keeping it simple

[kewljason]

What ever happened to the keep things simple theory? We seem to have ongoing discussions about certain topics that have been going on for a couple years. Probably much longer than that, but my involvement has only been 4 years. Things like level 1 vs level 2 counts. Cover vs hit and run. Ill18/fab4 vs 50, 60 or even a 100 or more indices.

Lets combine them all. I submit to you player 'A' playing a level one count, hi-lo, playing short sessions, aggressively wonging out of negative counts and exiting immediately after positive counts, using only illustrious 18/fab4 vs player 'B' playing a level 2 count, using 50+ strategy change indices, and various camo cover such as misplaying certain hands, using some sort of parlaying up of wagers rather than just blatantly moving money with the count and and of course not reverting back to a smaller wager at the start of the new shoe.

For the sake of this discussion, I will concede that player 'B' can play his higher level 2 count just as accurately and efficiently as the player playing a level one count, a point I really don't concede in real world play. So player 'B' actually achieves the 5-10% increase in performance that simulations indicate that he should. We'll go on the higher end and say an 8% increase and even bump that to 10% because of the additional index plays that he is using, although in reality plays beyond the illustrious 18 or lets say top 2 dozen add very little value. So his performance is up 10%, but now we have to subtract for cover. Depending on just haw many hands he chooses to play incorrectly, plus the inaccurate wagering, plus larger wagers off the top at negative EV and what is he giving back? 10%? 15%? Maybe more? If I remember correctly Ian Anderson gave back about 33%. (I might add here, that I just love the idea off giving back a portion of my profits to the casino industry. They are struggling so badly it just makes me feel good to help out. )

Ok up til this point everything can be answered with sims, but I don't want to do so because there is more to the equation that can't be answered by sims. The longevity, camo vs hit and run short session discussion.

Cover only buys so much. The fact is counters have more money on the table during high counts than low no matter how they attempt to disguise it. Eventually that will be the thing that is the give away. When that happens, the powers that be will begin to examine the play and when they do, cover plays wont mean that much. They will mostly be focusing on the amount of wagers during different counts. Maybe a few specific plays like insurance, but the bet correlation is the biggie, and player 'B' has provided a good amount of play to examine. Player 'A' has provided them with a very minimum amount of play to examine. Especially a player 'A' playing unrated. So the question: Who really is going to have more longevity? And what has all that cover (givebacks) really bought you?

So again, I ask are these “advanced” methods like higher level count, more indices, and cover really the best approach, or is there something still to be said for keeping things simple?

Granted, living and playing in the desert as I do, I have the benefit of having many, many games in close proximity that many do not. Also want to add a disclaimer that player 'A' and player 'B' are totally fictional are in no way represent anyone that I know. :laugh:

 

[sagefr0g]

What ever happened to the keep things simple theory? .........

just me maybe, i think it takes a lot of complexity to construct approaches that are both simple and viable.

 

[Friendo]

Mickey Mantle & Ted Williams

This reminds me of Mickey Mantle's account of talking shop with Ted Williams.

Williams was full of advice on every point of swinging a baseball bat, and tied Mantle's head up so thoroughly with minutiae that Mantle was unable to think straight at the plate and went into a slump.

I spent 8.5 hours getting in 5.5 hours of play the other day, always moving on at the end of shoes at places with the best rules and cuts, keeping my bets from jumping too much, and (ugh) starting off shoes with double minimum bets. It has dawned on me that I could drop my bet ramp to a lower level, well below the give-a-s**t line of the pit, and play 8 hours in 8.5 hours by going to lower stakes tables at just barely busy times, where there are still a few other players, but the hands-per-hour is better, partly because I could park my ass at a table far longer. I'm lucky: I have low stakes tables with empty seats and good rules at certain times of the day/week. And, given the indifference of the pit crew to low-level bettors around here, I could get away with this stuff for years.

This is not applicable to your level of play, obviously. Your best course is quite the opposite for your conditions and options. I give the above as an example of something that was staring me in the face but had escaped my notice because I was too busy with more esoteric and less important issues.

One of the best exponents of the musical instrument I play sounds great when he's playing just one note.

 

[tthree]

Well said Friendo. i was going to talk about not getting greedy. And a comparison to driving on the highway without getting a ticket. You don't drive a certain speed you drive a certain speed less than the fastest cars on the road. Understand what is acceptable and operate within those limits. That is your best cover.

 

[Sucker]

So again, I ask are these “advanced” methods like higher level count, more indices, and cover really the best approach?

NO. Not even CLOSE. But you can use these "real-world", common sense explanations until you're blue in the face, and the "bean-counters" will STILL pull out the sims and "prove" you wrong. I've just about given up trying.

is there something still to be said for keeping things simple?

Not something - everything.. And I do not know ONE person who plays blackjack for a living, that disagrees with these two statements.

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Am So Happy

:grin:

A debate! With many of my favorites involved.

1. No one plays perfectly.

2. The hi lo player makes 16 errors per deck on the 2, 5, 7 & 9. The higher level player I would hope would not make so many errors. If not sure of my statement compare hi lo to halves for betting correlation and effect of removal of the mentioned cards. The differences are fairly clear. So it is the hi lo player who's play is full of errors. A skills check using hi lo; most popular count, would be more likely to catch the hi lo player then the halves player, though the difference in playing the 2 counts is slight.

3. If someone err's counting a card they probably would have regardless of the count used. They may not count a card, math error, flip - or + tag, forget the count or double count. These errors can occur regardless of count.

4. Hit and run is a camo that costs time and money. Even in a place with casino density you may give up 25% of your time moving from casino to casino.

5. Let's flip the argument. If one is going to have limited table time due to hit and run then shouldn't they squeeze out more EV per unit of playing time to compensate?

The bets that draw heat, is it worth it considering:
The risk of drawdown
The ror of your betting ramp
The heat level vs EV of the hand and considering overall EV.
Also, are there winning constraints considering ID etc.?

An example of the above would be if it's the last hand of the shoe and it calls for a heat generating bet. Do you make it if it means you have to leave? or not make it and play longer? If you are winning or losing I would think would be a large variable in one's decision.

On which count to use is very subjective. If one is good at simple math and has a high practice to play ratio then perhaps a higher level count. If one is not good at math but has a high play to practice ratio then perhaps a lower level count. Most should probably stick to the count they currently use and unless playing a specialized game there is probably not much offered by using multiple counts except more errors.

 

[kewljason]

:grin:

A debate! With many of my favorites involved.

1. No one plays perfectly.

2. The hi lo player makes 16 errors per deck on the 2, 5, 7 & 9. The higher level player I would hope would not make so many errors. If not sure of my statement compare hi lo to halves for betting correlation and effect of removal of the mentioned cards. The differences are fairly clear. So it is the hi lo player who's play is full of errors. A skills check using hi lo; most popular count, would be more likely to catch the hi lo player then the halves player, though the difference in playing the 2 counts is slight.

3. If someone err's counting a card they probably would have regardless of the count used. They may not count a card, math error, flip - or + tag, forget the count or double count. These errors can occur regardless of count.

4. Hit and run is a camo that costs time and money. Even in a place with casino density you may give up 25% of your time moving from casino to casino.

5. Let's flip the argument. If one is going to have limited table time due to hit and run then shouldn't they squeeze out more EV per unit of playing time to compensate?

#1 Who are you 'debating' this with? Where did anyone say anything about perfect play?

#2 You are confusing error with a weakness of a particular count. If a player counts a 7 as neutral because the count calls for such, that is not an error. That is a weakness in that count.

#3 This is just subjective and opinion. Proof of this is in the use of words like 'probably', 'may' and 'can'. A statement with these words carries no weight. If you think the error rate would be the same for level 1 vs level 2 counts, I ask to to try the following experiment and report back. Line up 1000 people. Hold up flashcards with a series of ten (10) plus or minus numbers, asking them to add them. +1, +1, -1, +1, -1, -1, -1, +1, -1, -1 vs +2, +1, -2, -2, +1, -2, +2, +1, -2, +1 Compare the error rates. They will not be the same.

#4 Hit and run will cost some time and yes time is money. No argument there. The premise is that it is buying longevity. Future earnings. You can return to that location and continue to extract money for a longer period of time.

#5 Again, you are not adding in the longevity factor. A bit shorter table time now, or more actual time to get same number of hands, but more future earnings via longevity.

If nothing else, I am glad to have been able to brighten your day and make you "happy", avenger

 

[Gamblor]

"Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt." Lao Tzu

Agreed with your overall statement kj. Having said that, I am more like player B when it comes to cover. Cover is the one thing I won't keep simple, mainly because simple is easier to pick up for the casino.

Hit and run is cover, but at some places (maybe even many) it is actually the opposite.

 

[boneuphtoner]

This is a great discussion!

Here is another issue regarding errors and level I, level II to discuss. And this issue was brought up by Bryce Carlson in BJ for Blood. His point was that errors happen no matter what, but it seems to actually matter LESS in level II systems. Why? To summarize, say a level one count has a RC of +4 and the level two count has a RC of +8. If you made a mistake, saying instead of adding to those running counts with a new card but mistakenly subtracting, it would matter proportionately less to the Level II count.

I haven't seen this point simmed in any text, but in theory it does make sense to me. What do y'all think?

Having said all that, I bought a paper copy of QFIT's Modern BJ book, and he raises an interesting counterpoint for Level I/II strategies....namely, you don't need to pay attention to the exact card when adding to your running count for a level I...a small number of pips equals +1, period. You can't assume that in Level II.

 

[salsa4ever]

why can't a person using a level two hi - opt with side count aces and side count sevens [as an extreme example] use the methods of wonging aggressively and leaving after a positive shoe?

you make "simple" look good due to FRAMING it as either:

hi-lo & I18 + wonging + short sessions
OR
"something complicated" + no wonging + cover.

I don't think that proves "simplicity" as being the best approach at all. Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but I don't think your argument is sound.

 

[tthree]

I agree with all of Blackjackavenger's analysis. I make mistakes and I am very good at math. All my mistakes were covered and made equally in level 1 as level 2 however level 2 has more cards with point values.

His 5th point is better stated by Salsa4ever. It seems whenever someone wants to make something inferior sound almost as good or better they employ this kind of apples to oranges comparison. Rarely do they want an equal criterion for analysis for comparison. It would prove them to be so obviously wrong.

When you learn anything new it seems hard at first. With enough practice anything becomes second nature. Humans always make mistakes. The very gifted athlete or thinker continued to push the envelope so his limitations make the lazier compandre who felt his expertise was good enough look like a person not gifted at their pursuit. This may be the case but it is more often the product of complacency than ability.

 

[kewljason]

All my mistakes were covered and made equally in level 1 as level 2

The very gifted athlete or thinker continued to push the envelope so his limitations make the lazier compandre who felt his expertise was good enough look like a person not gifted at their pursuit. This may be the case but it is more often the product of complacency than ability.

First statement: How did you come to this conclusion? Have you documented every single mistake that you have made, so that you are able to examine them and make such a definative statement as this or are you just throwing out a general gut feeling that "I feel like I play a level 2 as well as a level 1".

As per you second statement, it is pretty well documented that most sucessful counters in the last half century, including most of the successful teams, used a level one count. Most of these folks were extraordinarily gifted people and experts in mathematics and yet they did not "push the envelope" attempting to extract every last possibility. Are you suggesting they were lazy or complacent? It says to me that these highly gifted experts concluded that the additional effort and energy does not translate into the rewards in the real world, hence the theme of this thread, Simplicity. There is a reason why the successful players of the past choose simplicity.

Lately I see discussions about very trivial things, like whether you should floor or round off to come up with an index for a particular departure point, and using an extreme number of strategy departure plays, and costs of different cover plays, and even the benefits of different counting methods. Some of these things are things that matter on the computer and show up in simulations but just don't translate into the real world. I am not speaking of you specifically, when I say it appears many of these folk's blackjack career's takes place on their computer in the form of simulations, rather than actual play.

 

[tthree]

First statement: How did you come to this conclusion? Have you documented every single mistake that you have made, so that you are able to examine them and make such a definative statement as this or are you just throwing out a general gut feeling that "I feel like I play a level 2 as well as a level 1".

As per you second statement, it is pretty well documented that most sucessful counters in the last half century, including most of the successful teams, used a level one count. Most of these folks were extraordinarily gifted people and experts in mathematics and yet they did not "push the envelope" attempting to extract every last possibility. Are you suggesting they were lazy or complacent? It says to me that these highly gifted experts concluded that the additional effort and energy does not translate into the rewards in the real world, hence the theme of this thread, Simplicity. There is a reason why the successful players of the past choose simplicity.

Lately I see discussions about very trivial things, like whether you should floor or round off to come up with an index for a particular departure point, and using an extreme number of strategy departure plays, and costs of different cover plays, and even the benefits of different counting methods. Some of these things are things that matter on the computer and show up in simulations but just don't translate into the real world. I am not speaking of you specifically, when I say it appears many of these folk's blackjack career's takes place on their computer in the form of simulations, rather than actual play.

The difference in mistakes would be because there are more cards generally to be counted in a level 2 system. This makes a tiny amount of increase in mistake opportunities. When counting at home and I make a mistake counting down decks I try to figure out what the mistake was so I am less likely to repeat it. He covered them all. The mistake is not caused by difficulty but sloppiness.

Yes, I am saying they are complacent. As counting becomes more and more marginal with changes in rules these people who didn't develop to their potential are going to pay for it at the table in the form of losing, not winning less as they do now. Level 2 generally allows a smaller spread to return the same or more with a much lower risk of ruin. This will become very important in the future.

 

[sagefr0g]

.....

Lately I see discussions about very trivial things, like whether you should floor or round off to come up with an index for a particular departure point, and using an extreme number of strategy departure plays, and costs of different cover plays, and even the benefits of different counting methods. Some of these things are things that matter on the computer and show up in simulations but just don't translate into the real world. I am not speaking of you specifically, when I say it appears many of these folk's blackjack career's takes place on their computer in the form of simulations, rather than actual play.

imho, not really trivial, maybe fairly trivial when it comes to practicality and putting into action, i dunno, but not trivial since it's genuine knowledge, hence possibly useful. maybe not information put into action as it was meant to be, but knowledge we can still have and allow to influence our plays. but certainly whether you truncate, round, ceil, or floor is something one should have a handle on.
whatever, the question of complexity versus simplicity, probably complexity does enhance ev. but still, we are all different in our abilities and how we appreciate value, so it seems the question becomes a subjective one, just as long as we at least play with an advantage.

 

[Southpaw]

I think it is almost inevitable that people new to the site will get caught up in trivial affairs such as count level, # of indices being used, cover and all other variables that are inputted when running a simulation. (I know that I did).

Stick around long enough and you'll find that you ignore 99% of threads because they rehash the same trivial points that have been debated time and time again. In general, the only threads I even pay attention to are those whose titles hint at a discussion of (1) heat awareness and heat response or (2) Advanced strategies such as ST'ing or HC'ing.

The skill of a counter ought not be measured by the count he uses or how many indices he uses, but rather how well he can avoid heat and effectively deal with the heat that does precipitate. But seriously, all of the discussion about the finer points of straight-counting on this site is just trivial.

JG lampoons these last few points in the following threads on BC:

Being Ready--Part I, JG, beyondcounting.com

Why A Guy Can't Make it With $5k, JG, beyondcounting.com

Spaw

 

[psyduck]

I am not speaking of you specifically, when I say it appears many of these folk's blackjack career's takes place on their computer in the form of simulations, rather than actual play.

I have to comment here because I am one of the members involved in the recent discussion on the amount of benefit of level 2 systems.

Without computer simulation, you will not have known what you know now. Without simulation, how do you know how much improvement another system has over the one you currently use? Why not using BS without indices to make it simpler? Why not just count aces and fives? We need data to make decisions. Some people feel comfortable taking information that is available and use it. For me, if I have the tool I like to see the data first hand especially when money is involved.

I play and study BJ as a challenge. It is far from a career for me because I have a full time job doing chemical and biotech research. I see nothing negative for people to have a curious mind and the desire to know more. If people had taken it as a fact that earth were flat and earth were the center of the universe, I don't know where the world would have been today. For some poeple more information means confusion. For others the more the better.

Good luck!

 

[psyduck]

I think it is almost inevitable that people new to the site will get caught up in trivial affairs such as count level, # of indices being used, cover and all other variables that are inputted when running a simulation. (I know that I did).

How old are you?

In general, the only threads I even pay attention to are those whose titles hint at a discussion of (1) heat awareness and heat response or (2) Advanced strategies such as ST'ing or HC'ing.

So why wasting your time here?

 

[Gamblor]

I don't think any really means its pointless to discuss the minutiae of different counts, indices, etc., As sagefrog pointed out its a worthwhile endeavor to increase knowledge, and possibly discover some new and interesting facts about the game.

However I am of the simpler is better school (like kj, southpaw and Friendo) I'm not going to get tooooo excited about another system that provides a 2% edge over what I'm using and is more complicated.

I think all of us are continuing to learn more about AP'ing. I personally have a lot to learn still, and to list my priorities, I would say:

Cover (shallow but long learning curve, so constantly learning)
ST/HC/sequencing (steeper learning curve, but once it clicks, you learn quickly)
Comps/prizes, mispays and other shenanigans
Other AP games (again, steep learning curve)
Different counts, indices (I know 60'ish, so not looking to memorize more), etc.,

There are other forms of +EV at a casino besides bleeding everything out of a count. Yes, even cover is +EV since it allows you to more fully engage in these other +EV. And perfection is the enemy of good enough

 

[sagefr0g]

....
There are other forms of +EV at a casino besides bleeding everything out of a count. ...

right and the thing is much of how the genius's go about bleeding and tweeking bj, errrhh well a lot of that approach can be applied to finding and getting the most out of those other forms.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Team Counts

Why did teams use hi lo?

hi lo is the most common count so if a team were put together most established players would use hi lo. So hi lo becomes the count of the team which allows standardization of bet ramps.

Most of the big teams trained spotters who knew little of the game, what count should the spotters learn? hi lo
why? quick and easy to learn and you want to get them ready to play ASAP. Also, they would be standardized with the team.

If you try to put together a halves team you may have players who cannot pass the skills test. The count may be beyond some.

The reasons teams used hi lo is not because hi lo outperformed other counts but because of the reason's above.

Sch. makes a compelling argument that if a higher level count player enters a team he should get compensated more! The reason? His count outperforms!

A halves team should outperform a hi lo team.