Sun Runner: Ace side count (Cardkountr)

[Boardwalker]

Hi,

The following quote is from Wongs 1981 Professional Blackjack; "More precisely, when using high-low adjusted for aces, insurance is profitable above +3 for one deck, +2.9 for two decks, +2.8 for four decks,and 2.7 for six decks". Don, this seems to contradict your advise to always use +3.

Cheers,
Boardwalker
> P.S. It's also important to point out that,
> when using the ace side count for insurance
> purposes, the correct index is ALWAYS +3, no
> matter the number of decks. So, do not use
> 1.4 or 2.4, for example, for SD or DD; use
> +3 all the time.

[Boardwalker]

P.S.

I guess in practice you would round up 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9 to 3. So practically there is no difference.

Cheers,
Boardwalker

> The following quote is from Wongs 1981
> Professional Blackjack; "More
> precisely, when using high-low adjusted for
> aces, insurance is profitable above +3 for
> one deck, +2.9 for two decks, +2.8 for four
> decks,and 2.7 for six decks". Don, this
> seems to contradict your advise to always
> use +3.

> Cheers,
> Boardwalker

[Don Schlesinger]

> I guess in practice you would round up 2.7,
> 2.8, and 2.9 to 3. So practically there is
> no difference.

The point is that a system seller would likely simply tell you to use +3 for all of the above values.

Don

[Sun Runner]

>> I guess in practice you would round up 2.7,
>> 2.8, and 2.9 to 3. So practically there is
>> no difference.

> The point is that a system seller would likely simply tell you to use +3 for all of the above values.

And they would be doing you a favor.

I'll again say that 95% of those playing BJ could not come up with a quotient of 2.7, 2.8, or 2.9 in the solitutde of a math class let alone under the bright lights of the casino.

+3 is a good answer.