MathProf OPP sim

MP was kind enough to run a sim of OPP. Unfortunately he posted on bjf and I am barred from posting there. So, I'll respond here.

MP simmed a DD S17 DAS 75% 10:1 game. The Win Rates for this game for KO, HiLo and OPP are below. The KO and HiLo numbers come from the free CVCX Online site - link at the bottom.

KO	108.25
HiLo	107.25
OPP	42.8

CVCX Online

What if the EV is still non-negative with a 1 to 2 or 1 to 4 spread?

I thought earlier the answer was yes but then I got confused with all of the other posts.

Thanks

for the Golden Touch BJ System (the same as OPP) feel much better.

If I am betting $5 as my basic bet but never want to go over $10-$20 per hand, well, actually probably $10, and I used OPP, would I still be playing a negative EV game or is that enough of a bump in bets to be playing a non-negative EV game?

Hopefully that was clearer.

Thanks as always in advance.

Well, obviously it depends on the game. If you are playing SD, S17, DAS, LSR - well, you can win with BS:) But the general, realistic answer to your question is that you would still be playing negative expectation.

Then I guess it's not worth learning. I'm not ready to be betting $80/hand or even $40/hand so I'll just stick to BS.

Problem is that a system with a very weak correlation to EORs requires a very large spread with dramatic jumps in bets. This is particularly true of a strategy with a very low PE. OPP/SC is/are based purely on betting for the bit of advantage they manage. That makes the spread even more important since these counts are very poor at playing decisions. And would remain so, as they will discover after much more time investment, even with indexes. Such counts are lousy at determining playing decisions making most indexes pointless. It is also poor for Wonging since it identifies too few good situations. So, paradoxically, a very weak system is the worst system for a risk averse beginner.

A second paradox is that the large spread and dramatic bet changes required by such systems mean that you are actually more likely to be barred from play even though you are using such a poor strategy. And, in fact, the casinos throw out lousy players all the time as they don't understand this concept.

The 107.25 SCORE is for hi-lo with true count conversions, the I18, and no bet structuring. MPs bets are about as simply structured as one could imagine with zero indices and no true count conversions.

What is your motive for posting so biased a comparison? What happened to the "apples versus apples" you guys never stop talking about?

This is really nice. I remember when Speed Count first appeared, advantageplayer climbed all over it on account of the bloated $895 sticker price. Now someone unveils it for zip, and instead of celebrating for recreational players everywhere yearning for a simple system, all you can do is take prefabricated pot shots.

Really nice.

ETF

The article wishes to compare OPP with a professional level strategy. That is the comparison. Compare OPP as stated with HiLo as it is played. Comparing it to HiLo with no insurance and no indexes is simply a dishonest trick since that is not how it is played and is not a professional level anything. You want to compare OPP with full indexes and call it a simple system? You can't have it both ways. Either it is simpler and must be compared as simpler, or not. That is how valid comparisons are made.

OPP has 40% of the win rate of HiLo. That is an accurate, fair statement. How can you say otherwise? Why are you accusing me of taking "prefabricated pot shots?" What does that even mean? MathProf ran the sim and you make accusations against people that simply want to put out the numbers. That is what these forums are for.

About 30 years ago, when I was getting ready for my first trip to Vegas, I bought a book that covered several popular games and included several chapters on Blackjack. It had Basic Strategy charts, which was a Good Thing, but then it revealed the secret of "getting an edge" over the game by counting cards. The only count that it discussed was basically the same as Hi Opt I, but without indices, but hey, that will give you at least some of the edge of the full system, right? And sure, it mentioned in passing that rules affect the starting disadvantage, so if you don't get the best rules, that will cut into your edge -- but it's just a little bit, right? And I believe it also mentioned that your expectation was reduced if the penetration wasn't so deep, but hey, you're still playing with an edge, right? And bet ramps? Well, "bet more when you have an advantage" is about all you need to know to get an edge, right?

I suspect that most people who learned counting from that book -- or the myriad of similar books that were popular in the 70s -- had about the same results I did: We got our asses handed to us, with a smile and a free buffet.

Now, ET Fan, if that happened to me today and I posted about what I was doing and asked, "So, if I'm playing with an edge, how come I got my ass kicked?" I really think that either you or Arnold Snyder could explain that very well: "Oh Roger, Roger, Roger, a little knowledge is such a dangerous thing! Simply stated, the expectation may inherit the Earth in the long run, but variance is king of the short run, and in Blackjack, very few recreational players will ever get anywhere near the long run. But the biggest problem in your case is you're just playing too weak a game with too small a bankroll."

But here you are today, ignoring what's been learned in the last 30 years, "celebrating" that with a mere few hours of practice, recreational players will be sent out to bet $160 (!) on one hand at a $10 table, because after all, they have an edge and they're playing with a system that's "almost as good HiLo?"

Beginning players do not use play indicies with HiLo anymore than they would with OPP. We're talking about betting correlation right now, so let's keep the focus on betting. For an accurate playing correlation comparison, you should compare the two using the same play strategy deviations...either the I-18, CBS, or some other subset of index numbers.

Just my opinion.
If somebody is not able to learn the hi-lo sistem with 10-15 index numbers it simply means that this person is intelectualy chalenged and should not be playing the game of BJ.
And if he is too lasy to learn it then he deserves to lose all of his money.
Allmost every "recreational player" will get killed using the OPP sistem playing the tipical games.
Just wonder whats next?Mayby a "new and improved" variant of the Ace-5 count?

Think about this:

I use Hi-Lo myself. When possible, I play a lot. When that is not as possible (as today, since the MS coast is shut down, or when I simply can't get away for a while to go play somewhere) I practice. Using CVBJ.

If someone is a casual player, that plays a few times a year, hi-lo might not be something they could not learn. But it might be something they could not "do". You can't play twice a year, not practice fairly frequently, and still play a winning game with hi-lo.

For that kind of player, it would seem to me that _anything_ that might actually give them a +EV is better than BS which gives them a -EV game. It really doesn't matter whether it is 50% of hi-lo, or 80%. What matters is that the EV is actually positive, it would seem to me.

I don't believe they would care whether it was 20% of hi-lo or 80% of hi-lo. If it gives them the ability to play a +EV bj game, I suspect most players of that type would be quite happy, since there is no other +EV opportunity in the casino for them.

Would I consider using this system? Of course not. But then again, neither would any "real counting system user" assuming they can play or practice enough to keep their skill level up to casino-level. I've done hi-lo long enough and often enough that I would not want to try to compare "ease of use" since I consider hi-lo "easy enough" already, and I don't have to devote a lot of mental power to using it in a casino setting.

If this system produces a +EV game, which it appears it does, and if it is free, which it appears it is, then I don't see how it could be bad...

Basic strategy you can flat bet. The problem with a very weak counting system with a positive EV is that getting that positive EV requires a large spread and dramatic bet increases. Thus, it also dramatically increases risk. When someone suggests a very weak strategy, they are advising a high risk strategy. I don't think that's a good idea for the casual player.

Now if you really insist on learning a very simple system, KO Rookie (no insurance or indexes) is as easy and has a 50% higher SCORE so it does not require such a large spread or risk. Although I still wouldn't advise it.

I based my comments on a couple of things:

(1) these kinds of players are most likely going to play shoe games anyway, since they are the most common games offered. And shoes take a big spread with big variance, no matter what the counting system. I shoot for 1-20 the rare occasions I play shoes, as a reference for me.

(2) these kinds of players are going to play, no matter what. And if they don't have a very simple +EV approach, they are going to use progressions, which still increases their average bet size, and hence their variance as well (bankroll variance of course).

(3) I'd hope that anyone playing the game for any length of time understands the variance issue to begin with. Some win, some lose, some break even. But apparently, all are going to play, no matter what. I wonder whether using OPP is worse than using some progression nonsense that has no chance whatsoever of producing a +EV long-term?

I usually take the xx% improvement with a grain of salt anyway.

Example, someone develops a new "sooper-dooper" counting system, that gives a verifiable 1.5% edge in a particular game. Someone else studies the "sooper-dooper" system, and finds an improvement that changes this to a +1.65% EV game.

Which should the second person claim:

"I have developed a modification that gives a .15% improvement." (I prefer this since it is understandable in this context)

"I have developed a modification that gives a 10% improvement. (.15 is 10% of 1.5, but this is confusing).

Statistician: (n) A person that can make a set of numbers say anything he wants. :)

Of course I wouldn't advise progressions either.

It really comes down to the person. Most non-counters don't use a large 'spread.' If you are talking about the person that visits LV once or twice a year, most of them have a set amount to lose and just don't want to end up walking up and down the strip with all the other losers whose bankrolls didn't hold out for the entire trip. I'll run some sims when I get a chance on short term risk. But there is no question in my mind that on a short trip with a small bankroll, your RoR is lower using Basic Strategy than using a 16:1 spread with a weak system.

From practical experience, using a reasonable counting system like Hi-Lo, perfectly (or as near to perfect as CVBJ can produce saying "100% correct playing/betting", my session/trip RoR is higher than if I just played perfect BS, most likely. :)

The little bets don't count. But the wild things that happen on the big bets wrecks havoc with my bankroll.

I do see a fair number of people that have been "taken in" by the hucksters and are playing some sort of progression (whether it is impossibly complex or inanely simple). I've even seen at least one backed off, yet his big bets happened in negative counts but he happened to win. So big bets produce all sorts of fun and games. :)

OPP using a 1-16 spread vs. BS using a 1-16 progression? That would be informative. Or if you think most BS players don�t spread 1-16 how about both systems at 1-8 or even 1-4.

Or as we alluded to before, what BS flat bet amount would be a rational equivalent to a 1-16 OPP spread, with respect to variance, RoR, etc.?