Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

I have never met someone who dogged determination not to change your attitude when the simulations show that you are

Show that a your systems outperforms Hi-OPT II with ASC or shut up!!!

You are with without reading my posts. I said over and over and over again that HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c was NOT my selected count. My selected count involved the KO. There are no canned KO programs. I was not going to drive Gronbog crazing making a whole new sim program with the KO as the base count. So I used as a proxy HL and modified he HL count with AA78mTc and 5m6c. The HL was NEVER my choice for the base count to beat the HL. I also showed that only playing strategy was change. There was no attempt to change the HL to improve betting . BC of HL for S17, DAS, No LS game of 96.48%, BC of HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) is 97.38% BC of HO2 - 2*Adef BC is 98.45%. If HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) were used for betting instead of using HL then this HL system would have been improved further. Would it have then beaten HO2 with ASC, probably note as the BC was still over 1% below HO2 - 2*(Adef), but it would have been closer.

But back to my point. This HL system was used because there was not bask KO sim program to modify and to created a KO sim program would have been just too much work.

So the sims showed improvement with each new layer of strategy change to HL. So my calculations are correct. But we know it is because of HO2 w ASC BE being almost 2% higher than HL which was used unadjusted for betting in these simulations is why my system lost to the HO2 with ASC. For the shoe game betting iv VEFRY important.

So you mention that my system lost the sims you are only paritclaly correct. The sims shows that HL system that was simulated which was not my chosen system lost to HO2 with ASC.

But HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c was NEVER my selected count.

Please re-read my posts closely. My selected count was KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.

My selected KO count system was NEVER simulated.

But if you read a post I had with 5 exhibits on KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c I showed that the HL system deficiencies do not exist with the KO system. The CC of this KO system beat the majority of the HO2 w ASC CC for individual playing strategy variation and beat some important decisions by a large margin. And the BC of KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) also beat HO2 - 2*(Adef).

So my selected KO system which was my choice from day one, was never, evet simulated because it is too hard to make a base KO sim program.

So you can say that the tested HL system lost to the HO2 with ASC but you cannot say that my selected system that was never simulated lost to the HO2 with ASC.

So my statement is untested that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC because it is too difficult to simulate the KO count. There were no simulations to prove that my selected KO system underperformed HO2 with ASC so you cannot say that simulations proved that I was wrong with my selected KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c system.

[seriousplayer]

I have never met someone who dogged determination not to change your attitude when the simulations show that you are

Show that a your systems outperforms Hi-OPT II with ASC or shut up!!!

You are with without reading my posts. I said over and over and over again that HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c was NOT my selected count. My selected count involved the KO. There are no canned KO programs. I was not going to drive Gronbog crazing making a whole new sim program with the KO as the base count. So I used as a proxy HL and modified he HL count with AA78mTc and 5m6c. The HL was NEVER my choice for the base count to beat the HL. I also showed that only playing strategy was change. There was no attempt to change the HL to improve betting . BC of HL for S17, DAS, No LS game of 96.48%, BC of HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) is 97.38% BC of HO2 - 2*Adef BC is 98.45%. If HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) were used for betting instead of using HL then this HL system would have been improved further. Would it have then beaten HO2 with ASC, probably note as the BC was still over 1% below HO2 - 2*(Adef), but it would have been closer.

But back to my point. This HL system was used because there was not bask KO sim program to modify and to created a KO sim program would have been just too much work.

So the sims showed improvement with each new layer of strategy change to HL. So my calculations are correct. But we know it is because of HO2 w ASC BE being almost 2% higher than HL which was used unadjusted for betting in these simulations is why my system lost to the HO2 with ASC. For the shoe game betting iv VEFRY important.

So you mention that my system lost the sims you are only paritclaly correct. The sims shows that HL system that was simulated which was not my chosen system lost to HO2 with ASC.

But HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c was NEVER my selected count.

Please re-read my posts closely. My selected count was KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.

My selected KO count system was NEVER simulated.

But if you read a post I had with 5 exhibits on KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c I showed that the HL system deficiencies do not exist with the KO system. The CC of this KO system beat the majority of the HO2 w ASC CC for individual playing strategy variation and beat some important decisions by a large margin. And the BC of KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) also beat HO2 - 2*(Adef).

So my selected KO system which was my choice from day one, was never, evet simulated because it is too hard to make a base KO sim program.

So you can say that the tested HL system lost to the HO2 with ASC but you cannot say that my selected system that was never simulated lost to the HO2 with ASC.

So my statement is untested that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC because it is too difficult to simulate the KO count. There were no simulations to prove that my selected KO system underperformed HO2 with ASC so you cannot say that simulations proved that I was wrong with my selected KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c system.

In the same sense that you can't say KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC. It goes both ways. The simulation didn't prove that you are right, also. So you are making baseless claims once again. I suggest you take off the statement that KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC from your book. Otherwise, is false information.

[Three]

I have shown that the BC of HO2 with ASC is almost 2% better than HL. Thus HL lost because of betting efficiencies, period and there was no attempt to increased HL betting efficiency. If brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) were used for betting then BC would have increased (but still below HO2 - 2*(Adef)) and the results would have been even closer to HO2 with ASC.

You really don't understand BJ at all. I am done trying to help you. I gave very specific information to help you understand in short posts.I read some of your early posts but not much after that. I would read far enough to realize you hadn't learned anything yet. Now you have all these sim results to learn from and you still can't learn anything yet. Experienced players knew your claims were overblown because they could see you didn't understand things.

I suggest you stop trying to make things fit your delusions and try to learn from the results you now have. Gronbog ran some 2 count system sims for me a long time ago thinking the results would likely show not much gain. But that sim showed I was underestimating things which surprise both of us. You can develop something worthwhile using the approach but you started in the wrong direction and can't seem to understand where you need to go. What APs care about is SCORE. That is increasing the ratio of EV squared to variance. Increasing EV or reducing variance increases SCORE. Figuring out how to do both at once really increases SCORE. If you understand BJ enough to know how to do both, you should be able to figure out a two count system that does both. From what I see that means starting over and doing it with the guidance of sim results. You can increase EV with more accurate betting (not higher BC) and a little by more accurate play. Both help reduce variance but also increase optimal bet which increases variance. How you use surrender, RA insurance, and being more patient on making slow to gain EV doubles and splits decreases variance more significantly than the decrease in EV squared. Plus you can bet more with the same RoR and get the lost EV back. If you research and understand these things you will understand how to build a 2 count system that some may feel is worth the added difficulty to do.

[bjanalyst]

In the same sense that you can't say KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC. It goes both ways. The simulation didn't prove that you are right, also. So you are making baseless claims once again. I suggest you take off the statement that KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC from your book. Otherwise, is false information.

The simulations proved that my LSL programproduced correct CC, indices and values of k. I chose the values of k themaximized the CC of the tag values of the derived count and the calculated theindex for that derived count. I compared the derived count CC of the I18 to theHO2 I18 and I showed that HL with AA78mTcc and 5m6c beat 14 out the 18 CC, tiedone and lost 3 against the HO2 with ASC so HL with AA78mTc with 5m6c had a higher BE that HO2 with ASC but it lost because HL had a 2% lower BE than HO2with ASC.

Each time an extra layer of changes were made withAA78mTc and 5m6c the SCORE improved. So what the simulations showed is that myLSL calculations of k and the indices were correct. If they were not the SCOREwould not have improved.

And I did not say that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beat the HO2 with ASC. I said it was UNTEST. Here is exactly what I said:

"So my statement is untested that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC because it is too difficult to simulate the KO count."

I showed that the BC of KO + (1/2)*(5m6c) beat HO2 with ASC and the CC of KO, AA89mTc and 5m7c beat the CC of HO2 with ASC in the majority of cases and sometime by substantial amounts. This would INDICATE that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC. But again this is UNTESTED which is what I said!

I said INDICATE, I did not say PROVE and I said UNTESTED.. So let me make my statement a little clearer.

So based on BC and CC of individual playing situations, INDICATIONS are KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC. But there is currently NO PROOF that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC as KO with AA89mtC and 5m7c is UNTESTED as NO SIMIULATIONS were done on KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.

I hope this makes my statement clearer.

[seriousplayer]

The simulations proved that my LSL programproduced correct CC, indices and values of k. I chose the values of k themaximized the CC of the tag values of the derived count and the calculated theindex for that derived count. I compared the derived count CC of the I18 to theHO2 I18 and I showed that HL with AA78mTcc and 5m6c beat 14 out the 18 CC, tiedone and lost 3 against the HO2 with ASC so HL with AA78mTc with 5m6c had a higher BE that HO2 with ASC but it lost because HL had a 2% lower BE than HO2with ASC.

Each time an extra layer of changes were made withAA78mTc and 5m6c the SCORE improved. So what the simulations showed is that myLSL calculations of k and the indices were correct. If they were not the SCOREwould not have improved.

And I did not say that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beat the HO2 with ASC. I said it was UNTEST. Here is exactly what I said:

"So my statement is untested that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC because it is too difficult to simulate the KO count."

I showed that the BC of KO + (1/2)*(5m6c) beat HO2 with ASC and the CC of KO, AA89mTc and 5m7c beat the CC of HO2 with ASC in the majority of cases and sometime by substantial amounts. This would INDICATE that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC. But again this is UNTESTED which is what I said!

I said INDICATE, I did not say PROVE and I said UNTESTED.. So let me make my statement a little clearer.

So based on BC and CC of individual playing situations, INDICATIONS are KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC. But there is currently NO PROOF that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC as KO with AA89mtC and 5m7c is UNTESTED as NO SIMIULATIONS were done on KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.

I hope this makes my statement clearer.

The same old post as before. Don't you have anything new to post??

I showed that the BC of KO + (1/2)*(5m6c) beat HO2 with ASC and the CC of KO, AA89mTc and 5m7c beat the CC of HO2 with ASC in the majority of cases and sometime by substantial amounts. This would INDICATE that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC. But again this is UNTESTED which is what I said!

It doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that it is going to outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC in terms of SCORE.

Your approach for KO with AA89mTc is the same as Hi-Lo with AA78mTc. Even if simulations were done on the KO with AA89mTc I suspect that the results is not going to be significant compare to Hi-lo with AA78mTc. The results might be the same as HL with AA78mTc and might not outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC. Like Three said you went in the wrong direction.

[bjanalyst]

The same old post as before. Don't you have anything new to post??
.

I mentioned previously that I do not like repeating myself but I also said that I respectfully answer questions that are asked of me even if I answered the question before. So this player asked me a question and said that I said that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beat HO2 with ASC and that is not what I said, If he had read my previous posts carefully, he would have seen that I said it was UNTESTED. So I had to repeat myself to answer his questions and make it clear what I actually said.

I realized others got what I said first time without me having to repeat myself but out of courtesy to this player who did not understand what I said the first time I repeated myself to make it clear what I said.

[seriousplayer]

I mentioned previously that I do not like repeating myself but I also said that I respectfully answer questions that are asked of me even if I answered the question before. So this player asked me a question and said that I said that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beat HO2 with ASC and that is not what I said, If he had read my previous posts carefully, he would have seen that I said it was UNTESTED. So I had to repeat myself to answer his questions and make it clear what I actually said.

I realized others got what I said first time without me having to repeat myself but out of courtesy to this player who did not understand what I said the first time I repeated myself to make it clear what I said.

Refer back to post # 460.

[lij45o6]

I mentioned previously that I do not like repeating myself

Then don't!

but I also said that I respectfully answer questions that are asked of me even if I answered the question before. So this player asked me a question and said that I said that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beat HO2 with ASC and that is not what I said

On 27 January 2019, you posted (post #449):

So I know why HL with AA78mTc and Sm6c underperformed HO2 with ASC. However, I have also shown that both PE and BE of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c outperforms HO2 with ASC which would lead to the conclusion that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c should have a higher SCORE than HO2 with ASC. And if LS is offered, KO system beats EVERY single lHO2 with ASC Late Surrender decision and also the BC gape of KO system of HO2 system increases form 0.67% when there is no LS to 1.06% when LS is offered. So if LS is offered KO system will perform even better when compared to HO2 with ASC.

Emphasis mine. A lie told by you.

If he had read my previous posts carefully, he would have seen that I said it was UNTESTED. So I had to repeat myself to answer his questions and make it clear what I actually said.

I realized others got what I said first time without me having to repeat myself but out of courtesy to this player who did not understand what I said the first time I repeated myself to make it clear what I said.

Yes, and seriousplayer accurately and correctly indicated that it will still be less than that of HOII w/ ASC, much as your High Low w/ AA78vT and 5v6 SC failed to beat HOII in that regard.

Again, please stop.

[Midwest Player]

Okay, thread is now over the 13,000 view mark. I suggest once the 14,000 mark is reached anymore posts be put on BJ21 free forum where "bjanalyst" also posted the same post and didn't get a single reply.

https://bj21.com/boards/free/sub_boa...?page=1#unread

[BJGenius007]

Okay, thread is now over the 13,000 view mark. I suggest once the 14,000 mark is reached anymore posts be put on BJ21 free forum where "bjanalyst" also posted the same post and didn't get a single reply.

https://bj21.com/boards/free/sub_boa...?page=1#unread

We are too easy.

[bjanalyst]

Here is a simplified chart using just KO and 5m7c for players mainliy concerned with betting accuracy. There are also a bunch of free playing strtategy changes with the 5m7c.

So if you do not wnat to keep AA89mTc and 5m7c with KO and just keep 5m7c with KO then use this chart.
KO & 5m7c.jpg

[bjanalyst]

Okay, thread is now over the 13,000 view mark. I suggest once the 14,000 mark is reached anymore posts be put on BJ21 free forum where "bjanalyst" also posted the same post and didn't get a single reply.

https://bj21.com/boards/free/sub_boa...?page=1#unread

So I posted on both Bj21 and this site. So what? What is your point?

I started getting replies on tihs site so that is the only site I bothered following up with. I wasn't going to follow up on two sites. One is enough.

[bjanalyst]

Yes, and seriousplayer accurately and correctly indicated that it will still be less than that of HOII w/ ASC, much as your High Low w/ AA78vT and 5v6 SC failed to beat HOII in that regard.

By the way it is 5m6c not 5v6. The "m" stands for minus and the "c" stands for count.

Serious player doesn't know what KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c would do and neither do you. So he correctly predicted HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c but that was NEVER my recommend count - that was used because it was easier to simulate with changes to a canned HL sim program than create a KO sim program. And I explained the reason HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c underperformed Ho2 with ASC was because there was no adjustment made to improve HL betting.

And predicting that my first system, or any system for that matter, would underperform the HO2 with ASC is not some great prediction. Gronbog told me that for years people have been trying to get a system better than HO2 with ASC but to the best of his knowledge no one has succeeded. So it is easy to predict a system will underperform the HO2 with ASC because every other system tried to date has underperformed the HO2 with ASC.

You ask that I do not repeat myself then stop asking the same questions or make the same remarks over and over again that I explained ten times before.

I also asked for constructive criticism with PROOF or at least a solid BASIS for your claim. You gave no proof nor even any basis to say that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c would underperform HO2 with ASC. It is just a GUESS on your part.

On the other hand although I do not have proof, I have a SOLID BASIS to believe that that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c should outperform HO2 with ASC. My basis is that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c has a higher BC that HO2 with ASC and higher CC for the majority of playing strategy changes than the corresponding CC of HO2 with ASC. So I have addressed the shortfall of HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c betting efficiency and also showed many CC improvements.

When LS if offered KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC on EVERY SINGLE surrender decision. Also the difference in the BC of KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) and HO2 - 2*(Adef) increases from 0.67% to 1.06% putting KO with 5m7c over HO2 with ASC at an even greater betting advantage when LS is offered than when no LS is offered.