See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 65 of 72 FirstFirst ... 15556364656667 ... LastLast
Results 833 to 845 of 936

Thread: Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

  1. #833


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post


    Hi Gronbog

    Welcome back from vacation. I just sent you an email with a one page PDF attachments with the extra indices that need to be added for simulations.

    I only need two more simulations.

    (1) Add what I called in the attached PDF I sent you sim 7 and sim 8 to end of sims 1 through 6 that you did last month. This adds negative KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc indices to the no LS simulation you did last month. The reason HO2 w ASC beat my KO system for the play all situations are because I did not have negative indices for my KO system so basic strategy was used for negative situations whereas the HO2 w ASC used negative indices. This should fix the problem with the play all and my KO system should once again outperform HO2 w ASC.

    (2) What I call sim 9 in the PDF I emailed you are the KO system indices for the LS game. When you do late surrender my prediction is that my KO system will perform even better against the HO2 w ASC than it did with the no LS game.

    Once the simulations are done and my system proves to be more powerful than the HO2 w ASC then I will review the five criteria once again in evaluations a count system and how it applies to my KO system. The sims are only one of the five criteria I use which is what I called "power".

    My five criteria that I mentioned previously in emulating a count system are:

    (1) Ease of Use
    (2) Power
    (3) Accuracy
    (4) Camouflage.
    (5) Help with side bets if offered

    If you have any questions on what I emailed you please email me back with your questions.

    Thanks for all of your hard work.

    Regardless your system is inferior to the Hi-OPT II ASC because you need to add four components to get even close to the performance of Hi-OPT II with ASC. What would happen if Hi-OPT II ASC also side counts 7s, 8s and 9s? Then it will outperform your system. I could add two more components to Hi-OPT II ASC to make it four and guarantee that it would outperform your count. I would give you more respect if your count system is two components comparing to Hi-OPT II ASC which is also two components. You don't want to admit that you are wrong when you are in fact wrong and make further corrections and adjustment to your system. I don't care about all the spreadsheets and calculations you did.

    See I already mention that "camouflage" doesn't apply to your system because you are backcounting and that defeats the purpose of camouflage.

  2. #834


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    I simulated HiOpt II ASC with the full index set as provided by CVData.

    Just a reminder that I am away until March 10. I have my tablet with me but no access to my computers
    Bjanalyst, give the poor guy a chance to get his suitcase unpacked.

  3. #835


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    What are the bets in these sims?
    As in BJA3 chapters 9 and 10, optimal bets to the nearest dollar for the selected spreads are used. For the back counting scenarios, optimal entry points are used.

    Still settling in after returning from my trip.

  4. #836


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Regardless your system is inferior to the Hi-OPT II ASC because you need to add four components to get even close to the performance of Hi-OPT II with ASC. What would happen if Hi-OPT II ASC also side counts 7s, 8s and 9s? Then it will outperform your system. I could add two more components to Hi-OPT II ASC to make it four and guarantee that it would outperform your count. I would give you more respect if your count system is two components comparing to Hi-OPT II ASC which is also two components. You don't want to admit that you are wrong when you are in fact wrong and make further corrections and adjustment to your system. I don't care about all the spreadsheets and calculations you did.

    See I already mention that "camouflage" doesn't apply to your system because you are backcounting and that defeats the purpose of camouflage.
    The only "correction" I made was that I did not include negative indices because I back count. I have now included negative indices so that now my system will beat the HO2 w ASC for the play all game also. And camoflague plays are sitll good even if you back count. Yes, the casino may figure you are a counter if they see you back counting but they will see you making what they consider crazy and incorrect plays and figure you are a poor counter who cannot win.

    Also there are not four compenents - there is the pimracy KO with two side counts AA89mTc and 5m7c so that is a total of three counts. But all of htese counts are level one with the exception of AA89mTc which is techniaclly a level 2 but as easy as a level one to calcuilates since htere is only one rank, the Ace, counted as + 2 where athe HO2 has two ranks at +2, four ranks (the Tens) as -2 and four ranks as +1 which all must be counted at the same time. That is a difficult level 2 count and you keep on insisting that HO2 w ASC is easier to use you are saying level 2 counts are easier to keep than level 1 counts. You know what does not make any sense.

    And I did see a Youtube video (which I cannot find now) how someone was using chips to keep track of Aces with the HO2. What they did was count Aces played as A, B, C, D and when you got past D, you put one chip to the side which corresponds to four Aces or one full deck of Aces and start over with A, B, C, D again and put another chip when you get to D and start at A again. I think this is a neat way to keep an Ace side count but I still like my plus/minus counts better since they are easier and 100% accurate since plus/minus counts do not involve estimating decks played whereas the calculation of Adef sill involves estimating decks played.

    But enough for now. Please hold off on any more comments on my system until the simulations are done.

    Also I gave Gronbog the negative indices and the LS indices yesterday just so he has them when he is ready! I did not mean to imply I want Gronbog to drop everything and do his simulations immediately. Gronbog has been extremely generous in doing the simulations and I am sure everyone on this site appreciated his efforts.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 03-11-2019 at 02:48 AM.

  5. #837


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    The only "correction" I made was that I did not include negative indices because I back count. I have now included negative indices so that now my system will beat the HO2 w ASC for the play all game also. And camoflague plays are sitll good even if you back count. Yes, the casino may figure you are a counter if they see you back counting but they will see you making what they consider crazy and incorrect plays and figure you are a poor counter who cannot win.
    I doubt it that even adding negative indices with play all your system would beat Hi-OPT II ASC. One thing I learned about card counting is the advantage is not in the indices. It is in the tag values. This is have been proven using different level counts. A level 3 card counting system, like Halves, with 26 indices outperforms Hi-lo with over 100+ indices both positive and negative. If the advantages are in the indices how come Halves outperform Hi-lo with more indices?

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    And camoflague plays are sitll good even if you back count. Yes, the casino may figure you are a counter if they see you back counting but they will see you making what they consider crazy and incorrect plays and figure you are a poor counter who cannot win.
    Firstly, even if the casino thinks that you are a poor counter who cannot win doesn't mean that they are not going to take countermeasures. Secondly, making the casino think you are crazy using incorrect plays doesn't mean that things are incapable of going wrong or being misused.

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Also there are not four compenents - there is the pimracy KO with two side counts AA89mTc and 5m7c so that is a total of three counts. But all of htese counts are level one with the exception of AA89mTc which is techniaclly a level 2 but as easy as a level one to calcuilates since htere is only one rank, the Ace, counted as + 2 where athe HO2 has two ranks at +2, four ranks (the Tens) as -2 and four ranks as +1 which all must be counted at the same time.
    Ok, than that would make Hi-OPT II with ASC only one component it is still less components that your system. You haven't answer why your system can't outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC with one component.
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    That is a difficult level 2 count and you keep on insisting that HO2 w ASC is easier to use you are saying level 2 counts are easier to keep than level 1 counts. You know what does not make any sense.
    I didn't say that Hi-OPT II with ASC is easier to keep than level 1 counts. You made that up!!! What I said was Hi-OPT II with ASC is easier to keep than KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b. Saying Hi-OPT II with ASCE is easier to keep than KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b not the same as saying Hi-OPT II with ASC is easier to keep than level 1 counts. You are making an ass out of yourself by assuming that.


    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    And I did see a Youtube video (which I cannot find now) how someone was using chips to keep track of Aces with the HO2. What they did was count Aces played as A, B, C, D and when you got past D, you put one chip to the side which corresponds to four Aces or one full deck of Aces and start over with A, B, C, D again and put another chip when you get to D and start at A again. I think this is a neat way to keep an Ace side count but I still like my plus/minus counts better since they are easier and 100% accurate since plus/minus counts do not involve estimating decks played whereas the calculation of Adef sill involves estimating decks played.
    The same could be applied to Hi-OPT II. Why only to KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b?

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    But enough for now. Please hold off on any more comments on my system until the simulations are done.
    Also I gave Gronbog the negative indices and the LS indices yesterday just so he has them when he is ready! I did not mean to imply I want Gronbog to drop everything and do his simulations immediately. Gronbog has been extremely generous in doing the simulations and I am sure everyone on this site appreciated his efforts.
    Okay, lets see what happens but I think you would be in for disappointment.

  6. #838


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Gronbog just emailed me. He did not forget about us. He is finishing settling in from his trip and will then he will finish the simulations.

    So just hold tight.

    And I would like to thank Gronbog again for his hard work and I am sure everyone else on this site also appreciates Gronbog's work.

    My predictions:

    (1) Once negative indices are added KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c will beat HO2 w ASC for the play all game as well as the back counted game.

    (2) LS simulations will show even a greater improvement of the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c over the HO2 w ASC than the no LS game shows.

  7. #839


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    We're all clamoring for it (to end)

  8. #840
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    therefinery has a point. These types of counts have been well evaluated. My suggestion, as I have made in the past, is to keep them in the Advanced Strategies forum such that they don't disrupt and mislead newcomers. No one is saying that advances cannot be made. But, I don't like public proclamations of profit before any serious evidence has been judged.

    Card counting works under the correct circumstances. Many other methods of beating casinos work. Many folks have and continue to make money, some in large quantities. But, this site will remain to be based upon realism.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  9. #841


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post


    My predictions:

    (1) Once negative indices are added KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c will beat HO2 w ASC for the play all game as well as the back counted game.

    (2) LS simulations will show even a greater improvement of the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c over the HO2 w ASC than the no LS game shows.
    Question: Why are you only looking at Hi-OPT II with ASC improvements for play all for negative indice and late surrender? Why didn't you also evaluate Hi-OPT II + ASC + 8 + 9? I bet that there will be further improvement to late surrender plays. No, I am not asking the same question as before.

  10. #842
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    And, those side counts were included in the Hi Opt II report a couple decades back.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  11. #843


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Question: Why are you only looking at Hi-OPT II with ASC improvements for play all for negative indices and late surrender? Why didn't you also evaluate Hi-OPT II + ASC + 8 + 9? I bet that there will be further improvement to late surrender plays. No, I am not asking the same question as before.
    Now you are talking about making the HO2 w ASC extremely complicated by including as side count of 8's and 9's. You already have a very difficult level 2 HO2 count as the primary count which is very, very difficult to keep as opposed to the KO primary count level one count of my system. And you have a side count of Aces with is inexact and an approximation because you have to estimate decks played.

    And you want to now add, besides a side count of Aces, a side count of 8's and 9's, all of theses side counts being inexact as they depend on estimates of decks played where as plus/minus side counts are exact. And the 8 and 9 side count included with the HO2 w ASC is very difficult to keep and even more difficult to correctly incorporate with the HO2 w ASC.

    Also using a side count of 8's and 9's there is still no corrections for 5's or 7's which have fixed tag values in the HO2 whereas my KO system uses k1*(5m7c) so can increase the tag values of 5 or 7 or even flip them to negative.

    For example, stand on hard 14 v T if KO - 1.5*(5m7c) >= crc(7). Note that KO - 1.5*(5m7c) gives the 7's a tag value of 2.5 so that a large psrc = KO - 1.5*(5m7c) means a deficiency of 7's left in the shoe and so stand if the deficiency of 7's is great enough. Even with a side count of 8's and 9's with HO2 you cannot correct the tag value of the 7's which is fixed at +1 (or relative to the Tens which are counted as -2, the tag value of the 7 would be +(1/2) if the Tens were counted as -1 instead of -2 to be comparable with my KO system which counts the Tens as -1 in the KO primary count) in the HO2 primary count. The tag values of the ranks used in the primacy HO2 count are fixed and cannot be changed. There is no comparison with my KO system. You will see.

    I keep on saying that it is the HO2 with ASC which is the difficult system. My system is simple but you are too stuborn to see that or admit it.

    I am not going convince you since you have been using the HO2 w ASC for years and you do not like to change. You are resistant to change. The underlying assumption was that a rank could not be used as a side count if that rank was included in the primary count because you wanted the CC between the side count and primary count to be zero. Thus HO2 counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and Tens and so there can only be side counts of 8, 9 and Aces that are not in the primary count. But that is not true. Side counts do not have to have zero correlation with the primary count - side counts can have ranks included in the primary count. 5m7c uses both the 5's and 7's which are included in the KO. it should also be noted that 5m7c and KO are uncorrelated, i.e. CC(KO, 5m7c) = 0 just like side counts of ranks not included in the primary count have zero CC with the pimary count. But that is not even necssary. Side counts do not have to have a zero CC with the primary count as CC(KO, AA89mTc) = around 20% and KO + k*(AA89mTc) works just fine. I could include exhibits to show these CC but I will exclude them, at least of now.

    So you will see that I my predictions will be correct when Gronbog does his simulations. I have been correct in EVERY other prediction I made. And I will be correct again here.

    You will be then be forced to admit that the HO2 with ASC is an inferior count when it comes to power. And the other four criterion that I use in choosing a count system which are ease of use, accuracy, camouflage and help with side counts. my KO system beats the HO2 w ASC.

    Overall my KO system is better that the HO2 w ASC and just wait until you see LS results which will leave HO2 w ASC in the dust for the LS game.

    When the results come in you will have to admit defeat.

    And if you can convince Gronbog to add 8 and 9 side counts to HO2 w ASC to see if it catches up with my system go ahead.

    So your ultimate system is HO2 w ASC and side counts of 8's and 9's. That is the absolute best you can do with the HO2 and I think even that may still come in below my KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.

    You have decreasing gains when extra counts are added. The 8 and 9 will only help with playing efficiency. I explained I chose AA89mTc as my first side count since it helped with the most important playing strategy decision which was insurance with KO + AA89mTc giving a perfect insurance decision. Then I choose 5m7c as my other side count because it helped increase betting efficiency to 99%. Both AA89mTc and 5m7c also had more playing strategy variations which is a free bonus.

    In my 3rd and 4th books I did introduce a third side count of Am6c, Am8c or 6m2c to add to KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c and these side counts will help with playing strategy but the improvement will not be worth the extra effort and possibility of making mistakes.

    Similarly the HO2 w ASC is already an extremely difficult count. Adding side counts of 8's and 9's would make it an extremely difficult count system.

    So my KO system will definitely beat HO2 w ASC and may even beat HO2 w ASC when 8's and 9's are added which is an impossible system to keep with tons of errors possible.

    Just wait and see and you will find out that my predictions are correct once again as every other prediction I made was correct. I know what I am talking about.

    And remember, simulations just show POWER. My KO system also beats the HO2 w ASC for ease of use, accuracy, camouflage plays and help with side bets.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 03-15-2019 at 08:15 PM.

  12. #844


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post


    Now you are talking about making the systems very complicated. You want a level 2 HO2 count as the primary count which is very, very difficult to keep as opposed to the KO primary count level one count of my system. And you want to now add, besides a side count of Aces, a side count of 8's and 9's, all side counts being inexact as they depend on estimates of decks played where as plus/minus side counts are exact. And the 8 and 9 side count included with the HO2 w ASC is very difficult to keep and even more difficult to correctly incorporate with the HO2 w ASC. In addition there is no corrections forf 5's or 7's which have fixed tag values in the HO2 whereas my KO system uses k1*(5m7c) so can increase the tag values of 5 or 7 or even flip them to negative. There is no comparison.
    Ok, if it is complicated why don't you use casino chips to keep the side??? I don't understand that isn't that what you suggest? That is what you doing with you KO system anyways.

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    I keep on saying that is it the HO2 with ASC which is the difficult system. My system is simple but you are too stuborn to see that or admit it.
    Yes, because I don't and won't use casino chip to keep side counts. You only know how to use casino chips to keep count you can't count otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    I am not going convince you since you have been using the HO2 w ASC for years and you do not like to change. You are resistant to change.
    Again, this is not true!! I don't resist change I only and only resist change when someone is making this worse. I would never ever resist an improvement. You are not making improvements you are making things worse by adding more component that is why I am resisting your idea. If you are able to your KO better by not adding that many components I would accept your idea but you refuse to make changes and accuse others of resisting change.

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post

    So you will see that I my predictions will be correct when Gronbog does his simulations. I have been correct in EVERY other prediction I made. And I will be correct again here.


    You will be then be forced to admit that the HO2 with ASC is an inferior count when it comes to power. And the other four criterion that I use in choosing a count system which are ease of use, accuracy, camouflage and help with side counts. my KO system beats the HO2 w ASC.
    I would only accept your idea if you make you system less components. You can't compare a count with 3 or 4 components to a count with 1 or 2 components. You can but it is not a fair comparison.


    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Overall my KO system is better that the HO2 w ASC and just wait until you see LS results which will leave HO2 w ASC in the dust for the LS game.

    When the results come in you will have to admit defeat.

    No, we don't because you haven't admit defeat yourself so we are not going admit defeat either.

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    So your ultimate system is HO2 w ASC and side counts of 8's and 9's. That is the absolute best you can do with the HO2 and I think even that may still come in below my KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.
    I don't think that HO2 w ASC and side counts of 8's and 9's will come in below my KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    You have decreasing gains when extra counts are added. The 8 and 9 will only help with playing efficiency.
    Citations needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    So my KO system will definitely beat HO2 w ASC and may even beat HO2 w ASC when 8's and 9's are added which is an impossible system to keep with tons of errors possible.
    How do you know that??

    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Just wait and see and you will find out that my predictions are correct once again as every other prediction I made was correct. I know what I am talking about.
    If it is not than you are making yourself more full of shit.

  13. #845


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Another question for bjanalyst. What will you suggest player who uses KO+AA89mTc+5m7c if they don't want to use casino chips to keep the side count?

Page 65 of 72 FirstFirst ... 15556364656667 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. High Edge Side Bets
    By knoxstrong in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-26-2021, 07:44 AM
  2. Adding AA78mTc to High Low
    By bjanalyst in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-27-2021, 05:21 AM
  3. Betting side bet lucky ladies on High Counts?
    By Tenlavuu in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2018, 05:24 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.