The Apple Barrel Game

[blackjack avenger]

World Upside Down?

The 2 sims should have the same SCORE, no? In each sim, upon returning to the game the RC is an equal multiple of the TC. So, either of the 2 ways that the RC is calculated is correct for returning to the game, as long as the player stays with the same divisor until the end of the shoe.

I don't think they will be the same. For the first hand returning you would place the same bet, after that they will have different divisors moving forward.

The second sim should have a higher ev, but what is the effect on SCORE by assuming the count of the 2 decks missed?

 

[ohbehave]

I don't think they will be the same. For the first hand returning you would place the same bet, after that they will have different divisors moving forward.

Doh! Of course, I mistated that.

The second sim should have a higher ev, but what is the effect on SCORE by assuming the count of the 2 decks missed?

OK but our advantage should be the same upon re-entry as when we left. SCORE and ev are are qualities of how strong the game is and since we're playing a much weaker game due to, in essence, shallow pen our SCORE and ev will suffer but our advantage when we return should be the same as when we left.

 

[MangoJ]

@iCountNTrack:

Of course the divisor (RC/TC) must be the number of unseen decks = number of unseen cards / 52. There was never a real question about that. If the sims you did tried to prove that you do need to use the exact divisor to get the same SCORE - your sims did prove it.

I had the impression we all agreed on that fact. I remember there was a discussion about the divisor (and I was a bit naive), but got the point and moved on.

Sorry for the confusion, the divisor was never in question in this discussion thread. Your sim results are still very useful, because they prove the TC theorem as well !

 

[blackjack avenger]

Some Thoughts

I think we all/most agree on the apple and marble game?

As far as the divisor question perhaps this?:

2 sims, which are beyond my capacity:

6 deck h17 das 4.5/6 cut
hi low ill 18

in both sims you see the first deck, rc 10, tc 2
in both sims you then miss 2 decks
you return to play

sim 1, billion hands
you come back and pick up rc 10 with a divisor of 5?
you are considering the 2 decks you missed as unseen and the cards moving forward in the divisor.
you finish the shoe

sim 2, billion hands
you come back and pick up rc 6 with a divisor of 3?
you are assuming the 2 decks you missed by dropping the RC by the average per deck, so you only consider the cards moving forward in the divisor.
you finish the shoe

VERY IMPORTANT; I THINK, THE SHOES FOR THE 2 SIMS NEED TO HAVE THE SAME CARDS? SEEDS?

what is the EV and SCORE of the 2 sims

If the "application" of the TC theorem holds up sim 2 will crush sim 1, if the distribution of the good cards throughout the shoe is perfect. Which we know won't be the case. The reason sim 2 can dominate is because with the assumptions of the missed cards it's as if you did see the whole shoe. One does not suffer from less penetratoin THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. The question then becomes how often the average distribution will be off; your assumption wrong, and what effect that has on SCORE. We know that with indicies being off by a TC or so does not matter much. Well, the same can be said about betting; especially once a very strong positive situation, which the proposed sims are not.

 

[iCountNTrack]

If the "application" of the TC theorem holds up sim 2 will crush sim 1, if the distribution of the good cards throughout the shoe is perfect. Which we know won't be the case. The reason sim 2 can dominate is because with the assumptions of the missed cards it's as if you did see the whole shoe. One does not suffer from less penetratoin THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. The question then becomes how often the average distribution will be off; your assumption wrong, and what effect that has on SCORE. We know that with indicies being off by a TC or so does not matter much. Well, the same can be said about betting; especially once a very strong positive situation, which the proposed sims are not.

I just finished running the sims as you have requested (only ran 500 million hands), same shoes for each case (not a needed assumption), sim 1 SCORE ($2.03/hour) ev (+0.092%), sim 2 SCORE (-88.12/hour) ev (-1.71%).
I also ran a third sim where the penetration was 41.7% (2.5/6), sim 3 SCORE($1.97/hour).
I ran a 4th sim where the penetration was 75% (4.5/6), however your initial true count divisor was 4.5 and not 6 (an absurd assumption), and guess what was the SCORE? $-88.61/hour.

For the last time, True count theorem is not applicable here, you cannot apply a theorem if the conditions set by the theorem are not met.
At any time when you are counting the cards all the information you have is contained in the running count and the number of unseen cards , ALL THE UNSEEN CARD, it doesnt matter how you failed to see them or why you failed to see them, everytime you miss cards your game gets worse because your effective penetration is reduced i.e you have less information.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Dizzing Divisors

I just finished running the sims as you have requested (only ran 500 million hands), same shoes for each case (not a needed assumption), sim 1 SCORE ($2.03/hour) ev (+0.092%), sim 2 SCORE (-88.12/hour) ev (-1.71%).
I also ran a third sim where the penetration was 41.7% (2.5/6), sim 3 SCORE($1.97/hour).
I ran a 4th sim where the penetration was 75% (4.5/6), however your initial true count divisor was 4.5 and not 6 (an absurd assumption), and guess what was the SCORE? $-88.61/hour.

For the last time, True count theorem is not applicable here, you cannot apply a theorem if the conditions set by the theorem are not met.
At any time when you are counting the cards all the information you have is contained in the running count and the number of unseen cards , ALL THE UNSEEN CARD, it doesnt matter how you failed to see them or why you failed to see them, everytime you miss cards your game gets worse because your effective penetration is reduced i.e you have less information.

How can the results be so negative when on average you are playing a positve section of the shoe? I would have expected a lower SCORE not an EV that is lower then off the top?

So you are saying you enter a section of the shoe that on average will be postive but you experience a negative ev about 3 times higher then the top of the shoe? When we first return we have on average an approximate .5% advantage, yet that swings down to -1.71%? Any thoughts why?

A thought might be the variance of the assumption hurts us greatly. Example, if you play into small cards it's an indication your assumption is wrong but you are raising bets. If 10s come out your assumption is more likely correct but you start betting less. So you end up betting into garbage and lowering bets when you should not. However, we face this possibility whenever we play. There is a way to account for this, but getting way to complicated for a weak, rare event.

can u run this sim?

same parameters
when you reenter you flat bet a TC2 bet till end of shoe, same shoes as the other studies.

 

[iCountNTrack]

How can the results be so negative when on average you are playing a positve section of the shoe? I would have expected a lower SCORE not an EV that is lower then off the top?

So you are saying you enter a section of the shoe that on average will be postive but you experience a negative ev about 3 times higher then the top of the shoe? When we first return we have on average an approximate .5% advantage, yet that swings down to -1.71%? Any thoughts why?

A thought might be the variance of the assumption hurts us greatly. Example, if you play into small cards it's an indication your assumption is wrong but you are raising bets. If 10s come out your assumption is more likely correct but you start betting less. So you end up betting into garbage and lowering bets when you should not. However, we face this possibility whenever we play. There is a way to account for this, but getting way to complicated for a weak, rare event.

can u run this sim?

same parameters
when you reenter you flat bet a TC2 bet till end of shoe, same shoes as the other studies.

The answer is that the TC divisor you use is incorrect, it has to include all the unseen cards not the cards remaining to be played.
Sim 4 and Sim 2 gave the same very poor results because they are identical situations, and they both make the incorrect assumption of dividing by the number of unplayed cards instead number of unseen cards.

I am really tired of running sims, nothing will convince you. I have said what I want to say about this topic.

 

[farmdoggy]

hi lo count
6 deck shoe
tc 1 is an advantage

You innocently stroll by a table during the first hand and you see:
12 low cards, 108 low cards remaining to be played
6 high cards, 114 high cards remaining to be played
8 neutral cards, 64 neutral cards remaining to be played

26 cards, 1/4 deck has been played

approx tc > 1

Then you notice there are no seats available, best to move on.

Later you look and there is a seat open at the first table. Nothing else is available. So you go over to have a look, there is probably 1 hand to be played (1.5 decks to go). Oh, I forgot to mention the table has beauties playing; don't let this cloud your judgement, and the dealer asks if you would like to play?

Do you place a bet?
Do you place a tc1 bet?

If you understand the concepts in the apple barrel game; and the tc theorem, then the choice should be easy.

sorry I have to say it again.
Vindication is sooooo sweeeeet:celebrate

The bet would be placed at a small advantage, but that's not to say it is advantageous to place the bet. Time would be better spent walking to a different casino in this instance.

Lets say you have three options...
(1) Play the bet, and stick around for the rest of the night at a full table
(2) Play the bet, and leave immediately after to search for better playing conditions
(3) Leave immediately, without playing the bet

Should you choose to leave, upon arrival to the new casino you see an empty table, with the same rules and pen as at the first place. If this is the case, (3) is more advantageous than (2)... A card counter will have an average advantage of at least 1%, the other bet falls far short of that.

But yes, the TC theorem is correct. Knowing this won't make the big bucks though... Hardly worth a party.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Innocent Little Me

The answer is that the TC divisor you use is incorrect, it has to include all the unseen cards not the cards remaining to be played.
Sim 4 and Sim 2 gave the same very poor results because they are identical situations, and they both make the incorrect assumption of dividing by the number of unplayed cards instead number of unseen cards.

I am really tired of running sims, nothing will convince you. I have said what I want to say about this topic.

The problem is not the divisor. The problem is the variance of the assumed section, perhaps this is semantics. The larger that assumed section, the larger the variance. To prove this if a sim was run that had the perfect average in the remainder of the shoe you would be fine. The divisor would work perfectly. I and others have mentioned issues with variance of the assumed sections in previous discussions.

The divisor is another issue and not what this entire post was about!

I started the apple and marble games to try do demonstrate the TC theorm, since there was another thread where some seemed to be struggling with the concept. I think we all/most agree the apple, marble and bj game concepts are correct? The apple, marble and bj games I talked about only considered the one bet when you first return. I did not mention divisor.

You brought up the divisor. Then you run a few sims and claim wearniess of a debate in this thread that you started (divisor). I think you assumed I was/would talk about the divisor when I had no intention. I did not take a divisor side. I suggested sims that would answer the issue; since you brought it up, isn't that scientific? Then questioned/analyzed the results? To pull out all stops wouldn't someone else have to run similar sims with similar results?

I think we are on the same side much more then you realize.

Exasperated?
I did not bring up the divisor

Thank you for taking the time to run the sims

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Agree 100%

The bet would be placed at a small advantage, but that's not to say it is advantageous to place the bet. Time would be better spent walking to a different casino in this instance.

Lets say you have three options...
(1) Play the bet, and stick around for the rest of the night at a full table
(2) Play the bet, and leave immediately after to search for better playing conditions
(3) Leave immediately, without playing the bet

Should you choose to leave, upon arrival to the new casino you see an empty table, with the same rules and pen as at the first place. If this is the case, (3) is more advantageous than (2)... A card counter will have an average advantage of at least 1%, the other bet falls far short of that.

But yes, the TC theorem is correct. Knowing this won't make the big bucks though... Hardly worth a party.

However, I think you are reaching beyond my example to try to convey a concept. I was trying to convey that one can place the bet and have positive expectation at that moment in time. One can make the example a much higher advantage where one would jump at the bet. The party was more about figuring out a way to convey a concept and celebrating idea theft! (take that Southpaw:laugh

I am real bad about idea theft. I have stolen ideas from Sch., Thorp, Wong and others

 

[psyduck]

The problem is not the divisor. The problem is the variance of the assumed section, perhaps this is semantics. The larger that assumed section, the larger the variance. To prove this if a sim was run that had the perfect average in the remainder of the shoe you would be fine. The divisor would work perfectly. I and others have mentioned issues with variance of the assumed sections in previous discussions.

The divisor is another issue and not what this entire post was about!

I started the apple and marble games to try do demonstrate the TC theorm, since there was another thread where some seemed to be struggling with the concept. I think we all/most agree the apple, marble and bj game concepts are correct? The apple, marble and bj games I talked about only considered the one bet when you first return. I did not mention divisor.

You brought up the divisor. Then you run a few sims and claim wearniess of a debate in this thread that you started (divisor). I think you assumed I was/would talk about the divisor when I had no intention. I did not take a divisor side. I suggested sims that would answer the issue; since you brought it up, isn't that scientific? Then questioned/analyzed the results? To pull out all stops wouldn't someone else have to run similar sims with similar results?

I think we are on the same side much more then you realize.

Exasperated?
I did not bring up the divisor

Thank you for taking the time to run the sims

Apparently you and ICNT have different definition for True Count Theorem. Yours can apply to a long section of the shoe and his only applies to a round of play. Care to comment?

 

[iCountNTrack]

The problem is not the divisor. The problem is the variance of the assumed section, perhaps this is semantics. The larger that assumed section, the larger the variance. To prove this if a sim was run that had the perfect average in the remainder of the shoe you would be fine. The divisor would work perfectly. I and others have mentioned issues with variance of the assumed sections in previous discussions.

The divisor is another issue and not what this entire post was about!

I started the apple and marble games to try do demonstrate the TC theorm, since there was another thread where some seemed to be struggling with the concept. I think we all/most agree the apple, marble and bj game concepts are correct? The apple, marble and bj games I talked about only considered the one bet when you first return. I did not mention divisor.

You brought up the divisor. Then you run a few sims and claim wearniess of a debate in this thread that you started (divisor). I think you assumed I was/would talk about the divisor when I had no intention. I did not take a divisor side. I suggested sims that would answer the issue; since you brought it up, isn't that scientific? Then questioned/analyzed the results? To pull out all stops wouldn't someone else have to run similar sims with similar results?

I think we are on the same side much more then you realize.

Exasperated?
I did not bring up the divisor

Thank you for taking the time to run the sims

Yes the divisor is the heart of the problem and what is leading to incorrect conclusions. You are saying if you count 2 decks in an 8 deck shoe, you have a TC=+3, for whatever reason you miss 2 decks of the shoe, when you come back to play based on the TC theorem you are assuming the TC is still +3 ( I agree with the TC value, but not with the reason), you place a bet based on a TC=+3, however you are saying that your divisor is now 4, and therefore your RC =divisor*TC=+12 , and that you should continue playing subsequent hands with a an RC of +12 and a divisor of 4.

I and many others are saying, The TC when you come back is +3, because the RC is still +18 and the divisor is 6, meaning the TC remains the same because RC and the divisor are still the same, because you have no information on the played cards that were unseen, and they are still considered unseen cards.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Apparently you and ICNT have different definition for True Count Theorem. Yours can apply to a long section of the shoe and his only applies to a round of play. Care to comment?

True count theorem DOES NOT define the True Count
True Count is given by the following equation.
True Count=52*Running Count/(number of unseen cards)

True Count Theorem says that the expectation value (average value) of the the True Count before a card (or a bunch of cards) is dealt, seen and counted
, when you miss those cards the True Count theorem does not apply.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Beat Their Swords into Plows

Apparently you and ICNT have different definition for True Count Theorem. Yours can apply to a long section of the shoe and his only applies to a round of play. Care to comment?

Not really wanting to speak for him. Once you have an establish TC it tends to stay that way, on average.

I believe Icountntrack and I agree. Since the divisor was mentioned I just wanted to see the possibilities. There is nothing wrong with challenging established beliefs. It helps further validate them.

It appears for now the variance is just to high to make bets based on an assumption on large amounts of unseen cards, even though we know their distribution (ratio) on average. If one misses a portion of a shoe, those cards probably have to be considered unseen.

The apple, marble and bj game as examples are valid because you are only acting on information you have (ratio), nothing is assumed. The key being only 1 bet is being made when returning.

Perhaps a thought experiment would be if you flat bet a shoe once you have an advantage your SCORE would be lower then if you resize your bets with every hand. The assumption of the shoe moving forward will cost you in SCORE.

 

[tthree]

its so simple

You all are beating this to death. The running count remains the same. All the cards missed are analogous to the cards behind the cutoff card. The true count is the running count divided by the number of decks unseen. The sims that show such poor performance(for the counter who assumes the unseen cards are seen ie. dividing the running count by (the total number of decks-(unseen+seen decks in the discard tray)) to determine an errant true count) are like the play of a counter who cannt count(makes mistakes so his true count is way off). I assume they were so horrendous because the simulator adjusted the running count to what it would need to be to have a true count the same but include the unseen cards as seen cards. THE RUNNING COUNT MUST REMAIN THE SAME AND THE UNSEEN CARDS MUST BE TREATED THE SAME AS CARDS BEHIND THE CUTOFF CARD NOT AS CARDS SEEN IN THE DISCARD TRAY. The net effect is the rest of the shoe is a game played like you lost penetration in the shoe equal to the unseen cards. Back to what I think was the initial argument; obviously, given the sentence in bold print, if you thought the bet was worth making when you left the same size bet is appropriate when you return regardless of when you return because your running count is the same and the number of unseen cards are the same. Just remember as you play the number of decks in the discard tray is NOT the number of decks seen so adjust your divisor accordingly. I hope this clarifies the issue so we are all on the same page.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Well Said Three Times

Yep, I agree with you

 

[21gunsalute]

Point 1:

The disagreement was not on whether the TC is a constant or not, of course the TC would be constant for both cases, however the disagreement was on the divisor for the true count. BA is advocating that for 8 deck show if TC was 4 after 2 decks, i missed 2 decks, came back the TC would be 4 (so far so good), to get the RC multiply by TC by the divisor (4), this is where we disagree the divisor should be 6 and not 4, because the TC divisor should include ALL nonseen cards, NOT the remaining cards.

Point 2:

The purpose of the sims was to show that all the INFORMATION we have when we are counting cards is contained in the running count and the number of unseen cards. All 3 sims yield the same SCORE (within the sim standard error, the second decimal will not match for 500 million hands) which shows what i have mentioned several times: missing cards during a shoe has the effect of reducing the effective shoe penetration, for instance turning a 91% game into a mediocre 50% penetration game.

Point 3:
The TC theorem has nothing to do with the sim results. The sim results are so because the information you have with card counting is contained in the running count and the number of unseen cards (TC divisor) The TC is the same because your RC and DIVISOR DON'T CHANGE when you miss cards during a shoe and come back to the show to play, not because of the true count theorem.
Again again, the TC theorem states that the cards played during a round must be SEEN and COUNTED, if they are not you can't use the TC theorem.

Thank you for this and all your latter posts on this matter. I had computer problems for a few days and got behind. This really clears things up and states the reality of the matter much better than I ever could.