Question on OPP

[SPX]

I know that the OPP count is often not considered worth the effort, but:

1) Why do people doubt the sim results that show it to be about 70% as effective as Hi-Lo

and

2) Why do you think Arnold Snyder would support it if it wasn't a quality system?

 

[zengrifter]

Why do people doubt the sim results that show [OPP] to be about 70% as effective as Hi-Lo

"70% of HiLo"? Can anyone here substantiate that?

Why do you think Arnold Snyder would support it if it wasn't a quality system?

Well, I don't know that he "supports" it, but there are an apparent number of odd things about Snyder these days - censorship, business disputes, etc. ... so I'll take a shot in the dark: Because Radar O'Reilly told him to! zg

Ps - One (the only?) positive attribute of OPP is that its cheaper than the Golden Touch SPEED COUNT.

 

[Sonny]

1) Why do people doubt the sim results that show it to be about 70% as effective as Hi-Lo

I seem to recall that the first set of simulations did not use proper being spreads and were therefore skewed in favor of OPP. Also, it carries a very high level of variance:

http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=19021 (Archive copy)

-Sonny-

 

[SPX]

"70% of HiLo"? Can anyone here substantiate that?

Well, I don't know that he "supports" it, but there are an apparent number of odd things about Snyder these days - censorship, business disputes, etc. ... so I'll take a shot in the dark: Because Radar O'Reilly told him to! zg

Ps - One (the only?) positive attribute of OPP is that its cheaper than the Golden Touch SPEED COUNT.

I said 70%, but according to this article:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Easy_OPP_Card_Counting_System.htm

"The power of the OPP count is again about 82% of the standard Hi Lo with no index play."

I am not a counter and have only read up on it, so I'm still not sure of the meaning of the term "indexes." Perhaps you can enlighten me.

According to the Arnold's comments in the article, it seems that Carlos (who developed OPP) is someone he has some sort of personal contact with and he at least pretends to be convinced of the system's effectiveness.

I assume you don't have a positive opinion of Speed Count either.

Even though it's probably a comment that will get me flamed around here, I will say that I don't think "the math" is everything. Fred Renzey has said before that it's possible to play an entire year via counting and end up in the negative. It's comments like that that make me think that maybe counting is just not worth it. If a year isn't the long term, what is? I will have to echo the statements made in many non counter books, and that's that I have never played a billion hands and neither will you.

 

[Sonny]

"The power of the OPP count is again about 82% of the standard Hi Lo with no index play."

I believe independent research by several people, including Qfit, MathProf and Cacarulo, all confirmed that OPP has about 33% of the power of HiLo. That’s the last I heard, maybe there has been more research since then.

I am not a counter and have only read up on it, so I'm still not sure of the meaning of the term "indexes." Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Indices are basic strategy departues that you make based on the count. When you know there are a lot of high cards left in the deck you will double down more often and hit less often to avoid busting, etc.

Fred Renzey has said before that it's possible to play an entire year via counting and end up in the negative. It's comments like that that make me think that maybe counting is just not worth it.

Counting can definitely be a grind, but many people make a good supplemental income from it. How worthwhile it is will depend on you.

If a year isn't the long term, what is?

Here’s the answer:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4891

I will have to echo the statements made in many non counter books, and that's that I have never played a billion hands and neither will you.

As you can see from the link above, you don’t need to play a billion hands to reach the long run. That’s just a trick that the non-counters use because they don’t understand the math.

-Sonny-

 

[SPX]

As you can see from the link above, you don’t need to play a billion hands to reach the long run. That’s just a trick that the non-counters use because they don’t understand the math.

Thanks for the interesting info!

Speaking of non-counters. . .

I will say that anyone who can use a progressive method over the period of a year, playing consistently, and come out ahead has something worth looking into, regardless of the math.

Let's say this: I believe that if I could use a particular method, playing 5 hours a day, 4 times a week, and come out ahead over the period of a year . . . people who count would still call it a losing method because the math doesn't work. If I repeated the success over the next 5 years, counters would still say it doesn't work.

For those people who do write books about non-counting methods and who say that this is the way they've been doing it for years and they are ahead in their overall game, counters basically say they are either liars or lucky, but it seems to me that with that level of play, luck has nothing to do with it because the hours are so many that the "math" would've kicked in by that point.

 

[Sonny]

Let's say this: I believe that if I could use a particular method, playing 5 hours a day, 4 times a week, and come out ahead over the period of a year . . . people who count would still call it a losing method because the math doesn't work. If I repeated the success over the next 5 years, counters would still say it doesn't work.

Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it will work for everybody. People win the lottery but that doesn't mean that they should tell other people that it is a winning game. That is why the math is important to understand.

For those people who do write books about non-counting methods and who say that this is the way they've been doing it for years and they are ahead in their overall game, counters basically say they are either liars or lucky, but it seems to me that with that level of play, luck has nothing to do with it because the hours are so many that the "math" would've kicked in by that point.

Many of the authors don't give any indication of their level of play. One of the guys at my work brags that he's been winning for the past 5 years. I asked him how many time he plays and he said "about two weekends per year." Sometimes these authors are purposely deceitful or will exaggerate their claims in order to sell books (or to look cool in front of the new receiptionist ). Again, that's why it is so important to know the facts before you decide. Don't put your faith in someone's empirical evidence, look at the facts.

-Sonny-

 

[SPX]

Many of the authors don't give any indication of their level of play. One of the guys at my work brags that he's been winning for the past 5 years. I asked him how many time he plays and he said "about two weekends per year." Sometimes these authors are purposely deceitful or will exaggerate their claims in order to sell books. Again, that's why it is so important to know the facts before you decide. Don't put your faith in someone's empirical evidence, look at the facts.

I know that Walter Thomason, for instance, has spent quite a bit of time both playing and researching, and Jay Moore, another author I've read, recorded his results for an year of play at 5 hours per day, two days per week. I'm sure that's probably more than many people on here play!

I also was curious about one other thing. . .

Why do counters not put any stock into the numbers when it comes to how often you will have certain numbers of winning/losing streaks? Consider this. . .

Simulate a million hands or however many you want to simulate. Then determine whether or not, after 4 losing hands, the player wins the 5th hand more often than he loses it. If he does in fact win more often than the loses then let that moment for your big bet.

Flat bet until 4 losses and then bet 10 units. While you can't guarantee that you will win any individual bet, if on average you will win more of that particular bet than you lose then it seems like, over the long run, you will come out ahead.

 

[Sonny]

I know that Walter Thomason, for instance, has spent quite a bit of time both playing and researching…

Not long enough. Walter Thomason’s system has been thoroughly proven to be a failure:

http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/prog__systems.html

All he had to do was play enough hands to see that, and clearly he didn’t.

Why do counters not put any stock into the numbers when it comes to how often you will have certain numbers of winning/losing streaks?

Because you never know which losing streak it is. If you lose 4 hands in a row, is that the end of your 4-hand losing streak or the middle of your 8-hans losing streak? Maybe it’s the beginning of your 15-hand losing streak. How can you put stock in something you can’t predict?

Simulate a million hands or however many you want to simulate. Then determine whether or not, after 4 losing hands, the player wins the 5th hand more often than he loses it.

If you are a non-counter then you are ALWAYS more likely to lose the next hand. It doesn’t matter how many hands you have just lost (or won) you are always the underdog. However, if you count cards then you will know when the house edge has swung in your favor. That’s something you can put stock into.

-Sonny-

 

[SPX]

If you are a non-counter then you are ALWAYS more likely to lose the next hand. It doesn’t matter how many hands you have just lost (or won) you are always the underdog. However, if you count cards then you will know when the house edge has swung in your favor. That’s something you can put stock into.

I would probably not tend to agree with that, which is why 10 hand losing streaks are less common than 3 hand losing streaks. I would be curious to see though. . .

After 4 losing hands, over the course of 100,000 or a million hands or however many you want to play, do you win the 5th more often than lose it.

 

[Sonny]

After 4 losing hands, over the course of 100,000 or a million hands or however many you want to play, do you win the 5th more often than lose it.

See for yourself:

(Dead link: http://www.bjstats.com/bjsc.asp)

Select the table for "Streaks - Hands per Hour" and you'll get the info you need. Trust me, this approach has been tried before by thousands of different people. It doesn't lead to a winning system.

-Sonny-

 

[shadroch]

If I didn't know any better,I'd swear SPX was this guy I went to AC with today.It was so strange,I'm going to start a new thread on it.

 

[SPX]

If I didn't know any better,I'd swear SPX was this guy I went to AC with today.It was so strange,I'm going to start a new thread on it.

****, I wish I went to AC today. That would be pretty sweet.

 

[SPX]

Does anyone know if there is a computer sim that allows you to test progression systems?

I know, I know, a lost cause, sure, but I'd like to see for myself. . .