoughts …

 

[bklynkid222]

In Honor of my pledge to contribute, get a hand give a hand. I have faced this question in a different arena, trading. My position on this would be to play for the same X amount of time and do that always if you physically can. (If you could play multi hands that would accelerate your gain versus venue time, but you have already set your system parameters, so more hands would equal more risk versus bankroll, so perhaps that is not an option. All these things are like being in sales or fishing. Every time you throw out the fishnets or crabpots, or call a prospect you are gaining no matter the outcome of each attempt, and of course over time a record exists where you can assign a fairly exact dollar value to each prospect call or fishnet toss. I see no way to shortcut this fact, other than hiring others to do the work. For each unit of work (hand played) you get the unit of gain within the math of your approach. My three pesos, cheers bklyn