Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

I just want to make it clear that the simulations were requested by another user on this thread. The simulations were not my idea. It would be nice to have verification with simulations but I already KNOW my calculations are correct.

I have been using them for over four years now and they work great. I use KO with AA89mTc.

It should be noted that Tc = Ten Count = LLc = Lucky Ladies count = KO + AA89mTc = Noir count which has been well documented in the literature for decades as a PERFECT Ten count with an unbalance of 4 per deck and that the Noir count gives a perfect insurance decision when Noir = KO + AA89mTc >= 4*n where n = number of decks. The Noir count counts all non-Tens as +1 and all Tens as -2.

I have been using this Tc for insurance, Lucky Ladies betting, hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 decisions and more for over 4 years now and they work great.

Besides my Least Squares Line (LSL) calculations based on Schlesinger's EoR I have also calculated indices using Griffins PD (Proportional Deflection) technique and the results matched EXACTLY.

I have used my LSL technique to calculate indices for the HL count which match the published HL indices. I have tested dozens of indices and have not found a single incident where the HL indices calculated from my LSL program did not match published HL indices derived through simulations.

I have calculated Weighted Average CC (tag values of counts and EoR) for various published counts weighing around 30 playing strategy decisions and then sorted them by increasing weighted average CC and the results showed the counts with the highest weighted average CC were also the counts that were deemed strongest by simulations. I included a chart of the various counts I tested in an earlier thread so you can see for yourself.

So my calculations have passed every single tests that I have thrown at them and I have also used it successfully for over four years now.

As explained earlier, I have used Don Schlesinger's EoR published in Blackjack Attack 3rd edition which EoR have five significant figures and so are very accurate.

So while it would be nice is someone ran the simulations (suggesting by another user who would not believe my calculations were correct without simulations) it is not really necessary because as I said from the start, I know my calculations are correct.

If someone can run the requested simulations then great as I a positive that those results will once again prove that my calculations are correct.

And I will predict here, based on weighted average CC of HL + k*(AA78mTc) and Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces being almost equal, that you will find, if all HL + k*(AA78mTc) indices were used, that the HL + k*(AA78mTc) was just as strong as the Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces.

Because I have suggested only using the strongest AA78mTc strategy changes (insurance and hit/stand hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and have left out all other strategy changes with AA78mTc and using just HL for all other strategy changes, then I predict simulations will show HL with AA78mTc is almost as strong as Hi Opt 2 with side count of Ace but just a little weaker because not all help available for HL strategy changes with AA78mTc were taken into account.

My calculations have passed every test that I have thrown at them. I know that my calculations are correct.

[Freightman]

I just want to make it clear that the simulations were requested by another user on this thread. The simulations were not my idea. It would be nice to have verification with simulations but I already KNOW my calculations are correct.

I have been using them for almost four years now and they work great. I use KO with AA89mTc.

It should be noted that Tc = Ten Count = LLc = Lucky Ladies count = KO + AA89mTc = Noir count which has been well documented in the literature for decades as a PERFECT Ten count with an unbalance of 4 per deck and that the Noir count give a perfect insurance decision when Noir = KO + AA89mTc >= 4*n where n = number of decks.

I have been using this Tc for insurance, Lucky Ladies betting, hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 decisions and more for over 4 years now. Besides my Least Squares Line (LSL) calculations based on Schlesinger's EoR I have also calculated indices using Griffins PD (Proportional Deflection) technique and the results matched EXACTLY.

I have used my LSL technique to calculated indices for the HL count which match the published HL indices. I have tested dozens of indices and have not found a single incident where the HL indices calculated from my LSL program did not match published HL indices derived through simulations.

I have calculated Weighted Average CC (tag values of counts, EoR) for various counts weighing around 30 playing strategy decisions and then sorted them by increasing weighted average CC the results showed the counts with the highest weighted average CC were also the counts that were deemed strongest by simulations. I included a chart of the various counts I tested in an earlier thread so you can see for yourself.

So my calculations have passed every single tests that I have thrown at them and I have also used it successfully for over four years now And I have also used Don Schlesinger's EoR published in Blackjack Attack 3rd edition which EoR have six significant figures and so are very accurate.

So while it would be nice is someone ran the simulations (suggesting by another user who would not believe my calculations were correct without simulations) it is not really necessary because as I said form the start, I know my calculations are correct.

If someone can run the requested simulations then great as I a positive that those results will once again prove that my calculations are correct.

My calculations have passed every other test that I have thrown out them. I know that my calculations are correct.

I, for one, realize that not all situations can be simmed. Though not definitive, though sounding probable, further argument by you should incorporate results.

In other , what are your typical game rules, number of decks, deck pen, average number of players at table and hands per hour. What is your ramp, in terms of units, and what is your earning rate in terms of units per hour.