SCORE vs BC,PE,IC discussion

It seems to me that Peter Griffin was the pioneer of BC (bet correlation) PE (playing efficiency) and IC (insurance).

Then Don S. comes along with the invention of SCORE. Thus confusion because many old school players identify with BC,PE, IC. While SCORE requires some extra work with CV Data and SIMS.

My research indicates in order to get the better SCORE one gets some very strange tag values.

Relax KJ. I'm only speaking to pitch games. But I do value your input. :cool:

It also seems the old school thought process is based on the frequency of the dealer busting. However, in a straight up pitch game, my moves are made before the dealer so I give higher considerations to my options. Of course, we can read everywhere about the value of the 5. Many will give more value to the 4 in order to balance both sides.

Giving more weight to the 6 and elimating the 2 provided the best SCORE (in my game). My research indicates the reason is now large bets are coming without or less 5s and 6s in the deck. Therefore, because we put more money out when the deck in rich in 10s, this reduces the risk of getting stuck with that pesky 15,16 dilemma. Especially, on two hand bets.

So is it prudent to simply rely on just SCORE and throw out BC, PE, IC considerations altogether?

BC, PE, IC, and any other metric are combined to get the SCORE.

It’s like the ingredients when building a cake where top priority is taste. It doesn’t matter if you use egg whites, the best flour, or dog shit — the most important thing is taste. If a cake tastes best when made with dog shit, then you use dog shit to make a cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

BC, PE, IC, and any other metric are combined to get the SCORE.

It’s like the ingredients when building a cake where top priority is taste. It doesn’t matter if you use egg whites, the best flour, or dog shit — the most important thing is taste. If a cake tastes best when made with dog shit, then you use dog shit to make a cake.

---

Funny as hell response. Great analogy. Translation. It is prudent to get the highest SCORE weighed against the simplest count? There are some instances when one can achieve a higher SCORE with less variable tag values. For instance, eliminating the 2 and giving 1 point to the 3 offers a slightly higher SCORE than assigning both the 2 and 3 with .5 tags.

In RS words, Walves Halves made with best flour. But Dog shit cake is less complex and taste just fine? Plus Dog shit cake has a higher SCORE.

Maximize SCORE, but don't do it at a great expense to simplicity, unless it's worth it. In card counting, it's usually not going to be worth it.

Moses, this has the makings of a count debate. :rolleyes: And you are prefacing your remarks with the "relax KJ" comment because you think I am going to go off on my "simplicity" rant. But you would be wrong. :p

While I AM generally a big proponent of simplicity as to any kind of count discussion, I have always said the exception would be a player that plays mainly single or even double deck games (especially deeply dealt double deck games). For players that are mainly playing such games, a level 2, or 3 count or even some kind of specialty count....if you want to go that route, makes sense. If I was mainly playing single/double deck games, I would be playing a level two count with at least one side count.

BUT, very few players have access to single deck games (that aren't 6:5). Reno is about the only place. And similarly few players have access to decent double deck games. Vegas has some decent DD games, but most are counter traps and a player can't exclusively play them for long. :(

That leaves shoe games, 6 and 8 decks. That is mostly what I play and what 98% of players have access to. And it is these games that I am a strong proponent of simplicity and relatively simple counts. It is these multi-deck shoe games, that higher level counts, just add very little. Players playing these games are better off finding something else, if they are looking to improve results. One of the techniques I employ is tracking multiple tables (when I can). This allows me to see and play more higher and max bet counts and improves my results per 100 rounds played dramatically. Far more improvement than playing a higher level count.

So again, someone like you, that has access to single deck games, should explore higher level counts and/or side counts and play whatever you are comfortable with. But you, having access to such games....are the exception. Most other players would be better off playing hi-lo, or some other simple count, playing it as close to perfectly as possible and exploring some other advanced techniques and forget the higher level counts.

Add on: You have to understand that peter Griffins work and most of these level 2 and 3 counts came about in the 70's, into the 80's. Blackjack at that time was single and double deck. And higher level counts could offer some improvement at that time with those games and conditions. The improvement is really very minimal if anything with 6 and 8 deck games, Like I said, today you are better off keeping things simple, minimizing mistakes and implementing some advanaced techniques that really do make a difference.

And it is funny, most proponents of higher counts are older guys, who may have played at that time. So they learned some level 2 or level 3 count that did make a difference at that time and they just can't bring themselves to say that you just don't need that any more with the 6 and 8 deck games that most people play. Don Schlesinger is really the only older player I have heard admit that. Don has said something along the lines that he plays RPC (revere point count) because that is what he learned at that time, but that if he was starting out today, he would learn and play a level one count. THAT statement speaks volumes IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kj

THAT statement speaks volumes IMO.

---

The opposite is true, too — it speaks volumes about people when they ignore that type of “advice”. Reminds me of the people that are trying to come up with a roulette or bacarat system....when someone says it’s not possible to structure the size of your bets or whatever to gain an advantage in baccarat or roulette, they ignore it and try to “make it work” any way they can. Tough to do something right when you’re already wrong from the getgo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

...they ignore it and try to “make it work” any way they can. Tough to do something right when you’re already wrong from the getgo.

---

Some players like to stack several 'wrong' or proven negative concepts on top of each other, like progressive betting and stop limits and other proven losing concepts thinking this somehow makes for a winning formula. For good measure they dress it up with odd phrases like "soft profits" and other mumbo jumbo. ;)

It is simply a means of misdirection or muddying the waters so the truth can't be seen. I can think of one such guy that we both know, who did this by inserting the words "linear" and "non-linear" into every single post, usually where it didn't even fit or make sense. Just a means to muddy the waters. :rolleyes:

KJ and RS. Thanks for your comments. Very helpful. KJ, no malice meant on the "Relax" comment. I thought you might figure I was trying to start a count debate. I'm working on a column realignment. I know, that makes no sense to you or most. But I wanted to get input from other blackjack players that might look into this forum. You're more well versed than just HiLo. But it's difficult to go back and find your comments from a forum where I was 86ed. Muddy the waters is an appropiate term. More to come...

KJ. I would say my thoughts are in line with your comments on post #6. Don S. maybe was a little ahead of his time. But he admits himself his exposure to single deck is limited. It's a different game. IMO one can throw out most of that old stuff because it's useless without deep pen and the dealers option to start reshuffling when a player is utilizing too many odd ball moves with success.

I can see he was spot on about the 8 for CV Data sims for straight up single deck. IF one assigns it a tag value other than 0 it will have an adverse affect on SCORE. However, if one assigns too much value to the 2 and/or too little value to the 7 it will also have an adverse affect on SCORE. Also, assigning a 0 value to the 2 has very little affect on SCORE. Thus the column realignment idea without the 8 and 2.

I haven't finished my research yet. After reviewing thousands of logs, assigning a 1.5 tag to the 5 and 6 reduces getting a 15 or 16 on large bets. Therefore, my column count improves winning percentage which is the most viable option because betting too much too often gets one 86ed. Hence, there are more cards that will improve 12,13,14 than will bust it. But far more cards will bust a 15,16 than those that will improve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Maximize SCORE, but don't do it at a great expense to simplicity, unless it's worth it. In card counting, it's usually not going to be worth it.

---

RS. I've noticed that too many variables or assigning too many different tag values can increase SCORE but will also increase volatility. So my research is trying to getting the best SCORE, the quickest way, with the least amount of volatility, and effort.

Stop limits? Yes, I insert limits to the upside as well as the downside. The purpose is far more for the pits benefit than mine. I figure stop limits are better no limits which results from not being allowed to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

It’s like the ingredients when building a cake where top priority is taste. It doesn’t matter if you use egg whites, the best flour, or dog shit — the most important thing is taste. If a cake tastes best when made with dog shit, then you use dog shit to make a cake.

---

Speaking of cake. My favorite is chocolate with white frosting. So, to surprise me for my birthday, my lady brings home a carrot cake. Hmmm. And "I'm" the one who never listens? Anyway, just between you and I, it was God awful. So I threw it over the fence this morning to the wildlife. I figure the rabbits will enjoy it (ha, carrot) and maybe stop eating my grass. But the birds started pecking away and looking back at me. It's like they we saying "holy shit this is good bird seed, I can't believe you don't like it." lol

If she questions why when she gets home? Well, it really was dog shit cake. :cool:

You. Don’t. Like. Carrot. Cake? Them some fightin’ words there, boy.

As far as SCORE, I reckon the higher score game is going to have a higher EV, if the only other difference is volatility. By definition (maybe), the volatility can’t go up without EV going up, if the SCORE stays the same or goes up as well. The purpose of SCORE, as I’m sure you know, is to get an “all encompassing” metric on a game so it can be easily compared to others — nothing else matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

You. Don’t. Like. Carrot. Cake? Them some fightin’ words there, boy.

As far as SCORE, I reckon the higher score game is going to have a higher EV, if the only other difference is volatility. By definition (maybe), the volatility can’t go up without EV going up, if the SCORE stays the same or goes up as well. The purpose of SCORE, as I’m sure you know, is to get an “all encompassing” metric on a game so it can be easily compared to others — nothing else matters.

---

Actually, I do like carrot cake. But that store bought one was bad. Sort reminded me of your analogy DSC. I did it a favor. lol

Yes, I'm getting closer from running sims while watching football today. Sometimes, it's like the cake. You see what remains after everything else is thown out. The goal is to derive at the RS DSC count by the end of the day. lol

So anyway, she says I know you favorite is German Chocolate (which isn't true). But they didn't have it so I got you a carrot cake. Haaaappy Birthday! Huh? O...thanks dear. Sort of like looking at sim results.

Thanks for the input KJ and RS. The new "Dog shit cake" count is the highest SCORE for single deck straight up. No DAS. Double hard 10,11 only.

The simplest way to describe it is: Wong Halves with the 2 at 0 and the 7 at 1. This reduces the count of 1/2 tags from 4 to 2. Therefore, several insurance options can spin off the count.
1.) separate count for perfect insurance.
2.) move the Ace to the other side. A RC of 8 will always be 50% for the 10,9 tags vs the A, 3-7 tags.
3.) You could keep a separate side count for the 2,8s. A RC of 16 will always be 50% for the 10,9 tags vs A,2-8 tags.

There are 3 variations one could utilize and not give up much in SCORE. However, you're back to counting 4 1/2 points instead of two and insurance is more complex to calculate.
1.) give the 6 a 1.5 tag and drop 3 to .5.
2.) drop the 3 to .5 and up the 2 to .5. Moving the Ace is still an option on 1 and 2.
3.) up the 6 to 1.5 and the Ace to 1.5. Note: Perfect insurance is the most practical solution.

Whew! Got that settled. Now it's the 10 piece bucket at KFC for $19.95 Sunday special. Comes with a FREE - you guessed it, chocolate cake with white frosting. Life is gooood.:cool:

Just wondering Moses; do you use many cover plays, or hardly any? I`m curious because using a column count like you do on a single deck game, I would think some of your plays have to be pretty wild in comparison what would be done on a shoe game due to the TC making big jumps. I`m guessing those plays happen relatively frequently too. So if I`m correct about the play variations happening a lot, that`s a good thing from a standpoint of how the pit views you. What I mean is that you have the opportunity to play the same hand match-up differently pretty frequently, rather than how in shoe games you only have the opportunity to play a hand match-up differently according to the count a very small percentage of the time (assuming that in this example on the shoe game the person is playing exactly as the count calls for).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SplitFaceDisaster

Just wondering Moses; do you use many cover plays, or hardly any? ).

---

I don't use cover plays for a couple of reasons.
1.) the game is so fast. Single deck straight is like a 220 yard dash. A shoe is like a mile run.
2.) With a column and/or percentage count, many of the cover plays take care of themselves. For instance, suppose you had a TC 3 in a conventional count. In a column count, it might reflect also rich in 5-7s. Therefore, you'd pass on a large bet. The 5-7s come out on the next round, now you're in a even higher TC with a far better balance. After reviewing sims, I could never figure why about 52% wins and 48% losses was about the best one could do with the highest TCs. 51% to 49% in the mid range more common TC. It's the balances of the 2-4s and 5-7s that have a dramatic effect. So, large bet frequency is reduced but win percentage increases significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SplitFaceDisaster

I`m curious because using a column count like you do on a single deck game, I would think some of your plays have to be pretty wild in comparison what would be done on a shoe game due to the TC making big jumps. I`m guessing those plays happen relatively frequently too. So if I`m correct about the play variations happening a lot, that`s a good thing from a standpoint of how the pit views you. What I mean is that you have the opportunity to play the same hand match-up differently pretty frequently, rather than how in shoe games you only have the opportunity to play a hand match-up differently according to the count a very small percentage of the time (assuming that in this example on the shoe game the person is playing exactly as the count calls for).

---

I would think one would have far more split opportunites in a shoe game than a single deck game.
I talked about splits in another thread on this forum. Unlike in shoe games, the frequency of large bets draws attention in single deck. Bet amounts are far more limited. So a key is not to get too far behind in the first place. So I'm very selective on Double Down bets as well.

My style of play is very rigid, downright boring. But to others it would appear very inconsistent. Perhaps cover plays. In a straight up game, quite often, I'm playing the next round before finishing the current round. Even the first hand of the deck with consideration given to the last hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SplitFaceDisaster

Just wondering Moses; do you use many cover plays, or hardly any? ).

---

I don't use cover plays for a couple of reasons.
1.) the game is so fast. Single deck straight is like a 220 yard dash. A shoe is like a mile run.
2.) With a column and/or percentage count, many of the cover plays take care of themselves. For instance, suppose you had a TC 3 in a conventional count. In a column count, it might reflect also rich in 5-7s. Therefore, you'd pass on a large bet. The 5-7s come out on the next round, now you're in a even higher TC with a far better balance. After reviewing sims, I could never figure why about 52% wins and 48% losses was about the best one could do with the highest TCs. 51% to 49% in the mid range more common TC. It's the balances of the 2-4s and 5-7s that have a dramatic effect. So, large bet frequency is reduced but win percentage increases significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SplitFaceDisaster

I`m curious because using a column count like you do on a single deck game, I would think some of your plays have to be pretty wild in comparison what would be done on a shoe game due to the TC making big jumps. I`m guessing those plays happen relatively frequently too. So if I`m correct about the play variations happening a lot, that`s a good thing from a standpoint of how the pit views you. What I mean is that you have the opportunity to play the same hand match-up differently pretty frequently, rather than how in shoe games you only have the opportunity to play a hand match-up differently according to the count a very small percentage of the time (assuming that in this example on the shoe game the person is playing exactly as the count calls for).

---

I would think one would have far more split opportunites in a shoe game than a single deck game.
I talked about splits in another thread on this forum. Unlike in shoe games, the frequency of large bets draws attention in single deck. Bet amounts are far more limited. So a key is not to get too far behind in the first place. So I'm very selective on Double Down bets as well.

My style of play is very rigid, downright boring. But to others it would appear very inconsistent. Perhaps cover plays. In a straight up game, quite often, I'm playing the next round before finishing the current round. Even the first hand of the deck with consideration given to the last hand.

---

Interesting, thanks for elaborating. How you said your play is very inconsistent is what I was thinking it was probably like. I can only imagine how much more erratic your play would look like if you could use surrender! You might say your style of play is boring, but if you get to vary your play like that, then it probably evens out to being about the same as a shoe game. As you know, with a shoe game you vary your bet spread in a dramatic way, but the play deviations come into play much less frequently. So the two styles are different, but very similar in that both are restricted in what is done/can be done frequently.

By boring, I meant if EITS or pit was watching there is nothing to watch. Some large bets are passed on due to the column alignment being out of whack. It puts me to sleep sometimes a well. Once I literally dozed off at the table during play. It's like novocaine. Just give it awhile and it will take effect. Key is to be paid and gone before they fire up their tools. The best player is the one they don't remember.

Hiopt2/ASC definitely wins the best count when it is computer perfect. Not everyone is up to quarterdeck estimation accuracy. So, depending upon the individual, it doesn't necessarily win casino play. Modifications to Hiopt2/ASC to a balanced ace side count can take care of the deck estimation accuracy issue. Other casino play issues may also need to be addressed. Again, depending on the individual. What is the best counting system is completely dependent on the individual. Some may need to develop stronger skills when they change counts in order to get the gain they are hoping to get.

T3 writes:

Moses replies: Sigh! T3, this just isn't correct. You and your buddy Flash have pounded this drum enough. For one thing, it simple isn't a practical approach to a shoe game. But then what is? KJ probably has it figured out as good as anyone. However, if you want to challenge your mind, hopefully not to the extent that it puts you in the "nut" factory, the Wong Halves with Perfect insurance is the solution according to sims. Tarzan seemed to have a solution. However, his extensive strategy was only "slightly" better than Hi OPT II/ASC. which is slightly worse than Wong Halves before Perfect Insurance is even considered.

As for pitch? Hi Opt II is a PE count. You're going to need deep pen, low tolerance, and high bet frequency in order for this count to have value in today's game. One simply cannot fly in from out of town and start pushing their weight around. Maybe Flash did it in the 80's. But unless you own a time machine? Faget abat et!

I'd say for the vast majority of counters Hi Lo would be best.

If you play predominantly pitch games then there is a strong argument for counts with better playing efficiency. However then it's an issue of whether the added difficulty is worth it. Anyone would agree that playing Hi Lo perfectly and effortlessly would be a lot better than struggling with a harder system.

Angel shooter writes ^:

Moses replies: PE has some merit. But let's not jump off a bridge over it. The game has CHANGED. The first 26 cards or 50% is primarily a crap shoot. So, for the most part, your influence or decisions making process will occur between card 27 and 33. NOW, if you start doing this hairy high school bull shit of hitting 15 vs 3 and winning the hand? Then you are not going to get to see card 27 much longer, maybe never again with that particular dealer. HI LO is NOT the answer in pitch games. I'm sorry KJ, it isn't because bet spread and bet frequency are reduced significantly in comparison to shoe games. So in order to avoid or reduce heat you will need a column count. Conventional method? Dog Shit Cake and moving the Ace on insurance decisions is the best and most practical solution according to CV Data. Perfect Insurance will add to SCORE.

DSC from HiLO, you are dropping the 2 and adding the 7, giving the 5 a 1.5 tag and the 9 a -.5 tag. How difficult can that be?

Moses, Moses, Moses !?!? (where is the shaking head emoji?)


I never....never, ever said hi-lo was the best count for all situations. And I have specifically stated many times, the point that you just made, that for those who play pitch games or the majority or even a substantial amount of their play is pitch game, that hi-lo, or something compatibly simple like K-O is NOT the way to go. That one of the higher level counts and/or side counts could be beneficial depending on the particular players abilities. WE are NOT in disagreement about that.

Where we seem to be in disagreement, or not even disagreement, but see things differently, is that just like you see me as an anomaly because I seek out and play shoe games, I think you are even more of an anomaly because you play nothing but single deck. There are very, very few people that have access to single deck blackjack, real single deck blackjack....not the 6:5 crap. The location that you play in Northern Nevada is about the only place it still exists and even then it is hard (from my very limited experience there) to get any kind of meaningful money in play.

So my comments and support of playing a simple type count like hi-lo is based on the fact that 99.9 % of players play and have access to 6 & 8 deck shoe games (some with mediocre double deck in the mix). For these 99.9% of players and I really don't think that number is an exaggeration, simplicity is the way to go. There are very diminished benefit for playing anything other than a simple count for most players.

And those that do attempt to play shoe games with more advanced counts and this very diminishing advantage likely are seeking no additional benefit, because just the slightest increase in error rate more than offsets any small gain. Of course error rate is never accepted by proponents of higher counts, when the fact is there is error rate involved in everything. Playing a simple count approach, I make errors. A player playing the simplest of counts, which I guess would be the Ace-5 count (and has little value) makes errors despite that he/she is counting only 2 values. Everyone makes errors and the further you get away from the simplest task or method the more the error rate increases, despite what anyone may want to believe.

One thing I do want to say about these count discussions. Some of the players that constantly participate in these discussions debates, on the pro higher count side, like T3 and several others mentioned, I have come to believe it is nothing but mental masturbation with these guys. I believe all of their play or 99% of their play takes place on the computer via computer simulations. I really believe their is very little if any real life casino play taking place, because they just seem clueless as to what a player can and can't get away with for long in an actual casino environment.

I have no interest in the best way to play on my computer. I am interested in figuring how I can maximize profits, (while minimizing exposure) in the real life games available to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Moses, Moses, Moses !?!? (where is the shaking head emoji?)..

---

LOL. That's funny! (where is the applause emojli?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I never....never, ever said hi-lo was the best count for all situations..

---

KJ, KJ, KJ, I was speaking to what many others continue to post. The 2 makes very little difference in pitch. Massive changes don't necessarily need to be made. But a few minor tweaks will improve ones game considerably. But that is up to them. As you know, there are a handful of players that complain, ask hundreds of questions, and never do a damn thing to improve their game. I get tired of reading that lame crap. Even IF one (I do) knew every card played and still remaining they still have to know how to process the information. Thus there is a case to be made for tag values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Where we seem to be in disagreement, or not even disagreement, but see things differently, is that just like you see me as an anomaly because I seek out and play shoe games, I think you are even more of an anomaly because you play nothing but single deck. There are very, very few people that have access to single deck blackjack, real single deck blackjack....not the 6:5 crap. The location that you play in Northern Nevada is about the only place it still exists and even then it is hard (from my very limited experience there) to get any kind of meaningful money in play.

---

True. These casinos are full of blackjack players sitting at a 3.2 single deck table on the weekends. I guess I'm the only one who plays competitively. As for meaningful money? Yes, it can be made but you have to leave your bulldozer at home. For instance, a player averages $2k a week. The range is between the $3Ks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One thing I do want to say about these count discussions. Some of the players that constantly participate in these discussions debates, on the pro higher count side, like T3 and several others mentioned, I have come to believe it is nothing but mental masturbation with these guys. I believe all of their play or 99% of their play takes place on the computer via computer simulations. I really believe their is very little if any real life casino play taking place, because they just seem clueless as to what a player can and can't get away with for long in an actual casino environment..

---

One can play with numbers and scenarios to get a high SCORE on a sim. The key questions are; Can they actually perform the task? And will tolerance allow it? If either answer is "no" then what difference does it make. We don't bet on SCOREs...at least in blackjack. The problem is with a T3 is he gets in players heads. It isn't so much about the count that wins the most. It's more about the count the gives you peace in the event of a loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I have no interest in the best way to play on my computer. I am interested in figuring how I can maximize profits, (while minimizing exposure) in the real life games available to me.

---

Sims are good for count comparisons. But the sim will only do what it's told by the information put in. For example, I would never make a large bet when all Aces are exhausted. But the SIM doesn't know there is a difference. Also, in a straight up game, if I bust? GAME OVER. But the SIM finishes the dealers hand anyway. So the inconsistencies in the SIM are consistent.

So I recommend taking any new count or change in tag values out for a test drive on Verite before taking into casino play. If someone were to switch from HiLO to Wong Halves they should play out 10k hands on Verite exactly the way the play in a casino. The most difficult part about learning a new count is forgetting the old count.
I'm a practice nut. The game is simply an extensive of practice is what I was always taught in athletics. There is really no difference between Verite and casino play for me. Except I catch breaks at a casino. I give myself no breaks on Verite. I maximize profits by reducing volatility and/or ducking out of poor deck compositions. I'm simply waiting for the game to come me. Boring as hell. But it works like novocaine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Maximize SCORE, but don't do it at a great expense to simplicity, unless it's worth it. In card counting, it's usually not going to be worth it.

---

Okay. But if you only seek to maximize SCORE there are many BC, PE, IC results to consider. Is there some type of qualifier? For instance the HiLO is 970 BC and 511 PE 760 IC. Should one never go below those figures? Because you can. But it may be a more volatile game. Hard to determine from Sims alone. Thus why I'm asking tough questions on a forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Maximize SCORE, but don't do it at a great expense to simplicity, unless it's worth it. In card counting, it's usually not going to be worth it.

---

Okay. But if you only seek to maximize SCORE there are many BC, PE, IC results to consider. Is there some type of qualifier? For instance the HiLO is 970 BC and 511 PE 760 IC. Should one never go below those figures? Because you can. But it may be a more volatile game. Hard to determine from Sims alone. Thus why I'm asking tough questions on a forum.

---

Moses, don't buy into that nonsense that higher SCORE equals less variance or volatility. That is some of the nonsense that T3 has pushed for several years and it is just not true. It has been thoroughly debunked by Don Schlesinger.


RS_ is completely correct, in my opinion. There comes a point that maximizing SCORE just is NOT worth the additional effort. It is a classic exercise in "diminishing returns". You put in XXX amount of extra work, for a very tiny benefit. Just not worth it in most cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Maximize SCORE, but don't do it at a great expense to simplicity, unless it's worth it. In card counting, it's usually not going to be worth it.

---

Okay. But if you only seek to maximize SCORE there are many BC, PE, IC results to consider. Is there some type of qualifier? For instance the HiLO is 970 BC and 511 PE 760 IC. Should one never go below those figures? Because you can. But it may be a more volatile game. Hard to determine from Sims alone. Thus why I'm asking tough questions on a forum.

---

Moses, don't buy into that nonsense that higher SCORE equals less variance or volatility. That is some of the nonsense that T3 has pushed for several years and it is just not true. It has been thoroughly debunked by Don Schlesinger.


RS_ is completely correct, in my opinion. There comes a point that maximizing SCORE just is NOT worth the additional effort. It is a classic exercise in "diminishing returns". You put in XXX amount of extra work, for a very tiny benefit. Just not worth it in most cases.

---

Thanks for your input KJ. I agree. But I think I play a game that no one else on forums encounters. Right now, I employ 3 different counts based on the tendencies of dealers. What a pain in the ass! But it must be done. I'd liked to utilize my time off during Holiday season to condense it down to just one. I'm already pissing people off. For instance, my lady wants me to go to wrap packages at the community center. I want to work on this and watch football. Then... we have the Nutcracker, get a tree, decorate it, and God knows what else must be done. The real world just doesn't understand this IS work. When they go to their place of employment everyone understands they are at work. But when I go to my office to work on my game or miss a party it's "O you fuck head."

A quote from Peter Griffin was "great engineers understand complex equations." T3 in a nutshell. "But the best know how to make complex simple again."
Easier said than done. It's based on your tools.

Don S once said more or less "faak BC and PE, it all comes down to SCORE." Insurance is the #1 item on his ill18 and #2 is a distant 2nd. But Flash and his blue ink bull crap and arm chair prognostications represents a quote from Jim Garrison (JFK movie). "Create confusion to confound the understanding."

For example, look at Silver Fox count. Now, drop the 2 and add a point to the 5. Move the Ace only for insurance purposes. BC and PE plunge but SCORE soars to the top. Easy peasy count. So far I love the test drive and I think it works for all 3 dealer tendencies. I can be as complex as I need to be in order to win. But I'd rather keep it simple and win. I think there is a happy medium. There is a point where one can make the game so complex it is no longer fun. THAT complex isn't necessary to win, only be the smartest guy on the forum. What the hell difference does that make?

Generally speaking, newbies can't spell CAT if you spot them the C and the A. But T3 is serving up 15 letter words to them.

So Norm.

1. ) You have 28 authors of blackjack listed in your publications that are all evaluated by BC, PE, IC.

2.) You have Don S who says, all you need is SCORE.

3.) You have T3 and Flash that represent over 20k posts and have really stated nothing.

4.) You sell products to provide focus and direction.

5.) Yet with all the above, you've created more confusion and concern than a roller coaster ride with loose boards, nuts, and bolts at Coney Island.

We sift through threads of spy cameras and heat in Turtle Lake WI. while you stick you head in the sand. Don't you think it's about time you took this mess upon yourself to clear up the confusion? I know it takes a lot of work. I'm DOING it. But it seems to me you owe something to your subscribers and those who have purchased your products. No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

So Norm.

1. ) You have 28 authors of blackjack listed in your publications that are all evaluated by BC, PE, IC.

2.) You have Don S who says, all you need is SCORE.

3.) You have T3 and Flash that represent over 20k posts and have really stated nothing.

4.) You sell products to provide focus and direction.

5.) Yet with all the above, you've created more confusion and concern than a roller coaster ride with loose boards, nuts, and bolts at Coney Island.

---

Moses, a forum owner has a different agenda that sometimes places him in conflict. When BJinfo shut down in 2011, the large membership, myself included were looking for a place to continue to share our ideas, opinions and experiences. But that was NOT Norm's purpose in starting BJTF. Norm saw an opportunity to promote his software and now other products. Quite frankly the more traffic the site generates, the better for someone like Norm. The more people that visit, the more sales.

Controversial posts, topic, discussions, are what brings people to the site. So someone like a T3 (or Singer on this site) is exactly what the site owner wants. They keep the discussion going and traffic up. And it is not a co-incidence that these guys making false claims are always one of the top posters (in number) of the particular site.

Now in Norm's case, being a math guy, there was a conflict (similarly to Dan Druff here). So the way the get around that is very occasionally they point out that the ridiculous claims go against the math and don't add up. And I mean occasionally! Like once every couple months they will point out that the phony claim person's math doesn't work. But 99% of the time, the claims go unchallenged and do exactly what the site owner wants, draw controversy, discussion and traffic to the site.

And when you criticize these site owner, who in the case of Norm and Dan Druff are math guys that know better, they can say, "well I challenged the phony math claims". Yeah 1% of the time. That is NOT good enough. Phony math and claims based on alternative math must be challenged and corrected 100% of the time. Otherwise you are providing a platform for this bullshit.

Now in Norm's case, not only did he allow these ridiculous claims to stand without challenge from him 99% of the time, but he then shut down those of us that challenged the mathematically impossible claims.

So you need to look for the agenda of the site owner in these things. I'll tell you the guy with the purest intentions, was Mike Shackleford (Wizard). Mike had no agenda. He was about the math. And he didn't allow ridiculous claims to go unchallenged. And he allowed the members of his site to challenge and shoot down ridiculous claims. To his credit, his site was pure for the most part as far as the math, because Mike was and still is a pure math guy. Unfortunately that model didn't translate to any profit from the site, while he was running it. He just got lucky in that an internet casino company came along offering big money to buy the site. That wasn't in the plan....Mike didn't foresee that coming. But power to him.

Thanks for providing a deeper understanding KJ.

The problem is, as it's stated, my items #1 and #2 are either/or. It can't be both (as stated). Now perhaps Don S and Norm could put their heads together and come up with a viable solution. Agreed. I don't think it matters a whole helluva lot in shoes.

The DIFFERENCE is Norm is selling products in addition to the forum. Buy it and then confuse the shit our of oneself because items #3 is neither/nor. They need to start eliminating and condensing terms as opposed to adding more.

Great engineers making complex simple again? Or create confusion to confound the understanding? It can't be both. Correct?

Plus Norm has told me privately and now stated publicly that he is not about quantity of posts but quality. Lately, he has accomplished neither.

So like Nike. JUST DO IT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Thanks for providing a deeper understanding KJ.

The problem is, as it's stated, my items #1 and #2 are either/or. It can't be both (as stated). Now perhaps Don S and Norm could put their heads together and come up with a viable solution. Agreed. I don't think it matters a whole helluva lot in shoes.

The DIFFERENCE is Norm is selling products in addition to the forum. Buy it and then confuse the shit our of oneself because items #3 is neither/nor. They need to start eliminating and condensing terms as opposed to adding more.

Great engineers making complex simple again? Or create confusion to confound the understanding? It can't be both. Correct?

---

But that confusion works to Norm's benefit. Especially with the newer guys who are the one's confused. The experienced guys aren't confused. So how do the newer guys who are confused, figure out the math? They buy Norm's software products and figure out things for themselves. Norm benefits from the confusion and/or false claims.

Now, I don't think it is making Norm rich. He may already be rich, I don't know. Norm's primary income and money did not come from playing blackjack, nor selling blackjack software products. He earned his money in the business world. I previously said something related to banking or wall street, which Norm denies. But that doesn't matter. At this point, Norm is old and I assume retired and his forum and software/product sales are supplemental. And THAT may be the worse part. Norm is selling out....has sold out, and provides a platform for phony and alternative math that he knows is bullshit, for a little but of money that he doesn't even need. It is just supplemental or "hobby" money.

One can argue that Shackleford sold out as well. Like I said his site was pure. It was purely about the math and he didn't allow phony alternative math claims to stand. And he allowed other members (AP's) to shut down those claims with challenges. Sort of a self-policing.

So Shackelford eventually sold out and allowed his once "pure" site to become a joke. That site is not what it was. It isn't even about gambling or gambling math anymore. It is a clubhouse for middle-aged (I am being kind here) guys stuck in their juvenile youth. BUT at least Shackleford sold out for millions. What was it 2.8 million or 1.8 million....I forget. Norm sells out for probably a few thousand dollars in software sales per year. :(

I guess that makes Norm a $5 crack whore compared to Mike Shackleford being a higher priced "escort". ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

But that confusion works to Norm's benefit. Especially with the newer guys who are the one's confused. The experienced guys aren't confused. So how do the newer guys who are confused, figure out the math? They buy Norm's software products and figure out things for themselves. Norm benefits from the confusion and/or false claims.

---

The problem, at least in single deck, the software has flaws. It's designed for a game of cards played by people. We play a game of people played with cards. For instance, any normal player wouldn't max bet with a deck exhausted of Aces. But the SIM cannot distinguish the difference. Don S. will say. That's okay it's still a viable play. NOT if your limited in your bet amount and frequency of large bets with casino tolerance.

The simple concept of Jim Garrison was "answer the question, answer the question." IF one person would've done it, there would be no conspiracy theory in JFK.

Don S is good enough to answer most questions with reasonable logic. One can tell he has a strong background of a solid work ethic. But then, Flash comes in and fucks it all up again with his arm armchair, shoot from the hip, absolute pompous, perpetuate blue ink bullshit. Geezous.

Don if you're out there. One simple question. Does BC, PE, IC possess any viability whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

BC, PE, IC, and any other metric are combined to get the SCORE..

---

...And SCORE means MONEY which is my motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

It’s like the ingredients when building a cake where top priority is taste. It doesn’t matter if you use egg whites, the best flour, or dog shit — the most important thing is taste. If a cake tastes best when made with dog shit, then you use dog shit to make a cake.

---

Every once in awhile I come across advice that I can clutch onto. Thanks RS. It occurred to me the most important part of baking a cake is the pan. I mean try it on a cookie sheet or in a bowl and it's no longer cake. So my pan has to be 48. It's divisible by 24,16,12,8,4,2. Therefore, the ratios are very easy to spot and formula friendly (in case I forget, which I don't.)

I've lost count of how many consecutive days I've spent working on this cake. But even though many variations of counts, within the 48, have the same SCORE, many are dog shit.

I eliminated all counts below 530 PE and 940 BC. I had to begin to eliminate somewhere, or by the time I finished the cake, I'd be dead. Moving the Ace increases IC to above 750. Others were eliminated with sims for SCORE. I figured out soon there is no need to have more than 4 point variations of a 1/2 point. Brain fuck and it doesn't improve performance. Therefore, 10 were taken for a test drive with Verite. It's down to 3 which are now being reexamined in CV Data logs. My primary one I've used for years, column count is best so far. But I remain objective and open to other variations. The worst person I can deceive is me.

Everyone has their favorite cake. But how do they know it's their favorite? Probably because they've tasted the others. This process has helped me to realize why there are so many counts, which are different forms of guessing in a shoe. It's 312 cards. That's probably why the need for 200 billion round sims. It's all one big clusterfuck. No need to guess at 52 or 104.

Ironic, the guy that can do all these exotic sims for T3, Tarzan, and others? Employs HiLO.

I have said before that I suppose IF I only had access to and played single deck games like Moses, I would be more concerned and experiment with a higher count or more likely side counts. But I don't have that scenario and most of us don't. I play mostly 6 deck games and with shoe games, count is far down the listof what is important.:rolleyes:

Playing conditions are top of that list. Top two penetration and heads up play. And if I can find the two together...boom. My EV for that game goes through the roof, as I can get many, many rounds in during a very short period of time, still minimizing exposing myself. And because of the increased EV for that session, I can afford to throw some cover techniques, like spreading both ways or using alternating different spreads and actually play longer sessions.

I have one place that cuts less than half a deck from a 6 deck game normally. Sometimes as low as 20 cards. When I get that game heads up, I can score several days worth of EV in an hour and a half and still not have exposed myself too much. If I do sense heat, I can even afford to tone down my spread.

This is the benefit of playing a variety of conditions and not just subject to the same old single deck, standard penetration game, Moses. :rolleyes:

Edit/Add on: And btw, any counter that finds such a game that I just described is going to have his expected value per round jump dramatically, no matter what count he/she plays. The difference between the hi-lo counter and some "goofball" employing a level 3 count with side counts will be minimal, probably non existent. Both will see results go through the roof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I have one place that cuts less than half a deck from a 6 deck game normally. Sometimes as low as 20 cards. When I get that game heads up, I can score several days worth of EV in an hour and a half and still not have exposed myself too much. If I do sense heat, I can even afford to tone down my spread.

This is the benefit of playing a variety of conditions and not just subject to the same old single deck, standard penetration game, Moses. :rolleyes:
.

---

The problem is game selection works both ways. The opponent will not witness my skill level at sub standard games. Come to think of it, every time I got bounced was on a red chip inferior game over 5 years ago. This probably put me on a list. So now, I have to prove I'm nothing for them to fear. Now a continual pain in the ass.

My variety comes from sports bets. They can handle big winners much better. Plus I don't have to play all those damn insignificant hands. Thus there is a time investment to consider as well. I can be taking a nap or watching a movie while my bet is being determined.

Done...Damn I'm glad that's over. It only took a little over 5 years with all the confusion and contradiction from T3 and the Supremes.

Thanks KJ and RS for your input. It helped a lot.

Now what the hell am I gonna do?;)

The reason Griffin's EoRs are better at single deck is because he calculated them for single deck. Single deck, balanced counts with lots of indices.

Norm writes:

Well then he figured it wrong. One can tag 2 the at 0 and improve SCORE in a single deck sim. But tag 7 less than 2? SCORE declines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I have one place that cuts less than half a deck from a 6 deck game normally. Sometimes as low as 20 cards. When I get that game heads up, I can score several days worth of EV in an hour and a half and still not have exposed myself too much. If I do sense heat, I can even afford to tone down my spread.

This is the benefit of playing a variety of conditions and not just subject to the same old single deck, standard penetration game, Moses. :rolleyes:
.

---

The problem is game selection works both ways. The opponent will not witness my skill level at sub standard games. Come to think of it, every time I got bounced was on a red chip inferior game over 5 years ago. This probably put me on a list. So now, I have to prove I'm nothing for them to fear. Now a continual pain in the ass.

My variety comes from sports bets. They can handle big winners much better. Plus I don't have to play all those damn insignificant hands. Thus there is a time investment to consider as well. I can be taking a nap or watching a movie while my bet is being determined.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Done...Damn I'm glad that's over. It only took a little over 5 years with all the confusion and contradiction from T3 and the Supremes.

Thanks KJ and RS for your input. It helped a lot.

Now what the hell am I gonna do?;)

---

Since no one answered the last question and I know you still read this site I figured I give it a shot. Everything is contingent upon you being honest with yourself otherwise you will never figure it out. Single deck bj games has some of the highest SCORES available when compared with other games, BUT, how long can you continue play after showing your max bet? You cannot play if they wont let you. Do many established card counters come to play in your area? If not WHY? In your post #35 I saw between the lines a lot of truth and frustration coming through and that is a real good thing. Christ you very well may have more skill and knowledge pertaining to single deck blackjack than anyone else in the country right now, but will they let you play"betting correlation"? Years ago I said on Norm's site that you were likely playing with some of the highest SCORES compared to almost all others on the board, BUT, possibly one of the lowest earners,
I wasn't joking, and that says a lot. Moses just be honest with yourself.