Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 18

Thread: Redhook: Side counting question...

  1. #1
    Redhook
    Guest

    Redhook: Side counting question...

    Hello all,

    I am new to Don's Domain. I have been counting for about 6 mos. (I use CVBJ/CVCX and have studied the books BJA3 and PBJ among others). I play mostly 6-deck (h17, das, ls) and DD (h17, das).

    I use Hi-Lo and I like its simplicity. However, I have read in past posts (here and elsewhere) that adding a side count of 7's could make for a substantial improvement, especially with betting efficiency (BE).

    For the side count, I want to determine the excess or deficit number of 7's seen, then multiply that by 0.5 to get an adjusted RC before dividing to get the TC. I find this is not too hard with double deck.

    I would NOT want to keep an unbalanced (IRC) side count which would require a separate betting schedule. I would want to retain the same betting schedule that CVCX recommends for standard Hi-Lo counting. For examble, if my attention is being overwhelmed, such as while needing to converse with the pit or dealer while playing, I could, on the fly, disregard my side count of 7's and just use standard Hi-Lo until the next shuffle.

    I understand that Cacarulo's (cac/7) system is based on doubling the tag values and using an IRC (4*#decks) for the side count, which requires using a separate betting schedule.

    I am unclear about whether side counting 7's in the "excess/deficit" way I described above is advantageous. If it improves standard Hi-Lo by even 90% as much as cac/7 does, then that is okay with me...I just don't want to head down the wrong path."

    Another idea is to keep a side count of 7's and 9's. Not two separate side counts, but one side count that adds one for each 7 seen, and subtracts one for each 9 seen (DD games). Any insight on this brainstorm?

    Thanks in advance for any information or advice.
    Zenfighter, Cacarulo, anybody...

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Side counting question...

    I'll let Cacarulo, hopefully, address the sevens sidecount issue. I think you're on the right track.

    > Another idea is to keep a side count of 7's and 9's.
    > Not two separate side counts, but one side count that
    > adds one for each 7 seen, and subtracts one for each 9
    > seen (DD games). Any insight on this brainstorm?

    Then you've got the Silver Fox count, and it is no more powerful than Hi-Lo. The Silver Fox counts the 7 as +1 and the 9 as -1 in the primary count. It does not outperform Hi-Lo in most simulations, to my knowledge.

    Don

  3. #3
    Redhook
    Guest

    Redhook: Re: Side counting question...

    Thanks for the response Don!

    What if I were to count each 7 as +0.5 and each 9 as -0.5 instead? I am guessing that this would be a "watered-down" Halves count, since only the tag values for the 2 and the 5 would now differ from Halves. Do you have any idea what type of improvement this count would have over Hi-Lo? Also, since Hi-Lo has a better insurance correlation than Halves (per table D18 of BJA3), would I want to just disregard the side count info for insurance decisions (assuming this new hybrid count also has a worse IC than Hi-Lo)?

    Redhook

    > I'll let Cacarulo, hopefully, address the sevens
    > sidecount issue. I think you're on the right track.

    > Then you've got the Silver Fox count, and it is no
    > more powerful than Hi-Lo. The Silver Fox counts the 7
    > as +1 and the 9 as -1 in the primary count. It does
    > not outperform Hi-Lo in most simulations, to my
    > knowledge.

    > Don

  4. #4
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Side counting question...

    > Thanks for the response Don!

    > What if I were to count each 7 as +0.5 and each 9 as
    > -0.5 instead? I am guessing that this would be a
    > "watered-down" Halves count, since only the
    > tag values for the 2 and the 5 would now differ from
    > Halves. Do you have any idea what type of improvement
    > this count would have over Hi-Lo?

    I can only guess that it might be marginally better; but I wouldn't bet on it.

    > Also, since Hi-Lo
    > has a better insurance correlation than Halves (per
    > table D18 of BJA3), would I want to just disregard the
    > side count info for insurance decisions (assuming this
    > new hybrid count also has a worse IC than Hi-Lo)?

    Yes.

    Don

  5. #5
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Some data

    According to the Efficiency Calculator of CV Data, your count would have BC of .989, PE of .548, and IC of .742 (if you incorporate the 7 and 9 and don't ignore them, as you mentioned).

    This compares rather favorably to Hi-Lo's .970, .511, and .760. And, of course, were you to ignore the 7s and 9s for insurance (how would you do that exactly?), it would be even better.

    Perhaps yours is already an existing count that I'm overlooking. It looks like a pretty decent one.

    Don

  6. #6
    Redhook
    Guest

    Redhook: Re: Some data

    The reason I would be able to ignore the 7s and 9s for insurance is because the 7s and 9s are counted separately from the main Hi-Lo count. Since the 7s and 9s are opposite in value, they will cancel each other several times during the pack. The sidecount of 7s and 9s produce a single number (add one for each 7 seen, subtract 1 for each 9 seen. Then, divide by 2). This number is added to the normal Hi-Lo counted RC.

    For example, take a DD game with 1 deck out and a Hi-Lo RC of 2. Now suppose I have seen 2 more 7s than 9s. I would add 1 to the RC. Therefore, the TC for betting and playing would be 3. If the dealer had an Ace and I had to think about insurance, I would only use the Hi-Lo RC of 2, to get a TC of 2.

    What do you think?

    Redhook

    > According to the Efficiency Calculator of CV Data,
    > your count would have BC of .989, PE of .548, and IC
    > of .742 (if you incorporate the 7 and 9 and don't
    > ignore them, as you mentioned).

    > This compares rather favorably to Hi-Lo's .970, .511,
    > and .760. And, of course, were you to ignore the 7s
    > and 9s for insurance (how would you do that exactly?),
    > it would be even better.

    > Perhaps yours is already an existing count that I'm
    > overlooking. It looks like a pretty decent one.

    > Don

  7. #7
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Some data

    > The reason I would be able to ignore the 7s and 9s for
    > insurance is because the 7s and 9s are counted
    > separately from the main Hi-Lo count. Since the 7s and
    > 9s are opposite in value, they will cancel each other
    > several times during the pack. The sidecount of 7s and
    > 9s produce a single number (add one for each 7 seen,
    > subtract 1 for each 9 seen. Then, divide by 2). This
    > number is added to the normal Hi-Lo counted RC.

    That's what I understood. And, for BC and PE, it would be the same as if you counted the 7s and 9s as +.5 and -.5 in the primary count, which is what I tried to explain.

    > For example, take a DD game with 1 deck out and a
    > Hi-Lo RC of 2. Now suppose I have seen 2 more 7s than
    > 9s. I would add 1 to the RC. Therefore, the TC for
    > betting and playing would be 3.

    Right.

    > If the dealer had an
    > Ace and I had to think about insurance, I would only
    > use the Hi-Lo RC of 2, to get a TC of 2.

    Right again.

    > What do you think?

    I think it's fine, as I said the first time! :-)

    Don

  8. #8
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Some answers (SCOREs)

    Here are some answers based on the following game:

    6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5000M rounds,heads up,C22 floored indices.

     
    1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
    Cac/71 10.52 27.68 37.18 43.06 47.07
    Hi-Lo/A 10.80 27.77 37.02 42.69 46.55
    Hi-Lo/79 10.43 27.49 36.89 42.70 46.66
    Cac/7 10.36 27.39 36.86 42.74 46.74
    TKO 10.41 27.41 36.81 42.64 46.59


    As you can see Cac/7 becomes better when bigger spreads are used. This is due to the highest BC.
    Now, what's the difference between Cac/7 and Cac/71? The difference is in the way you treat Insurance. Cac/7 does not change any Hi-Lo index. Cac/71 uses and adjusted Insurance index based on this new count (-2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2) which has a better IC compared to Hi-Lo.

    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  9. #9
    Redhook
    Guest

    Redhook: Re: Some answers (SCOREs)

    Awesome. Thanks for the answers Cac!

    I am curious...what is the insurance index for the Cac/71 system? If you were to halve the Cac/71 tag values, i.e. -1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1, would the insurance index still differ from Hi-Lo's insurance index (3)? Are there any other play indices for the Cac/71 system that differ from the Hi-Lo play indices?

    Thanks again!

    Redhook

    > Here are some answers based on the following game:
    > 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5000M rounds,heads up,C22
    > floored indices.
    > 1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16
    > 1-20
    > Cac/71 10.52 27.68 37.18 43.06
    > 47.07
    > Hi-Lo/A 10.80 27.77 37.02 42.69
    > 46.55
    > Hi-Lo/79 10.43 27.49 36.89 42.70
    > 46.66
    > Cac/7 10.36 27.39 36.86 42.74
    > 46.74
    > TKO 10.41 27.41 36.81 42.64
    > 46.59
    >
    > As you can see Cac/7 becomes better when bigger
    > spreads are used. This is due to the highest BC.
    > Now, what's the difference between Cac/7 and Cac/71?
    > The difference is in the way you treat Insurance.
    > Cac/7 does not change any Hi-Lo index. Cac/71 uses and
    > adjusted Insurance index based on this new count (-2 2
    > 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2) which has a better IC compared to
    > Hi-Lo.
    > Hope this helps.
    > Sincerely,
    > Cac

  10. #10
    Redhook
    Guest

    Redhook: Thanks Don! *NM*


  11. #11
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Some answers (SCOREs)

    > Awesome. Thanks for the answers Cac!

    > I am curious...what is the insurance index for the
    > Cac/71 system? If you were to halve the Cac/71 tag
    > values, i.e. -1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1, would the
    > insurance index still differ from Hi-Lo's insurance
    > index (3)? Are there any other play indices for the
    > Cac/71 system that differ from the Hi-Lo play indices?

    Sorry, the Cac/71 tags are -2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 and not -2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 as I put in my previous post. You need to get the insurance index from this count which is the one used for betting purposes.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  12. #12
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Some answers (SCOREs)

    > Awesome. Thanks for the answers Cac!

    > I am curious...what is the insurance index for the
    > Cac/71 system? If you were to halve the Cac/71 tag
    > values, i.e. -1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1, would the
    > insurance index still differ from Hi-Lo's insurance
    > index (3)? Are there any other play indices for the
    > Cac/71 system that differ from the Hi-Lo play indices?

    The main idea of this system is to not complicate things. Cac/7 or Cac/71 is for people that are used to Hi-Lo indices and that do not want to learn a new set of them. However, Cac/71 (-2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2) does incorporate an index exception for insurance. The index would be +2 instead of +3.
    The reason for this is that the IC increases from 0.7885 (Hi-Lo) to 0.8101 (Cac/71).
    If you were to halve the Cac/71 tags you can use +1 instead of +2.
    You are free to incorporate more exceptions but that would be another system.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  13. #13
    john lewis
    Guest

    john lewis: question

    Do you mind me asking how you performed your "Hi-Lo/A" count in your simulation?

    Was the ace counted as neutral in all playing decisions, or selected playing decisions?

    thank you

Page 1 of 2 12 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.