Blackjack Computing the frequency of strategy deviations at TC0 BASED on 789s

A very good thread at BJFT for blackjack players who like to expand their minds and not subject themselves to limitations.

Excellent input from an assortment of post leads to interesting reading. But more important is what you don't read. And that's Don S for lambasting a poster he believes is off base.

More to come...

 

Jack Jackson spoke to maintaining two different complex counts. Maybe with a partner. I couldn't perform this over 1 deck. Let alone 6.

Benjamin75 also has some quality posts.

Secretariat employs a 789 group count to add to Hilo to make up for the group of middle cards missing. Very astute. But wouldn't it be easier to learn Wong Halves? That pretty much takes care of your middle cards.

 

My research indicates 8 remains at 0, even in a column count. SCORE will under perform if the 2 is given equal or a higher tag value than the 7. Give the 7 a higher value than the 2 and SCORE will soar.

After reading your thread, I discovered a way revert the percentage count back to a column count.

(9,10,A) sc 9,A. (567) and (345). Secretariat's idea of grouping 789's is unbalanced to (2,3,4,5,6). Now you have a balance.

My language. Suppose your count is 6-6-6. This is a quality deck composition. But suppose it's 6-9-3. This indicates the deck is rich in 3,4s. So wait another hand rather than poor more money into a poor deck composition.

Also, the (345) will provide a clearer look at 15,16. The (567) column will provide a look at 12,13,14,15.

 

A very good thread? It is an idiotic thread. There is one post of value in that entire thread and it is by Don Schlesinger:

"All of this work is intriguing, but I can't begin to tell you how theoretical it all is, and how little practical value it will have. How often do you think you're going to have not only the HAND in question but then also have an even distribution of all the other ranks but a surplus of two groupings of 7, 8, 9?

You guys are excellent with the theory, but you have no idea of how little this is going to add to SCORE. The frequencies of the plays you're contemplating are minuscule.

Don

The things being discussed add nothing to someone trying to win Today's games. I often talk about "chasing pennies". This is chasing fractions of pennies at 10 times the work and effort. These concepts just are not how any real players, win money in 2021.

One guy said he would need to simultaneously use 2 different complex counts. Ridiculous.

It is about diminishing returns. You can stack all this extra work and effort for a very minor added return which most likely disappears with even a small increase in error rate.

It's like if you work 40 hours a week for $2000 and your boss tells you he wants you to now work 60 hours a week but he is going to pay you and extra $100 ($2100 total). That is 20 extra hours for an extra $100. THAT is diminishing returns.

What is being discussed is an exercise about simulations, of computer play, not applicable or transferable to real world play and how a real player wins money in 2021 at blackjack.

I don't know why people are hell bent on re-inventing the wheel.

 

It's clear the guys are in search of perfection. You don't have be perfect in order to make money. Just good enough.

If you can increase SCORE by 15% without scrambling your brain then it's worth it.

I've been there. Done that.so I understand the mental gymnastics they are experiencing.

Put it this way. IF I ever was to play a shoe, I would have the Tarzan count down and not want pit restrictions. Time is more important than money.

Finding a way to win isn't reinventing the wheel. It's find a way to win. Hell, they even have electric cars.

 

Tarzan count is designed to take advantage of rules not offered in the single deck game or they will allow in the double deck game.

A 3 column count with an Ace side count. The problem is the groupings. (2-5) 2 gives the same Tag value as the 5. (6-9) gives the same tag to the 6 as the 9. If you split one or both of those columns, it becomes a 4 or 5 column count. Very few can perform the feat.

This thread gave me a new idea as to how to revert back and forth between a percent and column count. Sometimes it's not the hand you bet. But the hand you pass on and wait for the next hand.

 

Counting cards is stupid endeavor.

 

Perhaps. KJ will disagree with you.

A memory of what has been played and what still remains? Priceless.