See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 72 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 936

Thread: Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

  1. #27


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    But no one is buying my book because no one believes what I did was correct.
    It is not because I don't beleive what you did is correct, it is because I believe what you did is unnecessary and most likely, unachievable, by the vast majority of card counters. It is a small and elite group that can master these multi level, multi tiered systems. Our hats are off to you but do not expect a rush to your systems by the masses.

    If I were to suggest a technical push back it would be about error rates that mitigate the advantages you mathematically have proven.

    Go find a game with half deck deeper penetration and you will offset much of your systems advantage. Or add to it, if you (and Three) are skilled enough to use your system.
    Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!

  2. #28


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealth View Post
    It is not because I don't beleive what you did is correct, it is because I believe what you did is unnecessary and most likely, unachievable, by the vast majority of card counters. It is a small and elite group that can master these multi level, multi tiered systems. Our hats are off to you but do not expect a rush to your systems by the masses.

    If I were to suggest a technical push back it would be about error rates that mitigate the advantages you mathematically have proven.

    Go find a game with half deck deeper penetration and you will offset much of your systems advantage. Or add to it, if you (and Three) are skilled enough to use your system.
    You summed up my point perfectly. I need a better game, more tolerant store, and/or somewhere that doesn't know my face. Better efficiencies through a more complicated count don't do much for me.

  3. #29


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Adding either AA89mTc to KO or the AA78mTc to the HL is NOT difficult to do. HL and KO are level one counts easy to keep and AA78mTc, for example, is a plus minus side count that is easy to keep as I explained earlier which I will explain again below. If I was suggesting you use the Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces then I would agree with you but I am suggesting the HL with AA78mTc or KO with AA89mTc.

    Below I will explain again how easy it is to keep the AA78mTc with the HL for example. I taught my friend Carla the KO with AA89mTc in just one week and she was able to keep both counts in her head without making any errors and Carla is just of average intelligence and had no prior counting experience. I have checked her counts and she was right on each time. You have been courting for years and you can’t do what Carla can do who had no counting experience and took her only one week to master?
    Also you suggested that you are concerned about longevity in playing. So I take it that camouflage play is important to you. Well using the AA78mTc with the HL not only greatly increases playing efficiency for insurance and for hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, it also provides excellent camouflage play.

    I will give a few examples below. You will be making the correct play but the pit, if they are using the HL, will think you are making gross misplays and that if you are a counter you are such a poor counter that they do not have to worry about you.
    I showed you that SD(AA78mTc)= SD(HL) and the CC(AA78mTc, HL) = 20%. That means that if HL can range from say -30 to +30 in six decks, 5decks dealt that the AA78mTc can also range from -30 to +30 since the AA78mTcand HL have the same SD. Also AA78mTcand HL have a very low CC so AA78mTc can be very negative when HL is positive and vice versa

    ======== Adding AA78mTcto HL =============

    Updating the AA78mTc or AA89mTc is not as daunting as it may at first seem. For example, AA78mTc which is used with the HL gives the Ace a tag value of +2, seven and eight +1 and Ten -1. There is a lot of cancelling and plenty oftime to update the AA78mTc in the shoe game. Update the HL in your head as soon as the cards hit the table.

    On updating the AA78mTc, when the cards are on the table and before players make any playing strategy decisions, look for cancellations. For example, an Ace will cancel two Tens, a 7will cancel a Ten and an 8 will cancel a Ten. Calculate AA78mTs (s = seen during the current round) and then add AA78mTs to AA78mTc from the previous round to get an updated AA78mTc.

    Continue to update AA78mTc as players make their playing strategy decisions and dealer finishes his hand. If you have trouble keeping two integers in your head, chips can be used keep track of the AA78mTc.
    If the Aces, sevens and eights seen on the table during a given round do not conveniently cancel nearby Tens then just calculate AA78s (s = seen during the current round) and then scan for the Ts (Tens seenduring the current round) and subtract one from AA78s for each Ts, i.e. you are calculating AA78mTs = (AA78s – Ts) which is then added to AA78mTc from the previous round to get an updated AA78mTc.

    ======== Just useAA78mTc for these six strategy changes =============
    Note that the increase in CC is in the order of 20% to 30% for these strategy changes.

    HL wiht AA78mTc chart.jpg

    So use HL for betting and for all strategy changes except use Tc = pseudo Ten Count = HL + AA78mTc for these six changes.

    (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

    ======== Camouflage plays with AA78mTc added to HL =============

    SD(AA78mTc)= SD(AA89mTc) = SD(HL) = 0.8771. So AA78mTc can easily be at +12 or -8 as shown in the two examples below.
    dr =decks remaining, dp = decks played, tc = true count, Tc = pseudo Ten count .
    Tc = HL + AA78mTc, t c = true count, tc(HL) = HL/dr, tc(Tc) = Tc/dr

    Example 1:
    n = 6decks, dp = 3 so dr = 3, HL = 0 and AA78mTc = 12

    ThenTc = 0 + 12 = 12 and tc(Tc) = 12 / 3 = 4 so
    1. Take insurance
    2. Stand on hard 12 v 2

    These strategy changes all occur with HL = 0. If surveillance is just keeping the HL count to see if you are counting, they will be baffled by these strategy changes where they would predict, based on HL = 0, that you would not take insurance and you would hit hard 12 v 2.

    Example 2:
    n = 6decks, dp = 4 so dr = 2, HL = 12 and AA78mTc = -8.
    So here tc(HL) = 12 / 2 = 6 which would mean to take insurance, stand on hard 12 v2.
    But Tc = 12 – 8 = 4 and so tc(Tc) = 4 / 2 = 2 and so you would hit hard 12 v 2 and do not take insurance and this all occurs when tc(HL) = 6.

    These strategy changes all occur with tc(HL) = 6. If surveillance is just keeping the HL count to see if you are counting, they will be baffled by these strategy changes where they would predict, based on tc(HL) = 6, that you would be betting the LL, you would be taking insurance and you would stand on hard 12 v 2.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-23-2018 at 10:46 AM.

  4. #30


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I will use this analogy. In a boxing match . Being the strongest guy doesn't mean he will win the fight. No need to elaborate , we already why .

  5. #31


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    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!
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-23-2018 at 10:55 AM.

  6. #32


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

  7. #33


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    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.

    I am including at the end of this post weighted average CC that I used to compare the strength of various counts. Note that the Weighted Average CC agrees with simulation results for strength of counts. So the weighted average CC is an excellent tool to determine the ranking of the strength of various counts.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Actually I chose only 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 chances of errors when changing the program. And the six chosen are the most important and will prove my point.

    Because I did not include all of the AA78mTc changes to the HL perhaps the results with just the six changes will come somewhat less that HI Opt 2 with side count of Ace but my prediction is that it will be very close.

    CC Comparsions.jpg
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-23-2018 at 11:30 AM.

  8. #34


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    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.

  9. #35


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dogman_1234 View Post

    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.

  10. #36


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dogman_1234 View Post
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.
    Did they not also burn books during the crusades?

  11. #37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Did they not also burn books during the crusades?
    What's the relevance of this post?

  12. #38


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

  13. #39


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dogman_1234 View Post
    What's the relevance of this post?
    The relevance is that you’re wearing blinders. No offence. His theories may not yet be proven, but that in itself, is no reason to dismiss them.

Page 3 of 72 FirstFirst 123451353 ... 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.