Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[lij45o6]

Yes. Hiopt2/ASC gets its power from counting the 4, 5, and T as a tag magnitude two card, and side counting the ace and factoring it in at tag magnitude 2 for betting. By side counting the ace you can factor it in at whatever strength is optimal for plays either as a high card or low card or keep it neutral. If you are going to use a count you should learn as many indices as you can handle. By keeping the playing count ace neutral and level two the playing count has a high PE. Factoring in the ace appropriately when it is a strong enough card for the play makes these plays that much stronger. The I18 are the most important indices to learn first, but are by no means where you should stop learning indices. Unfortunately a lot of people have the misconception that you should just learn the I18 and fab 4.

With all due respect: Don chose the Ill18 as a reference point for the "majority" of ones gains in playing departures. Somewhere along the total of about 90% of all playing expectations, if my guess is correct.

Surrender, especially when you have big bets out, is one of your most powerful index plays. That power is about variance reduction a lot more than increased EV. The variance reduction allows you to bet more which is were most of the EV gain comes from. A Hiopt2/ASC 10:1 optimal spread with surrender that is 20 to 200 would have an optimal spread of 16 to 160 without surrender. You lose 20% of your advantage betting EV when you lose surrender. To see the full effect, for the later optimal bets EV for Hiopt2/ASC with surrender is $58.40/100 rounds and EV without surrender is $40.77/100 rounds for a total loss of 30.2% of EV when you lose surrender. So 2/3rds of the loss when you give up surrender is from decreased optimal bets and the other 1/3rd is from the EV loss from the surrender plays themselves. This is where RA surrender, especially for your biggest bets, gets its power. You get more EV from the bet change from surrendering than the EV loss when it is slightly negative EV to surrender. Overall variance may increase due to betting more but the variance on your worst matchups that you lose the vast majority of the time goes to 0. Surrender is a huge tool for counters that most don't take to its full potential.

Interesting enough, I would venture to guess that side counting the 6-9's as a block with HOII would be excellent when playing a surrender game. Even at -TC values, surrendering stiffs vs T and A would prove to me monumental. Of course, the +EV gain from surrender comes from wide spreads.

[bjanalyst]

[QUOTE=dogman_1234;262656]Sigh!

I keep on getting posts that my system is complex. It is NOT.

I posted several time that I used three criteria when I developed and chose my system.

in the order of importance, here were the three criteria that I used:

(1) Ease of Use -- -This is number ONE. If the system is not very easy to use in the casino then it has no practical application.

(2) Power -- I use the CC of the derived count with the EoR for each strategic situation to measure power. My goal was to find the easiest count with the highest CC.

(3) Accuracy - of the true count calculations. This is why I prefer the KO to the HL. I like KO with AA89mTc over the HL with AA78mTc. The KO is unbalanced with a pivot at a true count of 4 and near a true count of 4 where your maximum bets are made, the true count is not affected anywhere as much as the HL from errors in estimating dr. That means that for the KO near true count of 4, estimating decks remaining to the nearest full deck is more than adequate.

OK. So what makes my count so easy you say. You insist that it is difficult and it is NOT.

All you do is add two number and compare to a third number and make your playing strategy decision, DUH!

I am tired of everyone bashing my count and then questioning my integrity and calling it a fantasy, basically calling me a liar, when I told you I taught KO with AA89mTc to my friend Carla who knew NOTHING about counting and in less than two weeks she was able to keep both the KO and AA89mTc, both counts in her head (you are just keeping two integers in your head) flawlessly and for hours on end. I suggested chips for beginners but after using it for a while you should be able to keep two integers in your head and I have given you multiple examples of how easy it is to update the AA78mTc in the shoe game. Carla is just an average person, of average intelligence and with no special skills and she picked up KO with AA89mTc right away and every time I checked her (If we were counting the same table) she was right on.

So everyone is crying how difficult this system is so then you are telling me that you are not as smart as Carla! You do not have to be smart to count two numbers and keep the two integers in your head. You can use your chips or fingers if you have to as a crutch but keeping two integers is easy to do.

Since Carla never counted before she had no predetermined biases toward what I was telling her. But the readers of this post have been using their single parameter counts for so long or side counts where you are looking at how many of one particular rank, which was not included in the primary count, came out and comparing that to decks played to determine excess or deficiency of that rank. And you were told that the side counted rank could not be included in the primary count so the the CC between the side counted rank and primary count was zero. But I have shown that this is not the case. And the easiest side count to use is a plus/minus side count and it does not matter if ranks in that plus/minus side count were included in the primary count or not.

I explained how Carla and I play. We play the six deck, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS with LL with the generous payout table of 4, 10, 25, 200 and 1000 to 1 for any twenty, suited 20, suited and matched 20, QHQH, QHQH with dealer blackjack. One casino is one mile from my house and the another is 17 miles and they both offer these games, at least right now anyhow. I bring $1,000 with me and I can always take out more money if I need to or come back the next day so my $1,000 is my day trip bankroll. If KO >= 24 or Tc = Ten count = LLc = Lucky Ladies count = Noir count = KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks, then I call Carla over to my table or she calls me over to her table and we play blackjack at table minimum of $15 on as many hands a possible and if LLc >= 24 and LLc < 30 we bet $5 on LL on as many hands and possible and if LLc >= 30 we start increasing LL bet up to its maximum of $25 if we are winning and we increase our blackjack bet from $15 again only if we are winning. And we reduce to one hand if KO < 24 and if KO < crc(2) we leave the table (or we continue playing only one hand until we lose using losing the hand as an excuse not to play). However if LLc > 24 and KO < 24 then we will still bet table minimum on blackjack because we are playing the LL bet, especially if LLc >= 30. We have been doing this for over 4 years now without any problems. The casino does not bother use because we do not bet a lot on blackjack and they think the LL bet is a sucker bet. We hit the QHQH several times during this period also. What makes this approach profitable is the LL bet so I do not need a huge blackjack spread plus I am basically playing blackjack most of the time when KO >= crc(4) and then play the LL bet where once you pass the LL critical count the LL advantage goes up very quickly.

So for example, for n = 6 decks, just use the 12 situations in the Illustrious 18 that the AA78mTc (or AA89mTc) helps with. For example:

(1) Take insurance if KO + AA89mTc >= 4*n = 24
(2) Stand on hard 12 v 2 if KO + AA89mTc >= 4*n = 24
(3) Stand on hard 12 v 3 if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(2) = 4*n - 2*dr = 24 - 2*dr (or just use Table of Critical running counts)

Now wait, here comes one of your more difficult playing strategy variations which is why everyone is crying that my system is way too difficult to use in the casino.

Stand on hard 15 v T if KO + (1/2)*(AA89mTc) >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24

I can see why you think this playing strategy deviation is very difficult. This one is a real toughee! You now have to multiply the AA89mTc by one half before you add it to the KO to get your psrc = playing strategy running count. Now I understand why everyone calls this system difficult. Sometimes you need to multiply an integer by one-half before adding it to the KO count.

And I have other users insisting that they want to stick to one count and increase it to a level 3 count like that is going to be a big help.

The problem with one fixed count, whatever level you chose, is that the tag value are constant for every situation. If instead of converting to a level 3 count, if you add a plus/minus side count, KO + k*(XmYc) where XmYc is a side count, the tag values of the X and Y ranks can take on various values depending on the value of k - these X and Y ranks are not fixed as they would be in a level 3 count that one of the users of this site alluded to using to improve his blackjack system.

For examples consider psrc = playing strategy running count = HL + k*(Am6c) that I also analyzed so the side count is Am6c. Now for standing on hard 16 v T, k = 2. Actually Am6c helps with hit/stand decisions for hard 16 v T, 9, 8 and 7 with k = 2 for each of these situations.

Thus, using the infinite deck indices:

stand on hard 16 v T if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 0

stand on hard 16 v 9 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 3*dr
stand on hard 16 v 8 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 4*dr
stand on hard 16 v 7 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 4*dr

For each of these cases, the HL CC is increased by 20% to 30% when Am6c is added to HL.

What happens is that psrc = HL + 2*(Am6c) means that the tag value of the Ace which was -1 in the HL is now +1 in psrc and the tag value of the 6 which was +1 in the HL is now -1 in psrc. So psrc = HL + 2*(Am6c) has the following tag values: +1 for A, 2, 3, 4, 5 and -1 for 6 and Tens and zero for all other cards. So the Ace has been switched from -1 to +1 and the six from +1 to -1 using Am6c and this psrc is excellent for hit/stand hard 16 decisions. Such switching of tag values is impossible with one fixed count, say a level three count, where the tag values are taken as the best average for all situations.

I will include an analysis of infinite deck indices for HL + k*(Am6c) for hit/stand hard 16 v T. The exact value of k that maximizes the CC is k = 1.87 with CC = 87.02%. But select k = 2.0 to keep k an integer and then CC = 86.90%. Always round the value of k as it does not make that much difference in the CC. Note that the CC of hard 16 v T for the plain HL is 55.83%. So using the side count Am6c with the HL increases the hard 16 v T CC by over 30%!

This could never be done by switching from a level 2 to a level 3 count as one of the users of this post suggested.

hard 16 v T exact.jpg
hard 16 v T selected.jpg

[Three]

What is the logic here to compare Hi-OPT II with no side count???

This is a good question. Nobody uses Hiopt2 without some kind of ace side count. Next you will say your bike is faster than a sportswear with no wheels. It may be true but it has no relevance.

You can try to make it easy on Gronbog, but Gronbog will be thorough. That is the way he works. He doesn't do half assed work. If he does it he will do it thoroughly.

So my guess is that you will see HL at the bottom, then HO2 with no side counts, and the HL with AA78mTc and HO2 with ASC.

I would take that bet.

And I further guess that HL with AA78mTc will be close to HO2 with ASC as I believe that they are both about equal.

Well you know I would take this bet even quicker.

You cannot use 45m79c with the HL for betting. 45m79c is used only with the KO for betting.

I don't understand why the 7 would be counted with the 9 for betting. The 7 is a minor low card for betting and the 9 is a minor high card. The 8 is a neutral card for betting. I would group the 8 with the 9 for betting before I would group the 7 with the 9. I would think this would help for playing applications as well, but that is an educated guess.

[lij45o6]

Yes, because bjanalyst keeps posting the same thing over and over and over and over again. His threads have been repetitive. Like I say if he has a Bachelor’s degree in mathematics, he would be better off working on discovering and developing fundamental ideas in mathematics or solving one of the Millennium problems. This way he would be more influential than attacking the game of blackjack.

The issue is not that bjanalyst has a degree in maths nor the fact that he is using his new-found skills to analyse the game. The issue is the surety in his voice. The surety that *his* systems is one to rule them all. A patently absurd statement in the absence of quantitative data (aka a Monte Carlo simulation.)

Another factor (something that Three has pointed out numerous times) is the fact that he lacks the understanding of terminology. We make mistakes and misspeak from time to time. However, bjanalyst's post suggests he skimmed ToBJ, rather that, you know, read it! Had the OP possessed a much deeper understanding of the theory of 21, he wouldn't be repetitiously posting verbose garbage in order to get what is to be a salient point. Nor does the OP seem to understand that CC is *not* an indication of improved performance with respect to expectation!

[lij45o6]

I don't understand why the 7 would be counted with the 9 for betting. The 7 is a minor low card for betting and the 9 is a minor high card. The 8 is a neutral card for betting. I would group the 8 with the 9 for betting before I would group the 7 with the 9. I would think this would help for playing applications as well, but that is an educated guess.

The 7 acts as a low card some times and a high card the other. Whereas the 9 always acts as a high card. Grouping them together in a similar bin is futile!

What can be done to improve any system is the binning of [67][89]. I will leave this as an exercise to anyone here.

[lij45o6]

I keep on getting posts that my system is complex. It is NOT.

I posted several time that I three criteria when I developed and chose my system.

in the order of importance, the three criteria I stuck to was:

(1) Ease of Use -- -This is number ONE. It the system is not very easy to use in the casino then it has no practical applications.

(2) Power -- this I use the CC of the derived count with the EoR for each strategic situation. I goal was to find the easiest count with the highest

Yes, yes it is.

*YOU* of all people need to understand that what you are doing is *not* simple.

You are arrogant, conceited, and a puffer. No other words to describe you. Even when talking about your friend "Carla", you come off as arrogant. Talking about your friend as "not so bright" and "of average intelligence" in order to "sell" you system! If you were a friend of mine, describing my intellectual capacity in that manner in order to profit for yourself, consider yourself forgotten as a friend.

[Three]

With all due respect: Don chose the Ill18 as a reference point for the "majority" of ones gains in playing departures. Somewhere along the total of about 90% of all playing expectations, if my guess is correct.

Yes. Well 90% is a bit off. If memory serves it is 80%, it could be 70%. But Don never intended it to be where to end the memorization of indices. He meant it where to start. Don has said so recently on this forum. If you want to it can also be the end but Don never recommended that.

[Three]

I keep on getting posts that my system is complex. It is NOT.

I posted several time that I three criteria when I developed and chose my system.

in the order of importance, the three criteria I stuck to was:

(1) Ease of Use -- -This is number ONE. It the system is not very easy to use in the casino then it has no practical applications.

Sigh. While it may be easy to use in the casino with enough practice, it is a major bitch to master. What people are talking about is the time and effort to learn it. For some it will be pretty easy to learn, but for others it will seem impossible and they will give up before they get over the hump.

I keep two counts but purposely have a substantial overlap between the two counts which adds to the learning difficulty. The overlap makes it a lot harder because you don't have time to do both counts individually. You have to train your brain to be able to make simultaneous adjustments to both counts at once while counting some ranks as positive in one count and negative in the other count. I learned some tricks to make the task easier.

The point is most people using simple counts don't side count to begin with. Keeping a straight side count would be something to learn that may not come easy. But keeping a balanced side count would be that much tougher to learn. But once they learn it and get in enough practice it should become easy to do in the casino. If you are being honest you can't just skip to that last statement without acknowledging the possibly very difficult task of learning to do the count to begin with. I guarantee you many will give up before they have succeeded in learning to do the count if they aren't sure it is worth a lot of hard work learning it. Some will give up no matter what the gain. That is just the reality of the situation.

[lij45o6]

Sigh. While it may be easy to use in the casino with enough practice, it is a major bitch to master. What people are talking about is the time and effort to learn it. For some it will be pretty easy to learn, but for others it will seem impossible and they will give up before they get over the hump.

I keep two counts but purposely have a substantial overlap between the two counts which adds to the learning difficulty. The overlap makes it a lot harder because you don't have time to do both counts individually. You have to train your brain to be able to make simultaneous adjustments to both counts at once while counting some ranks as positive in one count and negative in the other count. I learned some tricks to make the task easier.

The point is most people using simple counts don't side count to begin with. Keeping a straight side count would be something to learn that may not come easy. But keeping a balanced side count would be that much tougher to learn. But once they learn it and get in enough practice it should become easy to do in the casino. If you are being honest you can't just skip to that last statement without acknowledging the possibly very difficult task of learning to do the count to begin with. I guarantee you many will give up before they have succeeded in learning to do the count if they aren't sure it is worth a lot of hard work learning it. Some will give up no matter what the gain. That is just the reality of the situation.

It's not just that: It's keeping two counts with very little gain in expectation! It's like using Gordon with all 5 side counts at an 8D game! Okay, maybe an exaggeration...however; the point is that such is needless complexity to an already winning system.

[Freightman]

It's not just that: It's keeping two counts with very little gain in expectation! It's like using Gordon with all 5 side counts at an 8D game! Okay, maybe an exaggeration...however; the point is that such is needless complexity to an already winning system.

Try halves, coupled with the simple and extraordinary FBM ASC.

[lij45o6]

Try halves, coupled with the simple and extraordinary FBM ASC.

The problem is: I get a bit sweaty from all the heat, so, I lose count at times. Otherwise, the comfort of such system is extraordinary!

[Freightman]

The problem is: I get a bit sweaty from all the heat, so, I lose count at times. Otherwise, the comfort of such system is extraordinary!

I’ll seek technical help exploring the potential of a battery powered AC 7nit.

[seriousplayer]

Try halves, coupled with the simple and extraordinary FBM ASC.

What is the FBM ASC? Are you talking about the patented Freightman Ball Method Ace Side Count?