teliot's counting cards blog on APheat (Split from Is it just me...)
Point #4 above added, without comment or rebuttal, as a note at the bottom of the referenced blog post on APHeat.Quote: DSchles
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: DSchles3. 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.
Result 1 -- $0/$100 betting, starting at a TC of +1, all indices, perfect RC/TC conversion, max bet $100, results provided by Norm Wattenberger. $33.58 per 100 hands.
Result 2 -- ramp betting (1-to-12), 22 indices, 1/4-deck RC/TC conversion, max bet $100, results quoted from BJA, 2nd edition, by Donald Schlesinger. $19.42 per 100 hands.
Result 2 returns 57.8% of Result 1 for 6D, DAS, DOA, H17, with cut card at 52.
It seems that result is favorable for any AP that counts cards at BJ. Why would you want to correct any flaws in the argument? Seems akin to returning an incorrect payout at the tables.
Quote: jopkeEliot posted about BJ card counting and came to the conclusion it isn't lucrative and casinos shouldn't worry so much about it.
It seems that result is favorable for any AP that counts cards at BJ. Why would you want to correct any flaws in the argument? Seems akin to returning an incorrect payout at the tables.
This. I don't really care about picking nits, I just hope Eliot is successful in his endeavors to get casinos to not care about card counting.
Quote: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.
Perfect card counting isn't "33.58". I wouldn't get out bed unless the game I simmed was $125/hr or better and I wasn't at the top of the heap. The intention of your article is to try and gain a reputation by denigrating another author's work. BJA doesn't describe "sub-optimal play". You fail to grasp the simplest concepts of blackjack. If you can play 25% more hours with a 10% reduction in your win rate by using 22 indices instead of 140 you make more money from a casino. Need me to do the math for you? You should stop pigeonholing card counters based on your real life experiences.
Quote: AcesAndEightsThis. I don't really care about picking nits, I just hope Eliot is successful in his endeavors to get casinos to not care about card counting.
As a counter I'm happy to have him out there telling the casinos it just isn't profitable to do all that much to stop us. As an educated person using sims without proper controls in the way he did just irks me something bad. A college freshman would fail a class miserably if he designed such a comparison let alone someone who is supposed to be a professional.
Quote: anonimussPerfect card counting isn't "33.58". I wouldn't get out bed unless the game I simmed was $125/hr or better and I wasn't at the top of the heap.
...
Need me to do the math for you?
I want to see your math. Are you claiming that you can earn $125 per hour with a max bet of $100?
Discrediting and proving they have no need for dark sider's might be more valuable, that way the casinos can spend less money on useless consulting fees and use it to promote how people can beat Vegas. Then rake in the rewards, as it brings in tons of failing counters and AP's. Some of them became life long losing customer's some even turn to the dark side after failing miserably. What a vicious cycle. Just pray I don't turn to the dark side.Quote: jopkeEliot posted about BJ card counting and came to the conclusion it isn't lucrative and casinos shouldn't worry so much about it.
It seems that result is favorable for any AP that counts cards at BJ. Why would you want to correct any flaws in the argument? Seems akin to returning an incorrect payout at the tables.
Quote: AxelWolfDiscrediting and proving they have no need for dark sider's might be more valuable, that way the casinos can spend less money on useless consulting fees and use it to promote how people can beat Vegas. Then rake in the rewards, as it brings in tons of failing counters and AP's. Some of them became life long losing customer's some even turn to the dark side after failing miserably. What a vicious cycle. Just pray I don't turn to the dark side.
Yes, because an industry revolving entirely around math, still dominated by people poorly versed in math, is spending "useless consulting fees" to become better educated in math.
Quote: anonimussYou fail to grasp the simplest concepts of blackjack. If you can play 25% more hours with a 10% reduction in your win rate by using 22 indices instead of 140 you make more money from a casino. Need me to do the math for you? You should stop pigeonholing card counters based on your real life experiences.
I'd like to see the math too.
Incidently, your tone and attitude throughout this thread is suspiciously the same as the tone and attitude exhibited by this member in another thread:
Quote: RicardoEsteban
eliot jacobson continues his quest to be world's most loathsome man, now pulling ahead of Mullah Omar into the #6 spot
stockholm syndrome ploppies call for APs in handcuffs
Hard not to notice.
Quote: TankoI'd like to see the math too.
0.9 * 1.25 = 1.125 > 1
Quote: TankoI'd like to see the math too.
Incidently, your tone and attitude throughout this thread is suspiciously the same as the tone and attitude exhibited by this member in another thread:
Hard not to notice.
Yeah, I'm looking at the tone of all this, too. Been riding the razor's edge of the rules with contempt and meanness.
Quote: anonimussIf you can play 25% more hours with a 10% reduction in your win rate by using 22 indices instead of 140 you make more money from a casino.
Quote: TankoI'd like to see the math too.
Incidently, your tone and attitude throughout this thread is suspiciously the same as the tone and attitude exhibited by this member in another thread:
Hard not to notice.
LOL.. Okay Sherlock. Here's the math. You win 90% as much with the I18 as you do with a full spread of indices. A counter with a full spread would win $100 for every $90 a counter using the I18 wins. If the counter wins $100 an hour for 8 hours with a full spread of indices and the counter using I18 wins $90 an hour for 10 hours, I'll leave it to you to do the math from here.
Quote: anonimussLOL.. Okay Sherlock. Here's the math. You win 90% as much with the I18 as you do with a full spread of indices. A counter with a full spread would win $100 for every $90 a counter using the I18 wins. If the counter wins $100 an hour for 8 hours with a full spread of indices and the counter using I18 wins $90 an hour for 10 hours, I'll leave it to you to do the math from here.
Next you're going to tell us that 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.
"Math": you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.Quote: anonimussHe didn't understand the math and asked me to explain it to him. I did. And Geico charges more than anybody I ever received a quote from.
Scaling this to a $100 maximum bet, as in my articles, this game gives a win rate of $16.29 per hour. This win-rate is consistent with the results presented in my article on the "average blackjack card counter". The numbers in my article were based on results presented in BJA#2. I don't know what all the fighting is about.Quote:CVCX: 4.5/6, S17, DAS, four players, $25-$300 optimal spread. Sweet 16 hourly win: $48.88.
I am not clear where the phrase "$25-$300 optimal spread" comes from. In the context of the simulation DS performed, the optimal spread is "$0 or $300." Suboptimal spreads arise, for example, from using the Kelly criterion because of being underfunded with respect to the table limit.
Quote: MathExtremist"Math": you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Please, please. go for small words next time. totally worth the brief hiatus...:-)
Quote: anonimussHe didn't understand the math and asked me to explain it to him. I did. And Geico charges more than anybody I ever received a quote from.
You do realize there's a difference between a $100 max bet and a $100 hourly take, right? Because it sure looks like you just whiffed there...
Quote: teliotIn this post on bj21.com, DS states:
Scaling this to a $100 maximum bet, as in my articles, this game gives a win rate of $16.29 per hour. This win-rate is consistent with the results presented in my article on the "average blackjack card counter". The numbers in my article were based on results presented in BJA#2. I don't know what all the fighting is about.
I am not clear where the phrase "$25-$300 optimal spread" comes from. In the context of the simulation DS performed, the optimal spread is "$0 or $300." Suboptimal spreads arise, for example, from using the Kelly criterion because of being underfunded with respect to the table limit.
The point is your article mentioning I18 contributed nothing to your original article and is just an attempt to link your name with Don S and in your mind try to reword what James Grosjean said without even acknowledging that. Most cc authors in the last 10 - 15 years wrote books just to make money. Don S developed the I18 and optimal exit points for card counters. Both allowed ccs to earn more money than they did before. He wrote something that was actually original and made people more money.
Quote: rdw4potusYou do realize there's a difference between a $100 max bet and a $100 hourly take, right? Because it sure looks like you just whiffed there...
What are you even talking about?
Quote: anonimussThe point is your article mentioning I18 contributed nothing to your original article and is just an attempt to link your name with Don S and in your mind try to reword what James Grosjean said without even acknowledging that.
The "point" of my article about the "average blackjack card counter" is to knock some sense into the casino industry, who are obsessed with card counters, even at the $100 level. DS did some work on the average player when he analyzed the I-18 with a 12-to-1 spread and 8-to-1 spread (which is arguably not a professional system), so I quoted his results, with attribution, in the article.
Quote: anonimuss at bj21.comI've seen a lot of other things he says that are wrong. I don't bother correcting him. But this is the most basic aspect of card counting that he fails to comprehend. I think it's quite funny.
What did I say that was wrong? DS posted some results on bj21.com earlier today that support everything I wrote. Is he wrong? And if our results agree, why would he say:
Quote: DS at bj21.comIf you're talking about Eliot ... you need to stop talking about him. He is pretty much a laughing stock among serious players.
All this shows is that DS does not know many serious players.
http://www.casinoenterprisemanagement.com/articles/june-2013/confirming-suspected-player-counting-cards-fact-or-educated-guess
You think Zender is wrong?
" If the charted observations of a suspected player indicate that he is using a large enough bet spread and increasing their wagers to the larger bet level when he has a mathematical advantage of 90 percent or greater. "
http://www.casinoenterprisemanagement.com/articles/june-2013/confirming-suspected-player-counting-cards-fact-or-educated-guess
Quote: BuzzardOh I don't know this one line seems a little distorted !
" If the charted observations of a suspected player indicate that he is using a large enough bet spread and increasing their wagers to the larger bet level when he has a mathematical advantage of 90 percent or greater. "
I would guess he means 90% of the time the larger bets correspond with a plus count. And, btw, I played numerous times in the Alladin under Zender's nose and my hourly EV was over $16.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzZX2aN3I0
Quote: BuzzardWell, that's not exactly how he worded it. But you are probably right. But people who saw the movie Rainman or 21, probably think a counter does have a 90% edge. LOL
I read an interview with one of the main MIT players. He said they won 10 mil over 20 years. That's not very much when you figure in how many players they had and there were investors. If I get time I'll see if I can find a link to the interview.
Getting back to the topic of this thread...MIT team, nonthreatening bunch of know nothing hacks killing their win rate:
JC: We modified basic strategy just a little bit because they are going to play only positive shoes. They had a +2 basic strategy. People make mistakes when they start dealing with index numbers, and they play slower. It can confuse their count. The guys who won the money weren’t playing the numbers. They were just out there betting it playing basic strategy.
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/interviewJC.htm
JC: One thing I think I’d like to add is what kind of threat the MIT blackjack team really is to the casinos. Despite our vaunted reputation, we really haven’t taken that much money out. A little more than $10 million is my guess. That might sound like a lot but considering the amount of time [over 20 years] and number of people it’s not particularly impressive.
If you're talking about Eliot ... you need to stop talking about him. He is pretty much a laughing stock among serious players.
Quote: teliotAll this shows is that DS does not know many serious players.
I do. Actually, he is right.
Quote: BuzzardHere's the 21 trailer. Based on a true story. Yeah, there was a MIT team and they played Blackjack. Most everything else is bullshit !
"I took literary license to make it readable. The idea that the story is true is more important than being able to prove that it's true." -The Boston Globe
Ben Mezrich
"Bringing down the House"
