Long term profit is seeing the big picture

[tthree]

Here you go: "That isn't going to have a large impact on your bottom line."

The example you give will make a difference, but the differences in SCORE between Hi-Opt II and High-Low tell me that it will be swamped by the vast number of other factors which no verbal analysis can comprehend in its sweep.

If High-Low is a "weak" count, then Hi-Opt II with 5 sidecounts, which might yield a 13% higher return, is also a "weak" count. And it will not allow you to play above your EV most of the time.

You are not counting 6, 7 and 8 separately but as one side count. The hands with this same sort of big move in the TC late in the shoe are:

ALL THREE CARDS WORKING SIMILARLY
**Insurance **
Splitting 99 v A, correlation factor 1.67
Hit/stand 13 v T, correlation factor 4.33
Hit/stand 13 v 9, CF 4.33
Hit/stand 16 v 8, CF 1.33
Hit/stand 16 v 7, CF 1.67
Splitting 99 v 7, CF 3
Splitting 66 v 7, CF 2
**Hit/stand 12 v 5, CF 1 **
Hit/stand 13 v 4, CF 1
**Hit/stand 12 v 4, CF 1 **
**Hit/stand 13 v 3, CF 1 **
**Hit/stand 12 v 3, CF 1 **
Doubling 9 v 3, CF 1
Doubling soft 19 v 3, CF 1.33
Doubling soft 18 v 3, CF 3
Doubling soft 17 v 3, CF 4
Splitting 77 v 3, CF 4
Splitting 66 v 3, CF 2
**Hit/stand 13 v 2, CF 2 **
**Hit/stand 12 v 2, CF 1 **
**Doubling 9 v 2, CF 1 **
Doubling soft 19 v 2, CF 1.67
Doubling soft 18 v 2, CF 3.33
Doubling soft 17 v 2, CF 4
Doubling soft 16 v 2, CF 5.33
Splitting 66 v 2, CF 2.33
_________________________________________________________________
TWO OUT OF THREE CARDS ADJUSTING OTHER 0
**Doubling 11 v A, correlation factor 0.67 **
**Doubling 10 v A, CF 0. 67 **
**Doubling 10 v T, CF 1.33 **
**Hit/stand 15 v T, CF 1.33 **
Hit/stand 14 v T, CF 3
Hit/stand 12 v T, CF 3
**Hit/stand 16 v 9, CF 1 **
Hit/stand 14 v 9, CF 2
Hit/stand 12 v 9, CF 3.33 mostly the 8
**Hit/stand 12 v 6 CF 0.67 **
Doubling 9 v 4, CF 0.67
Doubling 8 v 4, CF 0.67
Doubling soft 19 v 4, CF 0.67
Doubling soft 16 v 4, CF 2.33
Splitting 44 v 4, CF 1.67
Doubling soft 16 v 3, CF 1.33

This list includes 14 of the illustrious 18 indices indicated between double asterisks. It also includes many doubles and splits and all your risk averse indices, that were made higher because the gain in EV was minimal after the index was exceeded due to these cards being the key cards in the hand match up, which no longer need to be risk averse because they are now very strong. I suppose next people will tell me the illustrious 18 is very important but accurate use of the index is not. Many of these adjustments will be huge in size. Many of your soft doubles are decided almost entirely by a large surplus or deficit to the block side count making the running count secondary consideration. These are your weakest index plays. I hate it when I have to spend so much time proving my point.

 

[tthree]

Think about cover play

Everyone is always talking about the cost to EV for various cover plays. The changes to your play with a large imbalance of the block side count would be great cover that raises your EV. Your play on many hand match ups in this case would be almost independent of the main count. If you are adjusting the RC by 4 or 5 for each surplus/deficit card of three combined ranks your play is going totally unrelated to the count with an imbalance in the right direction for these hand match ups. Most of the match ups that you would adjust that much are soft doubles or 13 v 9 or T.

 

[psyduck]

tthree

Do you side count this block of cards in shoe games or pitch games?

 

[tthree]

Do you side count this block of cards in shoe games or pitch games?

It has its biggest value is in pitch due to the increased importance of playing efficiency but if you have the ability to do it in a shoe it is very effective. Almost all your high variance low increase in EV plays are made strong. They didn't add much EV but increased variance a lot.

 

[The Chaperone]

Request that thread be moved to the Voodoo forum.

 

[tthree]

When is the math of the game voodoo?

Request that thread be moved to the Voodoo forum.

If you understand what risk averse indices are you would see the value of this. Risk averse indices are indices you modified because for a small gain in EV that didn't increase much after the index was exceeded you modified your index so the reduction in variance allowed a larger optimal bet and more long term profits at the same risk of ruin. The reason the index was so weak was because the cards in this block of 6, 7 and 8 were the key cards for the hand match up but you had very poor information on the density of these cards. Many don't make this adjustment and live with a big increase in variance for a small increase in the EV of the hand match up and take the long term profit hit. By factoring in the information on these cards you make a very accurate decision on these hand match ups that has a quick gain in EV after the index is exceeded. This is not voodoo it is the math of the game. As a by product of this improvement you also make more accurate decisions on most of your most important indices, 14 of the illustrious 18 indices. It was shown by Long to increase playing efficiency for HIOPT II form .67 to about .8 indicating it is not voodoo. Long also discussed how this improvement was an understatement because the real improvement in dollars is most seen from the affect it has on your top bets' win percentage.

I thought voodoo was for mathematically unsupported ideas. This is analyzing your games weaknesses mathematically and doing the most you can to improve your high variance index plays. By attacking the reason you have high variance associated with +EV plays you not only increase the EV of the decision you bring the variance in line with the rest of your game. This is why the systems with the smallest N0 have such a small N0. They make decisions that more accurately reflect the the deck composition's affect on your hand match up for many hands.

You can say I am not skilled enough to keep a side count. I doubt that is true. You can say most of my advantage is gained from other AP techniques than counting and my index plays. Another fairly weak reason but at least you have extended your advantage in other ways. You can realize that you barely manage TC conversions and have trouble remembering my indices already. If that is the case and more study and practice doesn't help you are probably the best that you can be and adding to your long term EV while lowering your variance in this way is not for you. This takes discipline many people do not possess. It's value in pitch games is huge but you must maintain an accurate count and side count deep into a shoe game for you to start having the same sort of huge benefit. This not only waters down the effect but could cost you if you lose accuracy so it shouldn't be attempted unless you can do it accurately. You also need to memorize the RC adjustments for each hand match up for each surplus/deficit card in the block. As I pointed out many hand match ups this adjustment is huge because your count is almost meaningless when considering that hand match up (that is why that decision has such high variance) but the side count contains most or all of the key cards for the match up.

To someone who never kept a side count this may seem like a lot of extra work and it is. But as discussed in this thread you need to keep your sessions short at the best games in particular and make the most of that big opportunity. You should leave after it is over so do your best to make it count.

 

[johndoe]

Perhaps you should post a mathematical analysis or sim result, showing the improvement to SCORE, EV, etc., using your multiple side count methods vs. straight counting, say, with Hi-Lo.

Agreeing with AM, I don't think your method creates anywhere the difference you think it does.

 

[aslan]

If you understand what risk averse indices are you would see the value of this. Risk averse indices are indices you modified because for a small gain in EV that didn't increase much after the index was exceeded you modified your index so the reduction in variance allowed a larger optimal bet and more long term profits at the same risk of ruin. The reason the index was so weak was because the cards in this block of 6, 7 and 8 were the key cards for the hand match up but you had very poor information on the density of these cards. Many don't make this adjustment and live with a big increase in variance for a small increase in the EV of the hand match up and take the long term profit hit. By factoring in the information on these cards you make a very accurate decision on these hand match ups that has a quick gain in EV after the index is exceeded. This is not voodoo it is the math of the game. As a by product of this improvement you also make more accurate decisions on most of your most important indices, 14 of the illustrious 18 indices. It was shown by Long to increase playing efficiency for HIOPT II form .67 to about .8 indicating it is not voodoo. Long also discussed how this improvement was an understatement because the real improvement in dollars is most seen from the affect it has on your top bets' win percentage.

I thought voodoo was for mathematically unsupported ideas. This is analyzing your games weaknesses mathematically and doing the most you can to improve your high variance index plays. By attacking the reason you have high variance associated with +EV plays you not only increase the EV of the decision you bring the variance in line with the rest of your game. This is why the systems with the smallest N0 have such a small N0. They make decisions that more accurately reflect the the deck composition's affect on your hand match up for many hands.

You can say I am not skilled enough to keep a side count. I doubt that is true. You can say most of my advantage is gained from other AP techniques than counting and my index plays. Another fairly weak reason but at least you have extended your advantage in other ways. You can realize that you barely manage TC conversions and have trouble remembering my indices already. If that is the case and more study and practice doesn't help you are probably the best that you can be and adding to your long term EV while lowering your variance in this way is not for you. This takes discipline many people do not possess. It's value in pitch games is huge but you must maintain an accurate count and side count deep into a shoe game for you to start having the same sort of huge benefit. This not only waters down the effect but could cost you if you lose accuracy so it shouldn't be attempted unless you can do it accurately. You also need to memorize the RC adjustments for each hand match up for each surplus/deficit card in the block. As I pointed out many hand match ups this adjustment is huge because your count is almost meaningless when considering that hand match up (that is why that decision has such high variance) but the side count contains most or all of the key cards for the match up.

To someone who never kept a side count this may seem like a lot of extra work and it is. But as discussed in this thread you need to keep your sessions short at the best games in particular and make the most of that big opportunity. You should leave after it is over so do your best to make it count.

You are wasting a ream of virtual paper with these defenses. If you have the means to run simulations first as the opposition supports, then your way, then the numbers will speak for themselves. But as it is, both sides are digging in their heels, and defending their own sacred turf. In all honesty, I think both sides are trying to be open-minded, but one picture (two sims) worth thousand words, and in this case, will save many thousands of words. Or am I being too simplistic?

 

[kewljason]

The mathematical aspect of blackjack attracts many mathematical superior minds and tthree is obviously one of them. I am not. :sad: I don't have a mathematical degree or any degree for that matter. I like to think that my mathematical abilities are above the average person, yet surely below most AP's and members of this site. As such, I keep things simple. And yet I have achieved some level of success.

I do have a question for Mr tthree. I mean no disrespect, but honestly I am wondering if your experience is really casino related or takes place mostly in the mathematical world of simulations, computers and calulators. It would be a rare breed indeed that could successfully play a multi-level count, with numerous side counts and what seems like hundreds of strategy change indices for not only your primary count but for numerous side count situations that you have laid out. Even if they had the ability to do this, most AP professionals would deem that a tremendous amount of additional effort for minimal gain and would come to the conclusion their efforts are better spend on other aspects. Can you share what your level of experience is? Are you a fulltime AP? What amount of time do you spend actually playing blackjack in a casino each year and is it more than you spend on computer simulations and computer time? I mean 900+ posts in 90 days immediately tells me you spend a great deal of time online and your posts are generally very comprehensive and time consuming, so I am wondering just how much time you have left for actual play?

 

[tthree]

You are wasting a ream of virtual paper with these defenses. If you have the means to run simulations first as the opposition supports, then your way, then the numbers will speak for themselves. But as it is, both sides are digging in their heels, and defending their own sacred turf. In all honesty, I think both sides are trying to be open-minded, but one picture (two sims) worth thousand words, and in this case, will save many thousands of words. Or am I being too simplistic?

No ability to run sims. I outlined the math well enough that if you understand blackjack math you can see the value of changing a low increase in EV as your index is exceeded due to a total lack of information on the cards that decide deck favorability for that hand match up causing high variance into a very accurate decision as to the deck make up that decides the matchup's correct play giving it a quick increase in EV as the index is exceeded and a low variance. This reduces your variance and your N0. It is not that hard to understand.

Why do different counts have higher win rates or a lower N0. It is because it more accurately predicts the proper play more often while getting your big bets out at the right time and has fewer weak indices that are based on weak count correlation to the correct decision since it gives no information on the key cards or mixes good cards with bad cards as either positive or negative cards for your count for various hand matchups. There are a lot of things you can do to help remedy that. This is one of the most effective. It covers most of your weak indices while strengthening the decision on the vast majority of your most important indices.

Again I say this is most valuable in pitch games but when the big opportunities hit in shoe games it tends to be near the end of the shoe where the game is becoming very similar to pitch conditions especially if you can still play only games with the best penetration and rules.

 

[The Chaperone]

When is the math of the game voodoo?

When very little actual math is provided, but rather drawing erroneous conclusions from small anecdotal samples.

 

[The Chaperone]

The mathematical aspect of blackjack attracts many mathematical superior minds and tthree is obviously one of them.

Obviously?!?!?

 

[winnawinna]

That's not so. I can write a program to do a full combinatorial analysis of a shoe before every bet and before every play, and it will still have nightmare shoes. Almost as many as you or I do. Sorry to tell you but extra work is usually a waste of time, especially if you expect it to turn bad shoes into good ones. It is a dismal thought but it is also reality.

I enjoyed reading this thread because its filled with aspects of APing. When you have a bad shoe it has nothing to do with not enough work or the wrong counting system or overbetting. It has to do with just how the cards are coming out. You know I have had my longest winning streaks at TCs of less than -2. Why? I guess because the dealer hsa a greater chance to NOT get a 20 or BJ. I have lost many big bets...sometimes several in a row. BUT they have ALWAYS pushed me into a winning day. BTW I use a simple unbalanced count and do very very well at it and I play about 60-90 hours a month

 

[tthree]

The mathematical aspect of blackjack attracts many mathematical superior minds and tthree is obviously one of them. I am not. :sad: I don't have a mathematical degree or any degree for that matter. I like to think that my mathematical abilities are above the average person, yet surely below most AP's and members of this site. As such, I keep things simple. And yet I have achieved some level of success.

I do have a question for Mr tthree. I mean no disrespect, but honestly I am wondering if your experience is really casino related or takes place mostly in the mathematical world of simulations, computers and calulators. It would be a rare breed indeed that could successfully play a multi-level count, with numerous side counts and what seems like hundreds of strategy change indices for not only your primary count but for numerous side count situations that you have laid out. Even if they had the ability to do this, most AP professionals would deem that a tremendous amount of additional effort for minimal gain and would come to the conclusion their efforts are better spend on other aspects. Can you share what your level of experience is? Are you a fulltime AP? What amount of time do you spend actually playing blackjack in a casino each year and is it more than you spend on computer simulations and computer time? I mean 900+ posts in 90 days immediately tells me you spend a great deal of time online and your posts are generally very comprehensive and time consuming, so I am wondering just how much time you have left for actual play?

I am a hobbyist looking to strengthen my game enough to run up my bankroll to allow me to play at the next level. Since my bankroll makes variance and N0 a primary consideration, correlation of playing decisions is very important. I don't look at gains in the same way as many APs. I am very conservative with my casino time as 90 days ago I started afresh learning a stronger game. I have been lucky enough to be privy to what some of the best do to gain a bigger edge than most. That is what I am shooting for. I have been schooled by them in how to preserve the best games so you don't have to play crap. I have also seen the potential of using multiple counts that spot particular good and bad playing conditions a straight count totally misses and kills your session potential. When I feel I am the best I can be I will hit the casinos more than for a periodic bankroll boost and readiness check. I don't need to become too familiar to casino personnel before I am ready for the steepest bankroll growth with the lowest variance and N0.

In the last 90 days I have logged consistent wins every time I test my preparations. The only exception is when I played a crappy game (a valuable lesson that reinforced what I have been taught). I do not speak from a great deal experience in a casino since I have been shown a better way recently. I have played a great deal in casinos the way most here seem to play based on their posts. Level one counts, high variance and long losing streaks between more successful playing runs. I am learning how to only play the best games and play my best game and hopefully make a lot of money. If I can survive the initial bout with my bankroll issues I will be on my way. These considerations are important to greatly increasing the odds of that happening.

Like I said I have seen very successful APs who keep up to 4 counts simultaneously in a shoe game routinely. I may not have the skill for that many but I am going to try. In my opinion the benefits are worth the effort. You don't have to burn the best games with an unacceptable spread when a smaller spread or max bet is all you need to win within their tolerance levels. The goal is to be able to make money by only playing the best games and rules. If a $5000 win burns a great game you should be playing a bet level to win less. That is the way I am being taught. Maybe it is simply because the strongest play allows you to do that. Maybe my perfectionist nature would settle for no less than my full potential. My greatest strength is my obsessive nature. Not properly reigned in it can become my biggest weakness.

 

[kewljason]

Thank you for explaining that tthree. I have no problem with someone wanting to play at a higher level, but I really don't believe all the extra math and effort that you are putting yourself through will translate into anything but marginal improvement in long-term results, but I hope for your sake it does and you see the significant improvement in results that you are seeking and you find it all worthwhile. But, unless you advance beyong straight counting, high variance and long losing streaks are a part of the game, no matter what count and or side counts you use.

IMO, the single biggest 'jump' in a card counter's career and improvement in performance will come from having the bankroll to play $25 tables, not from higher level counts, multiple side counts or a high number of index plays. In most locations $25 tables means better rules, fewer players at the table meaning more hands per hour and wong in/out possibilities.

 

[tthree]

Home store strategy with a high EV?

Thank you for explaining that tthree. I have no problem with someone wanting to play at a higher level, but I really don't believe all the extra math and effort that you are putting yourself through will translate into anything but marginal improvement in long-term results, but I hope for your sake it does and you see the significant improvement in results that you are seeking and you find it all worthwhile. But, unless you advance beyong straight counting, high variance and long losing streaks are a part of the game, no matter what count and or side counts you use.

IMO, the single biggest 'jump' in a card counter's career and improvement in performance will come from having the bankroll to play $25 tables, not from higher level counts, multiple side counts or a high number of index plays. In most locations $25 tables means better rules, fewer players at the table meaning more hands per hour and wong in/out possibilities.

Thanks for the support KJ. I have the bankroll for $25 pitch but live in the wrong part of the country. I will likely take a trip when I feel ready. My wife has been trying to get me to go to some areas of the country with some great pitch games. When I am well prepared I will let her drag me to her picked destination. That should be worth a generous amount of free time to visit some of the hot spots. That is my home store cover play. Hopefully it has a high EV. With the strong PE of my game with no side counts I think I should fair well.

 

[Nynefingers]

No ability to run sims.

What does this mean?? If you can't figure out how to sim your suggested playing strategy, then how can you be so sure of the difference it does or does not make? If you don't have the software, yet you've got the BR for $25 games, then that's a false economy at best and I would argue that it's complete foolishness. Spring for the software. It will easily make (save?) you much more money than the price that QFIT charges.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You've said several things in this thread that are demonstrably false (as other posters have pointed out). If you expect to convince us that your strategy shows a significant improvement over something simpler and everybody else is wrong, you aren't going to do that without showing us properly run sims.

 

[johndoe]

No ability to run sims.

Yes you do, but you choose not to. If you're a cheapskate, just download PowerSIM.

You have absolutely nothing concrete to back up your claims, and have done no calculations to understand what effect your strategy has. None of your "deductions" have any rational basis.

I'd recommend doing some actual calculations and sims before embarrassing yourself further.

 

[aslan]

I am a hobbyist looking to strengthen my game enough to run up my bankroll to allow me to play at the next level. Since my bankroll makes variance and N0 a primary consideration, correlation of playing decisions is very important. I don't look at gains in the same way as many APs. I am very conservative with my casino time as 90 days ago I started afresh learning a stronger game. I have been lucky enough to be privy to what some of the best do to gain a bigger edge than most. That is what I am shooting for. I have been schooled by them in how to preserve the best games so you don't have to play crap. I have also seen the potential of using multiple counts that spot particular good and bad playing conditions a straight count totally misses and kills your session potential. When I feel I am the best I can be I will hit the casinos more than for a periodic bankroll boost and readiness check. I don't need to become too familiar to casino personnel before I am ready for the steepest bankroll growth with the lowest variance and N0.

In the last 90 days I have logged consistent wins every time I test my preparations. The only exception is when I played a crappy game (a valuable lesson that reinforced what I have been taught). I do not speak from a great deal experience in a casino since I have been shown a better way recently. I have played a great deal in casinos the way most here seem to play based on their posts. Level one counts, high variance and long losing streaks between more successful playing runs. I am learning how to only play the best games and play my best game and hopefully make a lot of money. If I can survive the initial bout with my bankroll issues I will be on my way. These considerations are important to greatly increasing the odds of that happening.

Like I said I have seen very successful APs who keep up to 4 counts simultaneously in a shoe game routinely. I may not have the skill for that many but I am going to try. In my opinion the benefits are worth the effort. You don't have to burn the best games with an unacceptable spread when a smaller spread or max bet is all you need to win within their tolerance levels. The goal is to be able to make money by only playing the best games and rules. If a $5000 win burns a great game you should be playing a bet level to win less. That is the way I am being taught. Maybe it is simply because the strongest play allows you to do that. Maybe my perfectionist nature would settle for no less than my full potential. My greatest strength is my obsessive nature. Not properly reigned in it can become my biggest weakness.

Listen, without testing with simulations what seems to you to be flawless logic, you may wind up busted, disgusted and not to be trusted. If the dealer has a twenty every hand, and you have a stiff,and if a bust card is coming, it doesn't matter what better indexes you have, you are still going to lose the hands. Without the simulations you can not be sure your logic actually applies in real life situations. Your real life experience is anecdotal at best. I have had huge runs of good luck that made me think I had finally figured out the perfect formula for playing. I am just as certain that your "system" is not all that you think it is, as I am sure that you will not change your mind about doing the sims. But I felt it was my duty to warn you. From what I see, your system will not kill you, but you obsessive belief in it may, since you may be tempted to play without sufficient bankroll for the real risk involved. All I can say is good luck, but don't treat the wisdom of the APs on this site lightly. They have a ton of experience under their belts, the advice of APs even more talented than themselves in many cases, and they do believe in putting their theories to the test before they put them into practice. Good variance!

 

[Tarzan]

Reptilian shapeshifting aliens

Tthree has gone off in this direction of PE in recent weeks due to changing over to a more detailed count, I believe. He was picking apart the HiOpt2 or whatever it was and to top that off, I had the chance to meet with him in person and demonstrate Tarzan count, to include a short explanation of the theory behind it along with a card-counting demonstration that might have given him a "WTF moment".

In Tthree's defense, he is a math and science degree kind of guy and I got to "pick his brain" for some hours to see the extent of this. He has remarkable intellectual ability to say the least that was astounding to me (which is not all that easy to do). If left unencumbered, he has the ability to achieve a level of excellence at anything he does. He's not some hot shot that saw a movie and now thinks he can take on the world. He's an intellectual with academic credentials that is examining blackjack. In my honest assessment, this means he has the potential to become one of the small percentage that are successful at this and go beyond simple "hobby and amusement".