Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

Hope this would be the last simulation. Bjanalyst still didn't answer my question why can't his KO system beat Hi-OPT II with ASC using only two components? He has to add 5m7c+AA89mTc+b to outperform it.

I am done trying to convince you that my system is not complicated. You definitely have problems as you have trouble multplying small integers and adding small intergers and comparing to a thrid integer to see if it is large or smaller than the third integer. Using the Table of Critical Running counts or when the indices are outside the Table of cortical running counts deriving simplified formulas using the fact that the true count is distributive over linear combination of counts and that most of the time either k1 = 0 or k2 = 0 or both, I have derived very simply formulas to use.

The users on this site are the only people I meet who ever mentioned that my system is difficult. I taught it to another counter in a matter of 10 minutes, he practiced it and uses it with no problems. Carla uses the KO with AA89mTc for over 4 years now with no problem whatsoever. Only the readers of this forum complain how difficult my system is. The KO and 5m7c are simple level one counts and although the AA89mTc is technically a level 2 counts the only rank counted as +2 is the Ace. Compare AA89mTc with the HO2 which counts six ranks as +2 or -2 (4, 5, 10, J, Q, K, A) and four ranks as +1 (2, 3, 6, 7) and they must all be added together at the same time. And you call that easy? Level 2 counts are much more difficult than Level 1 counts!

Even after my system has been shown to beat the HO2 w ASC (which I have predicted form day one - every one of my predictions came true!) you still manage to bash my system. I think you just enjoy bashing other people for some reason that maybe it makes you feel superior.

At any rate, multiplying two small integers and adding or subtracting the product to a third integer is first grade arithmetic and you people keep on complaining. You should be ashamed of yourself because you are stating that you are dumber than a first grader.

And my system does use a primary count (KO) and two side counts (5m7c and AA89mTc). The HO2 w ASC uses the HO2 as the primacy count and uses one side count (Ace side count). But the HO2 is a difficlult level 2 count and the Ace side count is approximate because if depends on estimation decks played and the HO2 is balanced and so not as accurate true count calcluations when large gets are madedd as the KO count. So HO2 does not help with camoflague plays, is balanced so true counts are not as accurate around true count of 4 like my KO system is, Adef is estimated whereas as plus/minus side counts are exact and HO2 does not help with side bets.

Gronbog has one more simulation to do, which is the LS game. My prediction is that my KO system will outperform the HO2 w ASC to an even greater degree for the LS game than it did for the no LS game. Remember, EVERY prediction I made has been shown to be true.

I will include as an example how easy and powerful including the AA89mTc with the KO is for the Lucky Ladies side bet which the HO2 is nowhere near as effective.

All you need to know is that you start to increase the LL bet when LLc = KO + AA89mTc >= 30 for six decks and LLc >= 38 for 8 decks. The adjustment of increase true counts needed as decks remaining decreasing is built into this. No division and no need to adjust any calculations as decks remaining decreases. And it is also much more powerful for the LL bet than the HO2 is. So my KO system is more powerful and more accurate for the LL than HO2 for the LL bet and much easier to use.

This Lucky Ladies bet is EXTREMLY easy. You are just adding two integers, KO and AA89mTc, and comparing to a third integer, 30 for six decks and 38 for 8 decks, and if the sum is larger then you bet LL - no division is even needed!. How is that difficult?

Why cannot you just admit you were wrong and I was right all along and stop with the nonsense that my system is difficult? You insult yourself when you say my system is difficult because you are saying you have trouble with multiplying small integers and in adding small integers so you are saying you have problems with first grade arithmetic and that a first grader is smarter than you are!

My system beats HO2 w ASC for all scenarios period. And if you have trouble multiplying small integers and adding to a third small integer, that is your problem, not mine or my systems.

So just wait for the last simulation of LS and you will see that my system beats the HO2 w ASC to an even greater degree. That is my prediction and remember, I have NEVER made an incorrect prediction.
KO & AA89mTc for LL #1.jpg
KO & AA89mTc for LL #2.jpg

[refinery]

It is sheer insanity to claim your system beats HOII ASC. It needs a ton of caveats to do so and is obviously more complicated (to everyone but you).

[seriousplayer]

I am done trying to convince you that my system is not complicated. You definitely have problems as you have trouble multplying small integers and adding small intergers and comparing to a thrid integer to see if it is large or smaller than the third integer. Using the Table of Critical Running counts or when the indices are outside the Table of cortical running counts deriving simplified formulas using the fact that the true count is distributive over linear combination of counts and that most of the time either k1 = 0 or k2 = 0 or both, I have derived very simply formulas to use.

I am glad that you are tired of convincing me. If you are so good at adding small integers why don't you just make your base count into a count with fractional tag. But instead you choose to use a level one count system. Why not also turn your count into level 2 or level 3 count system instead of just using the KO as the base count? Still not answering my question. I think I know your answer already. Your answer is "I don't know".

[bjanalyst]

I am glad that you are tired of trying me. If you are so good at adding small integers why don't you just make your base count into a count with fractional tag. But instead you choose to use a level one count system. Why not also turn your count into level 2 or level 3 count system instead of just using the KO as the base count? Still not answering my question. I think I know your answer already. Your answer is "I don't know".

Your reply to me shows your total ignorance of how linear combinations of counts work - using different values of k1 and k2 you can create much higher derived level counts as well as fractional counts yet your primary and side counts are level one counts (except for AA89mTc which is technically a level 2 count but only one rank has a tag value is +2 which is the Ace).

Making the primacy count into a fractional count means a higher level primacy count which makes the system more complicated to use like the level 2 HO2. You do not need to do that as you can get higher level counts using linear combinations of the primacy count and side counts.

For example, the brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c). This brc is actually a level 3 count with fractional tag values but is derived from two very simple level one counts, KO and 5m7c, which are easy to keep. The tag values of brc are 1, 1, 1, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively which has 99% betting correlation for both no LS and LS game. You get the benefit of higher level counts using simple level one counts by taking different linear combinations.

But my audience on this forum is obviously players with a very low IQ who have trouble multiplying and adding small integers and are crybabies who cannot add and multiply and then blame me and my system for their own deficiencies. If you cannot multiply and add you have a lot more problems than trying to play blackjack optimally.

You will see my prediction with the LS game also comes true when my KO system outperforms the HO2 w ASC to an even greater degree.

I wish this forum had more intelligent players but alas, that is not the case. I am not a 1st grade teacher.

Since the users of this forum seem to have trouble multiplying and adding small integers I found the perfect books for you in the link below which is for 1st graders - I hope that is not too advanced for you. There are some real toughies here as some involve "take away" - you need to subtract integers instead of adding them - horrors!. This is absolutely terrible. I suggest you start studying addition and multiplication now.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...math&FORM=IGRE

[seriousplayer]

Making the primacy count into a fractional count means a higher level primacy count which makes the system more complicated to use like the level 2 HO2. You do not need to do that as you can get higher level counts using linear combinations of the primacy count and side counts.

No, it would not. You just double the fractional count tags to make it into integers.

For example, the brc = betting running count = KO + (1/2)*(5m7c). This brc is actually a level 3 count with fractional tag values but is derived from two very simple level one counts, KO and 5m7c, which are easy to keep. The tag values of brc are 1, 1, 1, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively which has 99% betting correlation for both no LS and LS game. You get the benefit of higher level counts using simple level one counts by taking different linear combinations.

If you are going to derive higher level count using simpler level one counts it would make your count system more complicated because it result in more components. Instead of using KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) wouldn't it be easier to just count using the tag values: 1, 1, 1, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A or 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, -2, -2 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A then expand from there? I guaranteed that it would require less components to outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC starting an expansion from there.

[BankerCA]

Even though this thread reached the point of Nauseam...
In all fairness to Bjanalyst, he has developed a system that has a higher SCORE than Hi-OPT II with ASC. I think he is owed a little credit.
However, it does have more components.

Ultimately, this boils down to 2 questions and both are OBJECTIVE.

Is his system worth the extra EV? Answer: Depends on the player
Is his system "difficult"? Answer: Depends on the player

There is no right or wrong answers here.

To say he is doing this to push books I believe is absurd.

[seriousplayer]

Even though this thread reached the point of Nauseam...
In all fairness to Bjanalyst, he has developed a system that has a higher SCORE than Hi-OPT II with ASC. I think he is owed a little credit.
However, it does have more components.

Ultimately, this boils down to 2 questions and both are OBJECTIVE.

Is his system worth the extra EV? Answer: Depends on the player
Is his system "difficult"? Answer: Depends on the player

There is no right or wrong answers here.

To say he is doing this to push books I believe is absurd.

Well, it is not absurd to say that he is making his system worse to gain a higher SCORE than Hi-OPT II with ASC which I am not a fan of. By making a system worse to get a higher gain just shows that is incompetent. There is no way he need to side count (1/2)*(5m7c) to make a combination of KO + (1/2)*(5m7c). Instead he could just count every other 5s and 7s to get combination 1, 1, 1, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A or just double the tag values.

[lij45o6]

No, it would not. You just double the fractional count tags to make it into integers.



If you are going to derive higher level count using simpler level one counts it would make your count system more complicated because it result in more components. Instead of using KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) wouldn't it be easier to just count using the tag values: 1, 1, 1, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A or 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, -2, -2 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A then expand from there? I guaranteed that it would require less components to outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC starting an expansion from there.

Looks like a more unbalanced Uston SS count: 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 [BC: 0.99 PE: 0.54 IC: 0.73]

Another question I have is why bjanalyst is trying to improve playing in a shoe game? Why not improve betting in a shoe game? If that is the case: then I would recommend using a balanced ASC for HOII and compare it to the full system he has developed.

HOII : 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 -2 0
BASC: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 -2 (That is take two points away from the HOII RC for every drawn Ace, but add one point for every extra 3 or 6 card.)

HOII w/ BASC : 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -2 for betting and HOII: 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 -2 0 for playing.

[lij45o6]

Even though this thread reached the point of Nauseam...
In all fairness to Bjanalyst, he has developed a system that has a higher SCORE than Hi-OPT II with ASC. I think he is owed a little credit.
However, it does have more components.

Ultimately, this boils down to 2 questions and both are OBJECTIVE.

Is his system worth the extra EV? Answer: Depends on the player
Is his system "difficult"? Answer: Depends on the player

There is no right or wrong answers here.

To say he is doing this to push books I believe is absurd.

I would argue that: yes, there is a "right" answer here. Several actually!

-If one is to use a balanced level one system, follow the KISS principle. High Low and KO get the money. That is all that is needed for a professional AP.
-If one is to branch out to increase playing efficiency: HOII with ASC (for both playing and betting improvements) for hand-held games is recommended.
-If one is to branch out to shoe games, consider increasing betting efficiency: HOII w BASC (if you want to play pitch games as well) or Wong Halves.

What becomes an issue is if someone like me wants to use multiple counts to derive solutions to this game when there are simpler approaches than what is being presented here.

Yes, if you want to go through the trouble of memorizing all these different side counts for High Low or Knockout...go right ahead! No one is stopping you. *BUT* don't delude yourself into thinking this level of complexity is jumping you ahead of other AP's (in terms of EV and SCORE) where simpler solutions can be derived while achieving around 98-99% similar returns. I feel the recent simulations commissioned by Gronbog have sufficiently demonstrated that.

There are *FAR* better avenues to explore for the game of 21 where improvement for any system can be made (ToBJ has a whole chapter on it! See "Multi-Parameter" chapter) These additional side counts are not where (in my opinion) the most of your gains will be realized. ToBJ demonstrates in one of the earliest chapters where most of your gains in play are to be had (for games with fewer decks, like SD!) Shoe games experience "diminishing returns" as the number of decks in play increases. Here, betting strategies are where most of your gains will be.

Let me remind everyone that in order to "beat" HOII w/ ASC, the system bjanalyst developed had to add multiple side counts. That is, compared to another system (HOII), bjanalyst's system show relatively more complexity for near similar gains. At this point, we are "penny-pinching" for double the mental "FLOPS" our brains have to do.

I would *highly* recommend bjanalyst read Theory of Blackjack to improve his system. That is make is much simpler and more powerful at the same time. The answer can be found; the solution must be derived...and not on some stupid misunderstanding of Correlation Coefficients either!

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Haha like I said months ago...this guy bjanalyst has mental issues...and he would NEVER stop posting here until he convinced himself that all his past years of work was not in vain. Now he actually believes his system is better than HI opt II plus ASC. But don't worry...I will soon let you all know how my red 7 count plus 10 side counts will beat ALL of your useless level 3 counts!!!

[seriousplayer]

Haha like I said months ago...this guy bjanalyst has mental issues...and he would NEVER stop posting here until he convinced himself that all his past years of work was not in vain. Now he actually believes his system is better than HI opt II plus ASC. But don't worry...I will soon let you all know how my red 7 count plus 10 side counts will beat ALL of your useless level 3 counts!!!

From reading most of bjanalyst's post all of his count that he worked on the past years was useless. His post shows that he is an incompetent, idiot, loser. How stupid can he be???

[Norm]

There is no reason to be insulting. Robert Frost wrote: "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by,..." Well, sometimes that works and sometimes....

Personally, I think this is a path that is only useful to a very few that are comfortable with, what I consider, an extremely difficult count. But, that doesn't mean a few mightn't profit from it.

Frankly, as I said before, this belongs in the Advanced Forum as it is of little use to the vast majority of players. But, that's just my opinion.

[seriousplayer]

There is no reason to be insulting. Robert Frost wrote: "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by,..." Well, sometimes that works and sometimes....

Personally, I think this is a path that is only useful to a very few that are comfortable with, what I consider, an extremely difficult count. But, that doesn't mean a few mightn't profit from it.

Frankly, as I said before, this belongs in the Advanced Forum as it is of little use to the vast majority of players. But, that's just my opinion.

Well, Bjanalyst insulted me. How? When I ask a question he doesn't answer the question and trying to abuse my question by posting previous threads. I know what he is trying to do and I am not stupid. He abused the thread by posting unrelated charts and spreadsheet that don't answer my question. I answer him not to talk about backcounting he does just that and to me that is an insult. I have said that many time he continues to do it.