Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

KO + AA89mTc +5m7c = 3 components
Hi-OPT II + ASC = 2 components
It is losing battle for KO + AA89mTc +5m7c because you need more effort to achieve the same results. You have to do more work with KO + AA89mTc +5m7c vs Hi-OPT + ASC. This shows that Hi-OPT + ASC is more efficient compare to KO + AA89mTc +5m7c or vice versa.

If you do not like it then do NOT use it!

And the conclusion is not that this system is too difficult. The conclusion is that system is too difficult for YOU.

Also read my reply to Tarzan in the previous post. The KO with AA89mTc and m7c was never simulated but I have solid ground and evidence to believe that it will outperform the HO2 with ASC.

I consider the HO2 with ASC extremely difficult.

Note that unlike you I said "I consider" the HO2 with ASC extremely difficult whereas you made a flat statement that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c was too difficult. You need to rephrase it by saying "KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c is too difficult for ME"

[seriousplayer]

If you do not like it then do NOT use it!

And the conclusion is not that this system is too difficult. The conclusion is that system is too difficult for YOU.

Also read my reply to Tarzan in the previous post. The KO with AA89mTc and m7c was never simulated but I have solid ground and evidence to believe that it will outperform the HO2 with ASC.

I consider the HO2 with ASC extremely difficult.

Note that unlike you I said "I consider" the HO2 with ASC extremely difficult whereas you made a flat statement that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c was too difficult. You need to rephrase it by saying "KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c is too difficult for ME"

Yes, the system is difficult and no it is not too difficult for me.

[bjanalyst]

You want to repeat? Here is my response:

KO + AA89mTc +5m7c = Primary count + secondary count + secondary count

might beat Hi-OPT II + ASC = Primary count + Ace side count.

KO + AA89mTc +5m7c = 3 components
Hi-OPT II + ASC = 2 components
It is losing battle for KO + AA89mTc +5m7c because you need more effort to achieve the same results. You have to do more work with KO + AA89mTc +5m7c vs Hi-OPT + ASC. This shows that Hi-OPT + ASC is more efficient compare to KO + AA89mTc +5m7c.

OK that is better. You admit that you still do not know if it will beat HO2 with ASC and you mention facts that is has two side counts whereas HO2 has one side count. Very good.

However you fail to mention that the priimary count, HO2, is a complicated level two count whereas my primary count is the level one KO and the ASC is an ESTIMATE because dp are estimated whereas the XmYc side counts are EXACT as there is no dp that need to be estimated. Also the KO gives much more accurate true count calculations at true count greater than 3 where large bets are being made so accuracy is very important.

So you have pluses and minuses

HO2 w ASC one LEVEL 2 primary count with one side count. Adef is an ESTIMATE. Also the HO2 counts many cards with a tag value of +2 or -2 and then a bunch of cards with tags values of +1 which I think makes it very difficult to keep.

KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c has two side counts. But AA89mTc and 5m7c are EXACT. Also much more accurate TC calculations for tc > 3 so much more accurate playing and betting decisions when large bets are being made. Although AA89mTc is technically a level 2 count, it is still very eary to keep as it counts only one rank, the Ace, as +2.

So the KO system gives more ACCURATE betting and playing strategy decisions than the HO2 with ASC. That is a big plus. And it is also probably theoretically stronger than the HO2 with ASC for the no LS game and for the LS game it beats EVERY SINGLE LATE SURRENDER decision and the BC over the HO2 with ASC increases even more with the LS game.

So the evidence reveals that most likely the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC for the no LS game and almost certainly beats HO2 with ASC for the LS game.

[seriousplayer]

So the KO system gives more ACCURATE betting and playing strategy decisions than the HO2 with ASC. That is a big plus. And it is also probably theoretically stronger than the HO2 with ASC for the no LS game and for the LS game it beats EVERY SINGEL LATE SURRENDER decision and the BC over the HO2 with ASC increase even more with the LS game.

So the evidence revels that most likely the KO with AA89mTc and 5mc7 beats HO2 with ASC for the no LS game and almost certainly beats HO2 with ASC for the LS game.

Simulation results needed.

HO2 w ASC one LEVEL 2 primary count with one side counts. Adef is an ESTIMATE. Also the HO2 counts many cards with a tag value of +2 or -2

So! It is still easier than your count system.

[bjanalyst]

Here is how I chose my system. I liked the KO for the shoe game because it was unbalanced and has excellent true counts accuracy for true counts >= 3.

But I realized PE and BE had to be increased.

So I first looked for a count to increased BE. I found that the 45m79c worked bets and that KO + (1/2)*(45m79c) gave excellent BE. But 45m79c is too complicated and if you replace 45m79c with 5m7c you lose vey little in BE using KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) and 5m7c is much simpler count. So I chose 5m7c to improve BE. And as a side benefit, there are also playing strategy gains using KO + k*(5m7c) which you get for free. So 5m7c was the count I chose to increase BE.

Then I wanted to improve PE. The impost important playing decision is insurance. So I looked for a count to add the KO to improve the insurance decision. Adding AA89mTc to the KO gave perfect insurance. So I chose AA89mTc as the count to increased PE and there were other playing strategy changes that AA89mTc helped with.

So now you know how I chose those counts. They did not come out of thin air.

I will put the summary of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c with simplified formulas below. I have given these before but now I am will them all in one place for you convenience.

Do not try to learn both counts at once. Learn one at a time.

Maybe learn just the KO with 5m7c first as 5m7c is very easy to keep and helps with betting. And you will also get a feel for keeping plus minus side counts.

Then after 5m7c is mastered you can add AA89mTc.

I play blackjack to bet the LL and I back count with Carla and we keep KO and AA89mTc (for LL bet) and call each other over (six deck game) when either KO >= 24 or LLc = KO + AA89mTc >= 24. The LL has huge advantage and we are betting only $15 on as many hands of blackjack as possible and $5 to $25 on LL where we bet $5 on LL when 24 < LLc < 30 and start increasing LL bet up to $25 if winning when LLc > 30. So we are betting essentially equal amounts on blackjack and LL and our average advantage since LLc advanced is large is still very large. So using 5m7c to improve blackjack for the way we bet and the small amounts we bet is not that important (unless blazing 7's is offered where 5m7c can also help with blazing 7's bet). But if you are playing pure blackjack you want to keep both 5m7c and AA89mTc.

So I hope that this summary below helps and especially look at the formula simplifications to make using these counts simpler.
KO & 5m7c.jpg
[ATTACH]3487[/ATTACH]
KO & 5m7c & AA89mTc (1).jpg
KO & 5m7c & AA89mTc (2).jpg

[bjanalyst]

Simulation results needed.

The HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c was chosen for simulation because there are canned HL programs which were easily modified to add these side counts.

There are no canned KO programs available so if KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c were to be simulated you would first have to make and test a base KO sim program and then add the side counts to this base KO program. That is a lot of work and Gronbog is too busy for that.

I will attach the balanced version of the KO count from my first book KO with Table of Critical Running Counts. Probably the easiest way to make a base KO sim program would be to get a canned HL program and replace the HL tags with the tag values of the balanced version of the KO count and add the KO indices (which are very close to the HL indices). By using the balanced version of the KO count the routines in the sim program that assume a balanced count for true count calculations could still be used. In the appendix of my first book KO with Table of Critical Running counts I list the KO indices for the six deck game. Those indices would have to be put into the HL program and the HL tag values replaced with the KO balanced tag values as I described earlier. Then this would have to be thoroughly tests and this just gives the base KO program which would then have to be modified with the side counts.

So you can see that doing simulations of the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c is out of the question because there is just too much work involved.

02b KO balanced (1).jpg
02b KO balanced (2).jpg
02 KO six deck indices (1).jpg
02 KO six deck indices (2).jpg

[seriousplayer]

There are no canned KO programs available so if KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c were to be simulated you would first have to make and test a base KO sim program and then add the side counts to this base KO program. That is a lot of work and Gronbog is too busy for that.

You got to stop posting false information. Gronbog already said it is not true he doesn't use canned Hi-lo to do the simulation. Again, you got to stop speaking for him. I hope you don't put that in book because it is false information. It is a disgrace saying things for other people that is not true.

[refinery]

You got to stop posting false information. Gronbog already said it is not true he doesn't use canned Hi-lo to do the simulation. Again, you got to stop speaking for him. I hope you don't put that in book because it is false information. It is a disgrace saying things for other people that is not true.

I'm too tired of this conversation to check but I thought Gronbog said he was going to do KO since it's already all set up. Either way it doesn't matter. The effort for such little gain makes this count not worthwhile. I kept an open mind but we're not going to see magical results using KO either.

You were fortunate to get Gronbog to assist but have been very disrespectful to him in this thread.

Someone please, make it stop!!

[bjanalyst]

Yougot to stop posting false information. Gronbog already said it is not true hedoesn't use canned Hi-lo to do the simulation. Again, you got to stop speakingfor him. I hope you don't put that in book because it is false information. Itis a disgrace saying things for other people that is not true.

I am not sure how Gronbog does his sims, that is true. But he did tell me he modified a HL program he had to put in plus minus counts. Whatever the situation is, Gronbog is too busy to do a sim on KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c. And anything that I would put in a book referencing Gronbog's work I would run it by him and get his OK to publish his results. I would never publish anything Gronbog did without his specific approval. I would also get Gronbog’s approval of any write-up I did on his results and give him credit for doing the sims of course.

Now as to what I do know of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c short of doing sims to compare to HO2 with ASC.

First, sims only show POWER.

There were four criteria I used in choosing a count system. Power is only one of the four criteria.

(1) Simple to use.
I know I have gotten a lot of feedback saying that my system is difficult to use. If the index is over 7 or 8 for example, it is far off the table of critical running counts and hard to calculate. So for those instances where the index is high (because of high values of k1 or k2 in psrc = KO +k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) - note the high values of k1 and/or k2 increase SD so psrc can hit these "high" indices) then use the simplification formula that I showed in my charts with chips for KO & 5m7c and KO &AA89mTc – look at those posted charts for derivations of the simplification formulas. With those simplification formulas my KO system is simplified for easy casino use where you are now doing simple multiplication and addition of integers and comparing the results of a third integer.

(2) Power
This is measured ideally by simulations, In the absence of simulations then use Betting Correlations and CC comparisons of individual plays between the counts being compared.

(3) Accuracy
Accuracy at true counts > 3 and accuracy of side counts. XmYc are EXACT whereas Xdef are APPROXIMATE because Xdef relies on estimating dp in its calculation. Also KO pivot of a true count of 4 gives very accurate true counts around the pivot, much more accurate than the balanced HO2.

(4) Camouflage
I have covered camouflage plays in previous posts so I will not repeat them here.

So in the absence of simulations of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c comparing to HO2 with ASC I am attaching files showing a comparison of BC and CC of individual playing strategies for S17, DAS and no LS.

For LS there is no need to do any comparisons as the KO system beats the HO2 system for EVERY SINGLE LS decision and the BC using LS EoR further increases the KO BC over the HO2 system CC from the no LS EoR. So if LS is offered there is not much to compare as KO system beats HO2 system in very situation.
KO vs HO2 system comparisons (1).jpg
KO vs HO2 system comparisons (2).jpg
KO vs HO2 system comparisons (3).jpg
KO AA89mTc 5m7c vs HO2 ASC I18.jpg

[Stealth]

Is it not time for this to stop................?

[bjanalyst]

Is it not time for this to stop................?

People are still interested if KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC. The answer is still outstanding and that is why this post is still going.

Sims are needed to answer the question definitively. But in the absence of sims I gave BC and CC of individual plays which would indicate that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 with ASC and if LS is offered, almost certainly beats HO2 with ASC.

Gronbog will have some answers soon in one last sim he has agreed to do.

As you are aware if you have been reading these posts, HO2 with ASC beat HL with AA78mTC and 5m6c. I have stated the PE of the HL system beat HO2 system but the HO2 - 2*(Adef) has a higher BC than HL and HL unadjusted was used for betting in the HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c simulations. So I asked Gronbog and he agreed to add brc = betting running count = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) and use brc instead of HL for betting in the HL system he simulated.

Here are the BC of HL, HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) and HO2 - 2*(Adef) for S17, DAS, no LS

HL		96.48%
HL + (1/3)*(5m6c)		97.38%
HO2 - 2*(Adef)		98.45%

So as you can see, adding 5m6c to HL for betting closes the BC gap between HL and HO2 - 2*(Adef) by almost half.

So I would expect this last sim with 5m6c used for betting would close the gap between the HL system and HO2 system even further. The HO2 will most likely still outperform the HL system because it still has a BC over 1% higher than the HL system using brc.

If the sims prove out my prediction then that would show the only reason HL system underperformed HO2 system was because of the BE.

That would also prove that since my KO system BC is higher than HO2 BC and my KO system beats the vast majority of CC for individual plays, and some by substantial amounts, as compared to the HO2 system then the KO system must outperform that HO2 system because the KO system has both a higher BE and PE.

Gronbog emailed me he will have his latest sim results soon. So just be patient and let's see if I am correct or not.

[Stealth]

Gronbog emailed me he will have his latest sim results soon. So just be patient and let's see if I am correct or not.

So, since this about advantage play, do you want to bet on your results being better than HiOpt II ASC?

If so, I am your huckelberry!

[bjanalyst]

So, since this about advantage play, do you want to bet on your results being better than HiOpt II ASC?
!

Betting Efficiency is more important than I thought for the shoe game. I have shown that HL with AA89mTc and 5m6c beat HO2 with ASC in 14, tied one and lost 3 of the I18 and when more situations were analyzed the HL system continued to beat HO2 w ASC in playing strategy. So the reason the HL system lost was betting. This HL system using HL unadjusted had a 2% worse BC than HO2 w ASC. Using brc = HL + (1/3)*5m6c the BC gap is reduced just shy of one half of the original gap with just the HL, but even using brc you are still 1% below HO2 with ASC. So HL system closed the SCORE between HL and HO2 w ASC by about one half. So I guess using brc would close that one half gap one half. So I am guess that the HL system using brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) for betting will close the gap between HL and HO2 w ASC to only (1/4)th of the original HL and HO2 w ASC SCORE gap. in other words I would predict HL system using brc for betting will be (3/4)th of the way between HL and HO2 with ASC but will still be below ASC since BC of brc is still 1% below HO2 with ASC.

Now if KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c were simulated the story would be different. For S17, DAS, no LS brc = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) is over 0.6% better than HO2 w ASC so this KO system beats HO2 w ASC for betting. Also I have shown that KO system won 25, tied 14 and lost 10 playing situations to the HO2 w ASC and of the 10 that were lost the difference was less than 5% and the biggest loss was around 12% compared to the biggest win of over 40%. So it should be clear that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats the HO2 with ASC in both BE and PE and so the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c would beat HO2 with ASC.

As I mentioned several times, HL with side counts was NEVER my recommended count system. My recommended count system was KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c. But only the HL system was simulated because it was easier to make changes to a HL program than to make a sim program and then modify it for KO so a KO system could be simulated.

We should be getting sims results for HL with AA89mTc and 5m6c using brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) next week I would assume and my prediction again is the HL system will still out perform HO2 with ASC but the gap after the brc was added to the HL system will be reduced by about one-half.