Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[seriousplayer]

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.

[bjanalyst]

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.

[seriousplayer]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Norm]

What are the bets in these sims?

[Gronbog]

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.

[bjanalyst]

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.

[seriousplayer]

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.

[bjanalyst]

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.

[seriousplayer]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You have decreasing gains when extra counts are added. The 8 and 9 will only help with playing efficiency.

Citations needed.

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??

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.

[lij45o6]

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.

Simulations show more than just "power" (whatever that means.)

Also, you're full of shit. HOII w/ ASC is *much* simpler than using your three count method that has been proposed. In fact, I would venture to guess that a HOII w/ ASC and a 89vT count would beat the living shit out of your system (if we are to use difficulty of use as parity.) Considering you are adding complexity to something that should be simple. Why not go hog-wild then? Go ahead! Run your KO with all your bells and whistles and compare it to HOII w/ ASC & 89vT for playing *and* betting.

I (unlike you) will refrain from speculating about how *my* idea should pan out. (I already have an idea...and that idea is correct! Of course, you would be wise to keep quite until then.)

[bjanalyst]

Simulations show more than just "power" (whatever that means.)

Also, you're full of shit. HOII w/ ASC is *much* simpler than using your three count method that has been proposed. In fact, I would venture to guess that a HOII w/ ASC and a 89vT count would beat the living shit out of your system (if we are to use difficulty of use as parity.) Considering you are adding complexity to something that should be simple. Why not go hog-wild then? Go ahead! Run your KO with all your bells and whistles and compare it to HOII w/ ASC & 89vT for playing *and* betting.

I (unlike you) will refrain from speculating about how *my* idea should pan out. (I already have an idea...and that idea is correct! Of course, you would be wise to keep quite until then.)

Again, wait for Gronbog's simulations. And my only comment on your statement of complexity is that the HO2 is the base primary count. It is a complicated level 2 count where there are six ranks with an absolute tag values of 2 (4, 5, and Tens) and four ranks with an absolute value of 1 (2, 3, 6 and 7) and they all have to be calculated at once and you state the this HO2 level two count is simpler that to keep than the level one KO which is the base count for my system.

We can discuss this further after the simulations prove that my KO system beats HO2 w ASC.

Every single prediction that I have made so far has been shown to be correct. And my latest two predictions will also be shown to be correct.

(1) When negative indices are added my KO system will outperform HO2 w ASC for the play all in addition to back counting (which has already been shown the be the case).

(2) When LS is used, my KO system will perform even better against the HO2 w ASC than with no LS.

So let's wait for simulation results please. You will see that I am correct. Then what are you going to say?

[seriousplayer]

Again, wait for Gronbog's simulations. And my only comment on your statement of complexity is that the HO2 is the base primary count. It is a complicated level 2 count where there are six ranks with an absolute tag values of 2 (4, 5, and Tens) and four ranks with an absolute value of 1 (2, 3, 6 and 7) and they all have to be calculated at once and you state the this HO2 level two count is simpler that to keep than the level one KO which is the base count for my system.

We can discuss this further after the simulations prove that my KO system beats HO2 w ASC.

Every single prediction that I have made so far has been shown to be correct. And my latest two predictions will also be shown to be correct.

(1) When negative indices are added my KO system will outperform HO2 w ASC for the play all in addition to back counting (which has already been shown the be the case).

(2) When LS is used, my KO system will perform even better against the HO2 w ASC than with no LS.

So let's wait for simulation results please. You will see that I am correct. Then what are you going to say?

Your results don't count because you are comparing your count which is three components to Hi-OPT II with ASC which is one components. You can keeps saying it but I will never give up. You lucky this is Norm's forum because if it is my forum I will bar you off the forum for harassment and abuse.

[refinery]

We're all clamoring for it (to end)