See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 83 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 830

Thread: Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

  1. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Actually using Effects of Removal and Correlation Coefficients with the tag values of the derived counts is more accurate than simulations and three is no "random chaos" in my approach.

    The Effects of Removal were calculated to six decimal places with combinatorial analysis of all possible combinations for that particular situation. The EoR for each card in a given situation are a least squares line estimate but they are still very, very good. These EoR for each situation are listed in Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack 3rd edition. When you do simulations you are going through many, many trials hitting on all of these combinations that have already been taken into account in the EoR. It required a lot of computer power to calculate the EoR to six decimal places for each situation that was only published a few years ago by Don Schlesinger. In Peter Griffins time the EoR were just approximate and to only a few decimal places.

    So to double check that my calculations with the EoR were correct, what I did, as I explained earlier, was that I calculated the indices for HL with my spreadsheet. I tested almost every index I could find for the HL. Over 100 indices as I also checked negative indices. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, the calculated indices from the EoR agreed 100% with the published indices generated from simulations.

    The EoR calculation are very quick and have zero variance as opposed to simulations that require millions and millions of hands. There is no "random chance" here.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-22-2018 at 09:11 PM.

  2. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Actually using Effects of Removal and Correlation Coefficients with the tag values of the derived counts is more accurate than simulations. The Effects of Removal were calculated to six decimal places with combinatorial analysis of all possible combinations for that particular situation.
    Correct...but only for one card removed, not as an average. This will affect your resulting index point when generating them via algebraic analysis.
    The EoR are a least squares line estimate but they are still very, very good. These EoR for each situation are listed in Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack 3rd edition. When you do simulations you are going through many, many trials hitting on all of these combinations that have already been taken into account in the EoR. It required a lot of computer power to calculate the EoR to six decimal places for each situation that was only published a few years ago by Don Schlesinger. In Peter Griffins time the EoR were just approximate and to only a few decimal places.
    Yes, and today, one can build a simulator that is orders of magnitude faster than what Griffin used. Also, I am not aware of any threaded applications that Griffin could have used on the old dinosaurs he worked on. Today, one can build a multi-threaded simulator or even a blazing fast CA (see MGP, Eric Farmer, iCountNtrack, k_c, et al.) Our very own site host has a blazing fast simulator suite!
    So to double check that my calculations with the EoR were correct, what I did, as I explained earlier, was that I calculated the indices for HL with my spreadsheet. I tested almost every index I could find for the HL. Over 100 indices as I also checked negative indices. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, the calculated indices from the EoR agreed 100% with the published indices generated from simulations.
    Did you do this via Monte Carlo simulation or CA? What do you mean by this?
    The EoR calculation are very quick and have zero variance as opposed to simulations that require millions and millions of hands. There is no "random chance" here.
    Again, a CA can help with this. See Farmers CA for an example.

  3. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Don Schlesinger's Effects of Removal (EoR) publishined in his book Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition. were calculated from CA (combinatorial analysis) and that is what I used.
    I welcome critical analysis of my technique and I would like you to try to pull apart my analysis if you can. So I will give you the opportunity to prove me right or wrong now if you can do simulations.

    I would like you to analyze the simplest simulations possible using a canned program you have for HL simulations making only six strategy changes that I will outline below using the AA78mTc. Continue to use the HL for all other strategy changes and for betting. I am asking you to use the HL and not the KO since he HL is balanced and involves less changes and less chances for errors than if you used the KO for example. I want to isolate only these six changes that I will outline below with the HL count.

    Let Tc = pseudo Ten Count = HL + AA78mTc where AA78mTc means the Ace is counts ias + 2, the 7 and 8 as +1 and the Tens as -1.

    Please look at the following attached file:

    HL & AA78mTc.jpg

    You will see that if you calculated Tc = pseudo Ten count = HL + AA78mTc, you get a count which has a CC of over 98% with a perfect Ten count. Now what we will do is use the best of both. Use the HL where the HL is the better count and use the Tc where the Tc is the better count.

    So what I would like you to do then is get a program that simulates the HL and make only the six changes to that program where the Tc is used instead of using the HL. dr = decks remaining.

    (1) Insure if Tc = HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

    (2) Stand on hard 12 v 2 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

    (3) Stand on hard 12 v 3 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 2*dr

    (4) Stand on hard 12 v 4 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 0

    (5) Stand on hard 12 v 5 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= (-2)*dr

    (6) Stand on hard 12 v 6 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= (-1)*dr

    Make ONLY the above six changes in your HL simulation program. Continue to use the HL for betting and for all other playing strategy variations.

    Then compare the results of the HL with these six changes with the HL alone and let me know what happens.

    What you are doing is choosing to use the best count for each situation. You use the Tc where the Tc works best which is for insurance and for standing on hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. You use the HL where the HL count is best which is for all other situations. Actually there are other situations where the AA78mTc improves the HL but the six I mentioned above are the most important and I want to make the simulation as simple as possible with making the minimum number of changes to prove my point and reduce the chance for errors by making only six small changes to a proven HL program.

    So run the program with just the HL and then run the same program with the AA78mTc used with the HL for the six situations mentioned above and the HL for all other situations and for betting.

    I want you to try to prove me wrong. Please let me know what happens.

    I do not have access to simulations but if you do why don't you test this very simple simulation. I want to be proven right or wrong through simulations.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-22-2018 at 09:57 PM.

  4. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Don Schlesinger's Effects of Removal (EoR) publishined in his book Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition. were calculated from CA (combinatorial analysis) and that is what I used.
    I welcome critical analysis of my technique and I would like you to try to pull apart my analysis if you can. So I will give you the opportunity to prove me right or wrong now if you can do simulations.
    Not here to prove anything. You seems to be invested in your idea and am curious how you came about this project.
    I would like you to analyze the simplest simulations possible using a canned program you have for HL simulations making only six strategy changes that I will outline below using the AA78mTc. Continue to use the HL for all other strategy changes and for betting. I am asking you to use the HL and not the KO since he HL is balanced and involves less changes and less chances for errors than if you used the KO for example. I want to isolate only these six changes that I will outline below with the HL count.

    Let Tc = pseudo Ten Count = HL + AA78mTc where AA78mTc means the Ace is counts ias + 2, the 7 and 8 as +1 and the Tens as -1.

    Please look at the following attached file:

    HL & AA78mTc.jpg

    You will see that if you calculated Tc = pseudo Ten count = HL + AA78mTc, you get a count which has a CC of over 98% with a perfect Ten count. Now what we will do is use the best of both. Use the HL where the HL is the better count and use the Tc where the Tc is the better count.

    So what I would like you to do then is get a program that simulates the HL and make only the six changes to that program where the Tc is used instead of using the HL. dr = decks remaining.

    (1) Insure if Tc = HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

    (2) Stand on hard 12 v 2 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

    (3) Stand on hard 12 v 3 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 2*dr

    (4) Stand on hard 12 v 4 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 0

    (5) Stand on hard 12 v 5 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= (-2)*dr

    (6) Stand on hard 12 v 6 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= (-1)*dr

    Make ONLY the above six changes in your HL simulation program. Continue to use the HL for betting and for all other playing strategy variations.

    Then compare the results of the HL with these six changes with the HL alone and let me know what happens.
    Interesting! Unfortunately, I don't have access to a current simulator at this time. I would imagine that you would have done some sim work for your system before publishing you finding. Maybe something to consider? Would be interesting to include sim data for your fourth book. An idea?
    What you are doing is choosing to use the best count for each situation. You use the Tc where the Tc works best which is for insurance and for standing on hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. You use the HL where the HL count is best which is for all other situations. Actually there are other situations where the AA78mTc improves the HL but the six I mentioned above are the most important and I want to make the simulation as simple as possible with making the minimum number of changes to prove my point and reduce the chance for errors by making only six small changes to a proven HL program.

    So run the program with just the HL and then run the same program with the AA78mTc used with the HL for the six situations mentioned above and the HL for all other situations and for betting.

    I want you to try to prove me wrong. Please let me know what happens.

    I do not have access to simulations but if you do why don't you test this very simple simulation. I want to be proven right or wrong through simulations.
    This above quote suggests that I have struck a nerve with you. Did I offend you in any way?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,350


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Don Schlesinger's Effects of Removal (EoR) publishined in his book Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition. were calculated from CA (combinatorial analysis) and that is what I used.
    Dog's point is EoR's are squishy. You are using full deck EoR's. After one card is removed they change ever so slightly. After a few decks are removed they may change a lot more than that depending on the cards removed. So your calculations are based on an assumption you know to be wrong. That is the full deck EoR's don't change as cards are removed. As cards are removed the algebraic method continues to use the same EoRs. More accurate calculations are made via sim for the different TCs. I don't think it makes a lot of difference until it does. But those deck compositions may be rare. Accuracy is about being closer to the estimates used from sim or any other method. The higher the standard deviation around the average the less accurate the average is for every calculation you use. The squishy EoR's are one cause of inaccuracy using the method you used. No method is 100% accurate but some are more accurate than others. The more accurate your averages are the higher you can bet when everything else is kept the same (RoR, BR, spread, etc). A measure of how much more accurate your system gets you can be seen by comparing optimal bets for the same spread, BR, RoR, etc. If it is more accurate you should have a higher min bet and max bet for the same spread, BR, RoR, etc as generated as optimal bets for approaches being compared by a simulation. Don's EoRs are great and our only starting point, but they aren't a constant throughout the shoe.

  6. #26


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    No, You did not offend me. I like challenges and I want my calculations to be correct of course. Actually I am glad that you are challenging and questioning my results instead of blinding taking what I say at face value. I want to know the truth and if I made a mistake I would like to know.

    You say EoR are "squishy". But Don Schlesinger's has EoR to six significant digits. If they were that "squishy" then why calculate to six significant digits?

    I do not have access to any simulations. I was hoping you did. Plus I would like independent verification of my work. Even if I had simulation software I should not be trying to prove my own work. My work should be independently verified.

    Even though I do not have actual simulations of HL using Tc = HL + AA78mTc for the six situations mentioned previously, I do have indirect simulation verification in that I used my LSL program to calculate indices for the HL and the indices generated from my LSL program exactly match the published HL indices obtained through simulations. Every index that I tested with my LSL program agreed with published indices. My LSL program gave correct results for dozens of cases and I did not find one case that disagreed with the published HL indices. Thus I am very confident that my results are correct.

    Another indication that my LSL program is correct is that I calculated weighted CC (which shows playing efficiency) for various counts such as HL, KO, Hi Opt 1, Hi Opt 2 and more and as expected weighted CC of Hi Opt 2 was the highest which was higher than Hi Opt 1 which was higher than KO which was higher than HL which are the same results obtained through simulations.

    So basically, I have not found a single situation where results from my LSL program disagree with published results for known counts.

    Based on my calculations presented earlier that showed that the weighted CC of the HL + k*(AA78mTc) are approximately equal to the weighted CC of Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces, my guess is that simulations would show that the HL + k*(AA78mTc) has approximately the same power as Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces.

    I have heard that with less then one deck remaining, strange things happen and non-linearity may set in so you may be correct that there are some errors in EoR with less than one deck remaining. But I play the shoe game and the dealers all cut off alt least one deck. So for the shoe game with the cut card at one deck or more, the linearity of the EoR is a very good approximation. Also it should be noted that the insurance bet is the one blackjack bet that is totally linear and insurance is the most important playing strategy variation which is improved by using Tc = HL + AA78mTc. .

    If someone could plug in the six changes I mentioned previously into a canned HL simulation program using Tc instead of HL only for those six situations that would be great. Such a sim should show a substantial improvement. The CC of Tc = HL + AA78mTc with EoR for those six situations are of the order of 20% to 30% more than the CC of HL with EoR for those situations. The differences are big and should show up in simulations.

    If you know anyone who has simulation software and they can run a HL simulation with just these six changes and compare it with a HL simulation with no changes that would be great. I would like to see the results at which point we can see who is correct and if the differences you point out are significant or not. I think the huge increase in CC for these six situations will overwhelm any "errors" that you mentioned above.

    Below are calculations of indices for doubling on hard 9 v 2 that I gave before. I am listing it again to address one of the points that you made and to show you clearly how I calculated indices.. For a given playing strategy situation let EoR(c) = EoR for card 'c" removed from one deck. Then there are 51 cards remaining. This is how the one deck EoR was calculated for each playing strategy situation. So what I did was calculate the slope of the LSL between EoR and the tag values of he derived count. Then I calculate AACpTCp = Average Advantage Change per True Count point as AACpTCp = (51/52)*(LSL slope). Then I calculated Index as Full Deck House Advantage (FHDA) / AACpTCp to get the infinite deck index. As the CC increases the difference in indices between different number of decks decreases and they all converge to the infinite deck indices.

    But if you can provide simulations for the above six situations I mentioned that would be great. I would be very interested in the results.

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-23-2018 at 06:43 AM. Reason: redoing post to be clearer

  7. #27
    Senior Member Stealth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    1,830


    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!

  8. #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.

  9. #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 11:46 AM.

  10. #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 .

Page 3 of 83 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Adding AA78mTc to High Low
    By bjanalyst in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-19-2018, 09:26 AM
  2. High Edge Side Bets
    By knoxstrong in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-26-2018, 02:38 PM
  3. Betting side bet lucky ladies on High Counts?
    By Tenlavuu in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2018, 06:24 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.