+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Variance for today's game and new rules

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Every game looks good when I sit down to play. But sometimes it turns bad after I've sat down to play. Variance is much like runs in a basketball game. Most is understandable. This is why I have a "built in" stop - for that session. It's like a timeout.

    I don't concern myself over me getting bad hands and the dealer getting good hands. I get two cards and the dealer gets two. It's the old Don S flipping coin theory. I am concerned when the dealer is constantly beating my good hands. For instance, I have a 20 and the dealer beats it with a 6 followed by 3 cards. OR a dealer gets a blackjack off the top of the first 3 decks and 6 in the first two decks. The maximum would only be 8.

    But the real kicker is what I call the staggers. I get a 10 and a small. I'm always facing a ten. IF I hit? I break with a 10 dealt. IF I stand? Dealers flips a small and hits to win. Unlike KJ, I'm not going to sit forever and watch that happen. Money lost is money I NOW have to win back.

    In a column count I will have an idea of the odds of certain things that happen. Actually, I know exactly what is played and more importantly, exactly what still remains to be played. In HiLO, KJ doesn't have a clue. So he plays like a dumbass and loses $29k while I'm getting out of a bad situation and looking for another good. THAT is fighting variance and opposed to waiting for the math to bring your back.

    In sports bets, people will ask me who I think will win. I don't have any idea and don't care in most cases. I'm playing the percentages. If I make sound investments the dollars will take care of themselves over the course of the season. It's the same thing in blackjack. Only even more important because the house can say "no mas" at anytime, and really, for any reason.

    KJ doesn't get this. Probably because he spends more time on forums worrying about nonsense. He wants a fight but he's just too big of a chicken. Man, to succeed in blackjack, you'd better have a fighter mentality. I doubt he could lose 29 cents without losing a grip. Let alone $29k. Simply put, he is too much of a panzy on these forums to ever be taken seriously.

    Now someday I will find him and see for myself.
    Last edited by Moses; June 19th, 2019 at 12:37 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default Column Count vs Conventional

    Again, a column count will reduce variance in many ways. It is more difficult (but not impossible) with a conventional count. For instance, I had a 2 hand max bet out the other day with at least 67% high cards remaining and 33% or less low cards remaining. My 1st hand was 6,5 vs 5 so I doubled and got a 7. Not too bad. 2nd hand is A2. I hit a 4 and then a 5 for 12. Still feeling good. Dealer flips and 8 and hits another 8. Bam, 3 hands lost in a two hand play. No, I'm not complaining because I lost. But my question to myself at the time was "where are the fucking 10s"?

    Obviously, the deck was loaded with middle cards and they came out perfectly just enough to bite me in the ass. In a column count I would've made that read and played the hand as a minimum bet.
    Now, IF God is really watching blackjack and cares about the results? Well, he doesn't hate me as much as he hates ZenKing.

    But, then again, he doesn't like me nearly as much as he favors Midwest Player.

    Therefore, I have to work at this game just to get 60% wins 40% losses.

    I get Freighter. He plays Wong Halves. Essentially, he's assigned a tag value to every card in the deck except the 8. Plus he either side counts the Ace or keeps a separate tally for perfect insurance. A handy little item with a large bet out. Plus, he is of sound mind, so he takes the game in stride and looks for his spots. Hence, not just relying on math. No?

    In my example. Reading A-9, 5-7, 2-4 left to right. IF the count was 8-8-8, I know I have a solid deck composition AND a high TC. But if it was 8-6-10, I know I have a deck rich in high cards but also rich in 5-7s. There can only be 2 remaining of the 2-4s. That was probably the case in the losing scenario above.

    Don S and CV Data were primary factors in improving the column count. Once I understood the conventional method and Don S practical solutions it was much easier to define my game. The math? Everything has a formula. Learn the formula and the math is easy. Then it simply comes down to memory of cards.

    Yes, my conventional count does provide a higher percentage of plays. But why have more plays with poor deck compositions? The column count large bets are always on solid deck compositions. Why? The formula says so. Along with the review of thousands of hands for comparison.
    Last edited by Moses; June 21st, 2019 at 08:49 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Norm writes:
    Yes, blackjack sounds like such a simple game. But, it took two years for the four horseman to develop the first basic strategy tables, and they weren't quite correct. Obviously, counting indices are vastly more complex as there are quadrillions of ways specific counts can be created at different parts of the shoe. It can take over a billion instructions to create one index.

    I didn't know this much effort went into it. Plus it was at a time when technology wasn't nearly as efficient as it is today. It comes down to style of game, rules, and money. Most important, what's been played and what still remains to be played. In a straight up game, the next card is a huge factor as well. It seems these 4 horseman were working based on a one size fits all theory. No wonder it took 4 guys 2 years.
    Can you imagine how long it would take with 20 guys on a forum?

    In basketball, coach was adamant about not taking bad shots. Straight up single deck blackjack is a sprint. So don't take out Aces and tens unnecessarily. The minimum bets will balance and the large bets come at the end of the deck.

    In a SDSU game with 1/2 count betting, the RC 0 occurs 28% of the time, add another 21% for -1 to +1, and another 18% for -2 to 2+ according to CV Data. The means 2/3rds of your game is played between the two's. It's the other 1/3rd that truly matters. This is where your setting yourself up for the large bet, making the large or deciding to get one more round. Or just trying to get out of a bad/negative deck.

    The indices are barometers for the best possible threshold. However, there is a big difference between a threshold and an advantage, or better yet the point of disadvantage. Knowing THIS is where you reduce variance significantly. Self professed APs are spending a lifetime chasing thresholds that may never balance accordingly during their playing lifetime. Then, missing on advantages and not realizing where the difference between a threshold and a disadvantage goes minimal from to major. THAT is a handy little piece of info right there!
    Last edited by Moses; June 24th, 2019 at 12:33 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default Is there an Algebra teaches or whiz out there?

    Okay, so here is what we know. Assuming the first round of the deck. There are 16 cards that improve a 16. There are 32 cards that will break it. There are 4 Aces that one would have have to start their next hand with than getting to 17.

    So, according to the BS of the 4 wise men, 2/3rds or 67% of the time, the fat lady is singing before the dealer ever has to flip the hole card.

    Speaking of hole cards. IF a ten is showing, there are 27 cards saying the dealers doesn't hit (in H17 game). There are 20 cards that make the dealer hit. So 57.44% of the time the dealer doesn't hit. Whereas 42.56% of the time the dealer does hit. Hence, if the Ace is in the hole, the fat lady is already singing a very sad song.

    There are 4 Aces and 16 Tens in a deck. So 38.46% of the time you start your hand with a ten or Ace. The formula should reflect the value of standing over hitting with this taken into consideration for a single deck game. I think Don S came up with the idea and the 4 horseman overlooked it. No? So what is the formula?
    Last edited by Moses; June 24th, 2019 at 10:05 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Bosox writes:
    I laughed my ass off at the single deck wizard.

    You didn't know that 16 cards improve a 16? Well, why don't you wipe that stupid grin off your face and come play me. All talk? And only a little of that is very smart. Don't even try to read this thread Bosox. It's way over your head. The 2,3,4,5s improve a 16. There are 4 of each in a single deck. That's 16 cards. Glad you laughed your ass off. Frankly, I don't see the humor. But whatever, dipshit. Clearly, you didn't get the rest of the post above. Smart move. You'd have busted a spring.
    Last edited by Moses; June 24th, 2019 at 09:17 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Midwest Player writes:

    I always thought 20 cards improve a 16. Looks like our island friend isn't counting the Ace.

    No. You're big city dipshit didn't copy and paste the next sentence. So, what do you want? A 17? Or to start your next hand with an Ace? Maybe start a poll?

    There are 20 cards that will improve 15 (41.66%) 28 cards will break it (58.33%). The Ace is not included as it only gets you to 16 which takes us back to post #34. Try to contain yourself Bosox, it's not really all that funny. For instance, you have 15v10. You hit and get an Ace. You hit again and break with a 10. Dealer flips over a 10. So you had no chance of winning in the first place. You could've started your next hand with an Ace. Now, you face being down 5 large to 1 small, so the prospect increases of starting your next hand with a small card. By the time you get back to even or positive territory? The dealer is shuffling. Looking at the numbers, you only had a 41.66% chance of improving your hand. You had a 38.46% chance of getting an Ace and/or 10. What is so fucking funny about that?
    Last edited by Moses; June 25th, 2019 at 10:30 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    The next step is assigning card values to 2-7s. It's impossible. No wonder the max bets wins only run 51.30% at high TC on CV Data. It's not what you do with what you don't know. It's what you don't do with what you know. For instance, suppose the 2,3,4, come out early and your looking at a 3-2-8 deck composition. This appears to be a good bet TC wise. Essentially, you're betting into a deck that is also rich in 5-7s. Or late in the deck, you've got 9-10-5. Now your betting into a deck rich in large cards but also rich in 2-4s. But this poor deck composition looks great from a TC standpoint.

    The best results reaching into the higher echelons of percentage wins comes by avoiding these bad deck compositions. IF you have 60% high cards and 40% low remaining, your 5-7s and 2-4s should not be more than 2 in separation. A 12-8-8 is great. A 12-9-7 or 12-7-9 are good. A 12-10-6 or a 12-6-10 are bad.
    If you have 67% high cards remaining and 33% low remaining then your 5-7s and 2-4s should not be more than 3 in separation. This takes PATIENCE! But it's worth it because you've reduced the volatility significantly, increased profits, and avoided suspicion by passing on high TC hands with bad deck compositions.

    The idea is to win your session. Not spend your life at a blackjack table chasing EV and accepting variance because someone else said it's the only way to play the game.
    Last edited by Moses; June 26th, 2019 at 09:29 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default Notes on 14 vs 7-A

    I was watching the NBA playoff with on old acquaintance who did the assigning for NBA officials in the sportsbook awhile back. He was here to golf and then off to some other country for a basketball round robin tourney. We'd worked some championship games together back in the 90's and he was an evaluator at some of the camps I attended during my comeback in 2013. It was interesting to recall how differently he/we see the game from a fan, player, or coaches perspective. One of the things he said most younger officials ask him about is calling fouls in the paint. If you have 4 and call 4 your calling the game to tight. If you don't call any, the it's going to get out of hand real quick. He like's to call one and warn. I liked to call 3 and let the players/coaches adjust to my game...which is probably I'm not in the NBA.
    Somehow this seems to be a similar dilemma with 14 on large bets. Damned if you hit. Damned if you Stand.

    Excluding Aces. The deck is split 50% 2-7s which is improve or not hurt the hand and 50% 8-10s which will bust the hand.


    The difference between hitting and standing at the CV Index for TC threshold is minimal. The biggest jump is between RC 3 and 4. But this would mean standing on more than normal minimum bets. Stand at RC +2 vs is the best option, The value doesn't change and it preserves large cards.


    So lets start the line with 57% large card tag values remaining and 43% small tags remaining.


    Stand at 67%. We are back to the 2 to 1 ratio. Hence, you'll bust out 2 times out of 3 if you hit.


    Hit at 57% . But stand at or close to 60% if you can go from a minimum to a large bet on your next hence.


    For instance, your hand is 14 your count is 6-6-6 which is 60% tags values. IF you take out a 10 and/or and Ace, a 7-6-6 puts you below the large bet line.


    Suppose your count is 6-5-6. You stand and the dealer flips a small and takes out 2 smalls and busts. You still win and your at 6-7-6 for your next round. IF its the final round, hit up to just below 67%.


    You could side count the 8 for this purpose if you haven't already included it in your tag assignments. And it could be used to side count 11 vs 10. But with the ranges set so high and the adjustment to not bet into bad deck compositions, the frequency is so rare that it isn't necessary.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    FWIW, just a slightly different perspective. You know I also know a thing or two about Wall Street and investing. I have rarely heard people who invest in stocks and bonds called "gamblers." The general term is "investor." Investing can expose you to risk, of course, but if it is commensurate to and acceptable for the gain that you expect, then most investors are willing to accept that risk. The point is, rarely, if ever, have I heard stock market investors, or people who put a large portion of their 401(k)s into growth stocks, called "gamblers."

    Meanwhile, if you run the numbers, the overall annual risk (volatility) of the market, for a given amount of upfront investment, is considerably greater than that risk/reward (Sharpe) ratio (which I originally called "Desirability Index") for card counting.

    So, no, it may be just semantics, but I don't agree that, done properly, card counting is "gambling."

    Don

    A well worded post worth saving. So I bet on games after doing extensive research. I own the stock for 3 or 4 hours. It either doubles or is worth a drink coupon. People have 401K's don't know what they are worth are what is in them. And I'm the gambler in their eyes? I bet a 50% market dive would change their tune.

    Knowledge reduces risk. I'm sure you'd said this to investors many times. Same thing in blackjack. IF we acquire enough knowledge, the difference between winning and losing today is far less significant. The REAL RISK is being allowed to PLAY tomorrow.

    In blackjack, I wait for the game to come to me. In stocks, I don't pressure myself into finding a stock to buy. I wait until the ones fitting my criteria are at a premium price. Same difference.

    It's like the story about the young bull and the old bull. The young bull says to the old bull sitting under a shade tree. "Let's run down the hill and boink one of dem cows." The old bull replies "nah, let's stroll down and boink'em all." KJ and 21Forme are the cows.
    Last edited by Moses; June 29th, 2019 at 10:58 AM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Sharky writes:
    freighty...i, too, play tons of heads up...and can get where you are coming from for, and myself, painfully, playing negative shoes....neg indices included...but the math is the math, bro...how do you think you are overcoming these odds??? luck???

    Well, for one thing, Mr. Freighter employs Wong Halves. The means every card in the deck is assigned a value except the 8. For another, he still has room in his mind to side count the Ace or count for perfect insurance ratios. Finally, playing heads up, he has one other option you can't get with multiple players at the table. The next card could break your hand or an Ace that kills or doesn't improve it, may be the same card that would've started your next hand. I'm not sure how vital that is in a 6 deck shoe but it can't hurt. It's a huge factor in a 6 rounds single deck.

    I think I'd take 4 negative deck to 1 positive. One way is for sure, if you get down 3 to 1 on the first round that deck never becomes positive enough for a large bet.

    The stupidest thing I hear is “the math is the math”. The problem is that you can never be “the math”. The math never has to deal with travel expenses, heat, finding a table to play, can always bet optimally, has an unlimited bankroll, never gets fatigue or distracted etc, etc.

    That is simply KJ rah rah sis boom bah bullshit. What has been played vs what is remains to be play is your answer in the pitch games. Shoes belong on your feet.

    Freightman is right that we have to each deal with ways to play through negative counts and develop our own act. Obviously, telling you how he does it on this forum will expose him. You can’t fly to get to a casino, spend hours scouting, find a great fast dealer who gives great penetration and then walk away from that table the first time the count gets negative. You develop your own strategy of how to survive the negative counts and how to compensate the minimal losses with other strategies.

    I have an idea of what Freighter is doing. He doesn't owe anyone an explanation. Plus why would he broadcast it on a forum? Especially, one that is read heavily by his competitors. C'mon Bosx, you're smarter than that. No? For Zee in a negative shoes the best solution in from the hit song in the 60's "Just Walk Away Renee." Now a Tarzan might actually welcome a negative shoe. I dunno, you'd have to ask him. But my guess is he is not afraid of them. For me, it's don't play in the first place. There are far better games and investments where I'm in control and my time is better spent than wasting my life away chasing shoe variance. I'd supply my labor and flip houses before I'd sit at a shoe table. Especially with others.
    Last edited by Moses; July 12th, 2019 at 12:05 PM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Bosox writes:
    No magic formula here freighter with superlative index play baloney bullshit which can only help so much in a shoe game. By the way, all of that inconsistent play by the index of true count and timing is being noticed upstairs. You are accomplishing victory with your SPREAD period. I realize because of the game table situations there is little else to do. One problem though in playing all hands heads up is the very large percentages of waiting bets "your own minimum bet" that you are making which is giving plenty of information to the eye upstairs especially if you are the only person in the pit playing.

    You and KJ have shoved HiLO up everyone's ass forever. Let's some others talk for crissake. The EITS isn't going to notice until your bet structure does something to draw their attention to you in the first place. Personally, I play very few indices because it puts my dealer in a precarious position. It is difficult losing hands I know I could win sometimes. Win the war lose the battle has to be my mantra sometimes. At least there is no preferential shuffling in a shoe. No?

    The play HiLO become a millionaire model is getting old. Plus it's great fertilizer for these guys selling camps.

    A pyrrhic victory. That is when you win but you really lose.

    Freighter writes to Bosox:
    Different ways if saying the same thing I suppose. This thread is getting stupid. Btw, would you rather play 250 hph heads up, or 50 hph at a full table.

    I can rarely figure out Bosox botched style of quoting. But I take heads up and at least 60% pen over all. If not, I will sit the bench. The question is make $50k a year without getting banned or make $100k and never see the end of the first year. DO the math! A pyrrhic victory.




    Last edited by Moses; July 12th, 2019 at 12:07 PM.

  12. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    You and KJ have shoved HiLO up everyone's ass forever. Let's some others talk for crissake. The EITS isn't going to notice until your bet structure does something to draw their attention to you in the first place. Personally, I play very few indices because it puts my dealer in a precarious position. It is difficult losing hands I know I could win sometimes. Win the war lose the battle has to be my mantra sometimes. At least there is no preferential shuffling in a shoe. No?

    The play HiLO become a millionaire model is getting old. Plus it's great fertilizer for these guys selling camps.
    Video I made in 2009 showing the overlay of 7,8,9's admitted by Hi-Lo developer Julian Braun in Thorp's 1966 revision of "Beat the Dealer". A future video will provide evidence that Hi-Lo card counting is bunk, unless an 8/9 side count is included.

    Casino reporter, enjoys blackjack/baccarat card counting, and Bay Area poker pro. Moviemakerjjcasino@Casino_Examiner on Twitter

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Counting is Fun writes:

    My posting style seems just fine to me, others can take a look if they care to. I don't post too often, but I try to help when I can. I still enjoy learning.
    You can't make a post without cursing someone for no reason, or making some disgusting reference to your balls or some other gross comment. Grow up guy...it's a forum for those that like to discuss blackjack.

    So discuss "blackjack." It's like y'all want to dance around the subject of blackjack. There are so many intricate parts to the game. But the purpose of BJTF is to maintain ongoing discussions and never actually resolve anything. What an absolute waste of time! One important factor is most of the indices are based on thresholds. Few people know the difference between an advantage and a threshold. Splitting, for instance, is best determined on the game you're playing. No DAS reduces the importance of splitting significantly. There are other factors as well. But then you don't REALLY want to discuss blackjack.

    Originally Posted by ZeeBabar The stupidest thing I hear is “the math is the math”. The problem is that you can never be “the math”. The math never has to deal with travel expenses, heat, finding a table to play, can always bet optimally, has an unlimited bankroll, never gets fatigu...s.

    Sharky writes
    No, perhaps this IS the stupidest comment I've heard...you sound like your playing on a shoestring, pal...suggest you try lowering your stakes

    Of course math is important. But you people spend most of your discussion on math regarding thresholds that may never balance during your lifetime of play. Doesn't that ever get old? In Zee's case, walking away from a high TC to lock in profits is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Especially, when you consider all he goes through just to get to a table in the first place. Getting in that position of power is the ONLY reason I sit down to play. Deck composition is also a highly important factor. But you guys never want to speak to that subject. Just "throw more money at it and the worm will turn" seems to be the general consensus of the PRO or should I say POR mentality.

    How about improve your game and then up your stakes. What a novel idea!

    Freighter respond to CiF:
    Reminds me of Ustonzen.

    O brother. Another Flash protégé. Isn't this the guy who read every single post before he ever made a post? Who does that?
    Last edited by Moses; July 13th, 2019 at 10:54 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    BigJer writes:

    Oh heck. A couple of years ago I got dealt two twenties and the TC was very high: not enought to split vs. 2. I was saying to myself "I got this". Lol. It comes the dealers turn, she made it up to a six card 16. "Pffft, I got this!. A FIVE?!?!?!" Seven card 21!

    A perfect example of how the column count allows you to duck. The TC was high? Evidently, the deck was still loaded with small cards. Deck Composition - DC - is your key to finding the best value. It's not always the risk you take to win. It's the risk you didn't take and avoided a loss.

    THIS is why idiots like 21Forme and KJ will waste their lives away chasing variance.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    London Colin writes:

    It appears that the strategy corrections (if enabled) are based on the same, perfect figures. That's not entirely helpful for a card-counting training tool, since there can be times when perfect play contradicts the index play.

    I didn't verify that the figures it is producing are correct; you would have to keep track of the exact deck composition and compare with the figures from another combinatorial analysis program.

    Another way to reduce variance. Many indexes simply figure the threshold which may or may not balance in your favor and lifetime. In a pitch game, ,most of the key plays are made at the end of the deck. So it's a good idea not to take large cards out early. Go the other way - instead of standing right at the index threshold, stand at the point before the threshold become a disadvantage. It took me forever to figure that out because shoe players are index threshold worriers extreme.

    I would trade a minimum bet stand to be in a position of power on a large bet anytime. Bosox and KJ are smart not to play me.
    Last edited by Moses; July 30th, 2019 at 12:03 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. There's no way around the variance
    By Moses in forum Modern Blackjack
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 29th, 2019, 01:27 PM
  2. Bad Variance, My Personal Evolutionary Catalyst
    By Lady Tthree in forum Voodoo & Unconfirmed Gambling Systems
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 20th, 2016, 12:17 AM
  3. The Roman Empire Still Rules Today
    By Katz in forum History, Secret or Otherwise
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 11th, 2016, 04:50 AM
  4. Obey The Rules? What Rules?
    By Katweezel in forum Anything Else But
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 24th, 2012, 09:10 PM
  5. Lab Rules
    By Katweezel in forum Anything Else But
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 21st, 2012, 04:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts