Originally Posted by
ZenMaster_Flash
You misquoted me - I did not say "perfectly." I said ALMOST perfectly. They correlate very highly.
Firstly, all you are doing is cherrypicking an unusual circumstance and drawing a false conclusion.
Nearly all the time the correlation is so close as to be moot.
Your example of 6 low cards played with no 7's happens about as frequently as Halley's Comet.
Secondly, this statement: "The Hi-lo counter will already start raising their bet but TKO counter
is still betting minimum." is painful to read. Neither should be raising their bets in that situation.
RE: Insurance, You neglected to factor in the 7th card - the dealer's Ace.
If you think that "comp hustling" is A.P. action you are mistaken.
You will lose more than your comps are worth, and they are not worth much.
"Comp Hustling" of the sort you are referring to is for the Basic Strategist -
in the HOPE that the comps will be generous enough to negate the losses.
That was (sometimes) true in the 20th Century, but not any more.
You need to learn that the E.O.R. of a 7 is very low. Of all the low ranks,
it has the weakest "Effect Of Removal" RE: your overall advantage goes,
the removal of a 7 is almost meaningless compared to a 4 or a 5,
or even a 3 or a 6 for that matter.
The deuce? I will let you figure out one small fact for yourself.
You are using some very poor math as well. Six cards removed from a DD
[in decimal form] -- > 1/20
You have only seen 5.7% of the cards. 94.2% of the cards are unseen.
You used 1.75 as a divisor not 1.95 6/1.95 = 3.07, not 3.42.
Bookmarks