Side counts are an interesting topic. I like your attempt to contain the off topic stuff to its own thread, but I don't see it succeeding.Originally Posted by seriousplayer
T3 still adjusts his main count in a similar manner for an excess of aces for playing/betting decisions, his side count is just balanced instead of a traditional side count.
I shared the concept because I thought others might exceed my attempts if I didn't show them my path. I explained the technique but not the count. I never ever intend on sharing the count and now regret having shared the technique. The advanced version is much more complicated which I initially explained which i doubt anyone followed. This is the version that is not advanced and most people will have no trouble seeing where the power comes from. There isn't much extra power in this version. Just a far different way of gathering and using information that results in a different feel to the BR ebb and flow. The "B" stands for Balanced in Balanced Ace Side Count.
Look Moses I am not sharing anything sensitive on the forum. This is were my count was 3 or 4 years ago before going non-linear. It is nothing very fancy. I don't appreciate you trying to get me to share in the open forum what I already shared and it caused hell to break loose on the forum. I am breaking new ground so talking to me every few months and I will be using a much more powerful version of what I was using a few months before. You say I want to talk about it but I never talk about it. I talk about traditional Hiopt2 as Humble produced it. I merely point out that I use a slightly different version of Hiopt2 that bets with a different betting count so when I talk about my Hiopt2 results people know I am not talking about traditional Hiopt2 results.
I don't do playing adjustments except if the aces are way out of whack. I never really know if aces are in surplus or deficit. I know how they are in relation to some other ranks. I don't know the other ranks surplus or deficit except to know their relationship to still other ranks. This means I can only use a version of combining the counts which can be by any multiple. I usually don't worry about it. Hiopt2 does pretty well at playing decisions to begin with, at least in general. I can say that aces are in surplus compared to these ranks which are in surplus compared to those ranks and decide most likely there is a large surplus of aces. That isn't very useful since it is just a relative statement. By using the addition of the Hiopt2 playing count to a multiple of the BASC tailored to the matchup being decided I can use an index made for that combined count. There aren't very many matchups where that is the case, at least not to an extent to be worth the effort over the normal Hiopt2 main count play. Like I said for betting I multiply the BASC by the fraction that is practical to use that is closest to the optimal multiple for the highest BC. For BJ that practical multiple is 1/2. The same principle can be used for tailoring the best multiple for the handful of index plays that beg for ace information. Like doubling 11 would have a negative multiple that caused the closest combined count to the playing EoR's. I don't go to all that trouble. I just use count combining for betting. My BASC was designed for betting not playing. It does have applications for playing but I just don't worry about that. Like Seriousplayer said it is not a great choice for playing applications. That doesn't mean it can't be useful, just that it won't be that useful in most cases.
Methinks Tthree would rather not perform that act publicly, but rather, only for certain members privately, if at all.
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
I've developed the same kind of math as T3, but applied to Halves. I'm not sure how much I want to say about it. I'm still evaluating it. If it turns out to be great, I don't want to just give away my hard work, and if it's just ho-hum academic info, then why talk about that either. I do think that within the top books that we've all read, there's lots of undeveloped ideas that have never been published in books.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[quote=seriousplayer;211955]You mention that you double the tags to the Wong Halves. How do you manage the high running count?[/quoteThis question is mildly amusing because I know players whose biggest mistakes occur when crossing back and forth from negative to positive counts or flipping the sign from positive to negative or vice versa. Their solution to the problem is simple and elegant. They use RC 30 or some other really high RC so the RC never crosses 0 and there is only positive counts. The irony is you apparently do fine with a RC that crosses zero regularly and not flipping the sign for the RC but are worried about large numbers. Like I said fit things to your strengths while trying to work on your weaknesses.
Sorry for my confusion, but where had bejammin075 mentioned doubling the Wong Halves' tag values in his post, or anywhere in this thread?
Btw, that tact is/was not too uncommon for people who did not want to track .5 tag values, but desired the strength of the Wong Halves system.
The major cautionary advice I was provided when I explored using that counting system (but with doubled tags), was to generate new index numbers for deviations from Basic Strategy. Proper index number for a theoretical hand might actually be +5, as opposed to a +4 or +6. Pretty simple to accomplish with Norm's software.
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
Yeah, I double the tags. Usually I call it Doubled Halves or Doubled Wong Halves, but sometimes I just say "Halves". Doubling the tags has pros and cons over the original tags. Doubling the tags gives you better resolution, but you have to deal with larger numbers. The way my brain works, I'd rather have the larger numbers than deal with the half points. If you change the tags on any system, it's always a good idea to run an index sim to check on the index numbers.
I practiced counting down decks so many different ways, it doesn't matter about large numbers or flipping back and forth positive and negative. You can practice starting from any number, for example, for a while I practiced starting anywhere from -50 to +50, each time moving by 5 and cycling through. E.g. start at an initial running count of -50, next time start at -45, next time start at -40...on to +50 and repeat. Or fan out 6 cards at a time and try to only glance at the cards. Or hold the cards so that you can only see the numbers upside down. One technique I like when using indexes is, rather than divide RC by decks remaining, it seems easier to me to think of the index for the play and multiply by decks remaining, and compare that number to my running count.
This is gospel.
I don't talk at all about what I do.
I did some gold hunting (yes, the real yellow stuff). Found a pocket in an old local famous mine(with a contract from the owner) that had been missed by various groups before me. Talked about it and then got to deal with just what the old timers had to deal with in the gold rush, claim jumpers, thieves, mouths with no brains attached, resentment from those who had tried before me and gave up. The pocket turned out to be small, but very rich, so I had it all before the shenanigans got really going, but I'll never forget the lesson.
A LOT of EV in keeping your mouth shut about details.
And T3, I'm glad you have learned, because you are the only guy on here that I really wanted to stop talking. We think somewhat similarly, even though you are much more orthodox than me.
Sharing general information is great, but when you find the gold shining in the rock, it's only a secret just as long as only one person knows about it.
I have always remembered a panel discussion by successful entrepreneurs that I saw many years ago.
One thing they all agreed on was that the vast majority of people think far, far, too small with regard to what is possible.
From what I have seen of BJ forums in the last two years most CC's certainly fall into that generalization.
I designed my system from the ground up with a list of design criteria that far exceeded Orthodox card counting. I just found too much in the conventional wisdom that was entirely unacceptable to me. I met all my design goals. And I would be vilified on here if I said what they were.
So, the only advice I will give anyone is to think far, far, bigger than conventional wisdom. At least one geometric progression bigger.
But I do have to thank the 60 years of orthodoxy that provides me with such incredible cover. The casinos are obsessed with you and they are looking so hard for that orthodoxy that I immediately do not fit in the category.
Last edited by fjrider; 12-31-2016 at 10:23 AM.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks