kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 867
May 27th, 2014 at 2:23:27 PM permalink
Exhibit 1: In a recent thread, it was asked
Quote: Neutrino

I know the break even TC for EV is +1.0, but if you stop counting for the rest of the shoe the TC will statistically tend towards 0.

Is that true?
Exhibit 2: Somewhere (was it on the Wz-Odds site?) I read that some position was better at a blackjack's table. Why would that be?

Situation 1: as a counter, you want to base your decisions on the best info available. Accordingly, I reasoned that the best position was last , since you had more cards revealed. Why is it not true?

Situation 2: as a beginning counter, I just use bet spread, not strategy tables. Not making use of the other players cards, do I have a reason to prefer first position, because their play may affect the counting on which my bet was based?

All in all, here is the mathematical question:
During play, players' decisions affect the remaining deck's content. Their play is not independent of the cards drawn. Is there a bias towards better or worse count? Or does it remain a priori independent? (By which I mean, my prior assessment of deck content is the same whatever the position played)
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
May 27th, 2014 at 2:32:22 PM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

Quote: Neutrino

I know the break even TC for EV is +1.0, but if you stop counting for the rest of the shoe the TC will statistically tend towards 0.

Is that true?



Absolutely not. It's complete nonsense.
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
May 27th, 2014 at 2:32:56 PM permalink
No, the TC will tend towards 1. In other words, it will tend to remain the same. The running count will tend toward zero. The TC tends to remain the same because penetration increases.

Situation 1: It is true, in regards to playing decisions. It is irrelevant when placing bets.

Situation 2: What? Do you mean you don't use indices? How do you not use other players' cards, you have to count them? There is no reason to prefer first position, or in this instance, last position, or any position.

Question: There is no bias However, if the count is good, it tends towards bad. If the count is bad it tends toward good. All in all, it always tends toward neutral and remaining static.
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
May 27th, 2014 at 2:33:47 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Quote: kubikulann

Quote: Neutrino

I know the break even TC for EV is +1.0, but if you stop counting for the rest of the shoe the TC will statistically tend towards 0.

Is that true?



Absolutely not. It's complete nonsense.



That's a fair question from a newb.
charliepatrick
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1696
May 27th, 2014 at 2:34:35 PM permalink
(a) If you were varying your bet size by count then your decision would be made prior to any cards being dealt for this hand, thus it matters little whether you get 1st and 7th cards or 5th and 11th in the deck (assuming it was a shoe).
(b) If it was a CSM, then going further into the deck before receiving your cards might mean cards you've counted might appear again. Thus there is a small advantage in knowing your first card is sitting on top and cannot be one of the cards from the previous hand.
(c) Subject to above - there is also the effect of having more information by seeing more cards before you have to play your hand. This would help marginal decisions (e.g. 12 vs 4).

Thus in a shoe you want to be later, in a CSM I'm guessing (c) out-benefits (b) so you'd also prefer to be later.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
May 27th, 2014 at 2:38:17 PM permalink
Quote: Sonuvabish

That's a fair question from a newb.



It's more of a math/logic question than a blackjack question, so I'm not sure that experience has anything to do with it.

In other words, if I found a mathematician who had never heard of blackjack, and explained what the term "true count" meant, I'd expect him to answer that question correctly with no hesitation, even without knowing the rules of the game.

On the other hand, I'm sure that there are people who are not good at math but have been playing blackjack successfully for years who would get it wrong.
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 867
May 27th, 2014 at 2:38:38 PM permalink
Quote: Sonuvabish

Question: There is no bias However, if the count is good, it tends towards bad. If the count is bad it tends toward good. All in all, it always tends toward neutral and remaining static.

That is precisely what I call "bias" (in statistical terms).

But could you argument your answer. That would be logically true if the cards were drawn at random: if the deck is heavy in good cards, they will tend to appear and the situation returns to neutral.
But my question is on the non-neutrality (non randomness) of the cards being drawn: they depend on strategy, there is no independence between the two cards a player receives and the cards (s)he hits for. So, on the whole, does that dependence lead to a specific evolution of the deck?

Of course, that means short term. In the long run, definitely the RC evens out (not the TC, I understood that). So I'm specifically thinking about one round, for example. Do you expect the count to be better or worse after one just round?
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
May 27th, 2014 at 2:44:24 PM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

That is precisely what I call "bias" (in statistical terms).

But I'm not so sure about your answer. That would be logically true if the cards were drawn at random: if the deck is heavy in good cards, they will tend to appear and the situation returns to neutral.
But my question is on the non-neutrality (non randomness) of the cards being drawn: they depend on strategy, there is no independence between the two cards a player receives and the cards (s)he hits for. So, on the whole, does that dependence lead to a specific evolution of the deck?



I am not sure what part of my answer was confusing. Perhaps my math terminology is guilty of improper usage?

There is no dependence on strategy. The cards are random. Taking the cards in a specific order does not affect the composition of the deck in a probabilistic fashion. I do not know exactly why are you stating they are independent and non-random events. Perhaps you are thinking that strategy is purposeful, and non-random, but would be immaterial. Regardless, the answer is clear.
Boney526
Boney526
Joined: Sep 25, 2011
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 366
May 27th, 2014 at 2:44:54 PM permalink
I disagree with the couple of people who said the count wouldn't tend to go towards 0 f you stopped counting, because obviously at the end of the deck the count will be 0 again. I don't really think that's a useful piece of information, though, since if you missed a part of the deck it'd be more accurate to count those as burned or undealt.

If you're using strategy decisions along with bet spread, go for the last position. If not it doesn't matter.

EDIT - Didn't realize it was true count. I suspect that it would, but the effect would be ridiculously small until the very end of the deck, which doesn't even come up in any game ever.
Boney526
Boney526
Joined: Sep 25, 2011
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 366
May 27th, 2014 at 2:44:55 PM permalink
double post

  • Jump to: