T3

[Three]

T3. No disrespect intended. Your first paragraph in 73, is speaking out of both sides.

I told you I don't concern myself with them because I can only do so much with my brain. I use my brain power for other things I think are more important. Tarzan uses a different count and does concern himself with them. That is one of his more recent upgrades. You do realize Tarzan and I use very different approaches. Tarzan just inspired me to gather info differently. The way I do is different than he gathers info but my way of gathering info can mimic his count if I chose to do so. I did not choose to do so.

[Three]

T3. I don't mean to criticize. Well, maybe just a little. But you went to all the time and trouble of developing a count that includes bell curves and bins, yet give no consideration to the 89s? Wouldn't the fact that Tarzan separates them into a sub groups be an indicator of importance/performance?

My count bets very accurately and identifies advantages Hiopt2 misses. It actually makes a lot more smaller advantage bets than Hiopt2 and makes fewer max bets. That is what you are talking about being important. It does it while using Hiopt2 as the main count and using a different ace side count. I felt it was more powerful than worrying about the 8 and 9. I have no info on them and their relative density will be my counts achilles heel. My count gets an advantage a full TC earlier than Hiopt2 traditionally counted. Before you reach max bet it has the same advantage 2 TC's less than Hiopt2 traditionally counted. The result is an increase in all the important sim stats while making more frequent smaller advantage bets and less frequent max bets. I have thought about including neutral cards to deal with their effect but the sims would have to be like whatever comes after billion rounds or in the 100's of billions of rounds. I also question if I could do it. My experience says with enough practice I could but it would take a looong time to master. I think I do better worrying about what I worry about than worrying about the 8 and 9.

[Three]

Eric is very thorough and has no agenda other than getting at the answers. Eric, Doghand and Gronbog are the ones I would want running sims for counts that Norm's products won't support.

It is funny. A while back Doghand offered to sim my count. I gave him permission and sent a series of graphs showing the sim results I have in 2 dimensions and was interested in whether his results would match those. He had listened to all the naysayers on the sight and thought I didn't have sims for my count. At that point he realized I had sims all along and wasn't as hot to do it because he thought he would be doing me a big favor by getting me info I didn't have which was not true. It was nice of him to offer but he should have listened to me when I said I have had sims for years now rather than the naysayers that don't know anything but what they speculate. Their speculation is fantasy while I am telling them the truth. They just choose to invent an elaborate fiction rather than believe the one that knows. After all I can't even use my count unless I can sim it to know how to bet. Of course their fiction is I never play, the count doesn't exist and the gain is not worth it. They go 2 years ago he was a red chipper and now he plays against the casino tolerance limits that is proof he is lying. They don't think if I am telling the truth I would go from red chipping to playing against casino tolerances in 2 years of play. It is what would and did happen. What a bunch of conspiracy minded idiots.

[DSchles]

"Improvements, study, patience, and discipline provides a faith that 70% is consistently doable."

You're delusional. Again, if these are money-line bets on the favorite in baseball, that's an entirely different matter. If these are -110 pointspread bets in football or basketball, and you claimed you could pick 64%-70%, you'd be laughed out of the community. Those are the numbers of thousands of scamsters, not pro handicappers, who are delirious with 56%-57% pointspread winners.

Don

[Joe Mama]

Really Don S. I'm surprised at you. No I'm shocked, shocked, and aballed.

.

Better than shocked and deballed.

[Gramazeka]

I don't like the Hi-lo Count as well because it doesn't count the 7s but I won't discredit Hi-lo and say it is a weak count (it is not). I have been using my own version of the TKO with both true count for betting and indices. But these couple of days I decided to experiment and use a level 3 count system to see what difference it makes. I found that with a level 3 count I was able to bet more successfully in a six deck game and the win rate has increased. Now I am looking to see how well it performs in terms of playing efficiency and insurance in a double deck game. Level 1 count are still good count systems but it is not as effective compare to higher level count systems.

BC with 3 level count system better vs BC TKO? Shoes game? Where you have received such results? Computer? Verite CVBJ? Or real life? What the system 3 level ?

p.s. You is wrong!

[Freightman]

"Improvements, study, patience, and discipline provides a faith that 70% is consistently doable."

You're delusional. Again, if these are money-line bets on the favorite in baseball, that's an entirely different matter. If these are -110 pointspread bets in football or basketball, and you claimed you could pick 64%-70%, you'd be laughed out of the community. Those are the numbers of thousands of scamsters, not pro handicappers, who are delirious with 56%-57% pointspread winners.

Don

Sorry Don, I have to disagree. Just to confirm, we are talking about blackjack, where you say 70% win rate is delusional. My long term win rate is about 70%. Further, subject to confirming my records, I believe my best year was about 80% win rate. Granted, win rates can be manipulated by time at HE table - but those are my numbers. My worst year, of course, where I actually lost money - I'd have to check that, but I would suggest 50% or less.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Is it possible that this thread needs a precise definition of Win Rate ?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"I'm curious. I have 4 categories. Win Loss Tie Interuption. A win is finishing a session up at least 10 units.
A loss is finishing down 10 units. In between the 10s is a tie after a complete session. Interuption is when
none of the other 3 because of circumstances beyond my control."

This, I think, is a poor means to a fuzzy end; and all the more so when
your sample size is as (statistically) minuscule as I am thinking it is.

[Three]

Is it possible that this thread needs a precise definition of Win Rate ?

And a precise definition of unit.

A win is finishing a session up at least 10 units. A loss is finishing down 10 units.

Going by one definition of unit my unit is $10 or $15. Going by the other my unit is $50 or $100 and that is at the same table.

[Three]

If my minimum bet is $25, then a unit is $25. If a minimum bet is $100 then a unit is $100.

Pros call minimum bet a waiting bet and the unit bet the bet made with a 0.5% advantage. Waiting bet is the smallest bet you think you can get away with for your top bet. It is fairly arbitrary and meaningless for what you bet with an advantage. Bet at 0.5% gives a perspective on your probable ramp and is likely your first ramped bet because variance is way to big when you have a smaller advantage. n0 for a thin advantage bet or small disadvantage bet is likely over 1,000,000 rounds. Basically you get random results because the ratio of advantage to variance is so tiny, n0 being proportional to the ratios reciprocal.

Plus what good is another term that means minimum bet. You already have min bet for that.

[Three]

T3. Are your bins anything like my columns? And 89s are not in your bins?

Bins are a generic term for the deck compositions that you lump together in a decision bin to get an average to base the decision for all deck compositions in the bin to be based on. For traditional counts a bin is usually a TC or a set of TC's that are grouped together in the same betting bin. It has been around forever but using the term bin instead of TC is always as accurate as TC and sometimes it is a more accurate term like if a level 2 count bets TC +6 and _7 the same the betting bin is all the deck compositions that are either TC +6 or +7. To make the bet you average those 2 TC's. In some nontraditional counts the betting bin might be some of the deck compositions in TC's +4, +5, +6, +7, +8, +9, and +10 with most of the bin made up by TC's from +6 and +7. You are trying to get more accurate by grouping similar deck compositions together so they have a similar advantage with a much narrower range of advantage in the grouping as step 1. Then step 2 is putting all similarly bet sub-bins for the TC's into a larger betting bin resulting in a betting bin populated by subsets of a larger range of TC's. I'm not sure how you would do it with a column count but maybe you have already figured it out.

[Three]

What's an example of a smart play for you that appears stupid to them?

I have started to list several but I feel I might out myself and cancel each post. Basically bet size is not correlated at all to playing count in certain deck compositions. This can make you do things with max bet out that others might not even do with min bet out because they have wonged out not realizing there is a nice advantage. The last one I did had the Floor come over, apparently concerned for my "stupid play", with eyes as wide as they could get. He gave advice on how I should have played the hand in a quivering voice. While his advice would have been spot on for a Hilo player with max bet out it was absurd for what my playing count said to do. I bit my tongue so I wouldn't laugh in his face and thanked him for the advice. He went over to his computer terminal and entered something. No doubt what a poor player I am.