Don, would you suggest to round down deck estimation in single deck?

[Cacarulo]

I didn't compare them at all but I will here.

I don't know much about Cacarulo except that he's a strong math/sim guy.

I may be wrong but from what I have seen from Cac,
he doesn't seem to have much interest in side count of middle cards as a block.
Freightman does. I do. Tarzan does.
Very few others seem to care about middle cards so be it.

Freightman helped me with that valuable concept and k_c CDCA confirmed that.
I asked Cac but he doesn't seem to care about the middle card concept. Fine.
Cac's aces count regarding insurance did not help me at all.
It's so easy to play perfect insurance.
But I can see how it can help other players.

While we are it, I will add the names who helped me most with
my game in chronological order: Snyder, Don, you, Freightman, Tarzan and K_C.
There ara a few others of course.

I sympathise with you at times Norm.
I would not want to manage a forum
I see it can be a headache at times.

I'm sorry I haven't been of help to you. Sometimes my posts work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes I may be interested in the subject and other times not.
If I haven't gotten into some topics like card blocks it's because I'm not motivated to do so and not because I think it's useless. I always try to make things as simple as possible.
Of course it is possible to play perfect insurance. It wasn't the idea in my post about side counting aces for improving insurance.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Gramazeka]

Don S +1.Good post.

[Secretariat]

I'm sorry I haven't been of help to you. Sometimes my posts work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes I may be interested in the subject and other times not.
If I haven't gotten into some topics like card blocks it's because I'm not motivated to do so and not because I think it's useless. I always try to make things as simple as possible.
Of course it is possible to play perfect insurance. It wasn't the idea in my post about side counting aces for improving insurance.

Sincerely,
Cac

No problem Cac! Please don't be sorry. There are different ways to approach this game. Plus, I am not that much into decimals for TCs as we must act quickly at the tables and I prefer to focus on my side counts than on TC fractions. That would be different if we had two minutes for each decision. I also understood that your purpose was simplicity regarding insurance

[Secretariat]

Don

Maybe Freighter should listen to Norm, start a brand new FBM ASC thread and explain his system in more details. He’ll do that better than me.

I think Freighter has good intentions overall.
He sincerely tried to help me and we are on the same page regarding intermediates.
I agree that he might oversell his “way” but he has a good system.
CDCA EVs, tend to confirm the value of double counting intermediates for insurance, strategy deviations purpose and even betting. Don’t take my word for it.

Regarding Tarzan, I had a look at his top level approach and honestly, I don’t think Freighter or anyone will beat that. Tarzan has every angle covered, betting, insurance, strategy deviations, key cards, speed and more. It’s awesome.

Question for Don.
The Tarzan result was a 6% increase over hi-opt II for 6D.
However, I never saw the results for DD.
I suspect that would be like a 10% in favor of Tarzan at DD but I don’t know.
Do you have that data Don?

I think that every serious player should learn the Tarzan count.
This is the ultimate way to play blackjack.

By the way, I listen to you Don and I did practice Hi-Opt II. I was surprised by its betting efficiency but it left me in the dark for strategy deviations. I prefer Hi-Lo with two side counts (A/789) plus another twist that I won’t mention. I will never go back to Halves but in my case, I find Hi-Opt II to be a good backup system.

Whenever I am tired of multiparameter counting, I can now switch to Hi-Opt II at any time. I also find that whatever system I use, it’s refreshing for the mind when I switch to another one. It’s like the fatigue disappears and the level of concentration goes up a notch.

[aceside]

I think that every serious player should learn the Tarzan count.
This is the ultimate way to play blackjack.

You must be kidding. Tarzan himself hasn’t played blackjack for many years. What’s the use of his system?

[Gramazeka]

You must be kidding. Tarzan himself hasn’t played blackjack for many years. What’s the use of his system?

Are you deliberately spoiling the forum and doing trolling?

[aceside]

Are you deliberately spoiling the forum and doing trolling?

I am going fishing now. Have a good day!

[DSchles]

CDCA EVs, tend to confirm the value of double counting intermediates for insurance, strategy deviations purpose and even betting. Don’t take my word for it.

When the 9 is counted the wrong way for insurance in Halves, it absolutely makes sense that a side count of intermediates could help. Nor do I dispute the strategy decisions improvement. But I do not take your word for it for improving betting. Of all known modern-day point counts, Halves has always had the highest and closest-to-perfect BE. It makes no sense to me whatsoever that suddenly double counting the 6-9 would improve betting.

Question for Don.
The Tarzan result was a 6% increase over hi-opt II for 6D.
However, I never saw the results for DD.
I suspect that would be like a 10% in favor of Tarzan at DD but I don’t know.
Do you have that data Don?

No, I don't. But Gronbog might. I don't recall DD results.

I think that every serious player should learn the Tarzan count.
This is the ultimate way to play blackjack.

Agree with the second sentence. I'm somewhat laughing at the first, however.

By the way, I listen to you Don and I did practice Hi-Opt II. I was surprised by its betting efficiency but it left me in the dark for strategy deviations.

Well, that's not Hi-Opt II's fault! What was the problem with the strategy deviations?

Don

[Secretariat]

Well, that's not Hi-Opt II's fault! What was the problem with the strategy deviations?

Don

In all fairness I didn't study all Hi-Opt II deviations but strategy deviations are usually more precise with level one systems. For example, I know i can't get perfect insurance with Hi-Opt II.

[Norm]

What? There is so, so, so much misinformation in this thread it's too embarrassing to allow to continue. This nearly four year old thread has turned into a clown show.

Closed.