the impact of using simplified index plays
- Thread starter Meistro
- Start date
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
not even really sure if i understand your question. not even sure if this reply is in the right ballpark. and on top of that, i've only had maybe 3hrs sleep after a midnight play that ended up taking 7hrs 
so a grain of salt is in order:
if i'm interpreting correctly Synder in BlackBelt in Blackjack, the differences in wong's index plays and those of hi-lo lite are insignificant. for a 6 deck 1-8 spread (atlantic city game, (what ever the heck that was)
Strategy ........Play All.......No negative betting
Wong ........... +0.50% ......... +0.98%
'simplified'.....+0.51% ..........+0.99%
(by simplified i assume Arnold means hi-lo lite indexs)
then for single deck (Reno)
Strategy.........Flat Bet........ 1 to 4 spread
Wong..............-0.06%............+1.32%
hi-lo lite.......... -0.05%...........+1.33%
interesting to note, that in the book it's discussed how it was discovered that actual indices are not precise, but constantly wavered according to level of penetration and other factors. makes me think of the 8,8 vs 10 thread, where i think i came to realize that indices are probably an average of lord only knows how many ev's related to lord only knows how many possible combinations of EOR at a give TC, sorta thing.
so a grain of salt is in order:
if i'm interpreting correctly Synder in BlackBelt in Blackjack, the differences in wong's index plays and those of hi-lo lite are insignificant. for a 6 deck 1-8 spread (atlantic city game, (what ever the heck that was
)Strategy ........Play All.......No negative betting
Wong ........... +0.50% ......... +0.98%
'simplified'.....+0.51% ..........+0.99%
(by simplified i assume Arnold means hi-lo lite indexs)
then for single deck (Reno)
Strategy.........Flat Bet........ 1 to 4 spread
Wong..............-0.06%............+1.32%
hi-lo lite.......... -0.05%...........+1.33%
interesting to note, that in the book it's discussed how it was discovered that actual indices are not precise, but constantly wavered according to level of penetration and other factors. makes me think of the 8,8 vs 10 thread, where i think i came to realize that indices are probably an average of lord only knows how many ev's related to lord only knows how many possible combinations of EOR at a give TC, sorta thing.
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Concerning index plays: We learned from Don Schlesinger that the first 20 or so index plays captures most of the gain available from all play. Snyder's work with hilo lite which you referenced shows that the their is little if any gain from extra precision. Automatic Monkey, who you may or may not be familiar with from this site years ago reached the same conclusion when he published his Ben Franklin count, which can be found in pdf form by googling ben franklin count. The Ben Franklin count is a level 2 count (same tags as Revere's RPC or Norm's Felt), but the conclusion concerning precision of index numbers is the same as Snyder's in that there is almost no difference in rounded index plays vs more precise numbers.
If you are not familiar with Auto Monkey, I recommend reading up on some of his archived posts on this site. But my point is these were 3 pretty smart guys. All pretty successful with card counting and all with very strong mathematical abilities, so none of these guys needed to find or take short cuts. But all came to the conclusion that the number (above about 20) and preciseness of index plays just aren't that important (especially for shoe games that most of us play)
Meistro, you used the word "simplified" in your original post (question). I know you were referring narrowly to index plays, but it is my belief that in today's world of card counting, simplicity is the way to go in most areas of card counting.
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.
If you are not familiar with Auto Monkey, I recommend reading up on some of his archived posts on this site. But my point is these were 3 pretty smart guys. All pretty successful with card counting and all with very strong mathematical abilities, so none of these guys needed to find or take short cuts. But all came to the conclusion that the number (above about 20) and preciseness of index plays just aren't that important (especially for shoe games that most of us play)
Meistro, you used the word "simplified" in your original post (question). I know you were referring narrowly to index plays, but it is my belief that in today's world of card counting, simplicity is the way to go in most areas of card counting.
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.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
@ KewlJ
where you stated: " 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."
good grief man, in four sentences, you just summed up what i've been struggling with for nay going on a life time and i a'int no spring chicken! but have only surfaced up out of the murky polluted swamp (being a fr0g) to realize over the last few months. the sentiment isn't only about blackjack, it covers a wide spectrum of human endeavor. the concept is been the reason i've been ranting so much in the time thread on this site.
i say, the last few months for me and it's true, but apparently the concept is an intuitive one (perhaps tied to shreds of archaic wisdom we all may have), because many of those old to this site may recall years ago, i had a dream of my trade mark (LOL)(see signature & video link below) fuzzy count for senior citizens. well, that never really panned out, but i still swear by the concept. i know kj, you were embroiled in some controversy over this very matter, the matter referred to if i recall correctly by i believe it was Renzy, KISS (keep it simple stupid). meh, me thinks stuff all pans out over time, for those on all sides of an issue, lol. i'll never forget how blasted away impressed i was, by the utter simplicity of methods a guy i met at the ole bj bashs talked about. powerful real deal stuff.
but again your statement above, brings to mind the Pareto principle, 80/20 rule, that's been bandied about for many, many years. it may be an idea that's rife for the dangers of confirmation bias, but none the less there is something there, me thinks.
it's as if it is with mankind and the universe, it seems, the universe and mankind are rife with complexity, the secrets of nature and maths as well, wars, civilizations, science, nothing wrong with such complexity, and one needs to get a handle on it, however, it seems simplicity in the end rules.
where you stated: " 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."
good grief man, in four sentences, you just summed up what i've been struggling with for nay going on a life time and i a'int no spring chicken! but have only surfaced up out of the murky polluted swamp (being a fr0g) to realize over the last few months. the sentiment isn't only about blackjack, it covers a wide spectrum of human endeavor. the concept is been the reason i've been ranting so much in the time thread on this site.
i say, the last few months for me and it's true, but apparently the concept is an intuitive one (perhaps tied to shreds of archaic wisdom we all may have), because many of those old to this site may recall years ago, i had a dream of my trade mark (LOL)(see signature & video link below) fuzzy count for senior citizens.
well, that never really panned out, but i still swear by the concept. i know kj, you were embroiled in some controversy over this very matter, the matter referred to if i recall correctly by i believe it was Renzy, KISS (keep it simple stupid). meh, me thinks stuff all pans out over time, for those on all sides of an issue, lol. i'll never forget how blasted away impressed i was, by the utter simplicity of methods a guy i met at the ole bj bashs talked about. powerful real deal stuff.but again your statement above, brings to mind the Pareto principle, 80/20 rule, that's been bandied about for many, many years. it may be an idea that's rife for the dangers of confirmation bias, but none the less there is something there, me thinks.
it's as if it is with mankind and the universe, it seems, the universe and mankind are rife with complexity, the secrets of nature and maths as well, wars, civilizations, science, nothing wrong with such complexity, and one needs to get a handle on it, however, it seems simplicity in the end rules.
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Yaaahhhoo! 21forme has come back home to the new and improved BJinfo!21forme said:Brilliant and succinct, KJ. What you've said in 3 lines is more useful than what 3 has said in 3000+ posts of 30+ lines each
(That first word is yaaahhhooo...not yahoo like the website. Yaaahhhoo is something we here in Vegas say during the first week in December when the Rodeo is in town.) But thank you for the kind words 21. I always appreciate your opinion. As for the second line of your post, I am not going to say to much about that. I promised senior Bear, that I wouldn't comment on that sort of thing. I don't have too many friends left in this community, so I think I'll try to stay on good terms with the Bear.
However, those lines really weren't directed at anyone in particular. Just expressing my thoughts.I appreciate your kind comments as well, Mr Froggy. I am just happy that the new BJinfo has provided the opportunity to be conversing again with you. I hope you are well and happy.sagefr0g said:@ KewlJ
where you stated: " 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."
good grief man, in four sentences, you just summed up what i've been struggling with for nay going on a life time and i a'int no spring chicken! but have only surfaced up out of the murky polluted swamp (being a fr0g) to realize over the last few months. the sentiment isn't only about blackjack, it covers a wide spectrum of human endeavor. the concept is been the reason i've been ranting so much in the time thread on this site.
i say, the last few months for me and it's true, but apparently the concept is an intuitive one (perhaps tied to shreds of archaic wisdom we all may have), because many of those old to this site may recall years ago, i had a dream of my trade mark (LOL)(see signature & video link below) fuzzy count for senior citizens.
but again your statement above, brings to mind the Pareto principle, 80/20 rule, that's been bandied about for many, many years. it may be an idea that's rife for the dangers of confirmation bias, but none the less there is something there, me thinks.
it's as if it is with mankind and the universe, it seems, the universe and mankind are rife with complexity, the secrets of nature and maths as well, wars, civilizations, science, nothing wrong with such complexity, and one needs to get a handle on it, however, it seems simplicity in the end rules.
I do remember your fuzzy count for seniors citizens.
It's a good concept right along the same lines. Probably the name "fuzzy count for senior citizens" is not the most desirable, because that sort of brings to mind taking or creating shortcuts to ease the burden on one's mind as they grow older. That is not really the object. I am thinking more along he lines of keeping it simple, because that is were the value is. I am thinking more along the line of why add complexity, just to add complexity, when there is little, or as I said, very diminishing returns for that added effort.I like the line "Simplicity in the end rules". With your permission, I may just borrow that from time to time.
Last edited:
Taff
Well-Known Member
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". Albert Einstein.
Thank you kewlj for the excellent post above. I'm 3 years into studying this game and will consider myself a rookie for years to come. In terms of units I am well up and I put this down to absorbing every bit of the mass of info posted by the incredibly smart people on this forum and others, and simplifying it. As for Index plays I like to play all as a sparcity of tables in the U.K makes wonging out impractical so I use more than the I.18. These additional 'negative count' index plays save me from bleeding chips in neg shoes but,again I keep it very simple with the min bet out. Folk betting side bets constantly slows the game over here so this approach allows me to play head to head and get many more hands in. I play the same index plays at -1 and -2 and this seems to be working. I just consider it defensive play.
Thank you kewlj for the excellent post above. I'm 3 years into studying this game and will consider myself a rookie for years to come. In terms of units I am well up and I put this down to absorbing every bit of the mass of info posted by the incredibly smart people on this forum and others, and simplifying it. As for Index plays I like to play all as a sparcity of tables in the U.K makes wonging out impractical so I use more than the I.18. These additional 'negative count' index plays save me from bleeding chips in neg shoes but,again I keep it very simple with the min bet out. Folk betting side bets constantly slows the game over here so this approach allows me to play head to head and get many more hands in. I play the same index plays at -1 and -2 and this seems to be working. I just consider it defensive play.
KewlJ said:Concerning index plays: We learned from Don Schlesinger that the first 20 or so index plays captures most of the gain available from all play. Snyder's work with hilo lite which you referenced shows that the their is little if any gain from extra precision. Automatic Monkey, who you may or may not be familiar with from this site years ago reached the same conclusion when he published his Ben Franklin count, which can be found in pdf form by googling ben franklin count. The Ben Franklin count is a level 2 count (same tags as Revere's RPC or Norm's Felt), but the conclusion concerning precision of index numbers is the same as Snyder's in that there is almost no difference in rounded index plays vs more precise numbers.
If you are not familiar with Auto Monkey, I recommend reading up on some of his archived posts on this site. But my point is these were 3 pretty smart guys. All pretty successful with card counting and all with very strong mathematical abilities, so none of these guys needed to find or take short cuts. But all came to the conclusion that the number (above about 20) and preciseness of index plays just aren't that important (especially for shoe games that most of us play)
Meistro, you used the word "simplified" in your original post (question). I know you were referring narrowly to index plays, but it is my belief that in today's world of card counting, simplicity is the way to go in most areas of card counting.
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.
Curious, Do you use the rounded index numbers or do you use the precise ones?
Thanks
xengrifter
Banned
No difference.Meistro said:
UK-21
Well-Known Member
Correct. Think S-Curves.sagefr0g said:
Issue is, I think, that people who are attracted to the concept of blackjack card counting tend to be obsessive types, and have something inside their heads that tells them they haven't done the job properly if they haven't covered every last base. A bit like accountants, who develop complex accountancy routines to account for pennies/cents within multi-million £/$ organisations. Minor matters, such as profitability, sustainability and liquidity fall through the cracks in the pavement. I've seen lots of examples of that too . . .