Wary of high some counts

[Automatic Monkey]

yeah, i was thinking of something similar in a differant vane. driving at dusk is supposed to be one of the most dangerous times. probably one reason is the strange perception phenomenon that has to do with when the light provided by the sinking sun is so low that when you turn your headlights on the ambient light is about equal to the strength of your headlights. one feels that one needs one's headlights to see better but because the strength of their headlights is the same as the ambient light the headlights don't really do the driver any good. weird thing is one feels as if one can see better when it gets much darker and the headlights really do help. lol.
but i believe i know what Aslan is talking about. we all have a knowledge that optimal betting according to the count is the right thing to do and we all have had the experience where in we do the right thing and the hoped for fruits of expectation is not realized. sometimes one experiences a 'pre-cognition' that things aren't going to work out. i for one wouldn't say that such an intuition isn't valid. i would just say that for one such an intuition has it's own uncertainty just as the optimal betting by count does. intelligent play calls for choosing between the better of such uncertainties and in my judgement the uncertainty of the optimal bet by the count holds forth the least uncertainty lol. anyway i still turn my headlights on at dusk and when i play blackjack i still have my intuition running in the background. at least with your headlights on at dusk the other drivers can see you comming better i'm not sure what good the intuition playing blackjack has lol....

No the lights help you see. Reflectors along the road and on other cars are designed to reflect oncoming headlights, so it helps you keep the road in perspective. You just don't consciously notice it.

I can't say for sure that precognition isn't valid. The human mind works via an unknown mechanism that may or may not be limited by time and even if I am not able to perceive the next card before it is dealt, I may be able to perceive my reaction to the next card before I have that reaction. Who knows? It has never been proven either way. But what has been proven is that even for a computer which has no feelings or reactions, if you bet with the count you will make money, slowly, and with large swings. So I'll do that, and save the experiments in human consciousness for something more enjoyable than playing blackjack.

Unlike ploppies we go into a casino with expectation of winning so the loss is compounded with frustration and disappointment when we don't. You can put it in baseball terms: a great baseball team wins 60% of its games and a lousy one wins 40%. And the great team will have frustrating losing streaks too. Just go out and keep playing, you can't do any better than that.

 

[RJT]

I can't say for sure that precognition isn't valid. The human mind works via an unknown mechanism that may or may not be limited by time and even if I am not able to perceive the next card before it is dealt, I may be able to perceive my reaction to the next card before I have that reaction. Who knows? It has never been proven either way.

But if we were to take a lack of contrary evidence as a reason to believe something might be possible there's no reason to believe that i can't shoot fireballs from my eyes - it's just that i haven't figured out how yet. I mean i do think about it a lot and my eyes do get very hot from time to time......
No jab intended here - agree with the point of your post - i just find the idea of a lack of evidence being used as proof an ammusing one.
I used to consider myself agnostic, but then realised that that's just fence sitting lol.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

But if we were to take a lack of contrary evidence as a reason to believe something might be possible there's no reason to believe that i can't shoot fireballs from my eyes - it's just that i haven't figured out how yet. I mean i do think about it a lot and my eyes do get very hot from time to time......
No jab intended here - agree with the point of your post - i just find the idea of a lack of evidence being used as proof an ammusing one.
I used to consider myself agnostic, but then realised that that's just fence sitting lol.

RJT.

What's wrong with fence sitting? Particularly in matters that are currently unknown and possibly unknowable.

It used to be believed that there was no way to beat blackjack, and when the casinos first learned about card counting they encouraged it, believing to be just another worthless gamblers' system. They had to see their holds drop before they believed.

There are people who claim that they have cognition beyond the generally recognized senses under the right conditions and I'm in no position to tell them they don't. I'm also unwilling to experiment with it at the blackjack table. That's what pickup bars are for, a lot less to lose.

 

[sagefr0g]

You see your example is part of what I talk about. The general public may think that turning your headlights on at dusk is for the sake of themselves seeing better, but as you stated that is really incorrect. What is correct is the latter part of the statement where you mention that it is easier for others to see the headlights. That is in fact why you are supposed to turn on your headlights at dusk. Also when raining. Headlights do not increase one owns visibility in the rain, but it increases visibility for those around you to see you. So the point is, much of the mainstream may be misinformed why they do things, but its right to do it just the same. One's doubts in blackjack can come from a similar thought process. If you are to put out big bets during high counts, but have been burned in the past, you may second guess it due to lack of understanding of the truth. Just like you know headlights don't help your visibility at dusk but put them on anyway, you put out the big bet knowing you can easily get burned again. But the truth is the headlights don't get put on for the reason of your own vision, and you will win those big bets a lot of times regardless of past events. The problem is most just don't get it.

But as I have stated before the subconcious will play tricks on you. It works as much as a consience as anything will. If you try to fool yourself into thinking you know what you are doing when you really aren't that prepared, most times your subconcious will appear in the form of a gut feeling to let you know you can't lie to it and give you feelings of uncertainty and doubt. If you play as perfect as you can, you will be surprised how few "gut feelings" you will have. I am not saying you will feel certain you will win, I'm saying you will feel certain of your choices. Again the problem is most just don't get it.

your points are all well taken. i'd have to agree that intuition isn't called for in orthodox counting and maybe even not in the fuzzy realm. in so much as it might keep either player from choosing a plus ev play or encourage bad habits against proper play it would certainly chip away at some advantage. it seems a less grievous tact when a player finds ones self in more uncertain situations as alluded to by Zen in his interview. those dammed if you do and dammed if you don't situations lol.
one point about the headlights at dusk and night thing that i'd like to make note of is that sometimes people do think that turning on their headlights at dusk will help them see better only to find that it doesn't really help much. they have the perception that the lights will help when really they don't except as Auto-monkey says they beam of reflectors and the like and like you say oncomming cars can see you better.

 

[Tarzan]

Monday Morning

I am relaxing for the weekend and will be back in AC for monday morning bright and early...I am going to sit down at the table and they are going to say,"Hey! What's the flashlight for!??"

Okay, so maybe it was not all that funny and I will never make it as a stand-up comedian but I had to throw my feeble attempt at humor in among all the philosophical stuff.

 

[RJT]

What's wrong with fence sitting? Particularly in matters that are currently unknown and possibly unknowable.

It used to be believed that there was no way to beat blackjack, and when the casinos first learned about card counting they encouraged it, believing to be just another worthless gamblers' system. They had to see their holds drop before they believed.

There are people who claim that they have cognition beyond the generally recognized senses under the right conditions and I'm in no position to tell them they don't. I'm also unwilling to experiment with it at the blackjack table. That's what pickup bars are for, a lot less to lose.

Nothing really. But if you apply it to religion as i was at the end of my post, it invalidates any belief. And similarly, you should never use lack of evidence to the contrary an proof of anything.
I've never seen michael stipe and williem defoe in the same place at the same time. Doesn't mean i should believe they are the same person. But by lack of evidence to the contrary i could end up believing that.

RJT.

 

[EasyRhino]

I have a coworker that looks like Michael Stipe.

Anyway, first, you need to be playing a solid game. And you need to be confident in it.

Then, if your "gut" still has a funny feeling, see if you can incorporate that into your act. Still play like a machine, but bemoan how unlucky you've been vs dealer 8s, and how you've been busting on your 12s. And if you're really lucky, you can incorporate the superstition right as you're making one of your index plays. (Hell, I had a superstitious pit goad me into the right index play one time when I had a stiff hand).

 

[k_c]

A new wrinkle

I'd like to add a bit of a new twist. I believe all counting systems are subject to false positives.

I know Aslan uses KO, so check out the following scenario:
1) All 7s, 8s, and 9s removed from a 6 deck shoe
2) An equal number of (2-6) and (T-A) present in shoe
3) An arbitrary shoe composition (2 through ace) 12,12,12,12,12,0,0,0,48,12

Using the KO count, the count is at the pivot point with about 2.3 decks remaining so the counter would believe he has an edge around 2%.

Now look at some exact EVs (6 decks, S17, DA2, SPL3, DAS, 1 card to Sp A, NRSA)
Total dependent EV using basic strategy: -1.3782%
Comp dependent EV (best strategy): +2.264%

So, player does have an advantage, but only if he plays his cards right. The trouble is many of the correct plays don't go according to any usual way of determining what is right. Index plays probably will not help and may even hurt:
10-2 v 10 Hit: -64.02%, Stand: -42.56%
10-3 v 10 Hit: -58.85%, Stand: -42.34%
10-4 v 10 Hit: -49.27%, Stand: -42.16%
10-5 v 10 Hit: -36.19%, Stand: -41.97%
10-6 v 10 Hit: -40.93%, Stand: -42.32%

So in this case, you may be right in being wary of a positive count.

A counter is assuming that statisically situations such as the above are rare enough to be insignificant, but they do exist.

k_c

 

[rdorange]

Practice your betting strategy

What has happened to all the practice we put in?

When I practice I always include a small amount of time to playing and actually practicing my betting. I don't have a huge spread, and sometimes I am not comfortable spreading a lot of green. I have less problems spreading red. But, if you practice spreading your bets while you are studying and practicing, you will be able to do it when the time arrives in the casino. For me it was like Bs and Cc. When a card situation presents itself, I have practiced for that situation. I know I have to hit, stand, double or split, and do so. I practice Bs and Cc every day, while I only practice betting every other day or two. When the situation arises you just have to be able to respond without much thought.

If you recognize the count, and the signs are there, your bet should be there too.

I hope I said this right!

 

[aslan]

I'd like to add a bit of a new twist. I believe all counting systems are subject to false positives.

I know Aslan uses KO, so check out the following scenario:
1) All 7s, 8s, and 9s removed from a 6 deck shoe
2) An equal number of (2-6) and (T-A) present in shoe
3) An arbitrary shoe composition (2 through ace) 12,12,12,12,12,0,0,0,48,12

Using the KO count, the count is at the pivot point with about 2.3 decks remaining so the counter would believe he has an edge around 2%.

Now look at some exact EVs (6 decks, S17, DA2, SPL3, DAS, 1 card to Sp A, NRSA)
Total dependent EV using basic strategy: -1.3782%
Comp dependent EV (best strategy): +2.264%

So, player does have an advantage, but only if he plays his cards right. The trouble is many of the correct plays don't go according to any usual way of determining what is right. Index plays probably will not help and may even hurt:
10-2 v 10 Hit: -64.02%, Stand: -42.56%
10-3 v 10 Hit: -58.85%, Stand: -42.34%
10-4 v 10 Hit: -49.27%, Stand: -42.16%
10-5 v 10 Hit: -36.19%, Stand: -41.97%
10-6 v 10 Hit: -40.93%, Stand: -42.32%

So in this case, you may be right in being wary of a positive count.

A counter is assuming that statisically situations such as the above are rare enough to be insignificant, but they do exist.

k_c

I believe that a 2% edge in KO would be about +7, not the pivot point, and that, only if three decks had already been dealt.

I'm not sure what you mean by total dependent EV, but if you mean house edge for this game, I thought it was close to .5.

I follow the "KO preferred" BS for +4 and above, and although I bust a lot hitting 12 through 14 against a 10, if I do make a hand, I often win the round. With so many tens undealt, I do wonder why I should be hitting 16 or 15 against a dealer 9 or 8, but in practice I trust the KO system and the underlying math.

 

[EasyRhino]

I know Aslan uses KO, so check out the following scenario:
1) All 7s, 8s, and 9s removed from a 6 deck shoe
2) An equal number of (2-6) and (T-A) present in shoe
3) An arbitrary shoe composition (2 through ace) 12,12,12,12,12,0,0,0,48,12

KO *is* subject to false positives near the end of the deck, but two things don't sound right about this example:

1) KO counts 7s
2) In your arbitrary shoe composition, you've basically got a balanced count. If you were using that with KO, and there weren't any sevens, and the cards were evenly distributed... the running count would never change, and you'd never end up betting?

 

[k_c]

I believe that a 2% edge in KO would be about +7, not the pivot point, and that, only if three decks had already been dealt.

I'm not sure what you mean by total dependent EV, but if you mean house edge for this game, I thought it was close to .5.

Yes, I guess pivot point would be closer to +1.5%. By total dependent EV I mean EV by following total dependent basic strategy such as hit 16 v 10, hit 12 v 2, etc. btw hitting 12 v 2 EV = -43.40% and stand EV = -17.96% for that particular shoe comp.

I follow the "KO preferred" BS for +4 and above, and although I bust a lot hitting 12 through 14 against a 10, if I do make a hand, I often win the round. With so many tens undealt, I do wonder why I should be hitting 16 or 15 against a dealer 9 or 8, but in practice I trust the KO system and the underlying math.

My point was that in order to realize the theoretical advantage in that specific situation, neither basic strategy nor index plays would be of much help and you would be doomed to playing at a disadvantage even though the count suggested you had an advantage. You would need to be able to make plays like stand on 12 v 10 and it would take a super player to do it. You asked about your "gut" sometimes telling you to be wary of good counts and I think this fits the bill. If your gut told you to be wary of this count, it would be right! Chances are that shoe comps such as this are just statistical blips on the radar screen, though, but they do exist .

k_c

 

[k_c]

KO *is* subject to false positives near the end of the deck, but two things don't sound right about this example:

1) KO counts 7s
2) In your arbitrary shoe composition, you've basically got a balanced count. If you were using that with KO, and there weren't any sevens, and the cards were evenly distributed... the running count would never change, and you'd never end up betting?

Well, whatever your initial running count was it would be increased by 24 by removing all of the 7s. The balance between the high and low cards would not change the count at all.

k_c

 

[aslan]

They do exist. UFOs. Unidentified Failure Opportunities.

 

[k_c]

They do exist. UFOs. Unidentified Failure Opportunities.

I like the name.

k_c

 

[mdlbj]

i understand. If you are starting to see the "clumps" than start practicing shuffle tracking. Maybe you can take it to the next level.


My point is, if these losses bother you, or interrupt your train of thought then, your understanding of playing with an advantage is maybe misinterpreted by your cognitive thought process..

It does not matter if you loose this hand. In the long run, you are playing with the advantage.

Doesn't everyone love a sure thing? I always try for the sure thing in all my pursuits, but that doesn't mean I don't have the balls for taking some risk here and there. I think what drives this question is the belief that the subconscious mind sees more than our conscious minds and this kind of "hunch" could be a whole lot more than "luck." I bet zg knows what I'm talking about if he wants to weigh in. Sometimes it seems like de javu, but I just keep throwing more cheques on the fire. lol You see, my educated mind won't give in to my mystical nature, or some such bull*rap, so unless someone can speak to this "second sight" phenomenon, I will continue taking the good with the bad so to speak.

Scientifically speaking, maybe our subconscious mind zeroes in on certain clumps or sequences of cards that never got properly shuffled and are now repeating. That would be a plausible explanation, at least as good as the one that says I'm just afraid to take risks.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

... And similarly, you should never use lack of evidence to the contrary an proof of anything....

Reminds me of a conversation I had with the IRS once. Suffice it to say they did not accept this axiom.

 

[RJT]

I'd like to add a bit of a new twist. I believe all counting systems are subject to false positives.

I know Aslan uses KO, so check out the following scenario:
1) All 7s, 8s, and 9s removed from a 6 deck shoe
2) An equal number of (2-6) and (T-A) present in shoe
3) An arbitrary shoe composition (2 through ace) 12,12,12,12,12,0,0,0,48,12

Using the KO count, the count is at the pivot point with about 2.3 decks remaining so the counter would believe he has an edge around 2%.

Now look at some exact EVs (6 decks, S17, DA2, SPL3, DAS, 1 card to Sp A, NRSA)
Total dependent EV using basic strategy: -1.3782%
Comp dependent EV (best strategy): +2.264%

So, player does have an advantage, but only if he plays his cards right. The trouble is many of the correct plays don't go according to any usual way of determining what is right. Index plays probably will not help and may even hurt:
10-2 v 10 Hit: -64.02%, Stand: -42.56%
10-3 v 10 Hit: -58.85%, Stand: -42.34%
10-4 v 10 Hit: -49.27%, Stand: -42.16%
10-5 v 10 Hit: -36.19%, Stand: -41.97%
10-6 v 10 Hit: -40.93%, Stand: -42.32%

So in this case, you may be right in being wary of a positive count.

A counter is assuming that statisically situations such as the above are rare enough to be insignificant, but they do exist.

k_c

The average advantage - that's the bit you're really interested in - is dervied over all, or near enough to all, shoe composition. When you run a sim over hundreds of millions of shoes if one particular shoe composition doesn't turn up it doesn't matter. It occurs so infrequently that it is insignificant.
As much as in that one particular instance you may not be playing with the advantage you thought you were, this will be compensated for by other instances where you are playing with a greater advantage than you thought.
The ratio of 10's to A's is a good example of that. In both KO and Hi/Lo 10's and A's are counted the same, but truthfully their effect on your advantage is quite different and actually inter-dependant as they are both required to create those oh so lovely blackjacks. So whenever a larger than usual quantity of one or the other comes out, it will effect your advantage. This doesn't mean you should start playing with your gut to make any sort of playing decision.
Any count is based on average advantage. That is if you were to flat bet through a statistically significant sample of shoes of exactly the same composition - taking into account that you don't know exactly which values of cards have been removed - you would be playing at that level of advantage. This means that while you may not be playing with the advantage you though you were this time, it's insignificant.
Going with gut decisions is choosing to use a system with no conclusive evidence what-so-ever to support it over playing with a system that has skreeds of reseach and proof to back it up.

RJT.

 

[EasyRhino]

Well, whatever your initial running count was it would be increased by 24 by removing all of the 7s. The balance between the high and low cards would not change the count at all.

Oh, wait, so if I understand, you're saying that having a game where all of the 7s, 8s, and 9s, were played would give a signal to a KO player to bet more?

It would. However, I also think that 7s have an effect of removal that is positive for player expectation. So maybe a player should bet more if such an unusual shoe were to play out?

 

[aslan]

You guys are so rational it's scary! lol