Halves i,II and 3

[muckz]

Moses, wild true counts are more common in SD games than shoe.

SD Hi-lo TC frequency .5 pen
TC 10 = .93%

6D 4.5 pen
TC 10 = .08%

I don't think I've ever seen any book ever ever ever...suggest not using a wide range of index numbers for smaller number of decks. I think for even 6-8 deck -6 to 6 range is a good place to start, -1 to 6 if you're wonging.

[muckz]

Sounds good, I'll leave this thread now.

[Three]

Ignoring the extremely negative indices is fine since you will only have minimum bets out. But it is good to know any positive index that is possible since I want to make the best play when max bet out.
I only play 6 deck or 8 deck and it is not unusual for the TC to get to +8, +9 or higher. I would think that for SD you would have even more extremes in the count.

You beat me to it. Not only is standing going to make your more money on the matchup that card or cards you draw when you hit may cause a shuffle rather than another round which is even more costly. In certain situations card conservation or eating can decide a close decision.

In SD you aren't going to move your bets much so playing becomes very important. Moses, I find it hard to believe you can remember all the cards played between shuffles, erase them from memory and remember a new set over and over again but you can't memorize the same number of index plays. In most games it is the extreme counts that you see playing efficiency start to conquer BS. Between the 3's as you put it there is a difference between basic and index play that is fairly static. At extreme counts that difference grows exponentially.

[Three]

I would never touch an SD game with .5 pen. Hi-lo count in SD is great to seperate you from your dollars quickly.

If the pen is greater so is the extreme TC frequencies. Your sims give you TC frequencies. Also if you run the same sim over and over and get different results that is because you aren't running it for a significant sample size. The sim results on repeating the same parameters should be very close if you have a large enough sample size. The most accurate would be the average not the extreme sim.

[Three]

Yes. You are correct that the big won/lost is on the big bets. Let's use 16 vs 7 for instance. Always hitting equates to a loss of -5.7 win-rate over 200m hand sim. Standing at 9 (as the CV Index recommends) also reflects a loss of -5.7. Standing at 6 reflects -5.68. But standing at 5 jumps it up to -5.88 - a more significant difference. Therefore, given this rare situation, I would hit if it is the last hand of the deck. But stand if I'm getting another round. Again, 1 on 1, the bust card is a disaster for that hand but a great card to start my next hand.

Your sim results are telling you you are not running enough trials to get to were the standard error is low enough. If you were your sim results would reflect long term expectation. I suspect that the index is either not a SD index or your sim is not for 10 billion rounds which is necessary to get enough rare events in the results. When your results defy math your sim is not significant. Your sim results indicate the index is +6. What do you think about all that time you played at your kitchen table to decide from your results what your plays should be now? What I want to know is how do you know what the next card is to decide it is a bust card?

[Three]

Do you really get away with a 1-6 spread in SD? If not, why are you using it in your sims? $18/100 rounds sounds really bad to me. I would get $60/100 rounds with a 1-3 spread. HILO with a 1-3 spread at a $25 table $46/100 rounds. Both with 50% pen. You are using deeper pen and twice the spread and only getting a 30% of that.

[Three]

I find it hard to believe "even" you can get $46/100 here with 50% pen and a 1-3 spread? 26 cards? That's pretty much a game of luck and exchanging dollars for the most disciplined player.

$46/100 rounds is Hilo heads up, I get $60/100 rounds when I sim 2 hands 1-3 spread ($25-$75) 26 card cut SD H17 game using HIOPT II/ace side with another player. I am not even using side counts in the sim which I would use. Why would you think a level 1 count using scant indices would outperform HIOPT II/ace side with all indices? This is a SD game where HIOPT II is king by far.

[Three]

. A 1-4 spread suggests a max bet at 4 which is about 57% of the deck being favorable. This is not a clearcut advantage.

Say what. If you don't have a sweet advantage at TC +4 you should avoid that game. Using Hilo you have a 0.65% advantage at TC +1 for SD h17 .5 pen.At +2 it's 1.33% and at +3 it's 1.78% player advantage. Finally at +4 it's 2.24% advantage. I am not sure why you don't think they are clear cut advantages. My Hilo sim has a max bet at TC +2 for a 1-3 optimal spread. Optimal means you make the most possible. Anything else is leaving money on the table. So you wait until TC +5 to decide you have an advantage.

Deep pockets and the patience of Jobe are going to be required to make this a profitable venture.

Yes your approach will require both. SD you want to get the money and go quick. It is too heaty to wait all day and then bet huge to get back the money you left on the table.

However, counting more than 1 is difficult for me. Wouldn't you still be deck estimating with Hi Opt II? If so, that's a lot of numbers to constantly add and divide.

The math becomes almost instinctual with practice. When you started on that tricycle you couldn't imagine it being easy as you coasted shakily along trying and failing to miss the only tree in that open field. After enough practice you were riding with no hands steering by leaning your weight. Then you started driving a car with a death grip on the steering wheel unable to keep to a constant speed without hawking the speedometer or have a conversation or change the radio station or looking in the side view mirror without veering off the road. After enough practice you never need to look at the speedometer to know how fast you are going. You are talking while eating snacks and drinking a soda and changing radio stations and sight seeing and having no problem keeping straight in your lane with only peripheral vision. Then you started flying planes and felt uncomfortable hitting the landing strip but after enough time in a dense fog you could land at that airport with just your instruments even in 0 visibility.

The same is true with counting. Eventually only the closest decisions require math. The indices and side count adjustments are as familiar to you as the alphabet. Only decisions so close that you should use BS anyway require the math be done. You have figured out the TC for that RC and pen so many times that the math isn't necessary. You just know. You know the TC for the RC, the true side adjustment and that 3 plus 4 is 7 without doing the math. Just be the math. I always found doing the math literally can confuse you on what the running counts are. Better to just learn to know without thinking about it.

but how could the average person employ Hi opt II consistently without fail? Throw in early shufflers and chatty dealers, it just seems like an exercise in futility.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time while holding a conversation. Something is too hard as long as you believe it is. If you believe it is possible it will be. After that you will find a day that you believe it is easy and before long you will have no doubt that it is easy. Then you will believe it is effortless and before long it is. Next thing you know it will be instinctual if you remove that mental barrier as well. There was a time I thought walking would be impossible. Then after being horribly crippled in a car wreck nobody thought I would live or walk or anything. Today nobody would even guess I was once a cripple. I worked hard to get as much as I could back. The whole time the therapists were saying I didn't have to work that hard. I kept saying I may never be 100% again but I will get as close as possible to that. In the time they had me scheduled to be lifting 3 pounds with my legs I was lifting 15 pounds. Every time they put me on the bike and made it a little harder and longer I tried to beat my previous time and upped my pace gradually until the sprint at the end. Don't believe in barriers that you or others want to set in your way. Systematically tear them down over time one after another. As long as you believe you can you can. If you don't believe it is possible it will be impossible. You set your own limitations. Start believing in yourself.

You may find a skill to be overkill in BJ but if you ever switch to another game that skill may be what separates the successful from those that lost their BR. I have tried to train people at some other opportunities that cling to the keep it simple mantra of BJ and they all fail refusing to admit that simple doesn't get you there. The ironic part is they loss like crazy trying to make up for it by spreading more and wonging but the swings kill them and they get backed off because their system is both obvious and simple enough for the suits to follow. Then the guys that use the complex approaches visit as often as they want, play all and don't spread as much and make lots of money while getting the red carpet treatment. The skill level they employ is so far above what the suits and catchers can understand that they look like lucky morons to them. The suits know the game can't be beaten with such a small spread. Everyone keep wondering when BJ will be unplayable. When it is will you have the skillz to reap bigger profits than BJ ever could give you at all the other opportunities out there? Don't put up barriers to prevent you from being ready to remain an AP.

[Three]

in essence, we have a 48 card SD.

No. TC includes neutral cards.

What is your true count if 0 A-9s are played and 6 2-7s are played?

RC is +6. TC = RC/Unseen decks. You have seen 6 counted cards. There could have been 0 to 4 neutral cards seen.
Exact resolution TC between 6.78 and 7.43 depending on the number of 8's seen.If you were working in integer bins TC is +6 or 7.

4-9?

Exact resolution: RC is +5, TC between +6.67 and 7.43

8-12?

Exact resolution: RC +4, TC between +6.5 and 7.43

12-15? I

Exact resolution: RC +3, TC between +6.24 and 7.43

what TC method did you use?

TC= RC/unseen decks.

[Three]

In 1/4 deck resolution an 0-6 is t/c 8?

Floor cards played not cards to be played. 0-6 is TC +6 if you floor the estimate of the discards. You would be dividing by 1 deck. Obviously the best situation if no 8's have been seen (were all examples are indeed equal) you are best off with the fewest cards yet to be played. Your TC method shouldn't decide the most cards left to be played gives you more of an advantage.

[Norm]

I really don't understand what you're saying.

[Norm]

That's not supported.

[Norm]

10K hands won't tell you anything at all.