Sun Runner: Ace side count (Cardkountr)

[Zenfighter]

Short simulations:

6dks, das, spl3 and spa1. 5/6 dealt out.

Bets: 1 unit at TC = 1 or > otherwise null.

Indices: Basic strategy to play the hands except Insurance Hilo index (+3)

The software looks to see how many aces are out of the deck. If there are more than the proportional share, than this excess out is multiplied by the multiplier as a negative and adjusted conveniently with the main count before the final calculation. The opposite case means the number will be positive instead. Same procedure.

 

 

1) Traditional Hilo count without adjustments: 

 

wr = .89  	se = .02 

 

2) Using an ace multiplier = 1 with the proportional share of aces 

 

wr = .92	se = .02 

 

3) Using an ace multiplier = 2 with the proportional share of aces 

 

wr = .84	se = .02 

 

At least here, you can see that there is no base to support the notion to deduct 2 for every ace in excess still remaining.

Let?s keep this open to further double checks and more accurately sims.

Heading West? Hmmn?.. :-)

Best regards

Zenfighter

[Cardkountr]

> 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.

[Don Schlesinger]

> 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.

No, sorry, that's not the right way to do it. When he took his card is irrelevant. You base the insurance decision on the most recent, updated information you have -- which means you take into account every card you've seen until the moment that you have to insure.

> I have never read or heard of anyone else
> doing this

That's because, unfortunately, it's not the right way to do it! :-)

> and was wondering if the masters
> think this is a productive practice worth
> any value.

Has no redeeming social value whatsoever. :-)

> 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?

See above. Fuhgeddaboudit!

Don

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.

> Card.

[Cardkountr]

> No, sorry, that's not the right way to do
> it. When he took his card is irrelevant. You
> base the insurance decision on the most
> recent, updated information you have --
> which means you take into account every card
> you've seen until the moment that you have
> to insure.

> That's because, unfortunately, it's not the
> right way to do it! :-)

> Has no redeeming social value whatsoever.
> :-)

> See above. Fuhgeddaboudit!

> Don

> 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.

Don,

What am I missing here?....why would the cards AFTER the dealer received his down card have any relevance to the probability the down card is a ten? Since we're trying to predict whether the dealer has a BJ or not, I would think that the count at the last card prior to the dealers down card would be the best predictor.

Just as an example, 1 deck remaining TC 4 at the card preceding the dealers down card......6 tens come out after dealer received his card now the count is tc -2. I just don't understand how the post down card count has more validity than the actual count when he received his card for determinine insurance?

Card.

[Don Schlesinger]

> What am I missing here?....why would the
> cards AFTER the dealer received his down
> card have any relevance to the probability
> the down card is a ten? Since we're trying
> to predict whether the dealer has a BJ or
> not, I would think that the count at the
> last card prior to the dealers down card
> would be the best predictor.

> Just as an example, 1 deck remaining TC 4 at
> the card preceding the dealers down
> card......6 tens come out after dealer
> received his card now the count is tc -2. I
> just don't understand how the post down card
> count has more validity than the actual
> count when he received his card for
> determinine insurance?

Short answer: If you see 'em, you count 'em. Every card you can count BEFORE having to make the insurance decision is information you use to make the insurance decision. WHEN the dealer took his hole card has no relevance at all on the probabilities.

Homework assignment: Reread BJA3, p. 51-52. :-)

Don

[Don Schlesinger]

My above reply and the reasoning on pp. 51-52 are not always intuitive the first time around. You're going to read the material and probably say, "That can't be right." My advice: Read it several times. Let it grow on you. :-)

You have my guarantee that all the math is right. After all, would I lie to you?! :-)

Don

[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.

[John Lewis]

Don

You have accurately described Wong's method. Do you feel this is indeed the optimum method for calculating insurance using hi lo with the ace side count?

A paragraph from my post higher in the thread:

"It is curious. also, that for insurance calculation Wong does indeed follow Griffin's guideline, 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."

Would you please explain the rationale for Wong's departure from his primary ace ajustment technique for the insurance decision?

Thank you,

JL

[Zenfighter]

The True Count Theorem.

Theorem: the expected value of the true count after a card is revealed and removed from any deck composition is exactly the same as before the card was removed, for any balanced count, provided you do not run out of cards.

Given that you?re using a TC to determine to buy or not the insurance bet, my advice is to listen carefully to Don?s comments regarding this and avoid at all cost this added task.

O.K. ?

Regards

Zenfighter

[John Lewis]

"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."

This is a departure from Wong's technique.

"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."

This, also is a departure from Wong's technique. There is currently a post concerning this on "Theory and Math."

Mathprof has posted that aces are actually less advantageous than 10's in H17 for betting purposes. He also asserts that their value is only approximately 1/4 more than 10's for betting purposes in S17.

-- JL