Spilling my guts

I look forward to a little demonstration and brief generalization of how my count works with a notable gaming expert. You see, I put out a few (recent) feelers to a few places that I was willing to do a demonstration of how this works. I got only one even halfway interested and he is thinking along the lines of "Those are some tall claims you are making." He said this in reference to the count itself and not any sort of theoretical result of increased player advantage. He implied that he is perhaps skeptical of someone being able to perform the count itself, much less anything else.

You see, there is no simulation for my count. I am the only one that has ever used the method. When I initially created it, computers were all DOS anyway and there was no intent of any commercialization of any kind, only seeking to improve my blackjack play. All these years later upon mentioning about what I do, people squawk, demand details, simulations and basically say things implying that I am either flat out lying or that my methods have no significant improvement over standard textbook counting methods.

I saw this immediately upon taking part in online blackjack community forums a few years back and for the most part, I try to avoid talking about my counting methods too much. Those players that I've gotten to know and have actually seen what I can do are relatively astounded but the blackjack community at large seem to not be able to grasp the concepts of it all, much less understand some of the mechanics of it all. My refusal to post too many pertinent details due to not wanting to be the unaccredited coauthor on one of their next books doesn't help either. The notion of abandoning the single number line for virtually all counting methods and using 4 or 5 simultaneous counts on card groupings that come together to form a much more definitive means of assessing deck composition does not appeal to them... They think I am either full of sh*t or regard my methods as having very little gain to the point of being inconsequential over simpler methods, one or the other!

This all plays out true to form. You see, years back before I actively participated in any online blackjack community stuff, I tried to email a few of my blackjack heroes such as Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, etc. (This might have been not long after "email" was invented! hahahaha) to tell them about my counting method. After all, these guys were my heroes, I'd read their books and they were the ones I was in awe of because they were the ones who got me started on this path that my life has taken for all these years. Well... Those emails must have been deleted or ignored. No response. Nothing. Life goes on, I forgot about it and moved on and the years have passed. I've always wondered what their thoughts might have been if they actually read my email but it's likely they had higher priorities than reading an email that drones on from a stranger they don't know from anywhere.

Way back when... I set out to become the best blackjack player imaginable, not come up with some shoddy "Yeah, it sort of works" something that I could commercially exploit because it was something the public at large could grasp and perhaps learn. I did it, improved it with time and added more to it to tweak it up over the years. The biggest issue has been "How much gain over more conventional methods?" and in all honesty, I just don't know. I know there is a significant gain but I have no idea exactly how much of a gain it is, so I've said little about it.

I was just talking with Flash, who has more intimate knowledge of the parameters of my count more so than anyone else and telling him about this "personal pride" issue. He has seen me demonstrate the count itself, seen some of my charts, graphs and has seen me in action at the tables. I recall a few years back when I first described what I do to him and I think he was in total disbelief until I showed him in person. Why is that? I don't know, maybe he has seen every garbage system or idea coming down the pike and was extremely skeptical of any "tall claims". In any case, of the "feelers" I put out to a few specific prominent gaming experts, only one is actually interested and the rest couldn't care less. At least Flash has a vast gaming knowledge, owns a vast library with practically every gambling book known to mankind and can be referred to as a gaming expert but he is still less known than many.

What's the point of bothering with this? Substantiation of my "tall claims" by a bona fide gaming expert without giving away the keys to the kingdom on a public forum... a matter of personal pride that has arisen over some recent ridicule over my life's work, I guess. I'm looking forward to this.

at your need to do this. Those of us that know you from the other site, certainly know from you knowledgeable posts that you know what you are doing (Unfortunately most of your expertise goes over my head). And those players that have met you in person and witnessed your play, sing very high praise. Those that don't know you or of you, questioning you and your methods should be totally irrelevant. You need only to prove yourself to...yourself and I am assuming you did that long ago. But, if you have the need to do this, I hope it works out for you the way you want. Although we haven't met, I know you to be one of the good guys.

...I'm rather skeptical.

First, the only thing a count does is compartmentalize the range of blackjack experience (e.g., the average player advantage at a hi-lo TC of +3 is X.X%; etc.) The count tells us the Bad, Mediocre and Good compartments and gives us a guide as to how to bet each of them.

Second, the more decks in play, variations in play become relatively less important than variations in betting.

These days any game w/less than six decks is almost certain to be a counter trap; so we're pretty much limited to 6D and 8D games.

Thus, at least to my mind, any new count needs to yield MUCH higher Betting and Blackjack correlations in multi-deck games to be of any real value -- i.e., enough added value to justify the time and effort it takes to learn it.

With all the dozens of different counts which have been developed over the years to compartmentalize the events in almost every imaginable way, I tend to doubt there will ever again be any great breakthroughs.

HOWEVER, I do have a "blackjack engine" written in plain vanilla "C" programming language, and have adapted it in the past to evaluate different counts.

If you want to supply me with the details of your count, I will first evaluate it to determine if it's worth the time and effort to do the necessary programming. If I determine it is, I'll be glad to test it for you at no charge.

Naturally, I'm willing to sign any reasonable non-disclosure agreement you may require.

I've asked myself that same question, KewlJ... "What do I really have to prove and WHY?" I sure don't want any unneccessary notariety and wish to just lay low and do my thing unencumbered. I've joked around in the past about dressing up in drag to look much like Joan Rivers in order to able to play some blackjack but I for damn sure don't want to actually have to follow though on that one! Perhaps it's merely a matter of gaining the respect of my fellow blackjack pros or something along those lines, which could be construed to be somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

That's a matter of opinion. I brought up Flash because we have shared a lot of information over the years, he's a friend and he is more knowledgeable about my count than anyone... Anyone of the three or so, that is! The truth is that there's less than 10 people that have ever actually witnessed me doing a card-counting demonstration or talked at length about what I do and how I do it. Being a blackjack player can be a lonely existence because it's not like you can talk about any of it at length with anyone outside of a small, finite group. Outside of that very small, finite group they will either be:

A. Working for the other team.

B. Have no clue what you are even talking about.

Either one of those is bad and laying low is the key to survival. I think I wish to leave nothing in the realm of "subject to opinion" though, so an objective look by a noted and reputable expert that can't be alluded to as "subject to opinion" makes sense.

I would be willing to take you up on that, OldCootFromVA! In reference to the statement, "Thus, at least to my mind, any new count needs to yield MUCH higher Betting and Blackjack correlations in multi-deck games to be of any real value -- i.e., enough added value to justify the time and effort it takes to learn it." Yes, it may be all or some of those things but it's nothing that I have ever considered anyone else learning and probably just not most people's cup of tea to try and take on anyway. This isn't about feasibility of anyone learning this method.

It's not about feasibilty of anyone learning the method and about something much more pathetic than all that when I really think about it.

Over and over again, researchers have looked for the Holy Grail of counts. In BJA3, I analyze a fair number of them, coming to the conclusion that Hi-Opt II and AOII, with side counts of aces, are about as good as it gets. And yet, that said, those counts rarely outperform level-one varieties, such as Hi-Lo or K-O, by more than 10%-15%.

Furthermore, we know from Griffin, p. 46, that there is virtually nothing to be gained in playing efficiency, from a level-180 system, even with respect to level-two and level-three systems! So, what is the point? As for betting efficiency, we already have Wong's Halves (level-three) at virtually 100%.

So, with the greatest of respect for you, what do you propose to offer with this miracle count of yours? We already know that, in the shoe game, a "perfect" count, via concealed computer, that values each card by its precise effect of removal, provides relatively little gain over the aforementioned counts, especially in 6- and 8-deck shoes.

So, add me to the camp of those who would be happy to have Norm simulate your results and compare them to the myriad ones that we already have.

But, you'll pardon me if I don't expect to be wowed.

Don

Trust me Don, you would be the right guy to "wow", that's for sure. I have a copy of and have read your book of course (along with Griffin's The theory of blackjack). I've quoted you on occasion from your book as a matter of fact, also poured through both of those books (along with others) over the years to make comparisons and provide points of reference.

The thing about all the counts described hinge on one common denominator, which is making the best determination of TC and playing decisions based on one single numberline and then adding sidecounts to beef it up. I work with 4 separate number lines, which adds more detail to work with is all... The "sidecounts" are essentially built right in to form the whole enchilada is all. I use the same groupings as DHME, which are {2-5}, {6-9}, {10} and {A}.

Let Norm do it!

I am a former low stakes player. When I played I kept trying to find a way to count cards that comes up with mathematically correct playing decisions from the beginning of a shoe to the end regardless of how deeply dealt the shoe may be. I decided that the best way to group cards is using your 4 groups {2-5}, {6-9}, {T}, {A}. The farthest I got with it was to keep a running count of {2-5} vs {T} while side counting aces and approximating density of {6-9}. I had no great way of trying to gauge playing strategy but I may do things like stand on 16 vs 7 when density of {6-9} was high and consider standing on 12 vs 10 when density of {6-9} was extremely low. Although I did reasonably well, I had no good way of determining how accurate the decisions were other than the knowledge that any wrong decisions would hopefully tend to be minor. I used infinite shoe combinatorial analysis as a guide.

When I moved from Las Vegas I stopped playing except for 2 trips, which were not mainly about blackjack. I took a few programming courses and thought I'd try to apply what I'd learned to writing a finite shoe combinatorial analyzer. Fast forward, an online version is at the link below.

A couple sample composition extremes that could possibly be detected by someone tracking the above 4 groups - (The probability of either composition occurring is virtually nil but the point is to clearly show that gains in EV are possible. The mitigating factor is how often gains are available.) -

2 decks, BJ pays 3:2, S17, double any 2 cards, no surrender, no double after splitting, split any pair once, 1 card to split aces:

Remove all {6-9}
EV (best strategy): +7.735%
EV (comp dependent basic strategy): +0.5281%
EV (total dependent basic strategy): +1.0493%
(interestingly TD basic EV > CD basic EV)

Remove all {2-5}, {T}, {A}
EV (best strategy): +19.27%
EV (comp dependent basic strategy): -22.54%
EV (total dependent basic strategy): -22.54%

Going back to my playing days, another thing I found is that no counting system works at the end of a shoe the same as it does earlier in the shoe. This is due to the priciple of restricted choice. For example say you know the remaining shoe composition consists of exactly 50% {2-5} and 50% {T} and player's hand is 16 vs T. Early enough in the shoe EV for hitting is ~-35.7% and EV for standing is ~40,4% (approx inf shoe EV.) At the end composition is exactly 1 {2-5} and 1 {T}. If player hits whenever he doesn't bust dealer has 20 and hitting EV = -62.5%. If player stands dealer will have a stiff and bust half the time and standing EV = 0.00%. So at some point between early in the shoe and the end of the shoe, standing and not hitting becomes the better option due to restricted choice: when player hits and doesn't bust dealer tends to be pat more often with fewer busts later in the shoe.

Hope this helps.
kaycee

... when I tell you that I respect the intellectual effort you've made.

It's just that I'm quite sure that, despite the multiple side counts, the improvement that you will attain, over, say, traditional level-three counts, will not provide the wow factor that you are hoping for.

Send it to Norm. He will give it the most honest appraisal possible.

Don

...poured through both of those books...

I think the poster meant pored.

Just feeling charitable. :-)

Don

If I were you, I'd be dying to know the advantage gained by the count. (I am familiar with your posts on this topic).

I hope you share the results, but not the finer details of what you're doing...it wouldn't help us anyway because we can't do it!

What you are referring to there is the simplified version of a DHM type count.

"Filet this red herring!" "Burn the blasphemer at the stake!" --- I love it when I get a warm welcome. Wouldn't it help if you even had a clue as to what I am talking about before you find it prudent to burn me at the stake?

Not Norm as he is currently too busy these days but I have an appointment with someone equally qualified that is going to get a hard look at what I do. Ultimatley I intend on running a simulation of it but what I do is a more detailed hybrid of DHME. DHME has been referred to as "the most powerful counting system ever devised", so surely there must be a little merit to what I am saying, not to mention many years of being a very successful full time player using the method.

Yes, I am curious and want a simulation run of the count. I know what it looks like on paper, I know what my earnings and degree of success have been but have no computer sim of it. Regardless of whether I ever see a sim of it in front of me or not, it's not like anything changes or that I would ever do anything different... If it's not broken, don't try to fix it! I think this is all for my personal amusement more than anything else as far as seeing about a sim on my count. Now to read back over this damn thing so I don't have Don's assistant whine about my spelling or phraseology or end up with Gorgon rallying the townspeople into a raging mob with torches and pitchforks out to kill the infidel!