teliot's counting cards blog on APheat (Split from Is it just me...)

Based on teliots latest blog he shouldn't charge for his work. He doesn't even understand the simplest concept such as bet ramps in blackjack yet that doesn't stop him from repeatedly attacking a noted blackjack author and beating his misconceptions to death.

Quote: anonimuss

Based on teliots latest blog he shouldn't charge for his work. He doesn't even understand the simplest concept such as bet ramps in blackjack yet that doesn't stop him from repeatedly attacking a noted blackjack author and beating his misconceptions to death.

Yeah, I have to say, I thought that the post really crossed a line. It was disgraceful.

I would not say that he does not understand betting ramps though. But his repeatedly saying that you can't make real money counting cards is obviously nonsense -- it's based on the idea that you can't bet more than $100 on a hand.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Yeah, I have to say, I thought that the post really crossed a line. It was disgraceful.

I would not say that he does not understand betting ramps though. But his repeatedly saying that you can't make real money counting cards is obviously nonsense -- it's based on the idea that you can't bet more than $100 on a hand.

teliot is comparing a sim where you have a max bet of $100 out at +1 with a full range of indices against a sim where you use a 12 - 1 ramp starting at +1 with an $8.33 unit and increasing with the count to a max bet of $100 with the Illustrious 18 and can't comprehend that the win rates are seriously skewed by the 12 - 1 bet spread vs the 1 - 1 spread. It was pointed out to him on bj21.xxx so he changed the ramp to 8 - 1 (and for some strange reason referred to that as a 'trick' " but I have a screen shot of the original blog.) He noticed the win rate for I18 increased when you got your max bet out lower but still can't comprehend that doesn't equate with putting your max bet out at +1. He's crowing, "Ah ha! This still proves I'm right" and he can't seem to grasp you should run the same game, the same rules, the same bet ramp and just run one sim with a full range of indices, keep everything the same, then run the sim again with the I18 for a valid comparison. It's kindergarten card counting and it confuses him.

Here's a PDF of his original blog at 12 - 1 before he was made aware of his errors and changed it to 8 - 1 which is still an error he can't understand. He doesn't even understand how much indices contribute to a counters win rate compared to just moving your money with the count and playing basic strategy. I know the numbers.
http://freepdfhosting.com/5849c64af2.pdf

Quote: anonimuss

teliot is comparing a sim where you have a max bet of $100 out at +1 with a full range of indices against a sim where you use a 12 - 1 ramp starting at +1 with an $8.33 unit and increasing with the count to a max bet of $100 with the Illustrious 18 and can't comprehend that the win rates are seriously skewed by the 12 - 1 bet spread vs the 1 - 1 spread. It was pointed out to him on bj21.xxx so he changed the ramp to 8 - 1 (and for some strange reason referred to that as a 'trick' " but I have a screen shot of the original blog.) He noticed the win rate for I18 increased when you got your max bet out lower but still can't comprehend that doesn't equate with putting your max bet out at +1. He's crowing, "Ah ha! This still proves I'm right" and he can't seem to grasp you should run the same game, the same rules, the same bet ramp and just run one sim with a full range of indices, keep everything the same, then run the sim again with the I18 for a valid comparison. It's kindergarten card counting and it confuses him.

Here's a PDF of his original blog at 12 - 1 before he was made aware of his errors and changed it to 8 - 1 which is still an error he can't understand. He doesn't even understand how much indices contribute to a counters win rate compared to just moving your money with the count and playing basic strategy. I know the numbers.
http://freepdfhosting.com/5849c64af2.pdf

I don't understand. Which part he didn't understand?

Of course you make more money if you make a table-max bet every time you have the advantage.

The main problem I have with his comparison is that he claims that he sets a $100 bet so that he can "consistently" compare side-bets with the main BJ game. This is idiotic though, because casinos tend to have very low maximums for side-bets and very high maximums for blackjack. Change his $100 max bet to something reasonable that a casino might offer, like $10k or $5k or even $2k, and all of a sudden it starts to look pretty good.

If there were places that had $10k limits on lucky ladies he would have a point, but there aren't, so he doesn't. Comparing blackjack to lucky ladies with the assumption that the max bets are the same makes absolutely no sense because the max bets are not the same in any casino.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I don't understand. Which part he didn't understand?

Of course you make more money if you make a table-max bet every time you have the advantage.

The main problem I have with his comparison is that he claims that he sets a $100 bet so that he can "consistently" compare side-bets with the main BJ game. This is idiotic though, because casinos tend to have very low maximums for side-bets and very high maximums for blackjack. Change his $100 max bet to something reasonable that a casino might offer, like $10k or $5k or even $2k, and all of a sudden it starts to look pretty good.

If there were places that had $10k limits on lucky ladies he would have a point, but there aren't, so he doesn't. Comparing blackjack to lucky ladies with the assumption that the max bets are the same makes absolutely no sense because the max bets are not the same in any casino.

If you have a max bet of $100 and put your max bet out at any count of +1 or higher and bet $0 at TC 0 and below, you will win the most money you can for a $100 max bet. If you have the same $100 max bet but bet $8.33 at +1, $16.66 at +2, $33.32 at +3, $66.64 at +4 and $100 at +5 you will win way less money (variance will be lower too). The lower you put your max bet out, the more money you will win all things being equal. teliot claimed you gave up some ridiculous part of your win rate by using the Illustrious 18. teliot used a sim with a full range of indices and putting out your max $100 bet at +1, $0 TC of 0 or lower against a sim using the I18 and starting with a $8.33 betting unit at +1 and increasing your bet at +2, again at +3, and so forth until you had your $100 max bet out. Frequency distributions show you get way more +3 TCs than +4 TCs, way more +4 TCs than +5 TCs and so forth. He's comparing apples to oranges because of the different bet spreads between the two sims. Stanford Wong used -1 to +6 throughout his playing career. Don S. devised the I18 for a specific purpose and stated exactly what it is. teliots argument (lack of comprehension) basically is, "That dime in your hand isn't worth 10 cents" while you're standing there holding your hand out with a nickle on your palm.

Quote: anonimuss

If you have a max bet of $100 and put your max bet out at any count of +1 or higher and bet $0 at TC 0 and below, you will win the most money you can for a $100 max bet. If you have the same $100 max bet but bet $8.33 at +1, $16.66 at +2, $33.32 at +3, $66.64 at +4 and $100 at +5 you will win way less money (variance will be lower too). The lower you put your max bet out, the more money you will win all things being equal.

Yeah, of course. That is obvious. I'm pretty sure that he understands that.

Quote:

teliot claimed you gave up some ridiculous part of your win rate by using the Illustrious 18.

Did he? That is obviously not true in a shoe game.

Quote:

teliot used a sim with a full range of indices and putting out your max $100 bet at +1, $0 TC of 0 or lower against a sim using the I18 and starting with a $8.33 betting unit at +1 and increasing your bet at +2, again at +3, and so forth until you had your $100 max bet out. Frequency distributions show you get way less +3 TCs than +4 TCs, way less +4 TCs than +5 TCs and so forth. He's comparing apples to oranges because of the different bet spreads between the two sims.

Oh, yeah, that is stupid.

Quote:

Stanford Wong used -1 to +6 throughout his playing career. Don S. devised the I18 for a specific purpose and stated exactly what it is. teliots argument (lack of comprehension) basically is, "That dime in your hand isn't worth 10 cents" while you're standing there holding your hand out with a nickle on your palm.

I get it.

Didn't Arnold Snyder also show that you can round the indices to the nearest 4 (ie, -4, 0, +4) and you can't even tell the difference in sims of billions of hands?

Quote: anonimuss

If you have a max bet of $100 and put your max bet out at any count of +1 or higher and bet $0 at TC 0 and below, you will win the most money you can for a $100 max bet.

I'm pretty sure that's the point -- he's providing upper-bound hourly win rates (that is, maximal casino loss rates) for card counters at a given max bet level. It scales linearly so if you see someone with a maximum bet of $1000, their maximum hourly win rate is 10x the number in his chart. If they're spreading using a ramp, that win rate is lower than 10x that number. Don't forget his target audience, at least for those posts, is casino operators worried about card counting. The purpose is to demonstrate just how bad it could ever possibly get using some simple rules of thumb. For example, if you see someone spreading up to $100 playing the 6D game in his post, and you think he's counting, he can't possibly be beating you for better than $0.34 (34 cents) per hand in theo. If they're going up to $1000, it can't be worth more than $3.36 or so.

That may not be particularly valuable information to card counters, because they know how they play and that's not it, but it seems like a useful datapoint for an operator who is weighing what to do given their demographic. If you have a smattering of black-chip players that you're losing 34c/hand to, but you're winning even 10c/hand from everyone else on average, the last thing you should do is shuffle early and slow the game down.

Quote:

Frequency distributions show you get way less +3 TCs than +4 TCs, way less +4 TCs than +5 TCs and so forth.

Way more, you meant to say. +3TC is more likely than +4TC on the 6D game he was looking at.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Didn't Arnold Snyder also show that you can round the indices to the nearest 4 (ie, -4, 0, +4) and you can't even tell the difference in sims of billions of hands?

Yes he did. The differences are minimal.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm pretty sure that's the point -- he's providing upper-bound hourly win rates (that is, maximal casino loss rates) for card counters at a given max bet level. It scales linearly so if you see someone with a maximum bet of $1000, their maximum hourly win rate is 10x the number in his chart. If they're spreading using a ramp, that win rate is lower than 10x that number. Don't forget his target audience, at least for those posts, is casino operators worried about card counting. The purpose is to demonstrate just how bad it could ever possibly get using some simple rules of thumb. For example, if you see someone spreading up to $100 playing the 6D game in his post, and you think he's counting, he can't possibly be beating you for better than $0.34 (34 cents) per hand in theo. If they're going up to $1000, it can't be worth more than $3.36 or so.

That may not be particularly valuable information to card counters, because they know how they play and that's not it, but it seems like a useful datapoint for an operator who is weighing what to do given their demographic. If you have a smattering of black-chip players that you're losing 34c/hand to, but you're winning even 10c/hand from everyone else on average, the last thing you should do is shuffle early and slow the game down.


Way more, you meant to say. +3TC is more likely than +4TC on the 6D game he was looking at.

Corrected. And the first 2 paragraphs of your reply are irrelevant to my post.

Quote: anonimuss

Corrected. And the first 2 paragraphs of your reply are irrelevant to my post.

Then I must have misunderstood your point. I thought the purpose of Eliot's posts on the topic was pretty clear and, moreover, that he did a good job describing his findings for both the theoretically optimal counter and the typical counter as reported by Schlesinger. Presumably you don't dispute Eliot's conclusions, do you?

Quote: APHeat.net

A card counter walks in to your casino. You have a well-defended six-deck game with tight rules (H17, DOA, DAS) and cut card placed at 1.5 decks. You watch as this counter “Wong’s” into the tables and spreads his bets from $10 to $100. You think, “Holy crap! Sound the alarms! We’re getting crushed by this counter!” The truth? This counter is probably winning under $15 per 100 hands. Don’t you have something better to do?

Quote: kewlj

Teliot: (disclaimer) I, like many in the blackjack community have some problems with Teliot and sort of view him as a 'turncoat'. His recent writing, of the $100 max bet, is a joke. He clearly doesn't understand card counting, which I suspect is why he was not as successful at it as he wanted to be and changed paths.

BUT, wrong as his statements were, he did get to the correct conclusion

How did he get to the correct conclusion if he started from incorrect principles?

I don't really understand the backlash against his recent posts. I thought they were straightforward, and very obviously written for an audience of casino operators as opposed to card counters. What is controversial about saying "a perfect card counter making a maximum wager of $100 can win $33.58 per 100 hands" or "a typical card counter making a maximum wager of $100 will win about $15 per 100 hands"? Is it that the table maximum might be higher, say $1000 or $5000? Just multiply by 10 or 50; the conclusion is the same.

Quote: MathExtremist

How did he get to the correct conclusion if he started from incorrect principles?

As I'm sure that you are well aware, it is possible to reach all conclusions (true and false) when starting from incorrect principles.

Quote:

I don't really understand the backlash against his recent posts. I thought they were straightforward, and very obviously written for an audience of casino operators as opposed to card counters. What is controversial about saying "a perfect card counter making a maximum wager of $100 can win $33.58 per 100 hands" or "a typical card counter making a maximum wager of $100 will win about $15 per 100 hands"? Is it that the table maximum might be higher, say $1000 or $5000? Just multiply by 10 or 50; the conclusion is the same.

1. There is some backlash because he is insulting a well-respected blackjack player and author, who actually knows how to beat the game (unlike Mr Eliot, who is, by his own admission, a failed AP)

2. The "controversial" part (at least, for me) is where he goes on to conclude that, because the maximum win with $100 max bets while counting blackjack is lower than the max win with $100 max bets at some side bets, that counting blackjack is a worse advantage play than counting those side bets. That statement is not so much "controversial" as "incredibly stupid and obviously wrong". Most of the side bets that he is comparing to tend to be offered with max bets of around $25 or $50; perhaps you can occasionally find a casino that offers $100 limits. Blackjack, on the other hand, tends to be offered with max bets in the $2000 to $10,000 range. The actual maximum bets differ by a couple of orders of magnitude, so a comparison that assumes that the max bets are the same is laughable.

It's standard stuff from him. The math is right but the conclusions are wrong. It's the same reason that he was unsuccessful as an AP. He understands the math perfectly but he doesn't understand how to apply it. He keeps repeating over and over again that you can't make real money counting cards at blackjack, yet, there are many people who do just that.

The only useful thing that we can learn from his article is that if you want to count cards in shoe games, and you want to make much more than minimum wage, your max bet had better be a hell of a lot higher than $100. But, this is not exactly news.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

As I'm sure that you are well aware, it is possible to reach all conclusions (true and false) when starting from incorrect principles.



1. There is some backlash because he is insulting a well-respected blackjack player and author, who actually knows how to beat the game (unlike Mr Eliot, who is, by his own admission, a failed AP)

2. The "controversial" part (at least, for me) is where he goes on to conclude that, because the maximum win with $100 max bets while counting blackjack is lower than the max win with $100 max bets at some side bets, that counting blackjack is a worse advantage play than counting those side bets. That statement is not so much "controversial" as "incredibly stupid and obviously wrong". Most of the side bets that he is comparing to tend to be offered with max bets of around $25 or $50; perhaps you can occasionally find a casino that offers $100 limits. Blackjack, on the other hand, tends to be offered with max bets in the $2000 to $10,000 range. The actual maximum bets differ by a couple of orders of magnitude, so a comparison that assumes that the max bets are the same is laughable.

It's standard stuff from him. The math is right but the conclusions are wrong. It's the same reason that he was unsuccessful as an AP. He understands the math perfectly but he doesn't understand how to apply it. He keeps repeating over and over again that you can't make real money counting cards at blackjack, yet, there are many people who do just that.

The only useful thing that we can learn from his article is that if you want to count cards in shoe games, and you want to make much more than minimum wage, your max bet had better be a hell of a lot higher than $100. But, this is not exactly news.

I am far from an expert on the subject, but I did hear teliot speak at length on this topic at G2E. And I think you're taking his point out of context, and that he would agree with you on most of what you're saying you disagree with him on, from a card-counter's perspective; he's not really speaking about stopping skilled AP's. He is trying to say something like, "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater." And his audience is DTG's and casino game protection people who are costing themselves money by over-protecting the games in ways that hurt their hph rate. He's giving them math examples they can understand, not suggesting that $100 would or should be a max table limit. I think it was kewlj above who said, yeah, bring it on, good for me. And for kewlj, it would be good, because he's in that .1% or 5% or whatever the real amount may be of professional AP's making a living at BJ. If they follow his suggestions, the casino still reserves the right to back off any individual or team and don't even have to prove anything to do it. But they can make more money off the 95%+ who are not good AP's, in his opinion ( and several other experts that spoke on it) more than enough to offset what the AP's are taking out of the game.

I can't really speak to your impression of teliot's insults to the other person within the article. But that's my thought on the course of action he's advocating.

Yeah Eliot's article is very straightforward. He is simply saying that if the most a guy bets is $100 then he can't possibly be winning more than $30 an hour and realistically he is gonna win $10-$20 an hour even if he is better than average. If he is betting $500 or $1000 then his potential win increases accordingly. His point was that most casino employees think that a card counter wins an order of magnitude more than they actually win. Eliot was spot on. I don't understand the criticism.

Quote: MathExtremist

Presumably you don't dispute Eliot's conclusions, do you?

LOL. Reread my posts. He's clueless. Nobody can comprehend that teliot is comparing apples to oranges and claiming he's proven his point? Is what I posted that hard to comprehend? I simplified it as much as I could. Nobody here understands that when card counting putting your big bet out at an earlier positive count yields a higher return and teliot's attributing all the difference between the two win rates to the number of indices used? That's as simple as I can make it. My whole post is about teliot's analysis of the gain going from the I18 to a full set of indices. It's a concept even the most card counter should understand.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

As I'm sure that you are well aware, it is possible to reach all conclusions (true and false) when starting from incorrect principles.



1. There is some backlash because he is insulting a well-respected blackjack player and author, who actually knows how to beat the game (unlike Mr Eliot, who is, by his own admission, a failed AP)

2. The "controversial" part (at least, for me) is where he goes on to conclude that, because the maximum win with $100 max bets while counting blackjack is lower than the max win with $100 max bets at some side bets, that counting blackjack is a worse advantage play than counting those side bets. That statement is not so much "controversial" as "incredibly stupid and obviously wrong". Most of the side bets that he is comparing to tend to be offered with max bets of around $25 or $50; perhaps you can occasionally find a casino that offers $100 limits. Blackjack, on the other hand, tends to be offered with max bets in the $2000 to $10,000 range. The actual maximum bets differ by a couple of orders of magnitude, so a comparison that assumes that the max bets are the same is laughable.

It's standard stuff from him. The math is right but the conclusions are wrong. It's the same reason that he was unsuccessful as an AP. He understands the math perfectly but he doesn't understand how to apply it. He keeps repeating over and over again that you can't make real money counting cards at blackjack, yet, there are many people who do just that.

The only useful thing that we can learn from his article is that if you want to count cards in shoe games, and you want to make much more than minimum wage, your max bet had better be a hell of a lot higher than $100. But, this is not exactly news.

That's not even close. He's comparing one sim with one set of betting parameters against another sim with a completely different set of betting parameters and claiming that all the difference in win rates is because of the set of indices used in the two different sims.

Quote: anonimuss

That's not even close. He's comparing one sim with one set of betting parameters against another sim with a completely different set of betting parameters and claiming the all the difference in win rates is because of the set of indices used in the two different sims.

Well, he is doing both.

Although, I have noticed that he has gone back and significantly edited his "World's Greatest Blackjack Card Counter" blog entry some time since the last time I read it, so maybe he is not saying that any more.

It's still there. He doesn't comprehend what he's doing wrong in his analysis. I just bothered with his analysis of the I18 against a full set of indices trying to prove his point and he's completely wrong with his methodology. I'm going to make this as simple as I can. Go back to both blog entries and look at teliots bet spread for the his world's greatest counter and then look at the bet spread for his illustration of Don S. I18 simulation that he uses for comparison and tell me what you see.

Quote: anonimuss

It's still there. He doesn't comprehend what he's doing wrong in his analysis. I just bothered with his analysis of the I18 against a full set of indices trying to prove his point and he's completely wrong with his methodology. I'm going to make this as simple as I can. Go back to both blog entries and look at teliots bet spread for the his world's greatest counter and then look at the bet spread for his illustration of Don S. I18 simulation that he uses for comparison and tell me what you see.

I think you're missing the point. Anything a card counter does that is suboptimal, including cover play, smaller bet spreads, bet ramps, and using a subset of indices like I18 instead of perfect index play, will necessarily result in a lower theoretical win than a perfect card counter betting max when he has the edge and 0 otherwise. That's what suboptimal means. The point of the articles wasn't to qualitatively compare one method of counting vs. another. It was to quantify exactly how much a casino is exposed based on a very simple metric: the player's maximum bet size. The first post, about the perfect card counter, puts an upper bound on how much a $100 max-bet player could ever possibly cost a casino. That figure was $33.58 per 100 hands. The second post, about Schlesinger's "average" card counter, presents a figure for how much a $100 max-bet player in that "average" category will typically cost a casino. That figure was somewhere between $15 and $22, depending on a few variables.

That's it, though. I didn't read anything in there critical of Schlesinger's work, and I don't think the figures Eliot presented ($33.58 and the lower range) are really in dispute, even by you. Those figures are sufficient to answer the question "I've got a counter in seat 4, what do I do boss?"

Quote: MathExtremist

I think you're missing the point. Anything a card counter does that is suboptimal, including cover play, smaller bet spreads, bet ramps, and using a subset of indices like I18 instead of perfect index play, will necessarily result in a lower theoretical win than a perfect card counter betting max when he has the edge and 0 otherwise. That's what suboptimal means. The point of the articles wasn't to qualitatively compare one method of counting vs. another. It was to quantify exactly how much a casino is exposed based on a very simple metric: the player's maximum bet size. The first post, about the perfect card counter, puts an upper bound on how much a $100 max-bet player could ever possibly cost a casino. That figure was $33.58 per 100 hands. The second post, about Schlesinger's "average" card counter, presents a figure for how much a $100 max-bet player in that "average" category will typically cost a casino. That figure was somewhere between $15 and $22, depending on a few variables.

That's it, though. I didn't read anything in there critical of Schlesinger's work, and I don't think the figures Eliot presented ($33.58 and the lower range) are really in dispute, even by you. Those figures are sufficient to answer the question "I've got a counter in seat 4, what do I do boss?"

You don't understand what I'm posting about. It's about how much using the I18 costs versus a full range of indices. teliot makes the mistake of using erroneous methodology to arrive at his conclusion that a novice wouldn't make.

Quote: anonimuss

You don't understand what I'm posting about. It's about how much using the I18 costs versus a full range of indices.

ME seriously knows his stuff. Be forewarned.

Quote: Paigowdan

ME seriously knows his stuff. Be forewarned.

Then he can post what betting parameters teliot uses for his simulation and what betting parameters Don S used in his simulation like I suggested earlier. It's in teliot's blog. We can start there.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's it, though. I didn't read anything in there critical of Schlesinger's work

That is because, as he usually does, he went back and edited it. The version that I read called Schlesinger's work "intellectually lazy".

Edit: I was wrong. It's still there, in a different post than the one I was looking at. And it's "anti-intellectual", not "intellectually lazy" (which is arguably worse). I'm not sure how much it has been edited since the intial published version, though.

I post here when I'm playing poker online. I'll be playing later tonight. I dusted off my Don S, Blackjack Attack book and my Professional Blackjack by Stanford Wong and I'll post some interesting segments later that show even I way underestimated how erroneous the "facts" alleged by teliot are. In my defense, I was working from memory. I no longer am.

I screen shot teliots first blog entry because I knew he would change it. He did and his changes further prove how little he understands what he's talking about. I also didn't realize that not only is teliot comparing a sim where teliots max bet is on the table at any edge compared to Don S's sim where you start with a one unit bet at any edge and progress up with the count until you reach your maximum 12 unit bet, but based on page 64 of Blackjack Attack, it appears Don S also used a bet spread where you split to 2 hands at your maximum 12 unit bet. A kindergarten counter would know that splitting to multiple hands reduces variance but also eats more cards in positive counts and you should increase your bet when going to two hands to ameliorate your win rate and counteract this deleterious effect.

And the history behind my posts on this subject is directed solely at teliots original March 2, 2014 entry where he tries to argue that using the I18 vs a full spread of indices yields only 57.8% as much win rate. Anybody that has a clue about card counting knows that the bulk of your gain comes from moving your money with the count and only a small portion comes from indice deviations (and sd v multiple deck blah blah is irrelevant here as I'll show later so don't waste my time or bandwidth). Anybody with a clue about mathematics would run two sims using identical parameters, the only difference being one sim using the I18 and the other sim using a full spread of indices, and compare the results. I believe the reason behind teliot even beginning this nonsense arises from James Grosjean's statement to the effect that a card counter should use whatever method yields him the highest gain and that it is counterproductive to do anything less. Grosjean is a slash and burn AP who walks into a casino with the intent to make at minimum a 5 figure score, even 6 figures, before getting tossed and moving on. The vast majority of card counters don't think this way. Solid, high yield card counting opportunities are not common so most counters try and nurse a good game and not get blown out. To each his own. I have no problem with either philosophy. Now along comes teliot who runs behind James Grosjean, jumps on his coattails, and declares, "Don S's I18 cost you so much money it's stupid to use them." teliot must believe he can gain some kind of instant credibility by attaching his name to Grosjean's then goes on and uses flawed methodology to declare, "See!! I am right and I am the winner!!" He then changes his blog, confused by what I wrote on another site, unable to comprehend what I am talking about, and his changes only serve to prove how wrong he has been but he is still unable to see this. I couldn't care about Don S one way or the other. I neither like or dislike him. I do, however, refuse to sit idly by while someone who has no clue what he's talking about attacks someone who does, thinking it makes him look good. I also have a good laugh at watching game protection people pat themselves on the back and talk about how sharp they are while their casinos get fleeced under their noses. There's nothing hard about catching 6 figure cheats. It's the smart cheats who ply their trade for decades.

Quote: anonimuss

And the history behind my posts on this subject is directed solely at teliots original March 2, 2014 entry where he tries to argue that using the I18 vs a full spread of indices yields only 57.8% as much win rate.

Like I said, you totally missed the point of the article. It wasn't written for card counters like you trying to maximize your gain per hour, it was written for casino operators trying to figure out how much you could possibly cost them based on a simple rule of thumb.

You miss my point. Pay attention. I'm not trying to maximize any gain. teliot made errors in his methodology a kindergarten card counter wouldn't make to try and puff up his image.

Quote: Eliot

In other words, Schlesinger’s real-world model achieves 65.9% of the win-rate of the world’s greatest card counter. -- source.

If Eliot is saying that using only the top 18+4 index numbers results in 65.9% of the win rate of a counter who knows all of them, all other things being equal, I must say that this disagrees with what I claim on my site.

Quote: Wizard

These are the most important index numbers to remember. Knowing only (the Ill. 18 and Fab 4) will give the counter 80% to 85% of the value of knowing every index number, based on a six-deck game. -- source.

I wrote that page six years ago so I don't recall exactly how I got the 80% to 85% figure, but I think that Don Schlesinger provided it to me. He was kind enough to let me use the Illustrious 18 and Fab 4 surrenders and was very helpful with my questions in the writing of that page.

Perhaps this is not a contradiction. My 80% to 85% figure is based on how far the player moves from the basic strategy house edge, while Eliot is comparing win rates relative to breaking even.

On a sd game, in which we all know strategy variations are more important than in multiple deck games, you get 87% of the gain just playing basic strategy and moving your money with the count Professional blackjack, pp 45, 50). You get 100% adding in the strategy variations. I'm busy now. I'll address this further later. Using indices adds the last 13%. I'll run the correct sims myself when I get a chance. I don't have any of my old simulation programs anymore (John Immings UBE, SBA, PBA) so I'm going to use open source Power Sim as soon as I familiarize myself with it.

Quote: anonimuss

Using indices adds the last 13%.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. The question at hand seems to be what is the ratio of the hourly win rate of knowing just the top 18+4 to knowing all of them, all other things being equal under realistic rules and conditions.

My point is, again, teliot used his sim with his max bet at any advantage and compared it to Don S's sim where Don started at one unit at any advantage and increased his spread upwards with the count and teliot says all the difference between the 2 sims comes from using I18 vs a full set of indices. And he then claims this proves how weak I18 is. To say there is a difference of over 40% due to a reduced indices matrix is beyond silly and it's being used to discredit another author solely for self aggrandizement.

And teliot apparently is disputing it but he's afraid to stick his nose in here because he knows if he does when I get through deconstructing his fallacy he'll be walking around with it wagging behind him like a tail.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: Eliot

In other words, Schlesinger’s real-world model achieves 65.9% of the win-rate of the world’s greatest card counter. -- source.

If Eliot is saying that using only the top 18+4 index numbers results in 65.9% of the win rate of a counter who knows all of them, all other things being equal, I must say that this disagrees with what I claim on my site.

I don't think that's what Eliot is saying. He's not comparing 18+4 indices vs. all indices ceteris paribus, he's comparing 18+4 indices with a 1-12 spread vs. all indices with a 0-1 spread. That's a big difference. It's not a realistic thing to expect a counter to be able to accomplish, but that's the whole point: a counter can't possibly do better.

Quote: MathExtremist

He's not comparing 18+4 indices vs. all indices ceteris paribus, he's comparing 18+4 indices with a 1-12 spread vs. all indices with a 0-1 spread. That's a big difference.

So, to dumb it down, Eliot is being accused of comparing apples to oranges? I hope he'll find the time to come here and defend himself.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: MathExtremist

He's not comparing 18+4 indices vs. all indices ceteris paribus, he's comparing 18+4 indices with a 1-12 spread vs. all indices with a 0-1 spread. That's a big difference.

So, to dumb it down, Eliot is being accused of comparing apples to oranges? I hope he'll find the time to come here and defend himself.

By someone who doesn't understand the purpose of the comparison. I presume you do understand the purpose of the article and therefore understand why nothing needs defending.

LOL. The purpose of the article is to attack Don S and try and ride Grosjean's coattails for notoriety. Why doesn't teliot run 2 equal sims and just change the indices? Talk about dense.

Quote: anonimuss

LOL. The purpose of the article is to attack Don S and try and ride Grosjean's coattails for notoriety. Why doesn't teliot run 2 equal sims and just change the indices? Talk about dense.

You know how minor this is, right? Like, the point of the article is that losses due to counting are only $3x.xx/hour given the conditions listed. How much difference do you think your changes will make? Will losses due to counting reach $4x.xx/hour? That would still strongly support Eliot's argument that losses due to counting are severely over-estimated by low and mid-level casino employees.

Quote: rdw4potus

That would still strongly support Eliot's argument that losses due to counting are severely over-estimated by low and mid-level casino employees.

I would add high-levels ones to that list.

I have to admit, I did laugh when he said that one of his "trainees" estimated that a card counter would profit an average of $8000 betting $100/hand for 100 hands.

Quote: Wizard

I would add high-levels ones to that list.

boy, nobody is spared.....

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I have to admit, I did laugh when he said that one of his "trainees" estimated that a card counter would profit an average of $8000 betting $100/hand for 100 hands.

'dat 80% edge.

Quote: rdw4potus

You know how minor this is, right? Like, the point of the article is that losses due to counting are only $3x.xx/hour given the conditions listed. How much difference do you think your changes will make? Will losses due to counting reach $4x.xx/hour? That would still strongly support Eliot's argument that losses due to counting are severely over-estimated by low and mid-level casino employees.

Actually it's that losses due to optimal counting are only $3x.xx/hour given the conditions listed, and the index/ramp/other stuff that anonimuss is obsessing over is merely the difference between $1x.xx/hour and $2x.xx/hour. The losses will *never* get to $4x.xx/hour. That's the point: $33.xx is as good as the counter can possibly do with a max bet of $100. It's not $100 or $8000, just $33.

Guys, I don't usually read here, but Mike alerted me to the discussion, so, if you will permit some comments/clarifications, here goes:

1. I don't read Eliot's site, but I reviewed his remarks for the purposes of commenting here.

2. If Eliot had simply been writing for the benefit of casino employees, to try to make a mathematical point, why would he have embarked on his diatribe about the I18 in his second post, which, sadly, is unadulterated drivel?

3. Many of you own Norm's genial software, CVCX. In the canned sims portion, one may choose Hi-Lo, Sweet 16 (not even the full I18, because ten-splits are eliminated) + Fab 4 (meaningful, of course, only if you stipulate a late surrender game), or one may choose Full Indices. I urge you to play with the two to your heart's content, comparing SCOREs for first one, then the second set of indices.

Typically, for my shoe studies, I would choose something along the lines of: 4.5/6, S17, DAS, four players, play-all, 1-12 spread. When one does that for the two scenarios above, the truncated indices win 89.4% of the full indices. This is altogether typical. You may change the pen, the rules, the number of players, and/or the spread, but you will virtually always find the truncated indices winning 85%-92% of the full indices.

4. Just one man's opinion: Eliot's article is next-to-useless. It illustrates and "proves" absolutely nothing. And, if it was an attempt to discredit the I18, it fails miserably, as did Grosjean in the abject nonsense he wrote in Exhibit CAA. If you want to know their motives for writing such drivel, you'll have to ask them. I might speculate that petty jealousy and a fierce desire to discredit another man's work are the main driving forces, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time or yours on the topic.

Regards,

Don

Quote: DSchles

Guys, I don't usually read here, but Mike alerted me to the discussion, so, if you will permit some comments/clarifications, here goes:

1. I don't read Eliot's site, but I reviewed his remarks for the purposes of commenting here.

2. If Eliot had simply been writing for the benefit of casino employees, to try to make a mathematical point, why would he have embarked on his diatribe about the I18 in his second post, which, sadly, is unadulterated drivel?

3. Many of you own Norm's genial software, CVCX. In the canned sims portion, one may choose Hi-Lo, Sweet 16 (not even the full I18, because ten-splits are eliminated) + Fab 4 (meaningful, of course, only if you stipulate a late surrender game), or one may choose Full Indices. I urge you to play with the two to your heart's content, comparing SCOREs for first one, then the second set of indices.

Typically, for my shoe studies, I would choose something along the lines of: 4.5/6, S17, DAS, four players, play-all, 1-12 spread. When one does that for the two scenarios above, the truncated indices win 89.4% of the full indices. This is altogether typical. You may change the pen, the rules, the number of players, and/or the spread, but you will virtually always find the truncated indices winning 85%-92% of the full indices.

4. Just one man's opinion: Eliot's article is next-to-useless. It illustrates and "proves" absolutely nothing. And, if it was an attempt to discredit the I18, it fails miserably, as did Grosjean in the abject nonsense he wrote in Exhibit CAA. If you want to know their motives for writing such drivel, you'll have to ask them. I might speculate that petty jealousy and a fierce desire to discredit another man's work are the main driving forces, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time or yours on the topic.

Regards,

Don

Thanks for posting. And, thanks for all the great work; BJA is up there with Theory of Blackjack as one of the best blackjack books I have ever read.

Thank you. Hope I've helped to establish some closure for this rather long thread.

Don

Quote: DSchles

Thank you. Hope I've helped to establish some closure for this rather long thread.

Don

I don't know what my chances of convincing you are, but.... stick around! There are occasionally interesting discussions on the blackjack forum, and I'm sure that a lot of people would appreciate your input. I know that I would.

Don, I'm honored you stopped by to post. Thank you for the clarification on the I-18/F-4. Please come by and visit whenever you wish. Your contributions would be more than welcome.

Just wanted to post in the same thread as the legendary Don Schlesinger.

Don, we have many great posters here, but you would add so much to this forum. Like others, I hope you choose to visit more often. The Wiz runs a great forum and adding posters like you would only make it better.

Why casinos spend so much trying to stop card counters we will never know, but they are extremely paranoid and will lose revenue just to shut these guys out. There must be an underlying reason why. Any business with a loss leader makes money from other sources but without the loss leader they wouldn't have those customers anyway. How much would the drop increase if there were no counter(pun intended)measures for red and green chippers? I bet there would still be a net positive even after letting counters "attack" the tables, due to increased pen and less shuffling.

What goes through the mind of a new pit boss or floorman as they are told, "card counters are evil?" Do they believe this, or are they just doing what they are told when they call surveillance? How much money do they think the counters are making, and do they understand the "house edge" as it shifts from the casino to the player when the count goes up? Or do they just see it as "player 1 just split his tens and had a $200 bet out, when he usually bets $10..... He's gonna clean out our money!"

Don,

Just wanted to add my welcome to you. We'd really enjoy having you stop by from time to time. Nothing like learning from the masters.

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't think that's what Eliot is saying. He's not comparing 18+4 indices vs. all indices ceteris paribus, he's comparing 18+4 indices with a 1-12 spread vs. all indices with a 0-1 spread. That's a big difference. It's not a realistic thing to expect a counter to be able to accomplish, but that's the whole point: a counter can't possibly do better.

Correct. Thanks for taking the time to carefully read and understand what I wrote. I also did the work for a 1-to-8 spread. A perfect card counter with a $100 max bet earns $33.58 per 100. Other card counters with a max bet of $100 win less. In particular, I quantified sub-optimal play of the type described in BJA, by normalizing to a $100 max bet.

With regard to side bets, I agree (for the most part) with the sentiment that side bets are not a threat at the $25 level (Slingo, and UR Way Egalite aside). I make no claims otherwise. Worldwide, side bets pose a very serious threat to game integrity and are a major target of high-level advantage play.

My intention with my articles is not to call out mediocre card counters for their obsession. It is quite the opposite. I want to get casinos off of their obsession with low-level card counters. I want to help casinos quantify the risks they face by giving scalable metrics. Win per 100 hands with a $100 max bet is a scalable metric. Perfect card counting is $33.58. Card counting of the type described by DonS is $15 to $20.

For example, card counting the UR Way Egalite baccarat side bet yields about $1950 per 100 hands. It would take an average skill-level blackjack card counter wagering a max bet of about $10000 per hand to be equal in risk to a UR Egalite card counter wagering $100. This is what I mean by scalable metrics.