When Does Bad Counting Become Worse Than No Counting?

[vonQuux]

If you read the posts on these topics it does appear they are asking how much to just get by! [...] I can see where the question can have some interest, but there is just not much here. Is it better to take time and effort on figuring out how to win more or spending time on figuring how to just get by?

What's remarkable is that no matter how many times I point out that my question contains both a "practical" and "sheer curiosity" component, that the practical component has been sufficiently answered and that I have no intention of going into a casino with just enough knowledge to squeak by, you keep insisting my question is purely practical.

I'm interested in the Riemann zeta-hypothesis too and I'm I'm quite sure that won't help me in a casino. Is that OK with you?

So you can keep insisting your motives are my motives but I'm going to keep calling you on it.

vQ

 

[sagefr0g]

Suppose someone is using BS and counting (HI-LO) but not using indices.

At what point does counting errors cause one to lose more than if one didn't bother counting at all? +/-1? +/-2? +/-5?

I'm asking because if I'm at a table and I lose count for some reason, I want to know how "uncertainty" I can rack up before I should either return to straight-up BS or leave the table.

I'm guessing that I should go with what I absolutely "know" and regard the "uncertains" as cards not seen. But suppose I know there were a couple of high cards, I just don't know how many?

TIA,
vQ

let TC' = value of true count percieved
let TC = the actual true count
if TC' + TC <=0
then you are assured of enough error in your counting to be playing at the same level as a basic strategy player or worse assuming that you are betting according to TC' as if it was TC for some known simulation with an advantage.

but in addition if TC' + TC = Z where the max optimal kelley bet is B for some TC and Z is such that you are induced to in reality bet 2B or greater then your ROR = 100% in the long run.

this is my guess. don't take it to the bank lol.

 

[vonQuux]

let TC' = value of true count percieved
let TC = the actual true count
if TC' + TC <=0
then you are assured of enough error in your counting to be playing at the same level as a basic strategy player or worse assuming that you are betting according to TC' as if it was TC for some known simulation with an advantage.

but in addition if TC' + TC = Z where the max optimal kelley bet is B for some TC and Z is such that you are induced to in reality bet 2B or greater then your ROR = 100% in the long run.

this is my guess. don't take it to the bank lol.

I have to admit, I don't quite understand everything you posted but I appreciate it. And I'll chew on it for a few days, see if that helps. :grin:

vQ

 

[sagefr0g]

I have to admit, I don't quite understand everything you posted but I appreciate it. And I'll chew on it for a few days, see if that helps. :grin:

vQ

lol of course you don't understand it. it's utter nonsense. my sincere apologies. i haven't the foggiest what i was trying to do there. sorry
the point was that if the true count that you perceive is always less by the absolute value of the actual true count then you will always think the true count is zero or less and be betting the same as a basic strategy player hence getting the same results as a basic strategy player. conversly you could also percieve the true count to be greater than the actual true count to some degree to where you would be convinced to bet twice or more the optimal bet for that true count and that would result in ROR = 100% like unto a basic strategy player or worse. ....... uhmm at least that's what i think i meant. i think i need some sleep lol.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Sorry If I Misunderstood Your Words.

What's remarkable is that no matter how many times I point out that my question contains both a "practical" and "sheer curiosity" component, that the practical component has been sufficiently answered and that I have no intention of going into a casino with just enough knowledge to squeak by, you keep insisting my question is purely practical.

I'm interested in the Riemann zeta-hypothesis too and I'm I'm quite sure that won't help me in a casino. Is that OK with you?

So you can keep insisting your motives are my motives but I'm going to keep calling you on it.

vQ

>>>>>>>>>>Your words "Once I know this number I have a grade to shoot for." " Now I shouldn't step into a casino until my counting gets within this margin of error."

>>>>>>>>>>All I have tried to point out is how incorrect your thinking is on this issue.
There is no one number, very condition dependent.
Small errors are not disasterous.
Your margin of error in real life will probably be higher then at home, so marginal home play may not bode well for the real world.
You should strive for a high level of ability before risking real money.
Mistakes will happen, try to avoid them.
I don't think anywhere in my posts did I threaten to kick your puppy.

 

[vonQuux]

lol of course you don't understand it. it's utter nonsense. my sincere apologies. i haven't the foggiest what i was trying to do there. sorry

You ass. I spent a half hour trying to figure it out! Haha. Oh man... :laugh:

vQ

 

[Cardcounter]

Mistakes

IF you make 2 mistakes an hour you will not win money if you make more than that you will lose money. So if you make more than 2 mistakes an hour you will lose. Once I was analazing a person play who the pit boss thought was a counter I told him that he makes so many mistakes that you should keep him playing. When I saw him he made several big bets in negative counts but the boss told me he made some big bets in plus 5 counts. Plus he made too many basic stragedy errors my conclusion was even though he was up over a $1,000 on the day over time he is profitable to the casino there the casino should not kick him out.

 

[Kasi]

What's remarkable is that no matter how many times I point out that my question contains both a "practical" and "sheer curiosity" component, that the practical component has been sufficiently answered and that I have no intention of going into a casino with just enough knowledge to squeak by, you keep insisting my question is purely practical[/i

I don't know - I'm going to assume that you are betting like an AP with a disciplined spread.

So, if you can remember how much you bet the last hand, you'll know about where the count was anyway. If it was 1 unit, you know it can't jump enough to call for a big bet. If your max bet occurs at +3, you'll bet the same no matter high you think the count is.

Betting is everything.

 

[blackjack avenger]

A Little True Count Theorem Kasi?

I don't know - I'm going to assume that you are betting like an AP with a disciplined spread.

So, if you can remember how much you bet the last hand, you'll know about where the count was anyway. If it was 1 unit, you know it can't jump enough to call for a big bet. If your max bet occurs at +3, you'll bet the same no matter high you think the count is.

Betting is everything.

Yes, very creative. If you bet a TC1 bet the previous hand and forget the count then all you have to do is look at the discard tray then calculate what the count would have been to make that bet and then proceed.

 

[sagefr0g]

Yes, very creative. If you bet a TC1 bet the previous hand and forget the count then all you have to do is look at the discard tray then calculate what the count would have been to make that bet and then proceed.

lol that's one of the principles of the fuzzy count.