Teams?

[traynor]

This looks like a Newbie comment. daily and weekly? I would say 1000 table hours is a pretty good determination of how well someone can play.... And even that I would not say is the LONG term. My last twenty hours of play I've been making 3x what my EV is supposed to be. Does that mean I must be a really great player? NOt bloody likely!

Its an interesting opinion. Mine is different. The idea that datasets layered appropriately cannot be used as a representative sampling of a larger population is inaccurate. It just takes a bit more thought in layering and modeling.

What you do on any given day is irrelevant, except if you do it regularly, over a number of days. Consider a bootstrap algorithm that extracts daily totals from a week or two (or three); using random sampling without replacement, you can get a nice overview of reality. If there are spikes in the dataset, it indicates anomalies. Your unusual results for a given day or two would show up as a spike, and be routinely discarded. When a given dataset indicates relatively consistent data points, and those data points are consistently higher than a baseline, it provides interesting information.
Good Luck

 

[traynor]

ah yes now i understand. well i'm here conscious competence - "I can do it, but it takes my full attention" and i want to get there unconscious competence - "I can do it without thinking about it every moment (like driving or catching a thrown ball)"
how am i going to do that? do i just jump in the pool and sink or swim or is there some sort of pathway one follows to reach that level?
i think as far as driving and being able to do it second nature is that it's one always has the status of the car in the back of ones mind then when a safety priority situation arises one brings the driving to the major focus of the mind.
hmm i think i getting the idea. thank you.

best regards,
mr fr0g

Almost any activity can be internalized to the degree that "normal" performance is almost automatic, including most intellectual tasks involving decision-making. For a highly readable intro to the topic, you might enjoy a recent best-seller called Blink. A little fluffy, but interesting.
Good Luck

 

[traynor]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
i gotta ask what was this person doing that made him/her such a stellar performer?

best regards,
mr fr0g


right sir. i figured as much. but what i was really asking is what were the traits that was contributing to this person's success?

best regards,
mr fr0g

She made "mistakes" in playing strategy. More of her mistakes resulted in wins than losses.
Good Luck

 

[sagefr0g]

She made "mistakes" in playing strategy. More of her mistakes resulted in wins than losses.
Good Luck

:laugh: :laugh:

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[shadroch]

I would think you can judge a player after observing only few shoes.
Did they make the correct play every hand, and did they bet the correct amount on every hand.It doesn't matter if they win or lose the hand,its how they play them.Didn't you learn this in grammer school?
99% of most players would be eliminated before the cut card on the second shoe.

 

[traynor]

I would think you can judge a player after observing only few shoes.
Did they make the correct play every hand, and did they bet the correct amount on every hand.It doesn't matter if they win or lose the hand,its how they play them.Didn't you learn this in grammer school?
99% of most players would be eliminated before the cut card on the second shoe.

Totalmente de acuerdo. If you can't tell how good a player is until you have watched (or recorded, or monitored) months of play, you might need a bit more experience in the realities of blackjack, and especially, of blackjack teams. I agree completely, the wins or losses are irrelevant; it is how they play each hand that is important. Fortunately, that is quite easy to measure, and to measure precisely, with minimal effort.
Good Luck

 

[traynor]

:laugh: :laugh:

best regards,
mr fr0g

In blackjack, there are judgement calls. While many pretend it is absolutely precise, reality is that a borderline case (for example, estimating remaining cards to adjust a running count) can go either way. If the estimate is "correct," (meaning fairly accurate) a playing decision goes one way; if the estimate is "incorrect," (meaning "less accurate") a playing decision goes another way.

In most casino play, the result of borderline cases is unknown; the estimates are made, the playing decisions are made, and play continues. Much like the spoken history of primitive tribes, passed on from generation to generation by "storytellers," no one really knows if that decision was correct. There is no metric to dictate whether the estimate was correct or incorrect.

We have a metric that determines optimal play; in borderline decisions involving subjective evaluations, she made more decisions that turned out well (won) than turned out poorly (lost).
Good Luck

 

[Bojack1]

In blackjack, there are judgement calls. While many pretend it is absolutely precise, reality is that a borderline case (for example, estimating remaining cards to adjust a running count) can go either way. If the estimate is "correct," (meaning fairly accurate) a playing decision goes one way; if the estimate is "incorrect," (meaning "less accurate") a playing decision goes another way.

In most casino play, the result of borderline cases is unknown; the estimates are made, the playing decisions are made, and play continues. Much like the spoken history of primitive tribes, passed on from generation to generation by "storytellers," no one really knows if that decision was correct. There is no metric to dictate whether the estimate was correct or incorrect.

We have a metric that determines optimal play; in borderline decisions involving subjective evaluations, she made more decisions that turned out well (won) than turned out poorly (lost).
Good Luck

I must say traynor of all your posts this one does surprise me the most. For someone who claims to be as precise as you do, I would think you would know that estimating the remaining cards is for adjusting the true count, not the running count. Or is it a case of ambiguity and obfuscation in language implying an equivalent disregard for precision in other matters. As you know those are the same words written by you in this very same thread.

I also believe although its called deck estimation, if you are playing at a high level of skill of say that of a professional level, than there should never be a time where deck estimation will be left up to a judgement call. You're estimations should be close enough to where the right decision is a constant. Being off a few cards will not change your true count calculations, which in turn will not effect your betting decisions. We estimate to the 1/4 deck, as I have said before we practice to be perfect, and are tested on it regularly. Although its hard to be perfect, being off by 3 or 4 cards will not effect the end result. While I agree there may be some borderline calls in blackjack, I do not believe they come in the situations of deck estimation, true count calculations, and bet sizing. For such estimates to be so off that they don't even round to the proper size,it is not borderline, its flat out wrong. The only borderline calls I believe happen when you have a deviation to basic strategy based on the count and its very close, but even than there is a right answer and a wrong one, there's just a fine line between the two. If you liken it to standing on top of a sheer cliff, standing only a few inches from the edge. You are on what is a borderline, one step in the wrong direction and you die, a step in the other direction you are safe. Very little distance separates right from wrong but its obvious to make the right decision. Of course blackjack consequences are not that dire, but its just a way of saying no matter how close a decision, there is a right one and a wrong one.

 

[traynor]

I must say traynor of all your posts this one does surprise me the most. For someone who claims to be as precise as you do, I would think you would know that estimating the remaining cards is for adjusting the true count, not the running count. Or is it a case of ambiguity and obfuscation in language implying an equivalent disregard for precision in other matters. As you know those are the same words written by you in this very same thread.

I also believe although its called deck estimation, if you are playing at a high level of skill of say that of a professional level, than there should never be a time where deck estimation will be left up to a judgement call. You're estimations should be close enough to where the right decision is a constant. Being off a few cards will not change your true count calculations, which in turn will not effect your betting decisions. We estimate to the 1/4 deck, as I have said before we practice to be perfect, and are tested on it regularly. Although its hard to be perfect, being off by 3 or 4 cards will not effect the end result. While I agree there may be some borderline calls in blackjack, I do not believe they come in the situations of deck estimation, true count calculations, and bet sizing. For such estimates to be so off that they don't even round to the proper size,it is not borderline, its flat out wrong. The only borderline calls I believe happen when you have a deviation to basic strategy based on the count and its very close, but even than there is a right answer and a wrong one, there's just a fine line between the two. If you liken it to standing on top of a sheer cliff, standing only a few inches from the edge. You are on what is a borderline, one step in the wrong direction and you die, a step in the other direction you are safe. Very little distance separates right from wrong but its obvious to make the right decision. Of course blackjack consequences are not that dire, but its just a way of saying no matter how close a decision, there is a right one and a wrong one.

The true count is the result of adjusting the running count. That is, the true count is a derivative of the running count. That seems fairly simple, and not at all ambiguous.

What someone chooses to call a specific thing is irrelevant from my standpoint. You can call it "deck estimation" or you can call it "boiled turnips." Ultimately, it is only a label, not the thing itself. Or are you not a fan of Korzybski?

Ingroup jargon as a means of implying membership is such a dog-eared concept that it is surprising to see you use it. I am not a member of your group, nor are you a member of mine. That allows each of us to attach whatever label we fancy to whatever thing we choose to label. Your way and my way have equal valence; neither is "right," neither is "wrong," and both are simply conventions adopted to facilitate communication exchanges.

The accuracy of your estimating skills was never the issue (or a part of the discussion); the issue was the estimating skills of the person in question. I am uncertain what you think you are disputing; you indicate agreement, then pose it as "conflict." There is no conflict.

"Borderline" decisions imply a dichotomy, with one being 'correct," and the other "incorrect." You know, like the two sides of a border? One right, one wrong, one on, one off, one correct, one incorrect--it is all the same. Only words, which may or may not mean the same thing to you as they mean to me, or to anyone else.

Good Luck

 

[Bojack1]

As I agree that you will find your true count by using the information of the running count, you do not adjust your running count by estimating the remaining cards such as you stated. The running count is one part of the equation of finding the true count, but it is totally independent of remaining card estimation, or whatever you choose to call it. The running count is one component of a mathematical equation, which I'm sure you'll agree leaves no room for interpretation as math is universal. If you find your running count in the way in which you stated could be a borderline call, then you are wrong and your true count calculation also has to be wrong. My point being, the way you stated of finding a running count is false. It takes simple counting to achieve an RC. If in fact if you do anything else to get it than you are mistaken.

I never said my deck estimation skills where in question, it was a point made to refute your statement of borderline calls. As I said before there may be borderline calls in blackjack, estimating played cards should not be one to a skilled experienced player. I will agree there are other circumstances that might be a borderline decision, but not a judgement. My system of communicating is really no different than yours, even still, math is its own language and not left for interpretation. If in fact your math or equations to find an end result are wrong, than you are wrong no matter what your opinion on ingroup jargon is.

On a side not not related to blackjack, no I am not a fan of Korzybski. His writings have become out of date, out of touch and obsolete since his publishing of Science and Sanity in the 1930's. I much more relate to Tarski and his writings, especially The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages. In my opinion its ideology stands as true today as when it was written, unlike that of Korzbyski.

 

[sagefr0g]

.........
I also believe although its called deck estimation, if you are playing at a high level of skill of say that of a professional level, than there should never be a time where deck estimation will be left up to a judgement call. You're estimations should be close enough to where the right decision is a constant. Being off a few cards will not change your true count calculations, which in turn will not effect your betting decisions. We estimate to the 1/4 deck, as I have said before we practice to be perfect, and are tested on it regularly. Although its hard to be perfect, being off by 3 or 4 cards will not effect the end result. While I agree there may be some borderline calls in blackjack, I do not believe they come in the situations of deck estimation, true count calculations, and bet sizing. For such estimates to be so off that they don't even round to the proper size,it is not borderline, its flat out wrong.
..........

sir when i employ deck estimation in order to obtain my true count from the running count i only use full decks in the computation. i play mainly six deck games. i'm able to accurately visually identify one deck, two decks, three decks and four decks in the discard tray. additionally if i observe say only a half a deck in the discard tray or lets say less than a full deck in the discard tray then for my computation of the true count i make that computation as if there are no cards in the discard tray which in essence means i'm in this case dividing the RC by 6. and i carry that way of estimating and computing over as the cards are dealt out. for example lets say now i observe a full deck in the discard tray or perhaps more than a full deck but less than two decks in the discard tray. what i do in that situation is i would divide the RC by 5 .
ect. ect. .....
now i read about your using quarter deck estimation. the point of doing so i assume is to glean a greater advantage. the question i have being what degree of advantage do you expect to obtain by using quarter deck estimation as opposed to full deck estimation? additionally i wonder how you make your optimal bet decisions with such knowledge.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Bojack1]

sir when i employ deck estimation in order to obtain my true count from the running count i only use full decks in the computation. i play mainly six deck games. i'm able to accurately visually identify one deck, two decks, three decks and four decks in the discard tray. additionally if i observe say only a half a deck in the discard tray or lets say less than a full deck in the discard tray then for my computation of the true count i make that computation as if there are no cards in the discard tray which in essence means i'm in this case dividing the RC by 6. and i carry that way of estimating and computing over as the cards are dealt out. for example lets say now i observe a full deck in the discard tray or perhaps more than a full deck but less than two decks in the discard tray. what i do in that situation is i would divide the RC by 5 .
ect. ect. .....
now i read about your using quarter deck estimation. the point of doing so i assume is to glean a greater advantage. the question i have being what degree of advantage do you expect to obtain by using quarter deck estimation as opposed to full deck estimation? additionally i wonder how you make your optimal bet decisions with such knowledge.

best regards,
mr fr0g

I understand what you're doing there and if you are going to broadly estimate than thats the way to go, at least you wont be overbetting. The problem is unless its a time in the shoe when it happens that there is a whole number of decks left you will be underbetting between 1/4 and 3/4 unit for each bet. That will most certainly add up over time. Of course with very small units its not very practical to bet with 1/4 units, but why not with a $10 dollar unit at least get the extra 1/2 unit out there if the math calls for it. Honestly its when you get to the bigger units that it really makes a difference as far as betting goes. With a $100 unit it won't look odd to bet 1/4 units, and you'll be playing along almost perfectly with your advantage as opposed to a good enough approach. Its still its not a bad idea to learn how to play 1/4 decks and units with the small units as the more knowledge you have the stronger your game will eventually be. There are simple math shortcuts to figure the true counts to the nearest 1/4 once your deck estimation is right on. for example if you have 3 1/4 decks left just multiply your running count by .3 than round to the nearest 1/4 if needed. There are shortcuts like this for almost every 1/4 increment of deck sizing, and its all fairly simple, and it comes from the brain of MIT Mike so its a proven effective method, and if it matters at all I swear by it also.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I understand what you're doing there and if you are going to broadly estimate than thats the way to go, at least you wont be overbetting. The problem is unless its a time in the shoe when it happens that there is a whole number of decks left you will be underbetting between 1/4 and 3/4 unit for each bet. That will most certainly add up over time. Of course with very small units its not very practical to bet with 1/4 units, but why not with a $10 dollar unit at least get the extra 1/2 unit out there if the math calls for it. Honestly its when you get to the bigger units that it really makes a difference as far as betting goes. With a $100 unit it won't look odd to bet 1/4 units, and you'll be playing along almost perfectly with your advantage as opposed to a good enough approach. Its still its not a bad idea to learn how to play 1/4 decks and units with the small units as the more knowledge you have the stronger your game will eventually be. There are simple math shortcuts to figure the true counts to the nearest 1/4 once your deck estimation is right on. for example if you have 3 1/4 decks left just multiply your running count by .3 than round to the nearest 1/4 if needed. There are shortcuts like this for almost every 1/4 increment of deck sizing, and its all fairly simple, and it comes from the brain of MIT Mike so its a proven effective method, and if it matters at all I swear by it also.

On the other hand, mis-sizing bets affects variance not advantage (as long as you are rounding, not flooring, and the misestimation is random not biased towards + or -.) and being most teams play with a rather small Kelly fraction to begin with the added variance from full-deck estimation isn't going to amount to very much. And it's been proven that playing indices can be very inaccurate without losing much efficiency either.

Still, every little bit helps. In the new level 2 system I'm working on, all the playing indices are rounded to 5 or 10, so if the RC is +17 and you estimate 2.3 decks, you don't have to be that quick to figure out you're standing on 12 vs. 2 but not doubling 10 vs. A.

 

[sagefr0g]

true count definition

here is one view with respect to a definition of the term true count

http://www.dictionaryofgambling.com/gambling_terms/blackjack/t/index.htm#true_count

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[supercoolmancool]

here is one view with respect to a definition of the term true count

http://www.dictionaryofgambling.com/gambling_terms/blackjack/t/index.htm#true_count

best regards,
mr fr0g

Should you truncate your true count?

 

[sagefr0g]

Should you truncate your true count?

good question supercool. i been thinking about that. i have been flooring my deck estimation so as i figure it that floors my true count. when i run my simulator program sage blackjack (no relation) thats how i set it up (ie flooring the deck estimation and figuring the true count by full deck estimation)
i suppose Bojack's approach is best for high end betting players but my way probably suffices for a low stakes player such as myself. as i understand it advantage is not a linear function of the fractions between integral true counts so i should imagine if you estimate by quarter deck or half deck you'd need to correlate the advantage from a simulation to get the most bang for your buck.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Bojack1]

I will tread lightly here as I do not wish to offend anyone. I do respect anyone who tries to play this game of blackjack at an advantage. However I have seen so many try to do everything possible to try to simplify their game. What it boils down to is really finding ways to weaken it. I have been around a lot of successful advantage players in my life, some of the best I suspect. The common thread between them all is that none of them try to make what works easier, they work hard to make hard work easier. Now I understand it doesn't have to be that way for everybody. If you're a recreational player that plays for the fun more than money than I understand, and there is absolutely no reason to play any other way than what you feel comfortable with. But since all advantages in this game are so minute, its been ingrained in me to squeeze every last bit out that I can. There are many levels of commitment to the craft of advantage play, truth be told you will know which one you are at with the rewards that you reap. Good luck to all who play this game, we all need some degree of it, I just choose not to depend on it.

 

[traynor]

As I agree that you will find your true count by using the information of the running count, you do not adjust your running count by estimating the remaining cards such as you stated. The running count is one part of the equation of finding the true count, but it is totally independent of remaining card estimation, or whatever you choose to call it. The running count is one component of a mathematical equation, which I'm sure you'll agree leaves no room for interpretation as math is universal. If you find your running count in the way in which you stated could be a borderline call, then you are wrong and your true count calculation also has to be wrong. My point being, the way you stated of finding a running count is false. It takes simple counting to achieve an RC. If in fact if you do anything else to get it than you are mistaken.

I never said my deck estimation skills where in question, it was a point made to refute your statement of borderline calls. As I said before there may be borderline calls in blackjack, estimating played cards should not be one to a skilled experienced player. I will agree there are other circumstances that might be a borderline decision, but not a judgement. My system of communicating is really no different than yours, even still, math is its own language and not left for interpretation. If in fact your math or equations to find an end result are wrong, than you are wrong no matter what your opinion on ingroup jargon is.

On a side not not related to blackjack, no I am not a fan of Korzybski. His writings have become out of date, out of touch and obsolete since his publishing of Science and Sanity in the 1930's. I much more relate to Tarski and his writings, especially The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages. In my opinion its ideology stands as true today as when it was written, unlike that of Korzbyski.

The true count is derived from the running count; hence, the true count can properly be viewed as an "adjustment of the running count."

My reference to Korzybski was, specifically, the insight that is an integral part of semiotics; people respond to representations as if the representation is the thing itself. If anyone finds that obscure, he or she may be more familiar with the phrase, "the map is not the territory." The relevance is that one of the (many) cognitive deficiencies that pass (generally) unnoticed is labeling something as X or Y, then processing further information as if that being observed actually were X or Y, complete with all the implied attributes of X or Y.
Good Luck

Excerpt from link posted above:
<quote>The true count is derived from the running count divided by the number of decks left in the shoe. <end quote> If your objective is refutation, I think you may be coming up short. It seems that (in the real world, not in theory) there is more than a casual connection between the cards remaining and the true count.

 

[kender]

perhaps I'm taking this a little bit towards the Zen Zone but...

Interjection :joker:

My reference to Korzybski was, specifically, the insight that is an integral part of semiotics; people respond to representations as if the representation is the thing itself. If anyone finds that obscure, he or she may be more familiar with the phrase, "the map is not the territory."

I've always been fascinated with Magritte's painting "This is not a pipe." If you don't know it, you should look it up, as it represents the idea you are talking about here.

Anyway, continue with the banter. :juggle:

 

[traynor]

Interjection :joker:



I've always been fascinated with Magritte's painting "This is not a pipe." If you don't know it, you should look it up, as it represents the idea you are talking about here.

Anyway, continue with the banter. :juggle:

Exactly. I ran across it in Tufte's book on visual design, and it is a much more eloquent representation of the idea that Korzybski tried to develop. Thanks for the reference.
Good Luck