Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

If you read my post carefully, I also stressed camouflage play. So besides being very simple to use and increasing power, the strategy changes when AA78mTc is used with HL can be very different from just using the HL and can confuse the pit to think either you are not a counter or a very bad counter. Read over the camouflage plays. If you play with HL alone and get caught and thrown out of casino then nothing matters - you lost the boxing match period (using your analogy).

So not only will these strategy changes with AA78mTc make you look like a fool to casinos who are using the HL to see if you are counting, they are actually the correct play to make!

[lij45o6]

If you read my post carefully, I also stressed camouflage play. So besides being very simple to use and increasing power, the strategy changes when AA78mTc is used with HL can be very different from just using the HL and can confuse the pit to think either you are not a counter or a very bad counter. Read over the camouflage plays. If you play with HL alone and get caught and thrown out of casino that nothing matters - you lost the boxing match period (using your analogy).

So not only will these strategy changes with AA78mTc make you look like a fool to casinos who are using the HL to see if you are counting, they are actually the correct play to make!

Play is *not* the only metric casinos use when determining a 21 AP is at their table. Spreading, magnitude of win/loss, as well as peculiarities is certain indices/deviations that piques the pits interest is what draws them to consider analysis against your action.

I have no doubt that your system is amazing. However, what needs to be done, by you, is to run a simulation, compare it to other systems, and provide win rate, SCORE, and certainly some sort of heat index.

Why would I use your system over something like HOII w/ ASC. The latter has been well researched and is utilised by many APs. The question remains: how well does your system fare? Simply providing Correlation Coefficients proves nothing to us, as we are not concerned about CC, we are concerned about Win Rate. You can have perfect correlation with your system compared to that of the others (Wong, HOII, Zen , et al.) but how does it stack against the win rate of other systems?

This is what we want to know! We want to know how powerful your system is! Is it "worth" the extra effort?

The burden of proof is on you. Not us.

[Freightman]

The burden of proof is on you. Not us.

I confess that I have not really been too interested in this thread. That being said, I have no idea how good this guys system is. Three things are obvious. First, this guy is not stupid. Second, he wants feedback to confirm, prove, disprove, and improve his theories. Third, he’s long winded.

I do think there’s something to it, but I really lack the patience to interpet all of this, and also think his commentary can be simplified. For myself, I’ve developed and practiced some of my own pet theories, honed through experience, though not simulated (don’t know how they can be). I believe my own game has been improved as a result. I have not really articulated my thoughts, as I’m not really interested in the endless debate of essentially - “where’s the beef”.

There are those among us who are prepared to expand their paradigms, and give this commentary some serious thought. For those individuals, I wish them well - and who knows - I might become interested enough to join and contribute.

[lij45o6]

I confess that I have not really been too interested in this thread. That being said, I have no idea how good this guys system is. Three things are obvious. First, this guy is not stupid. Second, he wants feedback to confirm, prove, disprove, and improve his theories. Third, he’s long winded.

I do think there’s something to it, but I really lack the patience to interpet all of this, and also think his commentary can be simplified. For myself, I’ve developed and practiced some of my own pet theories, honed through experience, though not simulated (don’t know how they can be). I believe my own game has been improved as a result. I have not really articulated my thoughts, as I’m not really interested in the endless debate of essentially - “where’s the beef”.

There are those among us who are prepared to expand their paradigms, and give this commentary some serious thought. For those individuals, I wish them well - and who knows - I might become interested enough to join and contribute.

That's fine. However, you are not selling a system to others. There is not need for you to prove anything. If you want to double hard 20's using the FBM ASC, that is your prerogative.

If you are selling your idea, consider adding detail as to what is to be expected. This will convince readers, at face value, what they are going to get.

[Freightman]

That's fine. However, you are not selling a system to others. There is not need for you to prove anything. If you want to double hard 20's using the FBM ASC, that is your prerogative.

Excellent thought processes outside of the box. While at it, suggest a split instead, snagging the ace and then doubling, repeating the process for hand 2. The point is, that you can develop an index or play for anything, ridiculously prudent when the proper conditions present themselves.

Further, I welcome theoretical ideas and suggestions in pursuit of improving the now regaled FBM ASC.

[Three]

Three things are obvious. First, this guy is not stupid. Second, he wants feedback to confirm, prove, disprove, and improve his theories. Third, he’s long winded.

I swear he isn't me. LoL

[Freightman]

I swear he isn't me. LoL

I have to admit - initially, I considered it. It became clear though that it wasn’t you. Perhaps you guys share common dna alleles

[refinery]

I do think there’s something to it, but I really lack the patience to interpet all of this, and also think his commentary can be simplified.

Exactly. You can't sell a book that reads like this. That's been my point from the beginning.