V-man: Side Count of 7s Questions

[V-man]

In the 'Best Of Masters' archives, Cacarulo had an excellent post describing the side count of 7s for betting. The formula is:
(adjusted)TC = (HL_RC*2 + SC_RC)/#DR
where:
(adjusted)TC = the adjusted TC for betting at beginning of new round
HL_RC = the HiLo running count
SC_RC = side count of 7s with IRC = -4*#decks

Question 1: Why is running count multiplied by 2? Is it because 7s has a value of about half of a HiLo count?
Question 2: Plugging in a few values into the formula:
6 decks, 5 decks remaining, HL_RC=10 (TC=2), #7s seen ranges from 0 .. 13 --> (adj)TC run from -0.8 to 1.8. It looks like we are most of the time overbetting in pure HiLo count (TC=2 in this case)?
Question 3: If I have some game with certain rules and deck composition in such a way that the effect of removal for the card value 8s to have a ratio of -0.5 (vs +0.59 as in the 7s BJ case), and if I want to follow Cac/7 count, would the following formula work:
(adj)TC = (RC*2 - #8s)/#DR
Where:
RC = running count (balanced count) 8s not accounted.
#8s = number of 8s seen
#DR = decks remaining

Thanks,

[Cacarulo]

> In the 'Best Of Masters' archives, Cacarulo
> had an excellent post describing the side
> count of 7s for betting. The formula is:
> (adjusted)TC = (HL_RC*2 + SC_RC)/#DR
> where:
> (adjusted)TC = the adjusted TC for betting
> at beginning of new round
> HL_RC = the HiLo running count
> SC_RC = side count of 7s with IRC =
> -4*#decks

> Question 1: Why is running count multiplied
> by 2? Is it because 7s has a value of about
> half of a HiLo count?

Yes, the idea is to avoid using fractions. When I use the side count of 7s I temporarily change Hi-Lo (-1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1) into (-1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 -1) which has a better BC. Now, instead of using a count with non-integer tags I simply multiply it by 2 (-2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2).
As you can see, the final system is just 2*Hi-Lo (-2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2) + S7 (0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0). Obviously, since S7 is unbalanced you should start it at the correct IRC (-4*# of decks).

> Question 2: Plugging in a few values into
> the formula:
> 6 decks, 5 decks remaining, HL_RC=10 (TC=2),
> #7s seen ranges from 0 .. 13 --> (adj)TC
> run from -0.8 to 1.8. It looks like we are
> most of the time overbetting in pure HiLo
> count (TC=2 in this case)?

That's where the power resides. You're changing a system of BC = 0.969 into a system of BC = 0.984.

> Question 3: If I have some game with certain
> rules and deck composition in such a way
> that the effect of removal for the card
> value 8s to have a ratio of -0.5 (vs +0.59
> as in the 7s BJ case), and if I want to
> follow Cac/7 count, would the following
> formula work:
> (adj)TC = (RC*2 - #8s)/#DR
> Where:
> RC = running count (balanced count) 8s not
> accounted.
> #8s = number of 8s seen
> #DR = decks remaining

You can do it only if your adjusted system will have a better BC. Of course, you'll need a significant change.

Sincerely,
Cac