The Halves Count Challenge

[QFIT]

I will go with:
Snyder writes of how small increases add up with bank resizing.

Schlesinger halves "Cadillac of counts" do to its str. across games.
Also, in BJA3 Sch shows why in a team setting a superior count player should earn more!

Qfit in modern bj halves is the top count without side count

And yet, all three of us advise simpler counts.

 

[blackjack avenger]

can we settle the error ?

Does Qfit products consider error? If so then one can run a perfect hi lo vs an error prone halves, at what point are they equal? How bad can a halver be?

 

[QFIT]

Does Qfit products consider error? If so then one can run a perfect hi lo vs an error prone halves, at what point are they equal? How bad can a halver be?

Yes, and it's a good question. I've been meaning to run a study along these lines (if I haven't already -- mad cow) but there are rather a lot of variables to consider.

 

[blackjack avenger]

drive? perfection? success?

And yet, all three of us advise simpler counts.

Agreed, advice for the masses. I don't advocate switching to higher counts. I advocate that they are superior if one can test out.

No one should work harder in the real world for more money? If they can?
Is one more likely to get ahead if they work harder? Aslan help!

The lower ror argument should be compelling?

 

[blackriver]

This reminds me of a quarterback learning more and more plays etc. at some point you need to go practice. After you practice you'll see that you don't need to study more of the same thing, what you need next is to learn how the defense sees things, how to manipulate them, what can you do to integrate with the strengths and weaknesses of your offensive line and the opposing defensive lines. How to scramble and block and pump fake and how to respond in weird situations. I hope you create some elegant 3 dimensional count and don't think its that unlikely. but at this point this sound like some quarterback telling brady manning brees that they are weak for not knowing as many paid as you. Clearly your interest is mostly academic. everyone has known about multi level counts for a long time. Theres just more top the game than that, and if you are trying to hide from variance, goodluck

 

[blackjack avenger]

does ror matter?

Hi lo & halves
ill 18
Wong
Optimal bet ramp
4.5/6 h 17 das
2 hands

Hi lo EV $50.30, ror 13.5%, 1 in 7.4 chance of losing all
Halves EV $50.60 ror 8%, 1 in 12.5 chance of losing all

Let's look at a simple count:
KO rookie EV $19.28, 13.5% ror, 1 in 7.4 chance of losing all
Halves EV $21.00, .5% ror, 1 in 200 chance of losing all

Halves beats hi lo & KO rookie with a lower ror.

A football analogy. I like winning!

The better counts have lower variance, N0

 

[kewljason]

You base your thoughts on pedigree of others? Nothing against anyone you mention.
I will go with:
Snyder writes of how small increases add up with bank resizing.

Schlesinger halves "Cadillac of counts" do to its str. across games.
Also, in BJA3 Sch shows why in a team setting a superior count player should earn more!

Qfit in modern bj halves is the top count without side count

Wong "halves makes almost no error in estimating advantage"
"You can make a million with hi lo, with halves you will make it faster"

Shouldn't you & I be railing against threee :laugh: and his side counts?

Yes, I do consider the opinions of other experiences, successful players that have come before me. This allows me to learn from their knowledge and experience as well as my own.

As far as the rest, I think Norm has already approprietly responded, but I will add that DS has publicly stated that if he were starting out today and knew everything he knew, he would stick with a simple level one count.

I also take into consideration that almost all the teams that we know about employed hi-lo, as well as many sucessful solo players. Most of these players had far superior mathematical abilities to myself and could have easily 'tested out' with a higher count, but concluded that their was just not much extra value in doing so. Again, I try to draw from the knowledge and experience of successful players before me.

Hi lo & halves
ill 18
Wong
Optimal bet ramp
4.5/6 h 17 das
2 hands

Hi lo EV $50.30, ror 13.5%, 1 in 7.4 chance of losing all
Halves EV $50.60 ror 8%, 1 in 12.5 chance of losing all

Let's look at a simple count:
KO rookie EV $19.28, 13.5% ror, 1 in 7.4 chance of losing all
Halves EV $21.00, .5% ror, 1 in 200 chance of losing all

Halves beats hi lo & KO rookie with a lower ror.

RoR? As a player with an non-replenishible bankroll, yes, I place a great deal of importance on this. I currently play to a RoR of a fraction of 1%. Should I consider Halves, so I can lower that? :laugh:

And finally, I am not "railing" against anyone, tthree included. It just seemed to me that lately there have been a tremendous amount of discussion, which would lead newer players to conclude that to succeed in gaining an advantage, you need to employ some multi-level count, with side counts and hundreds of strategy change plays. I feel like Ken's decision to 'sticky' the earlier thread will help newer players see that is simply not so. Thus, ends my need to participate in this discussion. If you want to play Halves or or ustons ultimate count or some level 5 count, go for it. If Three wants to side count every card, and have strategy change indices for all these counts, power to him.

 

[tthree]

And finally, I am not "railing" against anyone, tthree included. It just seemed to me that lately there have been a tremendous amount of discussion, which would lead newer players to conclude that to succeed in gaining an advantage, you need to employ some multi-level count, with side counts and hundreds of strategy change plays. I feel like Ken's decision to 'sticky' the earlier thread will help newer players see that is simply not so. Thus, ends my need to participate in this discussion. If you want to play Halves or or ustons ultimate count or some level 5 count, go for it. If Three wants to side count every card, and have strategy change indices for all these counts, power to him.

I don't know where you get the idea that a tremendous amount discussion that would lead newbies to higher level counts etc. Are you reading the threads. You have a few people who feel they can handle a higher advantage and share their thoughts and lots of people shouting them down and even making it an attack on the people involved. We caution about proficiency and personal limitations and choosing what count fits them best considering their strengths and dedication. We try to show them what they can work toward if they show proficiency at easier tasks and want to put in the work to learn and implement more advanced counting techniques. People with small bankrolls have a different set of problems and controlling ROR is at the top of the list. People advise just spread your bets more the lower level count will be profitable. They can't bet higher because of an already high ROR. People say you can spread down from your max bet but they are already squeezed by the table minimum. They have trouble finding good games and uncrowded conditions due to their bankroll. A newb asked for advice with a small bankroll recently and I read 3 pages of advise that was discouraging and didn't solve his problem. Not one of these experts were tuned in enough to a small bankroll to suggest wonging in at a large advantage and out when it disappeared and betting at a size that opened up bigger profit at a smaller risk. Just how much help do you think you are to these newbies. You are not solving their problems. A healthy dose of reality is a good thing but there are things that are within their abilities that can help. If they can count they can wong. If they can accurately count a stronger count they can lower their ROR. If their skill is multitasking, they can keep multiple counts and add the appropriate ones for high PE for more hand match ups. All the harder techniques take more preparation time which gives them time to add to their bankroll. Everyone knows their skills and limitations better than anyone else does. The strengths and pitfalls for each approach is adequately represented. BJ Avenger , I believe, advises to start with simple counts that relate to your long term goal as a natural stepping stone. If they find this first step to be adequate I doubt they will be quick to put in a lot of effort to go to the next step in their initial plan.

Sorry about rambling on . It is probably the pain killers talking.

 

[blackjack avenger]

blackjack avenger as martin luther

Yes, I do consider the opinions of other experiences, successful players that have come before me. This allows me to learn from their knowledge and experience as well as my own.

As far as the rest, I think Norm has already approprietly responded, but I will add that DS has publicly stated that if he were starting out today and knew everything he knew, he would stick with a simple level one count.

I also take into consideration that almost all the teams that we know about employed hi-lo, as well as many sucessful solo players. Most of these players had far superior mathematical abilities to myself and could have easily 'tested out' with a higher count, but concluded that their was just not much extra value in doing so. Again, I try to draw from the knowledge and experience of successful players before me.




RoR? As a player with an non-replenishible bankroll, yes, I place a great deal of importance on this. I currently play to a RoR of a fraction of 1%. Should I consider Halves, so I can lower that? :laugh:

And finally, I am not "railing" against anyone, tthree included. It just seemed to me that lately there have been a tremendous amount of discussion, which would lead newer players to conclude that to succeed in gaining an advantage, you need to employ some multi-level count, with side counts and hundreds of strategy change plays. I feel like Ken's decision to 'sticky' the earlier thread will help newer players see that is simply not so. Thus, ends my need to participate in this discussion. If you want to play Halves or or ustons ultimate count or some level 5 count, go for it. If Three wants to side count every card, and have strategy change indices for all these counts, power to him.

Aslan, will understand the title.

Is it laziness? is the trait of an AP lazy? Even a lazy hippie Even if one can test out and make more money or have a lower ror they shouldn't? What is probably the number one cause of failure? I would guess variance or going broke. If one looks at my post on ror of rookie KO vs halves, case closed to anyone with an open mind.

You do realize hi lo true count is complex? To make the simplicity argument you should be playing running hi lo or hi lo light. That TC conversion is fraught with danger in the real world. I am not sure the unwashed masses can handle it!

This economy, you don't have a college degree? What situation would you face with a catastrophic draw down? You had better consider a 0% ror. Yep, halves can deliver that!

On team counts, hi lo is easy, especially if u are training spotter counter fodder or GI general infantry. A lone counter probably should have a higher level of training, special forces.

Marketing:
Saying a system is easy is more marketable. Apparently, even if it underperforms.

It's cool:
A lower count using player has more risk while making less. I guess these are desirable,
though I don't know why.

No side counts unless you can and want to.

 

[zengrifter]

See if you can find a count; without side count, that outperforms halves using SCORE and N0.

RAPC-71 should out pull Halves, each with I18 and 6D, zg

 

[QFIT]

Truns out I did look at complexity vs. error rate at (Dead link: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=86) _Card Counting Strategy Complexity vs. Error Rate_

Also, complexity vs. speed at (Dead link: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=93) _Card Counting Strategy Complexity vs. Speed_

 

[kewljason]

Truns out I did look at complexity vs. error rate at (Dead link: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=86) _Card Counting Strategy Complexity vs. Error Rate_

Also, complexity vs. speed at (Dead link: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=93) _Card Counting Strategy Complexity vs. Speed_

A big part of this arguement, Norm, is that the defenders of more complex counts and counts using side counts, refuse to acknowledge any kind of increase in error rate. They always claim that they can play their count with the same efficiency as a simpilar count, which if they are human is not realistic.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

A big part of this arguement, Norm, is that the defenders of more complex counts and counts using side counts, refuse to acknowledge any kind of increase in error rate. They always claim that they can play their count with the same efficiency as a simpilar count, which if they are human is not realistic.

Some can. We all have our above-average and below-average abilities.

Most people perform better when they are slightly challenged than when they are bored. Using a slightly more complicated system than a level 1 single parameter system may decrease error rate. For some people.

 

[QFIT]

I know I count better with a fast dealer/table than a slow one. With a slow table, my mind tends to wander and I forget which cards I've counted. I'm sure there are people that count better with a more complex count.

 

[Friendo]

... refuse to acknowledge any kind of increase in error rate.

I have no idea how many errors I make during the heat of play (playing level II), but I bet it's more than I make when practicing, because I make few errors in practice.

I suspect that the errors I make - no way of knowing for sure - are more due to recognizing the correct card (thinking a 9 is an 8 - oops!) than to the arithmetic: how can you blow "-7 + 3 = -4" if you have done it thousands of times? Running Casino Verité with "peek at count" enabled, I review the hard and usually find card-recognition errors.

With High-Low, such errors matter a lot less: fewer cards to worry about, and positive cards all have the same weight, as do negative cards, and faces/tens/aces are hard to confuse with 2-6.

So my guess is that arithmetic errors with higher counts are not as big a deal as card-recognition errors. No way of proving this, of course.

As for speed, there's another cause of slowness which isn't discussed much: true-count conversion. You can ignore the unusual index plays (4-4 vs. 3, for example), but the positive-index decisions usually cost me about 1 second. Does this matter? Would K/O without fudging have any meaningful speed advantage over a similar true-counted count?

 

[blackjack avenger]

thanks qfit

Shows the importance of passing the skills test and importsnce of speed of play regardless of count.

I never denied a casino error rate but you either pass a skills test or you doont.

30 sec. Being the standard, if I can hi lo in 26, but halves in 30. I still pass. One may not actually be slower. There is a limit to how fast cards can be flipped by hand.

The basic task of counting without side count should be similar enough to not be overly fatiguing. The mind and body will get in shape for a task at hand. I don't recall children fainting from fatigue in math class when multiplying vs adding. A bigger jump in complexity?

Even if one does fatigue, there playing time is higher quality. A 5% drop in playing time, but more return per time may well be worth it. What if there is no extra fatigue? The difference between hi lo & halves is small, yet I make more $. Isn't that what counting is about?

If a common strategy is hit and run then one needs to maximize their limited casino time, the break between casinos should lessen fatigue.
Higher level count can mean less casino time needed, great camo.

The beauty is there are so many levels of counts that one can pick to match their level of commitment.

No one has posted a sim beating halves, yet.

 

[psyduck]

No one has posted a sim beating halves, yet.

See post #3 in this thread.

 

[Freightman]

Have used Halves for 3 years

BJA Sch. refers to halves as the Cadillac of counts.

Halves outperforms hi lo while considering the same cards as hi lo, just in a different way, no side counts.


I graduated to halves from Hi Lo - after some encouragement from a colleague.It was difficult at first - it is now automatic. Most people start counting with Hi Lo - halves is an obvious progression as it uses virtually the exact same indices.

Counting groups of cards is every bit as instantaneous as Hi Lo. Wouldn't dream of changing.

 

[blackjack avenger]

i addressed this

See post #3 in this thread.

49 indices is outside the challenge parameters. If u choose 49 indices that is fine for u.

I kept the indices in a range of what is now doctrine?

 

[psyduck]

49 indices is outside the challenge parameters. If u choose 49 indices that is fine for u.

I kept the indices in a range of what is now doctrine?

For 24 indices:

system                 win/h          SCORE          N0
Wong half              $19.13         14.16          70637
Mentor                 $19.69         14.64          68306

I think you owe me a challenge prize!