About ace side count

[Crutoy37]

I did what you suggested and to my surprise the combination outperform Halves, Omega II with ASC and Hi-OPT II with ASC. So for ferenc11 to answer your question to improve the KO Count you will need to do the following:

Use the KO Count for betting:

A-(-1)
2-(1)
3-(1)
4-(1)
5-(1)
6-(1)
7-(1)
8-(0)
9-(0)
T-(-1)

Secondary count for playing:

A-(0)
2-(0)
3-(1)
4-(1)
5-(1)
6-(1)
7-(0)
8-(0)
9-(0)
T-(-1)

Adding the two count together give you the adjusted running for UBZII for playing with running count alone.

How would i set this up to run a sim, I'd be grateful if you can walk me through it. Thanks.

[moses]

Frank,

This is hilarious.

Doin' 'rithmetic.

Will it be easier if list 2-7s for both counts? They don't change. You just can't get anything other than Hi Ot II.


Everything I do is exact math and formula's to fall back on. So I'm stupid because you can't get it?
These never ending threads are a result of T3 and Flash imposing their will on Hi Opt II. EOR will never change. However, constant change proves historical. Create confusion to confound the understanding. You don't need a mentor.

Wong Halves and Perfect Insurance is the best way to keep up with it all.

For a deeper understanding of the game see Moses Column Charts and Explanation.

Top engineers have the ability to understand complex equations. But the best ones can make complex simple again.

[seriousplayer]

How would i set this up to run a sim, I'd be grateful if you can walk me through it. Thanks.

Using CVDATA. Create a New Configuration. Enter Sim New and select configurations. Set the Setup, Rules, Payoff, Playing and Betting tab. But on the Betting tab, click Betting Side Counts. Set the card point values to the difference between the two strategies. Read Tthree's post #39. Make sure you have the full indices for UBZII I generated new UBZII full indices in CVDATA.

[Crutoy37]

Thank you seriousplayer, so for betting it would be KO but playing decisions are based on UBZ2 ? KO looks almost identical to KISS3, except it only counts black deuce.

[seriousplayer]

Thank you seriousplayer, so for betting it would be KO but playing decisions are based on UBZ2 ? KO looks almost identical to KISS3, except it only counts black deuce.

Yes, the idea was KO count for betting and UBZII for playing combined. The reason why I choose KO for betting is because the KO count has a high BC than UBZII. It is easy to see that the PE and IC in UBZII are higher than KO that is why I choose to use a secondary count for playing and NOT betting.

[seriousplayer]

I am glad I could help you sim it. PE is a direct comparison. IC is a correlation but since the insurance bet is totally linear IC can be used as a direct comparison. But BC is a correlation that can only be used as a relative comparison. You can only say one's out tags correlates better to the betting EoR's than the other's count tags from the BC not make any speculation of how much better either bets. The sim allowed you the proof of betting superiority you already knew but the allowed you to quantify it. So the real question is, how much did it outperform UBZ2? You are going through a lot of trouble to use KO as the betting count and UBZ2 as the playing count. It would be a lot simpler just to use UBZ2 for everything and only keep 1 count. Is the gain worth the effort? I know the answer to that varies by the individual but I think people would be interested in the comparison of your approach and UBZ2.

I will copy and paste the results when I get home from work. I simulated with the game six deck S17, DAS, LS with one deck cut off. The results outperforms halves, Omega II with ace side and Hi-Opt II with ace side count. You can do the simulation yourself as well. I generated full UBZ2 indices and the results outperforms UBZ2 significantly.

[Norm]

Sever the corpus callosum.

[seriousplayer]

It wasn't meant to be helpful a.w. How does one do this without maintaining two sets of numbers in your mind?

To answer your question directly the way we are counting the cards there is no way to keep one number in your head. Response to your other post what is different from your column count and the Tarzan count is that it does not require division and deck estimation. I am sure that the column count and the Tarzan count requires division of some sort. What help is it when it requires division and deck estimation. It just create more opportunities for errors.
Unless we can find a new way to count the cards unfortunately we will need to numbers in our head for the count I just mentioned.

[seriousplayer]

Did you mean to or two? I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm asking how? It's like Joe Pecci. I simply find your story not believable.

You count by cancelling cards to arrive at a running count. Then divide a formula based on deck estimation over the course of 6 decks without stopping. Straight up would be around 40 hands?

I would think the less tags that differ the better. But you are guys are doing several.

Yes, and I already answer you. Since it seem like you want to challenge me. The answer is you can't keep one number in your head unless you change the way you are counting.

[seriousplayer]

Im not challenging you. Im trying to understand where you are coming from. Anytime i can make my game easier and/or more productive I'm all for that.

Well, where I am coming from is one of the OP was trying to improve the KO count and I am giving him my advice and ideas in how to do it. I didn't say it would be easy. I though I made it clear that what I was doing in my previous post. I guess it didn't. Hope there is no further confusion.

[seriousplayer]

Im not challenging you. Im trying to understand where you are coming from. Anytime i can make my game easier and/or more productive I'm all for that.

Actually, i think you might be on to something. It's seems more productive to maintain two counts than one count and an Ace side count. I mean isnt that still two numbers in your head? Question is how to do it efficiently and without errors.

Maybe you could maintain the 3,4,5,6 and T as one count which in this case is +2 and -2 and split it up into the main count along with the other tag values and secondary count. Just another idea on how to make the count easier. I would come up with more ideas eventually. What do you suggest?

[Norm]

I would like to teach my cat how to bark because i think i could make alot of money at a Circus sideshow. Any ideas?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5uge20zpF8

[Frank Galvin]

I tried a spin off of something i gathered from what i thought was T3's concept.

Setting you tags at 2346 as 1. 5 as 1.5. 7 as .5. Tens as -1.5. Everything offsets into a balanced playing count.

Now the only tag you have to adjust is reducing the 10 to -1 for your betting count. From 0, you would assign the Ace -1.5 and the 9 a -.5. The 2-7s require no adjustment.

So you have a playing TC and a betting TC. I can tell you from my research either one being less than TC2 offsets the other. Therefore, less large bets, but a higher percentage of wins.

Hey there, you're doing it again.

Your balanced playing count, is balanced. Hooray!

However, you have not balanced your betting count, as ten valued cards have tag values totaling -4.0, and then you assigned Aces a -1.5 tag value, and 9's a -0.5 tag value. The aggregate of those tag values is -6.0. You need to have counter-weighted tag valued cards to bring the aggregate to 0.0 (neither positive nor negative), whereas you are presently at -6.0.

Perhaps you can teach that cat to say, "Again Moses????"