Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[seriousplayer]

If you believe my analysis is flawed then please report my posts to the webmaster and ask him to move my posts to DISADVATAGE FORUM where faulty math and vodoo is posted. Let's see what happens.

What I think about your secondary plus and minus system is that it doesn't give the needed gain to other card counting systems. Firstly, I don't know what your purpose is adding AA89mTc to Hi-lo and KO. What are you trying to improve? It doesn't sound like you are trying to improve betting. So maybe you are trying to improve playing and insurance. If that is the case looking at you previous post you haven't address the necessary indices to improve playing efficiency. All you did was improved the 12 decisions by ten percentage but that would not give you even 95% card counting gain.

Secondly, is insurance you suggest to take insurance at true count = +4. But since AA89mTc + KO becomes the Unbalanced Ten Count then should you take insurance when RC >= 2* deck just like the ten count? Just by improving

16 vs 10
15 vs 10
12vs 2
Insurance

will give you up to 95% possible card counting gain. But it doesn't look like you have address that in your AA89mTc + KO. Your intention of adding AA89mTc to KO wasn't to fix the under and over betting. What are you trying to do here that is what I am not understanding???

[bjanalyst]

Adding AA89mTc to KO helps with the following 6 playing strategy decisions increasing KO's CC for these six decisions, which are all part of Schelsinger's Illustrious 18, by 20% to 30%. A huge increase in playing efficiencies for these important plays.

Insure if KO+ AA89mTc >= crc(4) CC = 100%
Stand on hard12 v 2 if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) CC = 92%
Stand on hard12 v 3 if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(2) CC = 95%
Stand on hard12 v 4 if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(0) CC = 97%
Stand on hard12 v 5 if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(-2) CC= 99%
Stand on hard12 v 6 if KO + 1.5*(AA89mTc) >= crc(-1) CC = 99%

crc(t) = KO critical running count of KO true count of "t" = 4*n + (t-4)*dr
n = number of decks and dr = decks remaining.

crc(4) = 4*n
crc(2) = 4*n - 2*dr
crc(0) = 4*n - 4*dr = 4*dp where dp = decks played.
crc(-2) = 4*n - 6*dr = 4*dp - 2*dr
crc(-1) = 4*n - 5*dr = 4*dp - dr

I had constructed a table of critical running counts that have patters that are easy to memorize and if you memorize that table do you do have to calculate crc for t > 0 but for t < 0 use the formulas crc(-2) + 4*dp - 2*dr and crc(-1) = 4*dp - dr.

And yes, hard 15 v 10 and hard 16 v 10 are also two very important playing strategy decisions and are also included in the Illustrious 18 but unfortunately AA89mTc does not help with hard 15 v 10 and hard 16 v 10.

[lij45o6]

And yes, hard 15 v 10 and hard 16 v 10 are also two very important playing strategy decisions and are also included in the Illustrious 18 but unfortunately AA89mTc does not help with hard 15 v 10 and hard 16 v 10.

Most of your gains from proper playing decisions rests in the hard totals 16-12 vs dealer T. Griffin outlined this in the third chapter of ToBJ. You gain *some* modest advantage with only the 12's; however, most of your proper gains are provided, again, in ToBJ chapter 3. In chapter 3, the gains for the hard 12 vs dealer 2-6 can be realized with only hard 15 & 16 vs dealer T. That is, you will gain the same amount of +EV just with those two decisions only vs all other hard 12 totals. Insurance is a right first move. For 12, they are okay, but there are *may* other totals you should look at first.

The reason that your AA89 count may not help is by two factors:

1.) The 8 and 9 are not key cards (the 4 and 5 are!)
2.) You are comparing the total of Aces, 8's, and 9's against T's, where a surplus of 8/9 vs T makes a bustable player hand as well as a surplus of T's also makes a bustable player hand. Both surplus values also makes a dealer up-card T a made hand (18, 19, and 20 totals)

Again, I (and others on this site,) do recommend you perform a simulation to demonstrate why the system you are providing is worth the extra work. What is your relative gain vs work needed to keep the two counts? If the gain is minuscule, you may have an issue getting other people to consider purchasing your book or even using your system.

Commissioning a simulation on your end is something I would earnestly and wholeheartedly recommend to you, a system purveyor.

[bjanalyst]

I do not have simulation software. I have tested every single way short of simulations which I cannot do. Plus I should not be testing my own work. Someone else with simulation software should test my work - my work should be independently verified.

I previous mentioned testing HL with AA78mTc using just the six changes with a canned HL simulation program since the changes to that program would be minimal (see some previous posts - just six changes to that HL program would need to be done) but no one wanted to do that and I got some sarcastic answers saying "I am not testing anything". Typical answer from someone who does not understand what I wrote and sort of insulting to me also.

But I KNOW that what I did was correct. If someone ran simulations they would prove that I am correct but I already know I am correct.

As I stated earlier, I put up a challenge to the doubters of my work and I challenge anyone to take me up on it. If anyone thinks my calculations are incorrect and bogus then write to the webmaster of this site and tell them to relegate all of my posts to The DISADVANTAGE FORUM where voodoo, progressions, faulty math, etc. are moved to. Just because you do not understand what I did does not mean that what I did was incorrect. So I have no problem with any member asking the webmaster to review my posts move them to the DISADVANTAGE FORUM if he believes I have been writing garbage. This is a challenge that I put forward to any of the skeptics that challenge and do not understand my work.

I used BJA's EoR calculated to five significant digits which took into account all combinations. When you run simulations you are hitting randomly on these combinations and there is variance which is why you need to run millions of hands to reduce the variations. But the calculation of CC and indices from the EoR is EXACT and involves zero variance. And I told you that short of simulations my calculations passed every tests. I compared the indices generated from my LSL technique with published HL indices. I compared a few dozen HL situations and my indices matched published HL indices every single time. I also used Griffins' PD (proportional deflection) which is another technique to calculate indices and the results from PD matched LSL indices every time.

Please look at Don Schlesinger's Illustrious 18. They list the 18 most important playing strategy changes. Insurance is the MOST important and then hard 16 v T and hard 15 v T but there are 18 important strategy changes. Actually AA89mTc does helps with a few other strategy changes included in the Illustrious 18 but I did not mention them to keep things simple. I just wanted to stick to the most important.

I will again include the HL chart with the six changes in a previous post so you can see the increase in the HL with AA78mTc over the HL and the KO increase with KO with AA89mTc is similar.

HL with AA78mTc chart.jpg

And below is the HL with AA78mTc compared to Hi Opt 2 with side counts of Aces for the Illustrious 18. Note that the weighted correlation coefficients of both are about equal which his why I predicted that HL with AA78mTc (and KO with AA89mTc) is just as powerful as the Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces.
HL with AA78mTc vs HO2 with Adef.jpg

As I mentioned I analyze counts on three criteria.
(1) Ease of use The HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc are very easy to keep as compared to the level 2 Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces
(2) Power (as measured by weighted average CC. HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc are approximately as powerful as Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces)
(3) Accuracy This refers to accuracy in the calculation of true counts. Here is where the KO come in . With it's pivot of a true count of 4, the KO with AA89mTc has extremely accurate true counts around true count of 4 where the maximum bets are made and are not effected much by errors in estimating decks remaining when true count >= 3 which are the important true counts.

And I have another test for the KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n where n = number of decks that you can do yourself which I will list below. This should further convince you that KO + AA89mTc >= 4*n gives perfect insurance decision. I copied this page from one of my books.
02 Experiment.jpg

And below are camouflage plays with AA78mTc with KO

02 camoflague.jpg

[Three]

You keep mixing the terms efficiencies and correlations. They are two different things. An efficiency measures improvement for a standard and can be used for direct comparisons. And correlation measures the degree one set correlates to another, which only indicates a relative comparison like this is better than that. Those are two entirely different things that may be somewhat related. People are asking for efficiencies so they can make a quantitative comparison, but everything I have seen you present are correlations which can only make relative comparisons. You are using correlations to make quantitative comparisons, saying something is this much better than that. You can only make relative comparisons with correlations, or saying this is better than that. That is why people want a direct comparison rather than all your correlation coefficients.

[seriousplayer]

Hi-lo +AA89mTc does not become Unbalanced Ten Count because Hi-lo doesn't count the 7s. In the Unbalanced Ten Count all cards are counted. So I am not sure how you get 100% insurance correlation with Hi-lo + AA89mTc. I could see how KO+ AA89mTc becomes the Unbalanced Ten Count after added together but not Hi-lo + AA89mTc. Why do you need to select "k" when it is equal to 1 for 12 vs 2-5 wouldn't be easier to leave it out?

Power (as measured by weighted average CC. HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc are approximately as powerful as Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces)

How are you able to make that conclusion when you haven't simulated count system?

[lij45o6]

How are you able to make that conclusion when you haven't simulated count system?

Here we are. 9 pages in and *nothing* of value has been provided outside of bjanalysts OP describing his system. Already, what, 3-4 posters recommended that a sim be commissioned to get an idea of how strong this thing really is. Myself pointing out a lack of sim data, with the OP jumping down my throat about not understanding that CC already proves that their "super system" beats HO2, a claim without *any* quantifiable/quantifiable data outside of their (bjanalyst's) own word. Which is why I recommended that a sim be done to give the new system more street creed!

But, no. The OP posts the same thing over and over without any new substantial breakthrough. If I am not mistaken, the OP has a BS in Math and should be familiar with statistical analysis and some light programming (provided the program is well-rounded.) If not, either purchase the CV suite and perform a multi-parametric simulation of the new system (I assume this can be done,) or build/program a sim that does just that.

If you think you have summoned my wrath, you are over-reacting. A claim made in absence of evidence can be dismissed just as easily without evidence. I dismiss that this system out-performs other systems out there, unless proven otherwise.

Again, the burden of proof falls upon the OP. Anyone who objects is full of shit.

[bjanalyst]

I have shown that the weighted CC of HL with AA78mTc is equal to weighted CC of Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces. You admitted that CC shows relative strength so HL with AA78mTc having the same relative strength as HO with Ace side count also means HL with AA78mTc has the same efficiency as HO2 with side count of Aces. So now you know the efficiency of HL with AA78mTc.

But the main point of my posts is not semantics but the point is that my analysis is correct and improves on the HL count.

[lij45o6]

I do not have simulation software. I have tested every single way short of simulations which I cannot do. Plus I should not be testing my own work. Someone else with simulation software should test my work - my work should be independently verified.

I previous mentioned testing HL with AA78mTc using just the six changes with a canned HL simulation program since the changes to that program would be minimal (see some previous posts - just six changes to that HL program would need to be done) but no one wanted to do that and I got some sarcastic answers saying "I am not testing anything". Typical answer from someone who does not understand what I wrote and sort of insulting to me also.

But I KNOW that what I did was correct. If someone ran simulations they would prove that I am correct but I already know I am correct.

We are not suggesting you are incorrect. We want sim data! CC does NOTHING for us!

As I stated earlier, I put up a challenge to the doubters of my work and I challenge anyone to take me up on it. If anyone thinks my calculations are incorrect and bogus then write to the webmaster of this site and tell them to relegate all of my posts to The DISADVANTAGE FORUM where voodoo, progressions, faulty math, etc. are moved to. Just because you do not understand what I did does not mean that what I did was incorrect. So I have no problem with any member asking the webmaster to review my posts move them to the DISADVANTAGE FORUM if he believes I have been writing garbage. This is a challenge that I put forward to any of the skeptics that challenge and do not understand my work.

Nothing suggests voodoo. Quit playing victim.

I used BJA's EoR calculated to five significant digits which took into account all combinations.

No. They don't! They only account for one card removed from a full deck. Schlesinger can correct me on that.

When you run simulations you are hitting randomly on these combinations and there is variance which is why you need to run millions of hands to reduce the variations. But the calculation of CC and indices from the EoR is EXACT and involves zero variance. And I told you that short of simulations my calculations passed every tests. I compared the indices generated from my LSL technique with published HL indices. I compared a few dozen HL situations and my indices matched published HL indices every single time. I also used Griffins' PD (proportional deflection) which is another technique to calculate indices and the results from PD matched LSL indices every time.

You need to understand that a simulation, when ran long enough, will converge to some value with minimal standard error. Norm can fill you in on details if he wants to.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding what is going on here. Yes, your values are "correct" in the sense that they are approximations based upon a single rank removed from a full deck. This approximation, for some reason, is a simple and elegant way to express what is to be expected. It does not, however, give us the full picture.

Simulations also give us: win rate, variance, SCORE, and a multitude of other data points that allows us to perform statistical analysis of the system you provided. CC does little for us except tell us how well your system tracks specifics within the game.

Please look at Don Schlesinger's Illustrious 18. They list the 18 most important playing strategy changes. Insurance is the MOST important and then hard 16 v T and hard 15 v T but there are 18 important strategy changes. Actually AA89mTc does helps with a few other strategy changes included in the Illustrious 18 but I did not mention them to keep things simple. I just wanted to stick to the most important.

We are familiar here.

And below is the HL with AA78mTc compared to Hi Opt 2 with side counts of Aces for the Illustrious 18. Note that the weighted correlation coefficients of both are about equal which his why I predicted that HL with AA78mTc (and KO with AA89mTc) is just as powerful as the Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces.

Gonna need to see sim data on that one fam!

As I mentioned I analyze counts on three criteria.
(1) Ease of use The HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc are very easy to keep as compared to the level 2 Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces
(2) Power (as measured by weighted average CC. HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc are approximately as powerful as Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces)
(3) Accuracy This refers to accuracy in the calculation of true counts. Here is where the KO come in . With it's pivot of a true count of 4, the KO with AA89mTc has extremely accurate true counts around true count of 4 where the maximum bets are made and are not effected much by errors in estimating decks remaining when true count >= 3 which are the important true counts.

Any why should I use your system over HOII w/ ASC? Over Wong? Over Zen, Omega, RPC? Again, sim data will provide that answer!

[bjanalyst]

Please read carefully ALL of the posts in this thread. There are a lot of posts but if you read all of the posts then you would not have asked this questions.

First I use AA78mTc is with the HL, not AA89mTc. I use AA89mTc with the KO.

And I never said HL with AA78mTc was the unbalanced Ten count. I said KO with AA89mTc is the unbalanced Ten count. Read the previous posts and look at the attached charts and you will see.

HL with AA78mTc has 98% insurance CC. I had a file that showed the HL with AA78mTc with its 98% CC with Ten excess.

So please read all of my posts carefully and look at all of the files I have with which will clarify what I have said.

[lij45o6]

You admitted that CC shows relative strength...

When?

[seriousplayer]

HL with AA78mTc has 98% insurance CC. I had a file that showed the HL with AA78mTc with its 98% CC with Ten excess.

If you are using HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc than you are making the calculation for insurance very complicated. Now I have two formula I need to remember one for KO with AA89mTc and one with HL with AA78mTc. Now my question to you is how did you come about deriving the formula for HL with AA78mTc to be HL + AA78mTc > = 4 * dr?

[bjanalyst]

Any why should I use your system over HOII w/ ASC? Over Wong? Over Zen, Omega, RPC? Again, sim data will provide that answer!

No one on this site wanted to do sims. I mentioned many times that I do not have sim software. I suggested getting a canned HL sim and plug in only six changes for the AA78mTc (to make the changes as easy as possible) and run it and see what happens. But I got back replies like "I am not going to do any sims".

Finally I mentioned in previous posts the three criteria I used in picking a count (1) ease of use, (2) power and (3) accuracy which would answer your question about why use HL with AA78mTc or better still KO with AA89mTc instead of the other counts your mentioned.

So please read all of my previous posts on this thread and if you have sim software or know of someone with sim software, I would be interested in the results of a sim.

I already mentioned in a previous post that I predicted the results of the sim. If you sim six decks, five decks dealt, for example, with HL and AA78mTc (since that sim should be easy and quick to put tougher if you have a canned HL sim software) and compare it to HO2 with ASC, since they both have approximately the same weighed average CC you should get approximately the same results.

But since you are using only six strategy changes to HL with AA78mTc (instead of using more AA78mTc strategy changes) the HL with AA78mTc may come in a bit below HO2 with ASC

Again, please read all of the previous post before asking a question as I probably answered your question in a previous post.