Poll

No votes (0%)
6 votes (85.71%)
2 votes (28.57%)
No votes (0%)

7 members have voted

Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
May 19th, 2021 at 10:00:18 AM permalink
Quote: GMan

Trying to reinvent the wheel again... and again....
You can find all Effects of Removal for 1, 2, 6 and 8 decks in Blackjack Attack 3 by Don Schlesinger in Appendix D.
However, since you tried to teach Blackjack to Don (and many other advanced players) on a forum where you ended up barred, I doubt you will listen to anyone trying to help you here...

"making +1 or -1 adjustment to the running count -- a chore I like to avoid" LOL
Maybe you should try Roulette.



THANK YOU, but would not want to rehash what everyone has said in THAT WHATCAHAMACALLIT FORUM.
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
May 19th, 2021 at 11:05:06 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Most people find mental division to be more difficult than adding and subtracting by ones mentally.



I think division is more difficult too, but as I said one needs to do true count conversion in shoe games only infrequently, while the +1/-1 running count adjustment in Hi-Lo is almost an every-second chore.

Hi-Lo and some other well-known systems may be easy enough for one with LONG-ATTENTION SPAN and EYESIGHT. But there are people SHORT IN ATTENTION SPAN and EYESIGHT (like me) who also like to play blackjack, to win and to have fun too. Counting the high cards only may be the right system, since HIGH CARDS ARE EASY TO SPOT, HARD TO MISS.

A new proposed EASIER card counting system is not "RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL." Its benefit is more like a AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION CAR in the era of STICK-SHIFT CARS.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 14607
Thanks for this post from:
Moraine
May 19th, 2021 at 12:32:39 PM permalink
Quote: Moraine

I think division is more difficult too, but as I said one needs to do true count conversion in shoe games only infrequently, while the +1/-1 running count adjustment in Hi-Lo is almost an every-second chore.

Hi-Lo and some other well-known systems may be easy enough for one with LONG-ATTENTION SPAN and EYESIGHT. But there are people SHORT IN ATTENTION SPAN and EYESIGHT (like me) who also like to play blackjack, to win and to have fun too. Counting the high cards only may be the right system, since HIGH CARDS ARE EASY TO SPOT, HARD TO MISS.

A new proposed EASIER card counting system is not "RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL." Its benefit is more like a AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION CAR in the era of STICK-SHIFT CARS.



I return to what you are describing is probably better than doing nothing if you are playing recreationally.

My understanding, from what I have read, is that the, "Eye in the sky," sometimes evaluates what a player is doing (in terms of varying one's bets) based on the Hi-LO count. That being the case, what you are proposing might be at least good from the standpoint of longevity---since your increased bets will often appear to make no sense whatsoever.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11736
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
May 19th, 2021 at 1:26:46 PM permalink
If a bet makes no sense using the more efficient system, I'm not sure how it makes sense when using a weaker system
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 14607
Thanks for this post from:
Moraine
May 19th, 2021 at 1:50:31 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

If a bet makes no sense using the more efficient system, I'm not sure how it makes sense when using a weaker system



Because the weaker system only cares about high cards. So, you can have a certain TC that the weaker system says increase your bet, but H/L would not, for instance, if you knew that a bunch of the non-high cards that were out were not 2-6.

A shoe missing a bunch of eights and nines, for example.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
May 19th, 2021 at 2:17:33 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I return to what you are describing is probably better than doing nothing if you are playing recreationally.

My understanding, from what I have read, is that the, "Eye in the sky," sometimes evaluates what a player is doing (in terms of varying one's bets) based on the Hi-LO count. That being the case, what you are proposing might be at least good from the standpoint of longevity---since your increased bets will often appear to make no sense whatsoever.



You used one more angle -- Eye in the Sky -- to evaluate systems. Interesting! The camouflage value of an UNTRADITIONAL system, bet or play is hard to quantify. But it's there, may be "immeasurable."
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11736
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146Moraine
May 19th, 2021 at 4:07:12 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Because the weaker system only cares about high cards. So, you can have a certain TC that the weaker system says increase your bet, but H/L would not, for instance, if you knew that a bunch of the non-high cards that were out were not 2-6.

A shoe missing a bunch of eights and nines, for example.



The weaker system will fool you into thinking you have an advantage when you really don't.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 14607
Thanks for this post from:
Moraine
May 19th, 2021 at 4:40:19 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

The weaker system will fool you into thinking you have an advantage when you really don't.



It is probably better than doing nothing if someone is playing recreationally; thatís my endorsement. Itís probably slightly better than just playing basic strategy or optimal strategy based on initial shoe composition.

But, yes, what you said was basically the point I was making in a roundabout way with the surveillance thing. Basically, itís so weak, that some might not think youíre counting at all.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
May 19th, 2021 at 5:55:00 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

It is probably better than doing nothing if someone is playing recreationally; thatís my endorsement. Itís probably slightly better than just playing basic strategy or optimal strategy based on initial shoe composition.

But, yes, what you said was basically the point I was making in a roundabout way with the surveillance thing. Basically, itís so weak, that some might not think youíre counting at all.



It seems to be the consensus of the commentators and the respondents to the poll as of 5:55 PM, 5/19/2021, Las Vegas time that the Counting-the-High-Only system is a weak or marginal at best, if not downright outlandish.

Like to have some basic measuring criteria if possible.

1) Is Hi-Lo a weak system or a strong system in your view?

2) Are the Betting Correlation (BC), the Playing Efficiency (PE) and the Insurance Correlation (IC) of two systems the valid criteria for comparing two systems' effectiveness?

3) Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC = 0.97 + 0.51 + 0.76 = 2.24. Within what percentage (can be either + or -) of that 2.24 sum total of Hi-Lo a new system must have in order to be considered a REASONABLY EFFECTIVE COUNTING SYSTEM?

THANKS.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 14607
Thanks for this post from:
Moraine
May 19th, 2021 at 6:47:24 PM permalink
Quote: Moraine

It seems to be the consensus of the commentators and the respondents to the poll as of 5:55 PM, 5/19/2021, Las Vegas time that the Counting-the-High-Only system is a weak or marginal at best, if not downright outlandish.

Like to have some basic measuring criteria if possible.

1) Is Hi-Lo a weak system or a strong system in your view?

2) Are the Betting Correlation (BC), the Playing Efficiency (PE) and the Insurance Correlation (IC) of two systems the valid criteria for comparing two systems' effectiveness?

3) Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC = 0.97 + 0.51 + 0.76 = 2.24. Within what percentage (can be either + or -) of that 2.24 sum total of Hi-Lo a new system must have in order to be considered a REASONABLY EFFECTIVE COUNTING SYSTEM?

THANKS.



This is where I bow out because those questions are above my pay grade and Iíd be answering out of class. I am not a card counter and do not specialize in Blackjack in any way, so my knowledge is very limited.

I recognize the proposed counting system as weaker than Hi-Lo and have stated why. I believe my position on this is mathematically valid and people who would know and can better articulate the underlying mathematical reasons have agreed with me, so I leave this for them.

I answer #1 only to the extent that it is a stronger system than you propose and is often touted by actual card counters (professional/expert) as an efficient Level 1 system.

My answer to #2 is, ďI would think so.Ē You seem to advocate for your systemís ease of use, which is fine, and Iíll leave any further and more detailed discussion to those who know more about it than I do. I understand the rudiments of card counting well enough for my purposesó-which are very limited. Specifically, my limited purposes are to be able to discuss it in only the most fundamental way.

With question #3, we enter the realm where I am no longer qualified to offer an opinion without further study, which I lack sufficient interest to do as relates this subject.

Simply put, Iím now out of my element on the subject and have no problem admitting it.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219

  • Jump to: