Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 40

Thread: Sun Runner: Ace side count (Cardkountr)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Ace side count (Cardkountr)

    Back in October 2004 you discussed your Ace side count.

    I know you use Hilo and obviously Hilo is already ace reckoned.

    In that post you spoke of using the side count only as an adjustment for insurance decisions.

    Do you let the sidecount effect your decision for other playing decisions .. and if so how?

    Anyone else?

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: Comments

    I use AOII W/Ace side count. Now you know that the ace is neutral, so it's primary use is for betting. It has little value all in all in multiple deck games for betting, but I've been doing it for so long, that even though I rarely have an opportunity to use it for betting in 6 deck games, I know what it is at all times regardless. It really is automatic. That said, it is extremely valuable in DD and SD games, and yes, I get to play SD games occasionally.

    Which brings me to your question. The AOII playing strategy doesn't incorporate the use of the ace for play deviations, however......

    There is one. Yes, there is one play that can and should be used, and that's when you're in an extremely ace rich pack, a monster count, a max bet on the felt, and you're dealt an 11 vs dealer ten.

    Do I double? No. I look at this as a risk-averse play change. I am much more likely to make this decision in a SD game than a DD game, but I have used it in a deeply dealt DD game, near the end of the pack. It's unlikely that I would make this play in the first deck dealt of a DD game.

    Really, how ace-rich is the pack, the penetration and count at the time is what I take into consideration before making this type of play.

    cheers
    bfb

  3. #3
    Ouchez
    Guest

    Ouchez: Right on....

    > I use AOII W/Ace side count. Now you know
    > that the ace is neutral, so it's primary use
    > is for betting. It has little value all in
    > all in multiple deck games for betting, but
    > I've been doing it for so long, that even
    > though I rarely have an opportunity to use
    > it for betting in 6 deck games, I know what
    > it is at all times regardless. It really is
    > automatic. That said, it is extremely
    > valuable in DD and SD games, and yes, I get
    > to play SD games occasionally.

    > Which brings me to your question. The AOII
    > playing strategy doesn't incorporate the use
    > of the ace for play deviations,
    > however......

    > There is one. Yes, there is one play that
    > can and should be used, and that's when
    > you're in an extremely ace rich pack, a
    > monster count, a max bet on the felt, and
    > you're dealt an 11 vs dealer ten.

    > Do I double? No. I look at this as a
    > risk-averse play change. I am much more
    > likely to make this decision in a SD game
    > than a DD game, but I have used it in a
    > deeply dealt DD game, near the end of the
    > pack. It's unlikely that I would make this
    > play in the first deck dealt of a DD game.

    > Really, how ace-rich is the pack, the
    > penetration and count at the time is what I
    > take into consideration before making this
    > type of play.

    > cheers
    > bfb

    I also use it in deep DD games to jump my bet considerably in the high count situation with many aces still undealt. I find it a remarkable help in getting the money. Of course it is much more valuable when playing heads up or with you, the dealer, and a teammate.

    Ouchez.

  4. #4
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Comments

    > There is one. Yes, there is one play that
    > can and should be used, and that's when
    > you're in an extremely ace rich pack, a
    > monster count, a max bet on the felt, and
    > you're dealt an 11 vs dealer ten.

    Specifically, the monster count needed to double a natural (multi-deck, Hilo) is 14, 12, 10, 8, and 8 for the dealer 2 thru 6 respectively. [Schlesinger, August 2002]

    > Do I double? No. I look at this as a risk-averse play change.

    I do, when given the chance. Of course I like splitting tens also so what are ya gonna do?!

    But this still leaves me wondering about an ace side count for Hilo for other playing decisions.

    You and MissR do not use an ace reckoned sysytem; I do.

    Cacarulo has penned that Hilo/A beats Hilo (c-Score) by a little over 5%. Possibly he is only using it for insurance as well.

    Still wondering how to best implement the ace side count with Hilo .. thanks all.

    Maybe when CK gets back from another of his $25K road trips he'll weigh in!




  5. #5
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: Ah, did I say "natural?" :-)

    Of all the plays I have done, doubling a blackjack with a max bet out is not one of them.

    Have I done it? Yes, but only for grins, with basically nothing bet, and not against a dealer 10.

    Unless it was good for me, and I didn't care if I ever set foot in the place I was in, AND it was a minimum bet, and, and, and, and a final AND, (take your pick), then, maybe I would double, as my only purpose would be to spit in the eye of the dump (it would have to be) and be gone.

    But that's a lot if's, "ands", and spit. :-)

    cheers
    bfb

  6. #6
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re:Cacarulo's sims inferences

    The game analyzed is 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,Catch-22 floored indices,heads up,5000 million rounds.

     
    Hi-Lo/A $ 37.02 (1-12 spread)

    Hi-Lo $ 34.84 (1-12 spread)



    As you can see, the gain in SCORE is assuming all the indexes are adjusted for playing purposes.

    Keeping a side count of aces while using an ace-reckoned count for insurance only, won?t be enough compensation for your efforts, due mainly to the meager increase in playing correlation of the Hilo adjusted for aces. Btw, PBJ (1981 Edition) has all the indexes inside it. Wong dropped all these tables, because he was convinced that your win rate?s improvement would be meaningless. Cac seems to be from a different opinion. :-)

    Sincerely

    Zenfighter

  7. #7
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re:Cacarulo's sims inferences

    > The game analyzed is 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,Catch-22 floored indices, heads up

    Yes, I know, it's almost exactly my bread and butter game.

    > As you can see, the gain in SCORE is ...

    You mean c-SCORE I'm sure.

    > assuming all the indexes are adjusted for playing purposes.

    All 22 of them you mean? I can do that.

    > Keeping a side count of aces while using an
    > ace-reckoned count for insurance only, won?t
    > be enough compensation for your efforts, due
    > mainly to the meager increase in playing
    > correlation of the Hilo adjusted for aces.

    OK, point taken.

    > Wong dropped all these tables,
    > because he was convinced that your win
    > rate?s improvement would be meaningless.

    > Cac seems to be from a different opinion.

    While I generally believe simpler is better, how hard is it really? Also, I'm guessing with the progress made in calc'ing things such as this, Cac might be right and Wong .. wrong.

    Could I get a short primer in the ace side count? Is it simply the sum of the RC and any excess aces, converted to TC at that point in time?

    Last, is there any value in treating an ace deficent shoe the same?

    Thanks again all.

  8. #8
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re:Accelerated "seminar" :-)

    Just copied and pasted from the Theory Page. (SD is assumed here)

    1) Find the excess or deficiency of Aces at the selected card level. E.g. ? deck remains and you have seen two aces gone, thus your pack is one Ace deficient.

    2) For each card deficient that our pack has we add the value of Ai to the RC.

    3) For each card in excess that our pack has we subtract the value of Ai from the RC.

    4) Finally we divide by the number of decks remaining to find the TC and play the hand

    Example for SD:

    26 cards already gone, RC = 2 and 3 Aces played

    Hand = 12 vs. 2 (Rules= sd, h17, das, spl3 and spa1)

    Here the pack is one Ace poor, therefore our Ai = -1

    RC = 2-1 = 1

    TC = 1/(1/2) = 2

    12 vs. 2 ? Hit or stand. Well you should hit.

    Without adjustments:

    RC = 2

    TC = 2/(1/2) = 4

    12 vs. 2? Hit or stand. Well you should stand.

    Damn! :-)

    Enjoy!

    Zenfighter


  9. #9
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Thanks! *NM*


  10. #10
    John Lewis
    Guest

    John Lewis: isn't this example reversed?

    "Example for SD:

    26 cards already gone, RC = 2 and 3 Aces played

    Hand = 12 vs. 2 (Rules= sd, h17, das, spl3 and spa1)

    Here the pack is one Ace poor, therefore our Ai = -1

    RC = 2-1 = 1

    TC = 1/(1/2) = 2

    12 vs. 2 ? Hit or stand. Well you should hit.

    Without adjustments:

    RC = 2

    TC = 2/(1/2) = 4

    12 vs. 2? Hit or stand. Well you should stand."

    Zen

    Your example gives an instance of 12 v 2 at 1/2 deck SD with an RC of +2, one extra ace dealt (3 vs 2 at 1/2 deck). One more 10 remains in the undealt deck than expected. Thus the RC should be adjusted upwards by one for this play (adjusted TC of +6), rather than downwards, making the stand decision even more desirable (adjusted TC of +6).

    Am I correct?

    Thanks,

    JL


  11. #11
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Yes

    > Your example gives an instance of 12 v 2 at
    > 1/2 deck SD with an RC of +2, one extra ace
    > dealt (3 vs 2 at 1/2 deck). One more 10
    > remains in the undealt deck than expected.
    > Thus the RC should be adjusted upwards by
    > one for this play (adjusted TC of +6),
    > rather than downwards, making the stand
    > decision even more desirable (adjusted TC of
    > +6).

    > Am I correct?

    Yes, you are. To make the point Zen wanted to make, we should assume that only one ace had been seen, rather than three.

    Don

  12. #12
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Hi-Lo and Hi-Lo/Ace

    > All 22 of them you mean? I can do that.

    The indices are "basically" the same as Hi-lo minus 4. Insurance instead of being +3 would be -1. You can generate your own set by using any of the available simulators (CVData or SBA).

    The point of these side-counted systems is that you can use them the way you like it best.
    In the case of Hi-Lo you can "adjust" the count before BETTING or you can "adjust" before PLAYING. For the latter you need to be very fast.

    First I would describe the former:

    Your PC (primary count) would be:

     A  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  T 
    0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1


    with the corresponding IRC (-4 * #decks). The set of indices is generated for this PC.

    Your SC (secondary count) is the side-count of aces:

     A  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  T 
    1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


    with also the corresponding IRC (-4 * #decks)

    For betting purposes you simply do PC - SC. Your TC would be [PC - SC]/DR (decks remaining).
    Note that PC - SC is simply the Hi-Lo count.
    For playing purposes you use the PC.

    If you want to "adjust" before PLAYING:

    Your PC (primary count) would be:

     A  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  T 
    -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1


    Your SC (secondary count) is the side-count of aces:

     A  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  T 
    1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


    with the corresponding IRC (-4 * #decks).

    For betting purposes you use the PC (Hi-Lo).
    For playing purposes you use PC + SC. Your TC would be [PC + SC]/DR (decks remaining). The set of indices is generated for PC + SC.

    > While I generally believe simpler is better,
    > how hard is it really? Also, I'm guessing
    > with the progress made in calc'ing things
    > such as this, Cac might be right and Wong ..
    > wrong.

    By the time Wong did his calculations there were no SCORE, no optimal bets and the method used for side-counting aces was a little cumbersome for my taste. That is probably the reason for not getting a better performance.

    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  13. #13
    John Lewis
    Guest

    John Lewis: what type of ace adjustment strategy was used?

    Zen

    Thank you for the data.

    In calculating this data, did you (or Cacarulo, or whoever did the work) use Wong's method presented in earlier PBJ editions? Or another technique?

    Also, am I correct in assuming that this SCORE data includes gain from improved insurance correlation? If so, was this calculated using Wong's method (discussed by Schlesinger and others further down the thread)?

    As we discussed 2 years ago on a different board, I strongly suspect that standard ace-adjusted hi lo counts are deficient.

    Wong did indeed discuss the ace side count to hi lo in earlier editions of PBJ (I am relying on my 1977 edition for these comments). His technique was to value imbalanced aces as 0 for all playing decisions.

    Examining Wong's SD ace side count index tables, note that these tables appear to be essentially identical to his standard SD index tables. (These are somewhat abbreviated tables in my edition, however; no values are given for counts below -2 in the SD tables. Such a limited index range is inadequate in SD.) Thus Wong does not appear make any special accomodations for ace adjusted playing strategy other than the simple one described above and stated in his text.

    It is curious that for insurance calculation Wong alters his ace adjustment technique and counts aces as +1, requiring a 2 index point adjustment to the RC for each ace imbalance. It is not obvious to me why the ace would be handled differently in this situation than in any other playing decision, given that we are merely trying to perform a 10 count when considering insurance. I hope someone will explain this.

    The ace almost certainly counts as a high card in certain situations: double 8 through 10, and split 88,99, and 10,10. These hands should not be ace-adjusted for playing purposes. (This, also, is alluded to in other posts in this thread.)

    Also, perhaps imbalanced aces should actually be counted as small cards for certain plays, and given a value of -1 vs 0. For example, double 11 (as per Cardkounter's post) and splitting aces.

    Thus traditional SCORE and playing efficacy calculations, based on a uniform treatment of the ace for playing strategy, would presumably underestimate gain from the ace side count if the above premises are correct.

    I hope someone with the requisite skills will examine this interesting hi lo question. If a greater yield from ace side counting could be demonstrated the technique might be an attractive one for some hi lo players.

    Thanks

    John

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.