Skewed Distribution

I came here hoping the wizard would answer a question that no one seems to know. I use RPC combined with hi-opt 1 to count. I separate the Aces and 3s from t he main play count, and add them in for betting purposes. So I am counting them against each other. Often, I get a high number of Aces versus 3s, or vice versa, that have left the shoe. A skewed distribution. This makes a difference in how much I bet, but makes zero difference in strategy deviations. However, it occured to me that these are both low cards for hands of 11 through soft 18. So it would seem to me that a skewed distribution in either direction should temporarily add to the play count, which may be important for insurance and surrender decisions over time. With some guess work, I arrived at the conclusion that I should temporarily add +1 to the running count for every 3 cards the distribution is skewed, in either direction. So is there any validity to this? Is there any info I can garner from a skewed distribution of neutralized cards?

Quote: BizzyB

I came here hoping the wizard would answer a question that no one seems to know. I use RPC combined with hi-opt 1 to count. I separate the Aces and 3s from t he main play count, and add them in for betting purposes. So I am counting them against each other. Often, I get a high number of Aces versus 3s, or vice versa, that have left the shoe. A skewed distribution. This makes a difference in how much I bet, but makes zero difference in strategy deviations. However, it occured to me that these are both low cards for hands of 11 through soft 18. So it would seem to me that a skewed distribution in either direction should temporarily add to the play count, which may be important for insurance and surrender decisions over time. With some guess work, I arrived at the conclusion that I should temporarily add +1 to the running count for every 3 cards the distribution is skewed, in either direction. So is there any validity to this? Is there any info I can garner from a skewed distribution of neutralized cards?

Bizzy,

Welcome to the forum! I'm not well enough versed in counting systems to know what RPC combined hi-opt 1 means. But there are people on here who do, so I'm hoping some of them will comment. In general, though, it seems like the double use of an ace is part of its valuation in math that underlies any counting system I've seen, and so to skew for that would inherently over-emphasize (or in this case de-emphasize) its value in the count. I could be wrong, especially since I don't know who developed the counting systems you're using, but I would think this was taken into account when setting + and - values.

Anybody who really knows this stuff want to weigh in? Thanks in advance!

This is a very advanced card counting question and I doubt anybody here knows the answer off the top of their head, without spending time computing it. And I doubt even further anyone is going to do that for you, without some incentive.

Not trying to be a dick, but it's the reality. There are probably a couple dozen competent card counters on this board, but only a couple pros. And most everyone uses a simple count because there is a law of diminishing returns with counting systems. The more complicated you go, the less you get in return...

Unless you're playing a ton of single deck, I would drop the side counts altogether.

I think you might be a little off target so let me explain a bit, and an explanation might even come in handy for someone who could answer the question but is not clear enough on the information provided. RPC is Revere Point Count, which I use to bet. This is actually an oversimplification. I use the Chambliss-Roginski (C-R) count. Aces and tens -1; 2 and 7s +1/2, 3-6 +1; 8-9 as 0. I say RPC because it is the same, except the values are multiplied by 2. However, this could cause confusion when saying "i combine this with hi-opt 1'.
Hi-opt 1 is what I use to make play decisions. It counts A-2 and 8-9 as 0, 10s as -1, and 3-6 as +1. This count can be incorporated into hi-lo. However, I use a modified version. I count the 2s and 7s as +1/2, and the 3s as 0.
There is no skew in involved during betting, where aces are negative. As you can see I am using two counts. Since many of the cards of the same value in each count, I need not count them twice. Only the ace and three have different values. The ace is either negative or 0 (the ace is never positive). The three is either positive or 0. What is observed is: when counting both cards as 0, there sometimes is an abnormally skewed distribution. This may indicate that card came out in high frequency, where as the other probably came out in a normal distrubtion (this is where my assumptions begin). This should not affect betting, but I am wondering if it should affect play strategy as I guessed above.

Quote: AcesAndEights

This is a very advanced card counting question and I doubt anybody here knows the answer off the top of their head, without spending time computing it. And I doubt even further anyone is going to do that for you, without some incentive.

Not trying to be a dick, but it's the reality. There are probably a couple dozen competent card counters on this board, but only a couple pros. And most everyone uses a simple count because there is a law of diminishing returns with counting systems. The more complicated you go, the less you get in return...

Unless you're playing a ton of single deck, I would drop the side counts altogether.

Well that's why I came to this particular site. Hopefully, the wizard will take it on. Believe me, the pros have not been able to answer it (at least not off the top of their head, whether they can simulate it, I do not know). I am not sure what type of incentive the wizard would need.

The law of diminishing returns is a reality in counting. But I do not think it is sound logic to make your count as simple as possible. I can perform this just as easily as hi-lo (in fact on the rare occassion i try and backcount hi-lo, I confuse myself). Yeah it's 3x more complex on paper, but I'll take the extra 15% gain because 3x harder than super super easy is still pretty easy.

Quote: BizzyB

Yeah it's 3x more complex on paper, but I'll take the extra 15% gain because 3x harder than super super easy is still pretty easy.

You have a better brain than me then! I would have no chance with that complicated of a system.

Anyway, I'm sorry I can't answer your question.

Quote: BizzyB

I think you might be a little off target so let me explain a bit, and an explanation might even come in handy for someone who could answer the question but is not clear enough on the information provided. RPC is Revere Point Count, which I use to bet. This is actually an oversimplification. I use the Chambliss-Roginski (C-R) count. Aces and tens -1; 2 and 7s +1/2, 3-6 +1; 8-9 as 0. I say RPC because it is the same, except the values are multiplied by 2. However, this could cause confusion when saying "i combine this with hi-opt 1'.
Hi-opt 1 is what I use to make play decisions. It counts A-2 and 8-9 as 0, 10s as -1, and 3-6 as +1. This count can be incorporated into hi-lo. However, I use a modified version. I count the 2s and 7s as +1/2, and the 3s as 0.
There is no skew in involved during betting, where aces are negative. As you can see I am using two counts. Since many of the cards of the same value in each count, I need not count them twice. Only the ace and three have different values. The ace is either negative or 0 (the ace is never positive). The three is either positive or 0. What is observed is: when counting both cards as 0, there sometimes is an abnormally skewed distribution. This may indicate that card came out in high frequency, where as the other probably came out in a normal distrubtion (this is where my assumptions begin). This should not affect betting, but I am wondering if it should affect play strategy as I guessed above.

Although this fell below Aces' reply, I think you're replying to me, so I've been sussing out what you're doing. Very impressive for you to track 2 counts simultaneously, even though it's generally the same values. May I ask; you give values for the main bet value and play counts that make sense to me, but your modification seems unbalanced at its core (remember, I'm not a math guy). Rather than using a temporary +1 at an arbitrary play point, what if you smoothed the transition by valuing the 3 at +1/2 along with the 2's and 7's? I think that would keep your numbers more in line with your strategy, give you the weighting (with 1/2 the cards @ 1/2 value) correction you want when 3's predominate, and allow the irregularity that remains to be an indication of a favorable ace distribution?

Anyway, I'm SWAGing via logic, which is not what you requested. While people here do not advertise their expertise, I have successfully hired several of them as math or gaming consultants while I developed a commercial table game over the past few months. I would direct you to the math topic area towards the bottom of the forum listings, and suggest you read some threads there to get an idea of those who have that type of expertise in counting systems, then PM them. I would also suggest you request within this thread, if you're willing to work out some compensation, that anyone interested should PM you to discuss it; I would think they would at least estimate for you their cost of running the hand simulation, if any, in a conversation.

Quote: AcesAndEights

You have a better brain than me then! I would have no chance with that complicated of a system.

Anyway, I'm sorry I can't answer your question.

i doubt it dude. random ploppies have been able to out me for counting. it's obvious. I can't do it all in my head. I'm low stakes so they ignore me. If I was high stakes, I may just have to drop that side count.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Although this fell below Aces' reply, I think you're replying to me, so I've been sussing out what you're doing. Very impressive for you to track 2 counts simultaneously, even though it's generally the same values. May I ask; you give values for the main bet value and play counts that make sense to me, but your modification seems unbalanced at its core (remember, I'm not a math guy). Rather than using a temporary +1 at an arbitrary play point, what if you smoothed the transition by valuing the 3 at +1/2 along with the 2's and 7's? I think that would keep your numbers more in line with your strategy, give you the weighting (with 1/2 the cards @ 1/2 value) correction you want when 3's predominate, and allow the irregularity that remains to be an indication of a favorable ace distribution?

Anyway, I'm SWAGing via logic, which is not what you requested. While people here do not advertise their expertise, I have successfully hired several of them as math or gaming consultants while I developed a commercial table game over the past few months. I would direct you to the math topic area towards the bottom of the forum listings, and suggest you read some threads there to get an idea of those who have that type of expertise in counting systems, then PM them. I would also suggest you request within this thread, if you're willing to work out some compensation, that anyone interested should PM you to discuss it; I would think they would at least estimate for you their cost of running the hand simulation, if any, in a conversation.

Yes, I was addressing you. He posted mid-reply. My count is balanced. My proposed adjustment would add a temporary imbalance for the sake of accuracy, and that imbalance would disappear as the distribution normalized. The imbalance would adjust for the skewedness. The point is not arbitrary. 3 cards skewed equaling a temporary plus 1 is based on the fact that if I used an unbalanced count starting at -8 with a pivot of -1.33 (6 deck), counting only one of the cards as +1/3, my play efficiency would be higher than it is counting them as zero in balanced system--at least I think so. What youre suggesting would unbalance the entire count and make it totally inaccurate all the time...lol. In order to make it accurate (counting the 3 as plus 1/2 as you propose), i would need to make the play count unbalanced, while maintaining the a balanced bet count. Because I am not tracking the aces for the 'adjustment', I would only get half the gain of my proposed adjustment. I would need to track two running counts, rather simply incorporate them. Your suggestion would be extremely complicated and almost never have any impact on a hand.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Although this fell below Aces' reply, I think you're replying to me, so I've been sussing out what you're doing. Very impressive for you to track 2 counts simultaneously, even though it's generally the same values. May I ask; you give values for the main bet value and play counts that make sense to me, but your modification seems unbalanced at its core (remember, I'm not a math guy). Rather than using a temporary +1 at an arbitrary play point, what if you smoothed the transition by valuing the 3 at +1/2 along with the 2's and 7's? I think that would keep your numbers more in line with your strategy, give you the weighting (with 1/2 the cards @ 1/2 value) correction you want when 3's predominate, and allow the irregularity that remains to be an indication of a favorable ace distribution?

Anyway, I'm SWAGing via logic, which is not what you requested. While people here do not advertise their expertise, I have successfully hired several of them as math or gaming consultants while I developed a commercial table game over the past few months. I would direct you to the math topic area towards the bottom of the forum listings, and suggest you read some threads there to get an idea of those who have that type of expertise in counting systems, then PM them. I would also suggest you request within this thread, if you're willing to work out some compensation, that anyone interested should PM you to discuss it; I would think they would at least estimate for you their cost of running the hand simulation, if any, in a conversation.

Commercial table game? Do you own a casino?

Quote: BizzyB

Commercial table game? Do you own a casino?

No, I invented a game, with the help of some family and several people on this forum, that's being commercially distributed in the near future. It's been both a great learning experience and a great demonstration of the collective gaming brain power on this forum. It's an amazing resource, both in the archival discussions and the top-level quality of many of the participants.

Quote: BizzyB

Yes, I was addressing you. He posted mid-reply. My count is balanced. My proposed adjustment would add a temporary imbalance for the sake of accuracy, and that imbalance would disappear as the distribution normalized. The imbalance would adjust for the skewedness. The point is not arbitrary. 3 cards skewed equaling a temporary plus 1 is based on the fact that if I used an unbalanced count starting at -8 with a pivot of -1.33 (6 deck), counting only one of the cards as +1/3, my play efficiency would be higher than it is counting them as zero in balanced system--at least I think so. What youre suggesting would unbalance the entire count and make it totally inaccurate all the time...lol. In order to make it accurate (counting the 3 as plus 1/2 as you propose), i would need to make the play count unbalanced, while maintaining the a balanced bet count. Because I am not tracking the aces for the 'adjustment', I would only get half the gain of my proposed adjustment. I would need to track two running counts, rather simply incorporate them. Your suggestion would be extremely complicated and almost never have any impact on a hand.

Lol...my work is done here. You've been most patient with my speculations; maybe it will help a knowledgable person notice your question and inform us both, now that there's a fair amount of detail that will help them give you a good answer and let me learn something. Good variance!