Redhook: Side counting question...

[Cacarulo]

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

[Redhook]

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

[Cacarulo]

> 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

[Cacarulo]

> 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

[john lewis]

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

[Cacarulo]

> 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?

Yes, the ace was counted as neutral in all playing decisions (Catch-22). Only for betting purposes it was counted as -1 (Hi-Lo).

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[john lewis]

> Yes, the ace was counted as neutral in all playing
> decisions (Catch-22) [with the exception of insurance, I assume -- jl]. Only for betting purposes it was
> counted as -1 (Hi-Lo).

> Cac

Thank you very much for your response.

The technique you used is certainly the traditional one. It is the one suggested by Wong in his early editions of Professional Blackjack.

After much reflection, however, I am skeptical that this technique optimally employs ace information for playing strategy.

Would you agree, for example, that for hard doubles on 10, 9, and 8 the ace would most appropriately be valued as -1? Indeed, rather than neutral, the ace is even more valuable than the 10 on these hands.

These plays comprise 6 hands of the Catch-22.

If you agree, revised SCOREs using this strategy would be of interest.

Thank you.

[Cacarulo]

> The technique you used is certainly the traditional
> one. It is the one suggested by Wong in his early
> editions of Professional Blackjack.

No, I don't use Wong's technique. My method is the one used for unbalanced counts played in TC mode. Besides, I use different indices due to the imbalance of the count.

> After much reflection, however, I am skeptical that
> this technique optimally employs ace information for
> playing strategy.

Your guess is correct. It does not optimally use the ace for some of the plays.

> Would you agree, for example, that for hard doubles on
> 10, 9, and 8 the ace would most appropriately be
> valued as -1? Indeed, rather than neutral, the ace is
> even more valuable than the 10 on these hands.

Agree.

> These plays comprise 6 hands of the Catch-22.

Correct.

> If you agree, revised SCOREs using this strategy would
> be of interest.

Of course it would be better but my software in its actual state can't use different systems for different plays. It can use one system for betting and another system for playing. However, in Cac/71 I do make an exception for insurance. Don't know if the newest version of CVdata can handle more plays.

> Thank you.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,
Cac

[john lewis]

"No, I don't use Wong's technique. My method is the one used for unbalanced counts played in TC mode. Besides, I use different indices due to the imbalance of the count."

This is still a hilo count, however? Or applied to a hilo count? My question pertained to the "Hi-Lo/A" count you cited in your table.

"Of course it (using values in addition to neutral for the ace in playing strategy) would be better but my software in its actual state can't use different systems for different plays."

I see. That's a problem.

Thank you very much for the response.

[john lewis]

"If you agree, revised SCOREs using this strategy would be of interest." -- jl

"Of course it would be better but my software in its actual state can't use different systems for different plays. It can use one system for betting and another system for playing. However, in Cac/71 I do make an exception for insurance. Don't know if the newest version of CVdata can handle more plays." -- Cac

Cac

I addressed this with Norm.

His response: "You can use the multi-parameter tables."