Ecco tutti i commenti pubblicati sul sito, con le discussioni più recenti elencate per prime.
Per partecipare a una qualsiasi di queste discussioni, potete rispondere nella pagina dell'articolo.
Mi chiedevo quanto sia realistico guadagnare assumendo che non si commettano errori gravi e che si tenga traccia del conteggio. Supponendo che il casinò abbia un vantaggio di 1 %, vincerà 51 mani e noi 49. Diciamo che abbiamo solo due dimensioni di puntata, 5 e 10, minima e massima. Diciamo che abbiamo contato e puntato di più quando il conteggio è alto e di meno quando è basso e abbiamo ottenuto 51 L: 41 min + 10 max = -305. 49 W: 24 min + 25 max = 370, quindi in media per 100 mani avremo guadagnato 370-305 = 65. Se adottiamo l'approccio standard di denaro iniziale 40x scommessa massima, il nostro capitale iniziale è di 400. 65/400 = circa 16% di aumento per 100 mani, quindi, se adottiamo un approccio conservativo di 100 mani all'ora, avremo raddoppiato il nostro denaro in 6 ore. 16*6=96.
Volevo solo sapere se queste cifre sono ragionevoli e realistiche o, in caso contrario, quali sono le tue idee sui profitti eventuali e su quanto ti aspetteresti di guadagnare in una notte media.
Le tue stime hanno molti problemi. Anche il tuo primo calcolo di 51 vs 49 dà una risposta sbagliata... Sarebbe un margine della casa di 2%, non di 1%. Ma onestamente, non puoi nemmeno avvicinarti alla comprensione del blackjack con una semplice idea di vincita/perdita. È troppo complesso per questo tipo di semplificazione.
Il mio consiglio? Lascia perdere i calcoli manuali. Se vuoi dei numeri concreti, esegui tu stesso le simulazioni utilizzando qualcosa come il software CVData, oppure acquista un libro come Attacco al blackjack dove tutto questo lavoro è stato fatto per te.
Il risultato finale è molto meno redditizio rispetto alle tue stime. Assumendo condizioni decenti, il vantaggio di un contatore di carte è solitamente pari a circa 1% della sua azione totale. In 100 mani, il tuo profitto è probabilmente pari a un paio delle tue puntate minime. E dovrai fare uno spread ben superiore a $5 e $10 per ottenere un qualsiasi profitto. (Il margine della casa non può essere superato con uno spread così ridotto).
Something I noticed is that the dealer will still hit even if their first two cards have a greater total than mine and its under 17. No sane dealer in real life would hit when they already have a total greater than yours, right?
That’s the way the game works. The dealer must follow the strict rules on hitting, and cannot choose to stand on a stiff total just because he would beat you.
For more, see Regole del blackjack.
So do I have to keep changing back and forth from real count to true count between making my decisions and counting or did I miss the part where one of courses touched on that point?
Yes, you maintain the running count, and then need to convert it to a true count for making betting and playing decisions. Fortunately, it is usually obvious what the play is, and you’re not constantly having to do the conversion. Instead, you’ll have a pretty good idea what the true count is already, and precision is only needed occasionally.
One more question, you only start counting after the deck has been reshuffled into the shoe correct? If you jump in midshoe, you would just play according to the table in Lesson 1 correct?
You can begin counting immediately even mid-shoe, but you must treat the already dealt cards in the discard tray as if they were behind the cut card in the shoe instead. Some people find adjusting for that to be confusing, and choose to just play basic strategy for the partial shoe instead. It’s not a big deal either way.
I didn’t get the 76% calculation. In the later lessons we learn to calculate the house edge. And we did three examples with the results 33%, 33% and 30%. Ho do we calculate now our bets? 80%-10×0.4%=76%???? for the mentioned above? and why?
The GameMaster is pretty sparse in his explanation of the 76% factor, though he mentions it briefly above.
Here’s how he arrived at that number:
A “Kelly” bet is Your Bankroll * (Your Edge / Variance).
In blackjack, the variance is around 1.32. 1/1.32 = 76%. So instead of saying you should divide your bet by 1.32, he just multiplies it by .76 or 76% instead. Same effect. He’s taking your advantage and dividing by the variance before figuring the optimal bet.
(As for your other sentence mentioning the 33% stuff, I don’t quite understand what you’re asking.)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I interpreted your response. The 76% KC comes from the fact that blackjack has a higher variance than many other investments. So essentially, due to splits and dd’s, playing 76% KC in blackjack has the same risk/reward as full KC in investments where the initial bet and risk for that bet are known upfront.
If that’s true, then isn’t playing at 76% KC too risky for someone with a $4000/$5000 bankroll since it’s pretty difficult to find a table with less than a $5 min. I get that this question is relative to one’s risk aversity and whether or not that bank is replenishable. So I’ll phrase my question this way: would you recommend playing a smaller fraction of the KC if the bank was non replenishable?
I think kel was referring to making calculations regarding her bank at 33% KC, as to keep her risk of ruin very low. I’ve seen recommendations of anywhere from 25%KC to 80%KC for making betting calculations. I’m sure the latter is just a rounded version of your calculation and the former I read in Snyder’s Blackbelt in BJ. I don’t understand what difference it makes if they both have a theoretical RoR of 0%. My two guesses would be avoiding problems with table minimums and for mental peace of mind as bank fluctuations will be a much smaller percentage of your total bank with a lower percentage KC.
A final follow up question. Assuming your double deck scenario in later lessons, what would you estimate the risk of ruin to be for your betting scheme assuming one starts with the $5000 bank you made the calculations with, but the table minimum is $10. Obviously if my bank starts on a downswing, there isn’t much room for me to recalculate, so I would have to play it out far above my kelly calculations for any bank that dropped under $5000 in order to keep a 1-8 spread.
I hope I worded my questions so that they make sense to everyone. I know I have a tendency to ramble.
Thanks for all your help. I love this site; it’s a very helpful source.
Your understanding of the Kelly bet being reduced because of the variance is accurate, although your use of the abbreviation “KC” in your post is not quite right. The Kelly Criterion already by its definition includes the 76% factor. If you had a different game where bets have a variance of 1.0, the Kelly Criterion would have you bet 100% of your edge as a percentage of the bankroll. Blackjack’s higher variance makes the Kelly Criterion number only 76% of your edge for blackjack bets.
Most people find Kelly too aggressive for their taste, and I agree. I recommend 1/4 Kelly if possible. For small bankrolls, that is really not practical for the very reasons you mention. Table minimums are going to restrict your ability to even stick with full Kelly sometimes.
(I will point out that many players with a supposed bankroll of $5000 are actually willing to lose it and raise another bank to try again. In that case, your real bankroll is effectively a lot more than $5000. That helps a lot!)
I don’t have a quick answer for your specific risk of ruin question on the double deck $10 scenario, and I’m too pressed for time at the moment to delve into the details. Maybe early next week I’ll have a chance to take a look.
That clears things up. I will strive for 1/4 Kelly and probably wait awhile longer until I have a larger bank behind me.
I have used various charts and graphs available to me through blackjackforum and qfit to find that my risk of ruin is slightly over 5%, which makes sense using Uston’s 5% curve as an estimation but I’m unsure on my standard deviation per 100 hands. Any idea how I can calculate/where I can find that number? Also, the dd game available to me deals 65% of the cards and I’m using zen with indexes -4 to 12. This should be a bit better than the game in your scenario, but any help I can get on the calculations would be much appreciated.
That would make sense on the surface of it. But I seem to recall reading that there are decisions with the direction reversed. (In tables, they are marked with an asterisk.) So it seems that, no matter how you go about it, you need two pieces of information. Index and normal/reversed; or basic decision and index of change.
I was playing in Poland few month. So I can say the basic strategy, card counting, and other beting system really works my mounth profit was ~ 3000euro, ante was 3euro
Mi chiedevo quanto sia realistico guadagnare assumendo che non si commettano errori gravi e che si tenga traccia del conteggio. Supponendo che il casinò abbia un vantaggio di 1 %, vincerà 51 mani e noi 49. Diciamo che abbiamo solo due dimensioni di puntata, 5 e 10, minima e massima. Diciamo che abbiamo contato e puntato di più quando il conteggio è alto e di meno quando è basso e abbiamo ottenuto 51 L: 41 min + 10 max = -305. 49 W: 24 min + 25 max = 370, quindi in media per 100 mani avremo guadagnato 370-305 = 65. Se adottiamo l'approccio standard di denaro iniziale 40x scommessa massima, il nostro capitale iniziale è di 400. 65/400 = circa 16% di aumento per 100 mani, quindi, se adottiamo un approccio conservativo di 100 mani all'ora, avremo raddoppiato il nostro denaro in 6 ore. 16*6=96.
Volevo solo sapere se queste cifre sono ragionevoli e realistiche o, in caso contrario, quali sono le tue idee sui profitti eventuali e su quanto ti aspetteresti di guadagnare in una notte media.
Le tue stime hanno molti problemi. Anche il tuo primo calcolo di 51 vs 49 dà una risposta sbagliata... Sarebbe un margine della casa di 2%, non di 1%. Ma onestamente, non puoi nemmeno avvicinarti alla comprensione del blackjack con una semplice idea di vincita/perdita. È troppo complesso per questo tipo di semplificazione.
Il mio consiglio? Lascia perdere i calcoli manuali. Se vuoi dei numeri concreti, esegui tu stesso le simulazioni utilizzando qualcosa come il software CVData, oppure acquista un libro come Attacco al blackjack dove tutto questo lavoro è stato fatto per te.
Il risultato finale è molto meno redditizio rispetto alle tue stime. Assumendo condizioni decenti, il vantaggio di un contatore di carte è solitamente pari a circa 1% della sua azione totale. In 100 mani, il tuo profitto è probabilmente pari a un paio delle tue puntate minime. E dovrai fare uno spread ben superiore a $5 e $10 per ottenere un qualsiasi profitto. (Il margine della casa non può essere superato con uno spread così ridotto).
Something I noticed is that the dealer will still hit even if their first two cards have a greater total than mine and its under 17. No sane dealer in real life would hit when they already have a total greater than yours, right?
That’s the way the game works. The dealer must follow the strict rules on hitting, and cannot choose to stand on a stiff total just because he would beat you.
For more, see Regole del blackjack.
So do I have to keep changing back and forth from real count to true count between making my decisions and counting or did I miss the part where one of courses touched on that point?
Yes, you maintain the running count, and then need to convert it to a true count for making betting and playing decisions. Fortunately, it is usually obvious what the play is, and you’re not constantly having to do the conversion. Instead, you’ll have a pretty good idea what the true count is already, and precision is only needed occasionally.
One more question, you only start counting after the deck has been reshuffled into the shoe correct? If you jump in midshoe, you would just play according to the table in Lesson 1 correct?
You can begin counting immediately even mid-shoe, but you must treat the already dealt cards in the discard tray as if they were behind the cut card in the shoe instead. Some people find adjusting for that to be confusing, and choose to just play basic strategy for the partial shoe instead. It’s not a big deal either way.
To confirm, the count starts at zero when the shoe is shuffled again correct?
Thanks again for your help and patience!
Yes, reset the count to zero when they shuffle.
I didn’t get the 76% calculation. In the later lessons we learn to calculate the house edge. And we did three examples with the results 33%, 33% and 30%. Ho do we calculate now our bets? 80%-10×0.4%=76%???? for the mentioned above? and why?
The GameMaster is pretty sparse in his explanation of the 76% factor, though he mentions it briefly above.
Here’s how he arrived at that number:
A “Kelly” bet is Your Bankroll * (Your Edge / Variance).
In blackjack, the variance is around 1.32. 1/1.32 = 76%. So instead of saying you should divide your bet by 1.32, he just multiplies it by .76 or 76% instead. Same effect. He’s taking your advantage and dividing by the variance before figuring the optimal bet.
(As for your other sentence mentioning the 33% stuff, I don’t quite understand what you’re asking.)
I would like to expand on kel’s question a bit.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I interpreted your response. The 76% KC comes from the fact that blackjack has a higher variance than many other investments. So essentially, due to splits and dd’s, playing 76% KC in blackjack has the same risk/reward as full KC in investments where the initial bet and risk for that bet are known upfront.
If that’s true, then isn’t playing at 76% KC too risky for someone with a $4000/$5000 bankroll since it’s pretty difficult to find a table with less than a $5 min. I get that this question is relative to one’s risk aversity and whether or not that bank is replenishable. So I’ll phrase my question this way: would you recommend playing a smaller fraction of the KC if the bank was non replenishable?
I think kel was referring to making calculations regarding her bank at 33% KC, as to keep her risk of ruin very low. I’ve seen recommendations of anywhere from 25%KC to 80%KC for making betting calculations. I’m sure the latter is just a rounded version of your calculation and the former I read in Snyder’s Blackbelt in BJ. I don’t understand what difference it makes if they both have a theoretical RoR of 0%. My two guesses would be avoiding problems with table minimums and for mental peace of mind as bank fluctuations will be a much smaller percentage of your total bank with a lower percentage KC.
A final follow up question. Assuming your double deck scenario in later lessons, what would you estimate the risk of ruin to be for your betting scheme assuming one starts with the $5000 bank you made the calculations with, but the table minimum is $10. Obviously if my bank starts on a downswing, there isn’t much room for me to recalculate, so I would have to play it out far above my kelly calculations for any bank that dropped under $5000 in order to keep a 1-8 spread.
I hope I worded my questions so that they make sense to everyone. I know I have a tendency to ramble.
Thanks for all your help. I love this site; it’s a very helpful source.
Your understanding of the Kelly bet being reduced because of the variance is accurate, although your use of the abbreviation “KC” in your post is not quite right. The Kelly Criterion already by its definition includes the 76% factor. If you had a different game where bets have a variance of 1.0, the Kelly Criterion would have you bet 100% of your edge as a percentage of the bankroll. Blackjack’s higher variance makes the Kelly Criterion number only 76% of your edge for blackjack bets.
Most people find Kelly too aggressive for their taste, and I agree. I recommend 1/4 Kelly if possible. For small bankrolls, that is really not practical for the very reasons you mention. Table minimums are going to restrict your ability to even stick with full Kelly sometimes.
(I will point out that many players with a supposed bankroll of $5000 are actually willing to lose it and raise another bank to try again. In that case, your real bankroll is effectively a lot more than $5000. That helps a lot!)
I don’t have a quick answer for your specific risk of ruin question on the double deck $10 scenario, and I’m too pressed for time at the moment to delve into the details. Maybe early next week I’ll have a chance to take a look.
That clears things up. I will strive for 1/4 Kelly and probably wait awhile longer until I have a larger bank behind me.
I have used various charts and graphs available to me through blackjackforum and qfit to find that my risk of ruin is slightly over 5%, which makes sense using Uston’s 5% curve as an estimation but I’m unsure on my standard deviation per 100 hands. Any idea how I can calculate/where I can find that number? Also, the dd game available to me deals 65% of the cards and I’m using zen with indexes -4 to 12. This should be a bit better than the game in your scenario, but any help I can get on the calculations would be much appreciated.
Thanks again for all the help
That would make sense on the surface of it. But I seem to recall reading that there are decisions with the direction reversed. (In tables, they are marked with an asterisk.) So it seems that, no matter how you go about it, you need two pieces of information. Index and normal/reversed; or basic decision and index of change.
Ci sono tornei in atlantic city quest'anno, non ne ho trovato nessuno, ne conoscete qualcuno?
Play alone or with your buddy
Grazie, cercherò di trovare una cartuccia su hitting con le percentuali
I was playing in Poland few month. So I can say the basic strategy, card counting, and other beting system really works my mounth profit was ~ 3000euro, ante was 3euro