Further Results, a chance to go full retard so Norm can close another thread

**ericfarmer** · 12-15-2017, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

Would have been nice, and a very valuable study, I believe, but I don't think it will happen, because Eric isn't interested.

Don

Sure I am! I should maybe clarify what I am/am not interested in: I think it would be useful to provide an upper bound on achievable performance, and I think we have a *limited* capability to compute such bounds, and I'd like to help with said computation. Those limitations are (1) support only for rules prohibiting resplits, and (2) the expense of a lot of CPU hours. The former is due to us simply not having more sophisticated algorithms, and the latter I'm willing to eat. My only "lack of interest" is in any weird constraint on posting results of said computation. I'll acknowledge that this forum can seem like a train wreck at times, but it *is* possible to read the wheat surrounded by all the chaff; I have repeatedly found very useful additional insights (or bugs, etc.) from the comments, even from the questions, raised in this forum.

(I should also re-emphasize, as I have in the past, that I'm *not* interested in disclosure of any truly private information, e.g., the detail's of Tarzan's count, which I don't have access to anyway. I look at it this way: any of the results that *I* have posted in the past, are results that, at least in principle, *anyone* else was free to generate for themselves and post/publish/whatever, since all of the source code I have ever used in such analyses is, and has been, publicly available.)

In short, if there is an established list of setups (number of decks, rules confined to no resplits, penetration, etc.) that Gronbog has analyzed or plans to analyze, that I can help do the corresponding optimal play calculations for, let me know.

Eric

**Freightman** · 12-15-2017, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash

Freighty responds sarcastically.

That wasn't sarcastic - allow me to regale you with sarcasm personified.

I'm looking forward on your treatise on halves with asc.

**Ustonzen** · 12-15-2017, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

That wasn't sarcastic - allow me to regale you with sarcasm personified.

I'm looking forward on your treatise on halves with asc.

Yeah i actually am too, for some reason the decimal nature of halves seems to grease the rusty cogs in my head a little more than hiopt.
Does a true count conversion W.H ASC with full indices exist anywhere?

I think i might want to try that...

Mostly

**Ustonzen** · 12-15-2017, 05:12 PM

Score difference between asc/no asc?

**Freightman** · 12-15-2017, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ustonzen

Yeah i actually am too, for some reason the decimal nature of halves seems to grease the rusty cogs in my head a little more than hiopt.
Does a true count conversion W.H ASC with full indices exist anywhere?

I think i might want to try that...

Mostly

Understand that halves asc is not for betting decisions, rather, its for play decisions. Accordingly, true count conversion is not affected.

That ace neutral count espoused by some, I forget the name, for betting, requires tc conversion up or down depending on the surplus deficit situation on aces.

Someone suggested earlier today about using chips to asc. To much of a giveaway. I suggested an alternate ball method that seems to have some merit, though I've never tried it

**Freightman** · 12-15-2017, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by moses

Freighter: You are the Wong Halves expert and/on shoes.

It seems to me sims suggest you don't have to do anything more than maintian one number in order to gain full value that comes from EOR and .994 BC.
Correct?

Other counts requires an extra step of one or more side counts to be in line with what you already enjoy with Wong Halves?

In any transaction I ask myself how do I get in, but also how do I get out? Wong Halves provides those options. Worst case scenarios, it's still one of the best SCORES. But if you drop the Ace or count for Perfect Insurance, it's like Don's coin flip. You have nothing to lose and more to gain? Such a deal.

That's for betting. Also, consider this. It's not perfect insurance, but asc gives you the ability to alter up or down your strike point for taking insurance. As does a handle on surplus or deficit of intermediates. Applies to hi lo as well. Also, double or not to double 11v10. Think about it.

**Ustonzen** · 12-15-2017, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

Understand that halves asc is not for betting decisions, rather, its for play decisions. Accordingly, true count conversion is not affected.

That ace neutral count espoused by some, I forget the name, for betting, requires tc conversion up or down depending on the surplus deficit situation on aces.

Someone suggested earlier today about using chips to asc. To much of a giveaway. I suggested an alternate ball method that seems to have some merit, though I've never tried it

Dont the indices for playing decisions rely on ace adjustment?

I was just wondering if the asc was worth it - difficulty is of no concern to me

**Freightman** · 12-15-2017, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ustonzen

Dont the indices for playing decisions rely on ace adjustment?

I was just wondering if the asc was worth it - difficulty is of no concern to me

ace adjustment
No, the indices are the indices and are not based on ace side count, rather by count alone. Example tc 3 with huge ace surplus - do you double 11v10 - yes or no. Without asc, the choice is obvious. Affects insurance decisions and other valuable plays.

If difficulty is not a concern, is asc worth it.
Depends. If I'm playing a slow table - why not, there are gains to be made. If I'm heads up with a fast dealer. I'll trade high hph fir sidecount anytime.

I'm not consistently sidecounting, still playing with various concepts. Can you sidecount at 259 hph?

**Ustonzen** · 12-15-2017, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

ace adjustment
No, the indices are the indices and are not based on ace side count, rather by count alone. Example tc 3 with huge ace surplus - do you double 11v10 - yes or no. Without asc, the choice is obvious. Affects insurance decisions and other valuable plays.

If difficulty is not a concern, is asc worth it.
Depends. If I'm playing a slow table - why not, there are gains to be made. If I'm heads up with a fast dealer. I'll trade high hph fir sidecount anytime.

I'm not consistently sidecounting, still playing with various concepts. Can you sidecount at 259 hph?

While counting down two other tables...

I think i might try the halves

**Freightman** · 12-15-2017, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ustonzen

While counting down two other tables...

I think i might try the halves

One other thing. Seems to me that hi opt 2 requires 1/4 deck resolution, which means continual glancing at the discard tray, which means higher putz, I mean pit scrutiny, low spread or not. . An accomplished ace reckoned counter resolving on full decks only requires occasional glancing (more often on tight index decisions).

Have fun.

**Ustonzen** · 12-15-2017, 06:51 PM

The aces are weighted the same as the tens in norms book - is that right?

**Freightman** · 12-15-2017, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ustonzen

The aces are weighted the same as the tens in norms book - is that right?

Not sure how Norm phrases it.
Not likely.

**Three** · 12-16-2017, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ustonzen

What is the difference in dollars between playing a session with hi opt 2 asc and t count expert kc - the only comparison that truly matters to people who would be considering moving up from their simpleton hi lo.

I don't think many would take up T Count but the value of the count is to be able to play within casino tolerances and make a strong steady profit.