A reply to MovieCasino$$$

[k_c]

If six 7's, 8's, or 9's and three 2-6's with four face cards are played at a heads up single deck game, we have the advantage. The chance of being dealt a blackjack rises to 6.47% instead of the 4.83% off the top. The hi-lo count is -1 and the eye in the sky will think we are nuts to make a big bet.

You WOULD be nuts to make a big bet with this composition. I already addressed this in this thread, post #29. You seem to think if you post this enough times, that will make it right.

I use combinatorial analysis and a calculator which is more accurate than computer sims.

The images in the above link display the results of combinatorial analysis (exact calculation) for single deck dealer stands on soft 17, no resplit. Dealer hitting soft 17 would be worse. If you say you have an advantage with this composition, you are wrong.

It's true combinatorial analysis is more accurate the sims. What sims can do that isn't easily accomplished by combinatorial analysis is to average out a broad range of possible shoe compositions. For any given shoe composition combinatorial analysis is the most accurate and long term answer there is.

 

[JSTAT]

You WOULD be nuts to make a big bet with this composition. I already addressed this in this thread, post #29. You seem to think if you post this enough times, that will make it right.



The images in the above link display the results of combinatorial analysis (exact calculation) for single deck dealer stands on soft 17, no resplit. Dealer hitting soft 17 would be worse. If you say you have an advantage with this composition, you are wrong.

It's true combinatorial analysis is more accurate the sims. What sims can do that isn't easily accomplished by combinatorial analysis is to average out a broad range of possible shoe compositions. For any given shoe composition combinatorial analysis is the most accurate and long term answer there is.

I get a blackjack every 15.4 hands in the scenario you linked. About 1/4 better from the normal 20.7 blackjack frequency off the top at single deck. This additional edge is about .6 by adding about 1/4 off the 2.4% blackjack payout. At a single deck game in Tahoe and Reno the house edge is -.44. Therefore our advantage is about +.16 with your example.

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

 

[1357111317]

Suppose we split 8,8 vs 5 on the first hand heads up. We nail two nines on each and stand. Dealer flips over ten and busts with another ten. The hi-lo count is -1 and the Ten Count is +1. The calculated blackjack frequency for the next hand is 45x44=1980. 1980 divided by 56 (14 tens left X 4aces left) equals 35.357. Divide by two to get the blackjack frequency of 17.678. We will get a snapper every 17.678 hands instead of the 20.7 off the top. Or 5.65% of the time instead of 4.83% We turned a hi-lo negative into a positive situation with the upgraded Ten Count KOLAN. Every little bit counts to win at 21.

JSTAT

Jeez the amount of mental arithmetic this guy can do at the table is astouding. Keep a running count and 3 side counts, make TC calculations, make betting decisions, make indice decisions. Then on top of that he calculates perfect blackjack frequency by multiplying numbers as high as 45 and 44 together and THEN he divides that by 56. All of this at the table in real time. I think we know the reason why his count is the best. He is the real Rainman.

(Ok enough with the sarcasm. Seriously JSTAT nobody could do half of that at the table unless you were a savant or you are getting 20 hands per hour. )

 

[k_c]

Suppose we split 8,8 vs 5 on the first hand heads up. We nail two nines on each and stand. Dealer flips over ten and busts with another ten. The hi-lo count is -1 and the Ten Count is +1. The calculated blackjack frequency for the next hand is 45x44=1980. 1980 divided by 56 (14 tens left X 4aces left) equals 35.357. Divide by two to get the blackjack frequency of 17.678. We will get a snapper every 17.678 hands instead of the 20.7 off the top. Or 5.65% of the time instead of 4.83% We turned a hi-lo negative into a positive situation with the upgraded Ten Count KOLAN. Every little bit counts to win at 21.

JSTAT

Again, you are taking something that is the truth (probability of blackjack = 5.66% compared with 4.83% for a full deck) and imply that removing 8,8,5,9,9,T,T from a full single deck is at least a small advantage because of this.

This is wrong. This time I used very favorable rules for single deck. S17, DOA, split non-aces to 4 hands, split aces to 4 hands, 1 card to split aces. Player has a positive expectation of +.1748% using total dependent basic strategy for these rules.

For the composition you suggest, the TD basic strategy player's EV=-.5322%.
A player that plays perfect strategy has an EV=-.3360%. That's as good as it can possibly get for this particular composition.

This is by no means a positive overall expectation as you suggest.

 

[k_c]

I get a blackjack every 15.4 hands in the scenario you linked. About 1/4 better from the normal 20.7 blackjack frequency off the top at single deck. This additional edge is about .6 by adding about 1/4 of the 2.4% blackjack payout. At a single deck game in Tahoe and Reno the house edge is -.44. Therefore our advantage is about +.16 with your example.

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

I showed that you're wrong. If you don't believe it that's up to you. Increased EV from probability of blackjack doesn't necessarily mean overall EV is better. Overall EV still could be worse.

I'm done with that particular problem.

 

[JSTAT]

Again, you are taking something that is the truth (probability of blackjack = 5.66% compared with 4.83% for a full deck) and imply that removing 8,8,5,9,9,T,T from a full single deck is at least a small advantage because of this.

This is wrong. This time I used very favorable rules for single deck. S17, DOA, split non-aces to 4 hands, split aces to 4 hands, 1 card to split aces. Player has a positive expectation of +.1748% using total dependent basic strategy for these rules.

For the composition you suggest, the TD basic strategy player's EV=-.5322%.
A player that plays perfect strategy has an EV=-.3360%. That's as good as it can possibly get for this particular composition.

This is by no means a positive overall expectation as you suggest.

Sorry k_c, your computer can't overide the mathematics I have provided. I know my math is very close to the truth. My 20 years of winning reflects the power of numbers that I have derived from my calculator. We can agree to disagree, OK?

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

 

[callipygian]

Responding to MC$$$ = responding to JSTAT

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=135376&postcount=35

 

[k_c]

Sorry k_c, your computer can't overide the mathematics I have provided. I know my math is very close to the truth. My 20 years of winning reflects the power of numbers that I have derived from my calculator. We can agree to disagree, OK?

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

These are exact mathematical calculations. If you choose to believe otherwise, that's up to you. All you do are make claims based on half truths. The probability of getting a blackjack is a very simple calculation to make. You do it well.

Computing everything else that can possibly happen takes some doing. I don't see where you do that at all.

 

[MoneyPlays]

Gee, why didn't you stay a little longer?

In January 1997, I was barred from playing 21 after winning 4K at the New York-New York six deck game in Las Vegas. I thought the 4K win would be peanuts. I assumed Vegas was a class town and winning a few thousand wouldn't ruffle any feathers. I played for 13 straight hours spreading $25-$300. They kept giving me free beer. I was having a good time and was polite. I worked my tail off at the post office and did not expect harrassment from Las Vegas casinos for just counting. Like they say, "Out of the frying pan, into the fire." My picture was faxed to every major casino property surveillance department throughout the Surveillance Information Network (SIN for short) in Nevada. My picture is also in every Facial Recognition Software on the Strip. In the commercials for the World Series Of Poker, Gary Loveman(CEO of Harrah's Entertainment) states, " Bet with your head, not over it and gamble responsibly." It is sort of like the Phillip Morris commercials discouraging smoking. My blackjack method flies in the face of conventional blackjack advantage thinking. So if I can't play on a regular basis, others like you can carry the torch. My new YouTube double deck video should give you the feeling of the strength of this count http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLtT8fzQsTc&feature=channel_page

You really expect us to believe you are an experienced, winning blackjack player when you make a bonehead move like that? You really stayed for 13 hours, at the same store, probably at the same table? Hmm, just off the top of my head I would say you wore out our welcome. So they faxed your picture all over Nevada for 4000 bucks? You're a legend in your own mind.
Nice story, not really worthy of publishing, though. But it's decent fiction.

 

[Homeschool]

Well my Rain Man Count -- where you memorize every card in the deck -- arguably displaces your Ten Count as the best count ever. In fact, my count is so good they made a movie about it starring Tom Cruise.

One of the funniest things I have ever heard! ROFL LMAO :laugh: :toast:

Being a postal worker, with a lot of stress.....

I Hate to break it to you, but there are alot of jobs WAY more stressful than the postal service.

 

[KenSmith]

This time I used very favorable rules for single deck. S17, DOA, split non-aces to 4 hands, split aces to 4 hands, 1 card to split aces. Player has a positive expectation of +.1748% using total dependent basic strategy for these rules.

You forgot to mention DAS. Independent software matches your result exactly. 1D, S17, DOA, DAS, SPL3, RSA, total dependent strategy returns +0.1748%.
Perfect play yields +0.2135% in this game.

Then I tested JSTAT's composition removing 8,8,9,9,5,T,T.
I don't match your number exactly, but it is extremely close. You get -0.3360%. I got -0.3363%.

Even though our software differs by 0.0003% in the answer, the main fact, confirmed by two separate combinatorial analysis efforts is that JSTAT is completely wrong. This deck subset is a loser, even with perfect play.

 

[k_c]

You forgot to mention DAS. Independent software matches your result exactly. 1D, S17, DOA, DAS, SPL3, RSA, total dependent strategy returns +0.1748%.
Perfect play yields +0.2135% in this game.

Then I tested JSTAT's composition removing 8,8,9,9,5,T,T.
I don't match your number exactly, but it is extremely close. You get -0.3360%. I got -0.3363%.

Even though our software differs by 0.0003% in the answer, the main fact, confirmed by two separate combinatorial analysis efforts is that JSTAT is completely wrong. This deck subset is a loser, even with perfect play.

I use single precision floating point numbers rather than double precision in order to conserve memory. One of these days I need to get a better computer.

The most likely reason for the difference, though, is probably split calculation. I agree with the +.2135% for a full deck, but this assumes that the strategy used for split hands is the same strategy that was determined for non-split hands. I get +.2146% if split strategy is improved by using post-split information. The way I do this is to play the first hand of a split optimally and then use that strategy for all subsequent hands resulting from a pair split. An efficient split algorithm needs to use a fixed strategy to be mathematically correct, so I fix the strategy as the optimal strategy of the first hand.

My -.3360% figure uses post-split strategy. I am guessing the -.3363% uses pre-split strategy. My comp dependent program doesn't compute pre-split strategy for less than a full shoe. Instead I have the option of computing using full shoe pre or post split strategy, which is less than optimal, so I have no way of coming up with a pre-split strategy value for the comp in question.

My way of doing post-split calculations may not be the only way. I'm sure it's valid but it could slightly vary from other sources. EVs computed using pre-split strategy should match, however.

 

[MoneyPlays]

Thank you KenSmith

the main fact, confirmed by two separate combinatorial analysis efforts is that JSTAT is completely wrong. This deck subset is a loser, even with perfect play.

And thanks also k_c for all of your work.

Nuff Said.

Now stop spreading your BULL$H!T, JSTAT. :whip:

 

[JSTAT]

You forgot to mention DAS. Independent software matches your result exactly. 1D, S17, DOA, DAS, SPL3, RSA, total dependent strategy returns +0.1748%.
Perfect play yields +0.2135% in this game.

Then I tested JSTAT's composition removing 8,8,9,9,5,T,T.
I don't match your number exactly, but it is extremely close. You get -0.3360%. I got -0.3363%.

Even though our software differs by 0.0003% in the answer, the main fact, confirmed by two separate combinatorial analysis efforts is that JSTAT is completely wrong. This deck subset is a loser, even with perfect play.

Your software can't hold a candle to the mathematics I have provided Mr. Administrator. A software machine can manipulate numbers with psuedo results. I was asked to provide mathematics in this thread and I have. You and others haven't shown us mathematical proof! Sims or faulty combinatorial analysis aren't math. "Nuff said. Lock up the thread.

JSTAT
Caution: You are about to see a winning method at double deck if you click this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLtT8fzQsTc&feature=channel_page

 

[KenSmith]

Faulty combinatorial analysis? Don't you find it amazing that two completely independent programmers have confirmed with a complete combinatorial analysis that your claim is false. Here's a reality check... Regardless what your personal results have been, there are serious problems with your claims. You are just wrong. Deal with it.

 

[JSTAT]

Faulty combinatorial analysis? Don't you find it amazing that two completely independent programmers have confirmed with a complete combinatorial analysis that your claim is false. Here's a reality check... Regardless what your personal results have been, there are serious problems with your claims. You are just wrong. Deal with it.

Independent programmers? Are you programmers into Scientology? I was asked and provided mathematics to back up my claims. Provide us with basic math like division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction as I did. We are at a crossroads here. The laws of mathematics vs computer simulation. I say stick with the universal truth of math. Computer sims are man-made, and not to be trusted.

JSTAT
(Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino)

 

[MoneyPlays]

Let's Vent

Your software can't hold a candle to the mathematics I have provided Mr. Administrator. A software machine can manipulate numbers with psuedo results. I was asked to provide mathematics in this thread and I have. You and others haven't shown us mathematical proof! Sims or faulty combinatorial analysis aren't math. "Nuff said. Lock up the thread.

JSTAT

Your only desire is not to help people play better blackjack, but to impress them with your "knowledge." It's evident in the way you conduct yourself in the chats when we have invited guests, and tonight wasn't the only time either. People are not asking you any questions, they are asking the guest. So don't answer everything someone says with something you supposedly did when you were a "big winner" at 21. It's rude to the guest and it annoys the other chatters. Nobody here is impressed with you in the least, because your assertions have been debunked in every manner possible by people who know infinitely more than you about the game of blackjack. Your "shuffle tracking" video was a complete and total failure and embarassment. It benefitted no one except you and your ego. Well, maybe it impressed your little nieces and made your nephew think he was a big-time movie producer. The fact that all of your threads end up being locked should tell you something, or is everyone just out to get JSTAT? You are right and everyone else is wrong, is that your story? You are misleading people with your "math" and your "stories." And nobody believes you were ever a big winner, because your math is flawed and the stories of your conquests do not ring true to what the real pros have to say about winning. You repeat the same old things over and over, I would think a long-time winner at blackjack would have a little more variety. Well, the 13 hour play at NYNY is fairly new, so at least you're trying. Please take your little fantasy somewhere else and stop annoying everyone here.

 

[KenSmith]

I'm sure you know that providing the entire list of every possible hand is infeasible and pointless here. That's what we have computers for. It's not a sim. It's a CA. Because it is accurate, it is incredibly lengthy.

You know all this. You intentionally choose to ignore facts to continue as a message board troll. Every other reputable blackjack site has barred you already. I suspect you will suffer the same fate here. We've been incredibly tolerant of you to date.

 

[JSTAT]

Your only desire is not to help people play better blackjack, but to impress them with your "knowledge." It's evident in the way you conduct yourself in the chats when we have invited guests, and tonight wasn't the only time either. People are not asking you any questions, they are asking the guest. So don't answer everything someone says with something you supposedly did when you were a "big winner" at 21. It's rude to the guest and it annoys the other chatters. Nobody here is impressed with you in the least, because your assertions have been debunked in every manner possible by people who know infinitely more than you about the game of blackjack. Your "shuffle tracking" video was a complete and total failure and embarassment. It benefitted no one except you and your ego. Well, maybe it impressed your little nieces and made your nephew think he was a big-time movie producer. The fact that all of your threads end up being locked should tell you something, or is everyone just out to get JSTAT? You are right and everyone else is wrong, is that your story? You are misleading people with your "math" and your "stories." And nobody believes you were ever a big winner, because your math is flawed and the stories of your conquests do not ring true to what the real pros have to say about winning. You repeat the same old things over and over, I would think a long-time winner at blackjack would have a little more variety. Well, the 13 hour play at NYNY is fairly new, so at least you're trying. Please take your little fantasy somewhere else and stop annoying everyone here.

Thanks for your editorial.

 

[JSTAT]

I'm sure you know that providing the entire list of every possible hand is infeasible and pointless here. That's what we have computers for. It's not a sim. It's a CA. Because it is accurate, it is incredibly lengthy.

You know all this. You intentionally choose to ignore facts to continue as a message board troll. Every other reputable blackjack site has barred you already. I suspect you will suffer the same fate here. We've been incredibly tolerant of you to date.

Arnold Snyder hasn't barred me, because he has known me for many years. Stanford Wong never barred me. No problems on the RGE's Advantange Player website. Michael Dalton and I are friends on (Dead link: http://twitter.com/moviejjcasino) and my posts are never barred as with the others. Who else does that leave as a "reputable blackjack site"? No one has barred me from 21 except casinos. This no troll. Itakemoney challenged me to provide proof to my claims. It's his thread. Mathematical proof was provided. Everything I told was the truth. You then threaten me with a first time barring on a blackjack message board? This is madness.

JSTAT