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.
Last edited by moses; 02-24-2018 at 07:12 PM.
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.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 05-21-2017 at 06:45 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
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????"
"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/
Bookmarks