Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Variance; can it be contained?

  1. #1
    Conventional methods arrive at one number and a deck estimate for the most part. Therefore, it is understandable why ones abililty to handle wild swings is such a crucial part of the game.

    Contrary to the belief of Norm, a column/percentage count will reduce variance. One can't beat it, but you can maintain it with what you do. Even more important, by what you don't do.

    Theory of Blackjack, Peter Griffin is the original bible of blackjack or at least many say. But the basis is on the odds of the dealers busting. However, we have to finish our hands before the dealer ever makes a move. Therefore, a column count is based on improving ones hand or position.

    A column of 2-4s and 5-7s provides the same cumulative results for the Effect of Removal of each individual tag value. I've not seen the formula used to arrived at the individual tags assigned by Mr. Griffin over 4 decades ago.
    It seems too much value was given to the 2 and not enough value given to the 7. I suppose this provides a warm fuzzy feeling. Yet hundreds a books were written based around this formula. What is Norm's answer? Read more books. Now, why do I need to read more books that are just another version of the same? When is the last time you said to yourself, "I sure hope I get a 2 or I hope it's not a 2 in the hole"?

    Let's suppose we make the 2 silent instead of the 8. Now the column structure is 3-5s and 6-8s. Have we hurt the decision on 16? No, we've actually improved it. Sitting with 13vs 2,3,4? A deck composition rich in 6,7,8 looks pretty damn good. An 8 will get you to 21 with a 13, 20 with a 12, 19 with a double on 11 and 18 with a 10. Was is it the 2 will do again? It gets you to 17 with a 15 and 18 with a 16. Big whup. So why are we making the 8 silent and not the 2 in a column count? Or why is it assigned a higher tag value than 7 in a conventional count?

    Also, you have a max bet out on two hands and your facing an Ace. Most times you will have to insure both hands. The 8 is not accounted for and I'll be damned if it isn't in the hole giving the dealer 19. Game over. Good luck getting to 20 if you don't already have it. However, suppose the 2 is not counted and it's sitting in the hole. Now, because the deck is rich in 10s, the dealer has a decent chance of busting.

    What not to do? A 60% deck composition of 9,10,As remains vs 40% 2-4s and 5-7s remain. The 8 is silent so we are using the formula on 48 cards. The difference, at 60%, can never be 3 more 2-4s than 5-7s or vice versa. Above 60%, yes? So you never bet into a deck that is richer in either of the other two columns.

    A common count is 9 (A-9s) played 60% remain and 14 (2-4s and 5-7s) played 40% remain.
    A 9-7-7 is perfect. A 9-8-6 or 9-6-8 are acceptable. You can't have a difference of 3. So a 9-5-9 or a 9-9-5 are betting into a deck that is also rich in another column. A conventional count will not reveal this information and an EITS will wonder why the hell you passed up the bet. Now you've ducked a risky bet that everyone else sees as viable. It's likely the cards in the lowest column will come out. So for the next hand you may have a 67% ratio vs balanced columns. This is what I mean by improving position.
    Last edited by Moses; 10-26-2018 at 08:28 AM.

  2. #2
    Moses, you are starting to sound like...well you know who, with some of these claims of what your specialized count can do.


    I will give you that these types of very specialized counts (I lump column counts and extreme multi-level counts complete with multiple side counts together under "specialty counts") may have some benefit when playing single and even deeply dealt double deck games.

    These single and double deck games were common when these counts came about in the 70's and 80's but today, only you have access to these kind of games in Northern Nevada. 99+% of most card counters play 6/8 deck games or double deck games with mediocre penetration. With these games, these "specialty counts" are not going to have that much effect or benefit. Not enough benefit to make it worthwhile IMO. There are other things players like me, playing these games that 99% of us play, can do that WILL make a difference.

    Variance IS part of the game. There are some things a player can do to slightly lessen variance, but basically variance is part of the game. AND variance is actually our friend. Negative variance and the large bankroll needed to over come it, along with the mental approach of patience and discipline is what keeps every players from being a successful card counter. The casino knows that even most players that know the basics of card counting lack the patience, discipline and BANKROLL to actually win.

    Without this, the casinos would just stop offering beatable games.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Moses, you are starting to sound like...well you know who, with some of these claims of what your specialized count can do. .
    I read Edward Thorpes books in 1986. Thus I started column counting. I didn't know there was another way until August 2013. ET talked ratios. It made perfect sense to me. There were perforated charts. I took them out and would study them whenever I was bored - like sitting through 3 day sales meetings, back then. I simply took his ratios for A-10 rich and applied them to the other columns in order strengthen my game. He probably didn't need to do this in his day because the bet frequency and amounts were not as strict and they'd deal down to the 45th card.

    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I will give you that these types of very specialized counts (I lump column counts and extreme multi-level counts complete with multiple side counts together under "specialty counts") may have some benefit when playing single and even deeply dealt double deck games.

    These single and double deck games were common when these counts came about in the 70's and 80's but today, only you have access to these kind of games in Northern Nevada. 99+% of most card counters play 6/8 deck games or double deck games with mediocre penetration. With these games, these "specialty counts" are not going to have that much effect or benefit. Not enough benefit to make it worthwhile IMO. There are other things players like me, playing these games that 99% of us play, can do that WILL make a difference.
    The reason I became interested in a conventional count was to understand and implement CV Data. But I've taken it as far as my game will go. The other resource cannot currently run my percentage/column sims at this time. So the next best thing is to try to get information from conventional experts, such as you, to try to decifer how some of this information was derived in the first place years ago.
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Variance IS part of the game. There are some things a player can do to slightly lessen variance, but basically variance is part of the game. AND variance is actually our friend. Negative variance and the large bankroll needed to over come it, along with the mental approach of patience and discipline is what keeps every players from being a successful card counter. The casino knows that even most players that know the basics of card counting lack the patience, discipline and BANKROLL to actually win..
    Sorry, for the basketball analogy. My junior year I moved to a school with a different concept as to how the game should be played. I had high credentials coming in and my coach clearly was "not" impressed. I'd say, "coach I can make that 15 foot jumper with either hand. Why won't you let me take that shot"? Make or miss, he'd pull me out of the game and chew my ass...but good. He explained a couple of more passes and a couple more picks accomplish an even higher percentage shot - like a layup. In addition, it wears down the defense.

    For me, in the example in the OP. Playing 2 hands, about 23 cards into a deck with a high TC/poor composition will constitute a shuffle after that round. So I took the 15 foot jumper with a hand in my face. Instead I wait one more hand and play 2 hands, about 28 cards in, with a higher TC/great deck composition. Hence, waited for the layup. There are many ways to see the cards differently on minimum bets as well. Turning just a few hands around can be the difference between a winning session to a tie or a tie to a losing session.

    KJ, for example I can easily provide the formula to determine the exact ratio of 10s vs other cards at 33%, 40%, and 50%. I could go higher but it never happens. My question to you is, bare with me for a second. It seems EOR is the gospel in the conventional count. I know the numbers for each tag. What I don't know is how or what formula was used to arrive at those numbers? It seems to me, someone would think to ask that question before taking them as gospel. I mean did Mr. Griffin bump his head one day and just say "o hell give the 2 a .38." Well, how about the 7? "Gee, I dunno .28"? Ok, sounds good to me. Then all these books spin off this equation.
    Last edited by Moses; 10-26-2018 at 11:55 AM.

  4. #4
    KJ. I did some research to find one of our notable players had the same question back in 2015. He did not get a direct answer in that thread. I wrote him to see if he ever got an answer.

  5. #5
    I ain’t reading all that shit, but I assume it’s about more advanced methods of counting and reducing variance.

    At the end of the day — variance is going to exist, no matter what you do (very rare exceptions, not in BJ though that I can think of). The question is how much can you lower variance and is it worth it? Some people don’t care much about variance and others want to get as close to their EV on a much more consistent basis even if they have to make great sacrifices.

    Edit; For other plays, sometimes it doesn’t take much to reduce the variance on a play. Sometimes it costs a lot of EV and sometimes it’s negligible. I’m usually in favor of reducing variance if it’s relatively cheap. Even if it’s relatively expensive, it can be very worth it because you can play at a higher level than you otherwise would if you’re able to get the variance down a bunch.
    #FreeTyde

  6. #6
    The 5 will get the player or the dealer to a stop 5 times on problem hands 12 to 16. The 4 and 6 will do it 4 times. The 3 and 7 will do it 3 times. The 2 only twice an then it's only to 17,18.

    At least this is factual criteria to determine effect of removal. But no one still living seems to know the formula that was derived back in the 70s with limited resources. Yet, it remains the gospel today.

  7. #7
    Predictability is good. Unpredictable is bad. Especially when it comes to investing money. In blackjack, one is also investing time and their ability.

    Variance is okay for minimum bets. But no one wants a 15,16 vs A with a two hand max bet out. The long run is to endure what you can't see coming.
    Poor deck composition cannot be predicted with a conventional count. This is why so many of those large bet hands fall apart.

    The problem is waiting for the proper deck composition takes time and patience. The winning percentage goes up but the large bet frequency goes down.

    The solution is to find the happy medium. Easily done with a sim that can equate percentages, columns, and Aces played/remain. Otherwise, it takes time with the BG & BG method. But still doable in time.

  8. #8
    If there were anything to the notion of reducing variance by the non-poker casino games, then fortunes were to be made with the D'Alembert betting system, which is all about (reducing) variance.

    If you could routinely win, or were guaranteed to win, say, even only one hand in every ten - incidentally, where the D'Alembert begins to smooth out to a Martingale - then it wouldn't even matter the game.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  9. #9
    About 80% of the game is out of my control. I get 17, dealer has 18. I get 9, hit to 19, dealer has 18 etc. etc. IF you take out the obviously plays like hitting 12 v 8 it's probably more like 90%. No, I don't believe variance has a mind of its own where follows one from deck to deck or casino to casino...it's just part of the game.

    So about 10% is in my control. That is what makes the difference. This is the area where I reduce variance - without reducing profits. In fact increasing profits. Sims help. But the root of it comes from good old fashion hard work, study, and common sense as to risk allocation.

  10. #10
    NO. It's not ONE. BIG. LONG SESSION. The dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's 20 sessions per week. A goal of $500 per session with a cap of 100 hands per session. Win 60% Lose 40%. Bam. There is your $100k with a two week vacation included. However, in order to reach this goal, you're going to need to live where your play. No one can keep up that pace travelling 50 weeks out of a year. I did it for 6 months out of a year with substantial income guaranteed for many years. It's exhausting.

    Also, as much as you hate to hear it. You WILL need to find ways to reduce variance and stay under the radar. SORRY! THAT will take some WORK! Damn another nasty word.

  11. #11
    Moses, doesn't look like Norm was too happy with your new 4 member team. He threatened to ban Bosox. He must be pretty pissed. I don't know why as I didn't think it was that big a deal.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Midwest Player View Post
    Moses, doesn't look like Norm was too happy with your new 4 member team. He threatened to ban Bosox. He must be pretty pissed. I don't know why as I didn't think it was that big a deal.
    I'm a soloist. A lousy team player. Okay Norm, close your eyes, grit your teeth, and pull real hard on 3. One, two, THREE. There now, doesn't it feel better to have those panties out of your crack?

  13. #13
    Bosox, make a stupid post like this again and you are gone.

    Thread closed.

    Normal writes:

    Moses replies: Bosox. This reminds me of a funny story since your a baseball fan. One year, we were watching Opening Day of an A's game. First batter up hits it to left field. A's fan hollers GONE!!! The left fielder didn't even have to move for the "can of corn." Geez Norm, take it easy. We still have 161 games and 8 2/3 inning to go.

  14. #14
    T3: You continue to write that you "tame" variance. I get what you're saying about the ride. But only in pitch. Why can't you just say what you mean? If it's so complicated you can't do it, then what good is it? If it's so complicated you can't explain it, then why talk about it? I'm guessing it has something to do with Hi Opt II and ASC with extra tag value assigned to the Ace. It's still a conventional count and won't provide deck compositions. No?

    Tarzan may be different. But if he can count 23s,45s,67s,89s over the course of 312 cards, why the need to reduce the lowest column to zero?

    You speak of trolls. T3 is more like a trailer. He continues to explain the concept of the movie. But it never plays and has no ending. You should be able to write what you do in 3 or 4 paragraphs and post on the front and back of a laminated baggage card. If not, it's too complicated. No one will get it. Including you.

  15. #15
    Plus, it is just NOT true. The way he speaks of practically eliminating variance is just a pipe dream. Playing with a computer right there on the felt wouldn't reduce variance to the degree he claims. Variance is a part of card counting. If a player can't deal with the variance, move on to more advanced techniques with much bigger edges. But reducing variance with so called "advanced counts" is complete nonsense.

    KJ writes to T3:

    Moses replies: You and Bosox are making some excellent comments. I enjoy reading that thread and have been writing some responses at ZZ. Variance can be reduced significantly in the pitch game. But it takes work...a lot of work. I doubt anyone is willing to do it but me.

    I picture a computer right at the table. It would be sort of like a tote board in horse racing. You'd have what is played and what remains. But the bigger picture is what to do with that information. I have 3 different counts I employ depending on the dealer and/or pen. Actually 4, but that one is the don't play at all count. LOL

    It's really time for T3 to put up or shut up.
    T3 looked over and saw the cat playing with the balls on the curtain. So T3 said "honey, that's what you can do when we get married." But by the time T3 got it said? The cat was licking his ass. Do you get my drift?
    Last edited by Moses; 11-27-2018 at 09:07 AM.

  16. #16
    I really don't even understand why some players are so obsessed with variance and reducing variance. Variance is our friend. Without variance, everyone and their brother would just roll along accumulating EV on a regular basis with no swings and the result would be the casino industry simply would no longer be able to offer such games. Variance and what it does to most players makes the game as we know it....possible.

    Learn to handle and deal with variance and you have learned the discipline necessary to win playing blackjack. It is that simple, just ask Zee or ZK or I guess anyone with a "z" handle.
    KJ writes:

    Moses replies. Years ago I was getting bounced more than Madonna. I knew I had to change my game or not be allowed to play at all. One has to learn the casino tolerance level. When bet spread and frequency makes them twitchy, then something has to give. Variance or volatility is all that is left. In other words, you can't go down if they won't let you back up. So yes, I roll along with limited swings. In the end, we are pretty at the same net. It's just I did it with half as many hands and less large bet frequency and amounts. THAT, my friend is the value of reduced variance. But I seriously doubt it could be done beyond two decks.


    If players, real players that play at tables and not on the computer screen had been allowed to legitimately challenge, it would have all worked out at the time. A sort of self policing of the community, debunking the voodoo.

    I play at both. Far more on the computer than in the casino. Why? I can only find my game and play so much in a casino without getting bounced. I get in my 20 casino sessions per week and that's enough to feed the bulldogs...because it's ALWAYS my game. The game on the computer is far more difficult because there are no breaks. In a casino, you will catch breaks if you know how to utilize it. It's a game of people played with cards. Plus I'd rather watch a game and play blackjack at home than in a casino with a bunch of bull shitters, for the most part.
    Last edited by Moses; 11-27-2018 at 09:33 AM.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    KJ writes to T3:
    Wait...I thought I was responding to "dummy".

    ok, so I take it you (moses) are unable to participate at BJinfo as well as BJTF?
    I am trying to move away from participating here as it is just too much a shithole. But I guess I may respond to some of your blackjack specific posts, since there is no real other option....BUT I am not going to ZZ...even to read.

  18. #18
    If players, real players that play at tables and not on the computer screen had been allowed to legitimately challenge, it would have all worked out at the time. A sort of self policing of the community, debunking the voodoo. And nobody's 'freedom of speech' would have been denied. He could have continued his claims and people could have challenged the claims and the alternative math behind them. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    Excellent, Excellent point KJ. T3 and Flash were pretty much running BJTF. Flash had an agenda. Norm looked the other way. Anytime anyone challenged either they eventually got banned. How friggin ridiculous! Math is only one factor, at least in my neck of the woods. There are also people and tolerance factors to consider which goes beyond the math.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post

    Wait...I thought I was responding to "dummy".
    I think either would apply. NO? lol

    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    ok, so I take it you (moses) are unable to participate at BJinfo as well as BJTF?
    I am trying to move away from participating here as it is just too much a shithole. But I guess I may respond to some of your blackjack specific posts, since there is no real other option....BUT I am not going to ZZ...even to read.
    Someone else used the handle Moses at BJinfo years ago in 2010 and got banned. Not me. I didn't even know forums existed until August 2013. So I never signed up. Plus the topics weren't that interesting and seemed to be another version of the same. Hence, limited free speech.
    And the traffic is at a crawl. Quite often 2 or 3 days will pass and no one makes a post.

    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    BUT I am not going to ZZ...even to read.
    Why? Everyone seems to like you over there.
    Last edited by Moses; 11-27-2018 at 10:21 AM.

  20. #20
    Another example of reducing variance or volatility. Adjusting to dealer tendencies.

    A worthwhile game in SDSU is a dealer going more than 6 rounds. Column counts works best because a column can be exhausted of the cards. You wouldn't know this information with a conventional count.

    IF a dealer will go 6 rounds and two hands on the last round, a conventional method that mirrors a column count, works better because you get more large bet plays than a column count.

    IF a dealer will go 6 rounds, but not two hands on the last round, then you have to get your business done on the 5th round. Therefore, eliminating the 2 and adding value to the 6 will provide a higher frequency of large bets. Plus it reduces the possibility of getting stuck with 15 or 16.

    5 rounds or less. Advantage gone. No game to play.

    To get one count that serves all dealers? Still working on it. Why? Because certain dealers change from day to day or mood swings. The dealer controls this type of game.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •