Griffin - EOR vs. Betting Effect

[Spyros Acebos]

In Chapter 4 of Peter Griffin's book, The Theory of Blackjack (5th ed. 1996), at page 44 he lists Effects of Removal ("EOR"), while analyzing the strength of Hi Opt II, as follows:

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
-.61 .38 .44 .55 .69 .46 .28 -.00 -.18 -.51

Yet, in Chapter 5, on page 55 (dealing with multiparameter counting systems), he employs the term "Betting Effect", as follows:

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
Betting Effect -.61 .38 .44 .55 .69 .46 .28 .00 -.18 -.51

The same numbers, but different terminology.

Can someone here please provide an explanation as to any real world difference between these two terms, EOR and Betting Effect, without getting too into the weeds of mathematics, statistics and probabilities?

I am able to grasp basic mathematics, statistics and probability concepts, but math beyond simple algebra would require me to re-enroll in school. Thank you for any help you can provide, as I am trying to use this data in a spreadsheet I am using to analyze varying approaches to counting methodologies.

Finally, if Griffin's data is accurate, is it for S17 only, or would the same data be used for H17 games? If different, I would appreciate being enlightened as to accurate EOR (perhaps Betting Efficiency if the same thing but different terminology) data for each game (S17/H17).

 

[sagefr0g]

i'm a lost puppy here. so not sure if this reference would help.
but perhaps pages 495 through 522, appendix D, of BJA entitled Effects of Removal for the 1-,2-,6-, and 8- Deck Games, would be enlightening for you. h17 & s17 games are treated. the final table pg 522 gives Betting and Insurance Effects of Removal and Betting and Insurance Correlations for s17 & h17. various counts are considered for the Betting and Insurance Correlations table.

 

[Spyros Acebos]

i'm a lost puppy here. so not sure if this reference would help.
but perhaps pages 495 through 522, appendix D, of BJA entitled Effects of Removal for the 1-,2-,6-, and 8- Deck Games, would be enlightening for you. h17 & s17 games are treated. the final table pg 522 gives Betting and Insurance Effects of Removal and Betting and Insurance Correlations for s17 & h17. various counts are considered for the Betting and Insurance Correlations table.

Thanks, I will take a look. I would still appreciate confirmation that these two terms have the same meaning (or context), or if not, an explanation of the difference(s) between them that your average high school student (probably an 8th grade student 40 years ago) could likely understand.

UPDATE: Thanks. Found my copy of BJA3, and look up Table D17 - Betting and Insurance Effects of Removal. The numbers in that chart differ significantly from those Peter Griffin published. Wonder what Don got right, and Peter did not that resulted in the differing numbers? I mean we all know that Don would not have published inaccurate results, whereas Peter might have not had the benefit of today's computing strength.

 

[London Colin]

I don't have my copy to hand, so can't check the exact context, but I think the key thing to bear in mind is that the phrase 'effect of removal' doesn't, strictly speaking, mean anything unless you specify the effect on what.

More often than not it is used in the context of the EV of the remaining cards, prior to the dealing of the next hand. But you can also talk about the effect on the value of particular strategy decisions for particular hands (and Griffin does this at various points in the book).

So it may be that the phrase 'betting effect' was simply an ad hoc bit of phraseology to distinguish between betting-related (i.e pre-deal, effecting your choice of bet size) EORs, and strategy-related EORs.

 

[sagefr0g]

far as explanation as to any real world difference between these two terms, EOR and Betting Effect, is being used by Griffin in the OP, i'll make a guess, and it's only a guess.
me thinks they are one and the same and refer to the concept of betting correlation for a given cards removal with respect to a given card counting methodology, whereas the normal concept we have of betting correlation is (shudder to imagine) related to the 'overall' EOR of every type of card and in every possible combination of ways with respect to a given card counting methodology, sorta thing. hence we land up being able to compare betting correlation levels for various card counting methodologies. betting correlation meaning how powerful or perfectly we can place bets given a particular card counting methodology, compared to a 'perfect' methodology.

 

[Spyros Acebos]

I don't have my copy to hand, so can't check the exact context, but I think the key thing to bear in mind is that the phrase 'effect of removal' doesn't, strictly speaking, mean anything unless you specify the effect on what.

More often than not it is used in the context of the EV of the remaining cards, prior to the dealing of the next hand. But you can also talk about the effect on the value of particular strategy decisions for particular hands (and Griffin does this at various points in the book).

So it may be that the phrase 'betting effect' was simply an ad hoc bit of phraseology to distinguish between betting-related (i.e pre-deal, effecting your choice of bet size) EORs, and strategy-related EORs.

Thank you.

Although I suspect your explanation is spot on, I cannot discern why Don included the chart in Table D17 - Betting EORs, which is broken down by "Base rules: DOA, SPA1, SPL3", "Base rules DOA, SPA1, SPL3, LS" and "Base rules: D10, SPA1, SL3", with the first two being further broken down into S17, DAS or NDAS, and H17 DAS or NDAS, and the third being broken down into H17 DAS or NDAS.

There is no reference to a counting system (which perhaps may relevant for analyzing tag values of different systems). I had many more questions, but looking back at that table, each seems irrelevant to the purpose for the table.

 

[sagefr0g]

if i'm understanding the explanations proceeding table D17, that table uses no counting system, but basic strategy only.

 

[Spyros Acebos]

Here's my confusion as simple as I can make it.

Almost 2 years ago, I created a spreadsheet using these same EOR's from Peter Griffin's TTOBJ to generate the Betting Correlation of several different counting systems, by weighing the tag values for each card by the EOR for each card value, the generating the Sum of Squares, the Sum of Products, the Statistical Mean, the Square Root, and then the Betting Correlation. The BC for the numerous counting systems I reviewed, using those EORs from TTOBY, very closely approximated the BC figures that can be generated using the Online Efficiency Calculator over at blackjacktheforum.com.

I still have the PDF file that I printed the spreadsheet to, but I cannot locate my datafile for the actual spreadsheet.

Consequently, I wanted to recreate my spreadsheet, but with the most accurate EORs available. I note that the EORs from Table D17 do not match the EORs I used in generating that spreadsheet, which were the EORs from Peter Griffin's TTOBJ.

In my initial efforts, the BC being generated using the EORs from Don Schlesinger's BJA 3rd, do not match up as closely as the EORs from Peter Griffin's TTOBJ.

 

[DSchles]

Go here: http://www.bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

Use a single deck, and get the overall BS edge for a full deck by hitting "Compute." Be extremely careful with the rules that you stipulate. If you don't understand a choice, ask me. For example, for "Compute Mode," use Basic Strategy. Make sure you allow three splits of non-ace hands. One by one remove a single card of each rank and compare to the original BS edge, to get the betting EOR of each rank. Then, compare to the top line of Table D17 and let me know how I did!

The differences with Griffin probably stem from the splitting options. Note that if you aren't permitted resplits, there is a very big difference with the EORs of the 6, which is the big discrepancy between my value and Griffin's. I'm assuming his chart didn't assume resplits.

Hope this helps. Write back with more questions.

Don

 

[Spyros Acebos]

Go here: http://www.bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

Use a single deck, and get the overall BS edge for a full deck by hitting "Compute." Be extremely careful with the rules that you stipulate. If you don't understand a choice, ask me. For example, for "Compute Mode," use Basic Strategy. Make sure you allow three splits of non-ace hands. One by one remove a single card of each rank and compare to the original BS edge, to get the betting EOR of each rank. Then, compare to the top line of Table D17 and let me know how I did!

The differences with Griffin probably stem from the splitting options. Note that if you aren't permitted resplits, there is a very big difference with the EORs of the 6, which is the big discrepancy between my value and Griffin's. I'm assuming his chart didn't assume resplits.

Hope this helps. Write back with more questions.

Don

Thank you. I will let you know how it goes. I appreciate your feedback, and do not doubt your accuracy, I was just trying to determine how you and Peter Griffin arrived at differing decimal based numbers for EORs.

I am attempting to understand the underlying mathematics for a non-traditional blackjack counting aaproach, for both S17 and H17 games, standard LV rules, as well as the potential to port that system to variant games. Thank you for your help, and gracious offer for additional feedback.

P.S. - Do you know whether his EORs were calculated for a S17 or H17 game, and if so, please advise?

 

[DSchles]

Thank you. I will let you know how it goes. I appreciate your feedback, and do not doubt your accuracy, I was just trying to determine how you and Peter Griffin arrived at differing decimal based numbers for EORs.

I am attempting to understand the underlying mathematics for a non-traditional blackjack counting aaproach, for both S17 and H17 games, standard LV rules, as well as the potential to port that system to variant games. Thank you for your help, and gracious offer for additional feedback.

P.S. - Do you know whether his EORs were calculated for a S17 or H17 game, and if so, please advise?

At the time that Griffin wrote, SD games with S17 were prevalent. Of course, that is no longer the case, and poor Peter would turn over in his grave at the thought of 6:5 for naturals, but I suspect that the EORs in the book were for SD, S17, DOA, but no resplits.

Don

 

[sagefr0g]

i have tdca blackjack game and probability computer. it was given to me by kc of bjstrat a long time ago. should it be able to compute values of table D17 from BJA 3rd ed. ?
image below shows value computed for Ace removed from a full deck, single deck h17das double after split allowed, split up to three time (except aces) no doubling or hitting split aces, rule set. in this case the value obtained was -0.5727, where as table D17 has -0.5173 .

 

[DSchles]

i have tdca blackjack game and probability computer. it was given to me by kc of bjstrat a long time ago. should it be able to compute values of table D17 from BJA 3rd ed. ?
image below shows value computed for Ace removed from a full deck, single deck h17das double after split allowed, split up to three time (except aces) no doubling or hitting split aces, rule set. in this case the value obtained was -0.5727, where as table D17 has -0.5173 .


View attachment 9011

No, you did it wrong. I told you to be ever so careful with the rules and settings. It gives 0.5174.

Don

 

[sagefr0g]

No, you did it wrong. I told you to be ever so careful with the rules and settings. It gives 0.5174.

Don

so far i'm at a loss for setting the rules and settings in tdca blackjack game and probability computer for the single deck h17 DOA das (double after split allowed), split up to three time (except aces) no doubling or hitting split aces, rule set. it doesn't appear possible to properly set it any other way than how i originaly set the rules and setting as shown in the image below.

 

[sagefr0g]

At the time that Griffin wrote, SD games with S17 were prevalent. Of course, that is no longer the case, and poor Peter would turn over in his grave at the thought of 6:5 for naturals, but I suspect that the EORs in the book were for SD, S17, DOA, but no resplits.

Don

i was able to use tdca to compute very close effects of removal numbers to that of Griffin's in The Theory of Blackjack pg 44, using the rule set SD, S17, DOA, but no resplits.
edit: but it had to allow DOS for the numbers to get that close.end edit

 

[DSchles]

o

Why didn't you use the application that I suggested?

Don

 

[sagefr0g]

Why didn't you use the application that I suggested?

Don

thank you for your response.

three reasons, i was curious whether kc's tdca and cdca software would work for determining EOR s.
also, i did try the application suggested. i found myself confuse regarding the following settings:

1.
EV (unconditional when not checked)
Conditioned on no dealer BJ where applicable

2.
Compute mode
Best strat Basic strat

3.
Depleted shoe split strat (Re: basic strat)
Pre-split Optimal strat of 1st split hand

errhh, i believe you stipulated that #2 above should be set at Basic Strat ?

 

[Spyros Acebos]

Don,

Attached two (2) screen prints (top and bottom halves of CDCA online program, with one (1) five-value card (5), removed for H17 game, 3:2 (Basic Strategy Compute Mode), LS, DA2, SA1, DAS.

I mainly see these rules (albeit getting harder for find LS).

Is this correct for comparison against EOR data in Line 8 of Table D17?

If so, where do I see the output for EOR for the removal of a single five (5) card? If not, please advise what setting(s) I need to change, and where I find the EOR output.

Thank you.

 

[sagefr0g]

@Spyros Acebos
i think you want to remove the cards from the shoe composition part of cdca, instead of player's card. hit the minus sign of the card of interest. then hit the compute button. see pic below:

@

 

[Spyros Acebos]

Sagefrog,

Okay, I am attaching three (3) screen prints of the results from removing a single five (5) valued card; then returning the fives to the initial set of 4 in a deck, and removing a single ten (10) valued card; and then, returning the tens to the initial set of 16 per deck, and removing a single Ace.

Please explain where in the results screen I find the EOR for each results screen.

I appreciate your (or Don's or anyone else's) response. Just trying to understand where the CDCA online software spits out the EoR's.

Is it the decimal number in the black (positive number) or red (negative number) box immediately below: Player Expected Values (in %)?