Testing and Protection of New Card Counting Strategy

[Peter JF]

Does anyone have any recommendations on who can test a new card counting strategy?

Also, how is it best to get IP rights on a new strategy.

I am from the UK and I know IP is a little different in the US. Maybe you can patent a method there but not in the UK for example.

Benefits of the new card count is that it is easy... it is NOT however able to be simulated with the normal card values and assign a value to each. Therefore testing might need something more non-standard to test it.

I would also like to test it against the nearest strategy that it approximates to (to see how it varies away from the 'true' count as it is an estimated count strategy).

 

[xengrifter]

I'd like Gronberg to run the sims ...
... what is your proposal, cash fee or co-ownership?

 

[DSchles]

Does anyone have any recommendations on who can test a new card counting strategy?

Also, how is it best to get IP rights on a new strategy.

I am from the UK and I know IP is a little different in the US. Maybe you can patent a method there but not in the UK for example.

Benefits of the new card count is that it is easy... it is NOT however able to be simulated with the normal card values and assign a value to each. Therefore testing might need something more non-standard to test it.

I would also like to test it against the nearest strategy that it approximates to (to see how it varies away from the 'true' count as it is an estimated count strategy).

K-O is "easy." Speed Count is "easy." Fives count is "easy." People don't need or want easy, because nowadays, the games are worse than ever. People want more efficient and better. No one is going to be interested in easy. In card counting, most of the time, "easy" means less effective than what is already out there.

Don

 

[Peter JF]

I'd like Gronberg to run the sims ...
... what is your proposal, cash fee or co-ownership?

I am open to suggestions, either could work. The advantage in co-ownership is of course if it is with someone well connected for sales and validation and reputation. Paying a fee then it would stay with me of course and considering that option depends on the fee. Let me know what you think is best way forward to consider this.
I still think there will be a market for this kind of count system if it can show some reasonable performance. People just don't have the time to learn card counting generally and it is not easy for most... even the so-called easy ones!
Let me know please.
Peter

 

[DSchles]

I am open to suggestions, either could work. The advantage in co-ownership is of course if it is with someone well connected for sales and validation and reputation. Paying a fee then it would stay with me of course and considering that option depends on the fee. Let me know what you think is best way forward to consider this.
I still think there will be a market for this kind of count system if it can show some reasonable performance. People just don't have the time to learn card counting generally and it is not easy for most... even the so-called easy ones!
Let me know please.
Peter

While you're perfectly free to pursue your project, I can tell you ahead of time that you won't be able to market it. As games get harder to beat, the last thing in the world that is going to beat them is a watered-down, simplified system that underperforms what's already out there.

Don

 

[Peter JF]

K-O is "easy." Speed Count is "easy." Fives count is "easy." People don't need or want easy, because nowadays, the games are worse than ever. People want more efficient and better. No one is going to be interested in easy. In card counting, most of the time, "easy" means less effective than what is already out there.

Don

Hi Don, thanks for reply and sorry to hear this is not of interest to your for the stated reasons. However, it got me thinking what on earth could be any better than what is already in existence... especially without going ridiculously complicated such that only a computer could play with the counting strategy.

I think we are at a dead end at the end of the scale, however, I think there is always room for the less effective but 'effective enough' strategies that are even easier than what we have out there already.

What I am proposing does have its limitations, but when used inside those limitations (in fact these would be the best playing conditions), then it is easier than the counts you have proposed.

Peter

 

[gronbog]

If your system is easy to perform, then I can also probably simulate it easily. I have no interest in any rights to the system or any fee for doing this. You can provide your email address to me via a "Conversation" with me here or post a throw-away email address in this thread and delete it later.

 

[xengrifter]

While you're perfectly free to pursue your project, I can tell you ahead of time that you won't be able to market it. As games get harder to beat, the last thing in the world that is going to beat them is a watered-down, simplified system that underperforms what's already out there.

E. F. Schumacher said that any second-rate engineer can continually tool towards increasing complexity; but real genius begets breakthrough via simplicity.

BTW, I see that your friend Taleb has a new book out ...

Skin in the Game
Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life
By Nassim Nichola Taleb.
Taleb is ... a snide, smug, one-size-fits-all ideologue. As he celebrates “doers,” Taleb trashes professors, politicians, government, policy analysts, physicians, journalists, and book reviewers as “delusional, literally mentally deranged, simply because they never have to pay for the consequences of their actions.” ​

 

[xengrifter]

K-O is "easy." Speed Count is "easy." Fives count is "easy." People don't need or want easy, because nowadays, the games are worse than ever. People want more efficient and better. No one is going to be interested in easy. In card counting, most of the time, "easy" means less effective than what is already out there.

Give them cake and circuses!!

 

[DSchles]

E. F. Schumacher said that any second-rate engineer can continually tool towards increasing complexity; but real genius begets breakthrough via simplicity.

BTW, I see that your friend Taleb has a new book out ...

Skin in the Game
Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life
By Nassim Nichola Taleb.
Taleb is ... a snide, smug, one-size-fits-all ideologue. As he celebrates “doers,” Taleb trashes professors, politicians, government, policy analysts, physicians, journalists, and book reviewers as “delusional, literally mentally deranged, simply because they never have to pay for the consequences of their actions.” ​

Reading the review already convinces me of what I would have known without it: the book is about $29.95 overpriced. Taleb is a consummate asshole.

Don

 

[DSchles]

Hi Don, thanks for reply and sorry to hear this is not of interest to your for the stated reasons. However, it got me thinking what on earth could be any better than what is already in existence... especially without going ridiculously complicated such that only a computer could play with the counting strategy.

I think we are at a dead end at the end of the scale, however, I think there is always room for the less effective but 'effective enough' strategies that are even easier than what we have out there already.

What I am proposing does have its limitations, but when used inside those limitations (in fact these would be the best playing conditions), then it is easier than the counts you have proposed.

Peter

Let me tell you a quick story. When we ran the Jerry Patterson Blackjack Clinic, which offered a wonderful five-week 15-hour course on card counting, we also decided to offer a much shorter, three-hour class on simply learning the basic strategy. There was no interest whatsoever. Typical response was: "If I'm going to learn how to do this, I may as well play as best I can. I don't want to learn how to lose less; I want to learn how to WIN."

If your system is even easier than the counts I proposed, then it is less than useless. I know you disagree and that you don't want to hear this, but Gronbog can probably vouch for the fact that my intuition is reasonably good about these things!

Have fun. Run your sims. I would say, report back with the results, but I already know what they will be.

Don

 

[gronbog]

Don is almost certainly right about this. My reasons for offering to do this are mainly about generalizing my software. It is also a useful exercise to discover the value of different ideas, whether or not they turn out to be viable.

 

[sagefr0g]

E. F. Schumacher said that any second-rate engineer can continually tool towards increasing complexity; but real genius begets breakthrough via simplicity.

BTW, I see that your friend Taleb has a new book out ...

Skin in the Game
Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life
By Nassim Nichola Taleb.
Taleb is ... a snide, smug, one-size-fits-all ideologue. As he celebrates “doers,” Taleb trashes professors, politicians, government, policy analysts, physicians, journalists, and book reviewers as “delusional, literally mentally deranged, simply because they never have to pay for the consequences of their actions.” ​

just curious, have you read Taleb's books? if so, what were your greatest take away s?
I've read three of them. greatest take away s for me, was the general of idea of the existence of 'black swans' (good & bad), the general idea of antifragility (especially how the concept relates to ev ,advantage and risk), and Taleb's sentiment towards the idea of tinkering without fear or remorse with respect to being correct until one reach's a conclusion, sorta thing.
your aside with respect to E. F. Schumacher was interesting, imho.

 

[DSchles]

Don is almost certainly right about this. My reasons for offering to do this are mainly about generalizing my software. It is also a useful exercise to discover the value of different ideas, whether or not they turn out to be viable.

Almost?!

Don

 

[gronbog]

Well you did rate your own intuition about these things as only "reasonably good"

 

[Peter JF]

E. F. Schumacher said that any second-rate engineer can continually tool towards increasing complexity; but real genius begets breakthrough via simplicity.

BTW, I see that your friend Taleb has a new book out ...

Skin in the Game
Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life
By Nassim Nichola Taleb.
Taleb is ... a snide, smug, one-size-fits-all ideologue. As he celebrates “doers,” Taleb trashes professors, politicians, government, policy analysts, physicians, journalists, and book reviewers as “delusional, literally mentally deranged, simply because they never have to pay for the consequences of their actions.” ​

You are very smart Don, I don't mean to offend you in any way. Just sayin' the obvious I guess. I also not you did not answer my question, or maybe just treat it as a rhetorical one? I didn't think there was an answer, if there was I think you would have found it already (I mean a way for a better count system in terms of performance to what we already have got... excepting difficult ones that only computers can use).

 

[Peter JF]

If your system is easy to perform, then I can also probably simulate it easily. I have no interest in any rights to the system or any fee for doing this. You can provide your email address to me via a "Conversation" with me here or post a throw-away email address in this thread and delete it later.

I sent direct contact email address via the conversation option as you suggested Gronbog.

Peter

 

[London Colin]

Just out of interest. Has any form of IP protection ever been applied to any counting system?

It seems like an odd idea. What would it cover - the writing of books describing the system?

 

[xengrifter]

Have fun. Run your sims. I would say, report back with the results, but I already know what they will be.

Ye of little faith...
...You remind me of the experts that said the Wright Brothers would never fly!

 

[xengrifter]

have you read Taleb's books? if so, what were your greatest take away s?

Only the one - and my takeaway is that MOST of our systems tend to ignore the inevitable black swan looming just beyond the horizon - that "once in 100 years" event that strikes AFTER all of the warning signals have loudly sounded, and still we were not prepared.