I'd like to change one of the variables in a 6D game. S17, DAS, DOA, Spl3 except SPL A only once, NS, Pen at 75%. Bet spread 25-300. I'd like to add 4 Aces extra to the starting shoe. Yes, 316 cards instead of 312. Is this possible to calc?
I'd like to change one of the variables in a 6D game. S17, DAS, DOA, Spl3 except SPL A only once, NS, Pen at 75%. Bet spread 25-300. I'd like to add 4 Aces extra to the starting shoe. Yes, 316 cards instead of 312. Is this possible to calc?
> I'd like to change one of the variables in a 6D game.
> S17, DAS, DOA, Spl3 except SPL A only once, NS, Pen at
> 75%. Bet spread 25-300. I'd like to add 4 Aces extra
> to the starting shoe. Yes, 316 cards instead of 312.
> Is this possible to calc?
I'll let Norm tackle this one.
Don
that would be a good oneHiLo Ill18 using the same betting schedule, the SCORE nearly doubles to about 37.
However, the count becomes unbalanced. My guess is that HiLo would be a poor choice. Better to use KO. But, you would need to create new indexes and a new betting schedule.
> I'd like to change one of the variables in a 6D game.
> S17, DAS, DOA, Spl3 except SPL A only once, NS, Pen at
> 75%. Bet spread 25-300. I'd like to add 4 Aces extra
> to the starting shoe. Yes, 316 cards instead of 312.
> Is this possible to calc?
current count revere adv plus minus.
plus 2-6, minus 9-10, aces not used in the actual count, but running is adj by the ace strength or weakness.
Using indices cal'd by SBA. IL18 should work for calc'g score
Sorry, I used to have Revere A+/- strategy tables for CVData But misplaced them. I ran it with the similar Canfield Expert strategy and got a SCORE of 34. I then tried an Ace adjustment starting the Ace side count at -4. This bumped the SCORE up to 38. However, I didn't adjust the ramp. That may also help.
that we don't give the Ace enough credit in the game.
Over the past 8 years I've been playing it seems to me that when the Aces left in the shoe are stronger than normal the results are much, much better.
Remember using Ace neutral count.
In the running count adjustment it seems like adding 1 for each strong ace per qtr deck is not enough. In reverse it seems like subtracting 1 for each weak ace per qrter deck is not enough the other way. Another way to say all this is when the aces are weak I could have a pretty decent strong count and I still do not have great results and vis.a.versa, I could have a pretty decent neg count and if aces are strong my results always seem to be positive.
Bottom line: I'd like to add more than +1 or -1 to the running count for ace stength or weakness.
If backcounting I'd like to wait until the shoe is strong with 4 extra aces and then bang away with the bet no matter the running count.
Thoughts?
You can experiment with this. But, it seems to me that the current philosophies are based on sound research.
> that we don't give the Ace enough credit in the game.
> Over the past 8 years I've been playing it seems to me
> that when the Aces left in the shoe are stronger than
> normal the results are much, much better.
> Remember using Ace neutral count.
> In the running count adjustment it seems like adding 1
> for each strong ace per qtr deck is not enough. In
> reverse it seems like subtracting 1 for each weak ace
> per qrter deck is not enough the other way. Another
> way to say all this is when the aces are weak I could
> have a pretty decent strong count and I still do not
> have great results and vis.a.versa, I could have a
> pretty decent neg count and if aces are strong my
> results always seem to be positive.
> Bottom line: I'd like to add more than +1 or -1 to the
> running count for ace stength or weakness.
> If backcounting I'd like to wait until the shoe is
> strong with 4 extra aces and then bang away with the
> bet no matter the running count.
> Thoughts?
that we don't give the Ace enough credit in the game.
Cacarulo and me at least, have given your ace (as a function of your counting system) the exactly merit it deserves. Look again at our August?s replies to your inquiry.
Over the past 8 years I've been playing it seems to me that when the Aces left in the shoe are stronger than normal the results are much, much better.
When you play this game you should never inject personal opinions into what is clearly an impersonal scientific demonstrative fact. That?s fine for gamblers but not for aspiring advantage and/or pro-players.
In the running count adjustment it seems like adding 1 for each strong ace per qtr deck is not enough. In reverse it seems like subtracting 1 for each weak ace per qrter deck is not enough the other way.
See above.
Btw, I will still read your handle as chgobjpro. But if you insist on this matter, I would read it as chgobjgambler.
Yours truly a little bit harsh, you could think. But what you need now is a stick-coup, and not kind words. So wake up!
Sincerely
Zf
are not appreciated. I've paid 99 bucks to ask some questions. It appears that not to many others are too interested in this site compared to others based on the amount of posts lately. I'm just inquiring and thought I'd get something going. If Don's feeling (his site and income) of my inquiries is the same then I might as well spend more time on other sites and not partake here and let my membership lapse. My main interest for joining actually was the Sunday night chats which have dried up over the last few months. Also Hollywood Dave's picture on the start up page has been staring at me too long. I don't even see my friend BobL posting here anymore.
> are not appreciated. I've paid 99 bucks to ask some
> questions. It appears that not too many others are too
> interested in this site compared to others based on
> the amount of posts lately.
We have fewer subscribers here than at some other sites. We also have more quality. :-)
> I'm just inquiring and
> thought I'd get something going.
You have every right, but the point is that Zen is saying the question had been asked and already answered. Perhaps you had forgotten.
And, he further points out that we can "prove" absolutely nothing, ever, with regard to BJ, by citing our personal experiences, which are, quite meaningless in helping us to draw mathematical conclusions. He just was a bit impatient in expressing that thought. :-)
> If Don's feeling (his
> site and income)
My site; no income! :-) I don't get a dime. Never wanted anything.
> of my inquiries is the same then I
> might as well spend more time on other sites and not
> partake here and let my membership lapse.
That would be a mistake -- but much more for what you can learn here than RGE's lost $99 revenue.
> My main
> interest for joining actually was the Sunday night
> chats which have dried up over the last few months.
It would be nice if we could resume those.
> Also Hollywood Dave's picture on the start up page has
> been staring at me too long.
I agree with that! :-)
> I don't even see my
> friend BobL posting here anymore.
He remains a good friend. We don't have many legal discussions here, but I trust that if and when we do, he will be participating.
Don
> sarcastic remarks are not appreciated.
For inside this forum, I thought ZF's remarks were a little sarcastic also. I know this because he started sounding like .. ME!
It for sure did not sound like him; I have generally found him to be a gentlemen.
> I've paid 99 bucks ..
I'll keep paying $99 just to keep in touch with these folks. I'm sure I've gotten that and more out of it annually. In fact, back during the chats, I picked some stuff up from you that was worth the money!
> It appears that not to many others are too
> interested in this site compared to others based on
> the amount of posts lately. I'm just inquiring and
> thought I'd get something going.
Seems to me generally all sites activity is down. I wonder if it's due to the sliding quality of BJ games in general.
> .. then I might as well spend more time on other sites and not partake here ..
Why limit yourself to education; it never was an either or thing for me.
> My main interest for joining actually was the Sunday night chats ..
I miss those also. I've heard tell that some others are in the pipeline. I hope so.
> Also Hollywood Dave's picture on the start up page has been staring at me too long.
Me too. VN, Bettie, anyone .. give us a break, will ya'? I'll email my pic if you like!
Stick around at least through this $99's worth.
I think all of us here have a mutual respect for each other. Criticism, sarcasm, and negative comments in general should, I think, be taken relatively lightly. One of the downfalls of this medium is that you can't read someone's facial expression, so things tend to come off as more literal than what may have been intended.
I doubt that the sarcastic remarks were meant to be scathing; they were probably said at least a little tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, I would hate to see this forum degenerate into the personal attacks and defenses that seem to have infected some other sites. I have a vested interest (namely, my own education) in keeping this forum pure and informative, and so I hope that it stays that way.
David Spence
> are not appreciated. I've paid 99 bucks to ask some
> questions. It appears that not to many others are too
> interested in this site compared to others based on
> the amount of posts lately. I'm just inquiring and
> thought I'd get something going. If Don's feeling (his
> site and income) of my inquiries is the same then I
> might as well spend more time on other sites and not
> partake here and let my membership lapse. My main
> interest for joining actually was the Sunday night
> chats which have dried up over the last few months.
> Also Hollywood Dave's picture on the start up page has
> been staring at me too long. I don't even see my
> friend BobL posting here anymore.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks