Hey Math folks!

So I was just reading a post on here talking about PE vs. BC for various counting systems. The general consensus was that PE is more important for pitch games and BC is more important for shoe games.

Now my question is this:

-As the number of decks increase, how does one weight the importance of each of them?

Just as an arbitrary experiment, I took all of the counting methods listed at this site: http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm
and plugged them into a spreadsheet where I double weighted BC and single weighted PE. The result was that Wong Halves, Uston SS, and the Revere point count ended up tied at .85.

Now I don't even know if PE can effectively get much higher than .7 (pretty new to this), so maybe I should have weighted it differently, but I think this example illustrates what I'm trying to do.

I think this is also an important question when it comes to things like PE and how important it is in shoe games. I know that it's not as important as BC, but does that mean it doesn't matter at all?

Just some things I've been thinking about.

-Supa

The general consensus was that PE is more important for pitch games and BC is more important for shoe games.

You cited what is a common misconception. While, relatively speaking, playing efficiency is more important in single deck games than it is for multiple deck games, it is never more important than betting correlation in either case. I don't have Griffin's Theory of Blackjack in front of me at the moment, but he discusses the relative importance of accurate playing strategy versus betting strategy. In the end, it boils down to knowing when to put the money in the betting square. You won't make money if you don't put it down when the time is right.

Thanks for the info... I'd rather find this out earlier than later :)

On a side note, do either of these factors (BC or PE) affect spread or flux? Basically what I want to know is if there are systems out there that have a smaller span of spread or lower fluctuations (session bankroll) or both. If I have to learn a harder system to lower these things I will, just wondering if it's possible. Thanks!

-Supa

On a side note, do either of these factors (BC or PE) affect spread or flux? Basically what I want to know is if there are systems out there that have a smaller span of spread or lower fluctuations (session bankroll) or both. If I have to learn a harder system to lower these things I will, just wondering if it's possible. Thanks!

The best way make comparisons is using the SCORE. This is a rating of how good a game and/or betting system is by taking both EV and risk into account.

You can read it in Blackjack Attack. You can lookup calculations with CXCV on-line: http://www.qfit.com/cvcxonlineviewer.htm.

I'm saying this off the top of my head, so someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but "flux" (I assume you mean fluctuations in return) is not going to be significantly effected by playing efficiency. Of course, betting correlation speaks directly to how much money one should put on the line and when it should happen, so in general terms, it has a direct impact on fluctuation. However, all of the decent systems are very close to one another in BC, and I doubt if there is very much difference at all from one to another in terms of what you call "flux".

In deeply dealt single deck games, a system with the highest PE may enable you to use a slightly smaller spread, but in practical terms, deeply dealt single deck games are so rare (virtually non-existant) that the time it would take to learn a more difficult system just to take advantage of that would be time wasted, in my opinion.

This is a great tool... thanks for linking to it. You rock.

-Supa