Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

You will need the running count from the count tag values for KO.bal. Otherwise, you can't apply the formula:

KO.bal + k1*(5m7c) +k2*(AA89mTc) ? (Idr) * dr

Without counting the KO.bal in fractions how do you figure out KO.bal? No, you can't just use the unbalanced KO tag values to plug in for KO.bal because KO and KO.bal count the 8s and 9s with different tag values.

If you estimated decks remaining exactly and if you calculated the true count exactly then the KO.ba and the unbalanced KO are identical They are identical mathematically. However, in actual use humans need to use integers and KO unbalanced is a level one count very easy to keep And unbalanced KO has a pivot of a true count of 4 so around it's pivot the KO true count is very accurate and insensitive to errors in estimating decks remaining. So you can make errors in estimating decks remaining around a true count of 4 with very little penalty in the KO true count calculations

But if you estimated decks remaining exactly and did true count accurately like a computer then both KO.bal and unbalanced KO are identical. But you humans cannot estimate decks remaining exactly and cannot do true count calculations exactly then use unbalanced KO as it give very accurate true counts around true count of 4 even if player makes gross errors in estimation decks remaining -- you still have a very accurate true count around a true count of 4 with the KO unbalanced.

Attached are proofs (I may have given them to you before) that mathematically the KO.bal and KO unbalanced are equivalent and that they would produce identical results if fractional tag values were calculated exactly and decks estimated were exact and true counts were exact. Since humans cannot do exact, do not use KO.bal but uses its mathematically equivalent KO unbalanced count with a pivot at a true count of 4.
KO Identities (1).jpg
KO Identities (2).jpg

[bjanalyst]

You should probably refrain from commenting on what teams do or don't do and why. You are nowhere near qualified for that discussion.

I got my information on what teams do from a You Tube video where they said the teams were all told to use the HL.

[bjanalyst]

Than there is a flaw to your "Table of Critical Running Count". You can't figure out the values for KO.bal since no human would use the balanced KO count. This make your work junk. Do you have brain before posting such exhibit? There is a difference to balanced and unbalanced KO.

I just posted proof that KO.bal and KO are mathematically equivalent but as humans you need to count in integers and you make mistakes in estimationg decks remainning so use unbalanced KO because of accurate true counts near it's pivot of a true count of 4.

Gronbog's simluation was my KO unbalanced count. He used the KO unbalanced integer tag values and calculated psrc = KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) then then cacluated tc(psrc) = 4 + (psrc - 4*n)/dr and compared to psrc Index to make each playing strategy decision.

This is exactly the system that I recommended players to use with KO unbalanced integer tag values of the Table of Critical Running Count which was calculated from the formula tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr.

So you do not have to follow details. Just know that simulations showed that my KO system for back counting is more powerful than the HO2 w ASC and you use the unbalanced KO integer tag values with the Table of Critical Running Counts.

[bjanalyst]

I used KO.bal and bal,KO interchangeably. KO.bal (or bal,KO) is the balanced version of the KO count which is KO - 4*dp where dp = decks played. Sorry for the confusion.

[bjanalyst]

Wrong!! The Noir count counts both the Aces and Tens as -2 all non-Tens as +1. The count that you mention that counts all non-Tens as +1 and all Tens as -2 is call Archer System, also known as, the one-two count.

Sorry if I got the names of the counts mixed up. Just know that KO + AA89mTc counts all non-Tens as +1 and Tens as -2 and is unbalanced with a pivot of a true count of 4 and is a perfect Ten count which gives perfect insurance decisions and I also use it for the Lucky Ladies bet.

[bjanalyst]

Count me in as uneducated and ludicrous. This strongly reminds me of discussions about a system many years back that was fine tuned with devices used for back of the envelop estimates and supposedly resulting in more "power" with sims that were not accurate comparisons. ET Fan was also involved with that and gave extremely poor advice on how to compare strategies.

Gronbog's simulations showed that my KO system, for the back counted game, beat the HO2 w ASC. Now all of my indices and values of k1 and k2 that were used in my system were calculated form LSL calculations with EoR and my KO derived counts. Everything was done in Excel and I predicted that based on CC of individual plays and based on BC (betting Correlation) that my system would beat the HO2 w ASC for the no LS game. I made predictions based on EoR and CC for my HL system which I would never recommend. it should be noted that every single prediction I made came true.

So you made a statement that EoR cannot be used with the KO count. But every single index I calculated and all valued of k1 and k2 in KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) came from my KO count with EoR. And it beat the HO2 w ASC!

So now the question is are you still going to stand by your statement that EoR cannot be used with the KO count?

And I have a few more predictions.

(1) When Gronbog does LS simulations you will see that my KO system will leave HO2 w ASC in the dust. My KO system CC of EVERY SINGLE LS decision beats that HO w ASC. Also using LS EoR the BC of my KO system increases from 0.67% to 1.06% over the BC for the HO2 w ASC. So based on CC and BC I predict my KO system will smash the HO2 w ASC for the LS game.

(2) I mentioned that there are two reason I believe that my KO system slightly underperformed the HO2 w ASC for the play all game.

(a) The KO system has a pivot of a true count of 4 whereas HO2 is balanced and has a pivot of a true count of zero. So for negative true counts, the negative indices are closer to the HO2 pivot of a true count of zero than the KO pivot of a true count of 4. So my KO system will not be as accurate in determining negative true counts needs to compare to negative indices as the HO2 w ASC is. There is not much I can do about this and I am not sure exactly how big an impact this has on the results of the Play All sims. But I would still rather have accurate true counts around true counts of +4 than true counts of -4!!

(b) More importantly is that I did not include many negative indices because I developed my KO system for back counting. For the play all gamem the HO2 w ASC had it full set of indices, including all negative indices, whereas my KO system had only a very limited number of negative indices. This is the real reason why I believe that my KO system slightly underperformed the HO2 w ASC for the Play All scenario.

Attached to this post are some selected negative indcies for my KO system that I would like for Gronbog to add to my sims 1 through 6.

So I predict that once these additional negative indices are added that the SCORE of my KO system, for the play all scenario, will be even closer to the SCORE for the HO2 w ASC for the Play All scenario and may even beat HO2 w ASC for the Play All scenario also when these extra negative indices are added. Remember, I am still talking about the no LS game. When LS is simulated the HO2 w ASC will be left in the dust.
KO negative indices.jpg

[seriousplayer]

I just posted proof that KO.bal and KO are mathematically equivalent but as humans you need to count in integers and you make mistakes in estimationg decks remainning so use unbalanced KO because of accurate true counts near it's pivot of a true count of 4.

Gronbog's simluation was my KO unbalanced count. He used the KO unbalanced integer tag values and calculated psrc = KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) then then cacluated tc(psrc) = 4 + (psrc - 4*n)/dr and compared to psrc Index to make each playing strategy decision.

This is exactly the system that I recommended players to use with KO unbalanced integer tag values of the Table of Critical Running Count which was calculated from the formula tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr.

So you do not have to follow details. Just know that simulations showed that my KO system for back counting is more powerful than the HO2 w ASC and you use the unbalanced KO integer tag values with the Table of Critical Running Counts.

KO.bal and KO are mathematically equivalent but in real play bal.KO running count would be in fractions and KO would be in integers. Two two counts with completely different tags and indices.

I used KO.bal and bal,KO interchangeably. KO.bal (or bal,KO) is the balanced version of the KO count which is KO - 4*dp where dp = decks played. Sorry for the confusion.

Let me straighten you out son! It is wrong! Also, bal.KO might equal (KO - 4*dp) mathematically but in real play KO - (1/13)*(A23456789Tp) does not equal (KO - 4*dp) because one's running count is in fractions and the other is in integers. Both count's playing indices would be different, too. Well, how do I know you use KO.bal and bal.KO interchangeably?? I am suppose to read your mind??

Sorry if I got the names of the counts mixed up. Just know that KO + AA89mTc counts all non-Tens as +1 and Tens as -2 and is unbalanced with a pivot of a true count of 4 and is a perfect Ten count which gives perfect insurance decisions and I also use it for the Lucky Ladies bet.

There is no sorry if you got the name wrong it is wrong and I just proved it.

[seriousplayer]

(a) The KO system has a pivot of a true count of 4 whereas HO2 is balanced and has a pivot of a true count of zero. So for negative true counts, the negative indices are closer to the HO2 pivot of a true count of zero than the KO pivot of a true count of 4. So my KO system will not be as accurate in determining negative true counts needs to compare to negative indices as the HO2 w ASC is. There is not much I can do about this and I am not sure exactly how big an impact this has on the results of the Play All sims. But I would still rather have accurate true counts around true counts of +4 than true counts of -4!!

Ok, why does it matter? The question become why can't your KO outperform Hi-OPT II ASC regardless of the equivalent number of true count indices? If your system have 74 and HI-OPT II ASC full have 100+ indices. It doesn't require both systems to have the same amount of indices for one to perform better than the other. Through simulations I've seen level 2 and 3 counts with less indices perform very close or even outperform in SCORE to counts that have more indices. So it doesn't matter for the second time. In the same sense, the Halves with 26 indices beat Hi-lo full with 100+ indices (both + and -). I just verified with a simulation. So both systems doesn't have to have the same amount of indices.

[Three]

Gronbog's simulations showed that my KO system, for the back counted game, beat the HO2 w ASC. Now all of my indices and values of k1 and k2 that were used in my system were calculated form LSL calculations with EoR and my KO derived counts. Everything was done in Excel and I predicted that based on CC of individual plays and based on BC (betting Correlation) that my system would beat the HO2 w ASC for the no LS game. I made predictions based on EoR and CC for my HL system which I would never recommend. it should be noted that every single prediction I made came true.

Get real. Your system also lost to Hiopt2/ASC. Hiopt2/ASC beat your system by as much as 10.92%, but your system's best win over Hiopt2/ASC by 3.93%. I would hardly call that beating Hiopt2/ASC. At best it was a draw, or an overtime loss.

[seriousplayer]

Hi-lo+AA78mTc 6 using 1-12 bet spread the improvement is only 9.59%. If you only want to stick with a level 1 count. You might as well, just side count 7s with Hi-lo and forget about trying to outperform HI-OPT II ASC. Side counting the 7s improves your insurance correlation from 76% to 81%. This way you only have one index to remember -insurance- and use Hi-lo full playing indices.

[lij45o6]

Hi-lo+AA78mTc 6 using 1-12 bet spread the improvement is only 9.59%. If you only want to stick with a level 1 count. You might as well, just side count 7s with Hi-lo and forget about trying to outperform HI-OPT II ASC. Side counting the 7s improves your insurance correlation from 76% to 81%. This way you only have one index to remember -insurance- and use Hi-lo full playing indices.

Ace side Count with High Low as well (if you are playing pitch games or, if you are a masochist: shoe games.)

Or, just learn HOII w/ ASC & 7SC!

[lij45o6]

Get real. Your system also lost to Hiopt2/ASC. Hiopt2/ASC beat your system by as much as 10.92%, but your system's best win over Hiopt2/ASC by 3.93%. I would hardly call that beating Hiopt2/ASC. At best it was a draw, or an overtime loss.

Also, the result was concerning back-counting only. Not play all.

In fact, the overall improvement for all that mental work as between 2-4% over HOII. As opposed to the 18% increase going from High Low to HOII w/ ASC back-counting under the 1-1 spread regime.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

For your statement / Gronbog's analysis are only
correct if you are comparing Hi-Opt II/ASC with
full indices vs, K.O. back-counting ONLY.
That is an absurdly poor statistical comparison!!