Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
I do not have simulation software. I had suggested in a previous thread that someone who has a canned HL simluation software make only six changes.
That's your job. Literally. If you have a system, you need to provided some context as to what the reader is to expect when using said system. All other information is useless to us.

Use HL for betting and for all strategy changes except use Tc = pseudo Ten count = HL + AA78mTc for: (dr = decks remaining)

(1) insure if Tc >= 4*dr
(2) stand on hard 12 v 2 if Tc >= 4*dr
(3) stand on hard 12 v 3 if Tc >= 2*dr
(4) stand on hard 12 v 4 if Tc >= 0
(5) stand on hard 12 v 5 if Tc >= (-2)*dr
(6) stand on hard 12 v 6 if Tc >= (-1)*dr

So just have the original HL simulation and another copy with these six changes. Run them both and compare as the only difference between the two is using the Tc instead of he HL for these six situations I mentioned above.
Repeating the data as nauseam does nothing to convince anyone.
Also, please read Griffin chapeter 3. He provides a chart to show where most of your gains will be. Notice the hard totals from 12-16 for dealer up-card T plus 13 vs dealer up-card 2-6. That is where most of your playing gains will be.
And I prefer CC to simulations as the answers are immediate and exact and do not depend on betting patters or other variables. You are isolating PE (playing efficiency) with weighed average CC. I also calculated weighted average CC for various count systems and sorted the counts by weighted CC and the lowest weighted CC (for playing strategy) was HL and then KO and then Hi Opt 1 and then Hi Opt 2 and the strongest Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces. So weighted CC agrees with simulations results.
Okay. However, simply using CC does nothing from a win-rate perspective. What is the average expectation for each deviation as well as their respected probabilites? What can we expect with hitting/standing/doubling hard 16 vs T? CC gives us no indication as to what our respected return is. Simulations can.
Also you do not need simulations for common sense. A Ten count is what should be used for insurance. I do not need a sim to show that. Also a Ten count should be used for hit/stand decisions on hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. This is not difficult to figure out.
Invocation of 'common sense' as a premise for your argument is weak. Why not use a 5 vs all count for hard 16 vs T? Why not use an Ace vs Face count for hard 10/11 doubles? Those are also 'common sense' approaches. And, if it is 'common sense', then it should be easy for you to sim your ideas. So, yes, a sim is needed. What is your aversion to running a Monte Carlo? Can't you do that in Excel?
But if someone has a canned HL simulation that they can modify and run with just the six changes I listed above, I would be interested in the results. No one who replied to my posts said they had such a canned HL simulation program. If you did have such a program and ran it, I predict that your results would show HL with AA78mTc is just as powerful as HI Opt 2 with side count of Aces.
Because, as I have said *multiple time already*, the burden of proof falls upon you! No one here thinks your system is the next greatest thing since sliced bread. They are comfortable with what they have as of now. If YOU sim your system and prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that is outperforms all other systems under the given win rate (NOT CC!), then we may be more invested in your idea. Until then, run a sim for your system.
Actually I chose on the six most powerful changes to HL using AA78mTc. There are more changes but I did not include them in my requested simulations because I wanted to keep the changes to the HL program to a minimum to reduce the changes of errors when changing the program. And the six chose are the most important and will prove my point.
And how do you know there are the "most powerful" out of all other indices? And please don't invoke the CC nonsense. We want to know win-rate/expectation.