SCORE vs BC,PE,IC discussion

[Moses]

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.

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?

[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.

[Moses]

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.

[Moses]

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.

[Moses]

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

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

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.

[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.

[Moses]

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.

[Moses]

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.

[kewlJ]

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.

[Moses]

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.

[kewlJ]

Moses, this has the makings of a count debate. 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.

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.

[kewlJ]

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.

[RS__]

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.

[kewlJ]

...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.

[Moses]

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...

[Moses]

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.

[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.

[Moses]

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.

[Moses]

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.

[SplitFaceDisaster]

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).