Illustrious 18 Plays Below and Above Index

[DSchles]

Your point? He gives it a nice treatment on p49. You're welcome to reference the page in BJA where you cover it.

My point is that this concept is GENERAL knowledge and has been around forever. You can find it all over the Internet (see below). Maybe one reader in 1,000 has CAA. So why send a person there??

Don

Determining when probability of a ten value card is greater than 1/3

Any counting system that groups cards into 2 (and only 2) groups of cards consisting of all ten value cards in one group and all non-ten value cards in the other is capable of determining when probability of drawing a ten value card is greater than 1/3 if implemented perfectly. However, at the table it is not very practical to expect to implement a system perfectly if the mechanics are too messy. There is one system that both works perfectly relative to insurance and is also simple enough. Non-tens are tagged -1 and tens tagged +2. For a full shoe there are 36 x decks non-tens and 16 x decks tens. The starting count of a full shoe is 36 x decks x (-1) + 16 x decks x (+2) = (-4) x decks. Every time a non-ten is dealt 1 is added to the current count. Every time a ten is dealt 2 is subtracted from current count. Whenever current count equals 0, probability of drawing a ten value card equals 1/3, at which point the insurance side bet is an even proposition. Whenever count is negative the insurance bet has negative expectation. Whenever count is positive the insurance bet has a positive expectation. We'll call this the insurance count because it can perfectly predict when insurance is and is not a positive expectation bet.

[refinery]

My point is that this concept is GENERAL knowledge and has been around forever. You can find it all over the Internet (see below). Maybe one reader in 1,000 has CAA. So why send a person there??

Don

Determining when probability of a ten value card is greater than 1/3
Any counting system that groups cards into 2 (and only 2) groups of cards consisting of all ten value cards in one group and all non-ten value cards in the other is capable of determining when probability of drawing a ten value card is greater than 1/3 if implemented perfectly. However, at the table it is not very practical to expect to implement a system perfectly if the mechanics are too messy. There is one system that both works perfectly relative to insurance and is also simple enough. Non-tens are tagged -1 and tens tagged +2. For a full shoe there are 36 x decks non-tens and 16 x decks tens. The starting count of a full shoe is 36 x decks x (-1) + 16 x decks x (+2) = (-4) x decks. Every time a non-ten is dealt 1 is added to the current count. Every time a ten is dealt 2 is subtracted from current count. Whenever current count equals 0, probability of drawing a ten value card equals 1/3, at which point the insurance side bet is an even proposition. Whenever count is negative the insurance bet has negative expectation. Whenever count is positive the insurance bet has a positive expectation. We'll call this the insurance count because it can perfectly predict when insurance is and is not a positive expectation bet.

See, Don? Now you're being helpful!

Your gripe is with me citing a reference in a book I had on hand. You may want to consider your motivation.

[NB10]

If you can keep two numbers. IC can be perfect and Wong Halves BC about as close to perfect as you can get.

Are you able to do this? Seems incredibly difficult to keep two running counts, one for Hilo (or whatever count you use) plus a RC for perfect insurance..

[DSchles]

See, Don? Now you're being helpful!

Your gripe is with me citing a reference in a book I had on hand. You may want to consider your motivation.

I have no motivation. I think citing CAA to a general forum is somewhat useless, when not 1 in 1,000 has the book. Who is your audience?

Don

[Ryemo]

I have no motivation. I think citing CAA to a general forum is somewhat useless, when not 1 in 1,000 has the book. Who is your audience?

Don

I agree. Why reference Exhibit CAA when most people don't own the book? In fact, most people couldn't access it even if they wanted to. I don't see any motivation in Don's statements. He's just pointing out the obvious.

[NB10]

Yes. The cool thing is you have everything to gain and nothing to lose in the effort.

Do you know how much it adds to EV or SCORE?

[refinery]

Sorry, Don. When you wrote

Was around for ages and ages before James. Surely not new in CAA.

I didn't realize you were critiquing my choice in reference material.

[NB10]

It depends on your game, rules, indices, bet spread and frequency. But all things being equal, my quarter says Wong Halves - Perfect Insurance is going to be hard to beat in any game. Especially for the minimal brainpower invested. Plus you can always reverse course. It can't help but give a boost to Hi LO as well.

Do you have CV Data?

I'm not sure about the minimal brainpower required!

I don't have CV Data currently.

[NB10]

Okay. Let's start slow and work our way up. You have HiLo as your main count. Perfect Insurance will provide significant improvement because when you face an Ace with a large bet out your decision will be perfect. This is an example of being able to swat hard but also duck hard shots.


Worse case scenario is you lose count. Then you are no worse off because you still have the HiLo index as a fallback. No harm - No foul. Nothing to lose. Everything to gain.

Do you have Casino Verite?

CV is what I've mostly been using to practice on. I can see how beneficial it would be, just not sure if I'd be able to keep two running counts (for 6 or 8 deck shoes ) and maintain an acceptable speed while still seeming natural at the table.. Although when I started practicing a few months ago it felt daunting keeping even one running count.

[refinery]

Practice makes perfect. Practice 10k hands exactly the way you play in a casino with tolerances built in.
1,000 hands a day completes your task in 10 days.
Then try to do Perfect Insurance. Then try to do Wong Halves. Or Vice Versa.

Winning is important. But peace of mind in loss is vital. You only get that from Verite. Without it, you lose a piece of your mind.

Are you a thinker?

A. Skipper's racquet costs $2 less than Pooch's racquet? What is the cost?

B. Pooch's racquet costs $3 plus ½ the cost of Callie's racquet. What is the cost?
C. Callie's racquet costs $2 more than Holly's racquet. What is the cost?
D. Holly's racquet costs $6

The above problem might determine your ability to process, remember, and retain numbers. If you can do this quickly without writing down the numbers then you should be able to do Wong Halves and Perfect Insurance with practice.

Just so I'm clear, that perfect insurance count you're maintaining concurrently is in a single deck Reno game, right?

[Bubbles]

Out of curiosity, how many people regularly keep a separate insurance count? I personally don't. I feel my current 93% insurance correlation is sufficient.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[SpikeBJ]

regularly keep a separate insurance count

Not me. More effort than I care to expend.

[Tarzan]

Interestingly enough, my TC and insurance count are derived from the same primary count but are calculated differently, which is convenient. The insurance count can be drastically different than the true count, which is the reason for having a separate insurance count. Wrong, Moses? Have you switched to something besides SD?