See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 58 of 72 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068 ... LastLast
Results 742 to 754 of 936

Thread: Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

  1. #742


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    You compare you count to Hiopt2/ASC with limited indices. People don't put a ton of effort into learning to master a high level count with side counts and decide a few hours learning all the indices isn't worth the effort. Yet you compare your count to HIopt2/ASC with way less indices than any Hiopt2/ASC user would use. Which brings up the question of why don't you use a lot more indices.

    With the ease to learn and use Hiopt2/ASC compared to your count and the ease to implement it, why would anyone want to use your count even if it does outperform Hiopt2/ASC.

    Simpler and much more powerful beats more complicated and less powerful hands down.
    First as far as I am concerned the level 2 HO2 with ASC is VERY, VERY, VERY difficult which is why ho blackjack teams uses it. Level 2 counts are terrible with the HO2 counting the 4's and 5s as +2 and the Tens as -2 and 3, 4, 6 7 and +1 and they all must be done at the same time. The AA89mTc is also level 2 but is counted separately after cards are on the table and the only rank counted as +2 is the Ace where you just cancel two Tens for each Ace seen and you are only looking at Aces, 8's, 9s' and Tens. it is extremely easy to keep and the 5m7c is even easier to keep and both are EXACT as they do not depend on estimation decks played as Adef does. If you were just going to add one side count, then probably add 5m7c to KO which would be very easy and help with betting and some playing strategy and could easily be taught to others. There is plenty of time in the slow moving shoe game to keep side counts and especially the 5m7c side count which counts only two ranks.

    So to me your statement:
    With the ease to learn and use Hiopt2/ASC compared to your count and the ease to implement it, why would anyone want to use your count even if it does outperform Hiopt2/ASC.
    does not hold true FOR ME. I consider the HO2 with ASC very difficult to keep. you think it is easy to keep. So we will leave it at that. We both have different ideas of what is easy and hard.

    As far as more indices to add, I already addressed that issue. I calculated mainly positive indices for my KO system because I back count. I did not bother calculating negative indices because I never do play all. That is why my system beat HO2 with back counting but not with play all. So I said I would calculate negative indices and give to Gronbog to add to m KO system for those players who do play all.

    And I will not repeat again here, but simulations show POWER which is only one of the five criteria I mentioned in choosing a count system. You must look at all five criteria I mentioned previously, not just power which is only one of the five criteria.

    And I believe once I add negative indices, my KO system should beat the HO2 w ASC for the play all game also. And when LS is added, the KO system will smash the HO2 w ASC.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 02-16-2019 at 08:34 PM.

  2. #743
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Pp. 375-6 of BJA3 show one study comparing the gains from R-A indices vs. e.v.-maximizing ones. The difference is about 2-2.5%. It's possible that any outperformance of the new count compared to Hi-Opt II is due solely to the mismatch between using R-A indices for the former and e.v.-maximizing ones for the latter.

    In any event, just as for yet another count that we have just finished studying with Gronbog at the helm, comparison to Hi-Opt II is extremely close. So, the question then becomes not if it's possible to create a count that rivals Hi-Opt II (it clearly is) but rather, given the relative simplicity of using Hi-Opt II, whether it's worth trying to learn either of these other two counts, both of which clearly require more effort to learn.

    Don
    I was thinking the wonging criterion may not be equivalent giving one count an advantage over the other. No mention of wonging criterion for both counts. Do they wong in at .5% advantage and wong out when no advantage exists? Plus the software wongs in place rather than table hop so back counting is a misleading term.

  3. #744


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    You compare you count to Hiopt2/ASC with limited indices.
    Yes, because he is trying to skew the count. I have done a simulation on a level 3 count using only 70 indices and Hi-OPT II ASC with full indices. The level 3 count with 70 indices perform very close to Hi-OPT II ASC with full indices. So you don't have to use the same amount of indices for both system to make it a fair comparison.

  4. #745
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    With the ease to learn and use Hiopt2/ASC compared to your count and the ease to implement it, why would anyone want to use your count even if it does outperform Hiopt2/ASC.
    does not hold true FOR ME. I consider the HO2 with ASC very ,very difficult to keep. you think it is easy to keep. So we will leave it at that. We both have different ideas of what is easy and hard.
    No it doesn't for you but it does for everyone else. Everyone else would find what you do to be much harder than Hiopt2. For a math guy I don't understand why you have trouble adding by twos. They do it at every elementary school. It is all about card cancelations anyway.

  5. #746


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    How do you know that? You are not an expert in Blackjack to say that. If you compare unbalanced count in running to balanced count with true count there is a different.


    I showed you an exhibit where the KO count could be converted into an equivalent balanced KO count. I also showed in that exhibit the CC of the balance and unbalanced KO count were 100% so these counts are equal and I used EoR for hard 16 v T hit/stand and showed that the CC and SLOPE with EoR for the KO and KO.bal were all equal and also the SD of the KO and KO.bal were equal . So indices of OK and KO.bal are all equal. The problem is in actual use and inaccuracies in true count calculations due to errors in estimation of decks remaining. I have showed ad nauseum that the farther form the pivot the more sensitive the true count calculations are to errors in estimating of decks remaining. The indices of KO and KO.bal are he same. What is different is how accurate the true count can be calculated because of errors in estimating decks remaining.

    In my very first book KO with Table of Critical running counts I showed a simple table for true count calculation of the unbalance KO count. I have shown the formula many times also in this post. The formula is tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr where n =- number of decks. So unbalance true counts can be easily calculated. I will attach an exhibit explaining this which I am sure I attached previously.
    KO & KO Balanced (1).jpg
    KO & KO Balanced (2).jpg
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 02-16-2019 at 09:04 PM.

  6. #747


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post


    I showed you an exhibit where the KO count could be converted into an equivalent balanced KO count. I also showed in that exhibit the CC of the balance and unbalanced KO count were 100% so these counts are equal and I used EoR for hard 16 v T hit/stand and showed that the CC and SLOPE with EoR for the KO and KO.bal were all equal and also the SD of the KO and KO.bal were equal . So indices of OK and KO.bal are all equal. The problem is in actual use and inaccuracies in true count calculations due to errors in estimation of decks remaining. I have showed ad nauseum that the farther form the pivot the more sensitive the true count calculations are to errors in estimating of decks remaining. The indices of KO and KO.bal are he same. What is different is how accurate the true count can be calculated because of errors in estimating decks remaining.

    In my very first book KO with Table of Critical running counts I showed a simple table for true count calculation of the unbalance KO count. I have shown the formula many times also in this post. The formula is tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr where n =- number of decks. So unbalance true counts can be easily calculated. I will attach an exhibit explaining this which I am sure I attached previously.
    Ok, instead of just posting charts and calculations. You can maybe explain how to use the equivalent balanced KO count in real casino play. Using the equivalent balanced KO count in real casino play is not practical. How do you keep track of 12/13 as tag values without making mistakes. You have to stop posting charts and calculations if you don't have a way of applying it in real casino play. Since you are so smart. Please tell me how one can keep tag values of 12/13, -1/3 and -1 1/3 in real casino play. How??
    Last edited by seriousplayer; 02-16-2019 at 09:08 PM.

  7. #748


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Yes, because he is trying to skew the count. I have done a simulation on a level 3 count using only 70 indices and Hi-OPT II ASC with full indices. The level 3 count with 70 indices perform very close to Hi-OPT II ASC with full indices. So you don't have to use the same amount of indices for both system to make it a fair comparison.
    I do not use many negative indices at all. That tis the problem. If I used negative indices to say -5 that would probably be enough. I told you I never intended my KO system for the play all game. Only for back counting, That is why I never calculated many negative indices. Now that I know that the play all game needs to be simulated I will calculate negative indices. Now let Gronbog enjoy his vacation. I will give Gronbog the negative indices when he gets back from vacation.

  8. #749


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    I do not use many negative indices at all. That tis the problem. If I used negative indices to say -5 that would probably be enough. I told you I never intended my KO system for the play all game. Only for back counting, That is why I never calculated many negative indices. Now that I know that the play all game needs to be simulated I will calculate negative indices. Now let Gronbog enjoy his vacation. I will give Gronbog the negative indices when he gets back from vacation.
    Nonsense! You don't need the same amount of indices for both systems in order to make the comparison to see which count has a higher SCORE. I already stated that in post # 744. So you don't have to have many negative indices for your KO system to perform better than Hi-OPT II ASC that is the point I am trying to make.

  9. #750


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Ok, instead of just posting charts and calculations. You can maybe explain how to use the equivalent balanced KO count in real casino play. Using the equivalent balanced KO count in real casino play is not practical. How do you keep track of 12/13 as tag values without making mistakes. You have to stop posting charts and calculations if you don't have a way of applying it in real casino play. Since you are so smart. Please tell me how one can keep tag values of 12/13, -1/3 and -1 1/3 in real casino play. How??
    I created a table of critical running counts form the formula tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr. You can buy the ebook PDF for $3.99 from Xlibris.com. I will list the Table of Critical Running Counts for six and eight decks below. I have posted them before but I will post the again for your ease of reference.

  10. #751


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    I created a table of critical running counts form the formula tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr. You can buy the ebook PDF for $3.99 from Xlibris.com. I will list the Table of Critical Running Counts for six and eight decks below. I have posted them before but I will post the again for your ease of reference.
    Still not answering my question. My question was how does one keep a count with tag values of 12/13, -1/3 and -1 1/3 in real casino play. I am asking you how. I am not asking you about the Table of Critical Running Count for KO and balanced KO. I don't think you understand English.

  11. #752


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Still not answering my question. My question was how does one keep a count with tag values of 12/13, -1/3 and -1 1/3 in real casino play. I am asking you how. I am not asking you about the Table of Critical Running Count for KO and balanced KO. I don't think you understand English.
    Of course, you are never gong to count in fractions of 1/13th. Here is the Tale of Critical Running Counts for six and eight deck games that you need to use. It was calculated form tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n) /dr and the patterns in the table make it every easy to remember. For tc's outside the Table of crc use the simplified formulas I listed previously such as stand on hard 16 v 7 if tc(KO) = 4 and tc(5m7c) >= 2*dr. For negative true counts which is what you need in the play all game, I will discuss another time after I add the negative indices for simulation.
    KO table of crc (1).jpg
    KO table of crc (2).jpg

  12. #753


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Of course, you are never gong to count in fractions of 1/13th. Here is the Tale of Critical Running Counts for six and eight deck games that you need to use. It was calculated form tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n) /dr and the patterns in the table make it every easy to remember. For tc's outside the Table of crc use the simplified formulas I listed previously such as stand on hard 16 v 7 if tc(KO) = 4 and tc(5m7c) >= 2*dr. For negative true counts which is what you need in the play all game, I will discuss another time after I add the negative indices for simulation.
    You are not answering my question. You are giving me critical running counts for KO. I am asking about balanced KO not KO. The tag values for KO and balanced KO is different because the KO count is being converted to equivalent balanced count. It is counting the 8s and 9s as -1/3 to make it balanced. You can't just true count KO without getting the running count tag values from balanced KO. You must count the tags in fractions for power.

  13. #754


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    You will need the running count from the count tag values for KO.bal. Otherwise, you can't apply the formula:

    KO.bal + k1*(5m7c) +k2*(AA89mTc) ? (Idr) * dr

    Without counting the KO.bal in fractions how do you figure out KO.bal? No, you can't just use the unbalanced KO tag values to plug in for KO.bal because KO and KO.bal count the 8s and 9s with different tag values.

Page 58 of 72 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. High Edge Side Bets
    By knoxstrong in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-26-2021, 07:44 AM
  2. Adding AA78mTc to High Low
    By bjanalyst in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-27-2021, 05:21 AM
  3. Betting side bet lucky ladies on High Counts?
    By Tenlavuu in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2018, 05:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.