Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

Suggest he use the special count by Eliot Jacobson for the lucky ladies and KO for blackjack. His partner could do one count and he the other. Simple. End of story.
https://www.888casino.com/blog/side-...kjack-side-bet

I am familiar with Elliot Jacobson's suggestion:

A more reasonable count is a simple “Ten count.” In this count, each of the cards 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is given the tag +1 and the cards T, J, Q, K are given the tag -2.

Elliot's suggested LLc can be decomposed into the LLc = HL + A789mTc where Ace is zero and 9 is +1. For LL it is just as good as LLc = HL + AA78mTc where 9 is zero and Ace is +1. In either case either the Ace of 9 is counted as+1 and the other as zero. Obviously you want a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 out of the shoe since if you get one of them you will never get LL. But if you get an Ace you can still get the LL if you get a 9 and if you get a 9 you can still get the LL if you get an Ace. So my original estimate optimal balanced LLc would bethe counts the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 as +1, Aces and Nines as +1/2 and Tens as-2. But this is a balanced count. Remember I showed that the true count needed for LL betting increases as decks remaining decreases. And you still need to do calculations with the balanced counts. It so happens when you use start increasing LL bet when the unbalanced LLc = KO + AA89mTc >= 30 for the sixdeck game, everything is baked into the cake. The increasing LLc true count needed as dr decreases is automatically built into this and there is no need to estimate decks remaining or do any calculations. It is extremely easy. Also my actual suggested LLc = KO + (3/4)*(AA89mTc) but I chose to use the simpler LLc= KO + AA89mTc which is almost as good. If you used LLc = KO + (3/4)*(AA89mTc) then the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 would be +1, the 8's and 9's would be +3/4, the Ten's-1.75 and the Aces +1/2. So LLc = KO + (3/4)*(AA89mTc) would be a better LL count and is still unbalanced so just start increasing LL bet when this LLc>= 30 for six decks. And if you want even a better LL count then keep a side count of Queens of Hearts Played. But all of this is cutting hairs. I just use LLc = KO +AA89mTc and start increasing LL bet when LLc >= 30 for six decks. Very simple,no true count calculations and no decks remaining needs to be estimated.
LLc = KO + 0.75(AA89mTc).jpg

[bjanalyst]

Just done a new simulation myself to confirm that Hi-OPT II for play and RPC for betting outperform Hi-OPT II ASC. You don't need to know what it means, you just need to know.

OK But it still does not make any sense to me as the BC of RPC (I am assuming RPC is Revere Point Count with 2's and 7's +1, 3, 4, 5, 6 +2 and Tens and Aces -2) is less than BC of HO2 - 2*(Adef) yet you are still using RPC for betting instead of HO2 - 2*(Adef). The only thing I can think of is that since RPC is a plus/mnus count that it is exact wheres as Adef is an ESTIMATE becuase Adef = Ap - 4*dp and decks played is estimated.

Anyhow, none of this matters since if Gronbog does the simulation of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c I predict for the no LS game it will beat all of these other counts and if the LS game were simulated it will do even better. All of my predictions of HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c came true so my predictions have been shown to be correct.

But again this simulation is a big project and would require a lot of work which is why I did not ask Gronbog to simulate. If Gronbog does agree to simulate he can email me and I will give him my selected RA indices and values of k1 and k2 for KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) to put in his sim program and help him in any other way. And I would post on this forum both EV indices and RA indices I chose to give to Gronbog to simulate.

[Three]

So you are suggested three level 2 counts and an Ace side count? The level 2 HO2 counts all ranks by 8, 9, A, the level 2 RPC counts all ranks but 8 and 9 ad the level 2 Ten count counts all ranks. That sounds crazy to me.

Atlas his point isn't lost on you. Now look in the funhouse mirror.

[bjanalyst]

Attached are my expected value indices and selected values of k1 and k2 for KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc). I have also included indices for selected marginal Basic Strategy doubles and splits. LS is not being simulated and so can be ignored. For doubles and splits, I will look at AACpTCp and CC for each double & split decision and hen make an judgmental decision on how much to increase the EV index to get my judgmental RA index. If CC is large and AACpTCp is large then one true count point increase in EV index is fine. If either CC is small and/or AACpTCp is small then I will increase EV index by 2 or 3 true count points.

So I am not at all afraid of doing simulations as one user suggested. I always wanted sims on my KO system but I did not want to bother Gronbog as these KO system sims would take quite a while and a lot of work to do.

I look forward to simulations if Gronbog is willing to do the sims and I am ready to give Gronbog anything that he needs.

PS: I used an older version of my selected k1 and k2 so I have two corrections in my selected values of k1 and k2 in the chart below.

(1) For hit/stand on hard 14 v T I really wanted to select k1 = -1.5 instead of -2 which brings the index down from 7.7 to 6.9 and actually increases CC by 0.1% (which really means nothing). I like the index being reduced from 8 to 7 and so it is closer to the KO pivot of a true count of 4, easier to compute and more accurate. So stand on hard 14 v T if KO - 1.5*(5m7c) >= crc(7).

(2) Although LS is not being simulated I like to be correct. So my selected value of k1 for late surrendering hard 15 v 8 is k = 1.5 instead of k = 2 which brings down the index from 8.4 to 7.5 and also increases CC by 0.2% (which doesn't mean much). So surrender hard 15 v 8 if KO + 1.5*(5m7c) >= crc(7). Notice that I rounded down 7.5 to 7 for risk averse purposes. Round down EV surrender indices to the nearest integer, round up EV double and split indices one, two or three true count points depending on CC and AACpTCp for each double or split decision.

I will included the corrected chart at the end after the Selected Basic Strategy chart. So ignore the first chart and use the second corrected chart.

This demonstrates the degree of precision using the LSL technique and derived linear counts in calculating indices and values of k1 and k2. And I do use infinite deck indices but as I have shown earlier, as CC increases, the indices for any given number of decks all converge to the infinite deck indices. Since I am increasing CC then any differences between the infinite deck indices I calculated and the indices for the six deck game that I play will be reduced making the infinite deck indices a very good approximation.

PSS: psrc = playing strategy running count = KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc). it is easy to remember these charts because the psrc formulas make logical sense. So, using the example I mentioned above, stand on hard 14 v T if psrc = KO - 1.5*(5m7c) >= crc(7). If 5m7c decreases then more 7's than 5's came out of the shoe. So there is a deficiency of 7's and an excess of 5's left in the shoe. With less 7's left in the shoe there is less chance for the player to hit his hard 14 and pick up a 7 for a perfect 21 to beat a possible dealer twenty. So if 5m7c < 0 then it makes standing on hard 14 v T more favorable. Lets see if this logic translates into the psrc formula. If 5m7c < 0 then psrc + KO - 1.5*(5m7c) increases and eventually psrc > crc(7) and you stand. This is exactly what you would expect. if 5m7c is very negative then a lot of 7's came out of the shoe and you should stand on hard 14 v T. Each of the formulas in psrc = KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) make logical sense which makes them much easier to memorize.

KO AA89mTc 5m7c (1).jpg
KO AA89mTc 5m7c (2).jpg
KO AA89mTc 5m7c.jpg

[Norm]

I am not sure what Norman meant by this statement. It sound to me like Norman simulated HO2 ASC for playing and used RPC for betting so he was simulating a player using two level 2 count systems where most of the ranks were counted in each system?

1. I mistyped. HO II for playing, RPC for betting. There is no need to side count the ace in the HO II count since it isn't used for betting.
2. You don't keep two full counts. You keep one count and another which is the difference between them and sum them. So, you count HOII and a side count of -2 for ace, and +1 for 3 and 6. You use HO II for playing and sum the counts for betting.
3. I'm not interested in attempts to evaluate strategies by EoRs alone. EoRs are back of the envelop estimates very useful at finding possible counts for evaluation. BUT, they should not be used for the evaluation itself. BJ is non-linear and requires simulation. My sims showed this to be superior.
4. I didn't suggest anyone use this. I said it's better than HO II ASC.

[bjanalyst]

1. I mistyped. HO II for playing, RPC for betting. There is no need to side count the ace in the HO II count since it isn't used for betting.
2. You don't keep two full counts. You keep one count and another which is the difference between them and sum them. So, you count HOII and a side count of -2 for ace, and +1 for 3 and 6. You use HO II for playing and sum the counts for betting.
3. I'm not interested in attempts to evaluate strategies by EoRs alone. EoRs are back of the envelop estimates very useful at finding possible counts for evaluation. BUT, they should not be used for the evaluation itself. BJ is non-linear and requires simulation. My sims showed this to be superior.
4. I didn't suggest anyone use this. I said it's better than HO II ASC.

Thank you very much for he clarification. Now I understand. And yes, you do need sims. So I hope that Gronbog is willing to do sims on my KO system . It should be noted that every prediction that I made on my HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c based on EoR came true. So EoR is a very good indicator and linear approximations for blackjack are still very good and I believe that Don Schlesinger (this is form memory so pardon me if I am wrong) said in BJA3 that LSL calculations were used to calculate EoR which are still very good approximations. Also please correct me again if I am wrong, I know that BJ is non-linear but I think that non-linearity comes into play when there is less than one deck remaining. Since at least one deck is cut off, then I think that the linear EoR approximation is even better. Please let me know if I am correct in that as the number of decks remaining increases. linearity becomes a better and better approximation.

[Norm]

The reason Griffin's EoRs are better at single deck is because he calculated them for single deck. Single deck, balanced counts with lots of indices.

[bjanalyst]

The reason Griffin's EoRs are better at single deck is because he calculated them for single deck. Single deck, balanced counts with lots of indices.

Ok Thanks again. I guess we have to wait until simulations are done then to see exactly how good EoR that I used in the calculations of indices and values of k1 and k2 in KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) are. That is why all users wants sims. So I am not only interested in seeing how good my KO system is, I am also interested in seeing how good using EoR are in calcuating indices and valiues of k1 and k2. The sim results should be enlightening for everyone. Thanks again for your help and I want to especially thank Gronbog. Hopefully Gronbog will be have time to sim my KO system.

[seriousplayer]

Ok Thanks again. I guess we have to wait until simulations are done then to see exactly how good EoR that I used in the calculations of indices and values of k1 and k2 in KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) are. That is why all users wants sims. So I am not only interested in seeing how good my KO system is, I am also interested in seeing how good using EoR are in calcuating indices and valiues of k1 and k2. The sim results should be enlightening for everyone. Thanks again for your help and I want to especially thank Gronbog. Hopefully Gronbog will be have time to sim my KO system.

Your results are going to be similar to the Hi-lo simulation because you are using the same concept for both systems Hi-lo and KO. You didn't make any big change to your KO system. The secondary counts are different but the format, concept, and strategy is the same as the Hi-lo system. So you can't expect the simulations to be that much different compare to the Hi-lo count that was already simulated. That would be my prediction. Unless you make significant changes to your system.

[Three]

It should be noted that every prediction that I made on my HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c based on EoR came true. So EoR is a very good indicator and linear approximations for blackjack are still very good and I believe that Don Schlesinger (this is form memory so pardon me if I am wrong) said in BJA3 that LSL calculations were used to calculate EoR which are still very good approximations.

You predicted HL and all your tweaks would come close to or beat Hiopt2/ASC and it wasn't even close to beating Hiopt2/ASC. Stop posting lies.

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

I asked for all four sims: HL no side count, HO2 no side count, HL with AA78mTc, HO2 with ASC. I never said to use the HO2 without ASC if that is what you want to do. I am using all of these four counts as a base to see where HL with AA78mTc falls. How much better than HL or HO2 with no side count is HL with AA78mTc. And how does HL with AA78mTc compare to HO2 with ASC. I just want to compare all four counts that is all.

So my prediction is that the sim results of HL + k*(AA78mTc) with changes to 12 of the I18 and 14 more situations will be close to Hi Opt 2 with ASC which is also being simulated.

The result was AA78mTc did improve HL to around one half of the improvement that HO2 with ASC would.

I based my original assumption that HL with AA78mTc would be close to the HO2 with ASC based on the I18 average CC of HL with AA78mTc being actually a bit higher than HO2 with ASC average CC (see the attached I18 file with HL and AA78mTc compared to HO2 with ASC). But it turns out that if a count has a higher average CC it does not necessarily mean that the sim results of that count will be higher.

So my goal is to concentrate on continuing to improve the CC of as many I18 situation as possible as adding additional improvements beyond the I18 has minimal effects and can be looked at another time after I get the bulk of the improvement done.

So what I asked Gronbog if he could do one more simulation by adding a second side count, 5m6c, to HL with AA78mTc. The reason I chose 5m6c is that if helps with hard 16 v T hit/stand decision (the most important decision after insurance), many other decisions and also helps with betting.

If HL + k1*(AA78mTc) + k2*(5m6c) beat HO2 with ASC for every single I18, then the conclusion would be that HL + k1*(AA78mTc) + k2*(5m6c) beats HO2 with ASC.

The results are that HL + k1*(AA78mTc) + k2*(5m6c) beats HO2 with ASC, as measured by INDIVIDUAL CC, in 14 of the I18, ties once and losses 3 times. The maximum win is 17.2% and the maximum loss is 11.5%. Also note a resounding 16.9% CC increase over HO2 with ASC for the very important hard 16 v T hit/stand. All losses are shown in red.

Gronbog agreed to do sims of HL + k1*(AA78mTc) + k2*(5m6c) and let's see what happens.

So with HL I would think that the second side count to add to HL with AA78mTc would be 7m9c because it helps with BC almost tying HO2 with ASC. And I will see what additionally changes to I18 that 7m9c helps with HL with AA78mTc with. The end results is, I believe, a system that will be very close the HO2 with ASC and maybe even beat HO2 with ASC.

In the end, while it might be intellectually satisfying for bjanalyst to tweak and perfect his system, in an effort to outperform Hi-Opt II ASC, to me, two things are absolutely certain: 1) Any such outperformance will be minuscule, and 2) The amount of effort needed to master the system and its highly greater complexity, compared to Hi-Opt II, makes it very unlikely, in my view, that anyone will want to learn the system other than the author himself.

Don

Below are the results of the simulations.

All the simulations were made using the same sim parameters as specified in BJA3 Chapter 10, Page 211, except that:

• My software was used to run the simulations (BJA3 used CVCX)
• The count systems were as specified in the table below (BJA3 used HiLo)
• The index sets were as specified in the table below (BJA3 used I18 + Fab4)
• Some different bet spreads were used
• Only optimal betting to the nearest dollar was considered (BJA3 also considered practical betting ramps)
• Only one game was analyzed: 5/6 S17 DAS DOA SPL3 noRSA (BJA3 analyzed many rule sets)

In the table below:

• The full HiLo 1994 indices as obtained from CVData were used. However, since they were created using truncation for true count calculations and these sims used flooring, all negative indices were reduced by 1.
• The full HiOpt II + ASC indices as obtained from CVData were used.
• HiLo+AA78mTc 6 refers to the original six playing decisions proposed by bjanalyst using the side count of A=2, 7=1, 8= 1, T=-1 which were insurance and 12 vs 2-6
• HiLo+AA78mTc 12 refers to the addition of 6 playing decisions: 9 vs 2; 11 vs A; 13 vs 2; 13 vs 3; 15 vs T; 16 vs T
• HiLo+AA78mTc 26 refers to the addition of 14 playing decisions: 14 vs T; A,3 vs 4; A,4 vs 3; A,4 vs 4; A,5 vs 3; A,6 vs 2; A,7 vs 2; A,7 vs A; A,8 vs 3; A,8 vs 4; A,8 vs 6; 2,2 vs 8; 3,3 vs 8; 4,4 vs 4
• HiLo+AA78MTc+5m6c refers to the addition of 5 playing decisions using an additional side count of 5=1, 6=-1: 16 vs 7; 16 vs 8; 16 vs 9; 16 vs T; T,T vs 6
• The "Unlimited" bet spread is full optimal betting with no restrictions on spread nor on the maximum and minimum bets. Is it equivalent to betting optimally while wonging in place at the table. While not practical for actual play, it does represent the upper limit on the SCORE which can be achieved using each system.

Executive Summary

• While the addition of the side counts and the additional indices at each stage showed a small improvement over using HiLo alone, the stated goal of outperforming HiOpt II + ASC was not achieved. The additional side counts and indices managed to close about one half of the gap between HiLo and HiOpt II + ASC.
• The initial introduction of AA78mTc 6 showed the greatest improvement with the addition of the additional indices and side count showing only incremental gains.

The Results

Scenario        System                  Source         SCORE     Improvement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play-All 1-8
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        24.30
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        27.18        11.85%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        27.89        2.61%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        28.35        1.65%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        29.53        4.16%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        34.49        16.80%

Play-All 1-10
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        29.27
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        32.33        10.45%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        33.07        2.29%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        33.54        1.42%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        34.83        3.85%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        40.03        14.93%
  
Play-All 1-12
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        33.04
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        36.21        9.59%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        36.95        2.04%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        37.44        1.33%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        38.80        3.63%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        44.19        13.89%

Back-Count 1-1
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        46.86
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        49.64        5.93%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        50.03        0.79%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        50.43        0.80%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        51.67        2.46%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        55.70        7.80%

Back-Count 1-2
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        55.56
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        58.86        5.94%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        59.45        1.00%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        60.06        1.03%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        61.44        2.30%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        66.77        8.68%

Back-Count 1-4
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        61.24
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        64.49        5.31%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        65.01        0.81%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        65.60        0.91%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        66.98        2.10%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        72.31        7.96%

Back-Count 1-8
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        62.91
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        65.96        4.85%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        66.43        0.71%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        67.00        0.86%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        68.32        1.97%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        74.35        8.83%

Back-Count 1-12
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        63.23
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        66.48        5.14%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        67.05        0.86%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        67.68        0.94%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        69.11        2.11%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        75.05        8.59%

Unrestricted
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        63.87
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        67.01        4.92%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        67.55        0.81%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        68.16        0.90%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        69.54        2.02%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        75.22        8.17%

Now I would like to point out that Gronbog's sim results show the gain with each tweak over the last system listed. BJanalysts system never came close to Hiopt2/ASC even after additional tweaking. It improved about halfway to Hiopt2/ASC performance by using a much more complicated and much harder system. Hiopt2/ASC is not that hard. You just need to practice enough to do it. That amount of time will vary by the individual. I am sure many would never be able to keep BJanalyst's system no matter how much they practiced.

Common sense should tell you if you are going to add complicated side count tweaks you should start with the strongest system you can, because the gain will be proportional to the strength of the original system. So BJanalyst should have started with a much stronger system. We all know that in shoe games betting is by far the most important part of the game. You want to improve betting accuracy not just BC. Betting accuracy can be predicted by the width of the bell curve (SD) of actual advantage around the betting bins average advantage. So first step should be to tweak there. It is nice if those tweaks are useful for improving playing decisions as well, so the choice of balanced side count should be made with both betting and playing improvements in mind. Playing improvements can help betting by making your optimal bet larger by reducing variance. So you should target the plays that have the most effect on variance. Doubles, splits, surrender, indices in play with big bets out, high frequency plays, plays with low m-values but are poorly correlated to the current playing count, etc.
Some indices are said to be very important simply because basic strategy is so wrong for the counter. If your BS was counter's BS instead of ploppy basic strategy some indices that are said to be very valuable are not.

If you keep all these things in mind when you try to make an uber system your end result will be much more satisfying. If you want to beat Hiopt2/ASC, start with Hiopt2 and tweak things from there. Don't be foolish and start with a relatively weak system and try to make it outperform Hiopt2/ASC.

[bjanalyst]

Your results are going to be similar to the Hi-lo simulation because you are using the same concept for both systems Hi-lo and KO. You didn't make any big change to your KO system. The secondary counts are different but the format, concept, and strategy is the same as the Hi-lo system. So you can't expect the simulations to be that much different compare to the Hi-lo count that was already simulated. That would be my prediction. Unless you make significant changes to your system.

For playing strategy changes, 5m7c takes into account the sevens which are very important for playing strategy changes and the nine is also taken into account in AA89mTc - neither of these were taken into account in the HL with AA78mTc (the seven is mixed up with too many cards in AA78mTc) and 5m6c system. So I expect KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c to beat HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c for playing strategy.

But more important is that 5m7c when used with KO gives brc = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) which increases BC from around 97% to 99% which surpasses HO2 with ASC where brc = HO2 - 2*(Adef).

If you recall I predicted that the gap between HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c when brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) was used for betting instead of using HL for betting would be closed by 44% and it ended up being closed by around 30% - this prediction was based on Betting Correlations (BC). That is because HL was around 2% below HO2 - 2*(Adef) and brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) was still about 1% below HO2 - 2*(Adef).

But now the tables are turned. brc = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) is, for the no LS game, almost 0.7% higher than HO2 - 2*(Adef). (When LS is offered, the BC of the KO system is over 1% over the HO2 system). And we have seen just how important betting is in the SCORE of the shoe game. In addition, I used EV double and split indices with the HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c and I will use my judgmental double and split RA indices for the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c based on CC and AACpTCp.

So I am sticking by my prediction and the count system that I have always recommended from day one. KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c will most likely beat HO2 w ASC for the no LS game and for the LS, which is not being simulated, KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c would definitely beat HO2 with ASC.

Actually my chosen count combination was using 45m79c instead of 5m7c but I dropped 45m79c to using just 5m7c because it is just too difficult to keep both AA89mTc and 45m79c. So I lost a little power in both PE and BE using 5m7c instead of 45m79c but I still believe KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c will beat HO2 with ASC even for the no LS game.

[Gronbog]

I can run the KO sims. The problem is that I will be away for about three weeks beginning Feb 17 and I don't know if I have time to do it before I go. However, send me the details of the system, in the same manner as the HiLo details were presented and I'll see what I can do.

[bjanalyst]

I can run the KO sims. The problem is that I will be away for about three weeks beginning Feb 17 and I don't know if I have time to do it before I go. However, send me the details of the system, in the same manner as the HiLo details were presented and I'll see what I can do.

Thank you VERY, VERY much! I will send you an email with details and if you have any questions just let me know. I just have to judgmentally decide the RA indices for doubles and splits using CC and AACpTCp to decided if I will increase the EV index by 1, 2 or 3 true count points.

If you do not have time before you leave no problem. There is a lot to do with sim for the KO system with the first task to set up a base KO sims with just the KO count. I will explain all of this in my email to you. The users on this site will just have to wait. I really appreciate your help.