NRS Formula Question: How can there still be an advantage when c - A is positive?

[bj21player]

I have a hard time believing the c - A in NRS when it is positive could produce a positive advantage still?

Can anyone explain to me how this is possible? Perhaps give me a reason, or an intuitive explanation why it is so.

As it stands, I never bet anything but the minimum bet when c - A > 0.

e.g. c = -11. Running count is -18.

According to NRS this is still a positive edge (-11 - (-18)) = +7 when a half deck tracking slug is cut into a 1 deck playing zone.

-7 more high cards came out than was anticipated by the tracking slug of -11 yet I am to bet more than the minimum?

 

[bj21player]

Let's put this into perspective.

c= -11. r = -1.667 with k = .5, q = 1 and N = 1.833.

A goes to -11 with 1/4 deck left.

NRS says this is an advantage of over 2% calling for a maximum bet whereas my experience tells me it is slightly negative.

More often than not A goes back to -5 in that remaining quarter deck, not to -18 as would be required by NRS since -cr = -18.34.

As you can see ever since NRS was invented around 1981 it has been flawed, is designed to fool the card counter and benefit the casinos by inciting players to bet heavy on negative counts.

Only true card counters know this as born out in experience and are able to discern the truth.

Recall the situation were A goes to -18 with 1/4 deck remaining. NRS says there is still a slight advantage. Whereas experience says it is highly negative though not as a negative as (-18 + (11-11/11)) / .25 = -32 TC which is over a 7% disadvantage.

Common sense and NRS start off the same but they diverge after that particularly when A is lower than c but greater than -ca.

However, I do figure NRS is about right when A is above zero in my experience and common sense.

Hopefully someone can rework this formula to produce a true representation of the way things work.

Norm Wattenberger will hopefully one day do a comparison test of just betting the minimum bet (instead of a larger size bet called for by NRS) when A is less than c but greater than -ca.

How surprised he will be when his CVData/ST add-on for $250 reveals, indeed, NRS is flawed and therefore, Extended NRS also. But he has to reprogram it with this ability to do this comparison.

We are all waiting with baited breath.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Let's put this into perspective.

c= -11. r = -1.667 with k = .5, q = 1 and N = 1.833.

A goes to -11 with 1/4 deck left.

NRS says this is an advantage of over 2% calling for a maximum bet whereas my experience tells me it is slightly negative.

More often than not A goes back to -5 in that remaining quarter deck, not to -18 as would be required by NRS since -cr = -18.34.

As you can see ever since NRS was invented around 1981 it has been flawed, is designed to fool the card counter and benefit the casinos by inciting players to bet heavy on negative counts.

Only true card counters know this as born out in experience and are able to discern the truth.
Recall the situation were A goes to -18 with 1/4 deck remaining. NRS says there is still a slight advantage. Whereas experience says it is highly negative though not as a negative as (-18 + (11-11/11)) / .25 = -32 TC which is over a 7% disadvantage.

Common sense and NRS start off the same but they diverge after that particularly when A is lower than c but greater than -ca.

However, I do figure NRS is about right when A is above zero in my experience and common sense.
Hopefully someone can rework this formula to produce a true representation of the way things work.

Norm Wattenberger will hopefully one day do a comparison test of just betting the minimum bet (instead of a larger size bet called for by NRS) when A is less than c but greater than -ca.

How surprised he will be when his CVData/ST add-on for $250 reveals, indeed, NRS is flawed and therefore, Extended NRS also. But he has to reprogram it with this ability to do this comparison.

We are all waiting with baited breath.

I would review the words i have bolded in your reply, because they dont "appeal" to "my common sense" or to anyone with half a brain. Moved to voodoo

 

[Sonny]

Let's put this into perspective.

c= -11. r = -1.667 with k = .5, q = 1 and N = 1.833.

A goes to -11 with 1/4 deck left.

NRS says this is an advantage of over 2% calling for a maximum bet whereas my experience tells me it is slightly negative.

So you have a half-deck with a running count of -11 mixed with another half-deck of unknown cards. With 1/4-deck left your RC is at -11, but some of those big cards are likely to have come from the unknown packet. You are still expecting to see more high cards come out so you bet more than the minimum. The power of the NRS formula is that it adjusts your estimation of the unknown packet as the cards are dealt. It becomes more accurate as you gain information. There is a great explanation of it here (Archive copy) and the derivation is here (Archive copy) if you want to look for flaws.

But in your example above you should be very careful because you are close to a boundary. If any of your estimations are off (grab size, grab location, cut card placement, slug count, deck size, slug size, packet size, packet location, etc.) you could be in for a surprise. These types of mistakes, along with inconsistent dealers, are probably the cause of your negative experiences.

-Sonny-

 

[bj21player]

One should not expect more high cards to come out because they already came out.

There is no boundary issue with 1/4 deck remaining because there are 13 cards left and less than 5 cards are played in the next round heads up between you and the dealer.

My experiences have been positive, not negative, by just betting the minimum bet when that -10 (-11 +1) was used up whether 3/4, 1/2 or 1/4 deck remaining, because usually small cards come out next, not more high cards down to -18. That's very dangerous to have a raised bet down to -18. I would have lost a lot of mone if I followed NRS to bet big when A was less than r.

You can keep betting the maximum called for by NRS on negative counts. Not me. That's vodoo. The casinos love it when you bet more on negative counts and reduce your bet on positive counts.

NRS was planted by casinos over 30 years ago and they have been making money off of it ever since by causing players to bet less on higher counts and more on negative counts (particularly when A is between -rc to c). The truth be told!

 

[Sonny]

NRS was planted by casinos over 30 years ago and they have been making money off of it ever since by causing players to bet less on higher counts and more on negative counts (particularly when A is between -rc to c). The truth be told!

Oh, I see. Well, obviously you read the articles above and you understood my explanations. I guess you're right. The fact that the count of the packets you are tracking is consistently too low must be a flaw with the formula. I'll never use the NRS again. Thanks.

But let's keep this little secret between the casinos and serious players like you. Thread locked.

-Sonny-