# Thread: Sun Runner: Ace side count (Cardkountr)

1. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: One Additional question....

> 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.

2. ## Cardkountr: Re: One Additional Question

> 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.

> 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

4. ## Don Schlesinger: Card: A warning

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

5. ## Zenfighter: Re: Avoid it

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

6. ## Boardwalker: Re: One Additional question....

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.

7. ## Boardwalker: Re: One Additional question.P.S...

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
> use +3.

> Cheers,
> Boardwalker

8. ## Zenfighter: Re: Understanding your calculations

You wrote:

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

There are no doubts about the accuracy of your calculations. Before answering Card, while playing with a software that uses Brett Harris? conversion formula for unbalanced counts, I got .86 for this type of side count, too. The main reason for having used an ace indicator count to estimate his gains in efficiency was that actually he is not employing these methods. Instead he is monitoring the presence of aces among others. E.g. looking for 8 aces and 96 others among, let?s say 104 cards. Thus as a general rule, this one seems to me the same as the efficiency of the ace indicator count, who we all know has a very low insurance correlation. I can be wrong, obviously, but still have my doubts about the accuracy of subtracting +/-2 always using Card?s methods.

Regarding your side count, it looks like it work better in the nearby of the pivot.

```

Rank 		Quantity

A		10
2		13
3		13
4		13
5		13
6		13
7		12
8		12
9		12
T 		45

```

Hilo RC = 65 ? 55 = 10

TC = 10/3 = 3.33

Insurance? Yes

Perfect insurance? 51/156 =. 3269 thus

Do not take insurance.

RC = -24 + (65 - 45) = - 4 (in the nearby of the pivot) therefore

Do not take insurance. Perfect decision.

Can you run a sim with just one index? I mean Hilo and +3 for insurance decisions and the other one adjusting this solo index before buying it?

Thanks

Zenfighter

9. ## Cacarulo: 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
> 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?

Ok, here it goes using my calculations:

I) Hi-Lo --> Index = +3

RC = +12
TC = +12/4 = +3 ==> Take Insurance

Note that if you use +3.01 you wouldn't take it

II) PC (0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1) --> Index = -1

RC = -6
TC = -6/4 = -1.5 = -2 (flooring) ==> Don't take Insurance

III) PC + SC (1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1) --> Index = -5

RC = -24
TC = -24/4 = -6 ==> Don't take Insurance

Remember that both PC and SC have an IRC of -24. Also SC is (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0).

Interesting example!

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

10. ## Cacarulo: See my answer above *NM*

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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