See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

# Thread: Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Three
I do the same thing with my two balanced counts. It is pretty powerful for me. Kudos to maximizing the use of extra info gathered. To those that don't understand what he is talking about, he is using a number of different combined playing counts depending on which one is strongest for the matchup at hand. For traditional counting methods .7 is the limit to PE. By using multiple playing counts that ceiling is removed. With having the cards he does in the side count he can make strong index plays where none exist for traditional approaches, or an index exists but is very weak. Many matchups have the 7 and 8 as key cards for the play. When they act similarly, he can weight them properly relative to other cards to make the strongest index play possible for the counts he keeps. He would be altering the weight of the 7, 8, and A simultaneously.
Nicely written, Three. Can you explain why it's "ace ace"?

2. 1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by therefinery
Nicely written, Three. Can you explain why it's "ace ace"?
The ace is already counted as a high card. Using +1 for the ace tag would make the combined count ace neutral. The goal was to count the ace as a low card rather than a high card so you must tag the ace as +2 in the side count.

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
By choosing k as the value that maximized absolute value of CC between EoR and tag values of derived count KO + k*(AA89mTc) you have some more control over the actual value of the Ace. For example, in the example I gave prior, you should double hard 9 v 2 if KO + (1/2)*(AA89mTc) >= crc(1). Using psrc = KO + (1/2)*(AA89mTc) gives a tag value of zero for the Ace in psrc = playing strategy running count = KO + (1/2)*(AA89mTc). If you look at my previous chart you can see that Ace in psrc has a tag value of zero. Also can be seen by realizing that (1/2)*(AA89mTc) counts that Ace as +1, 8 and 9 as +(1/2) and Ten as -(1/2). So when (1/2)*(AA89mTc) is added to KO which counts the Ace as -1, the result is that the Ace is counted as zero. So to answer the question more thoroughly, sometimes the Ace should have a tag value of -1, sometimes a tag value of zero and sometimes a tag value of +1 but there are all accommodated to a certain degree by varying the value of k in KO + k*(AA89mTc).

So finally someone who actually understands what I did. I am finishing my fourth book with all of my results which I will be publishing in the next month or so.

But for now, here is another example attached for splitting 2,2 v 8 DAS. Split 2,2 v 8 DAS if KO - 2*(AA89mTc) >= crc(4). The logic behind this is that if AA89mTc < 0 then more Tens than Aces, Eights and Nines came out of the shoe. So with extra 8's and 9's left in the shoe, if the 2's are split it is more likely that you will pick up an 8 or 9 for a total of 10 or 11 which are great doubles. Therefore the more negative AA89mTc is the better splitting 2,2 v 8 DAS becomes. All of these formulas must also make logical sense. But no one is buying my book because no one believes what I did was correct. Thanks for agreeing that you believe that what I did makes sense.

Note that CC using just the KO for splitting 2,2 v 8 DAS was 19% but the CC using KO - 2*(AA89mTc) for splitting 2,2 v 8 DAS is 54%. This is a huge increase in the CC and uncovers many more profitable 2,2 v 8 DAS splits and with much greater accuracy than does the KO alone.

In my attachment below, you can ignore Red X, Black X where X is any given rank. I put in the Red and Black when I first made my Excel file because I was analyzing Arnold Synder's Red 7 count. I never changed it. Just know in the spreadsheet, Red and Black X are identical and can be collapsed into one rank X. Breaking the rank into Red X and Black X has no effect on the calculations or results but just makes the spreadsheet bigger and bulkier. But the results are the same which is what is important.

Split 2,2 v 8 DAS.jpg

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I hope you do well with your book but I have found most don't understand what can happen when you get creative when counting. They try to relate to things they are familiar with that don't have the same potential. It is like trying to play 3 dimensional chess but failing to consider the 3 dimensional moves that the new way of doing things allow. Or playing triple yahtzee by completing each row before moving to the next row. The new procedures allow you to do things you couldn't with the old system. If you don't understand the new opportunities you will fail to consider them.

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Plus I have found people are generally reluctant to change. Same goes for counters. They are used to the High Low and do not want to switch to the KO. And they especially do not want to include a side count to add to the KO that totally confuses them. That is why my 4th book is High Low with plus/minus side counts. I wrote it for the High-Low player that wants to stick with the High-Low. Another excellent side count to use with either KO or HL is Am6c. KO + Am6c

Below is some analysis of HL + Am6c for the one deck indices. But the multiple deck indices are not that far different. Also as the CC increases the indices for any number of decks converge to the infinite deck indices. For example, KO + AA89mTc gives CC = 100% and you take insurance when KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4). The index is 4. Because CC = 100%. the index is independent of the number or decks, that is the index for insurance is a true count of 4 for any number of decks when using KO + AA89mTc = a perfect Ten count. So the larger the CC the less variance between incudes for a given number of decks. So not only is the strength of the count increased (CC increased) when using side counts, the indices for various decks all converge so that you do not have to memorize difference indices for different number of decks. ou are one of just a few people who understand what I did. Thanks,

==== My one deck HL with Am6c analysis which also applies to multiple decks without much change in the indices for multiple decks because CC is very high. ====

 Keep High Low (HL) for the one deck game with the side count Am6c (Ace minus Six) Count. Use HL + Am6c for insurance, HL + 2*(Am6c) for hit/stand hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T and use HL for betting and all other strategy changes . Here are some selected one deck indices derived from Effects of Removal for one deck (from Don Schlesinger's Black Jack Attack, 3rd edition) using Least Squares Line and Proportional Deflection both of which produce identical results. One deck indices for HL, Hi Opt 1, HL + Am6c for insurance and HL + 2*(Am6c) for hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T, CC = Correlation Coefficient. HL + 2*(Am6c) has tag values of + 1 for Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, tag values of zero for 7, 8, 9. and tag value of -1 for 6 and Tens. So Ace are courted as + 1 and sixes as -1 in HL + 2*(Am6c) where Am6c = Ace minus Six count which is what is required for hard 16 v 7, 8, 9 and T. So for example, stand on hard 16 v 9 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 3*dr (2.6 is rounded up to 3) with CC = 83.9% where dr = decks remaining. HL + Am6c is the Gordon count where 2, 3, 4, 5 have tag values of +1 and Tens have a tag value of -1 which is what is used for insurance. Insure if HL + Am6c >= 2*dr for the single deck game One Deck Indices HighLow(HL) CC Hi-Opt 1 CC HL + Am6c CC HL+2*(Am6c) CC Insurance 1.4 78.9% 2.0 85.4% 2.0 85.4% - - hard 16 v T -0.1 54.9% -0.3 63.4% - - -0.5 86.7% hard 16 v 9 4.2 52.9% 3.4 58.3% - - 2.6 83.9% hard 16 v 8 8.8 48.6% 7.3 52.3% - - 5.4 79.2% hard 16 v 7 10.2 37.5% 8.2 41.7% - - 5.4 71.3% Stand on hard 16 v T if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 0, Stand on hard 16 v 9 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 3*dr and Stand on hard 16 v 7 and hard 16 v 8 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 6*dr. Insure if HL + Am6c >= 2*dr and then use HL for all other strategy changes and for betting. dr = decks remaining.

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
In my opinion, people aren't buying your books because they aren't easily digested. I like to think I'm more knowledgeable than most on the subject and I don't follow most of what you write.

We've spoken in person, CM, and unfortunately I understood less of what you were saying than what you've written. I'm happy to call this my shortcoming, not yours, but what you have doesn't seem to be marketable. An average person can be up and running using KO in a couple of days. My concerns aren't something more complicated even if it's more powerful. My concern is finding places to play and get enough money in the table.

What you're doing is impressive but unfortunately that doesn't sell books.

Incidentally, I've only seen your first book. Where can I find the other two?

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I spoke to you before? Then you must have my email and/or phone number. Please email or call me directly as neither my email nor phone number has changed.

I taught my friend Carla the KO with AA89mTc. Carla has no special gifts and is just of average intelligence so if she can do it so can anyone else who is motivated. Carla is not that smart at all but Carla is very motivated to make money so she eastly keeps both KO and AA89mTc and I have checked her multiple tmes and she keeps both counts very well with almost no errors. Any discrepancies between the counts Carla keeps and what I keep, when we are both counting the same table, are differences of one running count point and usually no differences at all - we usually agree exactly. So keeping both counts is very, very, very easy.

Carla keeps both counts in her head and does not have any problem - they are just two integers to keep in your head. You can also use chips to keep AA89mTc if necessary and in the shoe game there is plenty of time to update the AA89mTc and plenty of cancelations. So it is not that hard to use. The theory I can understand others having problems following but not the actual use in the casino which is very, very easy.

When I developed these counts my primacy goal was to make them easy for use in the casino and I believe that I have accomplished that. I had three goals and I believe I have delivered on all three goals. My goals were
(1) Easy of use
(2) Power (as measured by CC of the tag values of the derived count with EoR for each strategic situation)
(3) Accuracy of true count calculations (which is why I like KO with its side counts and pivot of a true count of 4).

Also to check that my spreadsheet gave correct results, I used my spreadsheet to calculate indices for the HL count. The indices calculated from my spreadsheet exactly match published HL indices which gives me more confidence that my calculations in my spreadsheet are correct.

I am sorry to hear that you are having trouble following what I wrote and you are very knowledgeable about blackjack. If you buy my other two books and read them, then let me known if you still have problem following what I wrote. If you read the entire books I think what I wrote should be clearer.

My other books are on Xlibris and Amazon and they can be found by going to those websites and searching for BJANALYST or for the name of my books. Even easier go to any search engine such a google and just google the names of my books or google BJANALYST and they will come up.

The e-books are only \$3 or \$4. So I cannot see that it is the price that is keeping people from buying. Download the PDF version of the e-books as the epub and mobi versions have resolution issues and are blurry and difficult to read.

Here are my books.

(1) KO with Table of Critical Running Counts
(2) KO with 45m79c (I changed my mind and suggest 5m7c instead which is covered in my 3rd book)
(3) KO with 45m79c and AA89mTc (again use 5m7c instead of 45m79c. I cover 5m7c in this book)

My third book also covers Katerina Walker's Spanish 21 where she uses HL which is unbalanced with a true count of 4 since the 10's are out of the Spanish 21 deck and the KO table of critical running counts can be used with Spanish 21 HL. I also use for S17 game brc (betting running count) = S21.HL + (1/2)*(455m8AAc). And I even show additional side counts for Spanish 21.

And the book I am currently working on is High-Low with Plus/Minus side counts which should be on the market in January. I have also included in this 4th book direct comparison of HL with side counts and KO with side counts.

As I mentioned to you before, I suggest HL for the double deck or single deck game where the counts vary greatly, all hands must be played and the true counts are often outside the table of critical running counts. For the shoe game, I suggest KO with its side counts. I personally use KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c which is covered in my 3rd and will also be covered in my 4th book when published. I wrote the Hi Low with plus minus side counts for (1) the double deck and single deck game (2) those players who love he HL and refuse to give up the HL and do not want to learn the KO unbalanced count or the table of critical running counts. As I said for the shoe game I much prefer KO with its side counts but wrote this book because of obstinance of many HL players that I meet who refused to switch to the KO for the shoe game.

Since KO has a pivot of a true count of 4 then errors in calculation of true counts around the true count of 4 where maximum bets are made are totally independent of the decks remaining at KO true count of 4 and at KO true count of 5 are only (1/5)th as sensitive to errors in estimation decks played as the HL and at KO true count of 6 are only (1/3)rd as sensitive to errors in estimating decks played as the HL. Accuracy in true counts at these higher true counts where maximum bets are made is very important and the KO with its side counts delivers! For the KO count, estimation of deck remaining to the nearest full deck is more than adequate. No need to estimate to the nearest half deck and no need for pesky true count conversions with estimation of decks remaining and division estimations - just use the table of critical running counts and no division and greater accuracy at KO true counts of three or greater.

I am using Xlibris to publish my book only. I need to find someone else to market my book as last year, Xlibris paid me total royalties of only \$2 for all of last year. So that means I sold only one book in an entire year? I read online some other negative reviews on Xlibris not paying royalties so for now I am using them only to publish my book.

I am also including Schlesinger's Illustrious 18 using HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc. Note the huge increase in CC. The HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc rivals the Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces and is much easier to use than the Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces. Being plus/minus side counts, the AA78mTc and AA89mTc are exact with no estimation of excess or deficiencies of Aces as is used with the Hi Opt 2 and the HL and KO are level one counts compared to Hi Opt 2 which is a difficult Level 2. count.

I have also included Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces. Be examining Illustrious 18 weighted CC for HL with AA78mTc, KO with AA89mTc and Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces, it can be seen the HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc are just as powerful as Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces and also much, much easier to use.

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by bjanalyst
So keeping both counts is very, very, very easy.
I might agree with this statement, but I would add learning to be able to do both counts at once is not that easy. Once you mastered that skill it should become easy, after enough experience. But not everyone has the drive to get to the point where they can do the count to begin with. People use KO because it is so easy. People that use a multi-level ace neutral count don't care about learning something more difficult. They already made that decision before they went to such a count. You might have better luck with that group of individuals. The potential gain from side counting for playing purposes is traditionally proportional to the playing strength of the main count. But this isn't traditional side counting. Might as well start with a strong ace neutral playing main count and use a combined count for betting and other combined counts for playing. Starting with a strong betting count might avoid some issues that starting with the strong playing count has to deal with. The right combination requires some research. It looks like you have done a lot of research so hopefully you already looked at that.

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
The KO is my primary suggested count for the shoe game that I have been recommending all along. My first book was KO with Table of Critical Running. And I already showed you that the true counts greater than 3 that the KO true count calculations are much more accurate than the HL true count calculations and are less sensitive to errors in estimating decks played than the HL. Just “look up” the true count in the Table of Critical Running Counts. No need for division and estimation of decks remaining to the nearest deck is more than good enough.

So we are both talking about the same thing here – we are both talking about the KO. I and NOT recommending trashing the KO or forgetting everything you know about the KO. To the contrary I have suggested keeping the KO and add to its strength by including the AA89mTc.

I explained in a previous post that I taught my friend Carla how to keep KO count and the AA89mTc. Carla is not very bright at all and she can keep both counts flawlessly. Carla might not be bright but she is motivate to make money! She easily and tirelessly for hours on end keeps two integers in her head, the KO and AA89mTc and she does not make mistakes because I have checked her many times and she was right on. It is VERY easy to do. The AA89mTc when added to the KO also give a perfect Ten count which can be used for the Lucky Ladies bet, insurance, and hit stand hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Carla knew nothing about counting when I meet her and I taught her both the KO and the AA89mTc and she was proficient at both in a matter of a few weeks! It is that easy. It is also extremely powerful (high CC with EoR) and very accurate (give very accurate true counts at true counts of 3 or greater).

Let me clarify again how easy keeping AA89mTc with the KO is and how easy it is to use. I explained how to keep the AA89mTc in a previous post. To use is all you to do is, for a given playing strategy situation, see if KO + k*(AA89mTc) >= crc(Idx) where Idx - index for the playing strategy decision and crc(Idx) is "looked up" in the table of critical running counts with no calculations required and dr estimated to the nearest deck. Then just multiply AA89mTc by "k" and add to KO and compare the sum to crc(Idx) to make your decision. This is as eash as possible. So for example, hard 12 v 2 hit/stand if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n. For n = 6 decks, crc(4) = 24 and so stand on hard 12 v 2 if KO + AA89mTc >= 24. how hard is it to make that decision

If you need to you can use chips for the AA89mTc. There is PLENTY of time in the shoe game to scan updating the AA89mTc to add to the KO. In addition the AA89mTc when added to the KO gives PERFECT insurance decision and insurance is the most important playing strategy variation – take insurance when KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n where n = number of decks.

Also you suggested Ace neutral primary count with side counts. There is really no need for that. By choosing various values of k in KO + k*(AA89mTc) the Ace can be made to have a tag value of -1, 0 or 1 or another tag value that maximizes the absolute value of CC between the tag values of the derived count and the EoR.

Read my previous posts or spend \$4 for my three online books (fourth book coming out) and you will see.

KO with AA89mTc is (1) EASY TO USE (2) POWERFUL (high CC) and (3) ACCURATE (true count calculations).

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by bjanalyst
Also you suggested Ace neutral primary count with side counts.
Actually that is not really what I said. I said with traditional side counts... and pointed out you weren't using a traditional side count. What is best for what you are doing is more random chance depending on how issues are created or solved when using the combined counts with a main count. You are right, it isn't necessary. But one approach or the other will be more effective depending on what combined counts are best overall. Both approaches will have matchups they are better at and matchups they are worse at. I call this chaos random but it really isn't. It is just not predictable without simming both approaches.

Page 2 of 94 First 12341252 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

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