..Or, better yet, don't!
"The Laws of nature dont change over the years,likewise the laws of Blackjack."
The Laws of nature may not change over the years but our understanding of them certainly does !
And that equally applies to the "laws of Blackjack".
Part of the problem here is one of terminology. BJA uses floored True Counts. That is, "True Count of +1" refers to the interval [1,2), and the figures quoted represent average values over that interval. Francis is apparently talking about exact true counts. Francis is apparently talking about exact True Counts.
Another problem is that I think FS is talking about the Betting Gain for a Basic Strategy player, whereas ET Fan is considering the total gain of Bettting and Playing.
I did a quick Combinatorial Analysis of this game. Off the top, I found an EV of -0.5553% and SD of 1.145.
Then I removed one of each low card and added one of each high card. This gives a Shoe with a HiLo RC of +10, and a True count of 10/8 or 1.25. The computer then computed the value of optimal play against this and found EV of 0.1265% and SD of 1.147
According to my arithmetic by hand, the increase of 1.25 true points generated a gain of .6818%. Interpolating Linearly, we would estimate that each true point is worth .5454% for this game.
As stated, this does include both playing and betting effects. In case your were interested in the Betting Effects for this game, I computed all the Effects of Removal, using the optimal BS for this game. Here they are
A -0.51%
2 0.43%
3 0.53%
4 0.71%
5 0.86%
6 0.52%
7 0.22%
8 -0.08%
9 -0.28%
10 -0.60%
Francis
Have a look again at Ace Man original post and you will learn there
that this player is a High-Low counter who uses IL 18 and FAB 4
indexes to attack his 8dks shoe game.
With this in mind, the numbers published in my previous post are
accurate (the SE is negligible) and as a direct consecuence, he
shall increase his bet at TC 1, as ET FAN recommended.
But let's consider the following scenario:
Ace Man is a high-low counter who doesn't have a clue what indexes
are, he keeps his count accurately, increases his bet whenever an
advantage arouses but play strictly BS always. In this case the
numbers say this:
8dk.....-0.57%
H17.....-0.216%
DAS.....0.142%
LS......0.098%
BSE = -0.546%
The difference here between this figure and the one I posted above
is a total of 0.056%, in other words his total gain by flat betting
the shoe but using his IL18 and FAB 4 indexes to vary the play of
his hands.
Or in plain English, this gentleman can increase his bet at TC1 with
confidence of having a little advantage, even without any idea about
indexes. So, I rest my case here.
Regards
Z
If you had left away the = sign I wouldn't have intervened but with that sign you documented that you meant that Aceman can attack already at +1 precisely.
After closer scrutiny and in the face of data presented by Math Prof and Zenfighter, I admit that it is probably too severe to say that your still in negative territory at that point but the fact remains that you're not generating any positive EV there but just a lot of variance.
I think the whole thing was mainly a misunderstanding.I would propose we leave it there.
Francis Salmon
Alekhine was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant Chess players ever. But his attitude during the second world war was more than dubious. In 1941, he published a series of articles in which he wanted to prove that Jewish Chess was defensive and coward whereas the Aryan chess was aggressive and bold. As examples of Jewish Chess he cited Steinitz,Lasker,Schlechter,Rubinstein,Nimzowitsch,Reshevsky and Fine and for the Aryan Chess Morphy,Pillsbury,Marshall,Capablanca and of course himself. Everybody a bit familiar with Chess knows that this is complete nonsense and I cannot believe that Alekhine was serious about it. He probably thought that the Nazis would win the war and tried to gain advantages. But still this was very sad.
Francis Salmon
Thank you to all for taking the time to examine this question in so much detail. I learned a bit in the process about the value of late surrender.
To summarize, it sounds like your advice is that I can start my bet ramp at TC=+1 since I have an advatage there. By TC=+1, I mean TC of at least +1.0000 and less than +2.0000 - sorry for any confusion on this. I find this way of thinking alot easier in practice. I had thought that I would not have an advantage until TC=+2.000 (using approx. the same numbers that F.S. posted). From the discussion, it looks like the Hi-Lo EOR is about 25% higher (per TC point) due to the late surrender rule (.60 vs. .48). Again, this is very interesting information. It appears that this game may be more valuable than I initially thought. Maybe I should rethink my opinion that the effects of a back-off would not be too bad (as well as my preference for DD games with lower % pen and worse rules).
Again,
Thank you.
that was rarely wrong (in his own eyes), to the extent of doctoring the analysis of his games.
This, I understand, is ETF's subtle point. (Well, not so subtle when made in this den of Caissa's acolytes.)
Alekhine was actually highly selfcritical and very much devoted to the truth. For him, Chess was a science and if errors in his annotations were subsequently discovered and (in some cases only recently with the use of computers) it was simply because he was extremely active in this field. Commenting games (not only his own) and writing Tournament books was his main source of income. As Goethe would put it: "Es irrt der Mensch, solang er strebt!"
The prototype of a dogmatic Chessplayer was actually Tarrasch, the first teacher of chess strategy.Nimzowitch,Reti and also Aljechin were then challenging some of the principles set up by Tarrasch.
Francis Salmon
(This is not the first time I'm exploring chess myths around here, it's gonna become a habitual sight!)
Alekhine, in front of whose brilliance I humbly bow, was no more than human. Proof : The superb Alexander Alekhine's Best Games, 1902-1946, where the authors, Leonard M. Skinner & Robert G. P. Verhoeven, quote the master himself analysing his games. On p.235, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 c6 5.e3, Alekhine plays 5...Qa5 and writes that he's unaware of the move having being played before, in master praxis. Yet the move had occured, via transposition, in Pillsbury v Janowsky, Budapest, 1896, and Reggio v Pillsbury, Monte Carlo, 1903. In the same book, on p.509, we read that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.0-0 Nf6, the move 6.c3 is introduced by Alekhine, while it had actually been played already in Walbrodt v Steinitz, Hastings, 1895.
Alekhine was capable of being at times merciless with his own faults at play but he has also "improved" some game-scores for immortality. He wrote a tournament book (of New York, 1927) which was shamefully biased against Capablanca.
--Source inter alia : the brilliant Kings, Commoners and Knaves by that ruthless chess paladin, Edward Winter. Highly recommended.
All the chess books (like bj) seem rather samey.
Is there a book with math stuff in eg % of specific end-games resulting from specific gambits?
