Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

How can you make such a claim without doing a simulation to compare both counts? CVDATA is capable to simulation KO + 5m7c. Using 5m7c for betting.

EVERY SINGLE PREDICTION I MADE CAME TRUE, didn't it. I put my predictions out BEFORE the sims were done so if I was wrong hyou could have bashed me to no end. But I was correct EVERY SINGLE TIIME.

I based my predictions on weighted CC for playing efficiency and betting CC for betting efficiency. Using both together game me excellent prediction of what the simulations results would be.

I no one has found any errors in my formulas either. The compaints are that it is difficult. I simplied it for you but you still complain.

And my prediction is that the KO with 5m7c will beat Wong's Halves and for the back counted LS shoe game will come close to the HO2 w ASC. I can calculate weighted CC and we already knew the betting CC of KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) to make my prediction.

I did not do a full weighted CC of KO + k*(5m7c) but I can make preliminary predictions anyhow.

I will base my preliminary predictions on the SCOREs produced so far since I did not calculated weighted CC which is more accurate.

(5m7c) when used with the KO was the major help to the LS success of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c. If no side bets and pure LS blackjack then taking away AA89mTc will hurt with your insurance and standing on hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. When AA78mTc was added to HL the gain in the SCORE was around 4. With LS the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c has around 7 gain in the SCORE. Most of the LS gain was from 5m7c. So I can guess that take away AA89mTc and use only KO with 5m7c for the shoe LS back counted game will mean that the KO with 5m7c will come close to the HO2 w ASC and will absolutely beat Wong's Halves,

I know KO + k*(5m7c) will beat Wong's Halves because it has the same betting CC of 99% as does Wong's Halves but Wong's Halves has inferior playing efficiency and Wong' Halves will definitely lose to KO with 5m7c with LS also.

So I am assuming that you will agree that keeping the level one KO count and the level one 5m7c are simple to do and you can keep both counts I your head without using chips. I think you will agree that keeping KO with 5m7c is easier than the level 3 Wong's Halves and the level 2 HO2 w ASC. So the question is how does this simple system, that even you can use, perform.

So again my predictions are KO with 5m7c

(1) will beat Wong's Halves in LS and no LS and all scenarios

(2) come in close to HO2 w ASC for the back counted LS shoe game.

[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.

[seriousplayer]

I have more questions:

In previous post he said he recommends backcounting and using casino chips for side counting. Backcounting means standing behind a table and when the shoe is in your advantage you enter the game and play. So my question is how could he side count with casino chips standing behind the table doing 5m7c+AA89mTc+b side counts? Where would he put the casino chips to make three combinations standing behind the table? He going to use all his pockets or something? Ok, suppose he could do it for one table but how about backcounting using casino chips for two or more tables standing behind the table? He could do that sitting down but the pit boss could say: "If you are not playing you need to get up". I don't get it and I don't understand!! How could this technique be practical?

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!!!

To effectively attack the lucky ladies side bet you don't necessarily need the 10 side count. You need to understand why the 10 side count is most suitable count for the lucky ladies side bet. The reason is that it has a 100% insurance correlation. Using that concept you can find another count that has a 100% insurance correlation and use that for the lucky ladies side bet as well.

[bjanalyst]

I have more questions:
In previous post he said he recommends backcounting and using casino chips for side counting. Backcounting means standing behind a table and when the shoe is in your advantage you enter the game and play. So my question is how could he side count with casino chips standing behind the table doing 5m7c+AA89mTc+b side counts? Where would he put the casino chips to make three combinations standing behind the table? He going to use all his pockets or something? Ok, suppose he could do it for one table but how about backcounting using casino chips for two or more tables standing behind the table? He could do that sitting down but the pit boss could say: "If you are not playing you need to get up". I don't get it and I don't understand!! How could this technique be practical?

I will assume here that you have no problem in keeping the 5m7c in your head along with the KO count. Your problem is keeping the AA89mTc which is what I will review here.

You are talking about procedure here. I am sure that you can come up with many different techniques yourself but I have mentioned several techniques to simplify keeping AA89mTc. I will post these suggestions again here. Using these techniques AA89mTc is very simple to keep. I did not even give Carla any pointers on keeping AA89mTc and she just did it herself and she makes no mistakes. She keeps both counts in her head. And I taught my system to another counter and he had no problem in picking it up. Only in this forum have I had users continually say that my count is difficult and hard to keep.

Here are a couple of my suggestions to simplify keeping AA89mTc. The second suggestion eliminates chips altogether.

Update AA89mTc after all cards are on the table and before the player's play their hands - two Ten cards cancel out one Ace or and one Ten cancels one Eight or one Nine. Then calculate AA89mTs (s = cards seen during the current round). Alternately calculate AA89 seen on the table then start subtracting one for each Ten seen on the table and then calculate AA89mTs = AA89s - Ts. Add AA89mTs to the AA89mTc from the previous round to get an updated AA89mTc for the current round. Then continue to update the AA89mTc as cards are played to complete the player's and dealer's hands.

Using fingers of both hands to keep the AA89mTc: This can be used back counting or sitting at table. If AA89mTc = 8, for example, use one finger from your left hand pointing to your right wrist (+5) and then three fingers of your right hand extended (+3) which gives +8. If AA89mTc = (-12) then use two fingers from your right hand pointing to your left wrist (-10) plus two left fingers extended (-2) which gives (-12).
Keeping two side counts.jpg

[seriousplayer]

Using fingers of both hands to keep the AA89mTc: This can be used back counting or sitting at table. If AA89mTc = 8, for example, use one finger from your left hand pointing to your right wrist (+5) and then three fingers of your right hand extended (+3) which gives +8. If AA89mTc = (-12) then use two fingers from your right hand pointing to your left wrist (-10) plus two left fingers extended (-2) which gives (-12).

You can use your fingers to keep a side count but is telegraphing. You think you are smart?? You are giving another message to casino that you are a card counter.

Here is what you suggested already and they all give casino a clue that you are a card counter:

1. Standing behind a table to backcount.
2. Side counting with casino chips.
3. Side counting with your fingers

Defeat the purpose of camouflage.

Keep telegraphing!!!

[bjanalyst]

You can use your fingers to keep a side count but is telegraphing. You think you are smart?? You are giving another message to casino that you are a card counter.

Here is what you suggested already and they all give casino a clue that you are a card counter:

1. Standing behind a table to backcount.
2. Side counting with casino chips.
3. Side counting with your fingers

Defeat the purpose of camouflage.

You do not make it obvious with your finger count. And if the pit thinks you need your fingers to count they will think you are an idiot.

You are way too paranoid. And the camouflage I was talking about is the camouflage plays I explained previously which I will not repeat here.

If you think my system is difficult that is your problem, not mine. You just have to put in a little effort and practice. Just memorize the table of critical running counts (crc) and add and multiply small integers and compare to the crc and if the index is way off the table of critical running counts chart then use the fact that the true count distributes over linear combinations of counts, that is use tc(psrc) = tc(KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc)) = tc(KO) + k1*tc(5m79c) + k2*tc(AA89mTc) to derive simplified formulas when the Index for a particular playing strategy change is "off the charts". I already did this for you in previous exhibits that I posted.

So simulations now show that my KO system is more POWERFUL than the HO2 w ASC for no LS and LS for scenarios. And the other four advantages I look for in counts are ease of use, camouflage, accuracy (around true count of 4 and plus/minus side counts are exact whereas Ace side count is approximate since it involves estimating decks played) and help with side bets. My KO system beats the HO2 w ASC in power and the other four categories I just listed above. It is a better count system for the blackjack SHOE game.

It should be noted that I made these predictions all along. I made these prediction that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c was more powerful than HO2 w ASC in my 3rd & 4th books both published BEFORE I ever posted on this forum. I based these predictions on weighted CC and betting CC.

Before I posted this system NO ONE I meet every said it was difficult.

The results have been posted. You have he proof and you still complain.

If you do not like it don't use it. Stick to HO2 w ASC or Wong's Halves.

[seriousplayer]

So simulations now show that my KO system is more POWERFUL than the HO2 w ASC for no LS and LS for scenarios.

Yes, because you going to keep adding components until it outperforms Hi-OPT II with ASC. Then we should start adding components to Hi-OPT II with ASC. So I am not going to accept your idea and system.

Agree with Don. If you haven't convinced anyone else by what you are saying, you are just diluting the effectiveness of the site.

Thank you for your work and opinions. But, I'd like to concentrate on quality as opposed to quantity, and 900 posts on a subject that doesn't appear useful to folks here is quite a stretch.

I think you should have a section of the forum that labels:

Bad advanced strategies

[bjanalyst]

Yes, because you going to keep adding components until it outperforms Hi-OPT II with ASC. Then we should start adding components to Hi-OPT II with ASC. So I am not going to accept your idea and system.

I do not keep on adding components! I never did so get your story straight before posting insulting and untrue comments.

My system from day one and from the 3rd & 4th books both published BEFORE I ever made a post to this site was the KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c which I said in both of those books would beat HO2 w ASC.

So stop accusing me of adding components and changing my mind on what to use to beat the HO2 w ASC. I NEVER added any more components nor did I ever change my mind.

There is nothing else for me to say - you have the sim results and you now have proof that my system beats HO2 w ASC.

The only argument left that the users now have is that my system is too complex. I disagree and I showed ways to simplify on keeping and using the primary KO and its two side counts 5m7c and AA89mTc.

So let's be a little more precise here in your statement. My system is too complex for YOU.

I did make a statement that if you want to simplify and just use the 5m7c with the KO and ignore the AA89mTc (which I would not suggest but since the users of this site seem to think AA89mTc is difficult to keep) you will still have a very powerful system that will beat Wong's Halves and will also come close to the HO2 w ASC for the back counted LS shoe game. The 5m7c with the KO is what improved the LS sim so much.

I had posted some strategy changes using just KO with 5m7c in earlier posts but never did a full blown analysis on it.

Now I believe KO with 5m7c would probably meet the users of this forum criteria for a simple system. I am TAKING away the AA89mTc component (which I do not think is a good idea).

You have the simple level one KO count and a very simple level one side count, 5m7c. Both counts are very easy to keep and can be kept in your head.

So if there is a sufficient interest in an analysis of KO with 5m7c and if I am promised no more insults then I can do a more complete analysis of KO with 5m7c. If not then I am done.

Also, even if users want me to do an analysis of KO with 5m7c, I will not have time to do any more analysis until May.

And please STOP with the insults and get some manners.

I expect a very simply answer to this post - either you want an analysis of KO with 5m7c or you don't and I except ZERO insults.

And if you do not want an analysis of KO with 5m7c then this post is done as I have nothing new to say and most importantly I will not be subject to any more insults.

[seriousplayer]

I do not keep on adding components! I never did so get your story straight before posting insulting and untrue comments.

My system from day one and from the 3rd & 4th books both published BEFORE I ever made a post to this site was the KO with AA89mTC and 5m7c which I said in both of those books would beat HO2 w ASC.

So stop accusing me of adding components and changing my mind on what to use to beat the HO2 w ASC. I NEVER added any more components nor did I ever change my mind.

There is nothing else for me to say - you have the sim results and you now have proof that my system beats HO2 w ASC.

The only argument left that the users now have is that my system is too complex. I disagree and I showed ways to simplify on keeping and using the primary KO and its two side counts 5m7c and AA89mTc.

The true of the fact is that 5m7c+AA89mTc+b is three components not counting KO. Also, please get it straight that your system didn't beat Hi-OPT II with ASC with 5m7c+AA89mTc you need add the b count to beat it. I guaranteed that if 5m7c+AA89mTc+b don't beat Hi-OPT II with ASC you will start adding more components.

Well, I am not the only one to think that your system is to complicated and complex. Others have said so also. Using KO+ 5m7c will not outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC why are you even making that suggestion? Are you trying to do something dangerous to people. I would not recommend your system to anyone at all.

Let's open up a poll so others can vote on whether or not your system is too complex and complicated. I will be the number 1 vote for yes it is too complex and complicated.

[bjanalyst]

The true of the fact is that 5m7c+AA89mTc+b is three components not counting KO. Also, please get it straight that your system didn't beat Hi-OPT II with ASC with 5m7c+AA89mTc you need add the b count to beat it. I guaranteed that if 5m7c+AA89mTc+b don't beat Hi-OPT II with ASC you will start adding more components.

Well, I am not the only one to think that your system is to complicated and complex. Others have said so also. Using KO+ 5m7c will not outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC why are you even making that suggestion? Are you trying to do something dangerous to people. I would not recommend your system to anyone at all.

You are following the herd instinct when call my system complex because others do also - it shows that you cannot think for yourself. Once one person says it everyone follows suit and everyone jumps off the bridge, instead of thinking for themselves which is too difficult. No one would dare go against the herd.

I cannot help if the users of this site are small minded as I can see from this post that you just did sated that "b" was another component that you have no idea what you are talking about.

There "b" is not an additional component. Gronbog used "b" to indicate that the 5m7c was not only used for playing strategy variations but was also used to help with betting.

This is similar to the Ace side count with the HO2 where the Ace side count helps not only with playing strategy variations abut also with betting so you should then add "b" as an extra component to the HO2 w ASC. The "b" was just shorthand notation by Gronbog, not an extra component.

Statement like this show me that you really do not even understand what is going on.

My system has two side count and primary count, KO primary with 5m7c and AA89mTc side counts, period. There are no more complements and these were my suggested counts in my 3rd & 4th books both published BEFORE I made a single post to this forum and which I stated in those books would beat HO2 w ASC and it did.

I asked for users to let m know if they want me to do an analysis of KO with 5m7c and I asked no more insults.

Instead you did just the opposite of what I asked and you answered with more insults and statements that show your lack of knowledge and did not answer my question if you want an analysis of KO with 5m7c since the AA89mTc is too difficult for YOU.

[bjanalyst]

The true of the fact is that 5m7c+AA89mTc+b is three components not counting KO. Also, please get it straight that your system didn't beat Hi-OPT II with ASC with 5m7c+AA89mTc you need add the b count to beat it. I guaranteed that if 5m7c+AA89mTc+b don't beat Hi-OPT II with ASC you will start adding more components.

Well, I am not the only one to think that your system is to complicated and complex. Others have said so also. Using KO+ 5m7c will not outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC why are you even making that suggestion? Are you trying to do something dangerous to people. I would not recommend your system to anyone at all.

Let's open up a poll so others can vote on whether or not your system is too complex and complicated. I will be the number 1 vote for yes it is too complex and complicated.

You are showing by your statemetns that you either did not read my previous explanation, which I hope is the case, or you are just an uneducated. blackjack players. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you diid not read my previous posts and I will explain them again here! And then I am accused of writing too many posts- the reason is that the readers of this site ask me the same questions over and over and over again that I answsere before.

So here are my answers again which I stated in previous posts:

(1) My system is KO, 5m7c and AA89mTc. There is a primary count and two side counts so a total of three components. The "b" is not an extra component. The "b" was shorthand for stating the 5m7c was used not only for playing strategy decisions but for betting also. The HO2 w ASC use the HO2 (a difficult level 2 count) and one side count, a side count of Aces (which is approximate since it depends on a estimation of decks played) and so uses two components, one difficult HO2 and one estimated Adef. But the Adef is used for betting as well as playing strategy changes so actually a "b" should also be used for HO2 w ASC and so HO2 w ASC b, just tike the 5m7c is also used for betting for system which would make the HO2 w ASC using three components according to your definition that "b" is an extra "component". And I was not going to add extra side counts to beat HO2 w ASC s since I claimed KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc would beat HO2 w ASC in my books 3 and 4 both published BEFORE I made a single post on this forum.

(2) I did not make a blanket statement that HO2 w 5m7c would beat HO2 w ASC. Read my posts carefully. I said for the back counted LS shoe game my prediction is the HO2 w ASC would come close to HO2 w ASC. You conveniently leave out important points of statements that I made.

(3) I really do not care what kind of poll you use because of the herd instinct and your great desire to discredit my system at all costs, you can no longer claim that my system will not beat the HO2 w ASC so now you need to say that my system is complex. Everyone in this forum is going to agree with you because everyone follows the herd and they need something to attack my system which beats HO2 w ASC.

I have absolutely no problem in keeping AA89mTc and Carla never had any problems - she keeps both counts in her head and does it automatically and does not make any mistake. She mastered the AA89mTc in less than two weeks and keeps it perfectly with the KO with no chips - everything in he head. And Carla is NOT an professional blackjack player - everything she learned I taught her. But she is a good student and does listen.

We play Lucky Ladies so we need AA89mTc and we just use KO with AA89mTc because we back count and are interested in the LL bet which is what we are really playing for. Carla never used any chips and she picked up on the AA89mTc right away without me having to do the extensive suggestions I had to make the count easy for the users of this forum. So I guess what you are telling me is that you, a supposedly professional and expert blackjack player, are dumber than Carla!

(4) Finally Gronbog said he does NOT endorse my system.

I have no problem with Gronbog saying he does not endorse which is what I expect which is to just post honest results and stay neutral. But Gronbog went on to say my system was "complex" which is a subjective statement as opposed to the hard objective facts which were the results of his simulations. I sort of wish that Gronbog did not make that statement and stayed neutral on the "complexity" issue but it is what it is. I prefer to stick with the facts which is the results of the simulations and let individuals decide if system is too complex for them or not. But to be fair Gronbog also stated the result of his simulations which you conveniently ignore and that is "These final results show more than a trivial improvement in all of the tested scenarios over HiOpt II + ASC when late surrender is added."

[DSchles]

There is nothing else for me to say

And yet, ...

Don