zengrifter
Banned
"In the long run" was a bit over-stated, BUT Qfit has run sims on this poor-performers and the excessive variance will tend to be a killer for recreational players. zgRenzey said:
Best System for occasional player
- Thread starter jp555
- Start date
Norm -- Help! I understand that spread betting with a count system incurs higher variance than flat betting basic strategy. But how can higher variance with a marginally positive EV (+0.25% to +0.50%) be worse than playing with an outright negative EV of around -0.50%?
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
ace/ten front count
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzey View Post
Zen, I'm interested as to why you say the Ace/10 or the Speed Count will "cost you in the long run" and that mere basic strategy would be better.
i did run into some pretty hefty variance with the ace/ten front count.
heh heh, but now since i've raised my spread with hi/lo from 1:8 to 1:10 i re-learning what variance is all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzey View Post
Zen, I'm interested as to why you say the Ace/10 or the Speed Count will "cost you in the long run" and that mere basic strategy would be better.
i used the ace/ten front count for a fairly extended period of time. i was very pleased with it. so much so that i became determined to learn hi/lo so as to be able to obtain a greater advantage.zengrifter said:
i did run into some pretty hefty variance with the ace/ten front count.
heh heh, but now since i've raised my spread with hi/lo from 1:8 to 1:10 i re-learning what variance is all about.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Renzey said:
Fred, my point is that a marginally positive EV can be worse than a negative EV if gaining that positive EV necessitates too much risk.
See http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=19021 (Archive copy)
I'm not saying that weak counts have no purpose. Only that people should be aware of the downside. And that some players might very well be better off playing BS than a weak count. I should also add that my main problem with Speed Count/OPP is not the counts themselves; but the way they were presented. As revolutionary methods of learning how to beat the casinos learned in a couple hours and having nearly the power of "professional level" strategies. I don't believe you've ever made such wild claims about the Front Count.
Last edited:
Am I alone in thinking that a simulation that compares the risk or ruin with one party betting a steady 1/50th of his BR and the other party betting up to 1/6th of his BR on a hand is not very compelling.
I simply can't imagine Joe Tourista showing up in Vegas with a $500 BR and being willing to bet $80 of it on a single hand. Unless he was martengaling.
I'm not arguing with the numbers themselves,its the parameters of the sim that I object to.
I simply can't imagine Joe Tourista showing up in Vegas with a $500 BR and being willing to bet $80 of it on a single hand. Unless he was martengaling.
I'm not arguing with the numbers themselves,its the parameters of the sim that I object to.
I just read the post of the sims comparing the prospects for a reasonably financed basic strategy game plan vs. a wildly underfinanced OPP game plan. As expected, they show that a sadly underfinanced strategy, even with an overall advantage is doomed to frequent failure. It is enlightening to note however, that if your advantaged strategy is underfinanced enough, it will even fail more often than a more conservative outright losing strategy.
So just to keep things in perspective, I ran a quick sim using the Wong Halves Count (possibly the best performing system available for the shoe game) with the same basic parameters ($500 bankroll, $5-to-$80 spread and 1000 hands). It busted out 43% of the time -- more often than Basic Strategy betting a flat $15 (assuming from Norm's post that this might've been the average bet size when spreading 5-80)! And it all happens this way because spreading 5-to-80 has a higher standard deviation than betting 15 flat. Now I understand that you don't need a 1-to-16 spread to gain the same advantage with Wong Halves as with OPP, but all three comparisons are
really not apples-to-apples-to-apples.
I see the same blackjack players almost daily, betting $50, $100 and $150 per hand and they're a far cry from even being good basic strategy players. These players could easily lower their bets into the $20-to-$160 range (with an average bet of around $40), experience a similar variance and play a marginally winning game with something as crude and simple as the Ace/10 Front Count.
As for our originator of this thread, jp555, I'm pretty sure that a weak, simple advantaged system is better than basic strategy, and is fairly likely to make him a lifetime winner (though not of any major consequence), as long as he has 12 max. bets in his daily pocket stake. At $5-to-$50, that would require a daily stake of $600. At $10-to-$90, he would need around $1100. With basic strategy, after several years he would have no shot.
Norm, I learn much from your posts and I always appreciate your input. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
So just to keep things in perspective, I ran a quick sim using the Wong Halves Count (possibly the best performing system available for the shoe game) with the same basic parameters ($500 bankroll, $5-to-$80 spread and 1000 hands). It busted out 43% of the time -- more often than Basic Strategy betting a flat $15 (assuming from Norm's post that this might've been the average bet size when spreading 5-80)! And it all happens this way because spreading 5-to-80 has a higher standard deviation than betting 15 flat. Now I understand that you don't need a 1-to-16 spread to gain the same advantage with Wong Halves as with OPP, but all three comparisons are
really not apples-to-apples-to-apples.
I see the same blackjack players almost daily, betting $50, $100 and $150 per hand and they're a far cry from even being good basic strategy players. These players could easily lower their bets into the $20-to-$160 range (with an average bet of around $40), experience a similar variance and play a marginally winning game with something as crude and simple as the Ace/10 Front Count.
As for our originator of this thread, jp555, I'm pretty sure that a weak, simple advantaged system is better than basic strategy, and is fairly likely to make him a lifetime winner (though not of any major consequence), as long as he has 12 max. bets in his daily pocket stake. At $5-to-$50, that would require a daily stake of $600. At $10-to-$90, he would need around $1100. With basic strategy, after several years he would have no shot.
Norm, I learn much from your posts and I always appreciate your input. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
weavin42
Well-Known Member
What about Hi-Opt I or II with an ace side count? The numbers from the books i've read (The worlds greatest blackjack book and Play blackjack like the Professionals) seem to indicate that these two counts are fairly accurate for when to vary your bet. Am I missing something? Should I change count systems? Are their indexes not as strong?
Josh
Josh
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Sorry I missed these responses. Fred & Shadroch, you are missing the point. OPP REQUIRES a large spread. It REQUIRES that you play with high risk if you do not have a huge bankroll. The sims were apples to apples because they compare the same bankroll with realistic betting. Yes the OPP sim is wildly underfinanced. But, that is the fault of OPP. BS does not require a spread. Halves does NOT require a 1-16 spread. OPP does.
OPP does not require a 1-16 spread.Played on a single or double deck game,it tops out at 1-8 and almost never has gotten beyond 1-6 in hundreds of rounds I've played.In my playing,I rarely go much more than 2 bets,hardly ever bet 4QFIT said:
I'd be very curious to see the sims of a 2Deck,1-8 spread with a $5 minimum and $1000 BR. Any chance you might run one.Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree,but the sims I've seen so far don't seem fair.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
My post was for six decks. DD games require a smaller spread. If you rarely go over 2 units using OPP, you are playing a negative expectation game. Why don't you think the sims are fair? I am running the sims exactly as the sims were run in Blackjack Attack.shadroch said:
For 2,000 OPP sims see http://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer.htm
These sims were run exactly the same for OPP and all other systems. Note, for the game you mentioned, your unit size should be $1.20 for a 13.5% risk of ruin with optimal betting. Optimal betting in this case calls for a jump to 4 units and then 8 units. No 2 unit bets. A $5 minimum would see a RoR of over 50%.
Last edited:
These are the indices as I was taught them.
running count less than +7=1
+7=2
+8=4
+ 10=8
I play a bit more conservative,ramping to 4 at +10,more at +12.
Not sure which you are using,nor where you got them.
In real life,one can't bet $1.20.You need to round up or down.
running count less than +7=1
+7=2
+8=4
+ 10=8
I play a bit more conservative,ramping to 4 at +10,more at +12.
Not sure which you are using,nor where you got them.
In real life,one can't bet $1.20.You need to round up or down.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Sorry to tell you this, but you are playing a negative expectation game. The OPP betting ramp for double deck is way off. It's no wonder you "hardly ever bet 4 units." A +8 or better RC in your game with OPP occurs about 0.65% of the rounds. Does that sound like the number of times you bet 4 units or more? Using HiLo in this game you would bet 4 units or more 21% of the time. You have to get money on the table when the advantage is in your favor. Otherwise, your bankroll will be slowly ground into nothing.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Depending on the number of players and the rules and penetration and the comps, it might be possible that the comps bring you up to even.shadroch said:
The article was not written by Arnold and he did not devise the ramp. It was written by someone that had not run sims before and used Excel to come up with the betting ramp. This is not an accurate method. At the time he also did not understand how to take into account risk. He may understand this now - but the article was not updated.
SilentBob420BMFJ
Banned
yes, but most people play 6-8 decks nowadays, because casinos are greedier than ever.. any counting system meant for 1-2 decks should have an asterisk by it because so many people are probably using these systems for 8 decks and they wont work as good.. u said it doesnt require a 1-16 spread, but then you say 1-8 for 2 deck.. uh, exactly, its more like 1-20 with 8 decks.. but thats how crappy systems work.. if you have $100,000 and a shitty system with a 1-20 spread and u get no heat, it will work over timeshadroch said:
