Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Sun Runner: Ace side count (Cardkountr)

  1. #11
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: My bad

    > Those aren't indices for doubling a natural.
    > They're Hi-Lo indices for doubling on A,T,
    > after you split aces and get a ten on either
    > or both of them. Obviously, the 21 is NOT a
    > natural, with the 3:2 bonus.

    Darn it!! So sorry. I thought that post included naturals.

    I'm a moron, what can I say.

  2. #12
    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


  3. #13
    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

  4. #14
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Thanks! *NM*


  5. #15
    Cardkountr
    Guest

    Cardkountr: Re: 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.
    primarily use my ace side count for insurance decisions but also use it for some playing decisions as well as limited betting decisions and in tracking. I will attempt to explain exactly how I use the additional knowledge of ace overages/shortages in a 6 deck shoe for each situation below.

    For Insurance decisions: Here's how I use the ace overage/shortage information for insurance decisions, if I have an overage of aces remaining (fewer came out than should have based on how many decks have been played) I reduce my primary running count by 2 points for each extra ace remaining above what should have been played and then convert to a true count.
    In the same token, if I have a shortage of aces remaining based upon how many should have come out (more aces already came out than should have), I add 2 to my primary count for each ace I'm short based on where I am in the shoe and then do my true count conversion.
    For example in the ace overage situation, if 2 decks have been played and I know that only 6 aces came out when there should have been 8, so I have 2 extra aces remaining in the shoe, I would then subtract 4 (2 extra aces remaining X 2 points for each one) from my running count and then do my True conversion.
    If I had a shortage of aces remaining, for example 6 aces played when only 4 should have come out after 1 deck played, therefore I am 2 aces short in the remaining shoe, I would add 4 points (2 points X the number of aces short) to the running count prior to converting to a true count.
    If the resulting TC conversion after either the ace overage or shortage computation is above my Hi/Lo index of +3 I insure, otherwise I don't

    For Playing decisions:
    There are some opportunities to vary your play in a 6 deck shoe that do come up occasionally and are particularly useful towards the back end of the shoe. These plays are much stronger and occur more frequently due to the rapid count fluxuation in a SD or DD game as pointed out by Miss R.

    I adjust my running count based on ace overages/shortages prior to converting to a true count and then applying my indices. After doing this I'll vary the play for the following hands; doubling 11 vs dealers 10 or A, doubling 10, splitting 10's; doubling 9; splitting 9's, doubling 8, and for the really bold and aggressive doubling 7 vs dealers 5 or 6. The indices for these plays can be found in Wong's Professional Blackjack??.in the ace adjusted tables for High Low.

    Doubling 11 against a dealers 10 or Ace can be dangerous if there are an excess number of aces remaining in the unplayed cards; because for this play the aces are counted in the wrong direction as a minus card when actually they react as a plus card for this double, therefore I subtract 2 points for each excess remaining ace from your running count prior to converting to a true count and then apply the index to make the playing decision. As an illustration; normally you would double your 11 against a dealers ace if your true count reached the index of +1, now lets suppose you have 2 decks left with a high low running count of 6 which would normally give you a true 3 (higher than your index of 1 so you'd double) but lets say you also know that you have 4 excess aces remaining within that last 2 decks so now you'd multiply the 4 aces times 2 = 8 and subtract that from your running count of 6??now you have a minus running 2 which converts to a minus 1 true count so you don't double your 11 vs the dealers ace. In the same token, if you are short aces in the remaining unplayed cards, you would ADD 2 points to your running count for each remaining ace you are short and then convert to a true count and apply your index.

    For all other playing decisions you will decrease the running count by 1 point times the number of excess aces that have been played above what is normal (remaining pack is short) and then convert to a true count and apply your index. In the same token, you will increase your running count by the number of aces deficient of what should have been played based on the depth you're at (excess aces remaining) and add it from your running count, convert to a true count and apply your index.

    For Betting Decisions: This is a really tough one in a shoe game because extra ace information is of limited value for betting purposes unless you know where they are located within the shoe or you are really deep into the shoe have excess aces remaining and have a high count after your ace adjustment. In that situation I'll double my normal bet for the count and increase my betting ramp making it steeper because of the potential of catching the bj's.

    For Tracking: Since you are side counting the aces, you know where they are within the discard pile and you should use that information whenever you see a group of them come out within close proximity. (generally within a 1 deck segment). Once you know where they are, you can cut to keep them in play and bet into them. You can then either cut them to the front of the shoe or if you have the shoe mapped, you can cut them so as they'll be married with a ten rich segment during the next shoe. This is much harder to accomplish if the house plugs the discards rather than topping them.

    Like my good friend Hollywood, I too am weak in the math dept so I have to rely upon the writings of the math wizards SW, CAC, ZenF and above all, our esteemed Don, each who have provided pieces to my playing strategy over the years. As Hollywood reminds me, you don't need to know how to build a car in order to drive it.....and I tend to drive fast with a heavy foot :-) completely trusting those who have crunched the numbers.

    Best Regards,

    Card


  6. #16
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Insurance doubts inside a good post.

    Insurance:

    From table D18 you can see that the Hilo correlation for insurance (after removing the ace):

    IC = .7885

    This is the SD figure. Once you are dealing with 6 dks expect:

    IC = .7647 (after removing the ace)

    Ace indicator count IC = .1888 (same)

    So your final correlation,

    IC = sqr (.7647^2 + .1888^2) = .7877

    So your adjusted Hilo IC is just a bit lower than the single SD?s one without adjusting.

    I wouldn?t go so far, so as to assign 2 points extra (to add and/or subtract) to your actual RC before finding the TC to take advantage of the insurance?s bet. See what I mean?

    If you still insist, I would like to hear your rationale behind your +/- two points.

    For the rest of your post, I?ve nothing to add. It all makes sense. Quite difficult anyway, but I?ve faith in your extended experience to deal with these intricacies.

    Regards

    Zenfighter

  7. #17
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Insurance answers

    > Insurance:

    > From table D18 you can see that the Hilo
    > correlation for insurance (after removing
    > the ace):

    > IC = .7885

    > This is the SD figure. Once you are dealing
    > with 6 dks expect:

    > IC = .7647 (after removing the ace)

    > Ace indicator count IC = .1888 (same)

    > So your final correlation,

    > IC = sqr (.7647^2 + .1888^2) = .7877

    > So your adjusted Hilo IC is just a bit lower
    > than the single SD?s one without adjusting.

    > I wouldn?t go so far, so as to assign 2
    > points extra (to add and/or subtract) to
    > your actual RC before finding the TC to take
    > advantage of the insurance?s bet. See what I
    > mean?

    > If you still insist, I would like to hear
    > your rationale behind your +/- two points.

    > For the rest of your post, I?ve nothing to
    > add. It all makes sense. Quite difficult
    > anyway, but I?ve faith in your extended
    > experience to deal with these intricacies.

    Maybe we can look at it clearer with the following examples:

    1) IC for Hi-Lo

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


    IC (6D) = 0.7647

    2) IC for my PC (primary count)

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


    IC (6D) = 0.8674

    3) IC for my PC + SC

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


    IC (6D) = 0.8908

    This is the best you can get away with which is equivalent to what Cardkountr is doing by adding 2 points to the RC.
    Note that this post is a follow-up of my other post regarding side counts. In that post I don't use option #3 but it can be easily considered.

    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  8. #18
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: A practical example

    Let?s consider this artificial subset of 104 cards already dealt out (4 dks remaining):

     
    Rank Quantity

    A 6
    2 9
    3 9
    4 9
    5 9
    6 9
    7 9
    8 9
    9 8
    T 27



    Hilo RC? RC = 45 ? 33 = 12

    Hilo TC? 12/4 = 3

    Traditional insurance? Yes

    Remaining cards: 69 tens and 135 others.

    Density of remaining tens? 69/204 = .3382

    Perfect insurance? Yes because .3382 =>.3333

    Adjusting here for an excess of 2 aces remaining:

    12 ? (2*2) = 8 and

    8/4 = 2, thus

    Do not take insurance.

    At least here it doesn?t seems to work, properly.

    An example only, I know.

    What do you get here with a starting IRC = -24?

    Sincerely

    Zenfighter

  9. #19
    Cardkountr
    Guest

    Cardkountr: Re: Insurance doubts inside a good post.

    > Insurance:

    > From table D18 you can see that the Hilo
    > correlation for insurance (after removing
    > the ace):

    > IC = .7885

    > This is the SD figure. Once you are dealing
    > with 6 dks expect:

    > IC = .7647 (after removing the ace)

    > Ace indicator count IC = .1888 (same)

    > So your final correlation,

    > IC = sqr (.7647^2 + .1888^2) = .7877

    > So your adjusted Hilo IC is just a bit lower
    > than the single SD?s one without adjusting.

    > I wouldn?t go so far, so as to assign 2
    > points extra (to add and/or subtract) to
    > your actual RC before finding the TC to take
    > advantage of the insurance?s bet. See what I
    > mean?

    > If you still insist, I would like to hear
    > your rationale behind your +/- two points.

    > For the rest of your post, I?ve nothing to
    > add. It all makes sense. Quite difficult
    > anyway, but I?ve faith in your extended
    > experience to deal with these intricacies.

    > Regards

    > Zenfighter

    Hi Zen!!

    As I've previously mentioned, math is not one of my strong points so I rely upon you and other Math experts to keep me on the right path.

    I began the 2 point +/- ace adjustment many years ago after reading a post by MathProf on bj21 which really got me thinking after it was followed up by comments by DD' whom I also have much respect. I couldn't locate the original thread but I did find a previous post by Don on this subject which I had copied to my hard drive and is below:

    By: Don Schlesinger
    Wong explained side count of aces for hi-lo in the older edition of PBJ.
    Essentially, when you count the ace as a high card (-1) you are counting it in the wrong direction for insurance. It should be counted as all the other low cards, namely as +1.
    So, if you have the correct number of aces remaining for the current level of penetration, you do nothing to your RC. For every extra ace above normal remaining, you REDUCE the RC by 2 (one to cancel out the wrong direction of the count, and one to put it in the right direction). You then calculate the TC on the basis of the adjusted RC. If the TC is > +3, you insure. If it isn't, you don't.
    For a deficiency of aces remaining, you ADD to the RC a value equal to two times the number of deficient aces.
    Don

    So to state my rationale for doing it this way, not being strong in math myself, the only answer I can give you is because 3 of the most respected people who are authorities say it should be done this way. :-) and it's been working fine.

    When's your next USA raid? It's possible that i'll have an adobe in the desert for you to stay in soon.

    Take care my Friend,

    Card.


  10. #20
    Cardkountr
    Guest

    Cardkountr: One Additional question....

    > Insurance:

    > From table D18 you can see that the Hilo
    > correlation for insurance (after removing
    > the ace):

    > IC = .7885

    > This is the SD figure. Once you are dealing
    > with 6 dks expect:

    > IC = .7647 (after removing the ace)

    > Ace indicator count IC = .1888 (same)

    > So your final correlation,

    > IC = sqr (.7647^2 + .1888^2) = .7877

    > So your adjusted Hilo IC is just a bit lower
    > than the single SD?s one without adjusting.

    > I wouldn?t go so far, so as to assign 2
    > points extra (to add and/or subtract) to
    > your actual RC before finding the TC to take
    > advantage of the insurance?s bet. See what I
    > mean?

    > If you still insist, I would like to hear
    > your rationale behind your +/- two points.

    > For the rest of your post, I?ve nothing to
    > add. It all makes sense. Quite difficult
    > anyway, but I?ve faith in your extended
    > experience to deal with these intricacies.

    > Regards

    > Zenfighter

    I don't know if this is productive or not and would like your opinion....when deciding whether or not to take insurance, I make a mental note of the count WHEN the dealer receives his down card and base my insurance decision/ace adjustment/rc tc conversion on that count rather than after additional cards have been dealt to the players which may have an impact by either increasing or reducing the RC.

    I have never read or heard of anyone else doing this and was wondering if the masters think this is a productive practice worth any value. It does take some additional concentration and work, but really isn't too bad because I only have to remember that number until he flips his up card and then only make the calculations if it's an ace. Can this method's value or non value be quantified?

    Thanks,

    Card.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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.