Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[lij45o6]

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.

No one is doing a sim for you because that is your responsibility. Again, the site host has an amazing suite that should be able to sim your system for you. Consider purchasing it! Worth the investment.

www.qfit.com

To answer the rest of your post:

-Basing your 'theoretical' sim outcome on CC only is foolish. Explain *how* your system beats/is-equal-to HOII w/ ASC using your CC example. What is the expected win-rate? What is the expected overall variance? What is the expected SCORE?

-You need to understand that your system and HOII are fundamentally different. Hence, a sim would be needed. You need to stop making baseless claims, claims in the absence of sim data.

-The 6 strategy changes doesn't reflect an overall improvement over HOII unless you have sim data to demonstrate this.

[bjanalyst]

I am not suggesting that you keep both HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc. Use either one or the other.

My preference is the KO with AA89mTc which is what I suggesgted.

However KO with AA89mTc is unblaanced and many counters I meet do not want to memorize a table of critical running counts and do not want to switch from the High Low.

The High Low is the standard for many tems and players who are obstinate and do not wnat to change. So for those players, I calculed the HL with AA78mTc. That is not my suggested count but was included for those players who do not like unbalanced couunts.

And the insurance dieciosn is NOT complelicted.

Insure if HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr where dr - decks remaining with CC = 98%

Insure if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n where n = number of decks with CC = 100%.

Also please read ALL of my posts to this thread.

First the index for the KO with AA89mTc is 4 since you insurance if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n

The HL with AA78mTc is very similar to the KO with AA89mTc so you would expect the indices for HL+ AA78mTc to also be 4 so insure if HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr.

But you want proof the HL + AA78mTc index is 4 so I will include the charts below.

Attachment 3322

Attachment 3323

[Three]

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.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. A correlation coefficient doesn't say it more accurate. It says the count tags correlate to the full deck EoRs better. That doesn't make it more accurate because EoRs are squishy and accuracy has to do with the SD of the actual around the average for TC bins. Correlation to full deck EoRs is different than an efficiency. There was count few remember that looked much better when you judge by BC, PE and IC than other counts but nobody remembers it because it didn't sim like the numbers suggested. It was more complicated than other counts that outperformed it in simulation and had worse overall appearance when BC, PE, and IC were looked at.

Using an calculator that determines BC:
Hiopt2/ASC BC is .9820. (PE .6684 and IC .9196)
HL/AA78mT BC is .9682. (I can't calculate PE but IC is .9954)

But for you to understand the betting aspect you must understand to compare you sim two systems keeping the spread, BR, RoR, etc constant and only have each system bet its optical bets for the spread and other constants. This reduces all gain to EV so the gain can be measured.

Comparing the Hilo and Hiopt2/ASC as you have suggested (BR $100,000, 6 deck/1 cut off, DAS, LS, 12:1 spread, RoR 13.5%):

Hilo (Ramp 2x$106 to 2x$1272):
Avg bet 2x$259.38, EV $636.71/100 rounds, SD 75.211, RoR 13.4%, c-SCORE 63.78, CE $318.91, n0 15676

Hiopt2/ASC (Ramp 2x$115 to 2x$1380):
Avg bet 2x$273.585, EV $711.57/100 rounds, SD 74.285, RoR 13.4%, c-SCORE 71.29, CE $356.43, n0 14025

Here is a link to a thread that compares betting accuracy for both counts:

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-at-tc-1/page2

Look at post #17 for the Hilo graph for TC +1 under the conditions simmed in the thread.
Look at post #30 for the Hiopt2/ASC equivalent TC +2.5.

What you see is the bell curves of actual advantage for all the data points averaged together to get the average you treat all data in the bin as having. The SD of this bell curve would represent how accurate each bets. The lower the SD the more accurate it bets. For Hilo you see a range of about 5% around the average advantage of 0.36% at TC +1. But Hiopt2/ASC has a range of 2.5% around the average advantage of .43%. At the frequency of 5,000 the Hilo range is 1.4 and the Hiopt2/ASC range is 0.95. the tighter data around the average for Hiopt2/ASC indicates more accurate betting.

Th change in optimal ramp from Hilo's 2x$106 to 2X$1272 to Hiopt2/ASC's 2x$115 to 2x$1380 for the same RoR, BR and spread indicates more accurate decisions for playing and betting combined.

The change from Hilo's 636.71/100 rounds EV to Hiopt2/ASC's EV of $711.57/100 rounds, an increase in system results of 11.78%.

These are the kinds of data comparisons that people can use to see the actual gain. The problem with the individual numbers is BC only shows tag correlation rather than betting accuracy. PE is for flat betting, but we don't flat bet. It is the interaction of betting size with PE that really matters. Having better results when your big bets are out really helps. Only insurance is likely to help there from your list of indices you use a different playing count for. Doing better on high frequency matchups also help. Where you have negative indices that use a different count you are less and less likely to get it wrong with the weaker count the higher you get above the index. Bet size is tied to the main count. Breaking the decision from the betting count makes for the possibility that a large bet decision will be changed but it still isn't likely with negative indices. What your improvement is worth is tied to bet size at and near the index, frequency of the matchup among other things.

My experience says indices probably didn't change much. The big difference should be your insurance index got a little lower so you take insurance more accurately and more often where you usually have a big bet out. All the other indices likely have min bets or small advantage bets at and just above the index. You get the benefit of the improvement more often but gain very little per incident. The bigger the spread the less of a help that is for improving EV.

If you could improve results for doubles and splits it would be worth a lot more because it would help reduce variance when things are more volatile. Especially if the index applied to some of your big bet situations. The trouble is most doubles including the most frequent doubles have negative indices and you side count hasn't much application where the bets would be large or at all. Splits are far less frequent but some are positive indices. Your side count doesn't have much application there either.

Your idea can be very powerful, but you may want to use a different main count and side count to obtain that power. What you have is great for insurance but the rest of it is not going to generate a lot of gain due to affecting your smallest bets and when you may have already wonged out. It would help Hilo players in negative counts, which is one of the main weaknesses of Hilo. The way to get around this weakness is simply not to play many negative counts, which is a good idea regardless of your count.

[Three]

Now my question to you is how did you come about deriving the formula for HL with AA78mTc to be HL + AA78mTc > = 4 * dr?

This would be a balanced count so the index shouldn't take into account decks remaining.

[Three]

o one on this site wanted to do sims. I mentioned many times that I do not have sim software.

the trouble isn't that they don't want to do the sims. The trouble is the software can't sim the system as a complete system. It can only sim parts of the system individually. So the sim results won't be worth much. Custom software has to be written to run this. Commercial software is not capable of running the system.

[bjanalyst]

You want the sims to convince yourself that my work is correct.

But now I am told that custom software has to be made to do this sim.

So I am out of options. I cannot do sims but based on the weighted CC of HL with AA78mTc being close to HO2 with ASC my prediction is that sims, if they were run, would show that both counts have approximately the same power and win rate.

[Three]

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.

You are wrong. Commercial software can't run your system. You have multiple playing counts. I don't think anything but custom software can do that. Even the software that runs my system doesn't support multiple playing counts yet and that is almost certainly the most versatile custom simulator in the world. You might be able to run parallel sims where one forces a bet of zero after the cards are dealt for the matchups that don't use that playing count and others force 0 bets when its playing count is not being used and add them together. There would be a bit of inaccuracy from this forcing but results should be close if you added the sims results together. But I am not sure if commercial software can do that. You would probably need far more iterations of the sim to account for the inaccuracy.

[bjanalyst]

Now my question to you is how did you come about deriving the formula for HL with AA78mTc to be HL + AA78mTc > = 4 * dr?

This would be a balanced count so the index shouldn't take into account decks remaining.


Answer:

I hope that this clears up your confusion.

The index for HL + AA78mTc for insurance is 4.

So that means to take insurance if tc(HL + AA78mTc) >= 4 where tc = true count.

But tc(HL + AA78mTc) = (HL + AA78mTc) / dr

So take insurance if (HL + AA78mTc) / dr >= 4

Or take insurance if HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

I use multiplication instead of division in the equation. It is the same thing.

[Three]

So I am out of options. I cannot do sims but based on the weighted CC of HL with AA78mTc being close to HO2 with ASC my prediction is that sims, if they were run, would show that both counts have approximately the same power and win rate.

Someone can write custom software but the odds are they won't do it for free. Someone that does advanced research might have already written the custom software, if they researched using multiple combined playing counts from adding different optimal multiples of two counts together to get a handful of possible combined playing counts. The best you can do short of that is sim as close as a simulator can to your system and know you should outperform that by an unknown amount.

[lij45o6]

You want the sims to convince yourself that my work is correct.

But now I am told that custom software has to be made to do this sim.

So I am out of options. I cannot do sims but based on the weighted CC of HL with AA78mTc being close to HO2 with ASC my prediction is that sims, if they were run, would show that both counts have approximately the same power and win rate.

We aren't asking for proof of correctness. Get that idea out of your head. We are asking for sim data.

If you can't do a sim, please refrain from saying that your system beats HOII w/ ASC.

I'm done with your baseless assertions. Sim your data, or refrain from saying it beats other tested systems out there.

[Three]

Or take insurance if HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

You needed to specify you were converting the TC index to a RC index when you did this step. Most are thinking you meant it to be a TC index which didn't make sense.

[Three]

Now, I believe the insurance decision is a level 5 playing count, if I am following you right. So this TC +4 index is equivalent to a Hilo TC of about +1 in terms of frequency of being at or above the index.

[bjanalyst]

Sorry for confusiong.

If I meant true count then it would have written tc(HL + AA78mTc) >= 4

Since I did not have tc in the equation then it is running count. HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

At any rate, now you know.

////

I am not sure what you mean by

the insurance decision is a level 5 playing count.

The decision is simple. Keep the HL count, Keep the AA78mTc. Add the two together. Estimate the number of decks remaining. Multiple the number of decks remaining by 4. If the sum HL + AA78mTc is greater than four times the decks remaking (4*dr) then take insurance.

Did you find this post helpful?