On Locking the Wonging Thread

[blackjack avenger]

I want to thank iCountNTrack for locking the wonging thread, though I don't agree with his reasons. I think it was overall a good debate with no name calling but I am sure hair pulling!:laugh: I admit I would have been probably very unhappy if I did not get in my last 2 posts. I was actually doing a little editing on the last one, but that is fine. He states I did not read all posts, but I did. I also mentioned some things several times that no one seemed to answer.

I started to dread seeing any replys because I was once again into the breech.

I feel the pressing issue I was facing was "can" my method be done. I belive I have shown that my method "can be done" but that does not mean it "should be done" when compared to the unseen method. I don't think I will continue this debate in any way. However, I will say that if a consensus or individually AutoMonkey, ICountNTrack, KC, or Qfit explain why unseen is superior in regard to SCORE. I am quite inclined to go with them; and would advise others to, because to answer this question probably involves higher math and/or sims which ICountNTrack and others have touched on. Not knowing them personally from what I have infered :laugh: from their posts their math abilites are beyond mine. I think most of us know why my method can be potentially dangerous VARIANCE, but is it enough to make my method overly dangerous given it's hopeful rarity of occurence.

In the very rare instance I face this situation; at this time, I am inclined to use my method; probably because it's mine :laugh:, and I do like its simplicity and I am a Halves user. If I were to write a book, I would be inclined to say "treat all unseen cards as unseen" because it is accpeted dogma; who am I to argue with Wong? See games in progress in PBJ, and is mentioned in other literature. It is also an easy mantra in response to how to treat any unseen cards. I have also stated same in previous posts.

Thanks again ICountNTrack

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I want to thank iCountNTrack for locking the wonging thread, though I don't agree with his reasons. I think it was overall a good debate with no name calling but I am sure hair pulling!:laugh: I admit I would have been probably very unhappy if I did not get in my last 2 posts. I was actually doing a little editing on the last one, but that is fine. He states I did not read all posts, but I did. I also mentioned some things several times that no one seemed to answer.

I started to dread seeing any replys because I was once again into the breech.

I feel the pressing issue I was facing was "can" my method be done. I belive I have shown that my method "can be done" but that does not mean it "should be done" when compared to the unseen method. I don't think I will continue this debate in any way. However, I will say that if a consensus or individually AutoMonkey, ICountNTrack, KC, or Qfit explain why unseen is superior in regard to SCORE. I am quite inclined to go with them; and would advise others to, because to answer this question probably involves higher math and/or sims which ICountNTrack and others have touched on. Not knowing them personally from what I have infered :laugh: from their posts their math abilites are beyond mine. I think most of us know why my method can be potentially dangerous VARIANCE, but is it enough to make my method overly dangerous given it's hopeful rarity of occurence.

In the very rare instance I face this situation; at this time, I am inclined to use my method; probably because it's mine :laugh:, and I do like its simplicity and I am a Halves user. If I were to write a book, I would be inclined to say "treat all unseen cards as unseen" because it is accpeted dogma; who am I to argue with Wong? See games in progress in PBJ, and is mentioned in other literature. It is also an easy mantra in response to how to treat any unseen cards. I have also stated same in previous posts.

Thanks again ICountNTrack

Renzey proved with his Front Count that waiting for a playable count and using TCT to predict that the shoe will on average stay at that count works. The Front Count is a very elegant demonstration of the value of the TCT. But it is inferior to continuing to count cards as you are playing. We can agree on that, right?

The method most of us prefer as the stronger method adds an additional variable to the equation, that of the number of missed cards dealt, which your preferred method neglects. Can we also agree that the more information you have plugged into your equation, the better?

Let me add that for practical purposes there is little difference. This is a theoretical discussion. If you're turning your back on a shoe it's going to be a bad count anyway, and the purpose of reconstructing the count when you return is for trivial decisions like whether or not you are going to hit 12 vs. 5 or 12 vs. 6 with a minimum bet; it's going to be for a small number of hands and it's probably not even worth the effort to reimagine the dealt cards as behind the cut card. We're talking pennies, literally. But as a person without the ability to evade discussion by locking a thread, I'll be happy to discuss it any time.

 

[blackjack avenger]

A Bit of Vindication is Always Nice

Not familiar with Renzy's work, but I understand he has some respect.

I agree completely on your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. I knew all along this has all been a tempest in a teapot, but I enjoyed the discussion.
:joker::whip:

 

[iCountNTrack]

But as a person without the ability to evade discussion by locking a thread, I'll be happy to discuss it any time.

I like your insnuated low blows

 

[sagefr0g]

on unanswered questions........

Not familiar with Renzy's work, but I understand he has some respect.

I agree completely on your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. I knew all along this has all been a tempest in a teapot, but I enjoyed the discussion.
:joker::whip:

some vindication yes, seems that way, whatever your angle had me thinking of Renzey and others as well:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=199708&postcount=27

whatever in that link near the bottom i was just curious how you'd answer that situation regarding rarity, advantage and betting.:whip:

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I like your insnuated low blows

I'm sorry. Just that I'm familiar with locking threads for having personal attacks, grossly off-topic, spam, etc., but never heard of it being done over mathematical disagreements. Better to just speak your peace and move on, no?

 

[iCountNTrack]

I'm sorry. Just that I'm familiar with locking threads for having personal attacks, grossly off-topic, spam, etc., but never heard of it being done over mathematical disagreements. Better to just speak your peace and move on, no?

The discussion had gone way past "mathematical disagreements", and gotten into a state of circular arguments. You dont think that 100 posts are enough?

 

[k_c]

I want to thank iCountNTrack for locking the wonging thread, though I don't agree with his reasons. I think it was overall a good debate with no name calling but I am sure hair pulling!:laugh: I admit I would have been probably very unhappy if I did not get in my last 2 posts. I was actually doing a little editing on the last one, but that is fine. He states I did not read all posts, but I did. I also mentioned some things several times that no one seemed to answer.

I started to dread seeing any replys because I was once again into the breech.

I feel the pressing issue I was facing was "can" my method be done. I belive I have shown that my method "can be done" but that does not mean it "should be done" when compared to the unseen method. I don't think I will continue this debate in any way. However, I will say that if a consensus or individually AutoMonkey, ICountNTrack, KC, or Qfit explain why unseen is superior in regard to SCORE. I am quite inclined to go with them; and would advise others to, because to answer this question probably involves higher math and/or sims which ICountNTrack and others have touched on. Not knowing them personally from what I have infered :laugh: from their posts their math abilites are beyond mine. I think most of us know why my method can be potentially dangerous VARIANCE, but is it enough to make my method overly dangerous given it's hopeful rarity of occurence.

In the very rare instance I face this situation; at this time, I am inclined to use my method; probably because it's mine :laugh:, and I do like its simplicity and I am a Halves user. If I were to write a book, I would be inclined to say "treat all unseen cards as unseen" because it is accpeted dogma; who am I to argue with Wong? See games in progress in PBJ, and is mentioned in other literature. It is also an easy mantra in response to how to treat any unseen cards. I have also stated same in previous posts.

Thanks again ICountNTrack

A problem with your logic is that you are using an average result and then leaping to the conclusion that it is somehow equivalent to actually accounting for all known parameters and nothing more. It's possible that the average may be the right substitute but the problem is that the average case isn't at all likely to occur.

An example is in this thread. In a fair coin toss with a large number of trials the most likely outcome is 50% heads and 50% tails but the probability of resulting in exactly 50% heads and 50% tails approaches 0 as number of trials increases. Any logic based on the assumption that the average case will always be the result given a large enough number of trials is faulty. The only thing that's known is that the ratio of heads/tails approaches 1 as trials increase not that number of heads equals number of tails. In fact the likely difference between number of heads and number of tails increases as number of trials increases.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Communicating in a Foreign Language

The discussion had gone way past "mathematical disagreements", and gotten into a state of circular arguments. You dont think that 100 posts are enough?

A thread that goes past 100 posts? Doesn't that show interest? Don't you want people to read this site and comment? 100 posts are enough? I would imagine there have been more then 100 posts on the net regarding the cure for the common cold, that they were not limited to 100. I thanked you for locking the thread, it does not mean you should have. Notice there are still comments on the main point or other issues. Wouldn't it be best for each of us to decide when we have had enough? and stop following the thread? therby letting it die of it's own lack of interest?

If you were speaking to someone who spoke a foreign language and you said the word "chicken" and they did not understand you. I would think you would come up with different methods to convey chicken. I tried to use simple examples and added or subtracted concepts and other examples to try to convey what I was saying. I would think a circular argument is when you say the same thing over and over and not when you say the same thing in a different way. I think the debate was not circular at all.

I think my final 2 posts clearly show how we can play with unknown knowledge using the TC Theorem, then I think it's a matter of can one see beyond that simple example to a more complex concept of using the TC theorem to play real unseen cards. Can one infer knowldege with incomplete information. The answer to that question is yes because:
A player has a 2 card 12, hits and breaks, you don't have to see the card to know it was a 10 with dare I say 100% accuracy!

Let me respond to iCountNTracks final post on the matter. I in a previous post explained that whether cards are seen or unseen does not change the TC Theorem. We can predict an average what cards in a shoe we expect moving forward. Yet, he is the one that brings up again and with empahsis the phrase the cards are "seen" when I had already addressed this. Next he provided us with; to me, is quite a busy formula. The audience here has varied math skills. I read his post and then my very simple final 2 posts that clearly shows I am correct came to mind. So while not directly answering his claims with high math that many may not understand I did with simplicity proved my point in a way that I hope everyone can see.

Another, I think side argument that appeard was about ST. Clearly we use information from cards we did not count in ST. If one reads the literature there is discussion of cards behind the cut card. We use that information even though we did not actually see the cards behind the cut card but instead infer information. I just thought of this example, again I wish sooner.

I was waiting for response to my last 2 posts which I had hoped answered the question "can we" have an idea of cards moving forward with "we can" which then lends itself to the next question "should we". I was going to try to move the thread in that direction.

I do wish those who understood my side would have spoken up more. It was difficult me against the world and if others spoke up with TC theorem supporting examples the other side might have seen them or looked deeper given more were seeing the possibilites. If Automonkey had remembered or posted about Renzy's thoughts many may have looked into his thoughts which could have added or concluded the thread sooner. I do thank Automonkey for pointing out Renzy's work which seems to support my thoughts.

I feel like I can't respond to Sage Frog who I think sees "we can" but is now asking "should we" use the TC theorem in this manner, which I felt should have been the discussion of the thread all along. I was surprised that many did not follow a simple extension of the TC Theory. It also seemed those who perhaps had the most knowledge or math skills could not see the forest for the trees and stuck with the mantra to "treat all unseen cards as unseen".
:joker::whip:

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Do See Some Things

A problem with your logic is that you are using an average result and then leaping to the conclusion that it is somehow equivalent to actually accounting for all known parameters and nothing more. It's possible that the average may be the right substitute but the problem is that the average case isn't at all likely to occur.

An example is in this thread. In a fair coin toss with a large number of trials the most likely outcome is 50% heads and 50% tails but the probability of resulting in exactly 50% heads and 50% tails approaches 0 as number of trials increases. Any logic based on the assumption that the average case will always be the result given a large enough number of trials is faulty. The only thing that's known is that the ratio of heads/tails approaches 1 as trials increase not that number of heads equals number of tails. In fact the likely difference between number of heads and number of tails increases as number of trials increases.

But doesn't the average determine our actions? If one were to run just a few rounds of a sim the information is very weak. It's the many trials that gives us our answer. Now if you are saying the variance is overwhelming I can see and have stated that is a very real possiblity, but that is the "should we" puzzle where I was arguing "can we". Do you agree "we can" but you think "we shouldn't"?

Not sure on your coin argument, I think we can all agree the coin has no memory. However, a shoe of cards does have a memory and I am employing an accepted theory in admittedly a stretched way. Because the shoe has a memory given a TC with cards removed I belive one can tell you on average what to expect going forward or backward.

What this thread is screaming for is a sim comparing SCORE of the 2 methods.
A simple one would be:
count first deck TC2?, this TC would be rare.
then
TC Theorem
vs
Complete counting
compare SCORE
We all probably agree that complete counting would win, but by how much? Is the SCORE so bad that we should not employ the TC theroem in live play even though we can?
:joker::whip:

 

[QFIT]

Is this thread still going.

There is no need for a sim. It has been stated, and I'll state it again, the TC is based on unseen cards. Doesn't matter where they were in the deck. If you play two decks in an eight deck game, and the RC is +6, then the TC is +1. If you close your eyes for two more decks and reopen them. The RC is still +6 and the TC is still +1, because there are still six unseen decks. Nothing has happened except that the penetration just got worse. Continue playing knowing that the number of unseen cards is the cards in the shoe plus two decks.

 

[k_c]

But doesn't the average determine our actions? If one were to run just a few rounds of a sim the information is very weak. It's the many trials that gives us our answer. Now if you are saying the variance is overwhelming I can see and have stated that is a very real possiblity, but that is the "should we" puzzle where I was arguing "can we". Do you agree "we can" but you think "we shouldn't"?

Not sure on your coin argument, I think we can all agree the coin has no memory. However, a shoe of cards does have a memory and I am employing an accepted theory in admittedly a stretched way. Because the shoe has a memory given a TC with cards removed I belive one can tell you on average what to expect going forward or backward.

What this thread is screaming for is a sim comparing SCORE of the 2 methods.
A simple one would be:
count first deck TC2?, this TC would be rare.
then
TC Theorem
vs
Complete counting
compare SCORE
We all probably agree that complete counting would win, but by how much? Is the SCORE so bad that we should not employ the TC theroem in live play even though we can?
:joker::whip:

To me this is a common sense problem and doesn't require a sim.

What would be nice is if we had some acknowledgement from you as to what happens when your aguments are assumed to be true. You seem to want to deny what some very simple cases show and are inconsistent and want to have it either of 2 ways when it seems your logic is intuitively wrong.

This assumes all of your logic is true.

We are going to true count a portion of a full 8 deck shoe based on an average. Remember now, all of your logic is assumed to be true.

A full 8 deck shoe consists of 8 separate 52 card slugs. Full shoe TC = 0 so according to your logic if 7 decks are dealt and placed in the discard tray then RC for the final deck = 0 since 7 decks each with average RC = 0 are gone. The last deck can be played just like a single deck with RC = 0. But isn't this true of any of the 8 52 card slugs? Why not make the decision to play only the very first deck? This is mathematically the same thing as skipping the first 7 slugs and playing the last one.

So now we've managed to simplify a full 8 deck shoe into a single 52 card slug with RC = 0 based on an expected average and we're ready to play. 26 more cards are dealt with RC = +4 with 1/2 deck remaining, TC = +8. We've managed to get a TC = +8 within the first deck of an 8 deck shoe. We must be doung something right!!!

Back to the real world

It doesn't matter whether or not someone chooses to use this method. After all it's a free country and anyone can use whatever method they want. What would be nice is to address rather than just ignore such examples because you are so confident your method is right. Unless you can address these things this is the end.

I have to go to work now. I hope I got the gist of what I'm trying to say out there.

 

[Sucker]

I do wish those who understood my side would have spoken up more. It was difficult me against the world and if others spoke up with TC theorem supporting examples the other side might have seen them or looked deeper given more were seeing the possibilites.

Your first post in that thread was concise, correct, and most importantly; simple to understand (or so I thought). Sorry I didn't speak up any further in your defense, but in reality I thought that you yourself were doing an excellent job in your follow-up explanations, and I didn't want to clutter things up for you. For what it's worth; I myself am ALSO of the opinion that the thread was prematurely locked.

 

[zengrifter]

The discussion had gone way past "mathematical disagreements", and gotten into a state of circular arguments. You dont think that 100 posts are enough?

Death to jack-booted thread lockers! zg

 

[QFIT]

Your first post in that thread was concise, correct, and most importantly; simple to understand (or so I thought). Sorry I didn't speak up any further in your defense, but in reality I thought that you yourself were doing an excellent job in your follow-up explanations, and I didn't want to clutter things up for you. For what it's worth; I myself am ALSO of the opinion that the thread was prematurely locked.

Sorry, but it was not correct. We do have a duty to speak up when a strategy is proposed that will not work.

 

[Sucker]

you leave at 4 out of 8 decks, running count is 8 TC is 2
you return at 6 out of 8 decks, TC is 2 and you have to assume a running count of 4 because of tc theorem

If you leave at 4 out of 8 decks - RC= 8, four decks are unseen; TC is 2. So far we are all in agreement.

Traditional way, (and the way I'VE always figured it): Return at 6 out of 8 decks - RC= 8, four decks unseen; TC is 2.
BA's way: Return at 6 out of 8 decks - RC 4, two decks left in shoe; TC is 2.

At first glance both methods seem to be saying the same thing!
However;
Continuing in the shoe, the second method quickly starts to break down.
Suppose you play another deck out of this shoe, and the count goes up by one:

Traditional way: RC = 9, three decks unseen; TC is 3.
BA's way: RC = 5, one deck left in shoe; TC is 5!

I would like to thank QFIT for pointing out the fact that my support for this method is erroneous, which prompted me to go back & rethink my position.

And I thank Blackjack Avenger for reopening this discussion. All this does is reaffirm my opinion that the thread was prematurely locked. It took this second thread for me to finally figure it out & learn something!

 

[assume_R]

Regarding 1 Specific (Important) Point

Since I have not been thoroughly convinced (yet?) that BJA's method is wrong, I would like to question regarding a specific point:

26 more cards are dealt with RC = +4 with 1/2 deck remaining, TC = +8. We've managed to get a TC = +8 within the first deck of an 8 deck shoe. We must be doung something right!!!

Okay, so you would estimate that you have a +3% advantage, or whatever a TC +8 happens to correspond to.

It seems that on average (i.e. over millions of simulations), the second half of that first deck would drop the RC by 8. I think BJA is saying that there would be a lot of variance as to the second half of this first deck. But, on average, won't it drop by 8? This seems to be the heart of the discrepancy.

k_c, are you saying if you repeated this situation many many times, that on average, the second half of this first deck won't drop by 8?

Edit: should all my "8"'s be "4"'s actually?

 

[k_c]

Since I have not been thoroughly convinced (yet?) that BJA's method is wrong, I would like to question regarding a specific point:



Okay, so you would estimate that you have a +3% advantage, or whatever a TC +8 happens to correspond to.

It seems that on average (i.e. over millions of simulations), the second half of that first deck would drop the RC by 8. I think BJA is saying that there would be a lot of variance as to the second half of this first deck. But, on average, won't it drop by 8? This seems to be the heart of the discrepancy.

k_c, are you saying if you repeated this situation many many times, that on average, the second half of this first deck won't drop by 8?

Edit: should all my "8"'s be "4"'s actually?

The point is that the only reason TC = +8 is because it is assumed that RC = +4 and (wrongly) decks remaining = 1/2 because missing cards can be accounted for from an expected average.

To repeat the (erroneous) logic:
1. Full shoe RC = 0, TC = 0
2. 8 52 card slugs comprise the shoe
3. For every 52 cards removed RC changes by 0 (unchanged in this case)
4. Therefore if 7 decks are skipped we are left with 52 cards, RC = 0, TC = 0
5. Any of the 52 card slugs are mathematically identical so playing the first slug and skipping the last 7 is the same as skipping the first 7 and playing the last so we might as well play the first slug (no waiting )
6. We have eliminated 7 decks worth of cards and even though we haven't seen them, knowing what their average RC is allows us to continue counting as if there are only 52 cards that remain.
7. In the next 26 cards RC increases by 4 so RC = +4, decks remaining = 1/2, TC = +8. This applies to first 52 card slug, last 52 card slug, or any slug in between.

The above is the consequence of assuming that unseen cards can be accounted for by assuming they have been removed according to an expected average. The (erroneous) conclusion was that an increase of RC by +4 in the first 26 cards of an 8 deck shoe results in a TC of +8.

If that's not what BJA's method amounts to then he ought to show why not.

If we simply stick with what is known, namely that 26 cards have been played with RC = +4 then whether our 52 card slug is the first, last, or any one in between then RC = +4, decks remaining = 7.5, TC = +4/7.5.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Not What I am Saying at All

To me this is a common sense problem and doesn't require a sim.

What would be nice is if we had some acknowledgement from you as to what happens when your aguments are assumed to be true. You seem to want to deny what some very simple cases show and are inconsistent and want to have it either of 2 ways when it seems your logic is intuitively wrong.

This assumes all of your logic is true.

We are going to true count a portion of a full 8 deck shoe based on an average. Remember now, all of your logic is assumed to be true.

A full 8 deck shoe consists of 8 separate 52 card slugs. Full shoe TC = 0 so according to your logic if 7 decks are dealt and placed in the discard tray then RC for the final deck = 0 since 7 decks each with average RC = 0 are gone. The last deck can be played just like a single deck with RC = 0. But isn't this true of any of the 8 52 card slugs? Why not make the decision to play only the very first deck? This is mathematically the same thing as skipping the first 7 slugs and playing the last one.

So now we've managed to simplify a full 8 deck shoe into a single 52 card slug with RC = 0 based on an expected average and we're ready to play. 26 more cards are dealt with RC = +4 with 1/2 deck remaining, TC = +8. We've managed to get a TC = +8 within the first deck of an 8 deck shoe. We must be doung something right!!!

Back to the real world

It doesn't matter whether or not someone chooses to use this method. After all it's a free country and anyone can use whatever method they want. What would be nice is to address rather than just ignore such examples because you are so confident your method is right. Unless you can address these things this is the end.

You infer from the beginning of the shoe based on no working count, then based on no working count the errors in logic you mention can happen.
I infer from information garnered from the shoe on a working count, then based on an actual TC the math is very simple on what the shoe holds moving forward.

You have to have a working count before you can infer anything

I am going to let this response sit for a bit
and try to say nothing else until KC responds
:joker::whip:

 

[k_c]

In brief, your example does not account for all cards. Mine does.
Mine:
you count x decks. Becasue you know the count of x decks, you know on average what Y decks are moving forward, this is only the basis of what we do, we bet into decks moving forward that have good cards in them.
I have accounted for the cards removed. Your method does not, I actually counted mine, now because I have a working TC, I can move forward and infer info on rest of shoe.

You infer from the beginning of the shoe based on no working count, then based on no working count the errors in logic you mention can happen.
I infer from information garnered from the shoe on a working count, then based on an actual TC the math is very simple on what the shoe holds moving forward.

Why can't x decks = 0? Is 0 not a valid number?

I answered yours directly now answer mine:
Can you see that moving forward in a positive shoe, the good cards are on average spread over the remainder of the shoe? If not then please tell me where they are?

A positive (or negative) shoe works in principle just like a shoe with a zero count. Also, isn't it possible for a working count to equal 0 after x decks are dealt?

You guys have got to give me time to respond
KC posted this twice?
he leapfrogged one of my posts while I was writing it
I am trying to slow down
:joker::whip:

I don't have as much time as I'd like but I try to do the best I can.