Long term profit is seeing the big picture

[The Chaperone]

Yes, yes and no. My estimate about 17,000 hours.

You have played 17,000 hours and you are still red chipping?

'Nuff said.

 

[tthree]

You have played 17,000 hours and you are still red chipping?

'Nuff said.

30 years as a hobbyist. I am only now thinking of pursuing further. My whole business collapsed with the economy. It has nothing to do with blackjack effectiveness. Not everyone is in a situation to play like they have 6 or 7 figures to fall back on. I have usually done quite well playing with no concept of RoR or many other important aspects of the game. Take 300 to 500 to the casino and have fun. Losing money is not fun so the fact that I clocked so many hours should tell you I am way ahead. I would just spend my winnings not try to build a bankroll. I just figure without much effort it seemed so easy to win money that as employment prospects look more questionable I would make a more serious effort and maybe find a new career.

 

[tthree]

I often played with professionals with big bankrolls. They often commented how my comparatively small wins were much more impressive than their much bigger wins. Until the people hear who have tried to help me made me understand about RoR as well as many other important aspects beyond the play at the table I didn't really understand what they meant. I would run 200 into 1000 but they would run 5000 into 15000. I thought they were simply talking percentages. Now I understand what they really meant.

 

[The Chaperone]

If only you had used a side count of 9s, maybe you would have built up a decent sized bankroll by now.

 

[tthree]

I could have won $100,000 and I would have spent it. I was not trying to build a bankroll. I just wanted to have some fun beating the casinos. It was only when my wife suggested becoming a professional as a back up to shaky job security earlier this year that I started learning the finer points of the game beyond how you play your hand and decide how much to bet. She had seen how easy it was for me to make money over the years. I was skeptical about the wisdom of the idea but after seeing how many doors were closed due to being blind in one eye, middle aged and with a terminal disease I started to look into it. I now business and increasing your advantage by 10 to 20% or more over your competition is nothing to turn your nose up at if you want to survive. I have the ability to do it if I put in the effort. I don't understand why anyone would suggest otherwise unless they lack the ability or want to convince themselves their lack of motivation is justified.

What did I ever do to you.? I wasn't even paying attention to who made a discussion into a personal attack. Nothing to be gained by the information. I just noted it was time to be quiet because it was headed that way. I am guessing you lead the charge.

You represent the views and concerns of those with extremely large bankrolls. They do not work as well for the player with a small bankroll. We need to take extra effort to balance a profitable spread with an acceptable RoR while playing games that generally have crappier rules. An insignificant gain in advantage to you interacts with the constraints on our games differently. It is part of the mathematics of AP play. I think you do a large disservice to start up bankrolls by saying it is not worth it. It is one thing to point out the pitfalls of added complexity like counting errors if you are not proficient, game speed if you can find a table that is not crowded (Many times a difficult task for us. Playing speed is almost meaningless at this level because if you are not counting fast enough to keep up with the game on a crowded table you should be at home practicing not playing in a casino. Ploppies play slow) and your ability to use other tactics if you possess it and never learned to multitask in this age of multitasking.

I have heard you tell people just increase your spread it is more profitable. They aren't going to raise their top bet due to already having an unacceptable RoR and the other end of their spread is already table minimum. This is the reality most people who come here to learn the game have. Do you really think your advice that may suit you just fine can even be applied to them. I just wonder how many have unnecessarily busted out their bankroll listening to advice not tailored to their situation. Hopefully the advice that didn't help them due to not being applicable to their situation wasn't centered in the get rid of my competition attitude that has been discussed in this thread and clearly shown to exist among some APs. Many here have contacted me personally and been very useful to tackling the issues specific to being in the bankroll growth stage of becoming an AP. To all of those people I am eternally grateful. They make this site shine as worthy of accolades.

 

[tthree]

No, what? "Perfect play" is based on combinatorial analysis, recalculating the correct strategy based on every card seen for every play, and we normalize the effect of that kind of analysis as a PE of 1. The PE of a count is how often you will make the correct play using the information from the count compared to a hypothetical situation where you had a computer with you doing a CA.

PE is actually an arbitrary number because when it was calculated we didn't know the frequency of the counts or the spread. The playing EOR of each card changes with spread, and the frequency of the counts changes with number of decks and penetration. In a game with poor pen those extreme-index plays aren't going to be worth a rat's ass, because you will never see those counts. The most stunning example is the ace- it is treated as a low card in a game with a flat bet because the player usually just needs to know if he should hit or stand, but in a game with a large spread the player really needs to know whether he should split his 10's or double 10 vs. 10, these decisions always happen with a lot of money down and the ace acts like a high card for those hands.

So the classic values of PE aren't that useful for the modern game. My analysis showed me that the Mentor Count has the best system tags for PE for most games, and the very acceptable BC makes it probably the best overall choice, no sidecounts necessary.

Hi AM, your are one of the great contributers to this site and have earned my respect. The .7 PE I was referring to was "perfect play" for the best linear counting system. Obviously considering "perfect play" for the EOR for the exact cards removed and the hand match ups is the standard of 1. I figured everyone would understand that. It can be hard to think like other people so many times I assume people are following what I am explaining when I need to give a more detailed explanation. I think you probably understood what I was saying but if you didn't I am sorry I didn't explain myself better. I discovered I didn't address this when I went back to see how the discussion degenerated to where Tarzan stepped in to cool things down in case I was unjustified in implying Chaperone lead that effort so I could correct myself if I were in error.

 

[blackriver]

This has been a really good discussion. I have honestly not been a tthree fan (or anyone who starts progression threads) up to this point. I also didn't like his tone or style. I'm even more biased in that I'm an over rolled long time AP who focuses on cover.but I think his arguments have been so elegant and clear here. I think a lot of the reluctance to do side counting is because of the prevalence of shoes but the reality its that side counting at single and double deck is trivial.Even if you don't actually side count the sevenish cards you can easily have some idea and allow it to swing your close decisions. I think this alone will capture almost half the value of doing an actual seven count. As long as your dealing with indicies with wide margins (almost all are)i think its far better to have more information than to have accurate information, after all isn't that the reason even weak shuffle tracking is so much better than strong counting

i don't side count sevens but the mnemonics I use for shuffle tracking accidently often signal a 7 heavy/light section (because it lacks tagged cards) and I have changed my decision many times based on it and probably made a lot from it.

 

[blackriver]

It can be hard to think like other people so many times I assume people are following what I am explaining when I need to give a more detailed explanation.

You aren't a natural but your getting a lot better very fast.i would have given up if I were you. I just think everyone is very polarized right now. But I'm am certain half of these detractors will eventually compromise and allow seven "estimates" to inform marginal decisions. i'm generous with my knowledge too but if people don't accept it I don't go out of my way to explain it.it takes time for a zeitgeist to shift but I've learned not to fight it. Trends move such that a few people make a lot of noise about something and everyone fights it but in a few years everyone embraces it like it was always obvious. (look at the conservative agenda at any given time, half the stuff they claim to believe in is what they were fighting against 5 years before).

 

[AussiePlayer]

I truly have no idea how to contribute, in any meaningful way, to this place.

That said, I think the last ten pages are a beautiful thing. A theory, respectful argument. More postulation, many more opposing. For a hobbyist, like myself, this is a wonderful thing.

How's this: stay respectful, and keep it up.

Back to my indices...

x2

Awesome read, thanks to all involved.

 

[The Chaperone]

I don't understand how this can be considered a "really good discussion" that people have "learned a lot from." To summarize we have a guy who has spent 17k hours in casinos, has failed to build a bankroll despite the *significant* time investment, telling everyone that the math 'proves' that using some type of middle card side count will make you a lot of money. We are 130 posts deep now and he has yet to provide any actual math.

Excuse me for trying to inject some reality into the discussion.

 

[tthree]

I don't understand how this can be considered a "really good discussion" that people have "learned a lot from." To summarize we have a guy who has spent 17k hours in casinos, has failed to build a bankroll despite the *significant* time investment, telling everyone that the math 'proves' that using some type of middle card side count will make you a lot of money. We are 130 posts deep now and he has yet to provide any actual math.

Excuse me for trying to inject some reality into the discussion.

Why are you trying to introduce a specious argument. I answered everyones questions honestly. I didn't care if it didn't bolster my position. I didn't build a bankroll because I didn't try to build a bankroll. I spent my winnings. I have recently changed my designs on the game and intend to start to try to build a bankroll and become more than a hobbyist. I explained that yet you still use this specious argument.

 

[aslan]

I don't understand how this can be considered a "really good discussion" that people have "learned a lot from." To summarize we have a guy who has spent 17k hours in casinos, has failed to build a bankroll despite the *significant* time investment, telling everyone that the math 'proves' that using some type of middle card side count will make you a lot of money. We are 130 posts deep now and he has yet to provide any actual math.

Excuse me for trying to inject some reality into the discussion.

I don't know about tthree's middle card side count, but I believe such middle card side counts as Tarzan's modified DHM count with 6/7/8/9s as the middle side count plus an aces side count are worth taking a look at. These type counts have been passed over because of their complexity, which is not to say they are ineffective. But one will have to do their own investigation, since he is not about to explain his count in anything more than general terms. I have already ordered literature on the DHM system for one reason because it is so far off the beaten track, similar to tthree here. That does not mean it has nothing to offer.

Maybe you or someone can help tthree prove or disprove his ideas via simulations, which he is not accustomed to. I think it's too soon to dismiss his ideas. I don't think it was his purpose to prove his thoughts, more like to explain them. I appreciate his effort in that regard. I hope someone can put them to the test. Maybe we'll all learn something.

 

[tthree]

Let us examine the math of a simple 7 side count

tthree,

I simulated the effect of surplus 7 using BS and flat betting for the 6deck shoe game I play. The change in advantage when surplus of 7 = 1/deck is shown below. You can see, 15 and 16 vs dealer's 7 and 8 are not the biggest sufferers. Other hands that suffer more than 4% advantage loss are included.

Sure one needs to consider the frequency of each hand. I wonder if you are aiming at the wrong hands using the information of 7s (or your block of cards). Anyway, something for you to think about.

Change in advantage when surplus of 7 = 1/deck (using BS):

hand          change in advantage(%)            hand frequency(%)
15 vs 7                  -1.3                                0.7
15 vs 8                  -1.1                                0.5
16 vs 7                  -1.1                                0.6
16 vs 8                  -1.1                                0.5

10 vs 4                  -4.4                                0.3
A3 vs 5                  -4.0                                0.09
A3 vs 6                  -4.1                                0.09
A4 vs 4                  -4.6                                0.08
A5 vs 4                  -4.4                                0.09
A7 vs 4                  -5.0                                0.1

22 vs 4                  -4.2                                0.04
66 vs 3                  -5.1                                0.04
66 vs 4                  -4.9                                0.04
77 vs 2                  -4.3                                0.07
77 vs 4                  -5.9                                0.07
88 vs 3                  -4.3                                0.04
88 vs 4                  -6.7                                0.04
99 vs 3                  -4.6                                0.04
99 vs 4                  -5.6                                0.04

Interesting topic for me.

The frequencies are off here. Psyduck used 2 card hand frequencies for his first group. The actual frequencies are all .96 and the split frequencies are all .043. The doubling frequencies are a more complicated issue so we will just use these as I have no reason to doubt they are correct.

The overall change in advantage = .96*(-1.3 + 3*(-1.1)) + .3*(-4.4) + .09*(-4 + -4.1 + -4.4) + .08*(-4.6) + .1*(-5) + .043*(-4.2 + -5.1 + -4.9 + -4.3 + -5.9 + -4.3 + -6.7 + -4.6 + -5.6) = .96*(-4.6) - 1.32 - 1.125 - .368 - .5 - 1.9608 = -4.416 - 5.2738 = -9.6898%% = -.096898%

So a side count of sevens increases the players advantage by about .1% for flat betting. The player probably has a 1 to 1.5% advantage using basic counting and his betting ramp. Your percent increase in advantage is about .1/1 = 10% for the low end. And your advantage is increased by .1/1.5 = 6.7% for the high end. So side counting sevens increases your advantage over the casino by 6.7% to 10% of your original advantage.

Now we consider that your optimal bet is determined by your advantage at each true count so you would bet slightly more with a slightly larger advantage. Since Psyduck plays HILO I assumed the .1% increase in advantage he showed was for HILO. I used HILO sweet 16 and fab 4, H17,DAS,Sr,RSA, 6 deck cut off 1 deck. The spread was practical optimal bets, play all, spread 1 to 12.

-NO SIDE COUNT HILO COUNT---HILO WITH SEVEN SIDE COUNT
TC freq advan opbet netproduct|advan opbet netproduct
<-1 .4516 -1.54% 10= -6.95464 | -1.44% 10 = -6.50304
00 .2599 -0.22% 10 = -0.57178 | -0.12% 10 = -0.31188
+1 .1075 +0.42% 25 = 1.12875 | +0.52% 30 = 1.67700
+2 .0749 +1.02% 60 = 4.58388 | +1.12% 65 = 5.4527
+3 .0363 +1.60% 90 = 5.22720 | +1.70% 95 = 5.8625
+4 .0283 +2.28% 120= 7.74228 | +2.38% 120= 8.08248
+5 .0136 +2.84% 120= 4.63448 | +2.94% 120= 4.79808
+6 .0113 +3.46% 120= 4.69176 | +3.56% 120= 4.82736
+7 .0053 +3.99% 120= 2.53764 | +4.09% 120= 2.60124
+8 .0046 +4.54% 120= 2.50608 | +4.64% 120= 2.56128
+9 .0022 +5.05% 120= 1.33320 | +5.15% 120= 1.35960
10 .0018 +5.51% 120= 1.19016 | +5.61% 120= 1.21176
11 .0009 +5.72% 120= 0.61776 | +5.82% 120= 0.62856
12 .0007 +6.37% 120= 0.53508 | +6.47% 120= 0.54348
13 .0004 +6.66% 120= 0.31968 | +6.76% 120= 0.32448
14 .0003 +7.34% 120= 0.26424 | +7.44% 120= 0.26784
15 .0002 +7.34% 120= 0.17616 | +7.44% 120= 0.17856
16 .0001 +8.20% 120= 0.09840 | +8.30% 120= 0.09960


The total for no side count = 30.06033
The total for 7 side counted = 33.6616

The improvement is 33.6616/30.06033 = 1.11980141

THAT IS A 12% IMPROVEMENT OF PROFIT for a side count of sevens with HILO for a 6 deck shoe with 83% penetration. This is a mathematical approximation. The side count will affect different bets more often than others due to the index numbers used for each hand match up. It should be close though.

 

[Friendo]

I don't know about tthree's middle card side count, but I believe such middle card side counts as Tarzan's modified DHM count with 6/7/8/9s as the middle side count plus an aces side count are worth taking a look at.

I agree. I welcome some concrete results using simulations of several hundred million rounds, and no more arguments like "on a couple of shoes I played in my den, I noticed that the extra sidecount saved me on max-bet hands, turning the shoes around," or "this stronger system can make bad games playable."

I don't think it was his purpose to prove his thoughts, more like to explain them.

Then, for the present, he should stop advising every poster here, both new and experienced, to switch to these counts.

 

[psyduck]

tthree,

The numbers you quoted from me were obtained with an altered shoe in which 6 extra 7s were added to the 6deck shoe so that there was a surplus of one7/deck. A missing piece of information is the frequency of the unplayed portion containing one surplus 7/deck in a normal casino shoe. This frequency should be taken into account in the calculation of gain for 1extra7/deck.

You can imagine that the same exercise needs to be done for n extra7/deck (n = say -20 to 20?) to obtain the gain and frequency for each n. I would think the overall gain is the sum of each gain multiplied by its frequency.

I wish I could write a program to simulate the whole thing all together.

Edit: Frequency was already shown, not missing.

 

[tthree]

I don't know about tthree's middle card side count, but I believe such middle card side counts as Tarzan's modified DHM count with 6/7/8/9s as the middle side count plus an aces side count are worth taking a look at. These type counts have been passed over because of their complexity, which is not to say they are ineffective. But one will have to do their own investigation, since he is not about to explain his count in anything more than general terms. I have already ordered literature on the DHM system for one reason because it is so far off the beaten track, similar to tthree here. That does not mean it has nothing to offer.

Maybe you or someone can help tthree prove or disprove his ideas via simulations, which he is not accustomed to. I think it's too soon to dismiss his ideas. I don't think it was his purpose to prove his thoughts, more like to explain them. I appreciate his effort in that regard. I hope someone can put them to the test. Maybe we'll all learn something.

I have had the opportunity to work with Tarzan and he has shared more with me than most. He felt very few could understand what he was doing so there was not much of a point to waste time explaining. He told me he would explain as much as I wanted to know because he knew I would understand it. I didn't take him up on his comment that he could teach it to me because I think it is to complex for me to track all the information he gathers and start from square one. He does 4 primary counts. I have been doing a linear counting system with a side count for decades. That is pretty easy. I think I can handle a second side count with practice closing the gap some on my ability to collect information and what Tarzan does. He got me to thinking about exactly how much the added information he collects is worth and WHY and I researched what would be the most profitable to add as a second side count. My research lead me to believe a block side count of 6, 7 and 8 was the most profitable approach. I still am not sure I will be able to track as much information at once as Tarzan. This effort will either define my limits or show that I probably have the ability to process the same information as Tarzan.

If you think the little things I already do are to complex or not worth the effort, as seems to be the common response, what Tarzan does make them look like nothing in terms of added effort. Your return reflects your effort, ability and the validity of your approach to the game.

Someone in my general area made an offer to help me . I haven't answered him yet because of my Achilles tendon issue but I will probably take him up on his offer when the time is right. My test results are back and my Achilles tendon is severed. The two halves are 6mm apart. I go under the knife on Wednesday and will be more or less housebound for 6 weeks. At that time I start rehab. I always recover a lot quicker than most people so we will see what the actual impact on my life will actually be but that is the projection. My high threshold of pain is a big help. You just have to know when to listen to the pain so you can mend properly and when to ignore the pain so you can rebuild yourself to normal strength faster.

 

[kewljason]

I go under the knife on Wednesday and will be more or less housebound for 6 weeks.

I wish you well and wish for a quick recovery for you, tthree. Especially since I suspect that means we will be reading many many post from you during this housebound period. :laugh:

 

[tthree]

tthree,

The numbers you quoted from me were obtained with an altered shoe in which 6 extra 7s were added to the 6deck shoe so that there was a surplus of one7/deck. A missing piece of information is the frequency of the unplayed portion containing one surplus 7/deck in a normal casino shoe. This frequency should be taken into account in the calculation of gain for 1extra7/deck.

You can imagine that the same exercise needs to be done for n extra7/deck (n = say -20 to 20?) to obtain the gain and frequency for each n. I would think the overall gain is the sum of each gain multiplied by its frequency.

I wish I could write a program to simulate the whole thing all together.

I didn't include the math because it has so many variables but Chaperone kept wanting math so I pounded some out for him. I would think if you had an understanding of the math of the game you would see the validity of what I am saying. Quantifying the effect is a different story altogether. Thank you for the measure of salt to be taken with this. I tried to inject some but wasn't sure how you generated your information. I knew from your previous posts that you most likely didn't look them up somewhere. You enjoy playing with the math puzzles hands on like I do. I know enough about math to have good reason not to have posted any. The problem is to complex for the math to have a high degree of certainty. After Chaperone practically demanding it I did the best I could to provide some. I believe most of the variable affects would amplify the advantage but I would not say that with great confidence.

PS The math I posted does a good job of showing why small effects add up to big returns. Many would do well to examine it to see how .1% added to your advantage is a lot more than it sounds like.

 

[psyduck]

I didn't include the math because it has so many variables but Chaperone kept wanting math so I pounded some out for him. I would think if you had an understanding of the math of the game you would see the validity of what I am saying. Quantifying the effect is a different story altogether. Thank you for the measure of salt to be taken with this. I tried to inject some but wasn't sure how you generated your information. I knew from your previous posts that you most likely didn't look them up somewhere. You enjoy playing with the math puzzles hands on like I do. I know enough about math to have good reason not to have posted any. The problem is to complex for the math to have a high degree of certainty. After Chaperone practically demanding it I did the best I could to provide some. I believe most of the variable affects would amplify the advantage but I would not say that with great confidence.

PS The math I posted does a good job of showing why small effects add up to big returns. Many would do well to examine it to see how .1% added to your advantage is a lot more than it sounds like.

I wish you the best dealing with your injury.

So far I have seen effect of sidecounting 7s on some hands, but still have trouble quantifying the overall gain.

You mentioned side counting a group of 678. My limited understanding is each of the cards affects different hands. For example, extra 7s can improve your hard 14, but extra 8s will hurt it. If you count them in a group with one sidecount parameter, do you think a hand such as hard 14 may be misplayed when your sidecout indicates a surplus but you don't know if it is 7 or 8 surplus?

 

[tthree]

You pick the match ups that fit the group the best. I have often cautioned people about the weakness of their indices that mix good cards and bad for a hand match up with the same tag resulting in a weakly correlated guess that balances out to a small gain in EV in the long run. The consensus seems to be that doesn't matter. They feel even though 3 of your tag cards pull one way, the other 2 that pull even harder the other way that they dominate the affect are what matters. I fall closer to your thoughts though Psyduck. If the EOR for the 8 was large in magnitude in the other direction from the other cards I would be skeptical using the hand match up with the side count even though the math dictates otherwise. A smaller EOR would be more comfortable if in the opposite direction. The long run will follow what the adjustment says but I like a strong correlation were all cards act similarly at least in the direction they move the EOR average.

**The 8 has a small EOR in the 14 v T matchup. The lack of the block would help you stand. While 8 busts you it also makes the dealers hand so the EOR is small but against the other 2 cards. That would be a playable but weak correlation.