Larry D. Haight PhD
New Member
- Messages
- 39
My statement was directed at your comments and the premise you presented.
If you have empirical data to confirm you hypothesis then present it, otherwise refrain from spreading malarkey.
You have no knowledge of either my accomplishments or my competency and I would find no value in your assessment of either.
I have real data that confirms card counting works. Not bullshit hypothesis or algorithms. I look forward to seeing your proof.
In certain limited circumstances, card counters can expect long term gains of about 1.5%. For a counter to expect to earn a living playing blackjack, he must have available capital of about $150,000. There are limited opportunities to use the art. At tables using a CSM or an eight deck shoe with poor deck penetration, the art of card counting is useless. In the past, there were "networks" that kept counters informed of which casinos had playable games. Winnings are so tenuous, card counters frequently formed pools of multiple counters with distribution of winnings among the players to average out winnings. Many pools failed and they did not publish. Ken Uston's "Million Dollar Blackjack" describes pools, and operation. Uston stated that his last group took excessively long to hit the target win. Card counters use a variable interval attack betting algorithm for such times as a "clumping" of "advantage" plays is isolated. Uston said it well "Bet the true in green."
If card counters choose to be struck on stupid, be my guest. A typical bettor has perhaps $200 - $1000 available capital for occasional trips to a casino. Card counting has little, if any, value to such a bettor. The only advantage play available to the typical bettor is use of a "Basic Strategy" that isolates favorable doubles and pair splits. Zero True Count Basic Strategy may be statistically accurate but a Minus Three True Count Basic Strategy provides better capital retention for typical sessions of perhaps 100 - 200 bets. This is "Not bullshit hypothesis or algorithms" but plain decent accounting.
A thinking bettor observes the accounting system of the table. The first observation is that while he is 100% at risk for every round that he bets, the table is not 100% at risk for every round. The table deals multiple hands every round. Some win, some lose. The table collects losses first and then pays winnings. This is Round Robin Rotation format. Multiple card counters individually betting as part of a group are using a form of Round Robin Rotation. Betting in Round Robin Rotation is a method of risk diversification. An individual bettor can achieve the same effect as either the dealer or a betting group. The concept is simple. The individual bettor uses chip stacks (files or folders) as a paperless ledger sheet and bets as if he were three or four bettors. The first bet would be from the right most stack. After every bet, rotate to the next stack. Round Robin Rotation format is most appropriate for defense algorithms.
Defense normally provides for win retention betting by reducing the size of the next bet after a win. When a decent algorithm is bet in Round Robin Rotation, bet sizes are biased to the lowest end of the betting range. When the inevitable six or eight losses in a row occurs, it tends to take six or eight of the lowest bets and losses are normally minimal. A bettor may be subject to a series of periodic losses, that is, a loss every fourth hand. A Round Robin Rotation bettor copies the betting of the casino. The cumulative bank is king. When a win occurs (even if it is only one chip), the bets in all folders are reduced to the base bet. If the next bet wins, the cumulative bank is reset again. Cumulative bank resets (chip eating) makes for having many winning sessions in a row. This is "Not bullshit hypothesis or algorithms" but plain decent accounting.
A limited attack/defense betting algorithm (used in each file) might be "base bet $5, win or lose the next bet is $10 (unless there was a cumulative bank reset with the win of $5), If the $10 wins, reset that file to $5. If the $10 bet loses, the next bet is $15. If the $15 bet wins, reset that file to base bet of $5. If a $15 bet loses, go to a variable interval loss recovery, increase the next bet by $1 - $2 and any additional losing bets are increased by the same amount. When an increased bet wins, decrease the following bet by $5. Continue the "up 1 or 2, down 5" until the file is back to base or until salvaged by a cumulative bank reset."
A $5 base bettor will have a buy in bank of $200 and a defined betting range of from 1 to 8, that is from $5 to a maximum of $40. A ($2) variable interval loss recovery starting after loss of a $15 bet would very rarely reach a bet size of $40.
Table departure might be "only leave the table with a win (of any size)." Tables can be stuck on stupid. I don't know why. If you sit down to a buzz saw, leave early. This is "Not bullshit hypothesis or algorithms" but plain decent accounting.
Some other betting algorithms work well in Round Robin Rotation. Hoyle's Press (miscalled Oscar's Grind in the USA) has OK results but Bet Backs perform better. In a Bet Back or Hoyle's Press, a winning bet is followed by a larger bet in the same file.
Attack algorithms are bet lineally (not in Round Robin Rotation) or follow the pattern of winning bets are followed by larger bets in the same file. There is no gain from betting in Round Robin Rotation with attack algorithms. Attack might be bet as "Bet $5 after every loss. Bet $10 after every win." This algorithm works very well when there are streaks of either player or dealer wins. It falls flat when the table is choppy, that is win one, lose one, win one, lose one.... Casino Blackjack is a tough game because much of the available betting technology is not practical in a game that can only be bet to win. Both the dealer and the player may be bet to win but the compound bet may only be put for the player to win. This is an improvement, but the gains are slight.
To the negative reviewer of my comments: This is "Not bullshit hypothesis or algorithms" but plain decent accounting. It is based on the accounting practices of the casino and represents what card counters wish they had but refuse to believe. You state "If you have empirical data to confirm you hypothesis then present it, otherwise refrain from spreading malarkey." I described accounting practices, I did not present a hypothesis. Your field glasses have a hole in them.
I have no idea of your competence in playing chess, pinochle or poker but it is apparent that you are not competent in the field of accounting. Contrary to your belief, investment betting is a fine art, on par with playing chess or pinochle.