| Снайдер не точен! ID:8667 ответ на 8555 |
Сб, 15 ноября 2008 22:18 [#] |
|
|
| john писал ср, 05 ноябрь 2008 17:30 | | Gramazeka писал ср, 05 ноябрь 2008 18:14 | Пример- казалось бы диллер взял 26 известных карт и смешал их с другими 26ю. Но это- казалось бы... На практике такое невозможно. Обязательно будут несколько лишних карт.
В таком примере вопрос- имеем ли мы право играть и калькулировать индексы как в одноколодной игре? Или все таки по NRS (делая поправку на погрешность)? |
Мой ответ на твой вопрос - да, можно. Твой ответ, насколько я понимаю - нет, нельзя, и нужно использовать NRS. На мой взгляд разница в следующем: безусловно будут несколько лишних карт - одна, две, ну может три; соответственно, я считаю, что одна, две неизвестные карты из 52 это всего лишь небольшая погрешность и можно смело приравнивать данный сегмент к полной известной колоде. В СРЕДНЕМ то на то и выйдет. Поэтому в ДАННОМ примере я считаю использование NRS лишь ненужной загрузкой мозга, которая конечно окупится, но в горазло меньшем объеме. Или по другому: затраченные усилия не соответствуют конечной прибыли. |
Джон, перечитав некоторые материалы по ST о конкретном этом примере, я удивился мнению специалистов, что конкретно в этом примере если мы будем использовать NRS, то это приведет в конечном итоге к переоцениванию нашего преймущества и овербетингу.
Далее привожу пост, одного из известных авторов БДк сообщества, где он критикует ставочную стратегию Снайдера изложенную в Кук Буке-
Cookbook betting
————————————————————————————————————————
Quote:
Originally Posted by 
"Two points i would make however, the first is that you shouldn't use the betting system suggested in the cookbook - it doesn't work. Look up NRS betting. It's a little more involved but that will actually win you money.
."
Ответ:
I also have a problem with the betting recommendations in the cookbook and the broader conclusions Snyder draws from them. (My opinion is that the cookbook is quite good on some methods of tracking shuffles, but not good on betting or the evaluation of profitability.) However, I want to qualify my criticism of the cookbook betting method, because I think it is a useful method in some circumstances, just not all.
In my view, the betting method in the cookbook works fine for the kind of approach it is probably intended for: namely, targeting very small, rich slugs that end up in a small section of the new shoe. Two factors make the cookbook betting method okay in this specific context.
First, the slug is handpicked. It is not taken from a predetermined point in the shoe that therefore has a random count attached to it. Rather, it is a rich slug that is selected from wherever it occurs in the previous shoe precisely because it is rich.
Second, the slug is small and may therefore be dispersed through a small section of the next shoe. As a result, the initial true count will be high and unlikely to turn neutral or negative before the final betting point of the slug.
An example may illustrate these two factors. If a player always intends to track the first 6 cards of a shoe as the slug (a predetermined slug), the count of those 6 cards can vary from -6 to +6. Sometimes the slug will be useful, sometimes it won't be. But if, instead, the player intends to find 6 cards somewhere in the shoe that is rich, the slug count will not be random. It will always be useful information (provided it is trackable and not broken up by the shuffle). This aspect of the example relates to the first factor.
In terms of the second factor, if those 6 slug cards are all big and get mixed into a half-deck section of the next shoe, they produce an initial true count of just under +12. The player won't lose much by assuming a constant true count through that half deck. Even if the running count dropped 13 over the first 13 cards of this half deck, NRS tells us that the true count would still be about +6. (I've assumed a 6-deck game, so the IRC using NRS would be about +20 and N about 1.8.) Unless the player is heads up, a bet can't be placed much deeper into the playzone than this, so the cookbook betting method performs okay.
A third factor that will sometimes further validate the cookbook betting method in cases similar to the example above is that the slug may be dispersed fairly evenly throughout the section of the shoe in which it appears (depending on how the relevant cards are shuffled). If the slug cards are virtually all big cards, there will then be potency all through the slug.
Having said all this, the cookbook downplays the value of other tracking approaches because it evaluates them under the assumption that the cookbook betting method (effectively, an assumption that the true count is constant throughout the playzone) is always used. This is very, very far from optimal if either the slug has a random count (i.e. comes from a predetermined area of the previous shoe) or the slug is dispersed throughout a large playzone. In these cases, a lot of the value of the track comes in being able to update the true count using NRS throughout the playzone.
For example, the player might track a predetermined 1.5 decks (the "slug," which may come from various parts of the previous shoe) into one half of a 6-deck shoe. Unless, by chance, the predetermined 1.5 decks is very rich, the cookbook betting method will be useless. For instance, there is not much use assuming a constant true count of zero through one half of the shoe because the predetermined slug happened to have a zero count. Accordingly, Snyder arrives at the conclusion that best-half play is worthless. However, even the zero-count situation (which is the worst-case scenario for the best-half tracker) is not worthless when using NRS. The player still benefits, even though the IRC is zero, because the shoe can be treated off the top as containing only 4.5 decks rather than 6.
Like Norm, I spent time analyzing the cookbook betting recommendation, though in my analysis I needed to resort to algebraic approximations, and so on, as I am not a programmer. (I have always been big on NRS for predetermined and/or large playzones, and the comments on NRS in the cookbook irritated me.) My findings agree with yours and Norm's if the slug comes from a predetermined location and hence has a random count. (I am guessing this is why Norm qualifies his statement by noting that the cookbook approach is unprofitable under many, but by implication not all, circumstances.) For large playzones containing predetermined slugs, the cookbook betting approach often won't even produce a player edge (over the entire shoe, not just playzone). However, if the slug is small and rich (because it is handpicked), the method will produce a decent player edge. The shorter, richer, and less dispersed the slug, the nearer the cookbook method gets to NRS profitability.
I get the definite impression that Snyder's own approach to shuffle tracking involves handpicking slugs, thereby guaranteeing richness. On the other hand, there is an ambiguity, because the cookbook presentation of count frequencies for different slug sizes gives the impression that the slug count is random. This means that Snyder evaluates the profitability of various slugs under the assumption that they have a random count. This method of evaluation is not applicable if the slug is handpicked and hence guaranteed to be rich. The evaluation method also ignores the player disadvantage when not playing the slug.
So, my view is that if a player handpicks small, rich slugs, it is okay to use the cookbook method. However, if the slug comes from a predetermined area of the shoe and/or is considerably dispersed, NRS is indispensible.
The cookbook analysis, based on the constant true-count analysis, results in a dramatic undervaluation of useful methods such as best-half play, or the cutting out of poor slugs, because these methods acquire much of their power from true-count updates within the playzone.
<font color="orangered">Саня и кое кто ещё . Прочитай это! Это один из предметов разговора, о чем мы спорили! Подумай о том, на сколько Снайдер не точен в подходе к ставкам! Заметь как проистекала дискуссия далее-</font>
————————————————————————————————————————
Quote:
Originally Posted by
"Good to have you with us !
Actually it was a discussion with Norm that opened my eyes to the weaknesses in AS betting system and further to that conversation i was directed over to one of your posts at the CCC that really got me smart on the NRS formula.
So i've a lot to thank you for!
I find it curious that the cookbook is the only book in print that really covers the subject of shuffle tracking in any serious depth and stranger still that such a highly respected and unquestionable authority of the game like Snyder would choose to leave out any detailed discussion of such an important part of the technique.
. "
Ответ:
It's good to be here. Actually, I often read the posts. I just don't get around to posting much at the moment. Glad you got something out of the CCC post.
I don't know why Snyder chose to leave out NRS. Maybe it suits the way he tracks himself. As I indicated in my previous post, I think Snyder's betting method makes sense if the player is specifically targeting rich slugs that don't get too dispersed. The emphasis on eyeballing skills suggests this, too.
Even so, I think leaving out NRS made the cookbook quite limited in its usefulness of other tracking strategies.
Another factor may have been Snyder's apparent view that NRS is unnecessarily "theoretical" and "impractical." I don't know if this is really his view, or he thought it would play well to his readership. The notion that NRS is impractical doesn't make sense to me. NRS is really quite simple in its application. That's one of the great things about it. A simple calculation to arrive at the IRC (using a memorized multiplier - how is this any harder than calculating the off-the-top TC?), a memorized N, and the player is free to count as normal. It's really not much different to regular counting.
Another possibility, I guess, is deliberate misinformation. I wouldn't have thought so at one time, but after seeing the more recent Big Book of Blackjack (especially the chapter on SP21), I wonder a little whether this factor may have been at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
" Another possibility, I guess, is deliberate misinformation. I wouldn't have thought so at one time, but after seeing the more recent Big Book of Blackjack (especially the chapter on SP21), I wonder a little whether this factor may have been at work."
Ответ:
This thought has also occurred to me. When i first realized just how flawed the cookbook betting method was when it came to any but the smallest packets i was really quite angry.
For me, when you write a book like the cookbook, it's one thing to make a mistake but to knowingly mislead your readership carries some unpleasant undertones.
I watched manufacturing dissent recently and they made a point about an unwritten commitment that documentary film makers enter and that is to tell their audience the truth. Presenting a bias view of the truth is expected to an extent, but outright lying crosses that invisible line between encouraging your viewers think for themselves and decide what is useful information and out right deceiving them.
I felt that this cut that same line. Snyder is one of the most prominent authorities on the game and carries the trust of his readership with him.
However i believe that the motives behind such deceit could only be based in a desire to protect certain opportunities that weren't widely publicized (aka SP21) so that the serious players that were playing them could continue to make money until someone else eventually let the cat out of the bag. Is that agenda really so negative? When i think about it there have been more than a few occasions that i have flat out lied when asked questions about certain games by other counters and AP's simply to protect the advantage i play with. I've never gone so far as to publish and promote my deceit, but it still seems somewhat hypocritical of me to judge someone else for creating a deception to maintain an advantage.
|
|
|